NFOs and the JSF

[ben]

About the performance capabilities... According to the research I did for a JSF presentation, the AF required the JSF to perform at least as well as an F-16 or they would not purchase any planes. The last statistic I saw had the number of aircraft ordered by the AF at 1700 or so. I don't think they'd spend all the money for a plane that didn't perform up to specs.

About the thrust... The F-35B is supposed to put out equal amounts of thrust from the jet and the lift fan. The number I saw reported was over 19,000 lbs at each output - so somewhere between 38k and 40k total should be about right. I don't know what happens to total thrust when the lift fan is disengaged though, anybody else know?

The engine is not exactly the same as the one in the F-22, but it was derived from the F-22 motor.

 

[phrogdriver]

The Corps isn't going to get the Super Hornet, two seats or not. We've been trying to get rid of airframes for years. The whole idea is to neck-down for logistical and monetary reasons. As I remember, the old OA-4 was a single-seater in the "fast-FAC" role. With the right gear, a single-pilot bird can do FAC, or ECM, for that matter.

 

[Flash]

Riley- Sorry about misreading your post, just a little eager to defend my profession (NFO).

Phrogdriver- You are right about the Marines not getting the Super, they are planning on only getting the JSF. There is a bit of a debate going on about what kind of mix they will get though. With the USMC/USN aviation integration putting a VMFA squadron in every Carrier Air Wing, they are thinking about buying some Navy JSF's. Marine Hornet and Harrier pilots are arguing about it in the magazine Proceedings, it is kind of funny.

With the right gear, a single-pilot bird can do FAC, or ECM, for that matter. I could not disagree with your statement more. Again, I have the bias of my profession but if you ask any F/A-18D guy that he will tell you they NEED 2 guys for the FAC-A mission. The mission load is a lot for a single seat guy anyways and to add running close air support would overflow the guys bucket. I could see them trying to run it by using an EO pod datalinked to a guy on the ground. They did something along those lines this spring in Iraq with AV-8B's with their Litening pods but that adds a whole new slew of difficulties. Loss of link, untrained personnel, not seeing the whole picture etc. As for the ECM mission, that is even worse. I flew EP-3E's before EA-6B's and I can tell you that you NEED a guy in the loop to tell radars apart. I have seen automated ECM sytems identify freindlies as enemy and vice versa and even microwave towers as missile radars. There have been several instances were missiles were launched at friendly radars causing casualties. The F-16CJ Wild Weasels (single seaters with automated EW system) will tell you they can do it all and while they are awesome, they are no replacement for the old F-4G's.

As I remember, the old OA-4 was a single-seater in the "fast-FAC" role. I think that most, if not all, of OA-4's were two seaters. There is one right inside the gate at Iwakuni. The OA-10 is single seat though I think. As far as I know though, all others in the FAC-A role are multi seat, F-14, F/A-18D and even UH-1/AH-1 I heard. What's next, OAH-46's?

In the end though, it takes the Marines so long to replace their equipment (CH-46) that you will be seeing F/A-18D's and EA-6B's around for a while. The Marine NFO's have a pretty secure future for now.

 

[vegita1220]

Yeah I've heard from a Prowler NFO that you need the NFO to tell whether or not the automated EW system is making sense...like if it picks up an SA-6 radar 250mi from the coast just after you take off...something's obviously wrong. I've also heard that radars are just so similar that telling friendly/enemy apart is difficult for the computer to do and it's programmed to just take a best guess.

As for Fast FAC-A, I've heard from Bosnia that it was actually the two seat F-14s that did the best. This isn't a Hornet bash at all, in fact, i don't even know if D model Hornets were deployed there and I don't believe so. It just emphasizes that if as recently as the late 90's we've needed two man crews for electronic warfare, FAC, etc. can we trust the computers to do everything now? Especially since missions get more complicated, not less, as technology progresses. The driving force behind the new generation of weaponry is supposed to be progress and doing more, not doing the same stuff we've done before just at cheaper cost, right?

Also, I'd assume that when you're loitering over enemy territory, it would be more comforting to have one guy scan the ground for targets(the actual FAC mission) while one guy flies the plane and keeps an eye out for incoming.

 

[jarhead]

if the Marine Corps decides to stay in the ECM game then it will be buying the F-18G (i think we oughta give that mission up to the Navy & AF though, as that mission does nothing for our Marines on the ground, which is why Marine Aviation exists ... just my 2¢)

as for the FAC(A) mission, it needs to be a two seat aircraft, too much going on for a single seat guy. again, my 2¢

the Corps will need WSO's for another 10 years+ because the F-18 is being replaced only after all of the Harriers are all replaced, and the F-18D's are the newest Hornets in the Marine inventory, so they probably be last to go. once again, just 2¢

semper fi

Originally posted by phrogdriver
The Corps isn't going to get the Super Hornet, two seats or not. We've been trying to get rid of airframes for years. The whole idea is to neck-down for logistical and monetary reasons. As I remember, the old OA-4 was a single-seater in the "fast-FAC" role. With the right gear, a single-pilot bird can do FAC, or ECM, for that matter.