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

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?


By ship , C-130 or other battlefield airlift asset.

Keith

"Guy Alcala" wrote...

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt -- he might have a clue about digital
metric altimeters or something similar...

"B2431" wrote...

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

Sure he does, he thinks it's the little envelope they give you with your
boarding pass.

Actually, in context, it's more accurately the envelope with all the flight
documentation that the FO turns into Ops after each leg.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up. As
far as we can tell, the flight control system responded properly, providing max
lift without stalling. It is not the job of the flight control system to map
trees, but the trees in the flight path interrupted the plan...


I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle them.

Then you have departed from reality.

I see... Now you imply that either the A-320 certification did NOT include slow
flight and approaches to stalls, or that it was certified despite its failure to
demonstrate the required controllability in those regimes.

Anyone have the coordinates of reality? I need to punch them into the FMS-CDU
tomorrow...

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

Easy. Remember last(?) year the LHAs showing the flag off the west
african coast, and rescuing embassy personnel? No CVs anywhere near.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Zvp%b.25052$AL.465673@attbi_s03...

Actually, in context, it's more accurately the envelope with all the
flight
documentation that the FO turns into Ops after each leg.

Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss.

Do you ever get anything right?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:AFp%b.402349$I06.4378804@attbi_s01...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system"
supposed
to mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled
up.

In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
envelope?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss.

What flight envelope? What airplane? You haven't yet been able to tell us what
you mean by a flight envelope; your responses to date have been totally
contradictory, when relevant at all.

Why is "stalling" pertinent to either the A-320 incident under discussion, or
the F-22 or F/A-18 or F-14 under discussion in the original thread?

AFAIK, the A-320 in Basel did not stall. The airplane was in controlled flight
at least until the go-around was initiated. The airplane continued in
controlled flight while the engines spooled up. Impact with the trees prevented
the go-around from being completed.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:WAt%b.412788$xy6.2344118@attbi_s02...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss.

What flight envelope? What airplane?

Did you post this thread without knowing what airplane you are discussing?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up.

In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
envelope?

In what way do you believe stalling the wing had anything to do with the late
go-around attempt?

What flight envelope?