The demise of the Sea Harrier

Tiger wrote:

Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/ixhome.html
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "With the demise of the
Sea Harrier, the Royal Navy will be left with a capability gap. But we
believe that that is an acceptable risk."

-HJC

So what the hell is left to call a FLEET AIR ARM????????

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

Guy

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

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.


"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

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.

Aren't the Super Hornets supposed to be the tankers for the JSFs? ;-)

-HJC

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

"Woody Beal" wrote...

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --

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.

I'm confused...

How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
stores?

Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...

John R Weiss wrote:

"Woody Beal" wrote...

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --

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.

I'm confused...

How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
stores?

Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...

He means the F-35B has shorter legs than the F-35A/C, not the F-18A/C.

Guy

On 4/24/04 4:39, in article ,
"Guy Alcala" wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:

"Woody Beal" wrote...

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --

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.

I'm confused...

How can the JSF have better legs than the Hornet E/F but less range than the
Hornet A/C?!? Are we disallowing drop tanks and/or external/non-conformal
stores?

Please "picture" (configure) those 3 apples...

He means the F-35B has shorter legs than the F-35A/C, not the F-18A/C.

Guy



Precisely. Sorry for the ill-defined comm-brevity, JR.

--Woody

Woody Beal wrote:

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.

How are you going to put an F-35A/C on an LHD? And how are the other countries
with navies who are planning to buy it (the Brits, Italians, etc.) going to put
an F-35A/C on their STOVL carriers? How are you going to operate F-35A/Cs from
FOLS/FARPS? The weight problems are clearly there now, but then that's par for
the course for just about every a/c; we'll have to see if they can pare it down.
There was a good article in AvLeak recently on what steps were being taken to
prune the weight. I forget all the details, but apparently one area where they
think they're going to be able to save a fair amount of weight is on the
(production vice development) engine, with the usual knock-on effects elsewhere.

Guy

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