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
  #41  
Old December 25th 04, 06:49 AM
Lyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:57:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"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.

one of the duties of the Wasp class is SeaControl/CVE duties.

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.

remember that the CVE during world war 2 were used to escort the
convoys/assault ships to the destinations protecting them from both
subs and aircraft. And once they got to their destination provided
airsupport for the amphibous landings. This freed of the CVA for
attacks on the enemies fleet, or to attack targets inland. And it were
the Marines that were assigned to the CVE's not the Navy.

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"



  #42  
Old January 2nd 05, 03:58 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter- Are props really that much more dangerous than a sucking inlet? And is
that a perception thing or are they demonstratably so (i.e. is it just
that props make more mess?). BRBR

Well, the flight deck is dangerous even when no engine is turning of any type
but I have seen many people walk too close to some types of intakes w/ only a
chewing out afterward(like the F-4) but getting around a E-2 prop when it is
'flat', not making any 'wind' can really hurt. On my second cruise we had a
civilian walk into an E-2 prop, took his arm off but he lived.

I will say a bunch of props is more dangerous than a bunch of jet engines but
it's all dangerous.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #43  
Old January 6th 05, 04:38 PM
RENABORNEY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

remember that the CVE during world war 2 were used to escort the
convoys/assault ships to the destinations protecting them from both
subs and aircraft. And once they got to their destination provided
airsupport for the amphibous landings.


SNIP

The reason the Wildcat was kept in production in its FM-2 version - a CAS ship
with limited fighter capability


And it were
the Marines that were assigned to the CVE's not the Navy.

SNIP

Not until the very end of the war
 




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 07:43 PM.


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