On 2/24/04 4:21 PM, in article
, "puttster"
wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John


With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Don't you mean excellent *predicted* V/STOL capability, since the jet hasn't
actually IOC'ed yet the true capability remains to be seen.

The payloads you can launch off of those large carriers (CVN's) are heavier,
the CVN can carry more jets and project more power, and you don't run the
risk of the many consecutive miracles required to transition the F-35B from
forward flight to VSTOL--which can be painful if something fails.

VSTOL is a risky concept that has never matured (no not even in the
Harrier--I've seen way to many crash over the years killing or hurting good
Marines... not their current maintenance nightmares), but for some reason,
weapons buyers are enamored with the concept. The cost isn't worth the
benefits.

--Woody