![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message SNIP snip Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their USMC brethren? Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring that the STOVL version doesn't get axed. That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any *reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want? I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards where/when/how we'll have to fight). Brooks What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well... Brooks --Woody |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 06:22 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |