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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes "Merlin" wrote in message roups.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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
The Aussies need strike eagle. Now. The Brits need Wasp. Only the
hatred of Bushstink stops it. Grantland |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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 ? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"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 ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The demise of the Sea Harrier | Henry J Cobb | Naval Aviation | 39 | April 25th 04 07:27 PM |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Military Aviation | 29 | October 7th 03 06:30 PM |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Naval Aviation | 20 | September 16th 03 09:01 PM |
Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat? | Alexandre Le-Kouby | Military Aviation | 11 | September 3rd 03 01:47 AM |
Osprey vs. Harrier | Stephen D. Poe | Military Aviation | 58 | August 18th 03 03:17 PM |