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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Jake Donovan" wrote in message news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06... nafod40, One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"? Thou hast not heard of me? Why, my name is bandied about in the finest parlors and reading rooms of our most clever intellectuals, in various...business establishments...in ports around our busy globe, and only on the rarest occasions on 243.0, and then probably only to relay some else's predicament, I being far too smart to make their mistakes. Thank you for asking... |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote: On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article , "R. David Steele" wrote: China has let it be known, there are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies. Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*... Especially after they decided to buy some Su-30s. Kinda makes you wonder if they really bought the naval variant, plan on doing the mods themselves, or have a naval version of their own somewhere. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"nafod40" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: "Jake Donovan" wrote in message news:jHB_b.2817$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... |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |