"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development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now penciled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...rcraft04_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