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

GAO on VH-71 (too heavy); V-22 (better design need); JSF (need knowledge-based approach), etc



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th 07, 01:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default GAO on VH-71 (too heavy); V-22 (better design need); JSF (need knowledge-based approach), etc

see
from http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07406sp.html or http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf
GAO report number GAO-07-406SP entitled 'Defense Acquisitions:
Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs' which was released on March
30, 2007.


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-406SP
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon
Programs' which was released on March 30, 2007.

  #2  
Old April 9th 07, 02:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Borderline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default GAO on VH-71 (too heavy); V-22 (better design need); JSF (need knowledge-based approach), etc

On Apr 8, 7:36 pm, "Mike" wrote:
see
fromhttp://www.gao.gov/htext/d07406sp.htmlorhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf
GAO report number GAO-07-406SP entitled 'Defense Acquisitions:
Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs' which was released on March
30, 2007.

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-406SP
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon
Programs' which was released on March 30, 2007.


What a surprise...not really...

Robert

  #3  
Old April 13th 07, 10:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default GAO on VH-71 (too heavy); V-22 (better design need); JSF (need knowledge-based approach), etc

I wonder how the F-35C slip may influence F/A-18E/F orders. It dropped
from initial 548 aircraft or more to around 460, but now I've heard
the proposal is to increase it again to 494....

Best regards,
Jacek


On 9 Kwi, 02:36, "Mike" wrote:
see
fromhttp://www.gao.gov/htext/d07406sp.htmlorhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf
GAO report number GAO-07-406SP entitled 'Defense Acquisitions:
Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs' which was released on March
30, 2007.

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-406SP
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon
Programs' which was released on March 30, 2007.



  #4  
Old April 15th 07, 06:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default GAO on VH-71 (too heavy); V-22 (better design need); JSF (needknowledge-based approach), etc



wrote:
I wonder how the F-35C slip may influence F/A-18E/F orders. It dropped
from initial 548 aircraft or more to around 460, but now I've heard
the proposal is to increase it again to 494....


If they can't fix the weight problem with the V/SOTL version for the
Marines, then this plane is a waste of time.
The whole thing is designed around using that front lift fan in the
Marine version, and if you drop that as an aspect of its design, then
you can build a conventional takeoff/landing aircraft with equal stealth
and superior performance at lower overall price per airframe.
The JSF program resembles the F-111 project; trying to shoehorn to many
mission requirements into a single aircraft.
If all versions of it - Air Force, Navy, and Marine, had the same V/STOL
requirement in their design, then it would make sense.
But what we have now is an aircraft designed for the the Marine V/STOL
requirement which is modified for the Navy and Air Force.
This doesn't make sense.
Total numbers of an aircraft delivered to the Air Force and Navy to meet
their mission requirements shall dwarf those that the Marines need.
The Marines need a Harrier replacement; and neither the Air Force or
Navy use Harriers.
It should be a separate aircraft, optimized to the Marine's needs.

Pat
  #5  
Old April 17th 07, 11:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default GAO on VH-71 (too heavy); V-22 (better design need); JSF (need knowledge-based approach), etc

Not only U.S. Marines, also Royal Navy, but looking what they did with
their Sea Harriers, it is difficult to tell what their next move can
be if serious problems about F-35B arise...


On 15 Kwi, 07:19, Pat Flannery wrote:

If they can't fix the weight problem with the V/SOTL version for the
Marines, then this plane is a waste of time.
The whole thing is designed around using that front lift fan in the
Marine version, and if you drop that as an aspect of its design, then
you can build a conventional takeoff/landing aircraft with equal stealth
and superior performance at lower overall price per airframe.
The JSF program resembles the F-111 project; trying to shoehorn to many
mission requirements into a single aircraft.
If all versions of it - Air Force, Navy, and Marine, had the same V/STOL
requirement in their design, then it would make sense.
But what we have now is an aircraft designed for the the Marine V/STOL
requirement which is modified for the Navy and Air Force.
This doesn't make sense.
Total numbers of an aircraft delivered to the Air Force and Navy to meet
their mission requirements shall dwarf those that the Marines need.
The Marines need a Harrier replacement; and neither the Air Force or
Navy use Harriers.
It should be a separate aircraft, optimized to the Marine's needs.

Pat



 




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
PC/PDA based approach plates Nathan Young Instrument Flight Rules 5 January 30th 05 02:15 AM
Commercial Pilot FAA Knowledge Exam - Includes Gleim TestPrep & Commercial Pilot FAA Knowledge Exam book Cecil Chapman Products 1 November 15th 04 05:22 PM
French Missile Based on German Design robert arndt Military Aviation 0 January 6th 04 07:13 PM
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 45 November 20th 03 06:20 AM
Web-based US approach plates available free Peter R. Owning 1 August 4th 03 03:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.