Pentagon Screw-ups: The good and the bad of US Planes!

Before I get ambushed by some of my Fellow Americans, read everything! America is my home, and I'm VERY patriotic. However, I still see enough ignorance and stupidity here to make me want to scream sometimes. I will post my feelings on several US planes and programs. I want everyone to know why I think the Pentagon (Defense Department) has become incompetent.

Assesment of Aircraft and Programs:

Senior Ice/B-2 Spirit: The B-2 as an aircraft and a weapon system is one of the BEST strategic platfoms we have. It is an invalubal asset to the USA's defense ability. I think we need and should have more of these planes. They are a force multiplier and they save the lives of countless brave American pilots because of their advanced technology and high quality!

However, the politicians have turned the program that created this marval of modern science into a near failure! The people at the top didn't want to invest in the program with the money it needed and deserved. As a result, what could have been a wing stringth fleet of revolutionary aircraft, is now a tiny force of only 21, and their political "FOOT DRAGGING" has shot the price through the roof. This is a CLASSIC Example of politicians taking something great and ruining it!

Senior Trend/F-117 Nighthawk: The F-117 is Overrated! It's that simple. The aircraft is very high maintnence, but has very little utility. It mission could easily be passed to the B-2, with no loss in force strenght. The main problem is the Air Force was unwilling to be patient and wait for the technology to mature and develope. A single seat stealth attack aircraft is very useful, don't get me wrong, but it should not have been built quickly from spare parts. Lockheed built the F-117 Cheap, and it SHOWS!!

F-15 Eagle: The F-15 is one of the world's best fighters. Some good upgrades would be nice though. They are in too much of a hurry to put this plane out to pasture.

F-14 Tomcat: The F-14 is a world-class fighter and interceptor. In a post 9/11 world, we need air defense more then ever. Instead of upgrading them, they want to replace them.

F-16 Falcon: The F-16 is another cheep plane. Sorry, but noone is going to convince me that single-engine fighters are safe in combat. Just because it works, doesn't make it good.

F/A-18 Hornet\Super Hornet: This IS the plane the F-16 SHOULD have been. They are agile and reliable. The Hornet is both a figher and an Attack/Strike aircaft in one. It was built to strike at the enemy with a powerful sting, just as is name implies.

SR-71 Blackbird: This was the best spyplane ever built. It could still kick ass and take names over today's battle feild. It's a real shame the Air Force retired them. Another act of incopetence at the Pentagon. If the Planes they had were getting too old, why didn't they just build a newer model like they do with everything else. An SR-71D wouldn't have been a big deal! Would it? (for refrence, the U-2 is already on S)

F-35\JSF: The F-35 is yet another cheep plane. Sorry, but noone is going to convince me that single-engine fighters are safe in combat. Just because it works, doesn't make it good. Adding stealth to something crappy, does NOT make it good!

CX/Stealth Transport: And the point of this expensive project is? The C-130 works just fine. We do NOT need this!

F-111 Aardvark: Like the Blackbird, the F-111 played a key role in US airpower. The F-111 accounted for most of the PGM's (Smart Bombs) dropped in Desert Storm in 1991. Why the Hell was it retired?

CV-22 Osprey: Tilt rotars are a good idea, but this was rushed too much. The safety record of these planes can be summed up in a single word: APPALLING! Let's drop it and try again!

Thanks for putting up with my venting! This is mostly oppinion, Take it as such! Now Amercia, for all of it's flaws and screw up's, is a nice country. It's time for the Pentagon to have a major Overhall (And NO, I an not talking about the Building!)

Originally posted by ghost

F-15 Eagle: The F-15 is one of the world's best fighters. Some good upgrades would be nice though. They are in too much of a hurry to put this plane out to pasture.

THe air force appears to have concerns about the F-15 airframes and their viability

Old Fighters Are Problematic

Among the fighters facing aging aircraft problems, the Air Force’s fleet of F-15 Eagles “is in probably the most serious trouble,” said Gen. Gregory S. Martin, chief of Air Force Materiel Command. The A through D model Eagles are beginning their third round of engine overhauls—something they were never designed for—and the exterior surfaces are becoming weak, he said.

“The constant water intrusion, freezing, ... contraction, and expansion have caused delaminations,” Martin told the Defense Writers Group April 13. “Those aircraft now are under airspeed restrictions, as a fleet, because they are 23 years old.”

Air Force Magazine

The airticle goes on to say how well the A-10 airframes are holding, but considering the F-15 goes to Mach 2+ which involves greater stresses and that the A-10 was built to take excessive punishment this is not so surprising.

Great post

The F-117 Nighthawk is definately overrated. Its role is a fighter (note its name the F-117), yet it is very, very unmanerverable and can't even go super sonic.

But, If you look at the F-15's dog fight record NOT A-ONE has been shot down, and it never let one get away. I think this is the best aircraft in the USAF fleet.

I also think the SR-71 should have been kept, but, like the Concorde, its was just too high maintanence. The outer shell had to be replaced often, because the plane would stretch and contract every time it would fly then land.
(edit: left out description of SR-71)


[edit on 6/7/2005 by TheRanchMan]

F-111 Aardvark: Like the Blackbird, the F-111 played a key role in US airpower. The F-111 accounted for most of the PGM's (Smart Bombs) dropped in Desert Storm in 1991. Why the Hell was it retired?

I totally agree - what does the AF have to fill the gap? the strike eagle? give me a break - you cannot take a fighter and bolt on some parts and make a good bomber.

I hope the RAAF upgrades all there `varks to F1-11G (and further - super aardvark anyone?)

Senior Ice/B-2 Spirit: agree, we need more, like at least 100, it's the best bomber out there.

Senior Trend/F-117 Nighthawk: The nighthawk is pretty cool, but i think they need to upgrade it, it doesn't work too well compare to the B-2. but it is cool to see it fly side by side with the B-2

F-15 Eagle: agree, the F-15 looks cool too

F-14 Tomcat: I love the tomcat, it seems to work so well.

F-16 Falcon: agree, they shouldn't even build this craft, i don't like it that much

F/A-18 Hornet\Super Hornet: i don't think they are building the super hornet are they? F/A-18 are ok

SR-71 Blackbird: agree, i like this spyplane, wonder why they retire it?

F-35\JSF: whats good about this is that it can take off without a runway or a very short one. it goes up stright.

CX/Stealth Transport: i think we really need a new corgo plane, a bigger one than the C-130, one that be able to transport M1A2's

F-111 Aardvark: i guess they run out of money, so they retire it hehe

CV-22 Osprey: disagree, i love this craft, they need to finish testing it soon! this will make a great troop transport, we need a new troop transport.

Stuff you are missing:
F/A-22: too bad they are only buying very little of it, it's a good aircraft and the money are really worth it if they buy it in numbers.

they should start making the bomber version of the F/A-22, i like it

overall we need a new transport aircraft, one that transport heavy tanks. should make one that is 2 times bigger that the C-130 and can carry 3 times the weight than the C-130 hehehe

F-15 Eagle: The F-15 is one of the world's best fighters. Some good upgrades would be nice though. They are in too much of a hurry to put this plane out to pasture.

Maybe you haven't heard, but India showed that F-15s are passed their prime.

F-14 Tomcat: The F-14 is a world-class fighter and interceptor. In a post 9/11 world, we need air defense more then ever. Instead of upgrading them, they want to replace them.

Actually they don't have any plans to replace them, just retire them.

F-16 Falcon: The F-16 is another cheep plane. Sorry, but noone is going to convince me that single-engine fighters are safe in combat. Just because it works, doesn't make it good.

F-16 is one of the best selling fighters of all time, unsafe fighters don't sell well.

F/A-18 Hornet\Super Hornet: This IS the plane the F-16 SHOULD have been. They are agile and reliable. The Hornet is both a figher and an Attack/Strike aircaft in one. It was built to strike at the enemy with a powerful sting, just as is name implies.

Just like the F-16.

1 Blackbird: This was the best spyplane ever built. It could still kick ass and take names over today's battle feild. It's a real shame the Air Force retired them. Another act of incopetence at the Pentagon. If the Planes they had were getting too old, why didn't they just build a newer model like they do with everything else. An SR-71D wouldn't have been a big deal! Would it? (for refrence, the U-2 is already on S)

Most of them crashed upon landing, and it had to use expensive volatile fuel. Did you ever stop to think that maybe there is something better than the Blackbird currently in service?

F-35\JSF: The F-35 is yet another cheep plane. Sorry, but noone is going to convince me that single-engine fighters are safe in combat. Just because it works, doesn't make it good. Adding stealth to something crappy, does NOT make it good!

Your ignorance is amusing.

CX/Stealth Transport: And the point of this expensive project is?

The C-130 works just fine. We do NOT need this!

Earth to Mr. Ignorance, they only plan to build a small number of these for use by special forces. Which are in high demand in this post 9/11 world.

F-111 Aardvark: Like the Blackbird, the F-111 played a key role in US airpower. The F-111 accounted for most of the PGM's (Smart Bombs) dropped in Desert Storm in 1991. Why the Hell was it retired?

Don't know, good question.

CV-22 Osprey: Tilt rotars are a good idea, but this was rushed too much. The safety record of these planes can be summed up in a single word: APPALLING! Let's drop it and try again!

A few crashes overplayed by it critics, and you want to drop it?

It's time for the Pentagon to have a major Overhall (And NO, I an not talking about the Building!)

Maybe just a minor overhaul.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by NWguy83]

[edit on 7-6-2005 by NWguy83]

Some of the "dumbest" statements ever. Yes, some test V-22s did crash but that happens with new technology. When the F-14 was being developed one of the test aircraft crashed too. The statement about the F-16 is also false. Single engined aircraft have proven themselves in combat and the USAF uses the F-16 more than any other fighter is has. And when you take into account that it was designed to be a cheap fighter with only a simple radar and carrying only a 20mm gun and two AIM-9s then it is even more amazing. The F-35 will be one of the best fighters in the world when it comes out. Its technology is a generation ahead of anything else today and it will perform wonderfully.

I agree, we need allot more B-2's

The F-117 was never meant to fufill many roles, it was only a limited production craft designed to tttake out command and control systems. since it was black it waas an ace in the sleeve, which showed agaisnt Saddam in both Gulf Wars. The reason it used old technologies was because it was secret and also limited run. upgraded systems form other prgrams should increase te effeciveness of the aircraft for a long time. Also it was nevernever meant to be a fighter, it was strictly a high value target attack plane, a la plane sniper

F-15 getting old in the tooth, have you seen the F-22? Man if you did the F-15 would seem like a Phantom

F-14, I love this bird, but post 9/11 air-air is less important. mullti-role planes like the hornet are cheaper, more versatile, have modern elcetronics, and are more suited for post 9/11

Ill finish this later

Maybe you haven't heard, but India showed that F-15s are passed their prime.

OMFG every time I see a misinformed member posting something like this it makes me want to scream. Learn the fats about that encounter!!!

I do agree we need more B-2’s and we need to replace the F-117 it can’t fight in A2A and its stealth is getting old. We also need more Raptors, and we should have just built more SuperTomcats F-14D’s instead or retiring them.

The F-117 was never really designed to fight in air to air combat. It should be changed to A-117 or F/B-117 or something like that. It is much like the F-111. Not a very good fighter but good bomber.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Maybe you haven't heard, but India showed that F-15s are passed their prime.

OMFG every time I see a misinformed member posting something like this it makes me want to scream. Learn the fats about that encounter!!!

I do agree we need more B-2’s and we need to replace the F-117 it can’t fight in A2A and its stealth is getting old. We also need more Raptors, and we should have just built more SuperTomcats F-14D’s instead or retiring them.

you have to remember the Indians were handicapped in this excercise as well

Originally posted by ulshadow

CV-22 Osprey: disagree, i love this craft, they need to finish testing it soon! this will make a great troop transport, we need a new troop transport.

The point I was trying for with the CV-22 is that the idea is good, but the program was rushed. I like the tilt-rotar design. However, I think they rushed it off of the X-plane before the technology was ready. If we keep this in the experimental phase for a few more years and then try again with putting it into production, it could turn out to be one of the best transports ever. The key is: Slow Down and Don't Rush It!

Greetings,

I read a book on American Stealth a few years ago, I am trying to find the title as you read this, basically the F-117 was given the F title two simple reasons the first one of purpose the second entirily by mistake.

The then USAF commander was worried that this new aircraft would not get the best aircrews who would be willing to switch over to a slow mud mover. They decided that they could give the new aircraft [the F-117] a F title rather than the normal A to try and draw in the best pilots, which usally end up in Fighter Squadrons, the second effect of this, was then when the soviets found out that USAF had a Stealth aircraft with A2A [Based on the F title] capability they took note and started to worry.

As for the F-117, its really sad to be honest, they should be scrapped or sent off to an ally nation, at the minute with the latest UCAV's coming on line, they can carry the same load, over longer ranges cheaper and more stealthy.

The USAF should have waited.

- Phil

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by ulshadow

CV-22 Osprey: disagree, i love this craft, they need to finish testing it soon! this will make a great troop transport, we need a new troop transport.

The point I was trying for with the CV-22 is that the idea is good, but the program was rushed. I like the tilt-rotar design. However, I think they rushed it off of the X-plane before the technology was ready. If we keep this in the experimental phase for a few more years and then try again with putting it into production, it could turn out to be one of the best transports ever. The key is: Slow Down and Don't Rush It!

I agree and disagreed with you. As i posted yesterday on an update of the V-22 project the testing they are claiming things are going much better otr things seem to be worked out. Also some of the testing accidents have been the pilots pushing the plane further than they know they should of been from what ive heard. I do agree with you that at the start the programe was moving way to fast. I do think though that in say the next 2 years the last flaws should be removed and amazing troop transport would be in use.

By the way Canada wins for biggest aviation screw up. ever heard of the Arrow haha. Sometimes it just makes me want to cry it hurts so much.

Screw UPS:

USA the F-20 and the A-12,
The UK the TSR.2 and the Navy version of the Typhoon

RAB, crying still

The arrow was such a excellent plane. Really a big screw up.
Im not too fond of the F16's but they have proved themselves.
The basic F18 is well the worst plane in the us inventory. It has manuerabillity a modern cockpit but for the rest i rather have a F14.
The Superhornet is a much better plane than the basic F18 too bad its replacing the F14 instead of the basic F18.

F14 i simply love this plane. My nick comes from this beauty. Altrough it was designed as a interceptor it outperformed the F18 in bombing in allot of occaisions. When it fought against that super manuverable it lost 8-1 which is much better than the F18's 16-0. I thinkt that if there were more bombcats it would help the US navy allot. It would be a excellent quik bomber as it was designed to carry big bulky missles with decent speed and manuverability.

The F15 is a nice plane but its getting old unlike the F14 it doesnt have any somewhat unique abillities. Its just a fighter with a decent bombing capability.

B2 Nice plane but very expensive it would be handy if there were more but its still very expensive.

F117 is starting to get obselete. Dectecting systems evolve fast and well this older plane doesnt have anything else than its stealth. It didnt get any real major updates as otherwise there would be a F117B.

Blackbird well it is costly but i think it was replaced by a better plane. Being faster more stealthy and clearly top secret.

Dont know much about the f35 but apparantly it isnt a manuverable plane. I heared and read that it is just as stealthy as the F117 and that isnt much anymore.

F111 was a nice plane but i dont know allot about this plane. It seemed to be a nice attack plane but im really ignorant about this plane.

Stealth transport barely heared a single thing about that

Osprey seems to be a plane with a huge potential. Its development is taking ages tho but perhaps this plane will revolutionise warfare.

As an employee of the largest aircraft company in the world, and having been involved in aerospace (primarily military aircraft) procurement for over thirty years, I never cease to be amazed at what I read on this site.

One comment I would like to make, though: Several posters have called for a new transport to replace the Lockmart C-130, while others say the C-130 is just fine.

Yet I don't think I saw anything about the Boeing C-17 here, which has about the same short field capabilities as the C-130, and greater range and cargo capacity. For example, the C-130 can transport three Apache Longbows at once; the C-17 can transport six (with the new blade-fold kit or with blades off, and the FCR and Dero kit removed). the C-17 can also transport an M1A2 MBT, which the C-130 cannot.

Don't get me wrong; even though it was built by the Black hats, the C-130 is a great plane -- even better now that Boeing has won the contract to update it. But while it's a great airplane for what it does, it does not fulfill the Army's force projection requirements, and the C-17 does -- at least for now.

Ah yes, the C-17 and its voluptuous curves can a freighter be sexy?). It truly is a superb aircraft so I will take this opportunity to post a gratuitous picture of one



[edit on 8-6-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
As an employee of the largest aircraft company in the world, and having been involved in aerospace (primarily military aircraft) procurement for over thirty years, I never cease to be amazed at what I read on this site.

One comment I would like to make, though: Several posters have called for a new transport to replace the Lockmart C-130, while others say the C-130 is just fine.

Yet I don't think I saw anything about the Boeing C-17 here, which has about the same short field capabilities as the C-130, and greater range and cargo capacity. For example, the C-130 can transport three Apache Longbows at once; the C-17 can transport six (with the new blade-fold kit or with blades off, and the FCR and Dero kit removed). the C-17 can also transport an M1A2 MBT, which the C-130 cannot.

Don't get me wrong; even though it was built by the Black hats, the C-130 is a great plane -- even better now that Boeing has won the contract to update it. But while it's a great airplane for what it does, it does not fulfill the Army's force projection requirements, and the C-17 does -- at least for now.

Can you tell me why does C-17 cost that much? It costs even more than C-5 Galaxy (which can carry almost twice the load). I personally think the price for C-17 is too high, or?