Russian Fighters for American Airforce/Navy: The only prudent solution!

Flight Journal. ^ | Robert W. Kress with Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist, U.S. Navy (Ret

[The Other Harry]

Sadly i read somewhere that the warthog is also being cut off in favor of the future JSF...

The poor ol' hog has been declared dead for a long time now. They keep trying to get rid of them. They hell of it is, is that the plane perfectly fills a niche. Low, slow, and deadly.

Something similar could be said about the tomcat. Destroying the molds seems like one of the stupidest decisions of modern history. I suppose there was a reason. Probably money for somebody.

[spetznaz]

Compare and contrast.

First up the F/A-18 hornet.

And now for the Sukhoi.

[pt17]

Neither the Navy brass nor Congress could ever come to grips with doing anything that doesn't cost billions of dollars and take 15 years to complete.

Probably. In both governmental and private sector bureaucracies, people are directly and/or indirectly incented towards large organizations with big budgets. Salaries, status, perks, corner offices, etc. go to those with the largest staff and budget. In the private sector, a lot of companies have used the Hay Group's formulas for establishing compensation. These and similar formulas can have the effect of incenting people towards large organizations and budgets, whether they're needed or not.

[spetznaz]

Here are the comparative stats, and you can see that the Sukhoi variants are much better than even the souped up F-18E superHornet! Tell me another aircraft that can fly further than an F-18 with external tanks, when that plane has no external fuel tanks itself. Let me see: The A-6 (killed off), the F-14 (the plane is being retired, and the tooling to make it was destroyed) and the Sukhoi.

And the Sukhoi has the added advantage of only costing 8 mil a piece, and being able to outmanouvre, outshoot, outfly, and carry more weapons than the F-18. And the Su can also detect the F-18 at a longer BVR, meaning it can shoot a R-77 AMRAAM-ski and turn before the F-18 detects it and shoots off an AMRAAM.

[Icthus]

Great Post.....thanks!

[spetznaz]

[lavaroise]

If third world nations have better airplanes than us, then that means Russia has better airplanes than those nations', and that means we have indeed a big problem. I do not think that buying Su30s is the solution, however. This is like a patch on air superiority defficiency.

[sneakypete]

In another inexplicable move, beginning about 1990, the U.S. Navy, per orders of then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, planned to phase out of the F-14 program and, apparently to ensure there would be no second thoughts, ordered the destruction of all F-14 tooling. Incredible!

Nothing "inexplicable" about what happened. Cheney and/or some US Senators and Congresscritters wanted new airplanes built so certain companies and/or states would benefit financially. This is the same reason the excellent suggestions in this article won't be followed. It wouldn't allow the US "political class" to profit.

[spetznaz]

Another alternative to the 'americanized' Flankers and SuperFlankers, or even possibly the Su-37 Terminator; is for us to jointly develop with Russia the S-37 Berkerut (not to be confused with the su-37) or maybe the Mig 1.42.

Both of these are Russian aircraft that are super-manouvrable, stealthy, and already have prototypes. The onyl thing needed is sufficient cash for mass production.

Then they can be used as either a stop gap until the time when the Raptors and JSFs come into full strength, or maybe even become permanently integrated (some designers say the mig 1.42 will be stealthier than the F-22). Thus in the same way the British and the US share the Harrier, and recently the apache and the future JSF, maybe the US and Russia could have a monopoly on the Berkurut and the mig 1.42.

Here are the pictures:

First up the S-37:

Then the Mig 1.42 (Mig-35)

[SauronOfMordor]

Something similar could be said about the tomcat. Destroying the molds seems like one of the stupidest decisions of modern history. I suppose there was a reason. Probably money for somebody.

The reason for destroying the tooling is to eliminate the option of getting more upgraded F-14s, and leave no choice except to procede with developing the JSF.

[spetznaz]

Check post no.50

[Rodney King]

Richard Cheney, planned to phase out of the F-14 program and, apparently to ensure there would be no second thoughts, ordered the destruction of all F-14 tooling. Incredible!

What is wrong with these people? The other day I learned on FR that LBJ destroyed the SR-71 molds. What the hell would have happened if war with China broke out in 1997? We would have wanted to pump out some new F-14's fast. This is gross negligence we are talking about here.

[The Other Harry]

Probably. In both governmental and private sector bureaucracies, people are directly and/or indirectly incented towards large organizations with big budgets. Salaries, status, perks, corner offices, etc. go to those with the largest staff and budget. In the private sector, a lot of companies have used the Hay Group's formulas for establishing compensation. These and similar formulas can have the effect of incenting people towards large organizations and budgets, whether they're needed or not.

I've been reading Jack Welch's autobiography. For some reason, this thread seems to tie in there somehow.

He was certainly focused on future growth rather than on current size.

My guess is that he would have let you buy those SU's and given you the money to fool around with them, providing he believed the outcome would be something that would have the potential to dominate the market.

I'm really not sure how this ties in. It's just one of those loose thoughts.

[Rodney King]

At $8 million a pop, I don't see how we could possibly go wrong. The Air Force and the Navy could be almost instantly re-tooled at low cost.

[Chemist_Geek]

At that price, I'd buy a few, modify the avionics and give it whirl.

No flat spins, please. (grin) But as others have pointed out, that idea makes too much sense for Washington.

[decimon]

[spetznaz]

I value your opinion. What do you think of this thread, and particularly this particular post? (no.50).

[toddst]

. . . I don't think we should be looking only for parity. We should be after getting the best.

Still, the SU's could fill a gap while we're spending billions -- plus the over-runs -- and waiting 15 years.

I'm no expert, but this seems a reasonable and cost-effective interim solution. The modified versions we produce would out-perform the Russian original, meet our needs and save money. So where's the problem in such a solution?

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

The F-18A was actually the aircraft that was competing against the f-16 (it lost to the F-16 and was 'pushed' to the navy), and although it was an ok fighter it was NOT a fighter-bomber.

Northrops' YF-17 Cobra was the competitor to General Dynamics YF-16, not the F/A-18A. McDonnell Douglas took the project over and ended up with the Hornet, the YF-17 served as the prototype for the F/A-18. It should also be noted that the Flight Journal article you posted was originally published in August of 1999.