Really? I had no idea they were getting rid of it so early...


Mr. M

Originally posted by jetsetter
The Phoenix is failing. The last two times ut was fired at long range it missed. Speed is not that important anymore anyways. To reach high mach the F-14 has to use afterburners which takes alot of fuel. The F-35 and F/A-18 W/F travel fast enough at around mach 1.8.

Where did you get that information from? If they did fail, that information would have been classified.

Too bad that the F/A-18 cannot sustain that speed for too long without burining up all of its gas.

I agree with COOLHAND. The results of testing missiles and other weapons are controlled at a minimum of Confidential. Access is restricted to personnel only with a need to know.

Unless I'm missing something here...


Mr. M

The JSF isnt the replacement for the F/A-18C/d, the E/F model is. The NAvy only plans on buying about just over 300 JSF's, so there wouldnt be enough to replace the numerous Hornets in the fleet.

Originally posted by roniii259
The JSF isnt the replacement for the F/A-18C/d, the E/F model is. The NAvy only plans on buying about just over 300 JSF's, so there wouldnt be enough to replace the numerous Hornets in the fleet.

The Navy would prefer to replace the F-18A/B/C/D purely with F-18E/F, but they've basically had the F-35 forced on them. At least some of the legacy Hornets will be replaced by F-35s. Also, the Navy and Marines have combined their air wings, so there will probably be Marine squadrons within carrier wings operating the F-35.

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
The Navy would prefer to replace the F-18A/B/C/D purely with F-18E/F, but they've basically had the F-35 forced on them. At least some of the legacy Hornets will be replaced by F-35s. Also, the Navy and Marines have combined their air wings, so there will probably be Marine squadrons within carrier wings operating the F-35.

They have not combined their airwings. MC squadrons get attached to CVW for the duration of a cruise. The MC still operate thier airwings as an independent force.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
They have not combined their airwings. MC squadrons get attached to CVW for the duration of a cruise. The MC still operate thier airwings as an independent force.

They are independent units, but part of the same overall command. The goal is to save costs by reducing the total number of aircraft needed by the services. For example, the Navy/Marines will probably order a lot fewer F-35s under the new structure.

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
They are independent units, but part of the same overall command. The goal is to save costs by reducing the total number of aircraft needed by the services. For example, the Navy/Marines will probably order a lot fewer F-35s under the new structure.

That is true when they are temporarily added to the CVW. The Marines have their own command structure for their aviation assets, that is independent from the Navy.

The true goal of the program is to increase interoperability, ie goiing joint. They want all the aviators and pilots trained to the same level so they can all complete the same missions. By giving them nearly identical aircraft you help accelerate the process.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
No it doesn't. The US Navy does not have a policy of revealing classified information via public sources. The results of any missile test would be one such case.

Granted the AIM-54Cs are old, they have benefitted from upgrades. The latest one was added only a few years ago and made improvements in ECCM and proximity fuzing.

It depends on what kind of information the test was designed to collect.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
The true goal of the program is to increase interoperability, ie goiing joint. They want all the aviators and pilots trained to the same level so they can all complete the same missions. By giving them nearly identical aircraft you help accelerate the process.

And the goal of interoperability is to save money. It's not cost effective for one service to duplicate the capabilities of another. The big buzz phrase in the Navy these days is "cost-wise readiness." I hate buzz phrases.

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
It depends on what kind of information the test was designed to collect. I support missile testing every day, and there's a lot of information coming out of them that isn't classified.

Granted, but for the most part the information is classified. What kind of information gleaned from a missile test is not classified? Seems to me that the results should be lest our enemies find out for themselves.

I too have worked with missile testing in the past, and it was information that was not released to the public. That is why we had to spend the time to write up official reports and transmit them with a minimum SECRET classification. Even at that low level of classification, that is information that is not to be released to the general public.

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
And the goal of interoperability is to save money. It's not cost effective for one service to duplicate the capabilities of another. The big buzz phrase in the Navy these days is "cost-wise readiness." I hate buzz phrases.

No, the goal of interoperability is to have a common level of profficency among the pilots and aviators. That way you have a ready source that can complete any mission out there with the abilty to team up with any old pilot to get the job done.

The cost savings come from having roughly the same aircraft. Then you can have a centralized source for parts, spares, etc. You can also implement a common training program for the new pilots and aviators.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Granted, but for the most part the information is classified. What kind of information gleaned from a missile test is not classified? Seems to me that the results should be lest our enemies find out for themselves.

The general rule of thumb is that test information can be used for unclassified work so long as it's impossible to reconstruct any classified elements of the weapon's performance from that information. Examples of data that must be protected are things like rocket motor thrust characteristics, guidance and seeker capabilities, and warhead/fuze performance. But if the data is provided over periods of time so short that it's not possible to extrapolate how the weapon works based on such a small sample, then it can be used for unclassified purposes.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
And the goal of interoperability is to save money. It's not cost effective for one service to duplicate the capabilities of another. The big buzz phrase in the Navy these days is "cost-wise readiness." I hate buzz phrases.

No, the goal of interoperability is to have a common level of profficency among the pilots and aviators. That way you have a ready source that can complete any mission out there with the abilty to team up with any old pilot to get the job done.

The cost savings come from having roughly the same aircraft. Then you can have a centralized source for parts, spares, etc. You can also implement a common training program for the new pilots and aviators.

I think we must have different definitions of interoperability. The definition I've seen is that interoperability is about joint operations and being able to work with equipment across the different services to accomplish the same missions. In the old days, each service would operate essentially independently of one another and they all tried to do everything on their own with their own unique set of equipment. As a result, there was a lot of duplication of capabilities and many unique systems that were very expensive to maintain.

The services can't afford to do business that way in this new age of cost-consciousness. Congress is demanding that redundant capabilities be eliminated, equipment be standardized, and the services cooperate with each other. This reduces manpower costs, supportability costs, infrastructure costs, training costs, acquisition costs, etc. If left to their own devices, the services would want nothing to do with one another, but the new reality is that they have to work together under present budget constraints. It's all about saving money in the end.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by jetsetter
The F-35 and F/A-18 E/F with the AIM-120 will pick up the slack.

In what way?

The F-14 is faster, longer ranged, carries more, and to top it off has the Phoenix. It is not so much picking up the slack, as dropping the ball.

The Navy is making a mistake by not extending the life of the F-14.

I agree
The thing was (as I understand it) the Navy was forced into the JSF but didn't want it. Because of it's low cost/high volume and stealth, the Navy was pushed into it by congress(?).

Anyways, I'd like to see them get another plane built arround the Phoenix. And 1 more thing - why didn't the navy go with a carrier Raptor? It seems to me that it would have kept the total ATF program cost down, plus given them an aircraft that would last well into the future.

The Navy just doesnt like Lockheed. This is evident in Kelly's famous rules which include "starve before doing buisness with the Navy" They have never had a good relationship so when the f-22n threatened the super hornet it was quickly axed without hesitation

Originally posted by roniii259
The Navy just doesnt like Lockheed. This is evident in Kelly's famous rules which include "starve before doing buisness with the Navy" They have never had a good relationship so when the f-22n threatened the super hornet it was quickly axed without hesitation

No, it was just too much of a pain to redesign major components of that aircraft to fly off of a carrier.

The Navy has worked well with Lockheed in the past. They are one of the biggest contractors for electronic doohickeys in the Navy.

Originally posted by roniii259
The Navy just doesnt like Lockheed. This is evident in Kelly's famous rules which include "starve before doing buisness with the Navy" They have never had a good relationship so when the f-22n threatened the super hornet it was quickly axed without hesitation

I guess the Navy is unaware of the extensive and long-term procurement of the S-3 Viking and P-3 Orion. I'm sure that ASW is not high on the list of "needs" the Navy has, better to spite (sink) your ships than buy Lockheed? I think not.