Quote
Why the Navy Needs Disruption Now (part 2 of 2)
Posted on July 29, 2016 by steveblank
The future is here it's just distributed unevenly – Silicon Valley view of tech adoption
The threat is here it's just distributed unevenly – A2/AD and the aircraft carrier
This is the second of a two-part post following my stay on the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. Part 1 talked about what I saw (https://steveblank.wordpress.com/?p=21899) and learned – the layout of a carrier, how the air crew operates and how the carrier functions in context of the other ships around it (the strike group.) But the biggest learning was the realization that disruption is not just happening to companies, it's also happening to the Navy. And that the Lean Innovation tools we've built to deal with disruption and create continuous innovation for large commercial organizations were equally relevant here.
This post offers a few days' worth of thinking about what I saw. (If you haven't, read part 1 (https://steveblank.com/2016/07/28/the-navy-carriers-and-disruption/) first.)
Yes, it's a blog post. No, I'm not copypastaing the whole thing here for you lazy gits.
I am curious what the resident squids think of this. Personally, I think he is over-analyzing a highly-unlikely major war scenario when coming to his conclusions.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 29, 2016, 05:52:45 PM
Yes, it's a blog post. No, I'm not copypastaing the whole thing here for you lazy gits.
Fair enough, but both links are to the "Part 1" despite the "Part 2 of 2" reference. That's pretty lazy.
Quote... new aircraft carrier's cost $11 billion
What of the new aircraft carrier costs $11 billion? I hate mysteries in the middle of "news."
Okay, I read it, and, while I don't like all the buzzwords and koolspeak, I don't disagree with his basic premise. However, I also don't think he went to the right place to find his "horizon 3" projects. he won't find those in a carrier battle group; he'll find those at the Johns Hopkins APL and the basic R&D think tanks. DARPA funds all kinds of projects that are what he calls "Horizon 3" endeavors.
Now, he is correct that the Navy's leadership (like the leadership of any big bureaucracy) is made up of people who demonstrated mastery of skills and knowledge that were last valuable a decade ago, and so the Navy isn't as innovative as it could be (his point about drones for refueling is dead on, and that's an idea that could easily be implemented tomorrow if the Navy's aviation top brass wasn't so afraid to give up cockpits - how many people know that half the line officers in the Navy, and therefor half the admirals, are aviators?)
I'm not sure how you get around that, given the inertia of the existing system. The last innovative CNO was Mike Boorda, and he ended up shooting himself - probably.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2016, 09:44:59 PM
Okay, I read it, and, while I don't like all the buzzwords and koolspeak,
You mean like the Ideologism, "audio cacophony"?
QuoteLean Innovation tools
Barf.
Oh, and I'll say it again: the DF-21 and DF-26 are the most overhyped weapons of the age. They are NOT what will make carriers obsolete. Subs with reliable long-range but fast wake-homing torpedoes will do that.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2016, 09:06:33 PM
Oh, and I'll say it again: the DF-21 and DF-26 are the most overhyped weapons of the age. They are NOT what will make carriers obsolete. Subs with reliable long-range but fast wake-homing torpedoes will do that.
Wasn't it Admiral Thomas that told Congress last year he wasn't as worried about Chinese weapons systems that could make a hole in the top of the carrier as the systems that could make a hole in the bottom..?
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2016, 09:13:40 PM
What of the new aircraft carrier costs $11 billion? I hate mysteries in the middle of "news."
Well that guy probably didn't want to get into it, but if you're really wondering and not just pointing out his comment: EMALS and AAG are having problems and are costing more than expected. I think it's going to be more than $11b at this point, too. I'm not thinking these costs would necessarily carry over to the next ships like this dude seems to be implying though, since I'm reasonably sure that it's just due to the shit being so new.
E: Actually, you might be the guy to ask about this: Do you know if there is a way to just use the regular type of arresting gear and catapults if EMALS and AAG just end up not being able to do what they need them to do on this specific ship? I know that's a helluva lot of equipment to be changing out, especially with the catapults.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 30, 2016, 09:34:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2016, 09:13:40 PM
What of the new aircraft carrier costs $11 billion? I hate mysteries in the middle of "news."
Well that guy probably didn't want to get into it, but if you're really wondering and not just pointing out his comment: EMALS and AAG are having problems and are costing more than expected. I think it's going to be more than $11b at this point, too. I'm not thinking these costs would necessarily carry over to the next ships like this dude seems to be implying though, since I'm reasonably sure that it's just due to the shit being so new.
E: Actually, you might be the guy to ask about this: Do you know if there is a way to just use the regular type of arresting gear and catapults if EMALS and AAG just end up not being able to do what they need them to do on this specific ship? I know that's a helluva lot of equipment to be changing out, especially with the catapults.
AAG could be easily replaced, I think, with existing hydraulic hardware. EMALS could not, but I think EMALS is installed and operational, so it isn't an issue except from a reliability standpoint (and that isn't launch reliability, but system communications reliability).
My comment was mocking the author's inability to distinguish between the plural s and the possessive s. For a guy that loves to use complicated words, he sure doesn't know the simple rules of grammar.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2016, 10:35:57 PM
AAG could be easily replaced, I think, with existing hydraulic hardware. EMALS could not, but I think EMALS is installed and operational, so it isn't an issue except from a reliability standpoint (and that isn't launch reliability, but system communications reliability).
My comment was mocking the author's inability to distinguish between the plural s and the possessive s. For a guy that loves to use complicated words, he sure doesn't know the simple rules of grammar.
That's kinda what I figured. Replacing EMALS seems like it would require tearing the ship apart.
Oh pleez. Do you think anyone can take the pilots out of their planes and replace them with drones?
Of course not. Those are their toys. Our military is going to be disrupted sooner or later. It is the way it is.
Drones will beat airplanes, then nano weapons will beat drones, then something else will beat the AI controlled nano armies of the future.
To what extent does the effective use of drones rely on an effective and functioning satellite network?
To what extent are they vulnerable to cyber attack?
What if someone comes up with a manned drone? Would such a thing be unstoppable?
Quote from: The Brain on August 03, 2016, 11:10:34 AM
What if someone comes up with a manned drone? Would such a thing be unstoppable?
God help us all.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2016, 09:44:59 PM
Now, he is correct that the Navy's leadership (like the leadership of any big bureaucracy) is made up of people who demonstrated mastery of skills and knowledge that were last valuable a decade ago, and so the Navy isn't as innovative as it could be (his point about drones for refueling is dead on, and that's an idea that could easily be implemented tomorrow if the Navy's aviation top brass wasn't so afraid to give up cockpits - how many people know that half the line officers in the Navy, and therefor half the admirals, are aviators?)
*Grumbler at a Navy R&D meeting in the 1980's*
"What are we doing about galley slaves? I haven't heard anything on that front in a long time."
*uneasy silence falls across the room*
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2016, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2016, 09:44:59 PM
Now, he is correct that the Navy's leadership (like the leadership of any big bureaucracy) is made up of people who demonstrated mastery of skills and knowledge that were last valuable a decade ago, and so the Navy isn't as innovative as it could be (his point about drones for refueling is dead on, and that's an idea that could easily be implemented tomorrow if the Navy's aviation top brass wasn't so afraid to give up cockpits - how many people know that half the line officers in the Navy, and therefor half the admirals, are aviators?)
*Grumbler at a Navy R&D meeting in the 1980's*
"What are we doing about galley slaves? I haven't heard anything on that front in a long time."
*uneasy silence falls across the room*
Raz, no need to put your oar in.
Don't start up this row again.
Sad to see this thread has had the wind taken of its sails. I thought it was interesting.
I was hoping to get answers to my questions, given the knowledge base here. They weren't intended to be rhetorical.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 09:29:11 AM
I was hoping to get answers to my questions, given the knowledge base here. They weren't intended to be rhetorical.
I'd guess the answers to your questions would be pretty highly classified. I certainly cannot answer them.
That makes it difficult to assess the strategic wisdom of placing more or less emphasis on drones. The brass may be fossils protecting turf or they may be making rational decisions based on known but confidential vulnerabilities.
That's always a challenge with evaluating military decisions from the outside. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's decision makers with their heads up their asses. Usually, it is come combination of all three.
On a related note, the analysis does make me wonder if the Navy, given their current and foreseeable future missions, might be wise to invest in more baby birdfarms. Something between an LHA and a CVN, fixed-wing-first but with the facilities to air-deploy troops and supplies or evacuate people.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 04, 2016, 09:57:18 AM
That's always a challenge with evaluating military decisions from the outside. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's decision makers with their heads up their asses. Usually, it is come combination of all three.
On a related note, the analysis does make me wonder if the Navy, given their current and foreseeable future missions, might be wise to invest in more baby birdfarms. Something between an LHA and a CVN, fixed-wing-first but with the facilities to air-deploy troops and supplies or evacuate people.
The UK-remnant will have a couple going for a song in a few years time. :bowler:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 09:38:56 AM
That makes it difficult to assess the strategic wisdom of placing more or less emphasis on drones. The brass may be fossils protecting turf or they may be making rational decisions based on known but confidential vulnerabilities.
The specific current situation of the technology is probably classified, but the overall understanding of encrypted communication and control isn't. For the most part it should be possible to safely remotely control a drone as long as there isn't a vulnerability in the hardware. The biggest non-hardware dangers would be signal jamming, interception and analysis. The threat of jamming would presumably require some sort of automated action in the case of losing signal, which might a big problem at critical moments of drone activity. Interception shouldn't raise the concern of hijacking control provided the encryption is strong enough, but it could expose what the drone is doing or seeing given longer timeframes to crack the encryption. Signal analysis is detecting drone activity based on their signals without knowing the content.
Drones rely on two way communication. The vulnerability of the signals could be asymmetric. The directionality of an antenna is limited by size, so a small drone can't send as highly focused a signal as the potentially large controlling station/satellite/whatever.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 04, 2016, 09:57:18 AM
That's always a challenge with evaluating military decisions from the outside. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's decision makers with their heads up their asses. Usually, it is come combination of all three.
On a related note, the analysis does make me wonder if the Navy, given their current and foreseeable future missions, might be wise to invest in more baby birdfarms. Something between an LHA and a CVN, fixed-wing-first but with the facilities to air-deploy troops and supplies or evacuate people.
The problem is that the smallest baby bird farm isn't all that much smaller/cheaper than a big one, and certainly isn't cheaper on a per-airframe basis. You need lots of room for avgas and ordnance, in particular, and those need to be at least somewhat protected.
The current LHA-6 class carries about 22 aircraft (6 will be STOVL F-35s) at a cost about 1/3 that of a Ford class. It is optimized for air ops (not amphibious ops) and so is about what can be expected from a "baby carrier." It lacks AEW and strike support aircraft capabilities, and only carries a max of about 18 strike fighters, so doesn't generate 1/3 of the capability at 1/3 the cost. It does disperse the potential damage from a single hit, however.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 09:38:56 AM
That makes it difficult to assess the strategic wisdom of placing more or less emphasis on drones. The brass may be fossils protecting turf or they may be making rational decisions based on known but confidential vulnerabilities.
None of those issues impact the refueling mission, though, and that's a huge problem for the modern carrier battle group. Once upon a time, there were specialized refueling aircraft, but those have been eliminated even as the navy has transitioned to gas-guzzlers like the F/A-18 (an F-18 loaded with buddy stores still burns more fuel than it delivers). A carrier used to have strike ranges in the 700-mile range. Nowadays, a 250-mile strike would strain its capabilities.
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 11:06:55 AM
The problem is that the smallest baby bird farm isn't all that much smaller/cheaper than a big one, and certainly isn't cheaper on a per-airframe basis. You need lots of room for avgas and ordnance, in particular, and those need to be at least somewhat protected.
The current LHA-6 class carries about 22 aircraft (6 will be STOVL F-35s) at a cost about 1/3 that of a Ford class. It is optimized for air ops (not amphibious ops) and so is about what can be expected from a "baby carrier." It lacks AEW and strike support aircraft capabilities, and only carries a max of about 18 strike fighters, so doesn't generate 1/3 of the capability at 1/3 the cost. It does disperse the potential damage from a single hit, however.
Huh, didn't know the LHAs were so expensive. In that case, yeah, I guess the only advantage is having 1/3 of a CVN in three different places at once.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 04, 2016, 11:13:09 AM
Huh, didn't know the LHAs were so expensive. In that case, yeah, I guess the only advantage is having 1/3 of a CVN in three different places at once.
Probably considerably less than 1/3 of a CVN (given that there won't be strike support or AEW capable planes nor a nuke power plant), but that may be enough for most trouble spots.
They are only building two of these, though, because baby carriers just cost too much for what you get.
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 11:10:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 09:38:56 AM
That makes it difficult to assess the strategic wisdom of placing more or less emphasis on drones. The brass may be fossils protecting turf or they may be making rational decisions based on known but confidential vulnerabilities.
None of those issues impact the refueling mission, though, and that's a huge problem for the modern carrier battle group. Once upon a time, there were specialized refueling aircraft, but those have been eliminated even as the navy has transitioned to gas-guzzlers like the F/A-18 (an F-18 loaded with buddy stores still burns more fuel than it delivers). A carrier used to have strike ranges in the 700-mile range. Nowadays, a 250-mile strike would strain its capabilities.
That's quite damning.
Quote from: mongers on August 04, 2016, 05:30:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 11:10:53 AM
None of those issues impact the refueling mission, though, and that's a huge problem for the modern carrier battle group. Once upon a time, there were specialized refueling aircraft, but those have been eliminated even as the navy has transitioned to gas-guzzlers like the F/A-18 (an F-18 loaded with buddy stores still burns more fuel than it delivers). A carrier used to have strike ranges in the 700-mile range. Nowadays, a 250-mile strike would strain its capabilities.
That's quite damning.
I warned them! (Quite literally; I authored the study, 20 years ago, that the Navy commissioned, and then rejected, to evaluate whether the F-14E or F/A-18 E/F would be the aircraft to hold the line until the F-35 was completed; the F-14 won so hands down the DSB chastised the Navy for not selecting it).
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 04, 2016, 05:30:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 11:10:53 AM
None of those issues impact the refueling mission, though, and that's a huge problem for the modern carrier battle group. Once upon a time, there were specialized refueling aircraft, but those have been eliminated even as the navy has transitioned to gas-guzzlers like the F/A-18 (an F-18 loaded with buddy stores still burns more fuel than it delivers). A carrier used to have strike ranges in the 700-mile range. Nowadays, a 250-mile strike would strain its capabilities.
That's quite damning.
I warned them! (Quite literally; I authored the study, 20 years ago, that the Navy commissioned, and then rejected, to evaluate whether the F-14E or F/A-18 E/F would be the aircraft to hold the line until the F-35 was completed; the F-14 won so hands down the DSB chastised the Navy for not selecting it).
Interesting.
Good job nothing kicked off with China before the F-35s started arriving.
Quote from: mongers on August 04, 2016, 05:58:30 PM
Interesting.
Good job nothing kicked off with China before the F-35s started arriving.
Te F-35 is a whole 'nother fuckup that makes the F-18/F-14 fuckup seem like a typo. It might not meet specs, but at least it doesn't come anywhere near the low promised cost. It may be the single worst procurement story in world military history.
This is a disheartening thread.
Stupid Pentagon. :mad:
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
It still doesn't justify the price.
We don't have a bottomless economy anymore.
China is going to be the big winner in all this Navy debacle.
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
"I think it will have the best performance...of any plane that's ever been made because it has a winning performance. It knows how to win because its whole design life it's been winning."
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2016, 07:42:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
"I think it will have the best performance...of any plane that's ever been made because it has a winning performance. It knows how to win because its whole design life it's been winning."
More like "I think it will be fine because we will spend whatever is necessary to make it so".
Quote from: Berkut on August 05, 2016, 08:16:59 AM
More like "I think it will be fine because we will spend whatever is necessary to make it so".
I very much doubt that that will be true. I think that the project has gone beyond the point where it can either cost more, or cut more production to pay for over-runs. I think that, from this point forward, escalating costs will be countered by lowered performance expectations. As those performance expectations decline, more partners will drop out to seek more cost-effective solutions, which will increase costs and drive down performance. I fear another B-58-type program.
I'm sure China will give us a volume discount on the J-31 if we ask nicely.
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 05:52:37 PM
I warned them! (Quite literally; I authored the study, 20 years ago, that the Navy commissioned, and then rejected, to evaluate whether the F-14E or F/A-18 E/F would be the aircraft to hold the line until the F-35 was completed; the F-14 won so hands down the DSB chastised the Navy for not selecting it).
Is there any truth to the rumors that the F-15E and jellies from the Chair Force helped kill the F-14E?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 05, 2016, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 05:52:37 PM
I warned them! (Quite literally; I authored the study, 20 years ago, that the Navy commissioned, and then rejected, to evaluate whether the F-14E or F/A-18 E/F would be the aircraft to hold the line until the F-35 was completed; the F-14 won so hands down the DSB chastised the Navy for not selecting it).
Is there any truth to the rumors that the F-15E and jellies from the Chair Force helped kill the F-14E?
Not that I've ever heard. The F-14E used a lot of systems that the F-15E used, so would have lowered AF costs. I'd think they favored it.
I think what killed the F-14E was that it had an NFO (a back seater). The Navy had decided in 1988 that NFOs could, for the first time, compete for carrier squadron command spots (previously reserved for pilots). That meant NFOs could compete, then, for wing command and ship command and, therefor for flag rank. Every NFO admiral was a lost possibility for a pilot admiral. Some NFOs had made flag through the P-3 community and one had gotten carrier command without ever commanding a carrier air wing squadron, but that overwhelming majority of aviation admirals were pilots and wanted to keep it that way (IMO).
The Navy began to transition its carrier air wings to single-seat types (purchase more F-18s and transfer S-3s ashore). I don't think this unrelated to the carrier air wing command situation. Today there are only the 4 or 5 Growler back seaters and 15 more with the E-2 squadron.
Fucking pilots ruin everything. :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
Well yeah, the most serious competition it is likely to go up against is 70s and 80s era Soviet crap with questionable maintenance.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2016, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
Well yeah, the most serious competition it is likely to go up against is 70s and 80s era Soviet crap with questionable maintenance.
No, I mean it is going to be a perfectly serviceable 5th gen fighter capable of fulfilling its mission in a reasonable fashion.
I agree with grumbler that the JSF program in general was a mess, and certainly was a mistake for the Navy in particular.
Where we differ is that I think it was not the right solution, but I don't think it is a terrible solution.
I follow the JSF somewhat closely, and it is actually looking pretty good right now. They are working through teehting problems and issues with the ALIS, but overall its capabilities are looking very promising for what it is - a multi-role strike fighter. It won't do A2A as well as it could, and it won't have the range you would like out of a dedicated strike fighter, and the idea of the mainstay of the Navy A2A and strike package being a single engined plane just seems, well, stupid...but it is still going to be one of the premier weapons for the next several decades.
It's biggest flaw, IMO, is just trying to be everything to everyone. Too many design compromises inherent in that approach.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2016, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
Well yeah, the most serious competition it is likely to go up against is 70s and 80s era Soviet crap with questionable maintenance.
Questionable maintenance maybe, but I wouldn't call the Su-35S/34, or even the more updated Su-27s, "70-80s Soviet crap".
Besides, for air-to-air, it's probably really more about AA missile tech/range for now.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 05, 2016, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2016, 05:52:37 PM
I warned them! (Quite literally; I authored the study, 20 years ago, that the Navy commissioned, and then rejected, to evaluate whether the F-14E or F/A-18 E/F would be the aircraft to hold the line until the F-35 was completed; the F-14 won so hands down the DSB chastised the Navy for not selecting it).
Is there any truth to the rumors that the F-15E and jellies from the Chair Force helped kill the F-14E?
What's a "Jellie"?
Jealous folks.
Specifically, in this case, USAF folks who envy the ultra-cool F-14 (and I don't blame them...it's one of my favorite all-time aircraft from childhood).
The F-14 is pretty damn cool, but then, so is the F-15.
Hell, that entire generation of aircraft were mostly fucking awesome. -14, -15, -16. F-111. A-6. A-10. A truly incredibly effective generation of aircraft.
And now we don't win anymore. :(
Quote from: Berkut on August 05, 2016, 08:43:21 PM
The F-14 is pretty damn cool, but then, so is the F-15.
Hell, that entire generation of aircraft were mostly fucking awesome. -14, -15, -16. F-111. A-6. A-10. A truly incredibly effective generation of aircraft.
Not to nick pick, but the A6 and F111 are more of the previous generation, didn't those both fight in Vietnam, in the F111 case not too successfully?
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2016, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 05, 2016, 08:43:21 PM
The F-14 is pretty damn cool, but then, so is the F-15.
Hell, that entire generation of aircraft were mostly fucking awesome. -14, -15, -16. F-111. A-6. A-10. A truly incredibly effective generation of aircraft.
Not to nick pick, but the A6 and F111 are more of the previous generation, didn't those both fight in Vietnam, in the F111 case not too successfully?
No, that is true - they are not the same gen as the 14/15/16, but they all "served" together.
I dunno about the F-111 in Vietnam though - I always thought it was considered to be a pretty capable platform though, but I could be wrong about that I suppose.
So I will just stick with the 14/15/16/A-10 then. :P
Yeah, F-111s flew in Vietnam. IIRC they did pretty well there.
E: Looks like they got off to a rough start though:
QuoteDeployment in Asia
The Air Force F-111s didn't have an auspicious debut in combat. After a detachment of six F-111As was deployed to Vietnam in 1968, three of them crashed in just fifty-five missions, all of them accidents linked to defective wing stabilizers. The Air Force was forced to withdraw the F-111 and correct the flaw at a cost of $100 million.
It wasn't until the Linebacker raids in 1972 that the F-Aardvark finally demonstrated its potential. Skimming beneath North Vietnam's extensive radar network at night, F-111s blasted North Vietnamese airfields and air defense batteries, weakening the resistance to incoming B-52 raids. Aardvarks didn't require the fighter escort, electronic warfare support, or midair refueling that other bombers required, and could operate in inclement weather. Only six F-111s were lost in combat over the course 4,000 missions during the war, one of the lowest loss rates of the war.
F-111s ended up participating in the last combat operation undertaken by the U.S. military in South East Asia, when the Cambodian Khmer Rouge seized the container ship S.S. Mayaguez in May 1975. Two Aardvarks diverted from a training flight were the first to locate the Mayaguez. Later, an F-111 sank a Khmer Rouge patrol boat escorting the seized ship.
Yeah, it saw action at the tail end of Vietnam, and always stood ready to drop tactical nukes all over Central Europe for the rest of the Cold War. Did quite a bit of sorties in GW1.
I always thought it was a gorgeous airframe, even if it did have a slight hint of MiGishness about it.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2016, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
I think the F-35 is going to end up being fine. It won't be awesome, but nothing "Joint" ever is, but it is going to be very successful.
Well yeah, the most serious competition it is likely to go up against is 70s and 80s era Soviet crap with questionable maintenance.
That's not the kind of philosophy you build a weapons system around.
But I'm sure the JSF will do fine, as long as it doesn't see combat.
Quote from: Berkut on August 05, 2016, 08:43:21 PM
The F-14 is pretty damn cool, but then, so is the F-15.
Hell, that entire generation of aircraft were mostly fucking awesome. -14, -15, -16. F-111. A-6. A-10. A truly incredibly effective generation of aircraft.
We should just upgrade the electronics/avionics, and re-up those assembly lines. :(
(it'd probably be cheaper too)
I still say the Phantom had twice the charisma of the F14 and F15. Thing looked like a flying muscle car.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2016, 03:16:21 AM
I still say the Phantom had twice the charisma of the F14 and F15. Thing looked like a flying muscle car.
Oh yeah, only thing missing was the hood scoop. What a boss jet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2016, 03:16:21 AM
I still say the Phantom had twice the charisma of the F14 and F15. Thing looked like a flying muscle car.
It was a good-looking plane (not as good looking as the F-14 or F-15) but not a very good fighter. The Navy had to take F-8s back from the reserves to get a front-line fighter in Vietnam.
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 a A-4 groupie.
Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2016, 08:01:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2016, 03:16:21 AM
I still say the Phantom had twice the charisma of the F14 and F15. Thing looked like a flying muscle car.
It was a good-looking plane (not as good looking as the F-14 or F-15) but not a very good fighter. The Navy had to take F-8s back from the reserves to get a front-line fighter in Vietnam.
It was really more of an interceptor, right?
Didn't they actually deploy it without a gun at first? Which of course did not work out so well when you don't have a free fire zone and have to actually ID your targets by Mk 1 eyeball before shooting...
I always thought the Vigilante was pretty cool. Interesting way of delivering nukes too: Just dump them out the ass end. Sure, they might accidentally fall out on the carrier deck on launch, but hey, that's the price you pay for innovation. :smarty:
The tiny bit of the wingtips that would fold was a nice touch too. Now the wingspan is only gigantic, instead of absurdly stupid! The "nose" wheel was set like 20 feet back as well. Must have been fun to roll around on a flight deck in that. Get an RA-5 in the air though, and it's slick as shit.
Why did everything that is awesome about airpower come out of the 50's? :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 06, 2016, 09:26:19 PM
I'm a A-4 groupie.
WTF? The A4 was the Yugo of strike aircraft.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2016, 01:04:31 AM
WTF? The A4 was the Yugo of strike aircraft.
The A-4 is a cool little plane.
The first airplane models I owned as a kid were a Phantom and a Stratojet. I concur that 1950s planes kicked ass. Huge fan of the B-47s rocket-assisted takeoff.
The A-6 should still be in service, goddammit.
Quote from: Berkut on August 06, 2016, 09:36:36 PM
It was really more of an interceptor, right?
Didn't they actually deploy it without a gun at first? Which of course did not work out so well when you don't have a free fire zone and have to actually ID your targets by Mk 1 eyeball before shooting...
It was originally designed as a strike fighter, then redesigned as an interceptor when the A-7 was adopted by the Navy (its original strike fighter size meant it could carry the big radar and second crewman needed for that role), then adopted by the Air Force as a strike fighter. It was never intended as a subsonic dogfighter because the Five-Sided Playpen was convinced back then that missiles and radar made subsonic gun fights obsolete. That, obviously, was in error.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 07, 2016, 01:44:10 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2016, 01:04:31 AM
WTF? The A4 was the Yugo of strike aircraft.
The A-4 is a cool little plane.
And still in service, more than 60 years after its IOC.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 07, 2016, 09:03:15 AM
The A-6 should still be in service, goddammit.
The Prowler is still in service. Doesn't that count?
Quote from: celedhring on August 07, 2016, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 07, 2016, 09:03:15 AM
The A-6 should still be in service, goddammit.
The Prowler is still in service. Doesn't that count?
(a) It's only in service with the USMC,
(b) it's not an A-6, it's an electronic warfare aircraft, so,
(c) no, it doesn't count.
EA-6B FAIL
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 06, 2016, 10:37:52 PM
I always thought the Vigilante was pretty cool. Interesting way of delivering nukes too: Just dump them out the ass end. Sure, they might accidentally fall out on the carrier deck on launch, but hey, that's the price you pay for innovation. :smarty:
The tiny bit of the wingtips that would fold was a nice touch too. Now the wingspan is only gigantic, instead of absurdly stupid! The "nose" wheel was set like 20 feet back as well. Must have been fun to roll around on a flight deck in that. Get an RA-5 in the air though, and it's slick as shit.
Sexy looking aircraft.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 07, 2016, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 06, 2016, 10:37:52 PM
I always thought the Vigilante was pretty cool. Interesting way of delivering nukes too: Just dump them out the ass end. Sure, they might accidentally fall out on the carrier deck on launch, but hey, that's the price you pay for innovation. :smarty:
The tiny bit of the wingtips that would fold was a nice touch too. Now the wingspan is only gigantic, instead of absurdly stupid! The "nose" wheel was set like 20 feet back as well. Must have been fun to roll around on a flight deck in that. Get an RA-5 in the air though, and it's slick as shit.
Sexy looking aircraft.
Another plane that looked good without
being good. The Vigilante had the highest loss rate of any US aircraft employed in Vietnam, even though, for much of the war, the navy refused to fly them over the north. The Navy stopped production after 120 had been built, but was then forced to order 36 more because of the high loss rate. Vigilante squadrons were not happy squadrons.
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2016, 07:54:17 PM
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:
QuoteDuring 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
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 07, 2016, 12:42:45 AM
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".
Can somebody enlighten me about the difference between F22 and F35? :unsure:
F13
Quote from: Monoriu on August 07, 2016, 09:13:24 PM
Can somebody enlighten me about the difference between F22 and F35? :unsure:
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.
Thanks. So if an F22 fights an F35, the F22 should win? :unsure:
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).
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 07, 2016, 08:26:43 PM
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).
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2016, 10:06:26 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2016, 08:05:16 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on August 09, 2016, 12:56:40 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 07, 2016, 09:15:53 PM
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
Quote from: Jacob on August 09, 2016, 12:56:40 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 07, 2016, 09:15:53 PM
F13
My keyboard doesn't go any higher than F12
You obviously don't have your Lotus keyboard overlay.