Posted on 01/30/2006 10:34:57 AM PST by Blogger
What if the one engine has an inherent problem? What if the maker of that engine decides it's okay to overspend since there is no longer competition for the engine. Not to mention partnerships with the UK and various other allys across the world. The GE portion is small potatoes to the whole piece of pie. It's penny wise and pound foolish.
There is a lot of work being done on remotely piloted aircraft. It's good news for everybody, even the pilots who dislike the development.
It doesn't. Sorry your economic ox is getting gored, but it couldn't happen to a more deserving company. Besides, they have a huge chunk of the civilian market, so it isn't like GE engines are going to go away.
When you are two weeks too late, you have to be willing to pay the price.
Is there a causal relationship between the two decisions? Probably not, but the GE CEO would be unable to prove the negative.
Nor you the positive.
You have issues.
Huh, I was talking with a RHINO pilot (friend) a while back (hell haven't seen him in about a year)....he is with Strike Fighter Squadron 102 ( Flying the F version....off the Kitty Hawk back then....if I remember correctly. This would have been early 05).
I thought he told me the F version had either newer engines then the E....or perhaps that they were all going through upgrades over the original engines (thus giving them quite a bit better performance). Which he agreed was badly needed.
UAVs are needed without a doubt (more of them that is). But the notion that they will replace the "human pilot" is a long, long way off.
We disagree on that point.
Yeh, but I've been around long enough to remember when it was the F-16 that was the POS that had been designed by the "Fighter Mafia" and would never be any good at air to mud. The -10 was a tank buster, designed to stop the Russian Hordes, and since the Russians were pretty much done for by '88 or so, why we didn't need that old underpowered dog, which in any event was way to vulnerable... yada, yada.
Sorry, let me expand on that previous post.
"We disagree on that point." They will certainly reach that point within the lifespan of the F-22 and FA-35. I'm all for building those two models and using them as long as they are effective. But I do believe the next generation will be unmanned. So we may not disagree as much as my initial reaction indicates, depending upon what you mean by a 'long, long time.'
Look, Republicans only look like supporters of the military when compared to Dems. But lower taxes and spending are much higher priorities for them. In reality they've rarely hesitated to make cuts. In fact of the Republican Presidents since WW-II, only Reagan did not make cut in the military. Even Ike did.
The problem with the Republicans is that they see all government spending as bad, while the Dems see most of it as good, except the military. Although even that hasn't always been true. Think Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn for example.
Nah, the human element will always be there (within the plane) at least within a sizable portion of our front line fighters / bombers. At least it better be.
A major part of the skill of the fighter / bomber pilot is making his enemies fight on his terms and being adaptive to actual RT surroundings and situations.
If the human mind can invent the ultimate military computer (advanced UAVs) then it can also invent the ultimate antidote (to counter those flying computers).
Human ingenuity will undoubtedly find novel ways of confusing future high-tech developments....and if that human factor is not there to respond in kind with equal(RT) ingenuity and imagination....if that element is far away in some bunker...he will certainly be less effective...and we will be more vulnerable.
In the end the real enemy of the manned jet fighter / bomber is the price tag. Not being out done by some remote flown state of the art military drone.
Lower taxes bring in more revenue (for spending on the military).
But as I said...the reality is we are adding more "active duty" military units. We are not cutting anything.
We will have a larger and more capable active force after all this is said and done. That is a positive.
Things are changing. It just may be that a big old BUFF up at 25,000 feet, stuffed with JDAMs and more under the wings, will be the CAS platform of choice. It's got legs for time on station, and the JDAMs don't miss.
Of course we are mothballing 40% + of them before their time as well.
BS. If the JSF isn't in the budget then why are GE and RR upset about the possible decision to kill the second engine?
I work on an active Army post, we are cutting lots. Lots of seed corn being eaten. Cheaper, but much more vulnerable, platforms being mandated. Lots of Shiite going on. And this is my second time through the cycle, maybe the third depending on how you count. (I was commissioned in '73, in the AF)
Last time it was moving combat forces out of reserve units, giving them the support missions, which take less *ongoing* training, and for which many reservists do similar work in their civilian jobs anyway. It would have made more sense to have Guard units do that, and kept combat arms in the Reserves, if only because the support units would have more of needed skills and equipment to support the state mission, mostly disaster relief. But the politics wasn't there, since the Governors, many of them Democrats, wouldn't have it. So they did something dumb instead. (They being the Clinton Administration)
There is definitely a role for CAS Ops like the one you describe above -
But there are still going to be plenty of times when you are in the sh*t and you call for CAS...you want that aircraft low, fast and right on top of those you are fighting (and too a large degree for the "visual" effect this has alone). If they don't see this bird all over them....it won't have the same effect.
Additionally you can't put guns on them from 25,000 ft - And I can't tell you how many times we've had 16, 18's, 14's and of course 10's putting *gun* on targets and saving U.S. lives because of this.
Because they have the 2nd engine. They have cut the alternate engine from the budget.
Agreed. And while it isn't a big savings, there is economic benefit to taking the pilot out of the plane. No oxygen system, no ejection seat shaves several hundred pounds. and a few thousand dollars.
But the two real benefits are in performance and in the decrease in casualties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.