On 2/29/04 8:58, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...

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:

Quite the condescending gentleman aren't you?

"CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it
SNIP

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.

'Round and 'round. First of all, stack is not a verb. It's a noun. If I'm
in the CAS stack, I'm capping.

You have to have tankers to support the CAS stack--tankers are a commodity
SNIP
the ground commander's needs. He wants some CBU-105's in the mix? SNIP

You make a correct argument. The nearer an airfield/CV is to the battle,
the more sorties you can generate. Afghanistan is a good example of a place
that was hard to get to by both CV and the USAF.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk/extra cost, and I disagree with your
assessment of how many scenarios make the concept worth the cost. The
decision has been made. I disagree with it.

SNIP
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.


I've got a darned good grasp of it. Perhaps you have a problem
communicating your point. Leave the sarcasm out, and we can conduct an
intelligent discussion.

Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most
SNIP
They are already onboard. They just seem to grasp the importance of being
more versatile a bit better than you do.

I grasp what's useful and what's not.



Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
SNIP
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.


You asked. I answered. The data for more experienced pilots stacks up the
same. I included the 500 hrs or less data because it's what I had at my
fingertips. Most military pilots will tell you that the AV-8B's mishap
rates are above other military aircraft--and it's a maintenance hog.


According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few
SNIP

So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an indictment of
the STOVL concept itself.


That is simply burying your head in the sand. A more complex airplane will
fail more often than a less complex airplane. Historically, the AV-8B has
meted this out.


SNIP

Unless you can't support the operation adequately with the CTOL aircraft.

Brooks


Which you can.

--Woody


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