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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Magnus Redin" wrote in message ... snip Canceling the USAF JSF version forcing the USAF to buy the USN version and perhaps some more F-22:s saves money now and will perhaps make the procurement more expensive when the aeroplanes are in production. But perhaps not much more expensive since the production runs will be longer. Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs the F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any numbers. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote: Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs the F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any numbers. Oddly enough, the only person who seems to believe that the Navy wants to give up on piloted planes in the near future is... well, Tarver. Sure, you can find one or two odd folks who think robots are the way to go in the short term (in the long run it's not so chancy, but the tech is nowhere *near* what we need right now), but most folks agree that we need a near-future manned Navy attack plane to replace the ones we have right now. The new carriers in the pipeline - the CVN-21 series - are planned to be primarily F-35 equipped (with F-18 and E-2 for the near term), with UCAV to supplement on high-risk missions - once they figure out how to use UCAVs on a crowded flight deck with manned planes (not a trivial feat). As far as the F-22, we're buying them, they're working fine, and we all know Tarver's delusions on that particular airframe... -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Except that USN does not wish to participate in the F-35 procurement, in favor of replacing the F/A-18As with robots. The USAF, however needs the F-35 to hedge their bet that the F-22 will ever be produced in any numbers. Oddly enough, the only person who seems to believe that the Navy wants to give up on piloted planes in the near future is... well, Tarver. Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production. The reason the Navy stays is for the USMC version, to support fixed wing Marine air. As to the Navy giving up piloted aircraft, I have already posted to this thread the 526 F/A-18 Super Bugs in the Navy pipeline; as well as noting how very successful the Navy's integration of COTS for reliability has been. The Super Bug is already battle tested. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote: Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production. Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly contradicts everything they've said to the public, right? Oh, wait. You can't. As usual. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production. Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly contradicts everything they've said to the public, right? In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad? What I wrote there is identical to what I have written before. It it some lack of data, or a reading and comprehension problem, you have? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote: "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at production. Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly contradicts everything they've said to the public, right? In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad? Okay, here's a reading comprehension tip: When I mentioned "the Navy" and how *you* contradicted *them*, you weren't contradicting *yourself*, you were contradicting "the Navy." What I wrote there is identical to what I have written before. Yes, and it's still wrong. It it some lack of data, or a reading and comprehension problem, you have? No, it's the same old one you've been demonstrating here and in other newsgroups since about the first day you discovered Usenet. Once again, "the Navy" is not "you." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote: Scott Ferrin wrote: :The "Super" Hornet isn't a stealth aircraft For some definition of 'stealth'. It is billed as 'affordable stealth'. They did some airframe reshaping and added some radar absorbing material, which takes the F-18 E/F out of the "barn door" category and into something like the Eurofighter's RCS category. Still an order of magnitude or so to go to get to the F-35 RCS range. :and if they want stealth the F-35 is pretty much their only choice. :Not only that the F-35 is suppose to have a significantly longer :range than the Hornet. But not longer range than the Super Hornet. Don't confuse the two aircraft. Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than the F-18E/F, according to the Navy. 600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290 nm for the older Hornets. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
:Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than :the F-18E/F, according to the Navy. Sources? :600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290 :nm for the older Hornets. Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says? Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then, wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy lift strike' and 'tanker' roles. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then, wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy lift strike' and 'tanker' roles. The Super Hornet is in production right now which means the airframe have low flight hours or no flight hours on them. Tankers really don't require anything ground breaking and the Super Hornets wouldn't be used in a "first day of combat" role as an attack aircraft against a competent adversary. Once the F-35 is in service the Super Hornet will be pretty much second-string. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |