If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"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 :-) |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
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. BRBR Ya bunch of nancys...who needs software... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
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. BRBR 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 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
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 - snipAny 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 06:22 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |