"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John Keeney wrote:

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"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?

Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.

As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
should the
navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
define the

I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
"anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.

Here is the math fails. If the Marine F-35B's have a range of 450
miles and the Navy's F-35C's have a range of 700 miles, how are the
marines going to set up at points inaccessible by the Navy? Besides,
how will they get resupplied?

By air, like they did in Afghanistan, *before* major airfields were
available for use IIRC. Unless Afghanistan has been moved to where it *is*
accessable by the Navy?

Brooks

Brooks