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 |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney" wrote: "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me. The RAF , RN and USMC disagree Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they are interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as well. It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-) Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch... They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now it's HUGE! COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size department and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I believe. The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train. |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
|
#233
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
(WaltBJ) wrote: Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the automation was a factor. |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article
, "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message SNIP The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately* throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to have". CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC. That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around al-Kut. There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it (OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not been around to help out. Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle. SNIP And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a good thing? Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking about. SNIP What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping like flies. Guy Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them? --Woody |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
|
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking about. Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is hard to argue with them. I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute. Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from bellow and still be useful on its original role? Build some new A-10s with state of the art avionics and new engines. I know that's not going to happen, but indeed it would make perfect fighting sense. I still look in wonder at the costly "stealth" features incorporated into the Rhino, and then you load the poor thing over with a bunch of hanging-ons, canted outwards, that make it look like a Xmas tree on any half-decent scope... _____________ José Herculano |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 6:42 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: Kevin, it's funny how you conveniently snipped the part of my post you couldn't defend. Not at all; your argument was so lacking in logic that I saw little reason to bother. But if you are so interested in improving yourself, here goes: "CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC." What you ignore is that the "capping" (by which you actually menat "stacking", I presume) is utterly dependent upon a number of external factors that don't necessarily impact the operations of a STOVL aircraft. You have to have tankers to support the CAS stack--tankers are a commodity that is becoming more critical these days, and less available. You have to have bases within range to support continuous operations. The heavies have less problem with this, but then again we don't have a limitless supply of heavies, and they *do* have some limits (hard to have a heavy do a Maverick run). How many F-16's or even F-15E's do you have to have running continuous operations to support a very long range CAS mission (like Afghanistan from the Gulf)? Lots if yo0u are going to maintain a continuous CAS stack, and *lots* of crews, too. Plus more tankers. And if you find yourself a bit farther away than that Gulf-to Afghanistan trasit distance, then supporting the CAS requirement becomes even more tenuous, if not impossible. OTOH, if you establish a forward landing strip to handle C-130's bringging in the beans, bullets, and bombs, you can also put a few STOVL aircraft in there, set up FARP's closer to the action, and (voila!", you just reduced your tanking requirements while also making the CAS package more responsive to the ground commander's needs. He wants some CBU-105's in the mix? The F-15E flying from Bumfart 1200 miles distant, on station with GBU's, is not going to be able to help him much, and by the time he gets a new aircraft on station the target is gone. OTOH, he gets his STOVL aircraft to hit the FARP for a couple of CBU 105's, and bingo, he's in business. That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any *reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want? It was actually YOU that suggested that the USAF was trying to make nice with the USMC. No, it was not. I was being quite facetious with that query. That you found it palusible is rather telling of your grasp of this situation. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most definitely buy CV versions in reduced numbers, still driving up the unit costs. Secondly, I never said the USAF didn't want the STOVL version. They've realized during OIF that CAS and their TACP program is essential to warfare, and they see STOVL and forward basing as a way to get on board. They are already onboard. They just seem to grasp the importance of being more versatile a bit better than you do. Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well... Brooks Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation? When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second ejection from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd returned to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry, that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I was on a roll.) Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me. Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a different lift system. According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few years back, pilots across the TACAIR spectrum with 500 hours or less accounted for 29% of the general pilot population but were at the controls of 46% of the "Skill Based Error" mishaps. If you split out the AV-8B community, the percentage of less than 500 hours is 36% and they're responsible for 67% of the mishaps. Conclusions: (1) experience counts. (2) the Harrier is a more difficult aircraft to fly. This doesn't account for material failures etc. So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an indictment of the STOVL concept itself. I don't know the actual rates, but the Harrier's have consistently been higher than fleet average. Then there's common sense. Slow an F-35 down to near stall while simultaneously opening an upper intake door and engaging a power take-off that activates a lift fan. Meanwhile rotate the exhaust nozzle in the back of the jet through two axes. Any one of these single components fails, and there's going to be trouble. If a helos rotor falls off, it crashes, too. Still kind of a rare event. If the F-16's engine dies and can't be restarted, it crashes. So? These opinions of mine were not generated in a vacuum. They were formed through years of operating TACAIR aircraft--occasionally around Harriers... when they weren't falling out of the sky around me. (Sorry, more rant... and attempted dark humor.) There's little doubt in my mind that the F-35 STOVL will be a better platform than the AV-8B, but any slight gain in flexibility of use is still not worth the risk and the cost when compared to a less risky CV or CTOL version. Unless you can't support the operation adequately with the CTOL aircraft. Brooks Now ask me if I think it's a good idea that the F-35 is a single engine aircraft or whether I think it's a good idea that the Navy guys have decided not to put an internal gun on their version. --Woody |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
José Herculano wrote:
Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is hard to argue with them. http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asi...237523,00.html 'I Love Japan, I Love Peace. The Maritime Self-Defence Force,' says a voice-over at the end. They just need a class of Lending Humanitarian Assistance ships operating Justice Support Friendship aircraft. -HJC |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
"JL Grasso" wrote in message ... On 29 Feb 2004 02:32:04 -0800, (sid) wrote: "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . .. (WaltBJ) wrote: Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the automation was a factor. There were actually 2 additional CFIT-type crashes involving the A-320. One in Bangalore India in February, 1990; and one in Strasbourg, France in January, 1992. The one that you are referring to is the Strasbourg (Air Inter) accident. Which occurred because the crew programmed a descent rate of 3300 fpm instead of the 3.3 degree descent angle they intended and then failed to monitor the actual height/descent rate so didnt discover the error in time. The aircraft had no GPWS Keith |
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 |