UK carrier policy: dumb or dumberer

[CountDeMoney]

I think this is the point where I suggest that if the US Navy can't afford swing with F-14s the Russian Long Range Strategic Air Forces can't really afford their Blackjacks and Backfires. At some point the speed of those missiles reach such a level that trying to chase them down no longer made any sense.

Well, I was referencing the time frame of grumbler's developmental model, when the Soviet Naval Air Arm was still relevant.

However, the issue still stands with future standoff land-based ASMs in the South China Sea with ranges of 2,500km and packing 10,000lb conventional warheads.

The farther out they're intercepted, the better.

[grumbler]

I think this is the point where I suggest that if the US Navy can't afford swing with F-14s the Russian Long Range Strategic Air Forces can't really afford their Blackjacks and Backfires. At some point the speed of those missiles reach such a level that trying to chase them down no longer made any sense.

I think this is actually the point where you should have realized you don't have a clue, and so declined to post anything as silly as this (but then remembered that this is languish, where such realizations go to die). 

[grumbler]

Well, I was referencing the time frame of grumbler's developmental model, when the Soviet Naval Air Arm was still relevant.

It was Russia by then, not the USSR.  And we were doing strike aircraft as the primary measure, not air defense aircraft.  But the F-14E (which was the F-14D with the new engines and solid-state radar) still beat everything out there by quite a bit, and was the cheapest option by far, as well.

The airedales killed it by creating the requirement that the USMC fly the aircraft as well, and that the plane be capable of deploying 60-strong (five squadrons) per carrier.  The USMC had no interest in the F-14, as it was a two-seat aircraft and they were opposed to any more two-seat aircraft, and the larger size of the F-14 meant that the practical limit was 59 planes on a Nimitz-sized CVN.

However, the issue still stands with future standoff land-based ASMs in the South China Sea with ranges of 2,500km and packing 10,000lb conventional warheads.

The farther out they're intercepted, the better.

That will be the role for SAMs, not fighters.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Defense Science Board threw up too many strawmen.

That was the least of grumbler's problems.  The real challenge was working on a project whose ultimate purpose was ad hominem.

[Razgovory]

The Defense Science Board threw up too many strawmen.

That was the least of grumbler's problems.  The real challenge was working on a project whose ultimate purpose was ad hominem.

In military terms they call it "anti-personal".

[The Brain]

The Defense Science Board threw up too many strawmen.

That was the least of grumbler's problems.  The real challenge was working on a project whose ultimate purpose was ad hominem.

Do you mean "ad hominim"?

[alfred russel]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

I ran a USN study for the next-generation strike aircraft back in the early 90s.  The choices were the F-14E, the A-6F, and the F-18 E/F (only the first having been actually built).  The F-14E was the clear winner, the F-18 E/F the clear loser.  I briefed all the way to the Defense Science Board.  The ultimate decision, of course, was to go with the clear loser. Bureaucracy has a way of defeating even the most blatant of facts.

So ultimately, you are at fault.

"But you did not convince me!" is the logic.

[Kolytsin]

Performance needs to be balanced with cost.  The biggest reason why the better performing F-14 was dropped was due to the high maintenance costs associated with extending the life of that platform or expanding it's mission.  A better performing plane does jack-all if you can't get it in the air because you don't have the parts for it onboard.  Also, tied in with defense procurement, it was simply more cost-effective to go a larger production line of the one-size-fits-all superhornet and trade-off performance vice funding another production line of F-14's that were rapidly becoming obsolete in other areas besides just engines and aviation electronics.

Also, this isn't the first time that we've stabbed Britain on defense procurement.  I don't think anyone remembers the Skybolt fiasco where Kennedy ultimately forced the British to pay exponentially more  cash for Poseidon and Trident missiles to fulfill their strategic policy.

[Admiral Yi]

Also, this isn't the first time that we've stabbed Britain on defense procurement.  I don't think anyone remembers the Skybolt fiasco where Kennedy ultimately forced the British to pay exponentially more  cash for Poseidon and Trident missiles to fulfill their strategic policy.

I don't.

Exponentially more cash than what?

[Kolytsin]

More than they had expected to pay for the cancelled Air to ground Skybolt missile.  In the end, the crisis was fervently downplayed by both sides by pointing to the fact that the British were getting discounted Poseidon missiles, but that masks the fact that in the end the British were still forced to pay much more than they had originally planned.

[Admiral Yi]

More than they had expected to pay for the cancelled Air to ground Skybolt missile.  In the end, the crisis was fervently downplayed by both sides by pointing to the fact that the British were getting discounted Poseidon missiles, but that masks the fact that in the end the British were still forced to pay much more than they had originally planned.

I was curious so I Wikied Skybolt.  Not sure how you can fault the US for not delivering a missile that didn't work.  And not sure how the UK was forced to do anything.

[grumbler]

Performance needs to be balanced with cost.  The biggest reason why the better performing F-14 was dropped was due to the high maintenance costs associated with extending the life of that platform or expanding it's mission.  A better performing plane does jack-all if you can't get it in the air because you don't have the parts for it onboard.  Also, tied in with defense procurement, it was simply more cost-effective to go a larger production line of the one-size-fits-all superhornet and trade-off performance vice funding another production line of F-14's that were rapidly becoming obsolete in other areas besides just engines and aviation electronics.

  No, that's not true at all.  The Super Tomcat (just the F-14D with some tweaks to carry the newer weapons) was already in production.  The Superhornet cost $86 billion to develop and build, whereas the Super Tomcat would have cost less than $20 billion to build in the same numbers.  Plus, it would have been in service far sooner.  The more militarily effect system was also by far the most cost-effective.

The F-18 E/F was selected, I think, because it was a single-seat aircraft and the airdale admirals had long wanted to get rid of the backseat guys.  It had nothing to do with spare parts (which would be available for either aircraft).

Also, this isn't the first time that we've stabbed Britain on defense procurement.  I don't think anyone remembers the Skybolt fiasco where Kennedy ultimately forced the British to pay exponentially more  cash for Poseidon and Trident missiles to fulfill their strategic policy.

I admit that I don't remember the Skybolt "fiasco" like you do, but that was a terrible system.   The Brits were trying to get a strategic deterrent on the cheap, and that just wasn't possible.  here are very good reasons why no nation ever deployed an air-launched ballistic missile.

[grumbler]

So ultimately, you are at fault.

"But you did not convince me!" is the logic.

But I did convince them!  The DSB endorsed my study.  The reversal came later, for reasons that were never made clear.

[CountDeMoney]

The Super Tomcat (just the F-14D with some tweaks to carry the newer weapons) was already in production.  The Superhornet cost $86 billion to develop and build, whereas the Super Tomcat would have cost less than $20 billion to build in the same numbers.  Plus, it would have been in service far sooner.  The more militarily effect system was also by far the most cost-effective.

With the increased precision strike capability, was here any substantive degradation in the Super Tomcat's dog fighting capaabilities, or its ability to continue serving in a long range supersonic fleet interceptor platform?

The F-18 E/F was selected, I think, because it was a single-seat aircraft and the airdale admirals had long wanted to get rid of the backseat guys.  It had nothing to do with spare parts (which would be available for either aircraft).

One pilot is cheaper to train and maintain than a pilot and a crewman.

the A-6F

I would've liked to have seen that.

[Zanza]

So ultimately, you are at fault.

"But you did not convince me!" is the logic.

But I did convince them!  The DSB endorsed my study.  The reversal came later, for reasons that were never made clear.

Hans fired the DSB.