Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"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 [I've left out the other two] 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.


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

(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 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

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

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

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.

(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.

"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

"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

"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.