Re: Harrier vs. JSF-35

[Merlin]

The JSF will be very late and very expensive.

The British have not even started to build the Aircraft Carrier
yet that it is supposed to operate from !

It is a pity that the Harrier was not developed further ?

An 'Invincible' Class carrier with Harriers and Osprey AEW is
probably the way to go for the UK ? I don't think we can afford
big carriers anymore?

Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are
being developed.

The Second World War saw the end of the Battleship the time of the
Super Carrier ending cannot be far away ?

Merlin

[Kevin Brooks]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The JSF will be very late and very expensive.
>
> The British have not even started to build the Aircraft Carrier
> yet that it is supposed to operate from !
>
> It is a pity that the Harrier was not developed further ?

You already asked this question once last week, and were told quite clearly
that not only was the answer "no", but further that you are utterly clueless
in regards to the harrier, the F-35B, and things military in general. Give
it a break.

Brooks

<snip further garbage>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The JSF will be very late and very expensive.
>

Perhaps

> The British have not even started to build the Aircraft Carrier
> yet that it is supposed to operate from !
>

The main contractor and supplier has been selected and
the design assessment phase is in progess.

> It is a pity that the Harrier was not developed further ?
>

It was but the limit of the technology has pretty much been reached.

> An 'Invincible' Class carrier with Harriers and Osprey AEW is
> probably the way to go for the UK ? I don't think we can afford
> big carriers anymore?
>

The ships are no around 25 years old, are too small for the task
allocated and the harrier is obsolescent.

> Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are
> being developed.
>

But small carriers are vulnerable to aircraft already in service.

> The Second World War saw the end of the Battleship the time of the
> Super Carrier ending cannot be far away ?
>

A prediction first made in 1946.

Keith

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:14:21 -0800, hoarse with no name >
wrote:

>In article . com>,
> "Merlin" > wrote:
>
>> Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are
>> being developed.
>
>Why would a super-torp be more effective against carriers than against
>other surface vessels? It wouldn't. Yet long carriers are more effective
>in the sub-killing role than harrier carriers. Long carriers are most
>likely the most effective surface vessel in sub-killing because the
>planes it launches cover so much area so quickly.

This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
But they don't (or soon won't).

The first time a Big Grey Boat gets "tagged" by a sub there will some
very interesting discussions in the Halls of Power.

Bill Kambic

Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73/VP-93

[Merlin]

Brooks is probably correct = I know nothing about military things.

So my comment that it will only be in conflict whether or not the Super
Carrier is proven becoming obsolete has no validity.
Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If
the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that
would be a pretty cost effective round ?

It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will
give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between
the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/30/1083224588617.html?oneclick=true

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/512-4094.asp

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/defencetopic2324.html&sid=cff6588e5b6cd11b6475286fe08f6ee0

http://www.vectorsite.net/avf35.html

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2003/0403F35.html
wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:14:21 -0800, hoarse with no name
>
> wrote:
>
> >In article . com>,
> > "Merlin" > wrote:
> >
> >> Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are
> >> being developed.
> >
> >Why would a super-torp be more effective against carriers than
against
> >other surface vessels? It wouldn't. Yet long carriers are more
effective
> >in the sub-killing role than harrier carriers. Long carriers are
most
> >likely the most effective surface vessel in sub-killing because the
> >planes it launches cover so much area so quickly.
>
> This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
> But they don't (or soon won't).
>
> The first time a Big Grey Boat gets "tagged" by a sub there will some
> very interesting discussions in the Halls of Power.
>
> Bill Kambic
>
> Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73/VP-93

[Kevin Brooks]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Brooks is probably correct = I know nothing about military things.
>
> So my comment that it will only be in conflict whether or not the Super
> Carrier is proven becoming obsolete has no validity.

What has no validity is your continual ranting about further development of
a program that most posters have already well informed you is about at the
end of its development potential. You started this argument once before, and
a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much
destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts right
about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh sakes). Why
don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of
bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?

> Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
> war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
> torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If
> the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that
> would be a pretty cost effective round ?

Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon
instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW helicopter,
patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.

>
> It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will
> give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between
> the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).

When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can come
back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in another
attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.

<snip numerous references of unexplained applicability>

Brooks

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:08:14 -0800, hoarse with no name >
wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
>> But they don't (or soon won't).
>
>This thread began as a discussion of British military decisions and my
>comments were in regard to this. The Brits are currently moving away
>from harrier carriers to long carriers and one of the reasons given is
>to increase the sub-killing powers of their carrier force.

Err, how?

The CV(F) will be carrying JSF, which has no capability against
submerged subs, Merlin, which does not require a big deck, and the
future replacement for the AEW Sea Kings, which also don't require a
big deck (and also don't kill subs).

So where's the extra sub killing coming from?

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Kemp wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:08:14 -0800, hoarse with no name >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
> >> But they don't (or soon won't).
> >
> >This thread began as a discussion of British military decisions and my
> >comments were in regard to this. The Brits are currently moving away
> >from harrier carriers to long carriers and one of the reasons given is
> >to increase the sub-killing powers of their carrier force.
>
> Err, how?
>
> The CV(F) will be carrying JSF, which has no capability against
> submerged subs, Merlin, which does not require a big deck, and the
> future replacement for the AEW Sea Kings, which also don't require a
> big deck (and also don't kill subs).
>
> So where's the extra sub killing coming from?

More importantly, where was it ever stated that the larger size of CV(F)
was to increase the ASW capability? I've been following it reasonably
closely,and the only claim I've ever seen made (and a valid one) is that a
bigger carrier is far more effective at the power projection which CV(F) is
designed to provide for the UK, as opposed to the purely defensive origin
of the Invincible's design.

Guy

[Keith Willshaw]

"hoarse with no name" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
>> But they don't (or soon won't).
>
> This thread began as a discussion of British military decisions and my
> comments were in regard to this. The Brits are currently moving away
> from harrier carriers to long carriers and one of the reasons given is
> to increase the sub-killing powers of their carrier force.

It most certainly is not. The reverse is true in fact, the Invincibles
were seen as integral parts of a RN who's primary aim
was getting reforger convoys across the Atlantic in the
face of a Soviet combined air, surface and submarine threat.

With the declined of that threat the task required is increasingly
seen as power projection for which larger carriers are needed.

Keith

[Lyle]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:01:18 -0500, wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:14:21 -0800, hoarse with no name >
>wrote:
>
>>In article . com>,
>> "Merlin" > wrote:
>>
>>> Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are
>>> being developed.
>>
>>Why would a super-torp be more effective against carriers than against
>>other surface vessels? It wouldn't. Yet long carriers are more effective
>>in the sub-killing role than harrier carriers. Long carriers are most
>>likely the most effective surface vessel in sub-killing because the
>>planes it launches cover so much area so quickly.
>
>This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
>But they don't (or soon won't).
>
>The first time a Big Grey Boat gets "tagged" by a sub there will some
>very interesting discussions in the Halls of Power.
Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
with a common platform.
JMO
>
>Bill Kambic
>
>Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73/VP-93

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle > wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

>Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
>you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
>the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
>with a common platform.
>JMO

I would agree that the Osprey has the potential to do the job.
Question is whether or not the Powers That Be (in either the RN or
USN) will ever commit to the money (a rather large sum, I would guess)
to aquire the airframes and necessary electronics.

For the time being there does not seem to be much of a major sub
threat to the carrier battle group that cannot be dealt with by
current ASW assets (air, surface, and subsurface). But times change.

Bill Kambic

[Merlin]

>
> What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
development of
> a program that most posters have already well informed you is about
at the
> end of its development potential. You started this argument once
before, and
> a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much
> destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts
right
> about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh
sakes). Why
> don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of
> bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE
HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.

BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED.

WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?

DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
YAK-141 ?


> > Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
> > war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
> > torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems.
If
> > the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo
that
> > would be a pretty cost effective round ?
>
> Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon

> instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
helicopter,
> patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.

SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE FUTURE
?
>
> >
> > It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35
will
> > give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
between
> > the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
>
> When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can
come
> back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in
another
> attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?

>
> <snip numerous references of unexplained applicability>

IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S
>
> Brooks

[Guy Alcala]

Merlin wrote:

> >
> > What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
> development of
> > a program that most posters have already well informed you is about
> at the
> > end of its development potential. You started this argument once
> before, and
> > a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much
> > destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts
> right
> > about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh
> sakes). Why
> > don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of
> > bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
> SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE
> HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.

You seem to have a problem with your Caps lock key.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>
>> What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
> development of
>> a program that most posters have already well informed you is about
> at the
>> end of its development potential. You started this argument once
> before, and
>> a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much
>> destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts
> right
>> about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh
> sakes). Why
>> don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of
>> bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
> SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE
> HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.

Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley until the
F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of the F-35B
variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the USAF has
now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A orders will
instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B, acknowledging
that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order for F-35B
development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now penciled
in."

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04farn/aircraft04_3.htm

>
> BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED.

So what?

>
> WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?

So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually exceeded
the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?

>
> DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
> YAK-141 ?

Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?

>
>
>> > Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
>> > war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
>> > torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems.
> If
>> > the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo
> that
>> > would be a pretty cost effective round ?
>>
>> Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon
>
>> instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
> helicopter,
>> patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.
>
> SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE FUTURE
> ?

No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of threats,
that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.

>>
>> >
>> > It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35
> will
>> > give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
> between
>> > the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
>>
>> When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can
> come
>> back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in
> another
>> attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.
>
> YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?

Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge of the
aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its vertical
thrust needs, for example.

>
>>
>> <snip numerous references of unexplained applicability>
>
> IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S

The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B model, AFAIK.
They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be falling
rather...flat?

Brooks


>>
>> Brooks
>

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle > wrote:

>Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
>you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
>the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
>with a common platform.
>JMO

Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
required for the S-3 and tanker missions.

I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.

Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle > wrote:
>
>>Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
>>you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
>>the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
>>with a common platform.
>>JMO
>
> Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
> the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
> E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
> required for the S-3 and tanker missions.
>
> I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
> a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.

But it does make some sense for a Navy that is trying to further stretch its
reach by implementing such things as the Expeditionary Strike Group concept,
using the less capable amphibious assault ships, etc., as the core of those
forces as opposed to having a CVN required in all instances. The fact that
we remain sommitted to CTOL carriers does not mean that we have an infinite
supply of them ready for handling multiple contingencies spaced out around
the globe, nor does it mean that those vessels possess an unlimited
on-station capability--which is why the ESG concept is being pursued.

Brooks

>
> Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
> but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
> radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(
>
> --
> Peter Kemp
>
> "Life is short...drink faster"

[Jeb Hoge]

Carriers don't operate alone in a vacuum. US carrier groups include
subs, frigates, and destroyers, all of which either are or have assets
dedicated to killing the enemy sub threat. Fixed-wing dedicated ASW
doesn't make AS much sense now as it did twenty years ago, anyway,
since the number and quality of hostile sub threats has decreased
without the USSR pushing the envelope, and there are alternatives for
airborne ASW that make more sense than Hoovers. UAVs and
lighter-than-air platforms with dedicated sensors could provide a lot
more coverage with a lot less manpower for maintenance and operation.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:11 +0000, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle > wrote:
>
>>Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
>>you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
>>the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
>>with a common platform.
>>JMO
>
>Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
>the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
>E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
>required for the S-3 and tanker missions.

Two problems with the E-2, and they're called "props." Nobody likes
them on a flight deck (for obvious reasons). Peformance wise, though,
you might be right.

I never flew the S-3 but had friends that did. From what they tell me
it did the job reasonably well. Problems were more likely to come
from Air Wing types who knew nothing about ASW or its problems and had
no desire to learn.

>I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
>a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.

You're probably right.

>Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
>but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
>radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(

The cost of the Osprey is so high that I don't see it being a viable
candidate for anything other than the specialized missions it is
already slated for.

Could there also be an operational problem with trying to tank from an
Osprey? Those rotor/prop blades are VERY large and would disturb a
LOT of air. I have seen photos of aircraft tanking from Marine
KC-130s so it can be done. Still, the 130 prop looks a lot smaller
than the Osprey prop.

Bill Kambic

[Merlin]

Brooks,

How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?

The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.
They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft
because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend the
life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to replace.


Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you
would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?

A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime target.
You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went under
not over.

A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?

Sink the Bismark !
Sink the Super-Carrier !



Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Merlin" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >>
> >> What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
> > development of
> >> a program that most posters have already well informed you is
about
> > at the
> >> end of its development potential. You started this argument once
> > before, and
> >> a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty
much
> >> destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic
facts
> > right
> >> about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh
> > sakes). Why
> >> don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead
of
> >> bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
> > SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE
> > HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.
>
> Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley
until the
> F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of the
F-35B
> variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the USAF
has
> now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A orders
will
> instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
> Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B,
acknowledging
> that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order for
F-35B
> development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now
penciled
> in."
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04farn/aircraft04_3.htm
>
> >
> > BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER
FUNDED.
>
> So what?
>
> >
> > WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?
>
> So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually
exceeded
> the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?
>
> >
> > DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
> > YAK-141 ?
>
> Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?
>
> >
> >
> >> > Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
> >> > war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
> >> > torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless
problems.
> > If
> >> > the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced
torpedo
> > that
> >> > would be a pretty cost effective round ?
> >>
> >> Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that
uber-weapon
> >
> >> instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
> > helicopter,
> >> patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.
> >
> > SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE
FUTURE
> > ?
>
> No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of
threats,
> that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35
> > will
> >> > give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
> > between
> >> > the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
> >>
> >> When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you
can
> > come
> >> back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in
> > another
> >> attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.
> >
> > YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?
>
> Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge of
the
> aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its
vertical
> thrust needs, for example.
>
> >
> >>
> >> <snip numerous references of unexplained applicability>
> >
> > IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S
>
> The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B model,
AFAIK.
> They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be
falling
> rather...flat?
>
> Brooks
>
>
> >>
> >> Brooks
> >

[Tex Houston]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
> How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?

What does theft have to do with force protection?

Tex

[Gord Beaman]

"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>
>"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
>> How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?
>
>What does theft have to do with force protection?
>
>Tex
>
Perhaps he means that when you hear the alarm bell you'll know
that your security was stolen?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:02 -0500, wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:11 +0000, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>
>>Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
>>the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
>>E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
>>required for the S-3 and tanker missions.
>
>Two problems with the E-2, and they're called "props." Nobody likes
>them on a flight deck (for obvious reasons). Peformance wise, though,
>you might be right.

Are props really that much more dangerous than a sucking inlet? And is
that a perception thing or are they demonstratably so (i.e. is it just
that props make more mess?).

That's not a rhetorical question, I've never been on a flight deck
during air ops, but I'd assumed you always have to have your wits
about you with the deck edge, landing and taking off aircraft, jet
blast etc etc etc.

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Brooks,
>
> How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?

How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying on your
own brash, unsupported braggadocio?

>
> The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.

You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier operators--now
you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as well?

> They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft
> because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend the
> life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to replace.

Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty soldiering
on until the F-35 is available.

>
>
> Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you
> would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?

Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second engine to
provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it.

>
> A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime target.
> You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went under
> not over.

H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to a great
deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd
debating style...

>
> A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
> How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?

Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin
fiction; we are not talking fiction here.

>
> Sink the Bismark !
> Sink the Super-Carrier !
>
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>> "Merlin" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
>> > development of
>> >> a program that most posters have already well informed you is
> about
>> > at the
>> >> end of its development potential. You started this argument once
>> > before, and
>> >> a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty
> much
>> >> destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic
> facts
>> > right
>> >> about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh
>> > sakes). Why
>> >> don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead
> of
>> >> bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
>> > SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE
>> > HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.
>>
>> Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley
> until the
>> F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of the
> F-35B
>> variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the USAF
> has
>> now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A orders
> will
>> instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
>> Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B,
> acknowledging
>> that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order for
> F-35B
>> development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now
> penciled
>> in."
>>
>> http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04farn/aircraft04_3.htm

No comment, huh?

>>
>> >
>> > BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER
> FUNDED.
>>
>> So what?

And how would they solve your Aussie problem?

>>
>> >
>> > WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?
>>
>> So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually
> exceeded
>> the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?

Did you understand that complex idea?

>>
>> >
>> > DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
>> > YAK-141 ?
>>
>> Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?

I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL approach.

>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
>> >> > war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
>> >> > torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless
> problems.
>> > If
>> >> > the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced
> torpedo
>> > that
>> >> > would be a pretty cost effective round ?
>> >>
>> >> Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that
> uber-weapon
>> >
>> >> instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
>> > helicopter,
>> >> patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.
>> >
>> > SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE
> FUTURE
>> > ?
>>
>> No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of
> threats,
>> that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.

No comment again, huh?

>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35
>> > will
>> >> > give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
>> > between
>> >> > the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
>> >>
>> >> When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you
> can
>> > come
>> >> back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in
>> > another
>> >> attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.
>> >
>> > YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?
>>
>> Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge of
> the
>> aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its
> vertical
>> thrust needs, for example.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> <snip numerous references of unexplained applicability>
>> >
>> > IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S
>>
>> The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B model,
> AFAIK.
>> They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be
> falling
>> rather...flat?

And still reminsicent of a pancake...

Brooks

>>
>> Brooks
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Brooks
>> >
>

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:32:47 +0000, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:02 -0500, wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:11 +0000, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
>>>the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
>>>E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
>>>required for the S-3 and tanker missions.
>>
>>Two problems with the E-2, and they're called "props." Nobody likes
>>them on a flight deck (for obvious reasons). Peformance wise, though,
>>you might be right.
>
>Are props really that much more dangerous than a sucking inlet? And is
>that a perception thing or are they demonstratably so (i.e. is it just
>that props make more mess?).

I never spent any time on a CVA. On a CVS you had lots of
Stoofs and Fudds and helos and (maybe) an A-4 det. My impression is
that a jet at idle will not suck you up; a prop at idle will chop you
up.

It's also my impression that the "zone of danger" in front of a jet
was somewhat smaller than the arc of an E-2 prop (which is rather
larger than it's Fudd predecessor). Of course the jet WILL suck you
up; you must be more "proactive" to meet a spinning prop. Or have
some help from wind generated by either nature or turning aircraft.

I've never done any safety center research on the subject, however.

>That's not a rhetorical question, I've never been on a flight deck
>during air ops, but I'd assumed you always have to have your wits
>about you with the deck edge, landing and taking off aircraft, jet
>blast etc etc etc.

During the day it's about the most dangerous place you can be, short
of a fire fight. And at night under red lights...

Props also get "dinged" regularly, which can mean maintenance. They
get eroded by debris. Their size and weight make them difficult to
handle. They must be pulled prior to an engine change. I suspect
there are lots of other issues, too.

Not that jets can't have their issues as well.

Oh, and a jet that's shut down poses no danger; you can still raise a
fine knot on your head walking into a still prop! :-)

Like I say, most flight deck personnel I've ever known say they don't
really like prop aircraft on a carrier deck. Whodda ever thunk you
might ever hear wisdom from an Aviation Boatswain?!?!?!?!?! :-)

Bill Kambic

[Merlin]

Mel Brooks,

Obviously your humour has no boundaries ?
May I go to the library and take out some copies of 'your' books
to read as I have done with Tom Clancy ?

An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking
at the time.

"unsupported braggadocio"
Lacks wine and garlic ?

If you have read some of the latest news on the subject you may realise
that the Australians are smarting at the cost and lateness of your pet
toy.

If you are not a 14 year old kid from middle America sitting in his
bedroom with a PC, a pile of books and little else you must be working
on the F-35 project?

What other reason would you be so enthusiastic about an unproven
product?
The F-35 will prove itself if and when it goes to war.

I am still waiting for a reasoned argument that the F-35 will be an
effective
aircraft and not an expensive fancy toy.

Why do you use the German word 'uber' to describe an advanced torpedo ?

I would use the Spanish word 'Cabrone' for your postings.

You are a 'septic tank'? I doubt if you are Canadian or a Brit.






Mel Brooks wrote:
> "Merlin" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Brooks,
> >
> > How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?
>
> How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying
on your
> own brash, unsupported braggadocio?
>
> >
> > The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.
>
> You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier
operators--now
> you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as
well?
>
> > They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft
> > because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend
the
> > life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to
replace.
>
> Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty
soldiering
> on until the F-35 is available.
>
> >
> >
> > Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that
you
> > would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?
>
> Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second
engine to
> provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it.
>
> >
> > A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime
target.
> > You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went
under
> > not over.
>
> H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to
a great
> deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd

> debating style...
>
> >
> > A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
> > How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?
>
> Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin

> fiction; we are not talking fiction here.
>
> >
> > Sink the Bismark !
> > Sink the Super-Carrier !
> >
> >
> >
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >> "Merlin" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
> >> > development of
> >> >> a program that most posters have already well informed you is
> > about
> >> > at the
> >> >> end of its development potential. You started this argument
once
> >> > before, and
> >> >> a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty
> > much
> >> >> destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic
> > facts
> >> > right
> >> >> about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for
gosh
> >> > sakes). Why
> >> >> don't you first address the points that were raised then,
instead
> > of
> >> >> bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
> >> > SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND
THE
> >> > HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.
> >>
> >> Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley
> > until the
> >> F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of
the
> > F-35B
> >> variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the
USAF
> > has
> >> now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A
orders
> > will
> >> instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
> >> Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B,
> > acknowledging
> >> that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order
for
> > F-35B
> >> development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now
> > penciled
> >> in."
> >>
> >> http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04farn/aircraft04_3.htm
>
> No comment, huh?
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER
> > FUNDED.
> >>
> >> So what?
>
> And how would they solve your Aussie problem?
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?
> >>
> >> So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually
> > exceeded
> >> the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?
>
> Did you understand that complex idea?
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF
THE
> >> > YAK-141 ?
> >>
> >> Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?
>
> I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL
approach.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> > Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next
major
> >> >> > war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and
advanced
> >> >> > torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless
> > problems.
> >> > If
> >> >> > the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced
> > torpedo
> >> > that
> >> >> > would be a pretty cost effective round ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that
> > uber-weapon
> >> >
> >> >> instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
> >> > helicopter,
> >> >> patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.
> >> >
> >> > SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE
> > FUTURE
> >> > ?
> >>
> >> No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of
> > threats,
> >> that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.
>
> No comment again, huh?
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the
F-35
> >> > will
> >> >> > give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
> >> > between
> >> >> > the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
> >> >>
> >> >> When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then
you
> > can
> >> > come
> >> >> back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass,
in
> >> > another
> >> >> attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.
> >> >
> >> > YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?
> >>
> >> Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge
of
> > the
> >> aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its
> > vertical
> >> thrust needs, for example.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip numerous references of unexplained applicability>
> >> >
> >> > IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE
AUSSIE'S
> >>
> >> The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B
model,
> > AFAIK.
> >> They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be
> > falling
> >> rather...flat?
>
> And still reminsicent of a pancake...
>
> Brooks
>
> >>
> >> Brooks
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Brooks
> >> >
> >

[Merlin]

Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
Cheaper bid or better systems ?

Simpler design ?

[Yeff]

On 14 Dec 2004 06:18:47 -0800, Merlin wrote:

> Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
> Cheaper bid or better systems ?
>
> Simpler design ?

The X-32 simply looked too stupid.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

[Keith Willshaw]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
> Cheaper bid or better systems ?
>
> Simpler design ?
>

The Boeing was just too ugly to live !

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mel Brooks,
>
> Obviously your humour has no boundaries ?
> May I go to the library and take out some copies of 'your' books
> to read as I have done with Tom Clancy ?

Enough of your top-posting of your unsupported bile. Don't you know that
top-posting is normally frowned upon? Or are you as unaware of that fact as
you have demonstrated to be in regards to the Harrier and F-35B?

>
> An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking
> at the time.

Bullpoopie. Clancy's book did NOT "change NATO thinking". If you think it
did, please provide som proof beyond your personal claims...

>
> "unsupported braggadocio"
> Lacks wine and garlic ?

Not familiar with the use of a dictionary, eh?

>
> If you have read some of the latest news on the subject you may realise
> that the Australians are smarting at the cost and lateness of your pet
> toy.

What does that have to do with the Harrier and F-35B?

>
> If you are not a 14 year old kid from middle America sitting in his
> bedroom with a PC, a pile of books and little else you must be working
> on the F-35 project?

That kid with a pile of books apparently would be head-and-shoulders above
you in this debate, based upon your inability to get the basic facts right.

>
> What other reason would you be so enthusiastic about an unproven
> product?

Why are you so desperate to attack the F-35B that you feel compelled to drag
the RAAF into the fray?

> The F-35 will prove itself if and when it goes to war.
>
> I am still waiting for a reasoned argument that the F-35 will be an
> effective
> aircraft and not an expensive fancy toy.

Do some reading on the subject--when you have got past the fact that it does
NOT have a second engine dedicated to providing vertical power, you will
have gotten over the first hurdle towards acheiving some basic understanding
of the situation.

And you STILL have not managed to answer the points brought out to you
earlier...how surprising.

Brooks

>
> Why do you use the German word 'uber' to describe an advanced torpedo ?
>
> I would use the Spanish word 'Cabrone' for your postings.
>
> You are a 'septic tank'? I doubt if you are Canadian or a Brit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mel Brooks wrote:
>> "Merlin" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Brooks,
>> >
>> > How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?
>>
>> How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying
> on your
>> own brash, unsupported braggadocio?
>>
>> >
>> > The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.
>>
>> You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier
> operators--now
>> you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as
> well?
>>
>> > They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft
>> > because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend
> the
>> > life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to
> replace.
>>
>> Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty
> soldiering
>> on until the F-35 is available.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that
> you
>> > would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?
>>
>> Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second
> engine to
>> provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it.
>>
>> >
>> > A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime
> target.
>> > You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went
> under
>> > not over.
>>
>> H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to
> a great
>> deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd
>
>> debating style...
>>
>> >
>> > A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
>> > How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?
>>
>> Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin
>
>> fiction; we are not talking fiction here.
>>
>> >
>> > Sink the Bismark !
>> > Sink the Super-Carrier !
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
>> >> "Merlin" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
>> >> > development of
>> >> >> a program that most posters have already well informed you is
>> > about
>> >> > at the
>> >> >> end of its development potential. You started this argument
> once
>> >> > before, and
>> >> >> a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty
>> > much
>> >> >> destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic
>> > facts
>> >> > right
>> >> >> about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for
> gosh
>> >> > sakes). Why
>> >> >> don't you first address the points that were raised then,
> instead
>> > of
>> >> >> bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
>> >> > SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND
> THE
>> >> > HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.
>> >>
>> >> Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley
>> > until the
>> >> F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of
> the
>> > F-35B
>> >> variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the
> USAF
>> > has
>> >> now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A
> orders
>> > will
>> >> instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
>> >> Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B,
>> > acknowledging
>> >> that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order
> for
>> > F-35B
>> >> development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now
>> > penciled
>> >> in."
>> >>
>> >> http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04farn/aircraft04_3.htm
>>
>> No comment, huh?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER
>> > FUNDED.
>> >>
>> >> So what?
>>
>> And how would they solve your Aussie problem?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?
>> >>
>> >> So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually
>> > exceeded
>> >> the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?
>>
>> Did you understand that complex idea?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF
> THE
>> >> > YAK-141 ?
>> >>
>> >> Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?
>>
>> I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL
> approach.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next
> major
>> >> >> > war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and
> advanced
>> >> >> > torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless
>> > problems.
>> >> > If
>> >> >> > the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced
>> > torpedo
>> >> > that
>> >> >> > would be a pretty cost effective round ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that
>> > uber-weapon
>> >> >
>> >> >> instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
>> >> > helicopter,
>> >> >> patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.
>> >> >
>> >> > SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE
>> > FUTURE
>> >> > ?
>> >>
>> >> No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of
>> > threats,
>> >> that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.
>>
>> No comment again, huh?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the
> F-35
>> >> > will
>> >> >> > give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
>> >> > between
>> >> >> > the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then
> you
>> > can
>> >> > come
>> >> >> back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass,
> in
>> >> > another
>> >> >> attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.
>> >> >
>> >> > YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?
>> >>
>> >> Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge
> of
>> > the
>> >> aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its
>> > vertical
>> >> thrust needs, for example.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snip numerous references of unexplained applicability>
>> >> >
>> >> > IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE
> AUSSIE'S
>> >>
>> >> The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B
> model,
>> > AFAIK.
>> >> They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be
>> > falling
>> >> rather...flat?
>>
>> And still reminsicent of a pancake...
>>
>> Brooks
>>
>> >>
>> >> Brooks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Brooks
>> >> >
>> >
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Merlin" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
>> Cheaper bid or better systems ?
>>
>> Simpler design ?
>>
>
> The Boeing was just too ugly to live !

LOL! True enough. And it did not help Boeing much when they had to admit
that the exterior of the X-32 would have to undergo significant redesign to
include a more conventional tail layout, and a redesigned inlet IIRC...

Brooks

>
> Keith
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >,
writes
>Oh, and a jet that's shut down poses no danger; you can still raise a
>fine knot on your head walking into a still prop! :-)

Been there, done that, luckily no scar to show for it...

>Like I say, most flight deck personnel I've ever known say they don't
>really like prop aircraft on a carrier deck. Whodda ever thunk you
>might ever hear wisdom from an Aviation Boatswain?!?!?!?!?! :-)

Ya know, this idea of asking the folks who actually do the hard work
might catch on.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Merlin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking
>> at the time.
>
>Bullpoopie. Clancy's book did NOT "change NATO thinking". If you think it
>did, please provide som proof beyond your personal claims...

I do recall reading a comment in "International Defence Review" of
1988ish that the security of Iceland was taken more seriously then than
it had been previously, with a throwaway mention of Clancy. (One of the
real-world issues being the willingness of the Icelanders themselves to
accept additional security...)

Of course, that is not a reflection of actual NATO doctrine. (One NATO
nation, pressed for its comments on a particular Experimental Tactic,
protested "But we haven't had time to study it yet, we can't possibly
respond in these unrealistically short timescales!" After all, that
EXTAC was only promulgated in 1974...)


But I can see how it could be misinterpreted as such.

"NATO thinking", "thinking of individual NATO nations", and "thinking of
groups of nations within NATO" are not interchangeable.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

[Thomas Schoene]

Merlin wrote:
> Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition
> ? Cheaper bid or better systems ?
>
> Simpler design ?

Better performance. The lift fan gave the X-35 significantly better STOVL
up-and-away performance than the X-32. Even the Boeing team leader
acknowledged that they were sunk once LM demonstrated that the clutched lift
fan actually worked.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> Merlin wrote:
> > Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition
> > ? Cheaper bid or better systems ?
> >
> > Simpler design ?
>
> Better performance. The lift fan gave the X-35 significantly better STOVL
> up-and-away performance than the X-32. Even the Boeing team leader
> acknowledged that they were sunk once LM demonstrated that the clutched lift
> fan actually worked.

The question (or worry) has always been whether it would work reliably when
needed, as well as all the doors that also need to work. The Harrier design
using the Pegasus was never as efficient as using separate lift and
cruise/maneuver engines, but it had the advantage of simplicity and reliability,
and given thetechnology of the day none of the lift + cruise-engined beasts were
any better, and most a lot worse. The F-35 is something of a halfway step to a
separate lift engine, without that complication but relying on a highly loaded
shaft and gearbox. When it works, it works great. The remaining question is
will it work often enough and inexpensively enough, in squadron service. DoD is
convinced it will, and we'll just have to wait and see.

Guy

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:21:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >,
>writes
>>Oh, and a jet that's shut down poses no danger; you can still raise a
>>fine knot on your head walking into a still prop! :-)
>
>Been there, done that, luckily no scar to show for it...
>
>>Like I say, most flight deck personnel I've ever known say they don't
>>really like prop aircraft on a carrier deck. Whodda ever thunk you
>>might ever hear wisdom from an Aviation Boatswain?!?!?!?!?! :-)
>
>Ya know, this idea of asking the folks who actually do the hard work
>might catch on.

On my first "fly off" I was riding shotgun with my regular aircraft
commander. It was a really lousy North Atlantic day in early spring.
The gale was strong enough that we had to steam downwind to spread the
blades on the helos. We had intermittant white water over the bow.
We were about #5 for launch when our yellow shirt (taxi director), on
my side, caught a gust and was being slowly blown into our prop arc.
I hit the CAPC in th arm and pointed and he said, "be ready to punch
the feather button as I pull the mixture" (hitting him with the flat
of the blade would knock him silly but likely not kill him; it would
also end our participation in the fly off).

The yellow shirt first squatted down to break his wind profile but
continued moving. About the time the CAPC put his hand on the mixture
he rolled over and caught an eye-pad in the deck and stopped his
movement.

He hesitated a second, got to his feet, and returned to his proper
place to continue to direct us. I often wonder if anyone else even
noticed. We launched uneventfully.

It does take some balls to dance in that ballet.

Bill Kambic

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:
snip
>
>He hesitated a second, got to his feet, and returned to his proper
>place to continue to direct us. I often wonder if anyone else even
>noticed. We launched uneventfully.
>
>It does take some balls to dance in that ballet.
>
>Bill Kambic


WooHoo...duz indeed.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Yofuri]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> wrote:
> snip
>
>>He hesitated a second, got to his feet, and returned to his proper
>>place to continue to direct us. I often wonder if anyone else even
>>noticed. We launched uneventfully.
>>
>>It does take some balls to dance in that ballet.
>>
>>Bill Kambic
>
>
>
> WooHoo...duz indeed.
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)
On the Bonnie Dick we had an AB2 walk through a C-1A prop just as it
shut down. The prop made its last turn and kicked back from compression
just as he hit it. No stitches, but it smacked him pretty stoutly and
bruised him good. Down to Sick Bay for an eye check, which was
20-omygod. He was a messdeck master-at-arms until his glasses came in.

Rick

[Grantland]

The Aussies need strike eagle. Now. The Brits need Wasp. Only the
hatred of Bushstink stops it.

Grantland

[Bryan Ashcraft]

As I recall there was a small issue of the Boeing design being a little
overweight, and the chin fairing had to be removed to save weight for the
vertical testing phase of the flyoff against the X-35. (About 1-1,500 pounds
as I recall)

Then as covered elsewhere there was the issue of Boeing were going to change
the design after the flyoff to include tailplanes, and clip the delta wings
in another effort to save weight.

I'm not sure a chin inlet was the way to go personally on a carrier deck for
CTOL. Weren't there issues with the A-7 with ingestion of FOD and crew?

But yeah, that Boeing design was ugly........ lol

Bry


"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Dec 2004 06:18:47 -0800, Merlin wrote:
>
>> Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
>> Cheaper bid or better systems ?

[Grantland]

"Bryan Ashcraft" > wrote:

>As I recall there was a small issue of the Boeing design being a little
>overweight, and the chin fairing had to be removed to save weight for the
>vertical testing phase of the flyoff against the X-35. (About 1-1,500 pounds
>as I recall)
>
>Then as covered elsewhere there was the issue of Boeing were going to change
>the design after the flyoff to include tailplanes, and clip the delta wings
>in another effort to save weight.
>
>I'm not sure a chin inlet was the way to go personally on a carrier deck for
>CTOL. Weren't there issues with the A-7 with ingestion of FOD and crew?
>
>But yeah, that Boeing design was ugly........ lol
>
>Bry
>
F/A-32 MONICA!
>
>"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
>> On 14 Dec 2004 06:18:47 -0800, Merlin wrote:
>>
>>> Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
>>> Cheaper bid or better systems ?
>

[Lyle]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:57:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle > wrote:
>>
>>>Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
>>>you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
>>>the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
>>>with a common platform.
>>>JMO
>>
>> Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
>> the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
>> E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
>> required for the S-3 and tanker missions.
>>
>> I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
>> a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.
one of the duties of the Wasp class is SeaControl/CVE duties.
>
>But it does make some sense for a Navy that is trying to further stretch its
>reach by implementing such things as the Expeditionary Strike Group concept,
>using the less capable amphibious assault ships, etc., as the core of those
>forces as opposed to having a CVN required in all instances. The fact that
>we remain sommitted to CTOL carriers does not mean that we have an infinite
>supply of them ready for handling multiple contingencies spaced out around
>the globe, nor does it mean that those vessels possess an unlimited
>on-station capability--which is why the ESG concept is being pursued.
remember that the CVE during world war 2 were used to escort the
convoys/assault ships to the destinations protecting them from both
subs and aircraft. And once they got to their destination provided
airsupport for the amphibous landings. This freed of the CVA for
attacks on the enemies fleet, or to attack targets inland. And it were
the Marines that were assigned to the CVE's not the Navy.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
>> but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
>> radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(
>>
>> --
>> Peter Kemp
>>
>> "Life is short...drink faster"
>

[Pechs1]

Peter-<< Are props really that much more dangerous than a sucking inlet? And is
that a perception thing or are they demonstratably so (i.e. is it just
that props make more mess?). >><BR><BR>

Well, the flight deck is dangerous even when no engine is turning of any type
but I have seen many people walk too close to some types of intakes w/ only a
chewing out afterward(like the F-4) but getting around a E-2 prop when it is
'flat', not making any 'wind' can really hurt. On my second cruise we had a
civilian walk into an E-2 prop, took his arm off but he lived.

I will say a bunch of props is more dangerous than a bunch of jet engines but
it's all dangerous.


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

[RENABORNEY]

>remember that the CVE during world war 2 were used to escort the
>convoys/assault ships to the destinations protecting them from both
>subs and aircraft. And once they got to their destination provided
>airsupport for the amphibous landings.

SNIP

The reason the Wildcat was kept in production in its FM-2 version - a CAS ship
with limited fighter capability


And it were
>the Marines that were assigned to the CVE's not the Navy.
>>
SNIP

Not until the very end of the war