From: daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com (Dave Goldblatt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F/A-18E/F bad idea?
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:23:39 GMT
Reply-To: daveg@prowler.clearpoint.com
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp, Hopkinton MA 01748


On 12 Oct 92 17:55:04 GMT, noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) said:

TN>  Compromises, compromises ... That is the driving force behind the
TN> F/A-18E/F development. The USN needs a plane to 'fill the gap'
TN> between development of the next naval fleet defense fighter and
TN> attack aircraft and our rapidly aging F-14s and A-6s (especially
TN> the latter). The factors that impacted the USNs selection were:

Political.

TN> - program cost (development, production, training and maintanence)

The cost projections of the F-18E/F program have already far exceeded
the initial funding levels.  This isn't exactly a surprise, judging
from MacDac's track record.

TN> - versatility (candidate had to fulfill both airsuperiority and
TN> attack roles)

It doesn't perform either particularly well.  It can't carry the
AIM-54 (Phoenix), so it's not well-suited to fleet defense.  What good
is the aircraft when there's no place for it land on?  As for the
attack role, it won't carry anything close to the weapons load of the
A-6.

TN> - current and future shifts in each service branch's roles and
TN> responsibilities (congress is suggesting that a single branch be
TN> reponsible for attack aircraft as well as countermeasures
TN> aircraft).

This is brain-damaged.  Current thinking by Those Who Supposedly Know
is that the Navy will take over ECM.  Doesn't anyone remember the LAST
time they tried to fly an F-111 off a deck, never mind the EF-111?

The AF is trying to claim rights for all attack aircraft - this also
doesn't make sense.  Can you imagine the AF flying a B-2 into Iraq or
Libya?  (my favorite scenario: Someone gets lucky and shoots a B-2
down with a small A-A gun or SAM.  Can you imagine how stupid we'll
look?)

TN> - Change in threat (emphasis on fighting smaller land based
TN> 'persian gulf' type conflicts, as opposed to full scale global war
TN> on land air and sea).

More reason NOT to support things like the B-2, but dedicated smaller
platforms such as the A-6 or (a proper) Advaced Tactical Aircraft.
either way, the best bet is to upgrade the current A-6 platforms
quickly such that the USN will have *something* acceptably modern
until a successor come online.

TN> The logic behind testing an aircraft by prototyping the design and
TN> testing it is a good one. However MD already has the production
TN> equipment on line to build a production quality test aircraft. The
TN> E/F will go through a comprehensive set of tests, while production
TN> is ongoing. Believe it or not the cost of testing during full
TN> scale production is only 20%-30% more expensive than building 5
TN> prototypes and then waiting until testing is complete to resume
TN> production. This is due to the substantial fixed costs involved in
TN> maintaining a viable supplier base and paying for manufacturing
TN> facilities.

Well, if you're REALLY going to test things, you do a fly-off.  But
that's too expensive for today's aircraft.  The problem with immediately
going to full-scale production is apparent in the B-2 -- you're going
to incur tremendous costs whether you keep the program going or discard
it because it *doesn't* meet the specs.

As a related aside, how do you justify the F-18E/F vs. a QuickStrike
F-14 Tomcat?  The F-14 mod had a *GUARANTEED* price LESS than the
F-18.  It also has significant payload and range advantages over the
F-18.

The F-18E/F will carry nowhere near the payload of an A-6.  Nor will
it be able to perform fleet defense roles adequately.

It's primarily a political aircraft.

-dg-
--
"One, demonstrations always crash. And |  Dave Goldblatt [daveg@clearpoint.com]
 two, the probability of them crashing |  Subsystems Engineering
 goes up exponentially with the number |  Clearpoint Research Corporation
 of people watching."  - Steve Jobs    |  Hopkinton, MA 01748 - (508) 435-7425