Why the Navy Needs Disruption Now

[MadBurgerMaker]

The Vigilante had the highest loss rate of any US aircraft employed in Vietnam

You spelled Thunderchief wrong.   

Speaking of which, those were some beasts.  Somewhere around half of them were lost in Vietnam though. 

Vigilantes were operating of the North in at least '66, according to this RVAH-11 guy Bob Jellison's website, so they certainly weren't refusing to fly them up there.  Something like 30 were lost, less than 20 in combat, giving it the highest rate in the Navy (and definitely very high considering they only built like 45 actual RA-5Cs, then converted another 40 or so of the "regular" A-5s before restarting the line).  Most of those were to AAA due to the nature of the missions they were flying (the way they were running post strike reconnaissance is pretty damn dangerous), not because it was necessarily bad or whatever.  Eating an anti-aircraft round from an alerted gun crew at transsonic speeds and less than 10,000 feet will fuck anyone's day up.

E:  Ah. 43 original RA-5 and 43 converted plus another 36 after restarting the line:

During the 1960's, a total of forty-three standard RA-5C's were built, these following closely on the heels of the eighteen original A-5B aircraft. When the last of these rolled off of the Columbus, Ohio assembly line, it appeared that the Vigilante production had come to an end. Accordingly, tooling and related hardware was placed in long-term storage.

The Columbus facility then shifted its priorities to other projects including the remanufacture of the forty-three remaining A-5A and A-5B aircraft to RA-5C standards.

Attrition caused by the continuing hostilities over Vietnam resulted in renewed Navy interest for acquiring additional RA-5C's, so in 1968 the Navy ordered forty-six new production RA-5C's, restarting the production line. Visually they differed from the previous models only by a leading edge extension which extended from near the wing root to the forward air intake lip. The purpose of this extension was to generate improved airflow over the stabilator at low speeds, enhancing pitch control during the landing approach. These aircraft were all powered by J79-GE-10 engines.

Only thirty-six of these new aircraft were actually built, the last completed in August 1970.

http://www.bobjellison.com/RA5C_Vigilante.htm

[CountDeMoney]

Why did everything that is awesome about airpower come out of the 50's? 

Because in the US, you had cutting edge companies with cutting edge minds who knew they were at the beginning of two ages that were inextricably linked--the Jet Age and the Space Age--and a cooperative, enabling government that needed them at a time when acting in the national interest was at its height.

Now, it's all just kinda "Meh". 

[Monoriu]

Can somebody enlighten me about the difference between F22 and F35? 

[PDH]

F13

[Berkut]

Can somebody enlighten me about the difference between F22 and F35? 

F-22 is a 5th gen air superiority fighter that has been retrofitted to do some A2G work as well. Two engines, successor to the F-15.
The US produced about 180 of them, so they aren't really enough of them to actually replace the F-15s and air superiority tasked F-16s. Air Force only. I think they ended up costing something north of $200 million per aircraft.

F-35 is a multi-role strike fighter intended to fill air superiority and air strike roles. Single engine, and it is a "joint' endeavor, so will be used by the Air Force, Marines, and Navy. In the F-35A configuration, it is a traditional ground based strike aircraft/multi-role platform to replace the F-16. It in the F-35B configuration, it is STVOL capable strike fighter for the Marines, to replace the Harrier and F/A-18, and in the F-35C configuration it is a carrier based cat and trap strike fighter to replace the F-18 and make a rather vain effort to replace the F-14.

Current plans are to build something like 1800 of them, and sell a bunch to other countries, and some other countries are even building them under license. I think current fly away costs are somewhere around $90 million each.

[Monoriu]

Thanks.  So if an F22 fights an F35, the F22 should win? 

[Berkut]

In theory, yes. Should have better A2A sensors and capability.

In practicality, it is probably more about who gets the drop on the other, and how well their comparative stealth technologies actually work (or don't).

[grumbler]

You spelled Thunderchief wrong.   

Speaking of which, those were some beasts.  Somewhere around half of them were lost in Vietnam though. 

The loss rate of RA-5s exceeded that of the Thuds, IIRC.  More Thuds were lost, of course, because they flew a lot more sorties (many more of them, and many more sorties per airframe).  More Phantoms were lost than Thuds, though, again, just by numbers and not by loss rate.  Remember that there were only about a dozen RA-5s off Vietnam at any one time, and their availability rate was low (they only flew a little more than half of their scheduled missions).

[MadBurgerMaker]

The loss rate of RA-5s exceeded that of the Thuds, IIRC.  More Thuds were lost, of course, because they flew a lot more sorties (many more of them, and many more sorties per airframe).  More Phantoms were lost than Thuds, though, again, just by numbers and not by loss rate.  Remember that there were only about a dozen RA-5s off Vietnam at any one time, and their availability rate was low (they only flew a little more than half of their scheduled missions).

Nah, Navy only for the Vigilante, and it would clearly never have even been in the conversation if it was only pure numbers we were talking about.  The Thud had the highest loss rate overall, as I said.  And again, a lot of that was due to the nature of the missions both of them were flying, along, of course, with certain limitations with the planes themselves.  The 105s were flying by Thud Ridge to hit the Hanoi area, etc, while the Vigilantes were showing up 10-15 minutes after things like Alpha strikes to take damage photos. 

E:  But in terms of pure numbers, the helicopter losses in Vietnam were just absurd.  The Army lost 5,000 of the damn things, with 3,000 being UH-1s of some type. 

[derspiess]

The A-6 had charisma.  Flight of the Intruder was 10x the movie Top Gun was.

Do it, Sandy.
       
Do it now.
             
I'd do it for you.

"I'm popping smoke..." I used that quote a lot at work in my last job.  Nobody knew what the hell I was talking about.  Great flick.

[CountDeMoney]

I read the book before the movie came out, so it has the usual "Hollywood" inconsistencies;  but the novel really went nto the whole "Phantom Shitter" subplot, and that was totally fucking hilarious.

But yeah, it smokes Top Gun, storyline-wise.  Bombing Hanoi > Strafing Kelly McGillis, because at least Hanoi was real.

[Jacob]

F13

My keyboard doesn't go any higher than F12

[mongers]

F13

My keyboard doesn't go any higher than F12

You should have seen the size of Air Force keyboards back in the day - F106

[CountDeMoney]

F13

My keyboard doesn't go any higher than F12

You obviously don't have your Lotus keyboard overlay.