A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old February 29th 04, 12:42 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.