It's more a pilot attitude thing. I can't confirm any of it, I've just heard many stories.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Future: F-22 and F-35
- Thread starter CaptainRon
- Start date
It's more a pilot attitude thing. I can't confirm any of it, I've just heard many stories.
Ok the F/A tag has only gone out twice. The Hornet got it for a legitimate reason, that being to clearly show to congress that a contract that was going to originally involve two seperate aircraft (The A-18 and F-18) to replace to aircraft (the A-7 and F-4) it was going to be done with one aircraft. And to avoid confusion the designation F/A-18 was made. Guess the Navy never got around to changing it.
The F to F/A back to F-22 junk was just the Air Force trying to over emphasize the statement that the Raptor would do more in a post cold war mission then just Air to Air.
If we went by the logic that any fighter which also drops bombs had to have an A attached to it they'd be renaming every fighter thats flown.
F-14 replaced the F-4. F/A-18 replaced A-7 and A-6. I guess to some degree it replaced the F-4, but that was mostly an F-14 thing.
That is organizationally improbable (impossible) in the Navy. A Navy squadron, by its independent nature (as opposed to the USAF) needs a cadre of first tour JOs to make it work. While the first G model or F-35 squadrons might be front-loaded with experienced operators, there will be first tour guys right along with them. That is the ultimate quintessence in the difference between the Navy and the USAF. While the first deployment of F-22s may include a preponderance of USAF O-4s and O-5s, the Navy's G model or F-35 will have O-2s straight from the RAG destined for the cutting edge.
Brett
I always thought it was the ships =)
A certain high up Admiral I met at Fleet Week in SF (whom you know), disagrees. He said that the first squadrons will be only experienced guys in the JSF (at least to start). I personally like Brett's argument better, but just throwing it out.
Id say they really both replaced the Phantom. Especially when you add in the fact that the Marines were never going to get the Tomcat. Just as the mix of F-15/16 replaced the Phantom in the Air Force. Plus the idea of the F/A-18 replacing the A-6 never even occured till the A-6 was getting ready to celebrate its retirement party with no true replacement in sight.
Well it could very well be that the first squadron they will stand up will be the RAG, which would be manned by experienced bubbas, then the fleet squadron which would be manned as Brett said.
Speaking of the RAG, I haven't heard of any plans for a 2-seat JSF trainer. How will that work? I can just imagine a metric sh1t-ton of sims before actually flying. After the TS sim experience, who in their right mind would volunteer for the pipeline? I mean, they won't have the Jdizzle or Yeller there will they?
FWIW, when the F-14 was initially introduced, a highly select "cadre" of 2nd tour or greater pilots and RIO's established the F-14 RAG, VF-124.
Then, sometime later, the very first two F-14 squadrons stood up - VF-1 and VF-2. These two new squadrons were manned by most of the original RAG cadre. But they also were manned by a "sprinkling" of newly minted, 1st-tour Pilots and RIO's who were also some of the first RAG students training with the cadre.
Nevertheless, while these new introductory squadrons did indeed have some 1st tour JO's, they were still far too top heavy. Being obviously stacked already with the best officers and aviators available for orders, they ended up with far too many top-performing Lcdr's, all competing for far too few DH billets, and for Fitrep ranking. Although it worked well for the JO's, flying the Navy's newest "Air Superiority Fighter," it was a difficult (cutthroat) tour for many of the more senior and all top performing squadron officers who had to compete in a new, stacked-deck, high profile squadron.
IMHO, a Navy squadron is best served by having its normal mix of flight experience and rank including junior first tour nuggets, rather than skewing it toward the top.
mjcIII
USMC LCpl
To the original post:
I found a website that says the JSF will be deployed in 2008. Here is the link and quote
Functionstrike fighter Contractortwo competing teams:
Lockheed-Martin
Boeing Service U.S. Air Force U.S. Marine Corps
U.K. Royal Navy U.S. Navy Variants Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Carrier-based (CV) Unit Cost FY94$ $28M $35M $38M Propulsion Baseline: Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 derivative from F-22 Raptor
Alternate Engine: General Electric F120 core Thrust Empty Weight ~22,500 lbs ~24,000 lbs Internal Fuel 15,000 lbs 16,000 lbs Payload 13,000 lbs 17,000 lbs Maximum Takeoff Weight ~50,000 lbs Length 45 feet Wingspan 36 feet 30 feet Height Ceiling Speed supersonic Combat Radius over 600 nautical miles Crew one Armament First flight 1999 Date Deployed2008 Inventory Objectives U.S. Air Force
1,763 aircraft U.S. Marine Corps
480 aircraft
U.K. Royal Navy
60 aircraft U.S. Navy
480 aircraft
I found a website that says the JSF will be deployed in 2008. Here is the link and quote
Functionstrike fighter Contractortwo competing teams:
Lockheed-Martin
Boeing Service U.S. Air Force U.S. Marine Corps
U.K. Royal Navy U.S. Navy Variants Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Carrier-based (CV) Unit Cost FY94$ $28M $35M $38M Propulsion Baseline: Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 derivative from F-22 Raptor
Alternate Engine: General Electric F120 core Thrust Empty Weight ~22,500 lbs ~24,000 lbs Internal Fuel 15,000 lbs 16,000 lbs Payload 13,000 lbs 17,000 lbs Maximum Takeoff Weight ~50,000 lbs Length 45 feet Wingspan 36 feet 30 feet Height Ceiling Speed supersonic Combat Radius over 600 nautical miles Crew one Armament First flight 1999 Date Deployed2008 Inventory Objectives U.S. Air Force
1,763 aircraft U.S. Marine Corps
480 aircraft
U.K. Royal Navy
60 aircraft U.S. Navy
480 aircraft
Uh... yeah... sure. RAG sims/fleet sims do not equate to clown jet sims. Unless you have EODDave's favorite instructor
