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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

snip


How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much.

Wait a sec. Weren't the USMC fixed wing assets in this conflict under
control of the CAOC and responsive to the joint ATO?

Brooks

snip

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:



Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).


So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
aircraft.


I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

As I said before, my opinions are based on ready room chat with a few pilots
I know who fly the Airbus. The knowledge I have is on a macro level (i.e.
not from a standpoint of having been formally schooled on it), but it's
certainly enough to allow me to form a rational and reasonable opinion.

I've also taken the honest road and admitted my short-comings on the issue.

It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly
out
of ignorance.


Indeed

So add some intellectual meat to the discussion. If you have time in an
Airbus or knowledge to the contrary and you'd like to lend an opposing view,
feel free. All things being equal, I like Boeing's approach to the issue
better.

--Woody

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

--Woody


The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:56:47 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

IIRC the first incident you mentioned occured during an airshow where
the autothrottle had been disengaged so the pilot could get closer to
teh edge of the envelope (too close as it turned out).

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

Err, I'm not sure of your point here. If the pilots are good enough to
avoid 60 degree AOB (Angle of Bank I assume), then what does it matter
if the computer would stop them going faster? And if they aren't that
competent, then the computer should damn well stop them playing silly
buggers. This is the same issue IMO as the G limits built into the FBW
software on most modern aircraft. Some pilots I've spoken to
(specifically F-16 drivers) object to a computer telling them they
can't pull that much g *if they have to* in a life or death situation.
Other point out that if they did exceed the limits they'd likely pull
of the wings, blow a few blood vessels, or flame out - possibly all 3,
and if the computer stops them doing that, that's fine by them.

AS for the current approaches by Boeing and Airbus, I was under teh
impression that with the latest Boeing products (777 and 737NG) they
are virtually indistinguishable to Airbus in their treatmetn of pilots
as system managers, simply becasue the computers do a better job of
keeping on time and min fuel consumption, and money's what the game's
about.

Peter Kemp
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:56:47 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the
preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

IIRC the first incident you mentioned occured during an airshow where
the autothrottle had been disengaged so the pilot could get closer to
teh edge of the envelope (too close as it turned out).

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot did
was way out of the envelope.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot did
was way out of the envelope.

Let's see...

You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot elected one of the 2 options you stated were part of the
"envelope"

Then you say the go-around "was way out of the envelope."


That makes no sense!

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:



Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).


So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
aircraft.


I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the
preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back.

Which was an A-320 not A-300 and happened because the pilot
was flying in manual mode , THE AUTOTHROTTLE WAS OFF


That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.


No that was due to the Russian pilot having his son sitting in the left
hand seat and allowing the kid to turn the control wheel while the autopilot
was engaged. The conflict ended up with the autopilot disengaging
when control forces reached more than 12 kg

Not only was a kid in the left hand seat but the co-pilot was distracted
and had his seat pushed right back and the aircraft went into 90 deg
bank, pitched up stalled and spun in. No autothrottle was involved

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is
disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot
needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.


Given that both accidents you mention were the result of pilot error
and large numbers of people died they may have a point.

Keith

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot
did
was way out of the envelope.

Let's see...

You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

As defined by the POH; it is why the pilot went to jail.

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

John Keeney wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John Keeney wrote:

snip

Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.

As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
should the
navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
define the

I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
"anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.

The question is, how often is that second country in more than X nm from the
beach. Should we plan our military around a single third-world country?
Justify why we need to meet your want. You know, what the people who make these
decisions have to do, as opposed to the likes of us who are free to spout our
pet theories on Usenet;-)

Actually, hitting Afghanistan up at least as far north as Kandahar and maybe up
to Kabul from 50-80nm offshore would be possible by unrefueled F-35Bs (assuming
they meet their range requirement), and the rest of the country if you tank
them.

littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm
to
650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's
one
that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that
400nm
is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
services:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

I tried to look, but I became too impatient and gave up on the down load.

The devil IS in the details, and if you want to discuss them, you've got to know
the issues, assumptions and proposed strategy.

Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written
at
ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so
take the
analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you
think
appropriate.

Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters
service,
that particular justification need no longer exist.

Putting a spinning top on a V-22 sounds scary to me, have to be plum tall to
see
over those rotors. Might do an EV-22 with a phased array.

That was the proposed method; initial idea was to use a triangular radome on top
with a three-face phased array. Later there seemed to be some interest in a
spine-mounted array like the Erieye, or a ventral folding array. The V-22 has a
lower ceiling and no pressurized cabin, although it may be possible to insert a
pressurized module into it (kind of like RB-52s had). Or alternatively,
everyone will just have to wear oxygen masks. The other possiblity would be to
develop a new fuselage with the powerplants etc. the same, kind of like the
E-2/C-2 did.

As for the COD role: the C-2 does 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of
1,000 nm.

Not according to the C-2A S.A.C. (available on the Naval Historical Center
website). Range with a 10,000 lb. load is 961nm, with reserves.

The CV-22 can provide VTOL with 8,300lb of cargo for 220 nm.

Why on earth would a V-22 COD make a VTO? It will make a STO or full rolling
takeoff from shore, a STO from a carrier or LHD/LHA, and only make a VTO from a
LPD/LSD/AOE. A C-2 can only land on the carrier and has to tranship loads to a
helo for the latter ships (and hope that the helos are in range), while a V-22
can go direct to them.

Obviously you aren't going to move as much as fast using CV-22 vs C-2.

That remains to be seen. Empty and MTOW weights of the C-2 and MV-22 are in the
same league: 33,746/54,354 for the C-2, and 33,140/57,000 (STO)/60,500 (max.)
for the MV-22, and the latter is carrying around self-sealing tanks and armor
that the former isn't, and doesn't need to maintain the same reserve fuel. The
MV-22 currently lacks a pressurized cabin, which might or might not be
significant when carrying passengers, depending on the range, weather and cruise
altitude. It's cabin is also slightly smaller than the C-2's, which again, may
or may not be significant.

Let's assume for the moment that the V-22 can handle COD and radar missions.
Then you are stuck with the tanker problem and three choices:
1) Use the V-22 as a tanker.
r) Odds on bet the V-22 is too slow.

Too slow for the escort tanking job, certainly, so that will remain with buddy
tankers (or, down the road, a STOVL support jet). I asked Cecil Turner about
this a year or two ago, as he'd refueled in his A-4 and AV-8B from various a/c.
Based on published stats, a KV-22 should be able to tank strikers at least up to
15,000 feet, which he said was a typical tanking altitude, and maybe 18-20,000
(the latter would probably require a toboggan). As for recovery tankers, if the
navy goes all STOVL there will be far less need for them because wave-offs due
to fouled decks will become a thing of the past, as will bolters, and the
incidence of missed approaches due to low visibility will shrink to almost
nothing.

A KV-22 will certainly be lower in performance than the current S-3s; the
question is how critical is that performance to the mission.

2) Buddy store off a F-35B.
r) Yea, that would make buddy storing off F-18s look positively lovely.
How much passable gas could you actually get off the deck?

Considering that the F-35B is credited with equal or greater range than the
F-18E/F on slightly less internal fuel, has only one engine, lots of wet
external pylons and no need to hold large landing fuel reserves, I imagine the
answer is a comparable amount.

3) Call the Air Force.

As the navy has been doing in every one of our recent conflicts. Or the RAF, or
the Dutch, or the Italians, French, Australians, Japanese, Germans . . .

Guy

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

Oh, I don't know, as the marines had their Harriers turning at a FARP/FOB
during the war, and based them there after the main fighting ended. The
only other fixed-wing a/c doing this were, surprise, surprise, A-10s,
because only these a/c were capable of operating from short runways in poor
condition. Gee, seems like exactly the kind of expeditionary ops the
marines are tasked with, and oddly enough, CAS Gen. Jumper and SECAF Roche
are both supporting buying some F-35Bs for the USAF.

Guy