"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