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

Harrier vs. JSF-35



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 13th 04, 08:21 PM
Gord Beaman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tex Houston" wrote:


"Merlin" wrote in message
roups.com...
A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?


What does theft have to do with force protection?

Tex

Perhaps he means that when you hear the alarm bell you'll know
that your security was stolen?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)
  #23  
Old December 13th 04, 09:24 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brooks,

How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?


How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying on your
own brash, unsupported braggadocio?


The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.


You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier operators--now
you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as well?

They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft
because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend the
life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to replace.


Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty soldiering
on until the F-35 is available.



Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you
would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?


Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second engine to
provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it.


A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime target.
You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went under
not over.


H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to a great
deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd
debating style...


A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?


Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin
fiction; we are not talking fiction here.


Sink the Bismark !
Sink the Super-Carrier !



Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...


What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
development of
a program that most posters have already well informed you is

about
at the
end of its development potential. You started this argument once
before, and
a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty

much
destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic

facts
right
about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh
sakes). Why
don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead

of
bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND THE
HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.


Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley

until the
F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of the

F-35B
variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the USAF

has
now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A orders

will
instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B,

acknowledging
that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order for

F-35B
development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now

penciled
in."

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...rcraft04_3.htm


No comment, huh?



BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER

FUNDED.

So what?


And how would they solve your Aussie problem?



WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?


So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually

exceeded
the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?


Did you understand that complex idea?



DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
YAK-141 ?


Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?


I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL approach.




Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless

problems.
If
the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced

torpedo
that
would be a pretty cost effective round ?

Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that

uber-weapon

instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
helicopter,
patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.

SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE

FUTURE
?


No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of

threats,
that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.


No comment again, huh?




It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35
will
give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
between
the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).

When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you

can
come
back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in
another
attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?


Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge of

the
aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its

vertical
thrust needs, for example.



snip numerous references of unexplained applicability

IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S


The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B model,

AFAIK.
They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be

falling
rather...flat?


And still reminsicent of a pancake...

Brooks


Brooks



Brooks




  #24  
Old December 14th 04, 04:54 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:32:47 +0000, Peter Kemp
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:34:02 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:11 +0000, Peter Kemp
wrote:

Interesting. I'm of the opinion myself that for the USN's purposes,
the best replacement for all of these is another production run of
E-2, plus an updated C-2 (turboprop powered, naturally) fitted out as
required for the S-3 and tanker missions.


Two problems with the E-2, and they're called "props." Nobody likes
them on a flight deck (for obvious reasons). Peformance wise, though,
you might be right.


Are props really that much more dangerous than a sucking inlet? And is
that a perception thing or are they demonstratably so (i.e. is it just
that props make more mess?).


I never spent any time on a CVA. On a CVS you had lots of
Stoofs and Fudds and helos and (maybe) an A-4 det. My impression is
that a jet at idle will not suck you up; a prop at idle will chop you
up.

It's also my impression that the "zone of danger" in front of a jet
was somewhat smaller than the arc of an E-2 prop (which is rather
larger than it's Fudd predecessor). Of course the jet WILL suck you
up; you must be more "proactive" to meet a spinning prop. Or have
some help from wind generated by either nature or turning aircraft.

I've never done any safety center research on the subject, however.

That's not a rhetorical question, I've never been on a flight deck
during air ops, but I'd assumed you always have to have your wits
about you with the deck edge, landing and taking off aircraft, jet
blast etc etc etc.


During the day it's about the most dangerous place you can be, short
of a fire fight. And at night under red lights...

Props also get "dinged" regularly, which can mean maintenance. They
get eroded by debris. Their size and weight make them difficult to
handle. They must be pulled prior to an engine change. I suspect
there are lots of other issues, too.

Not that jets can't have their issues as well.

Oh, and a jet that's shut down poses no danger; you can still raise a
fine knot on your head walking into a still prop! :-)

Like I say, most flight deck personnel I've ever known say they don't
really like prop aircraft on a carrier deck. Whodda ever thunk you
might ever hear wisdom from an Aviation Boatswain?!?!?!?!?! :-)

Bill Kambic
  #25  
Old December 14th 04, 10:48 AM
Merlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mel Brooks,

Obviously your humour has no boundaries ?
May I go to the library and take out some copies of 'your' books
to read as I have done with Tom Clancy ?

An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking
at the time.

"unsupported braggadocio"
Lacks wine and garlic ?

If you have read some of the latest news on the subject you may realise
that the Australians are smarting at the cost and lateness of your pet
toy.

If you are not a 14 year old kid from middle America sitting in his
bedroom with a PC, a pile of books and little else you must be working
on the F-35 project?

What other reason would you be so enthusiastic about an unproven
product?
The F-35 will prove itself if and when it goes to war.

I am still waiting for a reasoned argument that the F-35 will be an
effective
aircraft and not an expensive fancy toy.

Why do you use the German word 'uber' to describe an advanced torpedo ?

I would use the Spanish word 'Cabrone' for your postings.

You are a 'septic tank'? I doubt if you are Canadian or a Brit.






Mel Brooks wrote:
"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brooks,

How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?


How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying

on your
own brash, unsupported braggadocio?


The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.


You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier

operators--now
you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as

well?

They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft
because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend

the
life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to

replace.

Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty

soldiering
on until the F-35 is available.



Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that

you
would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?


Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second

engine to
provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it.


A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime

target.
You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went

under
not over.


H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to

a great
deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd


debating style...


A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?


Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin


fiction; we are not talking fiction here.


Sink the Bismark !
Sink the Super-Carrier !



Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...


What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
development of
a program that most posters have already well informed you is

about
at the
end of its development potential. You started this argument

once
before, and
a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty

much
destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic

facts
right
about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for

gosh
sakes). Why
don't you first address the points that were raised then,

instead
of
bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND

THE
HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.

Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley

until the
F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of

the
F-35B
variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the

USAF
has
now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A

orders
will
instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B,

acknowledging
that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order

for
F-35B
development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now

penciled
in."

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...rcraft04_3.htm


No comment, huh?



BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER

FUNDED.

So what?


And how would they solve your Aussie problem?



WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?

So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually

exceeded
the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?


Did you understand that complex idea?



DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF

THE
YAK-141 ?

Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?


I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL

approach.




Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next

major
war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and

advanced
torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless

problems.
If
the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced

torpedo
that
would be a pretty cost effective round ?

Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that

uber-weapon

instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
helicopter,
patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.

SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE

FUTURE
?

No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of

threats,
that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.


No comment again, huh?




It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the

F-35
will
give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
between
the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).

When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then

you
can
come
back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass,

in
another
attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?

Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge

of
the
aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its

vertical
thrust needs, for example.



snip numerous references of unexplained applicability

IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE

AUSSIE'S

The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B

model,
AFAIK.
They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be

falling
rather...flat?


And still reminsicent of a pancake...

Brooks


Brooks



Brooks



  #26  
Old December 14th 04, 03:18 PM
Merlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
Cheaper bid or better systems ?

Simpler design ?

  #27  
Old December 14th 04, 03:36 PM
Yeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Dec 2004 06:18:47 -0800, Merlin wrote:

Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
Cheaper bid or better systems ?

Simpler design ?


The X-32 simply looked too stupid.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm
  #28  
Old December 14th 04, 03:45 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
Cheaper bid or better systems ?

Simpler design ?


The Boeing was just too ugly to live !

Keith


  #29  
Old December 14th 04, 04:27 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mel Brooks,

Obviously your humour has no boundaries ?
May I go to the library and take out some copies of 'your' books
to read as I have done with Tom Clancy ?


Enough of your top-posting of your unsupported bile. Don't you know that
top-posting is normally frowned upon? Or are you as unaware of that fact as
you have demonstrated to be in regards to the Harrier and F-35B?


An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking
at the time.


Bullpoopie. Clancy's book did NOT "change NATO thinking". If you think it
did, please provide som proof beyond your personal claims...


"unsupported braggadocio"
Lacks wine and garlic ?


Not familiar with the use of a dictionary, eh?


If you have read some of the latest news on the subject you may realise
that the Australians are smarting at the cost and lateness of your pet
toy.


What does that have to do with the Harrier and F-35B?


If you are not a 14 year old kid from middle America sitting in his
bedroom with a PC, a pile of books and little else you must be working
on the F-35 project?


That kid with a pile of books apparently would be head-and-shoulders above
you in this debate, based upon your inability to get the basic facts right.


What other reason would you be so enthusiastic about an unproven
product?


Why are you so desperate to attack the F-35B that you feel compelled to drag
the RAAF into the fray?

The F-35 will prove itself if and when it goes to war.

I am still waiting for a reasoned argument that the F-35 will be an
effective
aircraft and not an expensive fancy toy.


Do some reading on the subject--when you have got past the fact that it does
NOT have a second engine dedicated to providing vertical power, you will
have gotten over the first hurdle towards acheiving some basic understanding
of the situation.

And you STILL have not managed to answer the points brought out to you
earlier...how surprising.

Brooks


Why do you use the German word 'uber' to describe an advanced torpedo ?

I would use the Spanish word 'Cabrone' for your postings.

You are a 'septic tank'? I doubt if you are Canadian or a Brit.






Mel Brooks wrote:
"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brooks,

How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ?


How about addressing the points raised intead of once again relying

on your
own brash, unsupported braggadocio?


The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems.


You have been arguing that it is a disaster for the harrier

operators--now
you want to claim it is a disater for those operating F/A-18's as

well?

They don't intend it for replacement of similar aircraft
because as you say they don't have any VSTOLs. They have to extend

the
life of the aircraft they already have that the F-35 was to

replace.

Which are not Harriers, and which should have little difficulty

soldiering
on until the F-35 is available.



Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that

you
would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine?


Offer another of your half-baked claims (i.e., "it has a second

engine to
provide vertical lift"), and I'll be happy to disabuse you of it.


A Super-Carrier is such an important asset it must be the prime

target.
You refer to 'uber-weapon' 'Over-weapon' I thought torpedoes went

under
not over.


H'mmm...I am guessing the rigging of the Christmas lights has led to

a great
deal of frustration on your part, which would explain your rather odd


debating style...


A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group?
How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ?


Mr. Clancy is a former insurance salesman with a good ability to spin


fiction; we are not talking fiction here.


Sink the Bismark !
Sink the Super-Carrier !



Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...


What has no validity is your continual ranting about further
development of
a program that most posters have already well informed you is
about
at the
end of its development potential. You started this argument

once
before, and
a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty
much
destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic
facts
right
about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for

gosh
sakes). Why
don't you first address the points that were raised then,

instead
of
bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?
SO WHAT FILLS THE RETIREMENT OF THE INEVITABLY LATE F-35B AND

THE
HARRIER IN NAVIES OTHER THAN THE US NAVY.

Having typing problems today, eh? The Harrier should serve nicley
until the
F-35B becomes available, and FYI, the priority for development of

the
F-35B
variant has not changed, especially in view of the fact that the

USAF
has
now decided that a portion of their previously planned F-35A

orders
will
instead be going to the B model. As a LMCO rep stated at the last
Farnborough airshow: " "we know how to redesign" the F-35B,
acknowledging
that the priority is now to do it. The previous "mark time" order

for
F-35B
development has been rescinded and a 2007 first flight date is now
penciled
in."

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...rcraft04_3.htm


No comment, huh?



BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER
FUNDED.

So what?


And how would they solve your Aussie problem?



WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ?

So it could operate as a STOVL platform (in which case it actually
exceeded
the requirement and is capable of VTOL)?


Did you understand that complex idea?



DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF

THE
YAK-141 ?

Because it was a dog, and the Russian military budget is moribund?


I could add that the Soviets/Russians also converted to the CTOL

approach.




Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next

major
war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and

advanced
torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless
problems.
If
the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced
torpedo
that
would be a pretty cost effective round ?

Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that
uber-weapon

instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW
helicopter,
patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.

SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CARRIER GROUP WILL BE INVULNERABLE IN THE
FUTURE
?

No, nothing is "invulnerable". But in terms of the heirarchy of
threats,
that one is much less than some other concerns we now face.


No comment again, huh?




It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the

F-35
will
give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap
between
the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).

When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then

you
can
come
back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass,

in
another
attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE F-35B ?

Not really, but unlike you I at least have a modicum of knowledge

of
the
aircraft; I knew that it did not have a seperate engine for its
vertical
thrust needs, for example.



snip numerous references of unexplained applicability

IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE

AUSSIE'S

The Aussies have yet to express any formal interest in the B

model,
AFAIK.
They don't operate harriers, anyway, so your argument seems to be
falling
rather...flat?


And still reminsicent of a pancake...

Brooks


Brooks



Brooks





  #30  
Old December 14th 04, 04:34 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
Cheaper bid or better systems ?

Simpler design ?


The Boeing was just too ugly to live !


LOL! True enough. And it did not help Boeing much when they had to admit
that the exterior of the X-32 would have to undergo significant redesign to
include a more conventional tail layout, and a redesigned inlet IIRC...

Brooks


Keith



 




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
The demise of the Sea Harrier Henry J Cobb Naval Aviation 39 April 25th 04 07:27 PM
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish KDR Military Aviation 29 October 7th 03 06:30 PM
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish KDR Naval Aviation 20 September 16th 03 09:01 PM
Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat? Alexandre Le-Kouby Military Aviation 11 September 3rd 03 01:47 AM
Osprey vs. Harrier Stephen D. Poe Military Aviation 58 August 18th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 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.