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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Tex Houston" wrote:
"Merlin" wrote in message roups.com... A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group? How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ? What does theft have to do with force protection? Tex Perhaps he means that when you hear the alarm bell you'll know that your security was stolen? -- -Gord. (use gordon in email) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... Brooks, How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ? How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying on your own brash, unsupported braggadocio? The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems. You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier operators--now you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as well? They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend the life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to replace. Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty soldiering on until the F-35 is available. Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine? Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second engine to provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it. A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime target. You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went under not over. H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to a great deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd debating style... A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group? How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ? Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin fiction; we are not talking fiction here. Sink the Bismark ! Sink the Super-Carrier ! Kevin Brooks wrote: "Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... What has no validity is your continual ranting about further development of a program that most posters have already well informed you is about at the end of its development potential. You started this argument once before, and a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts right about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh sakes). Why don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap? SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY. Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley until the F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of the F-35B variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the USAF has now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A orders will instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B, acknowledging that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order for F-35B development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now penciled in." http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...rcraft04_3.htm No comment, huh? BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED. So what? And how would they solve your Aussie problem? WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ? So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually exceeded the requirement and is capable of VTOL)? Did you understand that complex idea? DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE YAK-141 ? Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund? I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL approach. Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that would be a pretty cost effective round ? Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW helicopter, patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks. SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE FUTURE ? No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of threats, that one is much less than some other concerns we now face. No comment again, huh? It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning). When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can come back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in another attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics. YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ? Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge of the aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its vertical thrust needs, for example. snip numerous references of unexplained applicability IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B model, AFAIK. They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be falling rather...flat? And still reminsicent of a pancake... Brooks Brooks Brooks |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:32:47 +0000, Peter Kemp
wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:02 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:11 +0000, Peter Kemp wrote: Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes, the best replacement for all of these is another production run of E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as required for the S-3 and tanker missions. Two problems with the E-2, and they're called "props." Nobody likes them on a flight deck (for obvious reasons). Peformance wise, though, you might be right. Are props really that much more dangerous than a sucking inlet? And is that a perception thing or are they demonstratably so (i.e. is it just that props make more mess?). I never spent any time on a CVA. On a CVS you had lots of Stoofs and Fudds and helos and (maybe) an A-4 det. My impression is that a jet at idle will not suck you up; a prop at idle will chop you up. It's also my impression that the "zone of danger" in front of a jet was somewhat smaller than the arc of an E-2 prop (which is rather larger than it's Fudd predecessor). Of course the jet WILL suck you up; you must be more "proactive" to meet a spinning prop. Or have some help from wind generated by either nature or turning aircraft. I've never done any safety center research on the subject, however. That's not a rhetorical question, I've never been on a flight deck during air ops, but I'd assumed you always have to have your wits about you with the deck edge, landing and taking off aircraft, jet blast etc etc etc. During the day it's about the most dangerous place you can be, short of a fire fight. And at night under red lights... Props also get "dinged" regularly, which can mean maintenance. They get eroded by debris. Their size and weight make them difficult to handle. They must be pulled prior to an engine change. I suspect there are lots of other issues, too. Not that jets can't have their issues as well. 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! :-) 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?!?!?!?!?! :-) Bill Kambic |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mel Brooks,
Obviously your humour has no boundaries ? May I go to the library and take out some copies of 'your' books to read as I have done with Tom Clancy ? An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking at the time. "unsupported braggadocio" Lacks wine and garlic ? If you have read some of the latest news on the subject you may realise that the Australians are smarting at the cost and lateness of your pet toy. If you are not a 14 year old kid from middle America sitting in his bedroom with a PC, a pile of books and little else you must be working on the F-35 project? What other reason would you be so enthusiastic about an unproven product? The F-35 will prove itself if and when it goes to war. I am still waiting for a reasoned argument that the F-35 will be an effective aircraft and not an expensive fancy toy. Why do you use the German word 'uber' to describe an advanced torpedo ? I would use the Spanish word 'Cabrone' for your postings. You are a 'septic tank'? I doubt if you are Canadian or a Brit. Mel Brooks wrote: "Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... Brooks, How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ? How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying on your own brash, unsupported braggadocio? The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems. You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier operators--now you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as well? They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend the life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to replace. Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty soldiering on until the F-35 is available. Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine? Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second engine to provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it. A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime target. You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went under not over. H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to a great deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd debating style... A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group? How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ? Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin fiction; we are not talking fiction here. Sink the Bismark ! Sink the Super-Carrier ! Kevin Brooks wrote: "Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... What has no validity is your continual ranting about further development of a program that most posters have already well informed you is about at the end of its development potential. You started this argument once before, and a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts right about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh sakes). Why don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap? SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY. Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley until the F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of the F-35B variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the USAF has now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A orders will instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B, acknowledging that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order for F-35B development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now penciled in." http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...rcraft04_3.htm No comment, huh? BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED. So what? And how would they solve your Aussie problem? WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ? So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually exceeded the requirement and is capable of VTOL)? Did you understand that complex idea? DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE YAK-141 ? Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund? I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL approach. Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that would be a pretty cost effective round ? Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW helicopter, patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks. SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE FUTURE ? No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of threats, that one is much less than some other concerns we now face. No comment again, huh? It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning). When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can come back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in another attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics. YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ? Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge of the aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its vertical thrust needs, for example. snip numerous references of unexplained applicability IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B model, AFAIK. They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be falling rather...flat? And still reminsicent of a pancake... Brooks Brooks Brooks |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ? Cheaper bid or better systems ? Simpler design ? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 ? Simpler design ? The X-32 simply looked too stupid. -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail dot fm |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ? Cheaper bid or better systems ? Simpler design ? The Boeing was just too ugly to live ! Keith |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... Mel Brooks, Obviously your humour has no boundaries ? May I go to the library and take out some copies of 'your' books to read as I have done with Tom Clancy ? Enough of your top-posting of your unsupported bile. Don't you know that top-posting is normally frowned upon? Or are you as unaware of that fact as you have demonstrated to be in regards to the Harrier and F-35B? 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... "unsupported braggadocio" Lacks wine and garlic ? Not familiar with the use of a dictionary, eh? If you have read some of the latest news on the subject you may realise that the Australians are smarting at the cost and lateness of your pet toy. What does that have to do with the Harrier and F-35B? If you are not a 14 year old kid from middle America sitting in his bedroom with a PC, a pile of books and little else you must be working on the F-35 project? That kid with a pile of books apparently would be head-and-shoulders above you in this debate, based upon your inability to get the basic facts right. What other reason would you be so enthusiastic about an unproven product? Why are you so desperate to attack the F-35B that you feel compelled to drag the RAAF into the fray? The F-35 will prove itself if and when it goes to war. I am still waiting for a reasoned argument that the F-35 will be an effective aircraft and not an expensive fancy toy. Do some reading on the subject--when you have got past the fact that it does NOT have a second engine dedicated to providing vertical power, you will have gotten over the first hurdle towards acheiving some basic understanding of the situation. And you STILL have not managed to answer the points brought out to you earlier...how surprising. Brooks Why do you use the German word 'uber' to describe an advanced torpedo ? I would use the Spanish word 'Cabrone' for your postings. You are a 'septic tank'? I doubt if you are Canadian or a Brit. Mel Brooks wrote: "Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... Brooks, How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ? How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying on your own brash, unsupported braggadocio? The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems. You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier operators--now you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as well? They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend the life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to replace. Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty soldiering on until the F-35 is available. Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine? Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second engine to provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it. A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime target. You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went under not over. H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to a great deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd debating style... A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group? How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ? Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin fiction; we are not talking fiction here. Sink the Bismark ! Sink the Super-Carrier ! Kevin Brooks wrote: "Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... What has no validity is your continual ranting about further development of a program that most posters have already well informed you is about at the end of its development potential. You started this argument once before, and a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts right about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh sakes). Why don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap? SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY. Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley until the F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of the F-35B variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the USAF has now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A orders will instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B, acknowledging that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order for F-35B development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now penciled in." http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...rcraft04_3.htm No comment, huh? BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED. So what? And how would they solve your Aussie problem? WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ? So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually exceeded the requirement and is capable of VTOL)? Did you understand that complex idea? DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE YAK-141 ? Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund? I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL approach. Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that would be a pretty cost effective round ? Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW helicopter, patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks. SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE FUTURE ? No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of threats, that one is much less than some other concerns we now face. No comment again, huh? It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning). When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can come back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in another attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics. YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ? Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge of the aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its vertical thrust needs, for example. snip numerous references of unexplained applicability IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B model, AFAIK. They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be falling rather...flat? And still reminsicent of a pancake... Brooks Brooks Brooks |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ? Cheaper bid or better systems ? Simpler design ? The Boeing was just too ugly to live ! LOL! True enough. And it did not help Boeing much when they had to admit that the exterior of the X-32 would have to undergo significant redesign to include a more conventional tail layout, and a redesigned inlet IIRC... Brooks Keith |
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 |