Re: Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? [Archive]

Harry Andreas

February 22nd 04, 09:30 PM

In article >, R. David Steele
> wrote:

> |> Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> |> for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
> |> not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
> |> re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
> |> version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
> |> Why not upgrade it then?
> |
> |There are stresses from carrier ops that just aren't allowed for
> |in the design of Air Force fighters, mainly having to do with the
> |landing and arrestment. Unless the plane is designed with these
> |forces from the start, you basically have to redesign the plane's
> |frame (which means moving dang near *everything*) to get it
> |ready.
>
> The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> modified to be a carrier aircraft.

The F-35 is nothing at all like the F-22. It is a new design carrier
capable a/c, unlike the F-22.
Also, the avionics suite on the F-35 is at least 1 and sometimes
2 generations newer than the F-22.

I participated on the NATF proposal back when. There was a
remarkable amount of re-design necessary to make a land-
based a/c capable for carrier use. This included; adding a keel to
the airframe to take the arrestor loads, adding folding wings for
deck storage, changing the way the engines are removed, changing
the wing to allow lower approach speeds, changing the entire
landing gear system, upgrading the corrosion plan, etc.
Resulting in an entire new airframe. Not cheap and little in
common with the USAF version, so what's the point.
Which is exactly what DoD said, and why it went no-where.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Keith Willshaw

February 22nd 04, 09:32 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
> Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)?

Lots of luck making a carrier landing in an F-22

> I know that the current F-22 was
> not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
> re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
> version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
> Why not upgrade it then?
>

3 x 2000 lbs perhaps certainly not 30

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

February 22nd 04, 09:34 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22.

Its a totally different aircraft.

> It has been
> modified to be a carrier aircraft.

No one version was DESIGNED that way

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

February 22nd 04, 09:35 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>

> |
> |> Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
> |> the decade.
> |

Are you planning to fight them all yourself or do
you have a couple of buddies lined up to help ?

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Tarver Engineering

February 22nd 04, 09:50 PM

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > |The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
> > > |There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned, like
> > > |now is too late...watch and see.
> > > |
> > > |The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
> > > |replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
> > > |Aviation very well.
> > > |
> > > |There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
> > > |fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
> > > |Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or
future
> > > |enemy threat that can match it.
> > >
> > > Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the
> > > current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is
> > > online, even those versions will be dated.
> >
> > Less dated than the F-22.
> >
> > You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96 Ada
and
> > the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a
> > generation ahead of the F-22.
>
> What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95?

The F-22 is older than that.

The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based solely on
it being post '96 Ada and having a late infusion of the RPL model. The
system itself has moved on since the parting and coding of the F-22.

Henry J. Cobb

February 22nd 04, 10:08 PM

Andrew C. Toppan > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
> > wrote:
>
> >The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> >modified to be a carrier aircraft.
>
> Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.
>
> The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was DESIGNED
> AS a carrier aircraft.

And as Andrew well knows, only two of the three F-35 variants have
been designed to operate off of ships.

The F-35A is no more sutiable for shipboard service than the F/A-22
is.

-HJC

Ian

February 22nd 04, 10:26 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > |The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
> > > > |There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned,
like
> > > > |now is too late...watch and see.
> > > > |
> > > > |The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
> > > > |replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
> > > > |Aviation very well.
> > > > |
> > > > |There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
> > > > |fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
> > > > |Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or
> future
> > > > |enemy threat that can match it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the
> > > > current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is
> > > > online, even those versions will be dated.
> > >
> > > Less dated than the F-22.
> > >
> > > You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96 Ada
> and
> > > the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a
> > > generation ahead of the F-22.
> >
> > What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95?
>
> The F-22 is older than that.
>
Thats interesting cos I'm sure I've read somewhere that Eurofighter is
written in Ada-95 and flight standard C?

Tarver Engineering

February 22nd 04, 11:14 PM

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ian" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > |The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
> > > > > |There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned,
> like
> > > > > |now is too late...watch and see.
> > > > > |
> > > > > |The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
> > > > > |replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
> > > > > |Aviation very well.
> > > > > |
> > > > > |There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
> > > > > |fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
> > > > > |Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or
> > future
> > > > > |enemy threat that can match it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the
> > > > > current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is
> > > > > online, even those versions will be dated.
> > > >
> > > > Less dated than the F-22.
> > > >
> > > > You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96
Ada
> > and
> > > > the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a
> > > > generation ahead of the F-22.
> > >
> > > What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95?
> >
> > The F-22 is older than that.
> >
> Thats interesting cos I'm sure I've read somewhere that Eurofighter is
> written in Ada-95 and flight standard C?

After a series of discussions WRT Ada here at ram with Ada experts i was
willing to accept the idea that Ada was fixed by 1996. Perhaps I am using
an incorrect identifier and it is Ada-95

Keith Willshaw

February 22nd 04, 11:20 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> For some reason I had thought that the C-17 was built by
> Lockheed, not McDonald Douglas (now Boeing).

That would McDonnell Douglas

> Since Boeing is now
> the contractor,

Make that owner.

> what do they have in their line up that would be
> similar? Basically that would be the short field operation plus
> being able load and unload like the C-17 does.
>

Civilian use doesnt typically require such a facility.

> I am not a fan of idea of taking an airliner design and making it
> a cargo plane.
>

Most civilian cargo planes are just that.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Chad Irby

February 22nd 04, 11:26 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based solely on
> it being post '96 Ada

Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is
based on the F-22 software...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Keith Willshaw

February 22nd 04, 11:30 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> |> Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
> |> |> the decade.
> |> |
> |
> |Are you planning to fight them all yourself or do
> |you have a couple of buddies lined up to help ?
> |
> |Keith
>
> Ok, ok!!!
>
> Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
> the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
> to plan for this potential war. China has let it be known, there
> are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
>

Hey if they choose to take on India and Russia they'll
have enough on their plate that they wont take on the
USA as well

> Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
> 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal.

No they dont , Hutchison Whampoa who own the Panama Canal
Co are a Hong Kong based limited company run the canal.

> Have bases all
> throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
> San Diego.

Last time I checked the port of San Diego was a Public Benefit
Corporation

Keith

> And they have extensive operations all throughout
> North Africa.
>
> It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
> 2012.

Yeah I'll be watching as you and your buds invade China

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

February 22nd 04, 11:33 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> |> for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)?
> |
> |Lots of luck making a carrier landing in an F-22
> |
> |
> |> I know that the current F-22 was
> |> not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
> |> re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
> |> version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
> |> Why not upgrade it then?
> |>
> |
> |3 x 2000 lbs perhaps certainly not 30
> |
> In a bomber version, the fuselage would be longer and the wings
> far larger to give the bomber greater range more than 1,600
> miles, compared with the F-22's 600-plus and bomb-carrying
> capacity.

That takes a little more than stretching the airframe to achieve this.
The suggested FB-22 does not have the range or mods you
claim. Such an aircraft would be a new design and given the
progress being made with UCAV's is unlikely to happen
IMHO

> The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take
> over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and
> B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
> Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global
> Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as
> a 2,000-pound bomb.

No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for
2000lb bombs

A regular F/A-22 would carry eight Small
> Diameter Bombs. An FB-22 would carry 30.
>

Which would make a bomb load of 8000 lbs not
60,000

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Tarver Engineering

February 22nd 04, 11:48 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
solely on
> > it being post '96 Ada
>
> Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
> was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is
> based on the F-22 software...

Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now.

Tarver Engineering

February 22nd 04, 11:48 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
solely on
> |> it being post '96 Ada
> |
> |Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
> |was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is
> |based on the F-22 software...
>
> I thought that we had moved beyond ADA?

How?

Jake Donovan

February 22nd 04, 11:53 PM

Pete,

You are even closer than you think. 1- Whomever said the F35 is almost the
same as a F22, I have this reply, gee, that Honda 250 Dirt Bike looks just
like my sons Mongoose BMX bike.

2- The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as the F35
comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the operating parameters
of the 22 vs the 35.

Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in. Stepping out of
the Sims and into the aircraft, you found you could push the 35 well past
what the Sims prepared you for. That was a first in my career.

Although the Raptor is a very capable aircraft, If I had the choice and had
a 35 on the line, I wouldn't leave home with out it. It looks like they got
it right the first time out and the F35 will be with us for some time to
come.

Jake

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> steele-<< Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
> not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
> re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
> version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
> Why not upgrade it then? >> 
>
> F35 better, cheaper, sooner and designed for shipboard use. Why not scrape
the
> F-22, and replace it with F35? These things are 'expensive', to say the
least.
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Thomas Schoene

February 23rd 04, 12:05 AM

Jake Donovan wrote:

> 2- The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as
> the F35 comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the
> operating parameters of the 22 vs the 35.

I'd like to see the basis for that. But in any case, rememeber that the
Guard and Reserves no longer fly second-rate aircraft handed down from the
active force. They fly the same aircraft types for the most part, and have
the same basic missions. I'd be very surprised indeed if the F-22 is
scheduled to be withdrawn from the active force at that time.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Thomas Schoene

February 23rd 04, 12:08 AM

R. David Steele wrote:
>> << What about the S-3 Viking folks? >> 
>>
>
> What happened to the program to make the S-3 an SIGINT platform?

And you say other people "don't keep up." The ES-3 was fielded in 1993,
then retired in 1999. The S-3B is going away over the next couple of years.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Thomas Schoene

February 23rd 04, 12:27 AM

R. David Steele wrote:

> I am not a fan of idea of taking an airliner design and making it
> a cargo plane.

For the vast majority of the air freight business, airliner designs work
very well indeed. Very few users need the short-field or oversized cargo
capacity of a BC-17X. A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
a military-derived cargo plane; Boeing only offers the BC-17X for a very
specific (small) niche market.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Jake Donovan

February 23rd 04, 01:05 AM

Tom,

I really cant go much further than what I said, but look at the B1B.

I can paraphrase Aviation Week - The procurement #s of Raptors have been
lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will be
replacing them as soon as they are available.

I do agree with you on the AF ANG and Reserves flying very new and up to
date platforms unlike the days of old.

Jake

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Jake Donovan wrote:
>
> > 2- The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as
> > the F35 comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the
> > operating parameters of the 22 vs the 35.
>
> I'd like to see the basis for that. But in any case, rememeber that the
> Guard and Reserves no longer fly second-rate aircraft handed down from the
> active force. They fly the same aircraft types for the most part, and
have
> the same basic missions. I'd be very surprised indeed if the F-22 is
> scheduled to be withdrawn from the active force at that time.
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

Thomas Schoene

February 23rd 04, 01:13 AM

R. David Steele wrote:
>>>>> Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
>>>>> the decade.
>>>>
>>
>> Are you planning to fight them all yourself or do
>> you have a couple of buddies lined up to help ?
>>
>> Keith
>
> Ok, ok!!!
>
> Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
> the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
> to plan for this potential war.

Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff plans for
all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick Chairmen of the
JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the Chairman's job is mostly to
supervise current ops; the Staff does long-term planning regardless of who
is in charge.

China has let it be known, there
> are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.

China's policy appears to be primarily focussed on ensuring that no one else
interfrres with their own territory.

> Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
> 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
> throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
> San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
> North Africa.

Oh, good grief. China has commercial intereasts worldwide, yes. But
there's no evidence that running port operations in Panama (NOT running the
Canal proper, BTW) translates into any sort of aggressive intent. INdeed,
the company that runs those ops is a Hong Kong-based multinational, not
controlled by the Chinese government as the fearmongers would have you
believe.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Andrew C. Toppan

February 23rd 04, 01:45 AM

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:31:30 GMT, R. David Steele
> wrote:

>What happened to the program to make the S-3 an SIGINT platform?

You're only a decade behind. ES-3 was deployed a decade ago, retired
5 years ago.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew C. Toppan

February 23rd 04, 01:45 AM

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

>lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will be
>replacing them as soon as they are available.

You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
published information, but providing no evidence to support said
claims.

Thus, you're not credible.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew C. Toppan

February 23rd 04, 01:45 AM

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:08:27 GMT, R. David Steele
> wrote:

>I am not a fan of idea of taking an airliner design and making it
>a cargo plane.

Virtually every civilian cargo aircraft is exactly that.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 02:22 AM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> |> The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
> |solely on
> |> |> it being post '96 Ada
> |> |
> |> |Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
> |> |was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software
is
> |> |based on the F-22 software...
> |>
> |> I thought that we had moved beyond ADA?
> |
> |How?
>
> Had we not stopped programming in ADA? C++ or something has
> replaced it? Good lord, ADA is like PL1.

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

Mike Kanze

February 23rd 04, 02:54 AM

Will these outfits be VQF / VPF? <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> << Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
> > the decade. What is the ability of the Chinese aircraft. >> 
>
> Just let loose all the VQ and VP guys flying P-3s, they can kick their
ass,
> already have,,,
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Mike Kanze

February 23rd 04, 02:57 AM

Do I hear the sounds of black helicopters in your post?

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> |> Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
> |> |> the decade.
> |> |
> |
> |Are you planning to fight them all yourself or do
> |you have a couple of buddies lined up to help ?
> |
> |Keith
>
> Ok, ok!!!
>
> Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
> the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
> to plan for this potential war. China has let it be known, there
> are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
>
> Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
> 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
> throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
> San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
> North Africa.
>
> It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
> 2012.
>
>
>

Chad Irby

February 23rd 04, 03:02 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*. Which is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of the
F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make maintaining
the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Pete

February 23rd 04, 03:07 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take
> > over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and
> > B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
> > Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global
> > Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as
> > a 2,000-pound bomb.
>
> No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for
> 2000lb bombs

Depends on what that SDB is aimed at. A 250lb rock is just as lethal for a
tank as a 2000lb bomb would be.

8 x 250lb bombs would be (assuming they all hit their targets) more lethal
for an enemy tank company than one 2000lb bomb.

Pete

Jake Donovan

February 23rd 04, 03:26 AM

Damn,

I'm not credible

That just tears me up

Jake

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> >lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
> >replacing them as soon as they are available.
>
> You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
> published information, but providing no evidence to support said
> claims.
>
> Thus, you're not credible.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
>

Ozman Trad

February 23rd 04, 03:27 AM

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
news:5Ob_b.4176

> A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
> a military-derived cargo plane

The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give the
taxpayers a break

Jake Donovan

February 23rd 04, 03:34 AM

Ya know,

I just had to comment again. There are quite a few folks who use this group
know me personally, professionally and by association.

You do not, and are one of the reasons I rarely post here.

I could give a flying **** if I am credible to you or not.

Jake

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> >lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
> >replacing them as soon as they are available.
>
> You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
> published information, but providing no evidence to support said
> claims.
>
> Thus, you're not credible.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
>

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 03:39 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.
>
> But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
> *can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering the
sofware.

> Wch is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
> just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of the
> F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make maintaining
> the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).

Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter. Are you aware of
BAE Systems?

Thomas Schoene

February 23rd 04, 04:29 AM

Ozman Trad wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> news:5Ob_b.4176
>
>> A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
>> a military-derived cargo plane
>
> The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give
> the taxpayers a break

Check the part you snipped: "Very few users need the short-field or
oversized cargo capacity..." Well, the military is one of those very few
users. A 747 won't carry a tank, nor will it land in a short unimproved
strip in the back of beyond to deliver its cargo.

However, you will find that the military does use civil-style freighters for
lots of its cargo hauling. They just happen to belong to the Civil Reserve
Air Fleet rather than actually being owned by the US military.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Kevin Brooks

February 23rd 04, 04:30 AM

"Ozman Trad" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> news:5Ob_b.4176
>
> > A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
> > a military-derived cargo plane
>
> The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give the
> taxpayers a break

They sometimes do, under charter. But are you going to task that 747-400
freighter to, say for example, try and conduct an airborne insertion? I
don't think so...

Brooks
>
>

Jake Donovan

February 23rd 04, 04:35 AM

I really, really hate to mess with your "credibility" but the F35 was NOT
designed as a carrier aircraft. The JSF concept was for an aircraft that
can be used by different players with differnt requiremnets. NOT as a
CARRIER aircraft.

The F-35C was. Argue all you want, but that leaves two other variants of
the F35 that were NOT designed to be carrier aircraft. The A, a CTOV
variant for the Airforce to replace F-16's, A-10's, and yes, in the up
coming future, the F-22.

Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or Cat
launches.

The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty much fall
in line with the above.

Respectfully
Jake

PS - Oh, wait a minute, please quote some credible documentation to back up
your above statement. I don't seem to be able to find any.

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
> > wrote:
>
> >The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> >modified to be a carrier aircraft.
>
> Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.
>
> The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was DESIGNED
> AS a carrier aircraft.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
>

Thomas Schoene

February 23rd 04, 04:36 AM

Jake Donovan wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I really cant go much further than what I said, but look at the B1B.

I guess I'm not following you here. The B-1s were split between active and
Guard units, but last I'd heard they were shutting down the ANG squadrons
and moving everything back to the AC.

>
> I can paraphrase Aviation Week - The procurement #s of Raptors have
> been lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the
> F35 will be replacing them as soon as they are available.

Can you point to an issue for this? I get AvLeak, but I think I missed this
item.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Chad Irby

February 23rd 04, 04:47 AM

In article >,
"Ozman Trad" > wrote:

> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> news:5Ob_b.4176
>
> > A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
> > a military-derived cargo plane
>
> The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give the
> taxpayers a break

Because they're a horrendous pain in the ass to load and unload when
you're not working at an improved runway or airport, and don't have the
special handling equipment to do that loading and unloading.

They're also not very good at carrying oversized cargo without heavy
modification.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

February 23rd 04, 05:03 AM

"Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
news:dqf_b.12902$iB.7776@lakeread06...
> I really, really hate to mess with your "credibility" but the F35 was NOT
> designed as a carrier aircraft. The JSF concept was for an aircraft that
> can be used by different players with differnt requiremnets. NOT as a
> CARRIER aircraft.

As much as I hate to defend Andrew, your argument does not really make much
sense. The program was indeed designed to accomodate different customers
with differing requirements, one of which is the requirement for carrier
compatability in *both* the F-35C and F-35B. The JSF program was NOT one
where the competing firms were told, "Design and build us a land based
fighter, then come back and tell us how you would make it carrier
compatable." The need for carrier compatability was included in the original
JSF program requirements, so the products were indeed designed to include
that capability. Note that Andrew was commenting on the "F-35" program (AKA
JSF), not the "F-35A".

>
> The F-35C was. Argue all you want, but that leaves two other variants of
> the F35 that were NOT designed to be carrier aircraft. The A, a CTOV
> variant for the Airforce to replace F-16's, A-10's, and yes, in the up
> coming future, the F-22.

The F-35A was designed to *replace* the F-22? Where in tarnation did you get
that rather strange idea? It is intended to replace the other aircraft you
note, but not the F-22.

>
> Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
> Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you.

What, you know some Marines who'd claim that the AV-8B was not designed with
carrier requirements in mind? Or who would claim that the AV-8B is *not*
routinely deployed shipboard, just as the F-35B will be?

The B will
> be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's.

You mean those same "land based" F-18's that sometimes are tasked to be part
of a CAW?

Sure, it can land on a carrier
> but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
Cat
> launches.

Do you think that the fact that both the RN (or would that be RAF under the
Joint Harrier Force concept, or both services?) and the USMC do indeed plan
to operate the B model from naval vessels (i.e., "carriers") might be taken
into account during its design?

>
> The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty much
fall
> in line with the above.

I doubt that, since your info as outlined above does not seem to be very
accurate.

>
> Respectfully
> Jake
>
> PS - Oh, wait a minute, please quote some credible documentation to back
up
> your above statement. I don't seem to be able to find any.

Well, why don't YOU find us some "credible documentation" that states that
the JSF program did not take carrier compatability into account from the
outset, and indeed make that a program requirement, or that the F-35B is
neither intended to be operated from shipboard by the USMC nor does its
design incorporate any of the requirements for such shipboard use?

Brooks

>
>
> "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> > >modified to be a carrier aircraft.
> >
> > Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.
> >
> > The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was DESIGNED
> > AS a carrier aircraft.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> > "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> > Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
> >
>
>

Chad Irby

February 23rd 04, 05:12 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.
> >
> > But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
> > *can*.
>
> Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering the
> sofware.

That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95 than
it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
develop.

> > Wch is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
> > just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of the
> > F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make maintaining
> > the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).
>
> Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter.

That's an odd statement. "Tabbed to?" In common usage, that means
they're connected directly, but sine they aren't you must mean something
else.

> Are you aware of BAE Systems?

Yes, they're making a lot of the ECM and other systems *hardware* for
the F-35. To be controlled by the software that LockMart is developing
for controlling the whole plane.

Different systems than are used on the Eurofighter, by the way.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 05:24 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.
> > >
> > > But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
> > > *can*.
> >
> > Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering
the
> > sofware.
>
> That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
> noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95 than
> it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
> develop.

As in the old software doesn't work.

The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to BAE
Systems.

> > > Wch is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
> > > just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of
the
> > > F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make
maintaining
> > > the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).
> >
> > Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter.
>
> That's an odd statement. "Tabbed to?" In common usage, that means
> they're connected directly, but sine they aren't you must mean something
> else.

Think real hard.

> > Are you aware of BAE Systems?
>
> Yes, they're making a lot of the ECM and other systems *hardware* for
> the F-35. To be controlled by the software that LockMart is developing
> for controlling the whole plane.

Bull****.

Boomer

February 23rd 04, 06:10 AM

The SDB will have an autopilot which will allow it to reach the target with
more kinetic energy than a standard JDAM flight profile. Combine that with a
new explosive package and they SAY it will have the same effectiveness as a
2000lb bomb. The ER (or is it EX) version will have a potential range of 60
miles.

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take
> > > over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and
> > > B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
> > > Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global
> > > Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as
> > > a 2,000-pound bomb.
> >
> > No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for
> > 2000lb bombs
>
> Depends on what that SDB is aimed at. A 250lb rock is just as lethal for a
> tank as a 2000lb bomb would be.
>
> 8 x 250lb bombs would be (assuming they all hit their targets) more lethal
> for an enemy tank company than one 2000lb bomb.
>
> Pete
>
>

John Keeney

February 23rd 04, 06:47 AM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> |> for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
> |> not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
> |> re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
> |> version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
> |> Why not upgrade it then?
> |
> |There are stresses from carrier ops that just aren't allowed for
> |in the design of Air Force fighters, mainly having to do with the
> |landing and arrestment. Unless the plane is designed with these
> |forces from the start, you basically have to redesign the plane's
> |frame (which means moving dang near *everything*) to get it
> |ready.
>
> The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> modified to be a carrier aircraft.

Not really, the F-35 has half the engines, is significantly smaller and
was designed from the get-go as a carrier plane. They share a family
resemblance but that's it.

> |> Also why not market the C-17 to the air freight community?
> |
> |The C-17 was marketed to commercial users with the government
> |offering incentives. The plane has design elements for its
> |military missions that make it less economical to operate in
> |the civilian world that civil designs.
>
> What is its civilian reference.

I don't know off hand. I don't even remember seeing it referred to
as any thing other than a C-17, not to say it didn't have another
marketing name, just that it made no impression on me.

John Keeney

February 23rd 04, 06:54 AM

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
m...
> Andrew C. Toppan > wrote in message
>...
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> > >modified to be a carrier aircraft.
> >
> > Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.
> >
> > The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was DESIGNED
> > AS a carrier aircraft.
>
> And as Andrew well knows, only two of the three F-35 variants have
> been designed to operate off of ships.
>
> The F-35A is no more sutiable for shipboard service than the F/A-22
> is.

It's a lot closer: The F-35A at least has a structure that won't pull apart
during a short arrested landing. Well, given its higher landing speed may
be not as short as the Navy's version, but one heck of a lot closer than a
F-22.

fudog50

February 23rd 04, 07:23 AM

For cryin out loud!
Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:48:02 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
>solely on
>> > it being post '96 Ada
>>
>> Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
>> was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is
>> based on the F-22 software...
>
>Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now.
>

Chad Irby

February 23rd 04, 07:42 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.
> > > >
> > > > But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
> > > > *can*.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering
> the
> > > sofware.
> >
> > That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
> > noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95 than
> > it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
> > develop.
>
> As in the old software doesn't work.

No, as in "the old software worked, but they improved it and brought it
up to Ada-95 to make it easier to work with."

> The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to BAE
> Systems.

Nope.

> > > Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter.
> >
> > That's an odd statement. "Tabbed to?" In common usage, that means
> > they're connected directly, but sine they aren't you must mean
> > something else.
>
> Think real hard.

I think you wrote something deliberately vague, so you could pretend it
was profound. You failed.

> > > Are you aware of BAE Systems?
> >
> > Yes, they're making a lot of the ECM and other systems *hardware*
> > for the F-35. To be controlled by the software that LockMart is
> > developing for controlling the whole plane.
>
> Bull****.

Not actually a refutation, there...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

February 23rd 04, 07:44 AM

In article >,
fudog50 > wrote:

> For cryin out loud!
> Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
> David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
> them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
> should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
> Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
> worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!

Well, according to Tarver, the F-22 will never fly because the tail will
fall off or something, has big old strakes attached to it, ruining the
stealth, and is running unmodified 20 year old software.

So you can't fly it... ever. At least according to old Splapsy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Keith Willshaw

February 23rd 04, 08:05 AM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>

> |
> |Last time I checked the port of San Diego was a Public Benefit
> |Corporation
>
> Yes, it is contracted out to operations of the PRC and PRA.

Boeing contracts out work to Chinese companies
that doesnt mean its Chinese owned either.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

February 23rd 04, 08:08 AM

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take
> > > over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and
> > > B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
> > > Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global
> > > Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as
> > > a 2,000-pound bomb.
> >
> > No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for
> > 2000lb bombs
>
> Depends on what that SDB is aimed at. A 250lb rock is just as lethal for a
> tank as a 2000lb bomb would be.
>

Just so but ISTR GPS guidance isnt optimum for a mobile target

> 8 x 250lb bombs would be (assuming they all hit their targets) more lethal
> for an enemy tank company than one 2000lb bomb.
>

None of which makes a 250lb more accurated than its 2000 lb
brother which was the claim to which I responded.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

February 23rd 04, 08:09 AM

"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> The SDB will have an autopilot which will allow it to reach the target
with
> more kinetic energy than a standard JDAM flight profile. Combine that with
a
> new explosive package and they SAY it will have the same effectiveness as
a
> 2000lb bomb. The ER (or is it EX) version will have a potential range of
60
> miles.
>
>

I rather doubt that the KE fraction will be high enough to
offset more than 1000lbs of HE

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

February 23rd 04, 12:15 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
> Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
> has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
> is do you want to be shut out of that area?
>

Siberia has never been part of China's domain and the only attempted
invasion of Japan happened when China itself was occupied
by the Mongols. The large Russian nuclear arsenal is apt
to make the Chinese think twice before any incursion as
would the diffciulties of maintaining a large army.

They simply couldnt bring large enough numbers to
bear to outweight their technological inferiority, the
logistical support just isnt there

Border clashes with India are scarcely likely to lead to major
territorial claims, India has a large population and
nuclear weapons as well as lacking anything that would make it
worth the trouble

As fro Australasia the Chinese cant even muster enough
naval power to take Taiwan let alone cross those distances.

Japan has historically been far more expansionist than China
It invaded parts of Manchuria, Mongolia, China and most
other far eastern nations withing living memory but note that
Korea and Taiwan were part of the Japanese Empire before
WW2

As I recall the only major territorial claims China has
at present are to Taiwan and the Spratly Islands

Keith

Keith Willshaw

February 23rd 04, 12:34 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> |> I thought that we had moved beyond ADA?
> |> |
> |> |How?
> |>
> |> Had we not stopped programming in ADA? C++ or something has
> |> replaced it? Good lord, ADA is like PL1.
> |
> |The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.
>
> I am not even aware of an university that teaches ADA.

ADA is certainly taught at a number of universities
and is widely used for real time programming not just
by the military.

> I
> remember when ADA was first talked about. It was joked about as
> the new and improved PL1.
>
> Can't C++ do as well?
>
>

For secure real time systems no. The strength of ADA is implementing
error detection at an early stage,. The compiler keeps track of
the relationships between every associated entity in the product
right down to the real-time and concurrent facets of the software
design since tasking is built-in to the language.

Real time systems have to use modules with known, bounded
execution times and a scheduler that can restrict dynamic
process creations to guarantee performance and dymnamic
structures such as pointers and arbitrarily long strings need
to be rigidly controlled.

Keith

John Carrier

February 23rd 04, 01:43 PM

> Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
> Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
will
> be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
carrier
> but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
Cat
> launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John

nafod40

February 23rd 04, 02:55 PM

R. David Steele wrote:
>
> I am not a fan of idea of taking an airliner design and making it
> a cargo plane.

The 747 had its cockpit placed above the main cabin so they could open
the nose for loading in the cargo variant, i.e., it was designed from
the beginning to carry cargo.

Kevin Brooks

February 23rd 04, 03:16 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
> |> the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
> |> to plan for this potential war.
> |
> |Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff plans
for
> |all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick Chairmen of
the
> |JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the Chairman's job is mostly to
> |supervise current ops; the Staff does long-term planning regardless of
who
> |is in charge.
>
> There were several articles in the Washington Post here, when the
> GWOT started (just after Sept 11th), on how Gen. Myers was
> selected to plan for a possible war with China.

Bullpoopie. Such planning is handled in the J-3 Operations section of the
Joint Staff, under the direction of a three star. The unified command
responsible for the AO in question (in this case that would have been PACOM)
would also be contributing to the planning process while it updates its own
theater level plans. Firstly, I don't recall the Washington Pravda saying
any such thing; and secondly, since when has that media source been a
reliable source for military-specific information?

And how he was
> out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
> here in DC, that we do have a war in the making with China.

I live within spitting distance of you and have not picked up on any such
"common knowledge". Stop making stuff up, for gosh sakes.

It
> would be nice to avoid that war. But Gen Myers does have that
> mission.

As I believe Tom already told you, the JCS staff routinely plans for all
sorts of contingency operations, no matter how likely. We have done that for
eons; hell, we had contingency plans for going to war against the Brits and
canucks long after they were any sort of major threat to the US. Do we have
OPLAN's that are directed at a potential war with the PRC? Of course. That
does not mean that we have a "war in the making" with China.

>
> | China has let it be known, there
> |> are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> |> school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> |> east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> |> Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
> |
> |China's policy appears to be primarily focussed on ensuring that no one
else
> |interfrres with their own territory.
>
> And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
> Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
> has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
> is do you want to be shut out of that area?

While China no doubt would love to be the big dog in that lot, it knows that
right now, and in the immediate future, it can't be.

>
> |> Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
> |> 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
> |> throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
> |> San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
> |> North Africa.
> |
> |Oh, good grief. China has commercial intereasts worldwide, yes. But
> |there's no evidence that running port operations in Panama (NOT running
the
> |Canal proper, BTW) translates into any sort of aggressive intent.
INdeed,
> |the company that runs those ops is a Hong Kong-based multinational, not
> |controlled by the Chinese government as the fearmongers would have you
> |believe.
>
> Since much of "business" in China is owned by the People's
> Republican Army (PRA), business is seen as an arm of the
> military.

The "Peoples Republican Army"? You can't even identify the largest freakin'
army in the worl properly, and you want us to believe your rants about them
going to war with us in the near term??! Try "Liberation" in place of
"Republican".

>
> Whether we like it or not, things change. China has been looking
> for a chance to be player.

OK.

With the USSR gone, and Russia weak,
> they have their chance.

Not really. They have to have the tools and expertise to back such a
strategy up, and they don't have them now, and won't have them anytime in
this decade. How many AWACS do they have? None really, just a few somewhat
capable AEW platforms. How well have they managed to integrate their
operations between components? Their 1979 Vietnam fiasco showed us they had
virtually NO capability there, and while they have undoubtedly improved
since then, they are not in any shpe to confront the US. How about their
naval capability versus the USN? Laughable at present.

Most of us have no problem if they play
> fair and equal. But if they treat business much the way the
> mafia does then we will have to learn to be equally aggressive.
>
> Not everyone in the world sees appeasement as being fair minded.
> Many see those who use appeasement as being weak thus prey.

What the hell does your rant have to do with "appeasement"? Recognizing the
true level of the current threat does not equal "appeasement". Does China
want to be able to confront the US? Yes. Can they do it now? No. By 2010?
No. By 2020? Maybe, but only if the US completely scotches its military
development.

Brooks

>
>

nafod40

February 23rd 04, 03:35 PM

Jake Donovan wrote:
> Ya know,
>
> I just had to comment again. There are quite a few folks who use this group
> know me personally, professionally and by association.
>
> You do not, and are one of the reasons I rarely post here.
>
> I could give a flying **** if I am credible to you or not.
>
> Jake

I googled your name, and found a link to a thread you participated in
arguing over whether an enlisted Seal was actually an aviator or not.
You argued strongly that he wasn't. You also made reference to the large
number of folks that are Seal and aviator posers, and people who wear
devices they did not earn, and the need to "trust but verify" (my words).

You should therefore be able to appreciate any scepticism from this
audience. It comes with the territory. It's the rare CAPT USN
non-retired that participates on this group, and tosses out insider tidbits.

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 04:42 PM

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> For cryin out loud!
> Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
> David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
> them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
> should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
> Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
> worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!

Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:48:02 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
> >solely on
> >> > it being post '96 Ada
> >>
> >> Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
> >> was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software
is
> >> based on the F-22 software...
> >
> >Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now.
> >
>

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 04:45 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made
good.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
> > > > > *can*.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without
altering
> > the
> > > > sofware.
> > >
> > > That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
> > > noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95
than
> > > it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
> > > develop.
> >
> > As in the old software doesn't work.
>
> No, as in "the old software worked, but they improved it and brought it
> up to Ada-95 to make it easier to work with."
>
> > The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to
BAE
> > Systems.
>
> Nope.

Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
Systems.

If you are this far outside what is real, why are you posting to this
thread, Irby?

Is it to "help" Lockmart? If that is the case I am certain Lockmart would
perfer you to shut up.

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 04:50 PM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> |> I thought that we had moved beyond ADA?
> |> |
> |> |How?
> |>
> |> Had we not stopped programming in ADA? C++ or something has
> |> replaced it? Good lord, ADA is like PL1.
> |
> |The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.
>
> I am not even aware of an university that teaches ADA. I
> remember when ADA was first talked about. It was joked about as
> the new and improved PL1.

It is. Lockheed went for the DARPA subsidy for Ada, it was part of their
cooperative attitude that won the fly off.

You have to consider that Lockheed won the contract to build the YF-22 with
an airframe design that would not even fly. The YF-22 that was built is for
the most part the GD entry. Next, Lockheed built their main computer based
on an i960 based MPP. Intel's attempt to build the i432, an i860 based MPP,
nearly bankrupted Intel. Later, lockmart dumped their Avionics division to
BAE systems, due to "competitiveness" issues.

> Can't C++ do as well?

No, but C has.

Tony Volk

February 23rd 04, 06:10 PM

> Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
> 35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
> my most memorable test programs I have been involved in. Stepping out of
> the Sims and into the aircraft, you found you could push the 35 well past
> what the Sims prepared you for. That was a first in my career.

You've flown both?!? (how many folks can say that!) I'd be curious to
hear more about that if possible. What position did/do you hold (civil or
military)? Any (non-classified) details/experiences you can share with us
about flying either jet? Thanks,

Tony

Chad Irby

February 23rd 04, 07:01 PM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
> Systems.

Wrong, as usual.

Note, for example, that the core processing units of the F-35 are
*still* being made by Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems, which is *still*
part of the LockMart organization as of this particular day. You seem
to not know about "Maritime Systems and Sensors," which is still a
*large* LockMart subsidiary (part of the Electronic Systems business
unit.

(Insults deleted)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Boomer

February 23rd 04, 07:20 PM

I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works in
the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Boomer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The SDB will have an autopilot which will allow it to reach the target
> with
> > more kinetic energy than a standard JDAM flight profile. Combine that
with
> a
> > new explosive package and they SAY it will have the same effectiveness
as
> a
> > 2000lb bomb. The ER (or is it EX) version will have a potential range of
> 60
> > miles.
> >
> >
>
> I rather doubt that the KE fraction will be high enough to
> offset more than 1000lbs of HE
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 07:29 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
> > Systems.
>
> Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 07:30 PM

"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
> differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
> that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
> knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works
in
> the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.

Spoon feeding Lockheed a fighter program has been a major driving force for
the USAF for many years.

john macpherson

February 23rd 04, 08:30 PM

He has earned the right to be considered credible when speaking ex cathedra.
Can you spell Bascombe Down TPS? You are arguing with the real deal. Not
wise.
"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> >lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
> >replacing them as soon as they are available.
>
> You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
> published information, but providing no evidence to support said
> claims.
>
> Thus, you're not credible.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
>

gizmo-goddard

February 23rd 04, 08:44 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Wrong, as usual.
>
> Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Get a room, guys!

__!_!__
Gizmo

Tarver Engineering

February 23rd 04, 08:47 PM

"gizmo-goddard" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > Wrong, as usual.
> >
> > Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.
>
> Get a room, guys!

Poor Chad, so distantly seperated from reality.

So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down the
F-22 rathole?

john macpherson

February 23rd 04, 08:49 PM

And neither can I: It is Boscombe Down.
"john macpherson" <john.d.macphersonnot > wrote in message
...
> He has earned the right to be considered credible when speaking ex
cathedra.
> Can you spell Bascombe Down TPS? You are arguing with the real deal. Not
> wise.
> "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
> be
> > >replacing them as soon as they are available.
> >
> > You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
> > published information, but providing no evidence to support said
> > claims.
> >
> > Thus, you're not credible.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> > "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> > Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
> >
>
>

Frijoles

February 23rd 04, 11:03 PM

Lights years ahead in terms of...what? Predicted vs actual performance?
Avionics? ...Give us a better picture of the context of the comment.

What test programs have you been involved in?

> Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
> 35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
> my most memorable test programs I have been involved in.

Chad Irby

February 24th 04, 12:51 AM

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Funny how you can't ever seem to find anything to back your opinions
up...

It's like talking to a movie PR person.

"Lockheed Martin Sells One of Many Avionics Subsidiaries."

Tarver reads:

"Lockheed Martin Sells... Avionics Subsidiaries."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Thomas Schoene

February 24th 04, 01:08 AM

R. David Steele wrote:
>>> Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
>>> the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
>>> to plan for this potential war.
>>
>> Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff
>> plans for all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick
>> Chairmen of the JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the
>> Chairman's job is mostly to supervise current ops; the Staff does
>> long-term planning regardless of who is in charge.
>
> There were several articles in the Washington Post here, when the
> GWOT started (just after Sept 11th), on how Gen. Myers was
> selected to plan for a possible war with China.

Strange, I cna't find any such articles in their archives. The only
relevant articles I could find with the words Myewrs and China were about
his recent visit, where the rtalked about the improvement of relations
between the US and China.

Please cite a specific article (or even a specific date).

And how he was
> out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
> here in DC,

That "here in DC" stuff won't play. Whatever was "common knowledge" in your
world certianly wasn't common knowledge in Crystal City (which is where I
was on 9/11).
>
> Not everyone in the world sees appeasement as being fair minded.
> Many see those who use appeasement as being weak thus prey.

I said not a word in favor of appeasement. If China were demanding what you
say, yes, I'd agree with your conclusions. But they aren't.

Look, I know I won't convince you, and you certainly won't convince me. So
I'm not going to argue with you. Just promise to come back in a decade when
there hasn't been a war with China.

A war over Taiwean doesn't count, BTW. That is the one area I could easily
see a war breaking out, but it won't be about excluding the US from Asia or
any such nonsense. .

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Tarver Engineering

February 24th 04, 03:44 AM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
> |> David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
> |> them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
> |> should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
> |> Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
> |> worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!
> |
> |Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
> |airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.
> |
>
> In other words it is an UAV with pilot on board?

As are most civilian transports. Software driven electric control systems
are the future, UAV, or fighter.

Jake Donovan

February 24th 04, 04:36 AM

John,

I hope that was intended for Mr Toppan.

Typo on your part - Boscombe Down / Empire Test School ETPS

(But I was told ages ago spelling and grammar do not count on the Internet
;-) )

Jake

"john macpherson" <john.d.macphersonnot > wrote in message
...
> He has earned the right to be considered credible when speaking ex
cathedra.
> Can you spell Bascombe Down TPS? You are arguing with the real deal. Not
> wise.
> "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
> be
> > >replacing them as soon as they are available.
> >
> > You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
> > published information, but providing no evidence to support said
> > claims.
> >
> > Thus, you're not credible.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> > "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> > Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
> >
>
>

Jake Donovan

February 24th 04, 04:49 AM

Chad Irby

February 24th 04, 04:59 AM

In article >,
R. David Steele > wrote:

> |So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down the
> |F-22 rathole?
>
> The Comanche was an Army project, different pile of money.

Tarver can't tell the difference between Army and Air Force programs,
which isn't a shock to the rest of us.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Jake Donovan

February 24th 04, 05:54 AM

John,

Thank you. You restored my faith that people actually read full posts and
not what they want to read in to it.

As for it being used as an asset to an CVN Deployed Airwing?

Jake

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> Carrier
> > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
> will
> > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
> carrier
> > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
> Cat
> > launches.
>
> True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
tailhook).
> I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
> in their latest incarnations.
>
> R / John
>
>

Jake Donovan

February 24th 04, 05:55 AM

nafod40,

Then you can appreciate why I rarely post. I read a lot. Once in awhile
some one who will post something so off the wall it gets my dander up and I
speak up. The google search you mentioned is a good example. If you
followed the thread you will see my "credibility" was established very
quickly. I actually chatted with the original poster and knew who he was
refering to and what program the SEAL had been through. Once the dust
settled, he understood why every one was up and arms over the wording he was
a Navy Pilot.

There are some good friends of mine that read this NG and rarely post
anymore for the same reasons. Many who are reading this know me in real
life so as I stated earlier, Joe Smith doesn't give me credibility, I really
dont care and I shouldn't have let it get to me the way it did.

Let's call it a bad day at the office.

Jake

PS - As for insider tidbits, I have never done so. Any comments I make or
have made can be found in the mainstream press and unclassified material
that if you know where to look, you can find it.

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
> news:dqf_b.12902$iB.7776@lakeread06...
> > I really, really hate to mess with your "credibility" but the F35 was
NOT
> > designed as a carrier aircraft. The JSF concept was for an aircraft
that
> > can be used by different players with differnt requiremnets. NOT as a
> > CARRIER aircraft.
>
> As much as I hate to defend Andrew, your argument does not really make
much
> sense. The program was indeed designed to accomodate different customers
> with differing requirements, one of which is the requirement for carrier
> compatability in *both* the F-35C and F-35B. The JSF program was NOT one
> where the competing firms were told, "Design and build us a land based
> fighter, then come back and tell us how you would make it carrier
> compatable." The need for carrier compatability was included in the
original
> JSF program requirements, so the products were indeed designed to include
> that capability. Note that Andrew was commenting on the "F-35" program
(AKA
> JSF), not the "F-35A".
>
> >
> > The F-35C was. Argue all you want, but that leaves two other variants
of
> > the F35 that were NOT designed to be carrier aircraft. The A, a CTOV
> > variant for the Airforce to replace F-16's, A-10's, and yes, in the up
> > coming future, the F-22.
>
> The F-35A was designed to *replace* the F-22? Where in tarnation did you
get
> that rather strange idea? It is intended to replace the other aircraft you
> note, but not the F-22.
>
> >
> > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> Carrier
> > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you.
>
> What, you know some Marines who'd claim that the AV-8B was not designed
with
> carrier requirements in mind? Or who would claim that the AV-8B is *not*
> routinely deployed shipboard, just as the F-35B will be?
>
> The B will
> > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's.
>
> You mean those same "land based" F-18's that sometimes are tasked to be
part
> of a CAW?
>
> Sure, it can land on a carrier
> > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
> Cat
> > launches.
>
> Do you think that the fact that both the RN (or would that be RAF under
the
> Joint Harrier Force concept, or both services?) and the USMC do indeed
plan
> to operate the B model from naval vessels (i.e., "carriers") might be
taken
> into account during its design?
>
> >
> > The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty much
> fall
> > in line with the above.
>
> I doubt that, since your info as outlined above does not seem to be very
> accurate.
>
> >
> > Respectfully
> > Jake
> >
> > PS - Oh, wait a minute, please quote some credible documentation to
back
> up
> > your above statement. I don't seem to be able to find any.
>
> Well, why don't YOU find us some "credible documentation" that states that
> the JSF program did not take carrier compatability into account from the
> outset, and indeed make that a program requirement, or that the F-35B is
> neither intended to be operated from shipboard by the USMC nor does its
> design incorporate any of the requirements for such shipboard use?
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> > "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> > > >modified to be a carrier aircraft.
> > >
> > > Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.
> > >
> > > The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was DESIGNED
> > > AS a carrier aircraft.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> > > "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> > > Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 24th 04, 06:17 AM

On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" > wrote:
> Ok, ok!!!
>
> Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
> the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
> to plan for this potential war.

Happens all the time with lots of countries. Strictly used for weapons
buying plans.

> China has let it be known, there
> are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
>

Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic
exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies.
The Japanese own office buildings all over the place, but we're not going to
war with Japan are we?

> Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
> 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
> throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
> San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
> North Africa.
>
> It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
> 2012.
>

Okay, Nostradamus. I'll mark my calendar.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 24th 04, 06:27 AM

On 2/23/04 6:04 AM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" > wrote:

>
> |I really cant go much further than what I said, but look at the B1B.
> |
> |I can paraphrase Aviation Week - The procurement #s of Raptors have been
> |lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will be
> |replacing them as soon as they are available.
> |
> |I do agree with you on the AF ANG and Reserves flying very new and up to
> |date platforms unlike the days of old.
> The problem is that the ANG is having problems getting aircraft.
> the USAF has taken many aircraft away from them. In fact many
> states are now looking for missions.
>
> I am wondering if it is just a matter of time before the Air
> Guard is merged into the USAFR. Of course I am mostly hearing
> the bitching from Air Guard officers, so this could be one sided.
>

That'd be a bad move fiscally for the USAF considering that the ANG's get
money from both the states and the USAF. Subsidy is good.

fudog50

February 24th 04, 07:17 AM

As regards to civilian transports,

One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
while still maintaining actual control, if desired.

The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
aircraft.

and Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:44:58 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> |
>> |Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
>> |airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.
>> |
>>
>> In other words it is an UAV with pilot on board?
>
>As are most civilian transports. Software driven electric control systems
>are the future, UAV, or fighter.
>

Keith Willshaw

February 24th 04, 09:32 AM

"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
> differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
> that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
> knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works
in
> the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.
>

Dont get me wrong here. For plinking tanks, vehicles and dugouts the
smaller bomb size is a good idea. As well as permitting an aircraft to
carry more weapons they limit collateral damage. My point was simply
that there are some targets for which you'll stay want the option of the
larger bomb.

Keith

David McArthur

February 24th 04, 12:06 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> > for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)?
>
> Lots of luck making a carrier landing in an F-22

well it could do it ...but only once :-)

Pechs1

February 24th 04, 02:26 PM

<< That makes sense. Have not had a chance to play with the
language, used to do some PL1. Just had the impression that ADA
was a bit bloated as a language. >> 

Ya bunch of nancys...who needs software...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

nafod40

February 24th 04, 02:49 PM

Pechs1 wrote:
> << That makes sense. Have not had a chance to play with the
> language, used to do some PL1. Just had the impression that ADA
> was a bit bloated as a language. >> 
>
> Ya bunch of nancys...who needs software...

You say this as your hard drive munches away, having been highjacked by
some viagra ad-spewing spambot that is rapidly approaching it's one
trillionth bit sent out to email inboxes everywhere. : )

> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

nafod40

February 24th 04, 02:55 PM

John, it's not every day that I laugh out loud while reading RAMN...

john macpherson wrote:
> And neither can I: It is Boscombe Down.
>
> "john macpherson" wrote...
>
>>Can you spell Bascombe Down TPS?

nafod40

February 24th 04, 03:00 PM

Jake Donovan wrote:
>
> Then you can appreciate why I rarely post. I read a lot. Once in awhile
> some one who will post something so off the wall it gets my dander up and I
> speak up.

Over many years I've learned that Andrew has a pretty high setting on
his BS squelch, and of course the occasional baby gets tossed out with
the bathwater, and he can be a bit barnacle-ish in his bedside manner.
But he performs yeoman service on "keeping it real" in general.

> PS - <snip>Any comments I make or
> have made can be found in the mainstream press and unclassified material
> that if you know where to look, you can find it.

I haven't seen the gouge on the F22 heading for the Guard, but I haven't
been keeping up with AvLeak.

Kevin Brooks

February 24th 04, 03:06 PM

"Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06...
> nafod40,

One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not
address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"?

Brooks

>
> Then you can appreciate why I rarely post. I read a lot. Once in awhile
> some one who will post something so off the wall it gets my dander up and
I
> speak up. The google search you mentioned is a good example. If you
> followed the thread you will see my "credibility" was established very
> quickly. I actually chatted with the original poster and knew who he was
> refering to and what program the SEAL had been through. Once the dust
> settled, he understood why every one was up and arms over the wording he
was
> a Navy Pilot.
>
> There are some good friends of mine that read this NG and rarely post
> anymore for the same reasons. Many who are reading this know me in real
> life so as I stated earlier, Joe Smith doesn't give me credibility, I
really
> dont care and I shouldn't have let it get to me the way it did.
>
> Let's call it a bad day at the office.
>
> Jake
>
> PS - As for insider tidbits, I have never done so. Any comments I make or
> have made can be found in the mainstream press and unclassified material
> that if you know where to look, you can find it.
>
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
> > news:dqf_b.12902$iB.7776@lakeread06...
> > > I really, really hate to mess with your "credibility" but the F35 was
> NOT
> > > designed as a carrier aircraft. The JSF concept was for an aircraft
> that
> > > can be used by different players with differnt requiremnets. NOT as a
> > > CARRIER aircraft.
> >
> > As much as I hate to defend Andrew, your argument does not really make
> much
> > sense. The program was indeed designed to accomodate different customers

> > with differing requirements, one of which is the requirement for carrier
> > compatability in *both* the F-35C and F-35B. The JSF program was NOT one
> > where the competing firms were told, "Design and build us a land based
> > fighter, then come back and tell us how you would make it carrier
> > compatable." The need for carrier compatability was included in the
> original
> > JSF program requirements, so the products were indeed designed to
include
> > that capability. Note that Andrew was commenting on the "F-35" program
> (AKA
> > JSF), not the "F-35A".
> >
> > >
> > > The F-35C was. Argue all you want, but that leaves two other variants
> of
> > > the F35 that were NOT designed to be carrier aircraft. The A, a CTOV
> > > variant for the Airforce to replace F-16's, A-10's, and yes, in the up
> > > coming future, the F-22.
> >
> > The F-35A was designed to *replace* the F-22? Where in tarnation did you
> get
> > that rather strange idea? It is intended to replace the other aircraft
you
> > note, but not the F-22.
> >
> > >
> > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> > Carrier
> > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you.
> >
> > What, you know some Marines who'd claim that the AV-8B was not designed
> with
> > carrier requirements in mind? Or who would claim that the AV-8B is *not*
> > routinely deployed shipboard, just as the F-35B will be?
> >
> > The B will
> > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's.
> >
> > You mean those same "land based" F-18's that sometimes are tasked to be
> part
> > of a CAW?
> >
> > Sure, it can land on a carrier
> > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear
or
> > Cat
> > > launches.
> >
> > Do you think that the fact that both the RN (or would that be RAF under
> the
> > Joint Harrier Force concept, or both services?) and the USMC do indeed
> plan
> > to operate the B model from naval vessels (i.e., "carriers") might be
> taken
> > into account during its design?
> >
> > >
> > > The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty
much
> > fall
> > > in line with the above.
> >
> > I doubt that, since your info as outlined above does not seem to be very
> > accurate.
> >
> > >
> > > Respectfully
> > > Jake
> > >
> > > PS - Oh, wait a minute, please quote some credible documentation to
> back
> > up
> > > your above statement. I don't seem to be able to find any.
> >
> > Well, why don't YOU find us some "credible documentation" that states
that
> > the JSF program did not take carrier compatability into account from the
> > outset, and indeed make that a program requirement, or that the F-35B is
> > neither intended to be operated from shipboard by the USMC nor does its
> > design incorporate any of the requirements for such shipboard use?
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> > > > >modified to be a carrier aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.
> > > >
> > > > The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was
DESIGNED
> > > > AS a carrier aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> > > > "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> > > > Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

nafod40

February 24th 04, 03:15 PM

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
> news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06...
>
>>nafod40,
>
>
> One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not
> address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"?

Thou hast not heard of me? Why, my name is bandied about in the finest
parlors and reading rooms of our most clever intellectuals, in
various...business establishments...in ports around our busy globe, and
only on the rarest occasions on 243.0, and then probably only to relay
some else's predicament, I being far too smart to make their mistakes.

Thank you for asking...

Chad Irby

February 24th 04, 04:04 PM

In article >,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

> On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
> "R. David Steele" > wrote:

> > China has let it be known, there
> > are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> > school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> > east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> > Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
>
> Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic
> exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies.

Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a
rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*...

Especially after they decided to buy some Su-30s. Kinda makes you
wonder if they really bought the naval variant, plan on doing the mods
themselves, or have a naval version of their own somewhere.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

February 24th 04, 04:25 PM

"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
> > news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06...
> >
> >>nafod40,
> >
> >
> > One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not
> > address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"?
>
> Thou hast not heard of me? Why, my name is bandied about in the finest
> parlors and reading rooms of our most clever intellectuals, in
> various...business establishments...in ports around our busy globe,

And now in my kill-file.

Brooks

and
> only on the rarest occasions on 243.0, and then probably only to relay
> some else's predicament, I being far too smart to make their mistakes.
>
> Thank you for asking...
>

nafod40

February 24th 04, 05:01 PM

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "nafod40" wrote
>>
>>
>>Thou hast not heard of me?
>
>
> And now in my kill-file.

I'm sure I'll have good company.

Tarver Engineering

February 24th 04, 10:08 PM

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> As regards to civilian transports,
>
> One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
> being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
> enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
> while still maintaining actual control, if desired.
>
> The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
> and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
> aircraft.

No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
operator.

When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.

> and Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:44:58 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> |
> >> |Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
> >> |airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.
> >> |
> >>
> >> In other words it is an UAV with pilot on board?
> >
> >As are most civilian transports. Software driven electric control
systems
> >are the future, UAV, or fighter.
> >
>

puttster

February 24th 04, 10:21 PM

"John Carrier" > wrote in message >...
> > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> Carrier
> > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
> will
> > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
> carrier
> > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
> Cat
> > launches.
>
> True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook).
> I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
> in their latest incarnations.
>
> R / John

With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Keith Willshaw

February 24th 04, 11:17 PM

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
>...

>
>
> With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> still demand those giant carriers?

Because they also plan to operate aircraft like the E2 Hawkeye
and F-18E

> Seems like something can be done
> there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> (the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Because they already gave the ships.

Keith

Chad Irby

February 24th 04, 11:36 PM

In article >,
(puttster) wrote:

> With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> still demand those giant carriers?

Because that zero/short capability comes with a heavy cost in range and
performance. Building much smaller carriers that have to get to within
a hundred miles of the enemy coast before launching doesn't gain you
much.

Having the capability to put small but effective air strikes together
from very small ships does have some advantages, but for overall
atrategic power, you need range and payload.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Guy Alcala

February 24th 04, 11:56 PM

puttster wrote:

<snip>

> With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> (the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Whether the navy goes all VSTOL or keeps the F-35C and its other catapult-launched, arrested
recovery a/c and their associated catapults/arresting gear, on a per a/c embarked basis a larger
carrier is always cheaper than a smaller one, as the overhead in radars and support a/c is the same
in either case. These requirements are set by the threat, and can't be reduced.

For most missions the CV/CVNs provide more capability than is needed, and in such cases a smaller
carrier is sufficient. The USN has the LHA/LHDs to provide the numbers for these missions. But
when it comes to the power projection mission, size _does_ matter, both for numbers of a/c you can
operate and how long you can sustain them. The Brits ran into this problem first with their small
carriers in the '50s, where, by the time they'd provided the CAP, AEW, and ASW a/c to protect the
task group, there was little room left for strike a/c or their escorts, and the carriers lacked the
size for fuel, ordnance etc. for sustainment. They attempted to get around this by first replacing
fixed-wing ASW a/c with helos, and then moving the ASW helos off the carriers entirely, to CAHs
(Tigers) or CVSs (the Invincible class).

The U.S. had gone the CVS route from the start, first with CVEs, then with unmodified Essexes, but
had to bring the ASW a/c back to the CVs when the Essexes were retired and not replaced. The
CV/CVNs are large enough that the ASW a/c make up a relatively small percentage of the air wing,
and take up relatively little space. In addition, the current lack of a serious blue water sub
threat has allowed us to phase out the fixed-wing carrier ASW a/c, and only use helos. That could
change, of course.

Guy

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 25th 04, 12:04 AM

On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "fudog50" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As regards to civilian transports,
>>
>> One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
>> being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
>> enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
>> while still maintaining actual control, if desired.
>>
>> The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
>> and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
>> aircraft.
>
> No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
> operator.
>
> When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.
>

While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight control
computers).

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 25th 04, 12:10 AM

On 2/24/04 4:21 PM, in article
, "puttster"
> wrote:

> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> >...
>>> Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
>> Carrier
>>> Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
>> will
>>> be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
>> carrier
>>> but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
>> Cat
>>> launches.
>>
>> True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
>> suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook).
>> I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
>> in their latest incarnations.
>>
>> R / John
>
>
> With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> (the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Don't you mean excellent *predicted* V/STOL capability, since the jet hasn't
actually IOC'ed yet the true capability remains to be seen.

The payloads you can launch off of those large carriers (CVN's) are heavier,
the CVN can carry more jets and project more power, and you don't run the
risk of the many consecutive miracles required to transition the F-35B from
forward flight to VSTOL--which can be painful if something fails.

VSTOL is a risky concept that has never matured (no not even in the
Harrier--I've seen way to many crash over the years killing or hurting good
Marines... not their current maintenance nightmares), but for some reason,
weapons buyers are enamored with the concept. The cost isn't worth the
benefits.

--Woody

Tarver Engineering

February 25th 04, 12:11 AM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "fudog50" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> As regards to civilian transports,
> >>
> >> One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
> >> being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
> >> enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
> >> while still maintaining actual control, if desired.
> >>
> >> The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
> >> and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
> >> aircraft.
> >
> > No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
> > operator.
> >
> > When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.
> >
>
> While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
> products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
> (e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
control
> computers).

The 777 fakes the pilot into thinking it is a conventional airplane, which
it is not.

> I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
> folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

Missing code/flight control vioaltions can be fatal.

Mike Kanze

February 25th 04, 12:37 AM

>With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still
demand those giant carriers?

Read about the Falklands War and maybe you'll see why.

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
>...
> > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> > Carrier
> > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
> > will
> > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
> > carrier
> > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear
or
> > Cat
> > > launches.
> >
> > True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> > suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
tailhook).
> > I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
SPN-41
> > in their latest incarnations.
> >
> > R / John
>
>
> With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> (the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Tarver Engineering

February 25th 04, 01:50 AM

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |> > > Wrong, as usual.
> |> >
> |> > Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.
> |>
> |> Get a room, guys!
> |
> |Poor Chad, so distantly seperated from reality.
> |
> |So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down
the
> |F-22 rathole?
>
> The Comanche was an Army project, different pile of money.

That bodes even worse for the F-22. If the money were USAF money, they
would have another $35 billion to spend.

Thomas Schoene

February 25th 04, 03:20 AM

R. David Steele wrote:
> I am seeing you folks get the nomenclature wrong. The "A"
> version is AF, the "B" version is Navy and the "C" version is
> Marine and V/STOL

Not according to Lockheed Martin. From the variant descriptions linked from
http://www.lmaeronautics.com/products/combat_air/x-35/design.html

"The F-35A for the U.S. Air Force matches or exceeds F-16 performance
levels"

"The F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal
Navy employs a short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) capability. "

"U.S. Navy carrier operations account for most of the differences between
the F-35C and the other JSF variants."

The Air Force and the JSF program office agree with this terminology. See
page 8 of this JSF program brief:

http://www.jsf.mil/Program/Briefings/jsf_program_brief.pdf

or this article from Airpower journal:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/phispr03.ht
ml

BTW: for folks wondering about the benefits of conventioanl carriers, this
article hits the key one: radius of action for the STOVL version is 450 nm,
for the CV version it's over 700nm. That's a 55% increase.

> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

Which is apparently out of date and incorrect. It seems to have been taken
from the original DoD press release, which was in error. (or at least has
been overtaken by events).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

John Keeney

February 25th 04, 05:14 AM

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
>...
> > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> > Carrier
> > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
> > will
> > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
> > carrier
> > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear
or
> > Cat
> > > launches.
> >
> > True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> > suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
tailhook).
> > I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
SPN-41
> > in their latest incarnations.
> >
> > R / John
>
>
> With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> (the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.
Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Guy Alcala

February 25th 04, 07:08 AM

John Keeney wrote:

> "puttster" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> > > Carrier
> > > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
> > > will
> > > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
> > > carrier
> > > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear
> or
> > > Cat
> > > > launches.
> > >
> > > True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> > > suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
> tailhook).
> > > I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
> SPN-41
> > > in their latest incarnations.
> > >
> > > R / John
> >
> >
> > With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> > still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> > there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> > (the F-35C) to fit their ships?
>
> Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.

As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and should the
navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you define the
littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm to
650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's one
that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that 400nm
is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
services:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written at
ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so take the
analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you think
appropriate.

> Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
> the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters service,
that particular justification need no longer exist. IIRR it was Adm. Holloway,
when CNO in the '80s(?), who planned to have the navy go all VSTOL sooner rather
than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down, especially
the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what have
you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required performance, in
view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the more
specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions, but the
ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big savings
on training, spares and unit cost.

Whether this changeover actually happens is another matter, as there doesn't
appear to be a big VSTOL backer inside the navy at the moment, and the navy is
afraid that going all VSTOL will make it easier for politicians to decide that,
because VSTOL a/c _can_ operate from smaller, cheaper carriers, there's no need
to buy big ones, ignoring the operational benefits of larger carriers in power
projection. OTOH, the USAF's recent volte-face (they want some again) on buying
some STOVL F-35s for themselves, may put more pressure on the navy to go VSTOL.
Or not :-)

Guy

Keith Willshaw

February 25th 04, 09:32 AM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>

>
> While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
> products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
> (e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
control
> computers).
>
> I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
> folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.
>
> --Woody
>

The trouble with that little tale is that the A-300 doesnt have fly by wire

Keith

John Keeney

February 25th 04, 10:24 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> John Keeney wrote:
>
> > "puttster" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as
a
> > > > Carrier
> > > > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you.
The B
> > > > will
> > > > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on
a
> > > > carrier
> > > > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting
gear
> > or
> > > > Cat
> > > > > launches.
> > > >
> > > > True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> > > > suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
> > tailhook).
> > > > I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
> > SPN-41
> > > > in their latest incarnations.
> > > >
> > > > R / John
> > >
> > >
> > > With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> > > still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> > > there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> > > (the F-35C) to fit their ships?
> >
> > Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.
>
> As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
should the
> navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
define the

I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
"anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.

> littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm
to
> 650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's
one
> that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that
400nm
> is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
> services:
>
> http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

I tried to look, but I became too impatient and gave up on the down load.

> Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written
at
> ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so
take the
> analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you
think
> appropriate.
>
> > Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
> > the E-2 and C-2 anyway.
>
> Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters
service,
> that particular justification need no longer exist.

Putting a spinning top on a V-22 sounds scary to me, have to be plum tall to
see
over those rotors. Might do an EV-22 with a phased array.
As for the COD role: the C-2 does 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of
1,000 nm. The CV-22 can provide VTOL with 8,300lb of cargo for 220 nm.
Obviously you aren't going to move as much as fast using CV-22 vs C-2.

Let's assume for the moment that the V-22 can handle COD and radar missions.
Then you are stuck with the tanker problem and three choices:
1) Use the V-22 as a tanker.
r) Odds on bet the V-22 is too slow.
2) Buddy store off a F-35B.
r) Yea, that would make buddy storing off F-18s look positively lovely.
How much passable gas could you actually get off the deck?
3) Call the Air Force.
r) Left as an exercise for the reader.

> than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down,
especially
> the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what
have
> you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required
performance, in
> view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the
more
> specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions,
but the
> ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big
savings
> on training, spares and unit cost.

Frijoles

February 25th 04, 11:25 AM

Sure doesn't take too long for any discussion of F-35B to turn into a debate
about ships eh?? ;)

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "puttster" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
> > > Carrier
> > > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The
B
> > > will
> > > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
> > > carrier
> > > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear
> or
> > > Cat
> > > > launches.
> > >
> > > True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> > > suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
> tailhook).
> > > I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
> SPN-41
> > > in their latest incarnations.
> > >
> > > R / John
> >
> >
> > With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> > still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> > there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> > (the F-35C) to fit their ships?
>
> Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.
> Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
> the E-2 and C-2 anyway.
>
>

Frijoles

February 25th 04, 11:53 AM

Jake also wrote:

"Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in."

Tell us what programs you've been involved in "Jake"... and what, pray tell,
made F35 so memorable. I assume you know Turbo?

"Jake Donovan" > wrote in message
news:Dlc_b.12812$iB.12075@lakeread06...
> Tom,
>
> I really cant go much further than what I said, but look at the B1B.
>
> I can paraphrase Aviation Week - The procurement #s of Raptors have been
> lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will be
> replacing them as soon as they are available.
>
> I do agree with you on the AF ANG and Reserves flying very new and up to
> date platforms unlike the days of old.
>
> Jake
>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Jake Donovan wrote:
> >
> > > 2- The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as
> > > the F35 comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the
> > > operating parameters of the 22 vs the 35.
> >
> > I'd like to see the basis for that. But in any case, rememeber that the
> > Guard and Reserves no longer fly second-rate aircraft handed down from
the
> > active force. They fly the same aircraft types for the most part, and
> have
> > the same basic missions. I'd be very surprised indeed if the F-22 is
> > scheduled to be withdrawn from the active force at that time.
> > --
> > Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> > "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> > special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 25th 04, 12:56 PM

On 2/24/04 6:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> The 777 fakes the pilot into thinking it is a conventional airplane, which
> it is not.

I don't know anything about the 777 other than it has some features that
make V1 cuts easy (that most airline pilots don't get to use in the
simulator very often).

>
>> I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
>> folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.
>
> Missing code/flight control vioaltions can be fatal.
>

Sounds like you just made my point for me. A couple of malfunctioning gyros
could be bad for you.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 25th 04, 01:00 PM

On 2/24/04 9:17 PM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" > wrote:

>
<SNIP>
> |That'd be a bad move fiscally for the USAF considering that the ANG's get
> |money from both the states and the USAF. Subsidy is good.
>
> Actually the states use the Guard as a means to fund various
> things. The average state does not pu much money into the Guard.
> It is more of a way to get more federal dollars.
>

Perhaps, David, but most ANG units I know brag of their OT&E successes that
they attribute to extra funding from the states--which is why ANG and
reserve Viper outfits have SADL and active duty units are still waiting for
MIDS (or whatever the USAF version of MIDS is).

It may be a cash cow that feeds many.

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 25th 04, 01:04 PM

On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
>> products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
>> (e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
> control
>> computers).
>>
>> I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
>> folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.
>>
>> --Woody
>>
>
> The trouble with that little tale is that the A-300 doesnt have fly by wire
>
> Keith
>
>

Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).

It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly out
of ignorance.

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 25th 04, 01:06 PM

On 2/25/04 4:24 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
> wrote:

>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> John Keeney wrote:
>>
>>> "puttster" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
>>> >...
<SNIP>
>>>> With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
>>>> still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
>>>> there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
>>>> (the F-35C) to fit their ships?
>>>
>>> Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.
>>
>> As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
> should the
>> navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
> define the
>
> I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
> and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
> "anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.
>

I'd like to see the USN reduce their reliance on USAF tanking.

puttster

February 25th 04, 01:20 PM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (puttster) wrote:
>
> > With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> > still demand those giant carriers?
>
> Because that zero/short capability comes with a heavy cost in range and
> performance. Building much smaller carriers that have to get to within
> a hundred miles of the enemy coast before launching doesn't gain you
> much.
>
> Having the capability to put small but effective air strikes together
> from very small ships does have some advantages, but for overall
> atrategic power, you need range and payload.

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

Keith Willshaw

February 25th 04, 01:23 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
> Willshaw" > wrote:
>

>
> Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
flown
> one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
> throttle automation (which I don't understand).
>

So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
aircraft.

> It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly
out
> of ignorance.
>

Indeed

Keith

Pechs1

February 25th 04, 02:28 PM

puttster-<< With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? >> 

Something about loadout and range and other minor problems to solve. The most
efficient way to actually carry something and get it there is the cat/trap
system. VStol is nice but it, even in the F-35, has severe limitations.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Chad Irby

February 25th 04, 05:00 PM

In article >,
(puttster) wrote:

> Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

> How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks

February 25th 04, 06:25 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> (puttster) wrote:
>
<snip>

>
> > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
>
> To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
> the other services as much.

Wait a sec. Weren't the USMC fixed wing assets in this conflict under
control of the CAOC and responsive to the joint ATO?

Brooks

<snip>

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 25th 04, 07:56 PM

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
>> Willshaw" > wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
> flown
>> one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
>> throttle automation (which I don't understand).
>>
>
> So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
> Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
> can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
> aircraft.
>

I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

As I said before, my opinions are based on ready room chat with a few pilots
I know who fly the Airbus. The knowledge I have is on a macro level (i.e.
not from a standpoint of having been formally schooled on it), but it's
certainly enough to allow me to form a rational and reasonable opinion.

I've also taken the honest road and admitted my short-comings on the issue.

>> It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly
> out
>> of ignorance.
>>
>
> Indeed

So add some intellectual meat to the discussion. If you have time in an
Airbus or knowledge to the contrary and you'd like to lend an opposing view,
feel free. All things being equal, I like Boeing's approach to the issue
better.

--Woody

Michael Zaharis

February 25th 04, 08:21 PM

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
> I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
> to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
> their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
> expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
> responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.
>
> --Woody
>

The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm

Peter Kemp

February 25th 04, 08:29 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:56:47 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
>Willshaw" > wrote:
>I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
>to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
>their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
>expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
>responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

IIRC the first incident you mentioned occured during an airshow where
the autothrottle had been disengaged so the pilot could get closer to
teh edge of the envelope (too close as it turned out).

>To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
>The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
>to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

Err, I'm not sure of your point here. If the pilots are good enough to
avoid 60 degree AOB (Angle of Bank I assume), then what does it matter
if the computer would stop them going faster? And if they aren't that
competent, then the computer should damn well stop them playing silly
buggers. This is the same issue IMO as the G limits built into the FBW
software on most modern aircraft. Some pilots I've spoken to
(specifically F-16 drivers) object to a computer telling them they
can't pull that much g *if they have to* in a life or death situation.
Other point out that if they did exceed the limits they'd likely pull
of the wings, blow a few blood vessels, or flame out - possibly all 3,
and if the computer stops them doing that, that's fine by them.

AS for the current approaches by Boeing and Airbus, I was under teh
impression that with the latest Boeing products (777 and 737NG) they
are virtually indistinguishable to Airbus in their treatmetn of pilots
as system managers, simply becasue the computers do a better job of
keeping on time and min fuel consumption, and money's what the game's
about.

Peter Kemp
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Tarver Engineering

February 25th 04, 08:51 PM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:56:47 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
> >Willshaw" > wrote:
> >I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the
preaching
> >to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
> >their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
> >expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
> >responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.
>
> IIRC the first incident you mentioned occured during an airshow where
> the autothrottle had been disengaged so the pilot could get closer to
> teh edge of the envelope (too close as it turned out).

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot did
was way out of the envelope.

John R Weiss

February 25th 04, 08:59 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot did
> was way out of the envelope.

Let's see...

You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot elected one of the 2 options you stated were part of the
"envelope"

Then you say the go-around "was way out of the envelope."

That makes no sense!

Keith Willshaw

February 25th 04, 09:09 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
> Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
> >> Willshaw" > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
> > flown
> >> one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
> >> throttle automation (which I don't understand).
> >>
> >
> > So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
> > Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
> > can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
> > aircraft.
> >
>
> I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the
preaching
> to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
> their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
> expensive chainsaw" a few years back.

Which was an A-320 not A-300 and happened because the pilot
was flying in manual mode , THE AUTOTHROTTLE WAS OFF

That same throttle automation was
> responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.
>

No that was due to the Russian pilot having his son sitting in the left
hand seat and allowing the kid to turn the control wheel while the autopilot
was engaged. The conflict ended up with the autopilot disengaging
when control forces reached more than 12 kg

Not only was a kid in the left hand seat but the co-pilot was distracted
and had his seat pushed right back and the aircraft went into 90 deg
bank, pitched up stalled and spun in. No autothrottle was involved

> To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is
disturbing.
> The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot
needs
> to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.
>

Given that both accidents you mention were the result of pilot error
and large numbers of people died they may have a point.

Keith

Tarver Engineering

February 25th 04, 10:17 PM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot
did
> > was way out of the envelope.
>
> Let's see...
>
> You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

As defined by the POH; it is why the pilot went to jail.

> According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
> 14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

Guy Alcala

February 26th 04, 12:06 AM

John Keeney wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > John Keeney wrote:

<snip>

> > > Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.
> >
> > As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
> should the
> > navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
> define the
>
> I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
> and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
> "anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.

The question is, how often is that second country in more than X nm from the
beach. Should we plan our military around a single third-world country?
Justify why we need to meet your want. You know, what the people who make these
decisions have to do, as opposed to the likes of us who are free to spout our
pet theories on Usenet;-)

Actually, hitting Afghanistan up at least as far north as Kandahar and maybe up
to Kabul from 50-80nm offshore would be possible by unrefueled F-35Bs (assuming
they meet their range requirement), and the rest of the country if you tank
them.

> > littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm
> to
> > 650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's
> one
> > that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that
> 400nm
> > is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
> > services:
> >
> > http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611
>
> I tried to look, but I became too impatient and gave up on the down load.

The devil IS in the details, and if you want to discuss them, you've got to know
the issues, assumptions and proposed strategy.

> > Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written
> at
> > ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so
> take the
> > analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you
> think
> > appropriate.
> >
> > > Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
> > > the E-2 and C-2 anyway.
> >
> > Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters
> service,
> > that particular justification need no longer exist.
>
> Putting a spinning top on a V-22 sounds scary to me, have to be plum tall to
> see
> over those rotors. Might do an EV-22 with a phased array.

That was the proposed method; initial idea was to use a triangular radome on top
with a three-face phased array. Later there seemed to be some interest in a
spine-mounted array like the Erieye, or a ventral folding array. The V-22 has a
lower ceiling and no pressurized cabin, although it may be possible to insert a
pressurized module into it (kind of like RB-52s had). Or alternatively,
everyone will just have to wear oxygen masks. The other possiblity would be to
develop a new fuselage with the powerplants etc. the same, kind of like the
E-2/C-2 did.

> As for the COD role: the C-2 does 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of
> 1,000 nm.

Not according to the C-2A S.A.C. (available on the Naval Historical Center
website). Range with a 10,000 lb. load is 961nm, with reserves.

> The CV-22 can provide VTOL with 8,300lb of cargo for 220 nm.

Why on earth would a V-22 COD make a VTO? It will make a STO or full rolling
takeoff from shore, a STO from a carrier or LHD/LHA, and only make a VTO from a
LPD/LSD/AOE. A C-2 can only land on the carrier and has to tranship loads to a
helo for the latter ships (and hope that the helos are in range), while a V-22
can go direct to them.

> Obviously you aren't going to move as much as fast using CV-22 vs C-2.

That remains to be seen. Empty and MTOW weights of the C-2 and MV-22 are in the
same league: 33,746/54,354 for the C-2, and 33,140/57,000 (STO)/60,500 (max.)
for the MV-22, and the latter is carrying around self-sealing tanks and armor
that the former isn't, and doesn't need to maintain the same reserve fuel. The
MV-22 currently lacks a pressurized cabin, which might or might not be
significant when carrying passengers, depending on the range, weather and cruise
altitude. It's cabin is also slightly smaller than the C-2's, which again, may
or may not be significant.

> Let's assume for the moment that the V-22 can handle COD and radar missions.
> Then you are stuck with the tanker problem and three choices:
> 1) Use the V-22 as a tanker.
> r) Odds on bet the V-22 is too slow.

Too slow for the escort tanking job, certainly, so that will remain with buddy
tankers (or, down the road, a STOVL support jet). I asked Cecil Turner about
this a year or two ago, as he'd refueled in his A-4 and AV-8B from various a/c.
Based on published stats, a KV-22 should be able to tank strikers at least up to
15,000 feet, which he said was a typical tanking altitude, and maybe 18-20,000
(the latter would probably require a toboggan). As for recovery tankers, if the
navy goes all STOVL there will be far less need for them because wave-offs due
to fouled decks will become a thing of the past, as will bolters, and the
incidence of missed approaches due to low visibility will shrink to almost
nothing.

A KV-22 will certainly be lower in performance than the current S-3s; the
question is how critical is that performance to the mission.

> 2) Buddy store off a F-35B.
> r) Yea, that would make buddy storing off F-18s look positively lovely.
> How much passable gas could you actually get off the deck?

Considering that the F-35B is credited with equal or greater range than the
F-18E/F on slightly less internal fuel, has only one engine, lots of wet
external pylons and no need to hold large landing fuel reserves, I imagine the
answer is a comparable amount.

> 3) Call the Air Force.

As the navy has been doing in every one of our recent conflicts. Or the RAF, or
the Dutch, or the Italians, French, Australians, Japanese, Germans . . .

Guy

Guy Alcala

February 26th 04, 12:15 AM

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> (puttster) wrote:
>
> > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
>
> Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
>
> The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
>
> > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
>
> To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
> the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
> Richard.
>
> Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

Oh, I don't know, as the marines had their Harriers turning at a FARP/FOB
during the war, and based them there after the main fighting ended. The
only other fixed-wing a/c doing this were, surprise, surprise, A-10s,
because only these a/c were capable of operating from short runways in poor
condition. Gee, seems like exactly the kind of expeditionary ops the
marines are tasked with, and oddly enough, CAS Gen. Jumper and SECAF Roche
are both supporting buying some F-35Bs for the USAF.

Guy

puttster

February 26th 04, 12:31 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (puttster) wrote:
>
> > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
>
> Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
>
> The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

> > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
>
> To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
> the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
> Richard.
>
> Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

Frijoles

February 26th 04, 12:54 AM

No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as
demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
expeditionary locations ashore?

Should I go on?

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> Chad Irby > wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > (puttster) wrote:
> >
> > > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
> >
> > Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
> >
> > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
>
> If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> bombs, food, and all the other support?
>
> > > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
> >
> > To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
> > the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
> > Richard.
> >
> > Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.
>
> Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
> navy?

Chad Irby

February 26th 04, 01:20 AM

In article >,
(puttster) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...

> > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
>
> If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> bombs, food, and all the other support?

See the other posts in this thread about the V-22 Osprey, or read up on
parachure sropping/resupply. You also have a lot of situations where
the Marines would have a forward location, a few hundred miles outside
of the range of carrier jets, but still accessible from the ground.

It's also nice to have fast-reaction fighter jets that don't have to
live on a big, obvious target like an airfeld.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 26th 04, 04:36 AM

On 2/25/04 2:21 PM, in article , "Michael
Zaharis" > wrote:

>
>
> Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>> I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
>> to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
>> their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
>> expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
>> responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.
>>
>> --Woody
>>
>
> The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
> accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
> to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
> decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
> in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm
>

Just read it. Sorry, folks, I was misinformed.

--Woody

John R Weiss

February 26th 04, 04:51 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
> airplane yourself are long gone.

For the F-22, yep.

For the F/A-18, mostly.

For the F-14, nope!

For other airplanes in service, not even close!

John R Weiss

February 26th 04, 04:57 AM

"Michael Zaharis" > wrote...
>
> The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
> accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
> to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
> decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
> in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.

It's not only a function of high-bypass engines! The J-65 engines in the older
model A-4s had about a 13-second spool-up time, and the centrifugal-flow engines
in the old F-9s were even worse!

Some people were spoiled by the J-85, J-79 and other later-generation turbojets
that had great spool-up times. The J-52 was not as good, but a far cry better
than the J-65! The high-bypass turbofan just took ONE engine performance factor
back to the "stone age" of jet propulsion...

John R Weiss

February 26th 04, 04:57 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...

>> According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
>> 14.45:35"
>
> The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
> of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed to
mean?!?

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously -- airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm, from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to handle
them.

I suppose this is an addendum to your claims in another thread that

>> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
>> it is normal operation.

and

>> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
>> controls are altered from normal operation.

and

>> Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

Guy Alcala

February 26th 04, 05:28 AM

John R Weiss wrote:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...

<snip>

> >> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
> >> controls are altered from normal operation.
>
> and
>
> >> Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.
>
> I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

Guy

Tarver Engineering

February 26th 04, 06:40 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> >> According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
> >> 14.45:35"
> >
> > The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
part
> > of the A-320's flight control system.
>
> What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to
> mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

> Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
> aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
> between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
from last
> datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
system was
> "unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

That is a good question.

> I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
> approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
> them.

Then you have departed from reality.

Tarver Engineering

February 26th 04, 06:40 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> John R Weiss wrote:
>
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the
flight
> > >> controls are altered from normal operation.
> >
> > and
> >
> > >> Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.
> >
> > I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!
>
> John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
> about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

That would be a fact.

Tarver Engineering

February 26th 04, 06:42 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:aXe%b.122167$jk2.532687@attbi_s53...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
> > airplane yourself are long gone.
>
> For the F-22, yep.

For the F-106, yep.

This is not some new idea that snuck up on you Weiss.

Dave in San Diego

February 26th 04, 06:44 AM

(puttster) wrote in
om:

> If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> bombs, food, and all the other support?

I think their H-53s and H-46s (helicopters) handle some of that tasking

--
-
"For once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward;
For there you have been, and there you long to return."
Leonardo da Vinci

Keith Willshaw

February 26th 04, 08:01 AM

Pechs1

February 26th 04, 02:06 PM

If ya'll are gonna talk about trash haulers, why not change the title of the
post....

from above to 'trash hauler autothrottle issues' or somethin.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs1

February 26th 04, 02:09 PM

jrweiss-<< It's not only a function of high-bypass engines! The J-65 engines
in the older
model A-4s >> 

Did the A-4C have J65s? Cuz the 'E' and 'F' and 'T' models I owned in VF-126
all had J52s.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

John R Weiss

February 26th 04, 04:53 PM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote...
>
> John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
> about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt -- he might have a clue about digital
metric altimeters or something similar...

John R Weiss

February 26th 04, 04:53 PM

"Pechs1" > wrote...
>
> Did the A-4C have J65s? Cuz the 'E' and 'F' and 'T' models I owned in VF-126
> all had J52s.

Yes, the Cs had J-65s. They were a real sight when they lit off at night --
almost like an afterburner!

John R Weiss

February 26th 04, 05:03 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>> What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
>> to mean?!?
>
> Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up. As
far as we can tell, the flight control system responded properly, providing max
lift without stalling. It is not the job of the flight control system to map
trees, but the trees in the flight path interrupted the plan...

>> I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
>> approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
>> handle them.
>
> Then you have departed from reality.

I see... Now you imply that either the A-320 certification did NOT include slow
flight and approaches to stalls, or that it was certified despite its failure to
demonstrate the required controllability in those regimes.

Anyone have the coordinates of reality? I need to punch them into the FMS-CDU
tomorrow...

Harry Andreas

February 26th 04, 05:10 PM

In article >,
(puttster) wrote:

> Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
> navy?

Easy. Remember last(?) year the LHAs showing the flag off the west
african coast, and rescuing embassy personnel? No CVs anywhere near.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Tarver Engineering

February 26th 04, 06:17 PM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:AFp%b.402349$I06.4378804@attbi_s01...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >> What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system"
supposed
> >> to mean?!?
> >
> > Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.
>
> Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
the
> airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled
up.

In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
envelope?

John R Weiss

February 26th 04, 09:41 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>> Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.
>>
>> Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
the
>> airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up.
>
> In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
> envelope?

In what way do you believe stalling the wing had anything to do with the late
go-around attempt?

What flight envelope?

John Alger

February 27th 04, 12:02 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message news:<S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52>...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...

Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if
any of this has been discussed previously.

From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume
we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present
some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read
anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if
anything about Airbus flight control systems.

I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330
systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320.

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The aircraft was below
100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.

The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
trees in the video we show in class.

The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not
have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was
doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French
apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination.

Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out
and bite you someday.

John Alger
A-330 Flight Crew Training Instructor
Former rides: TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q and P-3B

Tarver Engineering

February 27th 04, 12:40 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:rKt%b.418959$na.808977@attbi_s04...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>> Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator
commanded.
> >>
> >> Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he
commanded
> the
> >> airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled
up.
> >
> > In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
> > envelope?
>
> In what way do you believe stalling the wing had anything to do with the
late
> go-around attempt?

What?

puttster

February 27th 04, 04:08 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (puttster) wrote:
>
> > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
>
> Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
>
> The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?
>
> > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
>
> To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
> the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
> Richard.
>
> Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

I heard that adfter the fighting was over the marines moved the
Harriers onshore, but of course that was politics. By then they had
their pick of runways and did not need VSTOL.

puttster

February 27th 04, 04:17 AM

yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give
me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect
reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's.

"Frijoles" > wrote in message . net>...
> No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as
> demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
> shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
> expeditionary locations ashore?
>
> Should I go on?
>
> "puttster" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > > In article >,
> > > (puttster) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > > > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > > > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
> > >
> > > Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
> > >
> > > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> > > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> > > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> > > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
> >
> > If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> > bombs, food, and all the other support?
> >
> > > > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
> > >
> > > To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
> > > the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.
> >
> > Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
> > navy?

Kevin Brooks

February 27th 04, 04:28 AM

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> Chad Irby > wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > (puttster) wrote:
> >
> > > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
> >
> > Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
> >
> > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
>
> Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
> realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?

Because (a) ordering 12 would be extremely expensive on a unit cost basis
(obviously), (b) you'd run out of hours on those 12 airframes rather quickly
(remember that those 400 will actually be ordered over a spread of years),
and (c) when you need 18 and only have 12 you are in a world of hurt. They
are replacing both their AV-8B's and their F-18C/D's with these aircraft, so
400 is not unrealistic.

> >
> > > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
> >
> > To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
> > the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
> > Richard.
> >
> > Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.
>
> I heard that adfter the fighting was over the marines moved the
> Harriers onshore, but of course that was politics.

"Politics"? Operational advantage had nothing to do with it, huh?

By then they had
> their pick of runways and did not need VSTOL.

Hardly the case, IIRC. They did use the VSOL capability to hit FARP's, thus
reducing drastically the time between CAS sorties. Imagine a scenario where
we have to seize both a beachhead and a subsequent airhead from a hostile
force. As part of the preparation for the assault, we naturally closed down
their local airbase--maybe a few 2000 pound JDAM's punching up the runway.
It takes a while to do the repairs, and until they are done you can't
operate anything but maybe a C-130 on a MLS (minimum landing strip), along
with F-35B's doing their STOVL thing. You can now push maybe 36 F-35B's onto
the strip, to add to the dozen or so you have operating from offshore that
can now join them. Having 48 fixed wing platforms supporting your force
while you struggle to get the runway up and operational for later CTOL
assets could be very valuable. You set up a FARP on the highway a few klicks
to the rear of the FLOT, and now your F-35B's can provide continuous CAS,
rotating through the FARP to rearm and refuel.

The STOVL capability makes sense--that is why the USAF is apparently now
going to switch part of its planned A model buy to B models.

Brooks

puttster

February 27th 04, 04:31 AM

Chad, these are the reasons given, but to me do not add up. The
Osprey is primarily a troop carrier, it will bring 24 marines on one
trip and spend the next 5 supplying them. Inbetween it can carry
10,000 lbs for the air wing, but that is barely enough for gas for a
single F-35 mission. Who will bring the bombs, the operations and
maintenance crews (and their food, and the cooks) and flight control
people, the artillery, the barbed wire, the hooches, the field
hospitals... And if we did have the capability to build up an air wing
and a Brigade of marines deep into the land mass, well why couldn't we
just bring in some steel planking while we aere at it and build a
runway and bring in some serious cargo and F-35 A's? Wouldn't that be
a faster solution than VSTOLing everything?

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (puttster) wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> > >...
>
> > > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> > > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> > > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> > > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
> >
> > If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> > bombs, food, and all the other support?
>
> See the other posts in this thread about the V-22 Osprey, or read up on
> parachure sropping/resupply. You also have a lot of situations where
> the Marines would have a forward location, a few hundred miles outside
> of the range of carrier jets, but still accessible from the ground.
>
> It's also nice to have fast-reaction fighter jets that don't have to
> live on a big, obvious target like an airfeld.

Chad Irby

February 27th 04, 04:36 AM

In article >,
(puttster) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (puttster) wrote:
> >
> > > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
> >
> > Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
> >
> > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
>
> Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
> realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?

Because it's 2004, and there's a good chance we'll have more than one of
those missions going on at a time sometime along the way, not to mention
training, depot maintenance, unit rotations, and the like.

There are a lot of places in the world that don't have good airstrips
and aren't close enough to coasts to deal with from carriers.

We also have the nasty contingency of "what to do if we lose some (or
all or) our carriers?"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

puttster

February 27th 04, 04:41 AM

"John Keeney" > wrote in message >...
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > John Keeney wrote:
> >
> > > "puttster" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as
> a
> Carrier
> > > > > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you.
> The B
> will
> > > > > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on
> a
> carrier
> > > > > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting
> gear
> or
> Cat
> > > > > > launches.
> > > > >
> > > > > True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
> > > > > suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
> tailhook).
> > > > > I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
> SPN-41
> > > > > in their latest incarnations.
> > > > >
> > > > > R / John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
> > > > still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
> > > > there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> > > > (the F-35C) to fit their ships?
> > >
> > > Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.
> >
> > As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
> should the
> > navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
> define the
>
> I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
> and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
> "anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.
>
Here is the math fails. If the Marine F-35B's have a range of 450
miles and the Navy's F-35C's have a range of 700 miles, how are the
marines going to set up at points inaccessible by the Navy? Besides,
how will they get resupplied?

[email protected]

February 27th 04, 04:47 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
>news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>>
>> >> According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
>at
>> >> 14.45:35"
>> >
>> > The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
>part
>> > of the A-320's flight control system.
>>
>> What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
>to
>> mean?!?
>
>Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.
>
>> Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
>> aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
>airspeed
>> between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
>from last
>> datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
>system was
>> "unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?
>
>That is a good question.
>
>> I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
>> approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
>handle
>> them.
>
>Then you have departed from reality.
>
Jesus Christ John, this is ridiculous...I've read a lot about
this accident and agree with the consensus that the a/c did all
any a/c could have done given the parameters this not too bright
bulb asked it to do.

How in hell could the system have done more than, as JW
explained, hold the AoA at the max lift point just short of stall
while the autothrottle system applied max power and everyone was
waiting with bated breath for the engines to spool up. Would you
have preferred that the pilot have been able to manhandle the AoA
higher almost certainly stalling the wings?.

Maybe if you were a magician like Marron you could have changed
the Angle of Incidence therefore giving the wings 'more lift'?...
<snort>
--

-Gord.

Kevin Brooks

February 27th 04, 05:16 AM

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > John Keeney wrote:
> > >
> > > > "puttster" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > > Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft
designed as
> > a
> > Carrier
> > > > > > > Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with
you.
> > The B
> > will
> > > > > > > be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land
on
> > a
> > carrier
> > > > > > > but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using
arresting
> > gear
> > or
> > Cat
> > > > > > > launches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully
carrier
> > > > > > suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have
a
> > tailhook).
> > > > > > I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS
and
> > SPN-41
> > > > > > in their latest incarnations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > R / John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the
Navy
> > > > > still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be
done
> > > > > there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
> > > > > (the F-35C) to fit their ships?
> > > >
> > > > Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.
> > >
> > > As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
> > should the
> > > navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
> > define the
> >
> > I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
> > and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
> > "anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.
> >
> Here is the math fails. If the Marine F-35B's have a range of 450
> miles and the Navy's F-35C's have a range of 700 miles, how are the
> marines going to set up at points inaccessible by the Navy? Besides,
> how will they get resupplied?

By air, like they did in Afghanistan, *before* major airfields were
available for use IIRC. Unless Afghanistan has been moved to where it *is*
accessable by the Navy?

Brooks

Brooks

puttster

February 27th 04, 05:17 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "puttster" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > > In article >,
> > > (puttster) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
> > > > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
> > > > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
> > >
> > > Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
> > >
> > > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
> > > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
> > > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
> > > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
> >
> > If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> > bombs, food, and all the other support?
> >
>
> By ship , C-130 or other battlefield airlift asset.
>
> Keith

I might could buy resupply with C-130's . They are STOL themselves,
landing fully loaded in under 500 ft. We would need a lot of them
though, to set up a deep mission. Maybe a situation like OIF where
Turkey would not let the Army come in from the north. With enough
C-130's maybe you could quickly set up a wing of F-35B's up in
Kurdistan, with a regiment of Marines to support them.

The thing is though there were usable airstrips there already. Even
if there weren't any, the first C-130's should be bringing in the
runway, then you could bring in C-5's for supply and you could build
twice the force in the same amount of time. Any your fighters could
have normal range and loads.

f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me. Well, maybe some
isolated rescue stuff, but what do the marines need 400 of them for?
I could see two dozen maybe, to go along with their Ospreys. That
should be it.

Keith Willshaw

February 27th 04, 07:49 AM

Keith Willshaw

February 27th 04, 07:54 AM

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...

> > >
> >
> > By ship , C-130 or other battlefield airlift asset.
> >
> > Keith
>
> I might could buy resupply with C-130's . They are STOL themselves,
> landing fully loaded in under 500 ft. We would need a lot of them
> though, to set up a deep mission.

Which is why we have em

> Maybe a situation like OIF where
> Turkey would not let the Army come in from the north. With enough
> C-130's maybe you could quickly set up a wing of F-35B's up in
> Kurdistan, with a regiment of Marines to support them.
>
> The thing is though there were usable airstrips there already.

Not many in point of fact and that isnt always the case.

> Even
> if there weren't any, the first C-130's should be bringing in the
> runway, then you could bring in C-5's for supply and you could build
> twice the force in the same amount of time. Any your fighters could
> have normal range and loads.
>

And what pray tell is protecting the C-5's and C-130's in the
meantime ?

> f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.

The RAF , RN and USMC disagree

> Well, maybe some
> isolated rescue stuff, but what do the marines need 400 of them for?
> I could see two dozen maybe, to go along with their Ospreys. That
> should be it.

Lacking either a crystal ball for perfect prediction or the ability to
limit the forces an enemy can bring to bear I disagree

There are a lot of even 3rd world airforces that can bring more than
a dozen modern fighters to a hot spot.

Keith

Kevin Brooks

February 27th 04, 02:31 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "puttster" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > By ship , C-130 or other battlefield airlift asset.
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > I might could buy resupply with C-130's . They are STOL themselves,
> > landing fully loaded in under 500 ft. We would need a lot of them
> > though, to set up a deep mission.
>
> Which is why we have em
>
> > Maybe a situation like OIF where
> > Turkey would not let the Army come in from the north. With enough
> > C-130's maybe you could quickly set up a wing of F-35B's up in
> > Kurdistan, with a regiment of Marines to support them.
> >
> > The thing is though there were usable airstrips there already.
>
> Not many in point of fact and that isnt always the case.
>
> > Even
> > if there weren't any, the first C-130's should be bringing in the
> > runway, then you could bring in C-5's for supply and you could build
> > twice the force in the same amount of time. Any your fighters could
> > have normal range and loads.
> >
>
> And what pray tell is protecting the C-5's and C-130's in the
> meantime ?

Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to build
a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is a
mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an easy
matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two. Laying
in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation, and
quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough field
C-130 strip.

>
> > f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.
>
> The RAF , RN and USMC disagree

Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they are
interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as
well.

Brooks

>
> > Well, maybe some
> > isolated rescue stuff, but what do the marines need 400 of them for?
> > I could see two dozen maybe, to go along with their Ospreys. That
> > should be it.
>
> Lacking either a crystal ball for perfect prediction or the ability to
> limit the forces an enemy can bring to bear I disagree
>
> There are a lot of even 3rd world airforces that can bring more than
> a dozen modern fighters to a hot spot.
>
> Keith
>
>

Chad Irby

February 27th 04, 04:50 PM

In article >,
(puttster) wrote:

> And if we did have the capability to build up an air wing
> and a Brigade of marines deep into the land mass, well why couldn't we
> just bring in some steel planking while we aere at it and build a
> runway and bring in some serious cargo and F-35 A's? Wouldn't that be
> a faster solution than VSTOLing everything?

Because that's not always an option.

If you're working on rough terrain, you're not always going to be able
to build a runway. There are a *lot* of places in the world where you
can get cargo, troops, et cetera in, but not have the ability to bring
in the thousands of *tons* of materials to build a solid runway capable
of handling modern fighter jets with full loads.

You also have the "big target" problem, where anything bigger than a
football field or so will be a priority, and everyone in the world is
apparently trying to build weapons that will kill any prepared runway in
short order.

On the other hand, three or four Osprey missions per day would give you
enough materials to put up one or two V/STOL fighter missions, or more
if you're just talking interceptor flights.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

February 27th 04, 04:53 PM

In article >,
(puttster) wrote:

> Here is the math fails. If the Marine F-35B's have a range of 450
> miles and the Navy's F-35C's have a range of 700 miles, how are the
> marines going to set up at points inaccessible by the Navy?

By flying in, refueling, then flying further in.

You also have the question of "what happens if you lose your carriers?"

> Besides, how will they get resupplied?

Air or ground, as usual.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Woody Beal

February 27th 04, 05:43 PM

On 2/26/04 18:02, in article ,
"John Alger" > wrote:

> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:<S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52>...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
> Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
<SNIP>
> realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
> fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
> trees in the video we show in class.
>

So, if I get you correctly, the airplane calculates a Vls based on what it
believes its gross weight is and knows it's Alpha-Max (I presume its stall
AOA). When the pilots tries to fly the jet below the Vls at greater than
Alpha-Max, the aircraft goes into TOGA power which will either power you out
or allow you to hit the ground at full power whichever is more
aerodynamically appropriate. And the system is auto-disabled below 100' so
that you can bring the jet back down to terra-firma without having to
continually be wrestled back into the air in the flare.

Thanks for the education and a very intelligent post.

This thread was started by me and my objections to Airbus' approach to
automation. I think this incident speaks to that objection. Here you have
a complex "Rube Goldberg" approach to protect the pilot from what? Stalling
the aircraft in a circle to land or on a "drive and dive" non-precision
straight-in approach? Why is that necessary?

Here's my point: Had this system not been installed in the aircraft, the
pilot would have been forced to stick and throttle his way through this
(obviously inappropriate) maneuver. Had he simply stuck to flying the jet
instead of relying on automation he obviously didn't understand, he probably
wouldn't have hit the trees.

> The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not
> have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was
> doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French
> apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination.
>
> Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out
> and bite you someday.
>

I concur... With a caveat:

The goal of any automation should be to increase safety and decrease work
load. It seems that in this case, automation (because of its complexity)
was a causal factor in the mishap... Not to mention the pilots RELIANCE on
that automation.

Airbus seems to take the approach that pilots need to be kept from flying
outside of the box, so it designs these sorts of "protections" into its
flight control systems. Pilots (being lazy humans by nature) start to rely
on that automation and are lulled into a false sense of security by it.
Makes me wonder in this case if the guy had been flying an airplane that
didn't have alpha floor protection whether he would have tried this stunt...
i.e. "No sweat, the alpha floor protection will save me."

That's the danger in this approach to automation. That's my objection to
it--not to automation as a whole, but in Airbus' approach.

Thanks again, John for a very intelligent and informative post.

I'd like to ask you another question (although again OT for RAMN). Could
you explain how the A320/330 "no greater than 60 degrees AOB" protection
works, where it gets its inputs from, and how it is enabled or disabled?

--Woody

> John Alger
> A-330 Flight Crew Training Instructor
> Former rides: TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q and P-3B

Paul J. Adam

February 27th 04, 05:51 PM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
>bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to build
>a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is a
>mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
>cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
>getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an easy
>matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two. Laying
>in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation, and
>quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough field
>C-130 strip.

Compare this with the effort needed to create HMS Sheathbill in the
Falklands (which was a basic "land, refuel, leave or GLI" strip). It's
*much* easier to pick a stretch of highway, fly in fuel bladders and
maybe ordnance & first-line servicing - than to build a fixed-wing CTOL
strip from scratch (lots of supplies and equipment needed just to build
the runway before anything else arrives) The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
very good effect in 1991, for instance.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Tarver Engineering

February 27th 04, 06:38 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

> >Then you have departed from reality.
> >
> Jesus Christ John, this is ridiculous...I've read a lot about
> this accident and agree with the consensus that the a/c did all
> any a/c could have done given the parameters this not too bright
> bulb asked it to do.

You mean the pilot stalled the wing?

Then you are well advanced from Weiss' understanding.

> How in hell could the system have done more than, as JW
> explained, hold the AoA at the max lift point just short of stall
> while the autothrottle system applied max power

The autothrottle only knows land and go around in the situation we are
discussing and the pilot was beyond the point of either flight mode. The
operator has to follow the POH, as it is part of the type Certificate.

Tarver Engineering

February 27th 04, 06:43 PM

"John Alger" > wrote in message
m...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:<S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52>...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
> Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
> allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if
> any of this has been discussed previously.
>
> From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume
> we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present
> some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read
> anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if
> anything about Airbus flight control systems.
>
> I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330
> systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320.
>
> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

> The aircraft was below
> 100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
> that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
> of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
> Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
> Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
> aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
> neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
> autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
> back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
> Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
> gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.

The low fly by was not an A-320 flight mode.

> The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
> touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
> Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
> realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
> fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
> trees in the video we show in class.

That is what I have been attempting to communicate to Weiss.

> The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not
> have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was
> doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French
> apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination.

Yes.

It is not just the French that believe the POH is part of the Type
Certificate for an airplane.

> Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out
> and bite you someday.

Weiss is in danger every time he flys then.

John R Weiss

February 27th 04, 06:51 PM

"John Alger" > wrote...
>
> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The aircraft was below
> 100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
> that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
> of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
> Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
> Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
> aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
> neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
> autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
> back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
> Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
> gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.
>
> The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
> touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
> Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
> realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
> fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
> trees in the video we show in class.

From what you say here, it does not appear autothrottle was engaged (which also
correlates with other descriptions I've read) -- apparently, the pilot manually
moved the throttles from idle to Max. Is this true?

Is Alpha-Max the stall AOA, or something less? Is there any "emergency
override" that will engage the autothrottle when approaching Alpha-Max?

Kevin Brooks

February 27th 04, 08:48 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
> >bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to
build
> >a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is
a
> >mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
> >cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
> >getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an
easy
> >matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two.
Laying
> >in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation,
and
> >quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough
field
> >C-130 strip.
>
> Compare this with the effort needed to create HMS Sheathbill in the
> Falklands (which was a basic "land, refuel, leave or GLI" strip). It's
> *much* easier to pick a stretch of highway, fly in fuel bladders and
> maybe ordnance & first-line servicing - than to build a fixed-wing CTOL
> strip from scratch (lots of supplies and equipment needed just to build
> the runway before anything else arrives) The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
> very good effect in 1991, for instance.

And reportedly again during OIF, where AV-8B's used FARP's.

Brooks
>
>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Frijoles

February 27th 04, 10:33 PM

Your question was (quote) "Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could
not be none by the navy?" The question was answered with specific
operational capabilities (exercised in combat operations) that the Navy does
not possess. You are obviously ignorant of the process by which
"requirements" are generated and validated. You are obviously ignorant of
how procurement #s are generated. You are ignorant of the numbers of
aircraft resident in the USMC TACAIR inventory, and you are ignorant of how
they are employed -- to wit, " I cannot get a good picture of a mission
where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but
still not have a decent runway!"

Come back with some intelligent questions after you've done some research.

"puttster" > wrote in message
om...
> yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give
> me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect
> reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's.
>
> "Frijoles" > wrote in message
. net>...
> > No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW)
ashore, as
> > demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
> > shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
> > expeditionary locations ashore?
> >
> > Should I go on?
> >
> > "puttster" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (puttster) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I
cannot
> > > > > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+
of
> > > > > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent
runway!
> > > >
> > > > Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
> > > >
> > > > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire
war
> > > > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a
small
> > > > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes,
so we
> > > > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
> > >
> > > If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> > > bombs, food, and all the other support?
> > >
> > > > > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
> > > >
> > > > To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go
through
> > > > the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS
Bonhomme
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier
for.
> > >
> > >

Pooh Bear

February 28th 04, 02:45 AM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
>
> >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >
> >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
> >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
>
> Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
> prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
> exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

Graham

[email protected]

February 28th 04, 03:53 AM

JL Grasso > wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
>wrote:
>
>>> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
>>> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
>>> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
>>
>>The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
>>with the low slow fly by all on his own.
>
>Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
>low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
>prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
>below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
>exit the fly-by.
>
>Jerry

So you're telling us that autothrottle won't work below 100 ft
and to get TOGA below 100 ft you must apply it manually?...
--

-Gord.

John Alger

February 28th 04, 04:07 AM

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message news:<7lM%b.72046$4o.90913@attbi_s52>...
> From what you say here, it does not appear autothrottle was engaged (which also
> correlates with other descriptions I've read) -- apparently, the pilot manually
> moved the throttles from idle to Max. Is this true?
>
> Is Alpha-Max the stall AOA, or something less? Is there any "emergency
> override" that will engage the autothrottle when approaching Alpha-Max?

Alpha-Floor protection is the automatic override. Autothrust does not
need to be on, only available. Autothrust could have been active or
not - it does not matter. However, Alpha-Floor is not available once
the aircraft descends below 100' as I stated before, regardless of A/T
status. The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
power.

Alpha-Max is prior to stall AOA - it is the top of the L/D curve. Here
is a scenario that may help. Without touching the stick you bring the
thrust levers to idle (this disengages the autothrust BTW). The
aircraft will slow down to Vls and no more (the nose will pitch down
slightly to maintain this speed). Now, if you grab the side-stick and
pull it full aft (this will disconnect the autopilot) you will slow
further towards Alpha-Max. Depending on your rate of deceleration and
your rate of pitch (g), Alpha-floor kicks in somewhere prior to
Alpha-Max - at that moment, Autothrust is automatically re-engaged,
TOGA power is commanded (remember, your thrust levers are still at
idle) and speed will stabilize at Alpha-Max while you hold the stick
full aft. Depending on GW you may or may not be descending, but you
will not stall.

The aircraft in question never stalled - it is not possible in the
mode it was flying in (Normal Law). You CAN fly it into the ground,
but you cannot stall it. To move from Normal Law to Alternate Law (in
which the aircraft may be stalled) requires multiple failures of key
systems and/or flight control computers - none of which occured in
this case.

And, BTW: The gentleman is correct, it was a revenue flight (never
said otherwise) but it was also a pre-arranged demonstration flyby of
the new aircraft. This is why there is a very good video of the whole
event.

John A.

Phil Miller

February 28th 04, 04:10 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 03:53:12 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>JL Grasso > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
>>>> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
>>>> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
>>>
>>>The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
>>>with the low slow fly by all on his own.
>>
>>Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
>>low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
>>prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
>>below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
>>exit the fly-by.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>So you're telling us that autothrottle won't work below 100 ft
>and to get TOGA below 100 ft you must apply it manually?...

G'day Gord,

According to Macarthur Job's description of this accident, the captain
selected "...Open Descent Idle Mode to allow the engine thrust to be
controlled manually.". Also, "...the crew deactivated the Alpha Floor
function, to prevent the computerised control system from automatically
applying power as the angle of attack increased."

Phil
--
Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson

John Keeney

February 28th 04, 07:01 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.
> >
> > The RAF , RN and USMC disagree
>
> Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they
are
> interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as
> well.

It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)

Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 28th 04, 07:04 AM

On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
> wrote:

>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>> f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.
>>>
>>> The RAF , RN and USMC disagree
>>
>> Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they
> are
>> interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as
>> well.
>
> It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
> the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)
>
> Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...
>
>

They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
it's HUGE!

Guy Alcala

February 28th 04, 10:09 AM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
> >bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to build
> >a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is a
> >mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
> >cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
> >getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an easy
> >matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two. Laying
> >in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation, and
> >quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough field
> >C-130 strip.
>
> Compare this with the effort needed to create HMS Sheathbill in the
> Falklands (which was a basic "land, refuel, leave or GLI" strip).

Uh-huh. Minimum size for a C-130 capable airstrip is considered to be 3,000' x
60'. AM-2 weighs 140 lb. for a 12' x 2' strip, not counting attachments and
holddowns. HMS Sheathbill was relatively convenient, being almost right on the
shoreline. It was recce'd by the head of the Engineer Squadron on D+1 (he'd also
examined an old Auster strip at San Carlos settlement, but it was too soft for
Harriers even with AM-2), the 11,000 AM-2 planks needed were unloaded from RFA
Stromness beginning on D+2, and it was finished on D+12. It was only 860 feet
long with two VL pads and a parking/fueling loop for 4 a/c, and fuel bladders
both on shore and floating in San Carlos Water, topped up from the RFAs (the rest
of the AM-2 matting to expand the runway/parking area, as well as much a/c spares
etc. went down in Atlantic Conveyor).

> It's
> *much* easier to pick a stretch of highway, fly in fuel bladders and
> maybe ordnance & first-line servicing - than to build a fixed-wing CTOL
> strip from scratch (lots of supplies and equipment needed just to build
> the runway before anything else arrives)

To be precise, quoting now from the MEF Planning Manual Staff Planning Factors:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Expeditionary Airfield (EAF). The EAF consists of two hundred and eighty
containers of equipment and provides the capability to build a notional EAf
2000. This capability is designated to include: 96 foot wide by 3,850 ft. long
runway, 75 parking spaces for tactical aircraft, 3 parking spaces for tactical
aircraft, fueling area and revetments, airfield lighting and visual landing aids,
and arrester gear. The EAF is normally spread to three ships in the
[pre-positioning] squadron in three modules, which support the following:

"Ship 1: 471,683 SQFT. Parking, R/W [Guy: Rotary wing] Fuel Pit, Runway to
support 18 CH-53s, 18 MV-22s/CH-46s, 24 A/UH-1s.

"Ship 2: 445,000 SQFT. Parking, R/W Fuel Pit, Runway to support 12 CH-53s, 12
MV-22s/CH-46s, 12 A/UH-1s.

"Ship 3: 445,000 SQFT. Parking, F/W [Fixed-wing] Fuel Pit, Runway to support 20
AV-8Bs, 14 F-18.

"Any reduction in the equipment identified will result in an equivalent reduction
in capability (e.g. shorter/narrower runway, less parking, or no arrester gear).
Three ships together can be configured to support C-5 aircraft."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Going all-STOVL a/c means no need for arrester gear. It took the brits a couple
of weeks to install arrester gear at Port Stanley airfield in the immediate
aftermath of the war, owing to the mud, lack of drainage, and cold weather.

And how long does it take to put a FARP/FOB together, if they have to lay a
runway? Let's take a representative example, one for AV-8Bs:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
72' x 960' runway with 2 integral 96' x 96' VTOL pads. Parking hides for 11
AV-8B (designed for 32' x 56'). Net explosive weight of 3,000 lb. considered for
each a/c. Subgrade prepared to a minimum of CBR 25. Requires

(1 each) F70 - Field Tool Kit
(267 pieces) F71 - 12' AM2 Mat
(267) pieces F72 - 6' AM2 Mat.
(6 sets) Anchors and Accessories
(6 sets) F77 - H-connectors

Site preparation: A crew of 15 working 10 hrs per day can complete in 5 days
with:

2 graders
2 dump trucks
2 compactors
1 D7 dozer
2 TRAMs w/buckets
3 6-10k forklifts

Installation: A crew of 36 working 10 hrs a day can complete in 3 days.

Note: The EAF concept allows for an infinite number of configurations. The
three configurations used in this table do not
represent any standard airfield configuration. There is no standard EAF
configuration. Per the AM-2 Tech Manual, a 16 man crew can install 3,300 ft.^2
per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

You could go somehat narrower for a FARP and do without the hides, but needless
to say laying down a runway and parking pads boosts the logistic and time burden,
which is why you don't want to do it if you don't have to. This is one reason
why the Marines are looking at a V/STOL transport with the load capability of a
C-130.

[i]
> The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
> very good effect in 1991, for instance.

Using a helicopter airfield with a 6,000 foot runway in very poor repair, about
half of which was usable. They also operated from poor condition forward
airfields in Iraq this past year, with fuel, weapons and sparesapparently brought
in mostly by truck.

Guy

sid

February 28th 04, 11:13 AM

(John Alger) wrote in message >
> And, BTW: The gentleman is correct, it was a revenue flight (never
> said otherwise) but it was also a pre-arranged demonstration flyby of
> the new aircraft. This is why there is a very good video of the whole
> event.
>
> John A.

Wow John, I never knew ANYBODY understood 'bus flight control laws. I
always thought they had been delivered hundreds of years ago by aliens
to the Oracles of Delphi :-)
So, John, have you guys sim'd the scenario that the A-300 faced after
it was zapped leaving Baghdad? In short what would the loss of all
hydraulics, and use of control surfaces, coupled with that kind of
airfoil degradation do to a more modern 'bus flight control
automation?

Guy Alcala

February 28th 04, 12:35 PM

Guy Alcala wrote:

<snip>

> To be precise, quoting now from the MEF Planning Manual Staff Planning Factors:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Expeditionary Airfield (EAF). The EAF consists of two hundred and eighty
> containers of equipment and provides the capability to build a notional EAf
> 2000. This capability is designated to include: 96 foot wide by 3,850 ft. long
> runway, 75 parking spaces for tactical aircraft, 3 parking spaces for tactical
> aircraft,

That last should read "3 parking spaces for transport aircraft".

Guy

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 28th 04, 02:20 PM

On 2/28/04 4:09 AM, in article ,
"Guy Alcala" > wrote:

<SNIP>
>> The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
>> very good effect in 1991, for instance.
>
> Using a helicopter airfield with a 6,000 foot runway in very poor repair,
> about
> half of which was usable. They also operated from poor condition forward
> airfields in Iraq this past year, with fuel, weapons and sparesapparently
> brought
> in mostly by truck.
>
> Guy
>

Guy, it's obvious you know how to build an airfield.

The AV-8B's worked from forward airfields because they could. It was a way
to use the assets we already have in a way that reduced crowding at existing
airfields and slightly reduced tanker requirements.

It was a "nice to have" not a requirement. The war would have gone just
fine had they been F-16's or F/A-18's operating from fixed runways or
aircraft carriers. Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.

--Woody

khobar

February 28th 04, 04:23 PM

Pooh Bear > wrote in message
...
> JL Grasso wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> > >
> > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
came up
> > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >
> > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
a
> > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
to
> > exit the fly-by.
>
> The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> 'explanation'.

You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

Paul Nixon

[email protected]

February 28th 04, 04:31 PM

JL Grasso > wrote:

>>So you're telling us that autothrottle won't work below 100 ft
>>and to get TOGA below 100 ft you must apply it manually?...
>
>No. I am saying that if you are at 100 feet AGL, 122 KIAS, 15 degrees nose
>up, sinking at 600 FPM, engines at 29% N2, apply TOGA power and then
>strike the trees 5 seconds later, you obviously applied it too late, eh.
>The engines responded as they should have and autothrottles had nothing at
>all to do with the accident.
>
>So (to use your methods here), you're telling me that there was absolutely
>noting wrong with the configuration that the crew put that aircraft in?
>
>Jerry

No Jerry, I'm not...on rereading my post it did sound
confrontational, sorry. I was looking for info there and you seem
to have a good handle on the incident.
--

-Gord.

[email protected]

February 28th 04, 04:46 PM

(John Alger) wrote:

> The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
>too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
>power.
>

This absolutely floors me...WHY wouldn't he intimately KNOW
this?...I find it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't. What was
the cojo doing all this while?...had they never heard of CRM over
there?...
--

-Gord.

Keith Willshaw

February 28th 04, 05:57 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (John Alger) wrote:
>
> > The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
> >too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
> >power.
> >
>
> This absolutely floors me...WHY wouldn't he intimately KNOW
> this?...I find it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't. What was
> the cojo doing all this while?...had they never heard of CRM over
> there?...
> --

The CVR transcript is on line at
http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_acf296.shtml

Keith

running with scissors

February 28th 04, 05:59 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...

> The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
> of the A-320's flight control system.

bwahahahhahahahhahhahahhhahahhahhahahahahahhahahah ahahahahahahha

every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

running with scissors

February 28th 04, 06:10 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "John Alger" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:<S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52>...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
> > Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
> > allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if
> > any of this has been discussed previously.
> >
> > From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume
> > we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present
> > some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read
> > anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if
> > anything about Airbus flight control systems.
> >
> > I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330
> > systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320.
> >
> > The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> > fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> > pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
>
> The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
> with the low slow fly by all on his own.

nope. it was a revenue flight. though the pilot was requested to do
the low fly past by AF.

running with scissors

February 28th 04, 06:11 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:AFp%b.402349$I06.4378804@attbi_s01...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > >
> > >> What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system"
> supposed
> > >> to mean?!?
> > >
> > > Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.
> >
> > Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
> the
> > airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled
> up.
>
> In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
> envelope?

how did it stall ?

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 28th 04, 06:16 PM

On 2/28/04 10:46 AM, in article ,
"Gord Beaman )" <> wrote:

> (John Alger) wrote:
>
>> The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
>> too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
>> power.
>>
>
> This absolutely floors me...WHY wouldn't he intimately KNOW
> this?...I find it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't. What was
> the cojo doing all this while?...had they never heard of CRM over
> there?...
> --
>
> -Gord.

Lulled into a false sense of security by automation he didn't fully
understand.

--Woody

John Miller

February 28th 04, 06:20 PM

running with scissors wrote:
> every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
looking straight down at the midpoint...

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of.
-John D. Rockefeller

Kevin Brooks

February 28th 04, 07:54 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/28/04 4:09 AM, in article
,
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >> The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
> >> very good effect in 1991, for instance.
> >
> > Using a helicopter airfield with a 6,000 foot runway in very poor
repair,
> > about
> > half of which was usable. They also operated from poor condition
forward
> > airfields in Iraq this past year, with fuel, weapons and
sparesapparently
> > brought
> > in mostly by truck.
> >
> > Guy
> >
>
> Guy, it's obvious you know how to build an airfield.
>
> The AV-8B's worked from forward airfields because they could. It was a
way
> to use the assets we already have in a way that reduced crowding at
existing
> airfields and slightly reduced tanker requirements.

And improved the response time and sortie generation rates, just as a FARP
alows an attack helo to generate more sorties due to reduced transit time
back and forth to the unit operating location.

>
> It was a "nice to have" not a requirement. The war would have gone just
> fine had they been F-16's or F/A-18's operating from fixed runways or
> aircraft carriers.

The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
have".

> Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.

Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in
this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind
of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to
transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a
big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's
and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is
the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
USMC brethren? I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
where/when/how we'll have to fight).

Brooks

>
> --Woody
>

Tank Fixer

February 28th 04, 08:52 PM

In article >,
on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT,
R. David Steele attempted to say .....

>
> The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
> modified to be a carrier aircraft.

Umm, no it isn't

F-35 is the JSF

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Pooh Bear

February 28th 04, 10:06 PM

khobar wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in message
> ...
> > JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> > > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> > > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> > > >
> > > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
> came up
> > > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> > >
> > > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> > > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
> a
> > > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> > > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
> to
> > > exit the fly-by.
> >
> > The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> > 'explanation'.
>
> You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
> story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

Certainly didn't look like the same one from the pictures I saw.

There is certainly something altogether 'odd' about this incident.

Graham

Pooh Bear

February 28th 04, 10:07 PM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" > wrote:
>
> >Pooh Bear > wrote in message
> ...
> >> JL Grasso wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >> > >
> >> > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
> >came up
> >> > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> >> > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
> >a
> >> > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> >> > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
> >to
> >> > exit the fly-by.
> >>
> >> The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> >> 'explanation'.
> >
> >You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
> >story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?
>
> ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
> box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
> crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
> diagonal stripes.
>
> Pretty conclusive, yes?

Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
same one presented in court.

Graham

Pooh Bear

February 28th 04, 10:08 PM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >> >
> >> >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
> >> >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >>
> >> Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> >> low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
> >> prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> >> below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
> >> exit the fly-by.
> >
> >The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> >'explanation'.
>
> Cite?

Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ?

Graham

Phil Miller

February 28th 04, 10:46 PM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso >
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:
>
>>JL Grasso wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Pooh Bear > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> JL Grasso wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>>> >
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
>>> >> > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
>>> >> > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
>>> >came up
>>> >> > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
>>> >> > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
>>> >a
>>> >> > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
>>> >> > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
>>> >to
>>> >> > exit the fly-by.
>>> >>
>>> >> The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
>>> >> 'explanation'.
>>> >
>>> >You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
>>> >story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?
>>>
>>> ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
>>> box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
>>> crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
>>> diagonal stripes.
>>>
>>> Pretty conclusive, yes?
>>
>>Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
>>same one presented in court.
>
>Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
>right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?
>
>Jerry

Try this Jerry:

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml

Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader.

Phil
--
Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 28th 04, 10:59 PM

On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
<SNIP>
> The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
> throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
> capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
> have".
>

CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
aircraft, and a good DASC.

>> Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.
>
> Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in
> this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind
> of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to
> transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
> ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a
> big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's
> and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is
> the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
> USMC brethren?

Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping
to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring
that the STOVL version doesn't get axed.

> I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
> not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
> not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
> where/when/how we'll have to fight).
>
> Brooks
>

What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
cost.

--Woody

running with scissors

February 28th 04, 11:32 PM

John Miller > wrote in message >...
> running with scissors wrote:
> > every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff
>
> Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
> during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
> looking straight down at the midpoint...

ahh but in tarverworld past the end the runway is an unmapped part of
the A-320's flight control system.

Phil Miller

February 29th 04, 12:03 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:11:23 -0500, JL Grasso >
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +1100, Phil Miller
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>JL Grasso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Pooh Bear > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >> JL Grasso wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
>>>>> >> > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
>>>>> >> > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
>>>>> >came up
>>>>> >> > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
>>>>> >> > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
>>>>> >a
>>>>> >> > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
>>>>> >> > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
>>>>> >to
>>>>> >> > exit the fly-by.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
>>>>> >> 'explanation'.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
>>>>> >story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?
>>>>>
>>>>> ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
>>>>> box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
>>>>> crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
>>>>> diagonal stripes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty conclusive, yes?
>>>>
>>>>Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
>>>>same one presented in court.
>>>
>>>Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
>>>right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>
>>Try this Jerry:
>>
>>http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
>>
>>Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader.
>
>Thanks, Phil. I'd seen that bit earlier. It clearly looks like the same
>boxes to me. I have no idea where the conspiracy theory is supported by
>that, other than the written text which alleges it.
>
>Jerry

Yeah. How anyone can draw any conclusion from such a terrible picture is
boggling. Seems fairly consistent with this pic for mine:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_sidefront_lg.jpg

but too fuzzy (and the box is on a fair old angle to the photographer)
to say whether the stripes are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or it's
just a white blob and not stripes at all.

Phil
--
The biggest conspiracy has always been the
fact that there is no conspiracy.
Nobody's out to get you.
Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
There, you feel better now?
-- Dennis Miller

Kevin Brooks

February 29th 04, 12:42 AM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
> Brooks" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> <SNIP>

<snip>

> >
> > Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required
in
> > this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that
kind
> > of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had
to
> > transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
> > ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be
a
> > big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those
F-15E's
> > and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why
is
> > the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
> > USMC brethren?
>
> Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely
hoping
> to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by
ensuring
> that the STOVL version doesn't get axed.

That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL
version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two
versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's
with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have
postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because
the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any
*reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few
billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want?

>
> > I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
> > not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that
would
> > not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
> > where/when/how we'll have to fight).
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
> many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for
that
> cost.

Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the
STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...

Brooks

>
> --Woody
>

Boomer

February 29th 04, 12:47 AM

Save the enlarged pic in that repeort, open it in any graphics editor and
use the color chooser (usually an eyedropper) and check the colors. The box
in the enlargement clearly has 1 red corner at the bottom, the other bottom
corner (closest to the photog) has a white bottom. The stripes are diagonal.
The IPSC should lay off the wine during investigations.

"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:11:23 -0500, JL Grasso >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +1100, Phil Miller
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>JL Grasso wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" >
wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >Pooh Bear > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> >> JL Grasso wrote:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> > wrote:
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was
performing a
> >>>>> >> > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or
demo
> >>>>> >> > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >>>>> >> > >
> >>>>> >> > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with
passengers and
> >>>>> >came up
> >>>>> >> > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but
the
> >>>>> >> > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both
captains in
> >>>>> >a
> >>>>> >> > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by
descent
> >>>>> >> > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of
TOGA power
> >>>>> >to
> >>>>> >> > exit the fly-by.
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the
above
> >>>>> >> 'explanation'.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the
official
> >>>>> >story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance
of the
> >>>>> box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after
the
> >>>>> crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court
had
> >>>>> diagonal stripes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pretty conclusive, yes?
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way
is it the
> >>>>same one presented in court.
> >>>
> >>>Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
> >>>right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?
> >>>
> >>>Jerry
> >>
> >>Try this Jerry:
> >>
> >>http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
> >>
> >>Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader.
> >
> >Thanks, Phil. I'd seen that bit earlier. It clearly looks like the same
> >boxes to me. I have no idea where the conspiracy theory is supported by
> >that, other than the written text which alleges it.
> >
> >Jerry
>
> Yeah. How anyone can draw any conclusion from such a terrible picture is
> boggling. Seems fairly consistent with this pic for mine:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_sidefront_lg.jpg
>
> but too fuzzy (and the box is on a fair old angle to the photographer)
> to say whether the stripes are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or it's
> just a white blob and not stripes at all.
>
>
> Phil
> --
> The biggest conspiracy has always been the
> fact that there is no conspiracy.
> Nobody's out to get you.
> Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
> There, you feel better now?
> -- Dennis Miller

puttster

February 29th 04, 01:41 AM

LOL you call:

"expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as
demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
shipping. assault support from amphibious shipping or from
expeditionary locations ashore?"

anything but yada yada gobbledygook? You have just described a good
mission for an air/sea rescue helicoptor!

Please though, don't try again, you are wasting everyone's time.

"Frijoles" > wrote in message .net>...
> Your question was (quote) "Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could
> not be none by the navy?" The question was answered with specific
> operational capabilities (exercised in combat operations) that the Navy does
> not possess. You are obviously ignorant of the process by which
> "requirements" are generated and validated. You are obviously ignorant of
> how procurement #s are generated. You are ignorant of the numbers of
> aircraft resident in the USMC TACAIR inventory, and you are ignorant of how
> they are employed -- to wit, " I cannot get a good picture of a mission
> where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but
> still not have a decent runway!"
>
> Come back with some intelligent questions after you've done some research.
>
> "puttster" > wrote in message
> om...
> > yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give
> > me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect
> > reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's.
> >
> > "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> . net>...
> > > No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW)
> ashore, as
> > > demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
> > > shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
> > > expeditionary locations ashore?
> > >
> > > Should I go on?
> > >
> > > "puttster" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > (puttster) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I
> cannot
> > > > > > get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+
> of
> > > > > > them with all the support for them but still not have a decent
> runway!
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?
> > > > >
> > > > > The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire
> war
> > > > > in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a
> small
> > > > > landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes,
> so we
> > > > > need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."
> > > >
> > > > If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
> > > > bombs, food, and all the other support?
> > > >
> > > > > > How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?
> > > > >
> > > > > To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go
> through
> > > > > the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS
> Bonhomme
> > > > > Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier
> for.
> > > >
> > > >

Pooh Bear

February 29th 04, 02:25 AM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Pooh Bear > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> >> > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> >> > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
> >> >came up
> >> >> > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> >> >> > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
> >> >a
> >> >> > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> >> >> > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
> >> >to
> >> >> > exit the fly-by.
> >> >>
> >> >> The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> >> >> 'explanation'.
> >> >
> >> >You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
> >> >story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?
> >>
> >> ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
> >> box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
> >> crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
> >> diagonal stripes.
> >>
> >> Pretty conclusive, yes?
> >
> >Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
> >same one presented in court.
>
> Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
> right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?

It's so long ago, Jerry that I don't have cites readily to hand. I most certainly did
take a great interest in this crash. UK TV did too, with certainly more than one
decent documentary about this event. I believe I may still have a vid of at least one
of the documentaries in question. And before you try discrediting TV documentaries -
realise that in the UK we don't have the same commercial pressures as in the USA and
we make possibly the worlds' finest docs.

I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live recorded
footage - and it was a fairly tatty looking one ( well worn ). The one presented at
the investigation / court was entirely diiferent - almost pristine.

There is also I believe a question over 7 or 10 IIRC 'missing seconds' from the DFDR
record !!

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Graham

Pooh Bear

February 29th 04, 02:40 AM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:08:49 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> >> >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> >> >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
> >> >> >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> >> >> low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
> >> >> prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> >> >> below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
> >> >> exit the fly-by.
> >> >
> >> >The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> >> >'explanation'.
> >>
> >> Cite?
> >
> >Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ?
>
> Are you sure that you're not thinking of Norbert Jaquet? I thought that
> Mazieres (the FO) flew for AF for some time after the accident. I could be
> wrong, however.
>
> If it was common knowledge, a cite should be a simple matter. Unless you
> mean 'common knowledge' in the Tarverian sense.

I stand corrected, I got the 2 confused. It's been a long time since it happened. The
F.O. stayed 'shtumb' ( is that how you spell it ) and kept out of the way of the flak.

Do you not think it strange that someone who criticised the official findings and
supported the captain being declared mentally insane is a very odd way to go about an
accident investigation ?

Graham

Guy Alcala

February 29th 04, 05:06 AM

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

> On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
> Brooks" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> <SNIP>
> > The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
> > throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
> > capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
> > have".
> >
>
> CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
> on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
> loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
> aircraft, and a good DASC.

That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down
space for them will be available, both of which were in short supply last year.
In 1991, because we had access to Saudi and Turkish bases, the USAF was able to
put 350 tankers on just 5 airbases. Last year, they only had 200 tankers (plus
100 for the airbridge; others were supporting ops in Afghanistan and the Horn of
Africa), and had to scatter them on 15 airbases. Because of the lack of ramp
space, the marines graded a FOB in the northern Kuwaiti desert with a parallel
pair of 6,000 foot dirt runways, where they based many of their KC-130s and
helos. In addition, they offloaded the helos, men and equipment from two
LHA/LHDs, operating each of them with a full AV-8B squadron, just so they
wouldn't take up space on an airfield in Kuwait that was needed by the CTOL
aircraft.

The USAF weren't the only ones with tanker problems. From an article in the
April 14th, 2003 AvLeak, "Lessons Learned", pg. 26, by AvLeak's correspondent at
a Marine airbase in Kuwait:

"Its air campaign has been shaped to a large extent by the fact that the service
has only 24 KC-130 tankers in the region, a relatively small number compared with
the number of strike aircraft it has assembled. What further complicated the
tanker issue is that most KC-130 sorties were dedicated to transporting fuel for
helicopters, as well as tanks and other ground vehicles, to forward areas. It is
a "rare occurence" for a Marine F/A-18 or AV-8B to be refueled in the air, said a
senior Marine Air Group 13 representative, who described the tanker shortage as
'huge'. Problems the USAF has had with its own tankers -- such as poor
availability because of the age of the KC-135s -- have exacerbated the dilemma,
Marine Corps officials asserted. 'Tanking was very limited,' one Royal Air Force
Harrier pilot noted . . . .

"Without refueling, fixed-wing a/c operating from here can only fly over Baghdad
or points north for a few minutes before having to return to base. Pilots from
Harrier squadron VMA-214 noted that without aerial refueling, they had little
time to find targets in the 30 x 30-mi. 'kill boxes' set up around Baghdad.

"The Marines hope to mitigate the problem by establishing forward operating bases
for AV-8Bs and potential F/A-18s. For its helicopter force, the Marines have
already built an extensive series of [FARPs]. So far, the Marines have built
more than 10 FARPs and have even closed down the first few that are no longer
tactically relevant."

They definitely established a Harrier FARP and were sitting ground alert and/or
turning AV-8Bs at an airfield east of the Euphrates that the marines had captured
on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy
wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around al-Kut.

> >> Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.
> >
> > Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in
> > this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind
> > of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to
> > transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
> > ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a
> > big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's
> > and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is
> > the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
> > USMC brethren?
>
> Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping
> to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring
> that the STOVL version doesn't get axed.

And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a
somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile
one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able to
operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a good
thing?

> > I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
> > not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
> > not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
> > where/when/how we'll have to fight).
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
> many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
> cost.

And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get rid
of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping like
flies.

Guy

WaltBJ

February 29th 04, 05:23 AM

Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
familiar with I have the AvWeek writeups somewhere. I used this (among
others) as 'don't do this - think it out first' safety talks with my
av students. The one I'm talking about is the Air France A320 chief
pilot giving a group of disabled kids a ride during a demo flight in
the new airplane. He made a low slow 'silent' pass with engines at
idle, and got too slow, started sinking and couldn't get the engines
spooled up before the tail of the fuelage hit the trees and of course
then not being able to rotate any higher and with the engine FADECs
taking their own sweet time to spool up - crashed, killing some of the
kids and injuring the others. And he was a graduate of the FAF test
pilot school, too. Great example of complacency and hubris.
Walt BJ

[email protected]

February 29th 04, 06:02 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> (John Alger) wrote:
>>
>> > The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
>> >too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
>> >power.
>> >
>>
>> This absolutely floors me...WHY wouldn't he intimately KNOW
>> this?...I find it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't. What was
>> the cojo doing all this while?...had they never heard of CRM over
>> there?...
>> --
>
>
>The CVR transcript is on line at
>http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_acf296.shtml
>
>Keith
>
Thanks Keith...
--

-Gord.

John Keeney

February 29th 04, 06:03 AM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>>> f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.
> >>>
> >>> The RAF , RN and USMC disagree
> >>
> >> Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they
> > are
> >> interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models
as
> >> well.
> >
> > It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
> > the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)
> >
> > Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...
> >
> >
>
> They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
> it's HUGE!

COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size
department
and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I
believe.
The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train.

[email protected]

February 29th 04, 06:35 AM

(WaltBJ) wrote:

>Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
>familiar with I have the AvWeek writeups somewhere. I used this (among
>others) as 'don't do this - think it out first' safety talks with my
>av students. The one I'm talking about is the Air France A320 chief
>pilot giving a group of disabled kids a ride during a demo flight in
>the new airplane. He made a low slow 'silent' pass with engines at
>idle, and got too slow, started sinking and couldn't get the engines
>spooled up before the tail of the fuelage hit the trees and of course
>then not being able to rotate any higher and with the engine FADECs
>taking their own sweet time to spool up - crashed, killing some of the
>kids and injuring the others. And he was a graduate of the FAF test
>pilot school, too. Great example of complacency and hubris.
>Walt BJ

I don't think that there's two Walt...your description sounds
like the one we're discussing here...I seem to be gathering that
he expected the autothrottle syst to apply TOGA and when it
didn't (because he was too low - and had selected it off anyway)
he was too late in applying it manually. I believe he applied it
only five seconds before he contacted the trees. You might read
Jerry Grasso's descriptions here, he seems to have a good handle
on it (plus he teaches a very similar system I believe).
--

-Gord.

sid

February 29th 04, 10:32 AM

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
> >Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one
discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a
mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the
automation was a factor.

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 29th 04, 12:58 PM

On 2/28/04 6:42 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
>> Brooks" > wrote:
>>

Kevin, it's funny how you conveniently snipped the part of my post you
couldn't defend.

> That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL
> version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two
> versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's
> with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have
> postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because
> the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any
> *reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few
> billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want?
>

It was actually YOU that suggested that the USAF was trying to make nice
with the USMC. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most
definitely buy CV versions in reduced numbers, still driving up the unit
costs. Secondly, I never said the USAF didn't want the STOVL version.
They've realized during OIF that CAS and their TACP program is essential to
warfare, and they see STOVL and forward basing as a way to get on board.

>
> Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
> evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the
> STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...
>
> Brooks
>

Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?

When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our
manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least
one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second ejection
from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd returned
to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew
of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only
flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry,
that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I was
on a roll.)

According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few years
back, pilots across the TACAIR spectrum with 500 hours or less accounted for
29% of the general pilot population but were at the controls of 46% of the
"Skill Based Error" mishaps. If you split out the AV-8B community, the
percentage of less than 500 hours is 36% and they're responsible for 67% of
the mishaps. Conclusions: (1) experience counts. (2) the Harrier is a
more difficult aircraft to fly. This doesn't account for material failures
etc.

I don't know the actual rates, but the Harrier's have consistently been
higher than fleet average.

Then there's common sense. Slow an F-35 down to near stall while
simultaneously opening an upper intake door and engaging a power take-off
that activates a lift fan. Meanwhile rotate the exhaust nozzle in the back
of the jet through two axes. Any one of these single components fails, and
there's going to be trouble.

These opinions of mine were not generated in a vacuum. They were formed
through years of operating TACAIR aircraft--occasionally around Harriers...
when they weren't falling out of the sky around me. (Sorry, more rant...
and attempted dark humor.)

There's little doubt in my mind that the F-35 STOVL will be a better
platform than the AV-8B, but any slight gain in flexibility of use is still
not worth the risk and the cost when compared to a less risky CV or CTOL
version.

Now ask me if I think it's a good idea that the F-35 is a single engine
aircraft or whether I think it's a good idea that the Navy guys have decided
not to put an internal gun on their version.

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 29th 04, 01:18 PM

On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article
, "Guy Alcala"
> wrote:

> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
>> Brooks" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
>> <SNIP>
>>> The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
>>> throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
>>> capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
>>> have".
>>>
>>
>> CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
>> on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
>> loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
>> aircraft, and a good DASC.
>
> That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down
<SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats>
> on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy
> wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around
> al-Kut.

There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the
demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF
is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it
(OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood
sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and
the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and
the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not
been around to help out.

Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging
your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle.

<SNIP
> And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a
> somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile
> one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able
> to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a
> good thing?

Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is
jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
about.

<SNIP>
>> What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
>> many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
>> cost.
>
> And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get
> rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping
> like flies.
>
> Guy

Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and
can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them?

--Woody

Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal

February 29th 04, 01:19 PM

On 2/29/04 12:03 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
> wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
<SNIP>
>> They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
>> it's HUGE!
>
> COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size
> department
> and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I
> believe.
> The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train.
>
>

Not familiar... Got a reference link? I'm interested.

--Woody

José Herculano

February 29th 04, 02:38 PM

> Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
> STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF
is
> jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
> low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
> about.

Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to
mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far
smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy
them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using
for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is
hard to argue with them.

I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their
assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL
rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute.

Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political
generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger
numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will
have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch
of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar
on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from
bellow and still be useful on its original role?

Build some new A-10s with state of the art avionics and new engines. I know
that's not going to happen, but indeed it would make perfect fighting sense.
I still look in wonder at the costly "stealth" features incorporated into
the Rhino, and then you load the poor thing over with a bunch of
hanging-ons, canted outwards, that make it look like a Xmas tree on any
half-decent scope...
_____________
José Herculano

Kevin Brooks

February 29th 04, 02:58 PM

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/28/04 6:42 PM, in article , "Kevin
> Brooks" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article ,
"Kevin
> >> Brooks" > wrote:
> >>
>
> Kevin, it's funny how you conveniently snipped the part of my post you
> couldn't defend.

Not at all; your argument was so lacking in logic that I saw little reason
to bother. But if you are so interested in improving yourself, here goes:

"CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it
is
on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
aircraft, and a good DASC."

What you ignore is that the "capping" (by which you actually menat
"stacking", I presume) is utterly dependent upon a number of external
factors that don't necessarily impact the operations of a STOVL aircraft.
You have to have tankers to support the CAS stack--tankers are a commodity
that is becoming more critical these days, and less available. You have to
have bases within range to support continuous operations. The heavies have
less problem with this, but then again we don't have a limitless supply of
heavies, and they *do* have some limits (hard to have a heavy do a Maverick
run). How many F-16's or even F-15E's do you have to have running continuous
operations to support a very long range CAS mission (like Afghanistan from
the Gulf)? Lots if yo0u are going to maintain a continuous CAS stack, and
*lots* of crews, too. Plus more tankers. And if you find yourself a bit
farther away than that Gulf-to Afghanistan trasit distance, then supporting
the CAS requirement becomes even more tenuous, if not impossible. OTOH, if
you establish a forward landing strip to handle C-130's bringging in the
beans, bullets, and bombs, you can also put a few STOVL aircraft in there,
set up FARP's closer to the action, and (voila!", you just reduced your
tanking requirements while also making the CAS package more responsive to
the ground commander's needs. He wants some CBU-105's in the mix? The F-15E
flying from Bumfart 1200 miles distant, on station with GBU's, is not going
to be able to help him much, and by the time he gets a new aircraft on
station the target is gone. OTOH, he gets his STOVL aircraft to hit the FARP
for a couple of CBU 105's, and bingo, he's in business.

>
> > That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL
> > version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two
> > versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then)
AV-8B's
> > with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have
> > postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway,
because
> > the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any
> > *reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few
> > billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want?
> >
>
> It was actually YOU that suggested that the USAF was trying to make nice
> with the USMC.

No, it was not. I was being quite facetious with that query. That you found
it palusible is rather telling of your grasp of this situation.

Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most
> definitely buy CV versions in reduced numbers, still driving up the unit
> costs. Secondly, I never said the USAF didn't want the STOVL version.
> They've realized during OIF that CAS and their TACP program is essential
to
> warfare, and they see STOVL and forward basing as a way to get on board.

They are already onboard. They just seem to grasp the importance of being
more versatile a bit better than you do.

>
> >
> > Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
> > evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR
the
> > STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?
>
> When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our
> manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least
> one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second
ejection
> from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd
returned
> to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew
> of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only
> flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry,
> that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I
was
> on a roll.)

Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me.
Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a
different lift system.

>
> According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few
years
> back, pilots across the TACAIR spectrum with 500 hours or less accounted
for
> 29% of the general pilot population but were at the controls of 46% of the
> "Skill Based Error" mishaps. If you split out the AV-8B community, the
> percentage of less than 500 hours is 36% and they're responsible for 67%
of
> the mishaps. Conclusions: (1) experience counts. (2) the Harrier is a
> more difficult aircraft to fly. This doesn't account for material
failures
> etc.

So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an indictment of
the STOVL concept itself.

>
> I don't know the actual rates, but the Harrier's have consistently been
> higher than fleet average.
>
> Then there's common sense. Slow an F-35 down to near stall while
> simultaneously opening an upper intake door and engaging a power take-off
> that activates a lift fan. Meanwhile rotate the exhaust nozzle in the
back
> of the jet through two axes. Any one of these single components fails,
and
> there's going to be trouble.

If a helos rotor falls off, it crashes, too. Still kind of a rare event. If
the F-16's engine dies and can't be restarted, it crashes. So?

>
> These opinions of mine were not generated in a vacuum. They were formed
> through years of operating TACAIR aircraft--occasionally around
Harriers...
> when they weren't falling out of the sky around me. (Sorry, more rant...
> and attempted dark humor.)
>
> There's little doubt in my mind that the F-35 STOVL will be a better
> platform than the AV-8B, but any slight gain in flexibility of use is
still
> not worth the risk and the cost when compared to a less risky CV or CTOL
> version.

Unless you can't support the operation adequately with the CTOL aircraft.

Brooks

>
> Now ask me if I think it's a good idea that the F-35 is a single engine
> aircraft or whether I think it's a good idea that the Navy guys have
decided
> not to put an internal gun on their version.
>
> --Woody
>

Henry J Cobb

February 29th 04, 04:03 PM

José Herculano wrote:
> Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to
> mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far
> smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy
> them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using
> for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is
> hard to argue with them.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,237523,00.html
'I Love Japan, I Love Peace. The Maritime Self-Defence Force,' says a
voice-over at the end.

They just need a class of Lending Humanitarian Assistance ships
operating Justice Support Friendship aircraft.

-HJC

Keith Willshaw

February 29th 04, 04:42 PM

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Feb 2004 02:32:04 -0800, (sid) wrote:
>
> >"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
>...
> >> (WaltBJ) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
> >There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one
> >discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a
> >mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the
> >automation was a factor.
>
> There were actually 2 additional CFIT-type crashes involving the A-320.
> One in Bangalore India in February, 1990; and one in Strasbourg, France in
> January, 1992. The one that you are referring to is the Strasbourg (Air
> Inter) accident.

Which occurred because the crew programmed a descent rate
of 3300 fpm instead of the 3.3 degree descent angle they intended
and then failed to monitor the actual height/descent rate so didnt
discover the error in time.

The aircraft had no GPWS

Keith

Frijoles

February 29th 04, 05:37 PM

Navy opposition to STOVL is about SHIPS not aircraft. They oppose the
concept because they think it threatens 95,000 ton carriers. It is clever
sophistry to argue against STOVL JSF on the basis of the performance of the
Harrier and, Woody, you know that shipmate. The Harrier uses an entirely
different lift/propulsion system, the technology of which is fundamentally
unchanged from the introduction of the AV-8A in the early 70s. While later
models (Night and Radar/Night) added up-to-date avionics and defensive
systems, the lift/propulsion system is little changed. As a consequnce, its
accident rate is similar to the jets of the era in which it was designed --
F-4, F-14 etc. The design suffers from maintainability issues similar to
aircraft of its design era also. $$ for materiel issues have long been a
problem, but as materiel problems have been fixed (like the #3 bearing),
accident numbers have gone down. STOVL JSF is an entirely different animal.
It is simple to fly -- even fighter guys can do it on the first try (and you
don't take it to "near stall" to transition to the landing configuration
anymore than you do a conventional aircraft). For STOVL JSF to transition
to the SDD phase, the technology issues had to be assessed by the government
as "low risk." It is predicted to meet the performance KPPs even at its
current weight.

On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of
stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or
B-2s. (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the
same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?) And
if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what a
great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft provides...?

45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's hardly
a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at, or
facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect fires.
IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships, principally
Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were flown
from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad. An additional
500+ sorties by the one land based squadron in Kuwait. At one point last
year, 100-ish of the roughly 110 fleet AV-8s were deployed in real-world
events somewhere in the world -- that total included a Det of land-based
AV-8s supporting the Army and SOF bubbas in Afghanistan for a year.

"Too little benefit..."?? I think not.

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
> > On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article ,
"Kevin
> > Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> > <SNIP>
> > > The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
> > > throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an
asset
> > > capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just
"nice to
> > > have".
> > >
> >
> > CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because
it is
> > on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
> > loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
> > aircraft, and a good DASC.
>
> That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient
bed-down
> space for them will be available, both of which were in short supply last
year.
> In 1991, because we had access to Saudi and Turkish bases, the USAF was
able to
> put 350 tankers on just 5 airbases. Last year, they only had 200 tankers
(plus
> 100 for the airbridge; others were supporting ops in Afghanistan and the
Horn of
> Africa), and had to scatter them on 15 airbases. Because of the lack of
ramp
> space, the marines graded a FOB in the northern Kuwaiti desert with a
parallel
> pair of 6,000 foot dirt runways, where they based many of their KC-130s
and
> helos. In addition, they offloaded the helos, men and equipment from two
> LHA/LHDs, operating each of them with a full AV-8B squadron, just so they
> wouldn't take up space on an airfield in Kuwait that was needed by the
CTOL
> aircraft.
>
> The USAF weren't the only ones with tanker problems. From an article in
the
> April 14th, 2003 AvLeak, "Lessons Learned", pg. 26, by AvLeak's
correspondent at
> a Marine airbase in Kuwait:
>
> "Its air campaign has been shaped to a large extent by the fact that the
service
> has only 24 KC-130 tankers in the region, a relatively small number
compared with
> the number of strike aircraft it has assembled. What further complicated
the
> tanker issue is that most KC-130 sorties were dedicated to transporting
fuel for
> helicopters, as well as tanks and other ground vehicles, to forward areas.
It is
> a "rare occurence" for a Marine F/A-18 or AV-8B to be refueled in the air,
said a
> senior Marine Air Group 13 representative, who described the tanker
shortage as
> 'huge'. Problems the USAF has had with its own tankers -- such as poor
> availability because of the age of the KC-135s -- have exacerbated the
dilemma,
> Marine Corps officials asserted. 'Tanking was very limited,' one Royal
Air Force
> Harrier pilot noted . . . .
>
> "Without refueling, fixed-wing a/c operating from here can only fly over
Baghdad
> or points north for a few minutes before having to return to base. Pilots
from
> Harrier squadron VMA-214 noted that without aerial refueling, they had
little
> time to find targets in the 30 x 30-mi. 'kill boxes' set up around
Baghdad.
>
> "The Marines hope to mitigate the problem by establishing forward
operating bases
> for AV-8Bs and potential F/A-18s. For its helicopter force, the Marines
have
> already built an extensive series of [FARPs]. So far, the Marines have
built
> more than 10 FARPs and have even closed down the first few that are no
longer
> tactically relevant."
>
> They definitely established a Harrier FARP and were sitting ground alert
and/or
> turning AV-8Bs at an airfield east of the Euphrates that the marines had
captured
> on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak
guy
> wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around
al-Kut.
>
> > >> Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.
> > >
> > > Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not
required in
> > > this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that
kind
> > > of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets
had to
> > > transit great distances to and from the required area of operations,
the
> > > ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could
be a
> > > big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those
F-15E's
> > > and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why
is
> > > the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with
their
> > > USMC brethren?
> >
> > Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely
hoping
> > to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by
ensuring
> > that the STOVL version doesn't get axed.
>
> And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in
Iraq (a
> somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130
mile
> one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being
able to
> operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be
a good
> thing?
>
> > > I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
> > > not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that
would
> > > not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as
regards
> > > where/when/how we'll have to fight).
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> >
> > What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
> > many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for
that
> > cost.
>
> And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's
get rid
> of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping
like
> flies.
>
> Guy
>

Paul J. Adam

February 29th 04, 05:56 PM

In message >, "Doug \"Woody\" and
Erin Beal" > writes
>On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
>Brooks" > wrote:
>> The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
>> throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
>> capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
>> have".
>
>CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
>on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
>loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
>aircraft, and a good DASC.

And the equation for "time on station" includes time to and from home
base, and time to turn the aircraft around. For a given force size, the
nearer your bases for refuelling and rearming, the more aircraft in the
cabrank and the fewer in transit to and from. Tankers are useful
extenders, but only if fuel is the limiting factor: we're not yet able
to do air-to-air rearming.

Again, HMS Sheathbill in 1982 is instructive for the extension in cover
it allowed.

>> I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
>> not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
>> not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
>> where/when/how we'll have to fight).

>What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
>many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
>cost.

You could say the same about helicopters: IIRC helo crashes were the
biggest single killer of British troops in Telic / Iraqi Freedom.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Pooh Bear

February 29th 04, 06:03 PM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:40:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:08:49 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> >> >> >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> >> >> >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
> >> >> >> >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> >> >> >> low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
> >> >> >> prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> >> >> >> below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
> >> >> >> exit the fly-by.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> >> >> >'explanation'.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cite?
> >> >
> >> >Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ?
> >>
> >> Are you sure that you're not thinking of Norbert Jaquet? I thought that
> >> Mazieres (the FO) flew for AF for some time after the accident. I could be
> >> wrong, however.
> >>
> >> If it was common knowledge, a cite should be a simple matter. Unless you
> >> mean 'common knowledge' in the Tarverian sense.
> >
> >I stand corrected, I got the 2 confused. It's been a long time since it happened. The
> >F.O. stayed 'shtumb' ( is that how you spell it ) and kept out of the way of the flak.
>
> Is that what he told you?
>
> >Do you not think it strange that someone who criticised the official findings and
> >supported the captain being declared mentally insane is a very odd way to go about an
> >accident investigation ?
>
> Air France was in charge of the investigation, eh?

Don't be silly. AF may have had it's reputation to protect but that was damaged already.
There were larger potential losers here.

Some 'body' had the flight recorders for 10 days directly after the crash who wasn't
entitled to be in custody of them according to French law. During that time they were
tinkered with. They shouldn't have been.

> Besides, if you ran around saying "Captain Smith had the right-of-way",
> I'd think you were mentally unstable too. And there is a significant
> difference between unstable and insane.

So, you think that speaking out in defence of his colleauge was sufficient reason to
withdraw his flying license ?

Something about the whole investigation truly stinks. Also, the French aren't exactly
saints when it comes to bending the rules when it suits their purposes.

I don't argue that the crew got the a/c into a very odd flight regime. In part, it was poor
briefing that they received.

There were also known and documented defects with various A320 systems at that time -
including throttle response and height indication. Capt Assiline asserts that the a/c
showed 100 ft altitude when it was actually flying much lower.

In short, they were flying an a/c of questionable airworthiness. That *couldn't* be allowed
to come out in the investigation, so it was *fixed*.

Graham

John Alger

February 29th 04, 06:07 PM

(sid) wrote in message >...
> So, John, have you guys sim'd the scenario that the A-300 faced after
> it was zapped leaving Baghdad? In short what would the loss of all
> hydraulics, and use of control surfaces, coupled with that kind of
> airfoil degradation do to a more modern 'bus flight control
> automation?

The 300 is a totally different airplane. It pre-dates "Fly-by-wire"
which was introduced on the 320 series and incorporated in the 330/340
aircraft (and, I assume, the 380 as well). The 300 uses "old
technology" systems like the Boeings: hydro-mechanical flight
controls.

The 320 and beyond are electro-hydraulic flight controls. You can fly
without the electrons (not pretty, but it works: think 2-channel RC
model planes), but you have to have hydraulics. The good news is,
there are three hydraulic systems on each flight control and there is
a leak detection system that isolates the primary system (green) in
the 330 to preserve fluid for EMERG GEN and flight control use.

In any case, there is no way I know of to simulate that sort of damage
in the simulator. An interesting problem to be sure - would the bird
be able to retain enough fluid to operate the flight controls?

John Alger

Frijoles

February 29th 04, 06:12 PM

Woody says, "...the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had
the Harriers not
been around to help out..."

There's a stronger case for the Harriers in OIF than there is for a CV Navy
that arrives in the stack with no time-on-station and an understanding of
air support that consists of "gimme a 6-digit grid."

Woody further states "Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a
bona fide mission--and
can auto-rotate."

Who's being ridiculous? I guess it doesn't count as bona fide mission
unless it's launched from a CV eh? ;).

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article
> , "Guy Alcala"
> > wrote:
>
> > Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article ,
"Kevin
> >> Brooks" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> >> <SNIP>
> >>> The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
> >>> throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an
asset
> >>> capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just
"nice to
> >>> have".
> >>>
> >>
> >> CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because
it is
> >> on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
> >> loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
> >> aircraft, and a good DASC.
> >
> > That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient
bed-down
> <SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats>
> > on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the
AvLeak guy
> > wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was
around
> > al-Kut.
>
> There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the
> demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in
OIF
> is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use
it
> (OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood
> sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time
and
> the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage,
and
> the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers
not
> been around to help out.
>
> Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country...
Leap-frogging
> your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle.
>
> <SNIP
> > And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in
Iraq (a
> > somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130
mile
> > one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that
being able
> > to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs)
might be a
> > good thing?
>
> Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
> STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF
is
> jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
> low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
> about.
>
> <SNIP>
> >> What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills
too
> >> many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for
that
> >> cost.
> >
> > And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so
let's get
> > rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been
dropping
> > like flies.
> >
> > Guy
>
> Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and
> can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them?
>
> --Woody
>

Pooh Bear

February 29th 04, 06:19 PM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:25:05 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Pooh Bear > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> >> >> > >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> >> >> > >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
> >> >> >came up
> >> >> >> > >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> >> >> >> > low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> > prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> >> >> >> > below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> > exit the fly-by.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> >> >> >> 'explanation'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
> >> >> >story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?
> >> >>
> >> >> ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
> >> >> box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
> >> >> crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
> >> >> diagonal stripes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pretty conclusive, yes?
> >> >
> >> >Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
> >> >same one presented in court.
> >>
> >> Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
> >> right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?
> >
> >It's so long ago, Jerry that I don't have cites readily to hand. I most certainly did
> >take a great interest in this crash. UK TV did too, with certainly more than one
> >decent documentary about this event. I believe I may still have a vid of at least one
> >of the documentaries in question. And before you try discrediting TV documentaries -
> >realise that in the UK we don't have the same commercial pressures as in the USA and
> >we make possibly the worlds' finest docs.
>
> I'm sure.
>
> >I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live recorded
> >footage - and it was a fairly tatty looking one ( well worn ). The one presented at
> >the investigation / court was entirely diiferent - almost pristine.
>
> You're a complete kook.

No I'm not. I'm entirely rational. You're the 'kook' for believing what your're spoon-fed
without demur.

> Citing your recollection of a news clip (which you saw live in 1998)

Please illustrate where I said that ? 1998 ! Uh ?

> as
> proof that photos you see months (or even years) later do not contain the
> same components as in the live clip.

Actually the clip / photos were in the same documentary. I'm not talking about my memory
abilities, good as they are usually.

> >There is also I believe a question over 7 or 10 IIRC 'missing seconds' from the DFDR
> >record !!
>
> Yes, it was on the internet - it must be so!

Well documented elsewhere.

Would you agree that after salvage of a flight recorder that it should be preserved
untouched until an expert organisation specialising in recovery of data is able to
'process' it ?

Just asking. I'm genuinely interested in your view. Is there a good reason for anyone not
ofiically involved in the investigation to step in regardless ?

> >I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
>
> You hopefully leave people to do their own investigation. You're just
> parroting a bunch of kooks.

This particular accident investigation is like no other. It stinks. So, you're saying
senior AF captains are kooks ?

Well.... actually, the 'Concordski' crash investigation was a stitch up too - and that was
also down to the French - hmmmm. Different scenario though.

Graham

Scott M. Kozel

February 29th 04, 09:13 PM

JL Grasso > wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:03:00 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:40:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> > wrote:
> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:08:49 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
> >> >> >> >> >> fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
> >> >> >> >> >> pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
> >> >> >> >> >with the low slow fly by all on his own.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
> >> >> >> >> low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
> >> >> >> >> prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
> >> >> >> >> below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
> >> >> >> >> exit the fly-by.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
> >> >> >> >'explanation'.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Cite?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you sure that you're not thinking of Norbert Jaquet? I thought that
> >> >> Mazieres (the FO) flew for AF for some time after the accident. I could be
> >> >> wrong, however.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it was common knowledge, a cite should be a simple matter. Unless you
> >> >> mean 'common knowledge' in the Tarverian sense.
> >> >
> >> >I stand corrected, I got the 2 confused. It's been a long time since it happened. The
> >> >F.O. stayed 'shtumb' ( is that how you spell it ) and kept out of the way of the flak.
> >>
> >> Is that what he told you?
> >>
> >> >Do you not think it strange that someone who criticised the official findings and
> >> >supported the captain being declared mentally insane is a very odd way to go about an
> >> >accident investigation ?
> >>
> >> Air France was in charge of the investigation, eh?
> >
> >Don't be silly. AF may have had it's reputation to protect but that was damaged already.
> >There were larger potential losers here.
>
> Air France was the party who declared him "mentally unstable". You
> pondered that this was a strange way to run an investigation. I am simply
> stating that Air France was not in charge of the investigation. Do you
> still assert otherwise?
>
> >Some 'body' had the flight recorders for 10 days directly after the crash who wasn't
> >entitled to be in custody of them according to French law. During that time they were
> >tinkered with. They shouldn't have been.
>
> They were apparently in the possession of the DGAC, true. Your assertion
> that they were "tinkered with" is apparently based on IPSC's claims. The
> same "institute" putting forth the laughable notion that the stripes on
> the boxes are oriented differently. This seems to imply that someone
> apprently fabricated a recorder from scratch in some outlandish scheme to
> save AI's reputation (as any recorder of the same model/part number should
> bear the same outer markings).
>
> >> Besides, if you ran around saying "Captain Smith had the right-of-way",
> >> I'd think you were mentally unstable too. And there is a significant
> >> difference between unstable and insane.
> >
> >So, you think that speaking out in defence of his colleauge was sufficient reason to
> >withdraw his flying license ?
>
> I haven't seen AF's case against the man, and what you are implying is
> that they were definitely related. What do you base this on?
>
> However, it would seem odd that these same "dark hats" would allow the FO
> to continue to fly for AF for years afterwards. Odd, unless you understand
> the CVR transcript.
>
> >Something about the whole investigation truly stinks. Also, the French aren't exactly
> >saints when it comes to bending the rules when it suits their purposes.
>
> Well, that sounds like iron-clad evidence to me.
>
> >I don't argue that the crew got the a/c into a very odd flight regime. In part, it was poor
> >briefing that they received.
>
> Oh, so the DFDR tampering was intended to cover for the DFO at Air France?
> Which is it again?
>
> Are the boundaries between the parties involved somewhat fuzzy to you?
> Speaking to motive, of course.
>
> >There were also known and documented defects with various A320 systems at that time -
> >including throttle response and height indication. Capt Assiline asserts that the a/c
> >showed 100 ft altitude when it was actually flying much lower.
>
> Anyone who would rely on a pressure altimeter to operate a low, slow
> aircraft 100 feet from the ground when a radar altimiter was fucntioning
> (and apparently giving accurate aural information) and available is not
> making a prudent decision. The pressure altimiter (servo, ADC or
> otherwise) is only required to be accurate to app +/- 30 feet at sea level
> to begin with (and the DFDR was only required to show pressure altitude
> resolution to +/- 100 ft, but may have been more on this unit). A radar
> altimiter is accurate (depending on a given antenna/plane configuration)
> to within 5 feet (and quite likely less) between wheel height and terrain.
>
> Read the CVR transcript again and tell me how the Captain could possibly
> be surprised later when told/shown he was below 100 feet during the
> fly-over.
>
> >In short, they were flying an a/c of questionable airworthiness. That *couldn't* be allowed
> >to come out in the investigation, so it was *fixed*.
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about. If you have a problem with how
> you perceive airworthiness to be determined by the DGAC, you should take
> it up with them. The only things questionable here are your understanding
> of the event, of the aircraft, and your sources of information.

Not surprising for Puke Bear.

sid

February 29th 04, 09:26 PM

(sid) wrote in message >...
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> > (WaltBJ) wrote:
> >
> > >Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
> There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one
> discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a
> mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the
> automation was a factor.

This was the accident...
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1992/920120-0.htm

Pooh Bear

February 29th 04, 09:40 PM

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:03:00 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:

< snip old stuff >

> >There were also known and documented defects with various A320 systems at that time -
> >including throttle response and height indication. Capt Assiline asserts that the a/c
> >showed 100 ft altitude when it was actually flying much lower.
>
> Anyone who would rely on a pressure altimeter to operate a low, slow
> aircraft 100 feet from the ground when a radar altimiter was fucntioning
> (and apparently giving accurate aural information) and available is not
> making a prudent decision. The pressure altimiter (servo, ADC or
> otherwise) is only required to be accurate to app +/- 30 feet at sea level
> to begin with (and the DFDR was only required to show pressure altitude
> resolution to +/- 100 ft, but may have been more on this unit). A radar
> altimiter is accurate (depending on a given antenna/plane configuration)
> to within 5 feet (and quite likely less) between wheel height and terrain.
>
> Read the CVR transcript again and tell me how the Captain could possibly
> be surprised later when told/shown he was below 100 feet during the
> fly-over.

With delight. Sorry about the lost formatting when text posting

(French text is translated into English)

Time: Source: Contents:

12.44:27 TOWER QNH Habsheim 1012 Fox Echo 9.8.4
Captain OK

12.44:31 Co-pilot Roger

12.44:32 Captain 9.8.4 put in 9.8.4

12.44:34 Co-pilot 9.8.4 QFE selected!

12.44:37 Good gear is down; flaps 2!

12.44:42 Captain Flaps 3

12.44:45 Co-pilot Flaps 3!
Captain That's the airfield, you confirm?

12.44:48 Co-pilot Affirmative

12.44:51 Co-pilot You see it LL 01, when we get there you're at 1 nautical mile, that's right.

12.44:55 [GONG!] - nosewheel valve

12.45:04.7 GPWS [Too Low Terrain!]
Co-pilot OK!

12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty]

12.45:04.7 [GONG!] - GPWS cut off

12.45:05.7 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]

12.45.11 Co-pilot P.....G.....! (name of flight safety officer)

12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]

12.45.12 Co-pilot G.. is going to ...eh!

12.45:14 Co-pilot OK, you're at 100ft there, watch, watch

12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred]

12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty]

12.45:23.6 Radio altimeter [Fifty]

12.45:26 Captain OK ,I'm OK there, disconnect autothrottle

12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty]

12.45:32 Co-pilot Watch out for those pylons ahaead, eh. See them?

12.45:33 Co-pilot Yeah, yeah, don't worry.

12.45:34.5 [Clack! Clack! Clack!] - power lever dentents

12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:37 Co-pilot TOGA/SRS

12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:39 Captain Go around track

12.45:39.9 Captain Sh...!

12.45:41.5 END OF TAPE

NOTE

12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]
12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred]

that's a sudden sink rate of 4000 fpm as reported by the 'radio altimeter' whilst at around
100ft !

I assume that the second time is actually incorrect since it's out of sequence but I found the
same on another copy of the transcript.

Let's assume say it should be 12.45:15 ( more in lline with other timings ) - still indicates a
sudden sink @ around 1800 fpm !

So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak
spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC.

I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and
reverted to baro readings.

Regds, Graham

Guy Alcala

February 29th 04, 10:38 PM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, "Doug \"Woody\" and
> Erin Beal" > writes
> >On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
> >Brooks" > wrote:
> >> The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
> >> throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
> >> capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
> >> have".
> >
> >CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
> >on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
> >loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
> >aircraft, and a good DASC.
>
> And the equation for "time on station" includes time to and from home
> base, and time to turn the aircraft around. For a given force size, the
> nearer your bases for refuelling and rearming, the more aircraft in the
> cabrank and the fewer in transit to and from. Tankers are useful
> extenders, but only if fuel is the limiting factor: we're not yet able
> to do air-to-air rearming.
>
> Again, HMS Sheathbill in 1982 is instructive for the extension in cover
> it allowed.

To be precise, prior to HMS Sheathbill (the Harrier FARP) going operational, on an
avg. 1 hour and 15 minute Sea Harrier sortie, 65 minutes was spent in transit to
and from the carriers, 10 minutes on CAP. After HMS Sheathbill was established,
33 minutes was spent in transit to CAP, 37 minutes on CAP, five minutes to HMS
Sheathbill for refueling/rearming. Reverse the above mission, or turn Sea
Harriers at Sheathbill all day, giving 65 minutes on CAP, 10 minutes in transit
to/from the FARP. And then there were the Harrier GR.3s sitting ground alert for
CAS (25-30nm away from their targets), instead of 200-250 nm away on the carriers.

>
>
> >> I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
> >> not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
> >> not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
> >> where/when/how we'll have to fight).
>
> >What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
> >many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
> >cost.
>
> You could say the same about helicopters: IIRC helo crashes were the
> biggest single killer of British troops in Telic / Iraqi Freedom.

US troops too, I suspect. Certainly the case in Afghanistan, along with those
disasters waiting to happen, the C/KC-130s. Subsequent to the major fighting in
Iraq helo accidents/shootdowns have made up a fair percentage as well, although
probably less than those from IEDs and ground vehicle accidents. Wait, we'd
better get rid of those latter too, especially those damned HMMWV deathtraps. And
then there were those tank and LAV crews that drove into rivers or canals and
drowned; away with them all, I say. They're obviously far too dangerous to be
used by military personnel.

Guy