A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Harrier vs. JSF-35



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 13th 04, 01:44 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote:

snipped for brevity

Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
with a common platform.
JMO


I would agree that the Osprey has the potential to do the job.
Question is whether or not the Powers That Be (in either the RN or
USN) will ever commit to the money (a rather large sum, I would guess)
to aquire the airframes and necessary electronics.

For the time being there does not seem to be much of a major sub
threat to the carrier battle group that cannot be dealt with by
current ASW assets (air, surface, and subsurface). But times change.

Bill Kambic
  #12  
Old December 13th 04, 10:31 AM
Merlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED.

WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?

DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
YAK-141 ?


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
?


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 ?


snip numerous references of unexplained applicability


IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S

Brooks


  #13  
Old December 13th 04, 10:37 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Merlin wrote:


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.


You seem to have a problem with your Caps lock key.

Guy

  #14  
Old December 13th 04, 03:47 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED.


So what?


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)?


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?



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.



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?

Brooks



Brooks




  #15  
Old December 13th 04, 06:21 PM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote:

Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
with a common platform.
JMO


Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
required for the S-3 and tanker missions.

I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.

Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"
  #16  
Old December 13th 04, 06:57 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote:

Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
with a common platform.
JMO


Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
required for the S-3 and tanker missions.

I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.


But it does make some sense for a Navy that is trying to further stretch its
reach by implementing such things as the Expeditionary Strike Group concept,
using the less capable amphibious assault ships, etc., as the core of those
forces as opposed to having a CVN required in all instances. The fact that
we remain sommitted to CTOL carriers does not mean that we have an infinite
supply of them ready for handling multiple contingencies spaced out around
the globe, nor does it mean that those vessels possess an unlimited
on-station capability--which is why the ESG concept is being pursued.

Brooks


Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"



  #17  
Old December 13th 04, 07:23 PM
Jeb Hoge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Carriers don't operate alone in a vacuum. US carrier groups include
subs, frigates, and destroyers, all of which either are or have assets
dedicated to killing the enemy sub threat. Fixed-wing dedicated ASW
doesn't make AS much sense now as it did twenty years ago, anyway,
since the number and quality of hostile sub threats has decreased
without the USSR pushing the envelope, and there are alternatives for
airborne ASW that make more sense than Hoovers. UAVs and
lighter-than-air platforms with dedicated sensors could provide a lot
more coverage with a lot less manpower for maintenance and operation.

  #18  
Old December 13th 04, 07:34 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:11 +0000, Peter Kemp
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote:

Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if
you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace
the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft
with a common platform.
JMO


Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
required for the S-3 and tanker missions.


Two problems with the E-2, and they're called "props." Nobody likes
them on a flight deck (for obvious reasons). Peformance wise, though,
you might be right.

I never flew the S-3 but had friends that did. From what they tell me
it did the job reasonably well. Problems were more likely to come
from Air Wing types who knew nothing about ASW or its problems and had
no desire to learn.

I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for
a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers.


You're probably right.

Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey,
but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a
radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-(


The cost of the Osprey is so high that I don't see it being a viable
candidate for anything other than the specialized missions it is
already slated for.

Could there also be an operational problem with trying to tank from an
Osprey? Those rotor/prop blades are VERY large and would disturb a
LOT of air. I have seen photos of aircraft tanking from Marine
KC-130s so it can be done. Still, the 130 prop looks a lot smaller
than the Osprey prop.

Bill Kambic

  #19  
Old December 13th 04, 07:48 PM
Merlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brooks,

How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?

The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.
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.


Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you
would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?

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.

A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?

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


BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER

FUNDED.

So what?


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)?


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?



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.



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?

Brooks



Brooks



  #20  
Old December 13th 04, 07:59 PM
Tex Houston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...
A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?


What does theft have to do with force protection?

Tex


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The demise of the Sea Harrier Henry J Cobb Naval Aviation 39 April 25th 04 07:27 PM
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish KDR Military Aviation 29 October 7th 03 06:30 PM
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish KDR Naval Aviation 20 September 16th 03 09:01 PM
Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat? Alexandre Le-Kouby Military Aviation 11 September 3rd 03 01:47 AM
Osprey vs. Harrier Stephen D. Poe Military Aviation 58 August 18th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.