Joint Aircraft Projects

[tk628]

Just to put my .02 in the mix, WTF?? Didn't this whole concept fail back in the 70's?

Now we have the T-6, the F-35, this UAV pos, whats next, a joint strike boat?.. Come on.

All of the aformentioned projects are Air Force designes being adapted to the Navy mission, and completely undermining the whole thing as it is. What good is it to have a trainer that you can't do a Navy Landing in?.. Or have a single engine sub-sonic fighter because the modifications make it too heavy and cumbersome to meet its supersonic AF counterpart? and please refer to the UAV thread on the next project.

Well the last time I checked the Navy and the Air Force served 2 completely different roles in the Defense structure. The Navy is our front line floating boats a hundred miles away from the enemy and the Air Force, trains pilots to be lifetime instructor pilots, and while I'm sure they do other things, beside move things around for the army, and gas up our jets, there is no reason to sacrifice the Navy's whole mission. What good is it to save a bunch of money when you end up with a platform which doesnt serve its mission as effectively as it should, or at all.

 

[Flash]

Just to put my .02 in the mix, WTF?? Didn't this whole concept fail back in the 70's?

Now we have the T-6, the F-35, this UAV pos, whats next, a joint strike boat?.. Come on.

All of the aformentioned projects are Air Force designes being adapted to the Navy mission, and completely undermining the whole thing as it is. What good is it to have a trainer that you can't do a Navy Landing in?.. Or have a single engine sub-sonic fighter because the modifications make it too heavy and cumbersome to meet its supersonic AF counterpart? and please refer to the UAV thread on the next project.

Well the last time I checked the Navy and the Air Force served 2 completely different roles in the Defense structure. The Navy is our front line floating boats a hundred miles away from the enemy and the Air Force, trains pilots to be lifetime instructor pilots, and while I'm sure they do other things, beside move things around for the army, and gas up our jets, there is no reason to sacrifice the Navy's whole mission. What good is it to save a bunch of money when you end up with a platform which doesnt serve its mission as effectively as it should, or at all.

Money, that is the simple answer..........

The nation cannot and should not shoulder the cost of 4 or 5 seperate tactical jet programs at once like we did in the 70's and 80's, 2 1/2 at once is already stretching the budget. The same goes for all of the other systems you listed, it is a cheaper way to go all the way around.

If you think that things are bad now, we have a very large defense budget right now. What do you think is going to happen when the next President gets into office? There were ideas to cut our carrier force down by a few before Sept 11th, and now that the Army and Marines are shouldering the burden of the fight right now don't you think that might come up again? Especially at the rate we are using up the earlier Hornets and delays in the F-35.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2001/0701edit.asp

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...pics/Organizations/J/Johns Hopkins University

Whining about the UCAV, which I would much rather go against a radar-guided double digit SAM than a manned fighter, or the T-6 or the F-35 is the wrong way to go. You should be more concerned about the coming cuts, which could change Naval Aviation in ways that would make your current complaints seem very small by comparison.

The skyrocketing cost of government entitlement programs will consume more and more of the government treasury, and a tempting target would be the big fat DoD budget of approximately $400 billion dollars a year.

Don't laugh too much at the USAF yet, their next-gen fighter is already in squadron service while the F-35 is still in testing. It is a lot easier to cut something in development than one being produced.......

 

[HeyJoe]

Just to put my .02 in the mix, WTF?? Didn't this whole concept fail back in the 70's?

Now we have the T-6, the F-35, this UAV pos, whats next, a joint strike boat?.. Come on.

All of the aformentioned projects are Air Force designes being adapted to the Navy mission, and completely undermining the whole thing as it is. What good is it to have a trainer that you can't do a Navy Landing in?.. Or have a single engine sub-sonic fighter because the modifications make it too heavy and cumbersome to meet its supersonic AF counterpart? and please refer to the UAV thread on the next project.

The T-6 is a Joint program managed by the Navy as JPATS, not the Air Force. The T-34C did not land aboard carriers and the T-6 does what it needs to do without that capability. The T-45 is used for CQ. J-UCAS was a DARPA initiative that had a Navy and Air Force component. The Air Force bailed and the Navy program is now UCAS-D built to Navy requirements. As to the F-35, it is not an Air Force program at all and if anyone is driving the the train, it is the Marine Corps who need the F-35B variant. Management rotates between the services.

Not sure what program you are talking about in the 70s, but the TFX program was a 60s era program that failed to meet Navy requirements, but did well as the F-111 for the Air Force and Australia.

What you are missing is that DoD only has so much money and to design an aircraft takes billions of dollars. The acquisition rules state that any major program is to seek international partners (like JSF did in a big way) and barring that, determine Joint applicability between the services in order to share the nonrecurring engineering bill AND lower unit cost by increasing quantity of the production line. This has happened successfully for decades with aircraft like the C-130, UH-1, H-60, Gulfstream, F-4, F/A-18, E-2C, and F-16 to name some of the more notable successes in terms of international and joint programs. V-22 is also a Joint program and could end up being international as well. MMA (P-8) will no doubt pick up international partners along the way.

Well the last time I checked the Navy and the Air Force served 2 completely different roles in the Defense structure. The Navy is our front line floating boats a hundred miles away from the enemy and the Air Force, trains pilots to be lifetime instructor pilots, and while I'm sure they do other things, beside move things around for the army, and gas up our jets, there is no reason to sacrifice the Navy's whole mission. What good is it to save a bunch of money when you end up with a platform which doesnt serve its mission as effectively as it should, or at all.

Nothing is being sacrificed the way you claim especially the "Navy's whole mission". You need to get an indepth brief on the program before you make claims like that.

 

[illinijoe05]

Just to put my .02 in the mix, WTF?? Didn't this whole concept fail back in the 70's?

Now we have the T-6, the F-35, this UAV pos, whats next, a joint strike boat?.. Come on.

All of the aformentioned projects are Air Force designes being adapted to the Navy mission, and completely undermining the whole thing as it is. What good is it to have a trainer that you can't do a Navy Landing in?.. Or have a single engine sub-sonic fighter because the modifications make it too heavy and cumbersome to meet its supersonic AF counterpart? and please refer to the UAV thread on the next project.

Well the last time I checked the Navy and the Air Force served 2 completely different roles in the Defense structure. The Navy is our front line floating boats a hundred miles away from the enemy and the Air Force, trains pilots to be lifetime instructor pilots, and while I'm sure they do other things, beside move things around for the army, and gas up our jets, there is no reason to sacrifice the Navy's whole mission. What good is it to save a bunch of money when you end up with a platform which doesnt serve its mission as effectively as it should, or at all.

Sounds like someone is getting tired of life at vance air force base....

 

[scoober78]

The T-34C did not land aboard carriers and the T-6 does what it needs to dowithout that capability.

I didn't realize this. I thought that was why the Navy hung on to the T-28. My understanding was that the T-34C were a first phase aircraft...then CQ happened in the -28 farther along in the syllabus. Incorrect?

 

[HeyJoe]

oops

I didn't realize this. I thought that was why the Navy hung on to the T-28. My understanding was that the T-34C were a first phase aircraft...then CQ happened in the -28 farther along in the syllabus. Incorrect?

Oops, my bad. I meant to have a "not" in there. SNJ and then T-28 did land aboard carriers, but certainly not the T-34B or C variant.

SNJ aboard carrier

T-28 aboard carrier

 

[hscs]

How would you have a joint strike boat when only the Navy would be using it?

 

[HeyJoe]

How would you have a joint strike boat when only the Navy would be using it?

Not necessarily as Army has lots of "boats" as does the Marine Corps, which is turning over Riverine mission to Navy as I write. Roles and missions sometimes get obscured by the "fog of budgetary skirmishing", but certain things are set in stone like Navy gray hulls for blue water operations. No other services will operate carriers or amphibs (or subs, etc.), but they can and have been reconfigured for use by other services. Likewise, Air Force will be only service with bombers and dedicated tankers and big airlifters. Maybe you need to better define what a joint "strike boat" might be (big, little, other?). Programs don't automatically get a "Joint" designator. That comes after initial staffing of the "requirement" by a service which includes staffign to the other services for "joint potential designation" as "Joint" or "Joint Interest" or service unique. Like I said earlier, OSD likes Joint programs (as does Congress) , but not all programs are designated that way.

 

[NavAir42]

Anyone think it would be fun to start a rumor about the new JSB (joint strike boat)? Can't wait for it to come online! Or maybe how they're going to retro-fit the T-34C with a tailhook, call it the T-34D and use if for carrier quals right after RIs in primary.

 

[HH-60H]

You need to get an indepth brief on the program before you make claims like that.

And by program he means the Navy.

 

[Grant]

The acquisition rules state that any major program is to seek international partners and barring that, determine Joint applicability between the services in order to share the nonrecurring engineering bill AND lower unit cost by increasing quantity of the production line.

Isnt the F-22 is a USAF-only pet project?

[sarcasm] If the USAF doesnt have to play nicely with others, why should the naval services? [/sarcasm]

 

[hscs]

I was being sarcastic about the joint strike boat, as the original author was making it sound like the air force and the army were all going to be buying cruisers and destroyers.

By definition, a Navy-Marine op is not considered "joint" per say -- screwed up, I know.

 

[HeyJoe]

Isnt the F-22 is a USAF-only pet project?

[sarcasm] If the USAF doesnt have to play nicely with others, why should the naval services? [/sarcasm]

You didn't read all the posts and must have missed: Programs don't automatically get a "Joint" designator. That comes after initial staffing of the "requirement" by a service which includes staffing to the other services for "joint potential designation" as "Joint" or "Joint Interest" or service unique.

Although the ultimate F-22 program had no takers, there were several tries to make it joint and Naval personnel were part of the NATF effort at Wright Pat.

Proposed F-22N

 

[Flathatter13]

Isnt the F-22 is a USAF-only pet project?

[sarcasm] If the USAF doesnt have to play nicely with others, why should the naval services? [/sarcasm]

Because as noted in other post we have all the money HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

:icon_lol:

 

[Flathatter13]

You didn't read all the posts and must have missed: Programs don't automatically get a "Joint" designator. That comes after initial staffing of the "requirement" by a service which includes staffing to the other services for "joint potential designation" as "Joint" or "Joint Interest" or service unique.

Although the ultimate F-22 program had no takers, there were several tries to make it joint and Naval personnel were part of the NATF effort at Wright Pat.

Proposed F-22N

This effort was of course dropped when it was realized that Chuck Norris flying a superhornet could easily get a gun kill on the AF F-22.