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 |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
"Woody Beal" wrote in message ... Concur that it does not yield a concrete conclusion, but it does yield a tendency based on several possible single point failures. If lift fan doors don't open, if lift rotor fails to engage properly, if engine fails during transition to STOVL life gets tough at a very critical and low altitude moment. These problems (though not identical) are similar to those experienced in the AV-8B. Actually, conversion is done at an altitude and speed that, if it fails, you're still wing-borne. The airplane fails back to a regular engine. Just pop the TVL forward and continue to fly conventional. THe diciest moment for the lift-fan system is during clutch engagement, but you don't perform that in a high-exposure kind of situation. Doors and all that aren't really a problem, cuz you'll know there's a problem before you expose yourself. Mechanical failures in the STOVL regime are unforgiving because of their low altitude locale. Yup. But a lot of stuff in the engine/lift-fan system is monitored. Health checking on the B model propulsion system is way beyond anything that has been put into service to-date. THe problem here is that health monitoring tech is really only good for known failure modes. It's the "gee we never considered that" kind of problems that can get scary. Infant mortality. WIth the lift-fan system, you'll typically know if you have a mechanical problem before you go jet-borne. Once transitioning to jet-borne, you just gotta watch all the critical temps (turbine inlet, exhaust gas....yadda yadda). Also, much of the unforgiving nature of jet-borne flight has been addressed through the inceptor mapping. Switching from rates to attitude commands makes overcontrol type slip-ups much less likely. The F-35B will be much more forgiving to exhausted pilots. makes the jet more stable. The complexity of the F-35B when compared to the C or the A only gives it an additional option for landing--a complexity with several possible single point failures in a critical flight regime. Keep in mind that the operational environment envisioned for the F-35B is much more varied than what has been done with the Harrier. So, exposure to hazards (thinking mainly weather) will be much greater. Pete (worked on the X-35B for a couple of years designing the yaw-axis control laws). |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
guy- And how many layers of CAP are they going to have to get through before
they'd even have the chance? That is, assuming we haven't destroyed every runway and taxiway in the country first with cruise missiles or other weapons, and it's pretty damned unlikely that we'd risk a B-1 or B-2 by day before we had air supremacy. BRBR Why don't you re-read your original post...something about how a B-1 or B-2 could do the job of a whole airwing of F-18s...or some such whizbangery. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Pechs1 wrote:
guy- And how many layers of CAP are they going to have to get through before they'd even have the chance? That is, assuming we haven't destroyed every runway and taxiway in the country first with cruise missiles or other weapons, and it's pretty damned unlikely that we'd risk a B-1 or B-2 by day before we had air supremacy. BRBR Why don't you re-read your original post...something about how a B-1 or B-2 could do the job of a whole airwing of F-18s...or some such whizbangery. First it wasn't my original post, and second, I was replying to your comment below: ice- (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover? BRBR One F-18, after the B-1 gets bagged.... I also pointed out that so far its been the f-18s that have gotten bagged. Is there anywhere there where I intimate that a B-1 could do its (conventional, limited war) job without air superiority/supremacy? Guy |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Which airfield? Sorry, I don't have the reference here at home. Its the
same place where the Army POWs were transferred to the KC-130 on TV. "Guy Alcala" wrote in message .. . Frijoles wrote: snip On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or B-2s. (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?) And if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what a great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft provides...? Especially since they had to send four more F-18Es to the theater during the war, to boost the navy's own tanker assets (and of course, taking away airbridge tanker assets from other jobs, to get them there). 45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's hardly a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at, or facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect fires. IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships, principally Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were flown from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad. snip Would you happen to know which airfield? I've found one source that says it was "60nm south" of Baghdad, but no other details. Looking at a map, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...print_2003.jpg Shayka Mazhar and Al Iskandariyah New appear to be too close to the city, Salman Pak East is too close and too far east (although the Marines did go by there IIRR). An Najaf New is due south of Baghdad and about the right distance, but AFAIK the marines weren't near there in any strength, having crossed the Euphrates at Nasiriya before heading up between the rivers towards Baghdad. The Shaykh Hantush Highway Strip seems to be the closest match for distance and direction, but the marines also went through al Kut, which puts An Numaniyah (I know they took that) or Al Jarrah in the picture (although they're more SE than S), and possibly the fields south and/or east of Al Kut, altough they're a bit far and definitely southeast. Guy |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Frijoles wrote:
Which airfield? Sorry, I don't have the reference here at home. Its the same place where the Army POWs were transferred to the KC-130 on TV. Thanks. I think that was Tallil down near Nasiriyah, which seems a bit far from Baghdad (a lot more than 60 nm), but I know there was a big hospital set up there, as well as a FOB for A-10s. Guy |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote in message ...
running with scissors wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... Actually - you succeeded in diverting my attention from what I consider to be one of the more intruiging aspects of this crash - notably a suggested compressor stall. Graham nope no comressor stall. according to tarver, airbus's crash at the end of the runway because its unknown and unmapped. Scary concept ! Is it in the annals ? Graham its utter ********. like any of tarvers theories. |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
guy- ice- (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover
the same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover? BRBR I'm not 'ice', guess you aren't either..gotta love the ng.... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Pechs1 wrote:
guy- ice- (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover? BRBR I'm not 'ice', guess you aren't either..gotta love the ng.... I know you're not 'ice'. He posed the above question, you then replied "One F-18, after the B-1 gets bagged....", and I replied to you "Don't see why . . . " etc.. Are we all clear now, about who was saying what to whom? ;-) Guy |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
You're correct that the A-10 FOB was "near Nasiryah" -- but that was well
south of the location that the Marine Corps used. The Marine Corps wanted something further north to support possible operations to the north (and well north) of Baghdad. "Guy Alcala" wrote in message .. . Frijoles wrote: Which airfield? Sorry, I don't have the reference here at home. Its the same place where the Army POWs were transferred to the KC-130 on TV. Thanks. I think that was Tallil down near Nasiriyah, which seems a bit far from Baghdad (a lot more than 60 nm), but I know there was a big hospital set up there, as well as a FOB for A-10s. Guy |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Frijoles wrote:
You're correct that the A-10 FOB was "near Nasiryah" -- but that was well south of the location that the Marine Corps used. That's what I thought. I finally found a news story that ID'ed the airfield they were flown to by CH-46 as Numaniyah. The Marine Corps wanted something further north to support possible operations to the north (and well north) of Baghdad. Just found a news story that confirmed use of Numaniyah as a Harrier FARP: http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn20...F?opendocument 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 |