[Hobo Hilton]

Two Navy jet fighters collided off the coast of North Carolina during a routine training mission on Thursday, sending four people to the hospital, officials said.

The Coast Guard said four people were recovered and have been rushed to a hospital. A Navy official said the crews were rescued by a nearby fishing boat. A Coast Guard helicopter was also on scene, about 20 to 30 miles off Cape Hatteras.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/2...-carolina-coast-report-says.html?intcmp=hpbt3
________________

From the video, it looked like the crews got out OK... Thank goodness for that.

Hobo

 

[howardhuges]

At this rate will be down to the reno air racers and FiFi,..... That out house F35 still in the chocks, F22 ...got what 100 of them in inventory so far...... Formation flying seems to always end badly in the new Military air wing...only been doing to for 90 years.

 

[ray55classic]

Just for discussion may I ask ,
What is the cure to the ever increasing cost and smaller and smaller amounts of combat ready aircraft the US inventory?
We keep getting more and more features and less & less "ready to fly" air planes.
What's the answer? I'd like to hear some ideas....


What about something built along the lines of an F5 /F16 a capable budget fighter ?,
& while we're at it an updated A10 for ground support roles that could handle the lions share of missions?
built for pilot safety, can soak up damage and still fly , packs a serious punch , can fly low and slow,
ease of use ,attrition prevention ,maintenance friendly .
While I agree we need front line fighters to push the technology level,
Why do All our fighters have to be mega buck do all machines that cost too much to fly and maintain to stay proficient ?

 

[Defiant001]

Just for discussion may I ask ,
What is the cure to the ever increasing cost and smaller and smaller amounts of combat ready aircraft the US inventory?
We keep getting more and more features and less & less "ready to fly" air planes.
What's the answer?
What about something built along the lines of a modular F5 for a capable budget fighter ,
& an updated A10 for ground support that could handle the lions share of missions built for pilot safety, can soak up damage and still fly , packs a serious punch , can fly low and slow,
ease of use ,attrition prevention ,maintenance friendly .
While I agree we need front line fighters to push the technology ,
Why do All our fighters have to be mega buck do all machines that cost too much to fly and maintain to stay proficient ?

Didn't McNamara's BS teach us anything?
One thing can't do it all , and by trying to, usually does nothing well

The term "pork barrel" comes to mind when reading your post.

Regards,
D1

 

[commostud]

Your budget aircraft to fight wars, train with and everything else is your F18, F15, F16 and A10. Everything else costs to much.

 

[howardhuges]

Ray its all about the $$$$, the tax payer ( a small breed today) pays and pays while Lobbyists and Ret Senior Military push congress for more hi tech junk. We DO NOT NEED all this crap...electronics has taken over to a point the airframe is simply a platform to house all the computers....it need not be aerobatic dog fighting is gone, not super fast, hypersonic weapons have this covered, so the fighter of tomorrow (and today) needs to be unmanned, AI weapon thats reliable. The Russians for all the technology they have keep weapons dependable, rugged, and a lot of them. This is not to say their AC are vacuum tube junk....Russian aerospace is on or ahead of our technology. Every AC must be able to fly off a field, and quickly serviced to go attack again. The only thing the F35 services is the poor tax payers on that almost trillion dollar joke.

 

[pappa]

Ray its all about the $$$$, the tax payer ( a small breed today) pays and pays while Lobbyists and Ret Senior Military push congress for more hi tech junk. We DO NOT NEED all this crap...electronics has taken over to a point the airframe is simply a platform to house all the computers....it need not be aerobatic dog fighting is gone, not super fast, hypersonic weapons have this covered, so the fighter of tomorrow (and today) needs to be unmanned, AI weapon thats reliable. The Russians for all the technology they have keep weapons dependable, rugged, and a lot of them. This is not to say their AC are vacuum tube junk....Russian aerospace is on or ahead of our technology. Every AC must be able to fly off a field, and quickly serviced to go attack again. The only thing the F35 services is the poor tax payers on that almost trillion dollar joke.

+1. You hit the nail on the head. When you hear a warmonger in this country pushing to intensify publics fear of the boogie man, it's all about making taxpayers feel unpatriotic if they don't willingly go along with greater - often wasteful - "defense" spending. Truth is , the two greatest defensive weapons we have had have been named Pacific ,and Atlantic. No longer. Next big war , our families will be killed, our cities destroyed, no place in the US will be inaccessible to ICBMs. Does not matter if you are "winner" (fools words) or loser. Look at destruction , and civilian deaths, endured by both in Europe in WWII .
Our politicians and upper echlon brass play a dangerous game of trying to keep things riled up to keep the money coming in without objections. Truth is if they really believed they can prevent horrific carnage in our homeland, they wouldn't be building those huge under mountain environmentally self sustaining "cities" in Wyoming and other states.
I agree , unmanned removes many design constraints, including max g forces limiting manuvers to human survivability.
Engineers. Russia has very intelligent people. Lockheed has had a design bureau in Russia I know for around 40 years.
Consider the MIG 29. NOT fly by wire. Pilot did it all, with no safegard software in between. I always thought it to a great accomplishment.
I grew up under a political/military mindset of insanity. Remember when our leaders bragged that no matter how strong the other sides nuclear destruction capability was, ours was 3X stronger. Seems like Establishment fools are starting to multiply again lately. Last 11 years for sure. Seems people in US don't think about possibilities since our country is no longer isolated from horrors of war.

 

[hurryinhoosier]

Ray its all about the $$$$, the tax payer ( a small breed today) pays and pays while Lobbyists and Ret Senior Military push congress for more hi tech junk. We DO NOT NEED all this crap...electronics has taken over to a point the airframe is simply a platform to house all the computers....it need not be aerobatic dog fighting is gone, not super fast, hypersonic weapons have this covered, so the fighter of tomorrow (and today) needs to be unmanned, AI weapon thats reliable. The Russians for all the technology they have keep weapons dependable, rugged, and a lot of them. This is not to say their AC are vacuum tube junk....Russian aerospace is on or ahead of our technology. Every AC must be able to fly off a field, and quickly serviced to go attack again. The only thing the F35 services is the poor tax payers on that almost trillion dollar joke.

UH, the Russian use vacuum tubes because they are EMP resistant.

 

[howardhuges]

Very good Hoosier.... About 35 ( reviewed it in my mind wow 38 years where did time go) years ago a Mig 25 (A Mystery machine at the time) was had at the peak of the cold war,CiA and Military looked it over and was flown for testing out at a base in Nevada. I had a opportunity to look it over myself a month after arrival....all the bug a boo stuff, separate hanger, 4 AF Police on hand 24/7. The group I was with was bad mouthing the AC to senior officers, Poor construction, too many stores pylons, etc. After looking it over I was actually impressed with the Mig. Although machine work, fit and finish were fair it was rugged and was designed with one thing in mind....KILLING BOMERS AND FIGHTERS and it was serviceable (that was my job to eval its field operation and support) What was a BIG surprise to USAF was the Avionics and weapons... as good as the new f 15 (then). Some of it was a copy of our systems.... stolen and reverse engineered to a point then they advanced the design to improve it, some things were organic Russian design quite good. The Performance envelope was off the chart for climb and top speed, fuel burn, turn Radius, overall flt controls were poor to fair...ie...it was NOT a dog fighter but a weapons platform that allowed its radar and missiles do the work. They figured all this out during WW2....AC that were relative simple and rugged flown out of fields, as easy as possible to fix and arm, and build a bunch of them. This new Generation of USA AC have more to do with government jobs programs making a Corporation Billions then building a high tech fighter....its like free cheese, section 8 housing or a o-bummer phone except its more expensive and goes faster.

 

[hurryinhoosier]

I got to examine a MiG-29 back in 1990. The only thing about that aircraft that didn't impress me was their engine life and fuel consumption.

 

[oldflyboy]

Just for discussion may I ask ,
What is the cure to the ever increasing cost and smaller and smaller amounts of combat ready aircraft the US inventory?
We keep getting more and more features and less & less "ready to fly" air planes.
What's the answer? I'd like to hear some ideas....

It's an accounting method, nothing more. Before an aircraft is ever completed, the program smart types get together and decide how much better/survivable/reliable/etc the new bird will be relative to some hypothetical threat that may exist when the new plane is deployed.

If the Amazing Kreskin determine that the new bird is twice as survivable as the threat, the prediction will be for half the number of predicted threat numbers.
Example: The F-45 is twice as likely to survive an encounter with the SUX- 219. Elbonia will have a max of 1500 SUX-219's deployed by 2045. Therefore we only need 750 F-45's.

Look at all the money we saved.

 

[kabanchik]

We should definitely find a fighter that would be more economical to produce, and then crank them out by the hundreds or thousands. After all, was it not V I Lenin who once said, "QUANTITY has a quality all it's own"?

 

[Hobo Hilton]

We should definitely find a fighter that would be more economical to produce, and then crank them out by the hundreds or thousands. After all, was it not V I Lenin who once said, "QUANTITY has a quality all it's own"?

_______________
Perhaps American Colleges should begin offering Engineering classes on how to produce "simple yet effective" products. They could bring in an AK as an example for the students.... LOL

Hobo

 

[howardhuges]

That is Most likely Stalin...some dispute it.... I don't. In the Great Patriotic War Quantity was everything...many a shop manager dragged out and shot for taking extra things for themselves or missing production marks...if front of the factory...great incentive to work 20 hr days Moy-Tavarish.

 

[M14E2]

Because the military brass wants 'weapons systems' that do many different things. And development costs are so high , so much invested ,they must buy them and make them work. Throwing good money after bad. So now were stuck with some over-priced turkeys that don't do anything well.


We used to have fighters , attack , recon , EW and other specialized aircraft. Carriers had A-4s , R/F-4s , A-6s , E/A-6Bs , A-7s , F-14s and F/A-18s. Throw in a squadron of S-3s , a couple E-2C's and some assorted helos and you had crowded hanger/flight decks and LOTS of different spare parts/logistics problems.

Now , there's basically the F/A-18s and Blackhawks filling multiple rolls.

I work in the military/aerospace field , and it's nothing but a big waste of time and resources. the R&D and approval process is so slow , by the time ya figure something out , or find a flaw , or request an approval for a modification or engineering change , the last round of paperwork hasn't gone thru the chain of approval yet. But production rarely stops , so you have to recall or undo/redo the ones ya know are wrong , and , , ,

, , , I'm getting a headache!

 

[Gladiator0719]

I say bring back an upgraded version of the F-14, cheaper, stronger and the Phoenix missile is the biggest and has the best reach, plus the F-14 radar outmatches all the others, longest reach... Cheaper than the F-22 & 35..... I'd rather drive a classic Cadillac vs a new Cadillac.... [ame]https://youtu.be/58QOBqAWNzE[/ame]

 

[howardhuges]

Updated F 14 with AI...with or without pilot...again you dual at 100+miles today no need for all the whiz bang crap. Advanced and upgradable Avionics it the ticked today. Here is a 19Mile shoot 1989 down ....OLD TECHNOLOGY weapon system, today 100+ mile easy....so do we need tilt engines and a Trillion dollar jet?..the airframe is only the box that gets you near...the weapon systems do the work at 3000mph.[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e3Fu2zeido[/ame]

 

[auger]

....well, the mo' expensive it is, the mo' better it must be....everybody mo's that....(you get the jist)....

 

[M14E2]

The F-14 was a perfect example of the military demanding something stupid. The Navy demanded a swing-wing fighter , citing it's space saving advantages for parking/storage on aircraft carriers. But the Tomcat was still a HUGE aircraft for a fighter. It's overly complicated systems required hundreds of maintence hours for relatively few actual flight hours. Not to forget many crashed aircrafts and killed crews. When first introduced , the early Hornets were a lower cost 2nd teir supplement. The current Super Hornet is an incredible aircraft and the "Growler" EW version is a good replacement for the old EA-6G Prowler.

Surely the Hornet , F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon have proven effective and given the quality of training and skill of US pilots. Given a few upgrades , I doubt many other countries can pose a threat.

 

[howardhuges]

I doubt many other countries can pose a threat. Don't look now but Moscow is producing a better fighter as I write.... don't count your chickens before they are hatched.

Western media on Russia’s Su-35S fighter jet: “excellent and dangerous”
The redeployment of advanced Su-35S warplanes to Russia’s Khmeimim airbase in Syria evoked the interest of both Russian press and some foreign media. Specifically, this event was mentioned by the German magazine Stern and the US media such as The National Interest and The Washington Times.
As Germany’s Stern noted, Russia’s Su-35S is considered as the most dangerous fighter jet in the world today, without taking into account the US fifth-generation warplane F-22.
According to Stern, the Su-35S is characterized by its high maneuverability, is equipped with the newest Irbis radar and operates improved engines. The fighter jet features new-generation technology but at the same is relatively cheap compared to the most advanced western rivals. Stern expects the Su-35S fighter aircraft to fetch demand on the world armament market.
They are Building a step 2 version that will match the F22...and they will build a lot of them...quickly.


More:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/854549