"Jake Donovan" wrote in message
news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06...
nafod40,

One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not
address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"?

Brooks


Then you can appreciate why I rarely post. I read a lot. Once in awhile
some one who will post something so off the wall it gets my dander up and
I
speak up. The google search you mentioned is a good example. If you
followed the thread you will see my "credibility" was established very
quickly. I actually chatted with the original poster and knew who he was
refering to and what program the SEAL had been through. Once the dust
settled, he understood why every one was up and arms over the wording he
was
a Navy Pilot.

There are some good friends of mine that read this NG and rarely post
anymore for the same reasons. Many who are reading this know me in real
life so as I stated earlier, Joe Smith doesn't give me credibility, I
really
dont care and I shouldn't have let it get to me the way it did.

Let's call it a bad day at the office.

Jake

PS - As for insider tidbits, I have never done so. Any comments I make or
have made can be found in the mainstream press and unclassified material
that if you know where to look, you can find it.


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jake Donovan" wrote in message
news:dqf_b.12902$iB.7776@lakeread06...
I really, really hate to mess with your "credibility" but the F35 was
NOT
designed as a carrier aircraft. The JSF concept was for an aircraft
that
can be used by different players with differnt requiremnets. NOT as a
CARRIER aircraft.

As much as I hate to defend Andrew, your argument does not really make
much
sense. The program was indeed designed to accomodate different customers

with differing requirements, one of which is the requirement for carrier
compatability in *both* the F-35C and F-35B. The JSF program was NOT one
where the competing firms were told, "Design and build us a land based
fighter, then come back and tell us how you would make it carrier
compatable." The need for carrier compatability was included in the
original
JSF program requirements, so the products were indeed designed to
include
that capability. Note that Andrew was commenting on the "F-35" program
(AKA
JSF), not the "F-35A".


The F-35C was. Argue all you want, but that leaves two other variants
of
the F35 that were NOT designed to be carrier aircraft. The A, a CTOV
variant for the Airforce to replace F-16's, A-10's, and yes, in the up
coming future, the F-22.

The F-35A was designed to *replace* the F-22? Where in tarnation did you
get
that rather strange idea? It is intended to replace the other aircraft
you
note, but not the F-22.


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.

What, you know some Marines who'd claim that the AV-8B was not designed
with
carrier requirements in mind? Or who would claim that the AV-8B is *not*
routinely deployed shipboard, just as the F-35B will be?

The B will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's.

You mean those same "land based" F-18's that sometimes are tasked to be
part
of a CAW?

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.

Do you think that the fact that both the RN (or would that be RAF under
the
Joint Harrier Force concept, or both services?) and the USMC do indeed
plan
to operate the B model from naval vessels (i.e., "carriers") might be
taken
into account during its design?


The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty
much
fall
in line with the above.

I doubt that, since your info as outlined above does not seem to be very
accurate.


Respectfully
Jake

PS - Oh, wait a minute, please quote some credible documentation to
back
up
your above statement. I don't seem to be able to find any.

Well, why don't YOU find us some "credible documentation" that states
that
the JSF program did not take carrier compatability into account from the
outset, and indeed make that a program requirement, or that the F-35B is
neither intended to be operated from shipboard by the USMC nor does its
design incorporate any of the requirements for such shipboard use?

Brooks



"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
modified to be a carrier aircraft.

Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.

The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was
DESIGNED
AS a carrier aircraft.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/