In my previous post, I listed a few aircraft that were retired too soon. But in light of technological advances this must be modified...my new roster....
 |
| F-14 |
Think about the capabilities of this beast with modern engines, AESA radar in that huge nose, it already had FLIR but add to it a modern derivative...and then add the possibilities with small diameter bombs and you have an early 4th gen that could compete with anything flying...they gave up on it way too soon.
 |
| S-3 Viking |
The Viking. Hoover. First real deal multi-role platform in Navy service. Name one airplane that served in the Anti-Sub, Anti-Surface, Refueling, Attack, and Electronic warfare roles besides the S-3. You can't. It was an original, its still available and should be put back into service. Especially with the threat of Chinese subs.
 |
| C-141 |
Criticized by many but only because they never understood its role. Strategic long range airlift. Fast, and long ranged, it could carry tons of paratroopers to far off lands so they could do their LGOPs thing (Little Groups of Paratroopers rampaging across the country side). The C-141 filled the role between the C-5 and the C-130...the C-17 is adequate but geared more toward moving gear. The C-141 has longer legs, is a better people mover and with modern engines would be even more effective.
I'm sure their are many more. You'll notice that airplanes from our allies aren't included. If you have good candidates, then send them my way.
The C-141's were suppose to be in service a lot longer but didn't the run up to Desert Storm max out the wings on them?
ReplyDeleteSame thing with the F-14's. Most were the A and B models and maxed out on airtime? I think someone mentioned by the end for every hour in the air five were spent on the ground fixing things.
from this grunts view, the problem with the C-141's wings was minor.
ReplyDeleterewinging an airplane would be simple. but i don't think it was an issue with the wings falling off. that would indicate a structural problem and they were solid as rocks...
A and B model F-14's suffered from engine problems. that was the issue. a lack of foresight kept them from getting the engines they deserved.
The importance of C-141s as TROOP lifters can not be understated. Simply said now, AMC has outsourced troop lift to contracted air carriers and the US has no troop lift assets that can go into hot spots.
ReplyDeleteThe other part of that is how many times have you seen the big damn C-5 actually lift tanks and other big gear into an opertional landing. I can only think of one in northern Iraq? Maybe more.
Try this idea on for size: The USN needs tactial trooplift a/c to get the Marines further towards an objective when no land airbases are available. The concept has been worked on for CONUS to seabase missions. But the numies in TRANSCOM got a hold of it and wanted the Navy birds to lift 20 ft containers too - dahh. So long as more of our troops are going to be brought back to CONUS, more trooplifters are needed to get them forward quickly.
yep. i totally agree. talk about another agency that needs to be done away with and lift moved back to the services? TRANSCOM!
ReplyDeletethe AF and Navy both had more robust lift programs before TRANSCOM came into being.
leesea,
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all sure about it, but IF it stays true to current specs, shouldn't the Brazilian KC-390 be able to carry 20' ?
Ferran. Take care.
i think Leesea was talking about Navy aircraft carrying those for ship board delivery.
ReplyDeleteHow does the KC-X programme stack up in personnel lift terms?
ReplyDeleteI know its a big part of the A330 based tankers we are getting so as long as they are fitted with DAS you can at least move them into an airhead
i'm not a fan of the A330.
ReplyDeletei don't know how well it'll go over to buy a foreign airplane in these economic circumstances....
hate to sound jingoistic but its a buy US type attitude with my fellow countrymen
Re: The Tomcat.
ReplyDeleteSould have stayed with it and gone with the Super Tomcat 21
http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_13.html
keeping in mind it could have had F110s of up to 36,500lbs thrust with 3D TVC (tested back in the 90s believe it or not) and, by now, an AESA with a larger array than an Eagle. Add to that say, the Westinghouse/GD AAAM
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html
and that J-20 suddenly wouldn't seem so scary.
-sferrin
Let me try to explain what I guess I failed at. The USAF in form of AMC and TRANSCOM focus all there efforts on showing the need for big airfiters meant to haul tactical equipment from big damn airport to improve airfields and may sometimes airdrop a few things somewhere.
ReplyDeleteWhat they don't talk about is the cost to build and operate those big damn airports and how hard it is to get refueling stops enroute to places where there may NOT be improved airfields.
The part of the problem I was trying to point to is: There is no economical means to lift troops from CONUS forward specifically to a seabase. Two part of that are that AMC has NO a/c optimized for troop airlift, and what happens when there is not improved airfield and in fact the POD destination is to ships (of whatever type) offshore when the ocean is an big unimproved airfield?
The USN today only has a few sqadrons doing tactical airlift of "service-unique" cargo. There is NO startegic airlift assets in the USN inventory since the big seaplanes went away. To my way of thinking flyint a seaplane full of Marines out to amphibs or seabase offshore makes a lot of sense.
Also I think that the USAF is not being joint when it interferes with buying tactical airlift assets such as the C-27J program it took away from the Army the primary user of those planes.
Support other services OR get out of the way!
Maybe this should go in another thread?