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

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/

On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" wrote:
Ok, ok!!!

Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
to plan for this potential war.

Happens all the time with lots of countries. Strictly used for weapons
buying plans.

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.
The Japanese own office buildings all over the place, but we're not going to
war with Japan are we?

Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
North Africa.

It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
2012.


Okay, Nostradamus. I'll mark my calendar.

On 2/23/04 6:04 AM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" wrote:


|I really cant go much further than what I said, but look at the B1B.
|
|I can paraphrase Aviation Week - The procurement #s of Raptors have been
|lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will be
|replacing them as soon as they are available.
|
|I do agree with you on the AF ANG and Reserves flying very new and up to
|date platforms unlike the days of old.
The problem is that the ANG is having problems getting aircraft.
the USAF has taken many aircraft away from them. In fact many
states are now looking for missions.

I am wondering if it is just a matter of time before the Air
Guard is merged into the USAFR. Of course I am mostly hearing
the bitching from Air Guard officers, so this could be one sided.


That'd be a bad move fiscally for the USAF considering that the ANG's get
money from both the states and the USAF. Subsidy is good.

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.

"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

"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 :-)

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

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

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?

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.