Harrier vs. JSF-35

"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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Merlin" wrote in message
roups.com...
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...

I do recall reading a comment in "International Defence Review" of
1988ish that the security of Iceland was taken more seriously then than
it had been previously, with a throwaway mention of Clancy. (One of the
real-world issues being the willingness of the Icelanders themselves to
accept additional security...)

Of course, that is not a reflection of actual NATO doctrine. (One NATO
nation, pressed for its comments on a particular Experimental Tactic,
protested "But we haven't had time to study it yet, we can't possibly
respond in these unrealistically short timescales!" After all, that
EXTAC was only promulgated in 1974...)


But I can see how it could be misinterpreted as such.

"NATO thinking", "thinking of individual NATO nations", and "thinking of
groups of nations within NATO" are not interchangeable.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk