F35 cost goes up.

Scott Ferrin wrote:

:Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
:wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
:lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.
:
:The Super Hornet is in production right now which means the airframe
:have low flight hours or no flight hours on them. Tankers really
:don't require anything ground breaking and the Super Hornets wouldn't
:be used in a "first day of combat" role as an attack aircraft against
:a competent adversary. Once the F-35 is in service the Super Hornet
:will be pretty much second-string.

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath on this one.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:05:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:


:Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
:didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Do you have ANY clue how long the F-4 was in Air Force service? Let's
just say that having the Navy design and build an airplane and making
the Air Force use it has historically been a lot more successful than
attempts to do it the other way around.

Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
still had the arresting hook.).

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:Um... the F-35 is going to have about a 50% better combat radius than
:the F-18E/F, according to the Navy.

Sources?

The fas.org website.

:600 nm for the F-35 versus 410 nm for the Super Hornet versus about 290
:nm for the older Hornets.

Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?

Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
over the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.

It's a case of "well, we have these older strike planes with a lot of
hardpoints on them, and we're not going to obsolete a five year old
aircraft while it stil works in a lot of places."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
news
Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
still had the arresting hook.).

Are you sure the hook you saw wasn't the emergency hook for runway barrier
engagement? USAF F-4C,D,E also had those as do most/all USAF fighters
Perhaps not as substantial as on the USN models but still a heavy duty piece
of gear.

Tex

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:05:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:


:Anyway the Air Force already tried adopting a Navy jet fighter that
:didn't have a gun and they don't want to go there again.

Do you have ANY clue how long the F-4 was in Air Force service? Let's
just say that having the Navy design and build an airplane and making
the Air Force use it has historically been a lot more successful than
attempts to do it the other way around.

Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
still had the arresting hook.).


The hook is used for runway arrestor landings. The same way as
Luftwaffe/Marineflieger F-104s, Tornados had/are fitted with hooks.

TJ

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Actually, the Navy has publicly told the Pentagon each year, for
several years, that they want to opt out of the F-35 at
production.

Then you can easily name a source for this, since it directly
contradicts everything they've said to the public, right?

In what way do you feel I have contradicted myself, Chad?

Okay, here's a reading comprehension tip:

When I mentioned "the Navy" and how *you* contradicted *them*, you
weren't contradicting *yourself*, you were contradicting "the Navy."

I am not contradicting the Navy, I am quoting them. The philosophy inside
the Navy WRT long range interdiction has been toward missiles and away from
airplanes, for many years.

If you mean that something like you are writing happened in one of your
video games, I couldn't comment. Here on an Earth where the sky is blue,
may be different from what you are experiancing in some cyber existance.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:11:43 -0700, "Tex Houston"
wrote:


"Charles Gray" wrote in message
news
Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
still had the arresting hook.).

Are you sure the hook you saw wasn't the emergency hook for runway barrier
engagement? USAF F-4C,D,E also had those as do most/all USAF fighters
Perhaps not as substantial as on the USN models but still a heavy duty piece
of gear.

The USAF (and Luftwaffe) F-4 tail hook is the same as the hook on USN
Phantoms. It was standard practice for a number of emergencies as well
as for heavy-weight recovery (such as with retained ordinance) to take
an approach end barrier. While BAK-12/13 and similar barriers run out
about three to four times as far as a carrier landing, the hook was
capable of doing a carrier arrestment as well.

Tail hooks on other USAF fighters are for departure end engagement
such as high speed aborts, blown tire on landing, long landing, low
RCR, etc. They aren't capable of surviving the stress of approach end
engagement. It should be noted, however, that current fighters don't
have the high take-off and landing speeds that the old Century series
had.

The USAF F-4 had different tires and didn't have the bridle assembly
on the nose gear for cat launches.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:11:43 -0700, "Tex Houston"

The USAF (and Luftwaffe) F-4 tail hook is the same as the hook on USN
Phantoms. It was standard practice for a number of emergencies as well
as for heavy-weight recovery (such as with retained ordinance) to take
an approach end barrier. While BAK-12/13 and similar barriers run out
about three to four times as far as a carrier landing, the hook was
capable of doing a carrier arrestment as well.

Tail hooks on other USAF fighters are for departure end engagement
such as high speed aborts, blown tire on landing, long landing, low
RCR, etc. They aren't capable of surviving the stress of approach end
engagement. It should be noted, however, that current fighters don't
have the high take-off and landing speeds that the old Century series
had.

The USAF F-4 had different tires and didn't have the bridle assembly
on the nose gear for cat launches.



Ed Rasimus


Ed, thanks.

I knew about the tires but did not realize the hook was the same but was
never in an F-4 outfit, just F-104 and F-105. Did a fighter drag of an F-4C
squadron once but was with the tankers.

Regards,

Tex Houston

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I am not contradicting the Navy, I am quoting them.

No, you're claiming that they said something they didn't, then going off
on an incorrect rant about a post of mine that you didn't read
correctly.

Which is very much par for the Tarver course...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

If you mean that something like you are writing happened in one of your
video games, I couldn't comment.

For the third or fourth time, *not* a video game designer. I've
corrected you enough times on this, and you can't seem to remember it,
for some reason. It was a feeble insult the first time, and it's gone
*way* downhill since the first correction...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.