Article

2012-02-03 Science

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Ramsey 2012-02-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 I remember some of the original rationaleof the Harrier and needing a VTOL was to avoid bombed out airstrips that the Soviets would take out (mainly the Brits making that case), or to fly off of smaller capacity amphibs.

Posted by OldSpook 2012-02-03 00:29|| 2012-02-03 00:29|| Front Page Top

#2 F-35 yes, Harrier, not so fast. a report out of England recently stated that the USMC has bought all the mothballed Harriers from them for parts to keep the existing fleet flying until the replacement can be fielded ( presumably the F-35, but maybe not). and the AV8 is still much cheaper than the Hornet ( any flavor). and the Harrier is still superior to anything the USMC is likely to encounter in the forward areas; maybe not the latest and greatest, but good enough to win. and good enough is good enough.
a better idea to save some $$ would be to reduce those VAQ squadrons that have already made the switch to the electric Lawn Dart by one plane so that the remained can transition sooner, retire the EA-6B faster so there is only one logistic trail and then when the rest of the EFA-18 build out comes on line, restock the squadrons to the original 5 plane level. theat would also generate a corresponding reduction in manpower as the Prowler has a 4 man crew and is much more maintenance intensive. (Yes Steve, this is really me saying these Pro-Lawn Dart things)

Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-02-03 01:05|| 2012-02-03 01:05|| Front Page Top

#3 USN Ret -

What I'd love to see is an upengined AV-8 with new electronics and AMRAAM capable, plus a two-seat version thereof with the EW rig from the EA-18. It would be expensive, but a lot LESS expensive than the -35B, and as you point out it would be equal to or better than anything the Corps is likely to face coming across the beach.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2012-02-03 07:59|| 2012-02-03 07:59|| Front Page Top

#4 I would rather have the helo fleet at my back any day over the jets anyway. Too bad so much money has been put into the F35b before this decision was made. What about the other 2 f-35s? Are they still gonna be in use?

Posted by chris 2012-02-03 08:18|| 2012-02-03 08:18|| Front Page Top

#5 What about the other 2 f-35s? Are they still gonna be in use?

Yes. There are too many contractors in too many districts to pull the plug on this gold plated fiasco. And they will remain in use half as long as the F-15.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-02-03 08:55|| 2012-02-03 08:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Golly USN Ret, I know how hard it was for you to praise the Lawn Dart :-)

Chris, the Air Force version of the F-35 is a done deal. They have the first few rolling on the assembly line now (to be 'upgraded' once the final design is locked down). The Air Force needs replacements for the F-16 as these are getting old, old, old. And the export buyers, of which there are many, have paid into the development fund, so they expect planes.

I do wonder about the Navy version (F-35C). The F-18E/F is going to be the best thing flying over the ocean for the next couple decades, and the 35C has had some real problems in its development.

Posted by Steve White 2012-02-03 08:55|| 2012-02-03 08:55|| Front Page Top

#7 The F-18E/F is going to be the best thing flying over the ocean for the next couple decades

Years, perhaps, but not decades. That will go to the X-47C+.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-02-03 09:00|| 2012-02-03 09:00|| Front Page Top

#8 Every book I've read on the Falklands praises the Harrier as completely awesome in a dog fight because the VTOL also allows incredible manueverability. Sure I wouldn't want one to go up against the top of the line whatever, but I should think it would outclass anything the third world could field and it has to be a lot cheaper than the top of the line. Marine amphibious task forces should be armed with these (or else always bundled with a supercarrier for protection).

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-02-03 10:20|| 2012-02-03 10:20|| Front Page Top

#9 VTOLs are nice for amphibious units as they can land and take off from short or no runways and can carry a crap load more weapons than a helo. They are also faster and can dogfight. There will be a place for fixed wing VTOLs, but I am wondering if a drone VTOL might not be a better investment than a F-35B.

Posted by DarthVader 2012-02-03 11:06|| 2012-02-03 11:06|| Front Page Top

#10 Every book I've read on the Falklands praises the Harrier as completely awesome in a dog fight because the VTOL also allows incredible manueverability.

The Harrier edge in the Falklands was mostly due to the fact that the Argies were flying at the absolute far edge of their fuel envelope and couldn't maneuver at all, if they didn't want to splash down miles short of their home airstrips. All they had time for was to find their targets, get their Exocets away, and make for home before they got bounced by British CAP. Absolutely no gas to spare for jinking about or defending themselves.

Posted by Mitch H. 2012-02-03 12:16|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/ 2012-02-03 12:16|| Front Page Top

#11 Mitch H, you are right, but even the Argentine pilots praised the Harrier so there must have been something more than fuel.

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-02-03 14:43|| 2012-02-03 14:43|| Front Page Top

#12 Mitch - that's why the Argies have built all those carriers to back up their aggressive little threats?

Posted by Frank G 2012-02-03 14:53|| 2012-02-03 14:53|| Front Page Top

#13 I know the Harrier has heat signature issues, even though it is built a bit different does the 35B have similar concerns?

Oh, and cancel the A-10, useless in the post USSR world.
/sarc

Posted by swksvolFF 2012-02-03 17:36|| 2012-02-03 17:36|| Front Page Top

#14 luv the Warthog

Posted by Frank G 2012-02-03 20:40|| 2012-02-03 20:40|| Front Page Top

#15 (Yes Steve, this is really me saying these Pro-Lawn Dart things)

Heh. I admit I jumped to the end to see who was writing this. But it seems like practical advice; something you often get from people who actually *do* stuff, as opposed to academics and fanboys.

And speaking as a fanboy, I can't wait for the autonomous RoboHornet.

Posted by SteveS 2012-02-03 20:52|| 2012-02-03 20:52|| Front Page Top

#16 All of the US-NATO mentioned here have proven themselves in sustained combat since the 1980's -the latest Russian + Chicom airframes have NOT.

In similar to how NASA is proposing US dev of a NT Dirigible-based "Common/Universal Carrier" to replace Trucks, Cargo Planes, Rail, + Merchant Vessels, etc. logistics mediums, the USDOD is in favor of dev Multi-Role Aircraft of "Common/
Universal" Design [Common Configuration].

* See DEFENSE NEWS > USAF TURNING TOWARDS FLEXIBLE MULTI-ROLE AIRCRAFT.

The Service plans to ...
> Get rid of FIVE Sqdrns of A-10 CAS Aircraft.
> Refurbish up to 350 F-16's wid new Capabilities + extended life-spans for their air frames.
> F-35 is a Multi-Role Aircraft in line wid USDOD needs, while the F-22 is a dedicated Air Superiority Aircraft [fighter].
> F-22, C-5M, C-17, F-15C, + F-16 Series all to devol into "Common Configurations".

Iff the plane is not MR or "Common Configuration" the USDOD doesn't want 'em around???

versus

* TOPIX, RIAN > RUSSIA TO BUILD SIX SUBMARINES, AIRCRAFT CARRIER ANNUALLY STARTING IN 2013.

Russki "Bottom-Up" versus US "Top-Down"???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-02-03 22:45|| 2012-02-03 22:45|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:53 gorb
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:34 trailing wife
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:13 gromky
23:08 JosephMendiola
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:50 Frank G
22:48 Frank G
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:42 Charles
22:26 trailing wife
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:09 mom
22:03 JosephMendiola
22:02 Grort Angulet6574
21:59 charger
21:50 Pinchy
21:34 tu3031
21:24 manversgwtw