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

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John Keeney wrote:

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft
designed as
a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with
you.
The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land
on
a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using
arresting
gear
or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully
carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have
a
tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS
and
SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John


With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the
Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be
done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.

As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
should the
navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
define the

I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
"anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.

Here is the math fails. If the Marine F-35B's have a range of 450
miles and the Navy's F-35C's have a range of 700 miles, how are the
marines going to set up at points inaccessible by the Navy? Besides,
how will they get resupplied?

By air, like they did in Afghanistan, *before* major airfields were
available for use IIRC. Unless Afghanistan has been moved to where it *is*
accessable by the Navy?

Brooks

Brooks

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"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

I might could buy resupply with C-130's . They are STOL themselves,
landing fully loaded in under 500 ft. We would need a lot of them
though, to set up a deep mission. Maybe a situation like OIF where
Turkey would not let the Army come in from the north. With enough
C-130's maybe you could quickly set up a wing of F-35B's up in
Kurdistan, with a regiment of Marines to support them.

The thing is though there were usable airstrips there already. Even
if there weren't any, the first C-130's should be bringing in the
runway, then you could bring in C-5's for supply and you could build
twice the force in the same amount of time. Any your fighters could
have normal range and loads.

f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me. Well, maybe some
isolated rescue stuff, but what do the marines need 400 of them for?
I could see two dozen maybe, to go along with their Ospreys. That
should be it.

"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."

Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?

Because you need only a dozen PER SHIP or base but you need cover
for a dozen locations or so. Then figure in the aircraft required for
training, the 20% or so that will be under maintenance at any time
and an attrition reserve for the 30 years it will be in service and
the 400 appears rather reasonable.

Having one squadron on a ship in the Pacific isnt a
lot of use if a problem pops up in Africa.

Keith

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



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

Keith

I might could buy resupply with C-130's . They are STOL themselves,
landing fully loaded in under 500 ft. We would need a lot of them
though, to set up a deep mission.

Which is why we have em

Maybe a situation like OIF where
Turkey would not let the Army come in from the north. With enough
C-130's maybe you could quickly set up a wing of F-35B's up in
Kurdistan, with a regiment of Marines to support them.

The thing is though there were usable airstrips there already.

Not many in point of fact and that isnt always the case.

Even
if there weren't any, the first C-130's should be bringing in the
runway, then you could bring in C-5's for supply and you could build
twice the force in the same amount of time. Any your fighters could
have normal range and loads.


And what pray tell is protecting the C-5's and C-130's in the
meantime ?

f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.

The RAF , RN and USMC disagree

Well, maybe some
isolated rescue stuff, but what do the marines need 400 of them for?
I could see two dozen maybe, to go along with their Ospreys. That
should be it.

Lacking either a crystal ball for perfect prediction or the ability to
limit the forces an enemy can bring to bear I disagree

There are a lot of even 3rd world airforces that can bring more than
a dozen modern fighters to a hot spot.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



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

Keith

I might could buy resupply with C-130's . They are STOL themselves,
landing fully loaded in under 500 ft. We would need a lot of them
though, to set up a deep mission.

Which is why we have em

Maybe a situation like OIF where
Turkey would not let the Army come in from the north. With enough
C-130's maybe you could quickly set up a wing of F-35B's up in
Kurdistan, with a regiment of Marines to support them.

The thing is though there were usable airstrips there already.

Not many in point of fact and that isnt always the case.

Even
if there weren't any, the first C-130's should be bringing in the
runway, then you could bring in C-5's for supply and you could build
twice the force in the same amount of time. Any your fighters could
have normal range and loads.


And what pray tell is protecting the C-5's and C-130's in the
meantime ?

Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to build
a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is a
mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an easy
matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two. Laying
in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation, and
quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough field
C-130 strip.


f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.

The RAF , RN and USMC disagree

Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they are
interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as
well.

Brooks


Well, maybe some
isolated rescue stuff, but what do the marines need 400 of them for?
I could see two dozen maybe, to go along with their Ospreys. That
should be it.

Lacking either a crystal ball for perfect prediction or the ability to
limit the forces an enemy can bring to bear I disagree

There are a lot of even 3rd world airforces that can bring more than
a dozen modern fighters to a hot spot.

Keith

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

And if we did have the capability to build up an air wing
and a Brigade of marines deep into the land mass, well why couldn't we
just bring in some steel planking while we aere at it and build a
runway and bring in some serious cargo and F-35 A's? Wouldn't that be
a faster solution than VSTOLing everything?

Because that's not always an option.

If you're working on rough terrain, you're not always going to be able
to build a runway. There are a *lot* of places in the world where you
can get cargo, troops, et cetera in, but not have the ability to bring
in the thousands of *tons* of materials to build a solid runway capable
of handling modern fighter jets with full loads.

You also have the "big target" problem, where anything bigger than a
football field or so will be a priority, and everyone in the world is
apparently trying to build weapons that will kill any prepared runway in
short order.

On the other hand, three or four Osprey missions per day would give you
enough materials to put up one or two V/STOL fighter missions, or more
if you're just talking interceptor flights.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Here is the math fails. If the Marine F-35B's have a range of 450
miles and the Navy's F-35C's have a range of 700 miles, how are the
marines going to set up at points inaccessible by the Navy?

By flying in, refueling, then flying further in.

You also have the question of "what happens if you lose your carriers?"

Besides, how will they get resupplied?

Air or ground, as usual.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On 2/26/04 18:02, in article ,
"John Alger" wrote:

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
SNIP
realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
trees in the video we show in class.


So, if I get you correctly, the airplane calculates a Vls based on what it
believes its gross weight is and knows it's Alpha-Max (I presume its stall
AOA). When the pilots tries to fly the jet below the Vls at greater than
Alpha-Max, the aircraft goes into TOGA power which will either power you out
or allow you to hit the ground at full power whichever is more
aerodynamically appropriate. And the system is auto-disabled below 100' so
that you can bring the jet back down to terra-firma without having to
continually be wrestled back into the air in the flare.

Thanks for the education and a very intelligent post.

This thread was started by me and my objections to Airbus' approach to
automation. I think this incident speaks to that objection. Here you have
a complex "Rube Goldberg" approach to protect the pilot from what? Stalling
the aircraft in a circle to land or on a "drive and dive" non-precision
straight-in approach? Why is that necessary?

Here's my point: Had this system not been installed in the aircraft, the
pilot would have been forced to stick and throttle his way through this
(obviously inappropriate) maneuver. Had he simply stuck to flying the jet
instead of relying on automation he obviously didn't understand, he probably
wouldn't have hit the trees.

The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not
have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was
doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French
apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination.

Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out
and bite you someday.


I concur... With a caveat:

The goal of any automation should be to increase safety and decrease work
load. It seems that in this case, automation (because of its complexity)
was a causal factor in the mishap... Not to mention the pilots RELIANCE on
that automation.

Airbus seems to take the approach that pilots need to be kept from flying
outside of the box, so it designs these sorts of "protections" into its
flight control systems. Pilots (being lazy humans by nature) start to rely
on that automation and are lulled into a false sense of security by it.
Makes me wonder in this case if the guy had been flying an airplane that
didn't have alpha floor protection whether he would have tried this stunt...
i.e. "No sweat, the alpha floor protection will save me."

That's the danger in this approach to automation. That's my objection to
it--not to automation as a whole, but in Airbus' approach.

Thanks again, John for a very intelligent and informative post.

I'd like to ask you another question (although again OT for RAMN). Could
you explain how the A320/330 "no greater than 60 degrees AOB" protection
works, where it gets its inputs from, and how it is enabled or disabled?

--Woody

John Alger
A-330 Flight Crew Training Instructor
Former rides: TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q and P-3B

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to build
a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is a
mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an easy
matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two. Laying
in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation, and
quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough field
C-130 strip.

Compare this with the effort needed to create HMS Sheathbill in the
Falklands (which was a basic "land, refuel, leave or GLI" strip). It's
*much* easier to pick a stretch of highway, fly in fuel bladders and
maybe ordnance & first-line servicing - than to build a fixed-wing CTOL
strip from scratch (lots of supplies and equipment needed just to build
the runway before anything else arrives) The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
very good effect in 1991, for instance.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news
Then you have departed from reality.

Jesus Christ John, this is ridiculous...I've read a lot about
this accident and agree with the consensus that the a/c did all
any a/c could have done given the parameters this not too bright
bulb asked it to do.

You mean the pilot stalled the wing?

Then you are well advanced from Weiss' understanding.

How in hell could the system have done more than, as JW
explained, hold the AoA at the max lift point just short of stall
while the autothrottle system applied max power

The autothrottle only knows land and go around in the situation we are
discussing and the pilot was beyond the point of either flight mode. The
operator has to follow the POH, as it is part of the type Certificate.