"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brooks,

How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?

How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying on your
own brash, unsupported braggadocio?


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

You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier operators--now
you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as well?

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.

Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty soldiering
on until the F-35 is available.



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

Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second engine to
provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it.


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.

H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to a great
deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd
debating style...


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

Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin
fiction; we are not talking fiction here.


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

No comment, huh?



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

So what?

And how would they solve your Aussie problem?



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)?

Did you understand that complex idea?



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?

I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL approach.




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.

No comment again, huh?




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?

And still reminsicent of a pancake...

Brooks


Brooks



Brooks