The demise of the Sea Harrier

Nice try. Applying your rationale Woody, we should also ___can the Navy
variant. Just think about what kind of performance we could get from the
'C' without the weight penalties for cat and trap...

"Woody Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
et, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F
Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means
there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.



Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.

--Woody

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Guy- So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

Joint Force Harrier, until the JSF enters service. And all the helos.
BRBR

When they got rid of the conventional CVs, they lost their true ability
at
sea
control. The JSF, altho whizbang, will not perform like a CV based
A/C...in
terms of legs, capability, etc..Like the aluminum surface ships that
got
beat
up in the Falklands, it looks good on paper, it is cheaper but it won't
do
the
complete job.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer