Discussion: F-14, F-15 Hybrid Idea

[KJ_Lesnick]

considering MacNamara from my perspective requires a basic understanding of one of my own pet theories and it would be hard to try to convince anyone without that idea , which in any case  might not hold water under scrunity .

If you're willing to discuss it, what's your pet-theories?

if you don't slow down to fight thrust makes quite a bit of a fighter .P-47 did quite a lot .

I know almost nothing about propellers -- the P-47's had a lot of thrust?

F-4 was to be a missile plane and wing loading didn't matter that much until it got into a real fair fight

How bad was the F-4's wing-loading (I assume by looking at the basic wing-contours and shape, overall size and stuff, and weights it would be moderate when lightly loaded; moderate, moderate-heavy when moderately loaded, and heavy when fully-loaded)?

f-14 was right on the heels of the the Naval 111 , a point ı can't prove conclusively but USN bitching about the GD product was quite based on this fact . They knew they would be wasting money on an inferior machine.

If GD had submitted some fixed-wing proposals as did Grumman, and Grumman then collaborated with GD (either using them as a sub-contractor or as a partner), would GD being in the mix affect the USN's willingness to sign on Grumman for the plane contract even if it was the only one that met all the requirements?


Kendra Lesnick

BTW
1.) Would the collaboration between Grumman and GD (either as a sub-contractor, or as a partner) have "lit a fire" under McDonnell Douglas's buttocks, in causing them to develop a better competitor?
2.) If GD was just on as a sub-contractor, could Grumman be able to milk that company's (GD) political connections for lobbying purposes?

 

[Taiidantomcat]

I'm not sure I like MacNamara much in general.  He doesn't seem entirely like the brightest bulb in the box, from a strategic perspective... cutting costs is good, but there's going too far...  But then, I'm a bit more of a mad scientist, I would have embraced more interesting, forward thinking projects.

The M-16 only started getting good after it'd seen a few revisions to fix its glaring problems.  It still is far too unreliable for a service rifle, in my opinion.  But then, I'm an AK man.  I like a weapon designed to survive seven shades of hell and keep working.  What can I say.  That, or a FAL.

Buy that man a beer,  You take the M-16 to the range and the AK to the war. The bottom line is that he got people killed, he was brought in to manage the military and cut costs and those cuts killed people. he is the Sec Def those are his calls, and they fall on him. If a fly lands on your groin and i try to kick it, and hit you in regions that need not be kicked, my intentions mean little for what has resulted. If he had the power to try and shove the F-111B down the navy's throat for years, he had the power to fix the M-16 which as i stated is one of the many problems i have with him, but is one of the best demonstrations of how folks paid for his cost "saving." he knew the navy hated the F-111B for YEARS and he never backed off it, it was his baby, and if he hadn't been stopped i doubt he would have quietly stepped aside on a project he had been pushing for years if someone hadn't killed their career in an effort to stop it finally.

now back to Tomcat Alley (sorry for sideshow Kendra) Grumman came very close to having production given to McD-D because it was thought after the F-111 fiasco that Grumman didn't have the ability to build a warplane in mass. Grumman had to show that although the F-111B was a disaster they were capable of mass production. They walked a very fine line but proved their case. 

[elmayerle]

Regarding McNamara, I'm reminded of a bit from David Halberstam's The Reckoning which covers the #2 car-makers in the US and Japan (Ford and Nissan) from the end of WW II through roughly 1990.  It's a fascinating read that I highly recommend.  Anyway, when JFK tapped McNamara for SecDef, someone high up in Ford Motor Co. said, "A gredat day for Ford, one helluva day for the country, but a great day for Ford."  He was not particularly liked there, even if he was onc of the 'wiz kids" brought in along with Henry II to save the company in the aftermath of WW II after the old man had darn near set it up for ruin.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Taiidantomcat

You take the M-16 to the range and the AK to the war.

That's a very good assessment of the two weapons. 

now back to Tomcat Alley (sorry for sideshow Kendra) Grumman came very close to having production given to McD-D because it was thought after the F-111 fiasco that Grumman didn't have the ability to build a warplane in mass. Grumman had to show that although the F-111B was a disaster they were capable of mass production. They walked a very fine line but proved their case.

If Grumman had won the VSX-program (What ultimately became the S-3 Viking) and not arrogantly said "okay, give us the money and we'll design you're plane for you", do you think this would have been as serious an issue (doubts as the the ability to build a warplane in mass numbers)?


Kendra

[Taiidantomcat]

not sure, i do know that Grumman was having a hard time fulfilling numbers on the A-6 for Vietnam, and they had to get some smarter folks in the company to "un-screw" the process and build them smarter and thus faster.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Taiidantomcat,

not sure, i do know that Grumman was having a hard time fulfilling numbers on the A-6 for Vietnam, and they had to get some smarter folks in the company to "un-screw" the process and build them smarter and thus faster.

What was causing the lengthly delays?  What were they doing wrong?


K.J. Lesnick

[elmayerle]

I suspect it may have been a matter of getting the electronics right as the A-6 had a very (especially for that time) sophisticated electronics fit and electronics of that era were generally more tempramental than equivalent hardware today.

[Taiidantomcat]

Yep two radars, plus Electronic Warfare versions. It was just typically stupid stuff... they would have to stop production because of a lack of parts, or they would have tons of parts that couldn't be fitted until the aircraft was in a different stage of construction, The various offices weren't talking to one another, so problems wouldn't get solved...etc. etc.

[KJ_Lesnick]

How did Grumman prove to the DoD and USN that it had what it took to produce combat aircraft in large numbers?

Not to go on and on (but nobody here specifically clarified it):  But, do you think that Grumman would have been more hampered (even if they won the VSX program) if they collaborated with the General-Dynamics?. 


KJ Lesnick

[elmayerle]

I think Grumman proved it by getting the A-6 production line straightened out while also producing Mohawks.  I don't know that a collaboration with GD would've helped Grumman with the US Navy as, by that time, GD was seen as an "air force house", much as, say, Northrop or NAA-Los Angeles (as opposed to NAA-Columbus) was.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I think Grumman proved it by getting the A-6 production line straightened out while also producing Mohawks.  I don't know that a collaboration with GD would've helped Grumman with the US Navy as, by that time, GD was seen as an "air force house", much as, say, Northrop or NAA-Los Angeles (as opposed to NAA-Columbus) was.

So it would have probably not have had any benefit and might have had adverse effects?


KJ Lesnick

[elmayerle]

I think Grumman proved it by getting the A-6 production line straightened out while also producing Mohawks.  I don't know that a collaboration with GD would've helped Grumman with the US Navy as, by that time, GD was seen as an "air force house", much as, say, Northrop or NAA-Los Angeles (as opposed to NAA-Columbus) was.

So it would have probably not have had any benefit and might have had adverse effects?

Indeed. 

[Taiidantomcat]

Agreed. Grumman Barely escaped the F-111B disaster, GD was never forgiven. There are of course lots of factors at work but GD/Vought tried to put a nasalized F-16 against the F-18 and beyond the fact that Two engines is better than one, GD lost that contract before it was even started. IMHO.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Was NAA-Columbus working with Rockwell on their VFX design? 

Also, was Convair held accountable for GD's disaster with the F-111B (Convair was a GD division) -- I'm just curious because during the TFX program both companies ran different proposals... 


KJ Lesnick
BTW:  Did NAA or Convair have good ability to lobby Congress over Grumman (which only existed in NY)

[elmayerle]

I'm not sure how the breakdown between GD and Convair on work went as some aircraft produced at the Fort Worth facility are clearly labelled Convair while others are GD; I think Convair ended up being more the San Diego side of things.  I don't know about political lobbying, but I do have the feeling that NAA-Los Angeles and NAA-Columbus operated rather independently a lot of the time, going on appearances.  Grumman proper may have been in NY, but I'll wager they had a supplier network all over the country.