USAF Plans for Fighters Change

Aviation Week & Space Technology ^ | 09/19/2004 | David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall

[boris]

"Some A-10s will probably be retired nonetheless, Hornburg says, but mainly because they are so near the end of their service life that upgrading them doesn't make sense."

Just like B-52's, huh?

[boris]

The problem with airborne high-energy lasers is that the power source is a b***h. If you want to put kW on target for any length of time. The farther out the target, the trades get worse. You either need more power or a bigger "final" mirror (adds weight). Probably the highest power-density would be an open-cycle chemical laser. Yikes.

I worked on those in the late 70's. In those days they were DF (deuterium-fluorine) and the fluorine scared me to death. Nasty stuff. Maybe they've made strides in excimer or other technologies...still, the ABL (Airborne Laser) is in a 747 or something of similar size. Can you imagine putting one in a fighter?

Unless there's been a breakthrough (I'm out of the laser world and no longer hold the requisite clearance) I don't see how with (what I imagine is) current technology.

--Boris

[Oztrich Boy]

So far all STOVL jet fighters are single-engine.

Well the French were developing a 9 engined Mirage III-V

[Oztrich Boy]

[Kornev]

"None of this matters, the sucker is dead by April."

Only if kerry wins. There's no WAY it's gone. Sorry.

[Aeronaut]

Could you add me to the ping list?

Done.

[Pukin Dog]

You can guess all you want. I don't have to. It is gone.

[GOP Jedi]

Nope. I'm on the losing team (Boeing), and I admire the platform itself.

Well, you know the prototype was doomed when pilots nicknamed it the "Monica" thanks to it's gaping intake... ;)

Seriously, it's no fun to lose contracts. I saw a lot of Comanche guys cut loose recently.

[GOP Jedi]

Typically, they stand up and ask all the engineers to "sharpen their pencils" and put together a list of potential solutions to hit their new target.

Oh yeah. The Comanche EOSS guys had a giant weight poster, and they'd move the arrows closer to the target weight every time somebody found a new workable composite for a part, or shaved off three screws. Poor guys were the only Comanche subcontractor to hit their milestones on schedule, but to no avail.

[GOP Jedi]

From what I've read elsewhere, the laser would be a miniature, solid-state version of the Chemical Oxygen Infrared Laser (COIL) carried on the AL-1 Airborne Laser aircraft. The laser unit would be packaged in a "drop-in" turret that would take the place of the ducted lift fan located in the F-35 fuselage and would take power from the same drivetrain that powers the fan. My impression from conceptual art is that the laser turret would be steerable.

Hey, B.L.! They must not be talking chemical laser. Those won't fit on a small fixed-wing platform—that I know of (ABL takes a whole 747 to lift). I don't know lasers at all, except for the EO targeting stuff.

[jettester]

Been there - done that while at MDC on many commercial and military contracts. Weight, performance, and cost were the "trinity" of contract busters except when the customer's "short hairs" got caught in the pencil sharpener over schedule.

[Kornev]

Do I trust an anon web poster, or billions of dollars spent and the word of the 3 branches.

I think it'll stay, undoing the F35 makes less sense than undoing the F22.

[GBA]

My gut feeling is to agree with Kornev on this. They've spent too much money on R&D and they've "addressed concerns"...somebody is buying some F-35s.

[GBA]

No one is "undoing" the F-22. But it's harder to say the same for the F-35. The F-35's mission is covered by several different aircraft and there are many questions that it would be able to do the mission it is intended for any better than what's already in the inventory. The same cannot be said of the F-22.

The current front line Soviet fighters are a match for the F-15...only took them how long to catch it? None the less, it's time to raise the bar and the F-22 definitely raises the bar. Whereas, what does the F-35 give us that we don't already have?

I agree that we'll add some F-35s, but no one is "undoing" F-22 before they would the F-35.

[RightOnline]

Articles like this make me feel old. I went through AF Undergratuate Pilot Training (UPT) in 1978. At that time, the A-10, F-15, and F-16 were all new aircraft. Now.........they're old; beyond their "normal", serviceable life, it seems.

Maybe I need a rocking chair............

[Pukin Dog]

I'm not an anon(ymous) web poster. This is my subject. I could not care less if you agree, you will just be wrong.

[Pukin Dog]

You might investigate how much money DoD spent trying to make the F-111 a Navy fighter. Then check out the A-12 program. Too much R&D money? Thank you for the laugh.

[Kornev]

If the F35 is gone by April, I will apologize.

Otherwise, I think you're wrong..

[GOP Jedi]

It could happen; the JSF could go down. Comanche got little to no warning; we had Wolfowitz down for First Flight last year and he was going on about how desperately we need the Comanche in the Middle East. Guess not.

OTOH, even if the JSF is outpaced, it may continue on its own inertia; you gotta keep those engineers employed with the right skill sets until the next gig.

So what's replacing the JSF if it wanders off? Has Boeing got its unmanned fighter ramped up already? Something unexpected gonna roar up out of the Skunk Works or China Lake and smite all comers? We are losing the edge with Russia and China, and we need to widen it again with SOMETHING. So if not JSF, then what?

[Kornev]

F35's moving quite a bit faster than the Comanche.. By a decade or so.

We'll see, I hope they don't cancel the F35. It would be a disaster for the economy in general and our military.

Who doesn't want a stealth ship that can do what it can?