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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still
demand those giant carriers? Read about the Falklands War and maybe you'll see why. -- Mike Kanze "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles (430 B.C.) "puttster" wrote in message om... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... 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. The B will be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. 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. True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook). I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41 in their latest incarnations. R / John With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane (the F-35C) to fit their ships? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"R. David Steele" wrote in message news | Wrong, as usual. | | Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad. | | Get a room, guys! | |Poor Chad, so distantly seperated from reality. | |So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down the |F-22 rathole? The Comanche was an Army project, different pile of money. That bodes even worse for the F-22. If the money were USAF money, they would have another $35 billion to spend. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
R. David Steele wrote:
I am seeing you folks get the nomenclature wrong. The "A" version is AF, the "B" version is Navy and the "C" version is Marine and V/STOL Not according to Lockheed Martin. From the variant descriptions linked from http://www.lmaeronautics.com/product...35/design.html "The F-35A for the U.S. Air Force matches or exceeds F-16 performance levels" "The F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy employs a short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) capability. " "U.S. Navy carrier operations account for most of the differences between the F-35C and the other JSF variants." The Air Force and the JSF program office agree with this terminology. See page 8 of this JSF program brief: http://www.jsf.mil/Program/Briefings...gram_brief.pdf or this article from Airpower journal: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...03/phispr03.ht ml BTW: for folks wondering about the benefits of conventioanl carriers, this article hits the key one: radius of action for the STOVL version is 450 nm, for the CV version it's over 700nm. That's a 55% increase. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-35.htm Which is apparently out of date and incorrect. It seems to have been taken from the original DoD press release, which was in error. (or at least has been overtaken by events). -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"puttster" wrote in message om... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... 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. The B will be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. 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. True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook). I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41 in their latest incarnations. R / John With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane (the F-35C) to fit their ships? Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B. Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for the E-2 and C-2 anyway. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
John Keeney wrote:
"puttster" wrote in message om... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... 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. The B will be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. 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. True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook). I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41 in their latest incarnations. R / John With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane (the F-35C) to fit their ships? 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 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 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. IIRR it was Adm. Holloway, when CNO in the '80s(?), who planned to have the navy go all VSTOL sooner rather than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down, especially the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what have you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required performance, in view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the more specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions, but the ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big savings on training, spares and unit cost. Whether this changeover actually happens is another matter, as there doesn't appear to be a big VSTOL backer inside the navy at the moment, and the navy is afraid that going all VSTOL will make it easier for politicians to decide that, because VSTOL a/c _can_ operate from smaller, cheaper carriers, there's no need to buy big ones, ignoring the operational benefits of larger carriers in power projection. OTOH, the USAF's recent volte-face (they want some again) on buying some STOVL F-35s for themselves, may put more pressure on the navy to go VSTOL. Or not :-) Guy |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop (e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight control computers). I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300. --Woody The trouble with that little tale is that the A-300 doesnt have fly by wire Keith |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. John Keeney wrote: "puttster" wrote in message om... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... 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. The B will be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. 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. True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook). I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41 in their latest incarnations. R / John With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane (the F-35C) to fit their ships? 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. 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. 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. As for the COD role: the C-2 does 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of 1,000 nm. The CV-22 can provide VTOL with 8,300lb of cargo for 220 nm. Obviously you aren't going to move as much as fast using CV-22 vs C-2. 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. 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? 3) Call the Air Force. r) Left as an exercise for the reader. than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down, especially the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what have you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required performance, in view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the more specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions, but the ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big savings on training, spares and unit cost. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | July 8th 04 07:01 AM |
More LED's | Veeduber | Home Built | 19 | June 9th 04 10:07 PM |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 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 |