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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote:
snipped for brevity Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft with a common platform. JMO I would agree that the Osprey has the potential to do the job. Question is whether or not the Powers That Be (in either the RN or USN) will ever commit to the money (a rather large sum, I would guess) to aquire the airframes and necessary electronics. For the time being there does not seem to be much of a major sub threat to the carrier battle group that cannot be dealt with by current ASW assets (air, surface, and subsurface). But times change. Bill Kambic |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED. WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE F-35B TO HAVE VERTICAL PROPULSION ? DO YOU KNOW THE REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS STOPPED DEVELOPMENT OF THE YAK-141 ? 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 ? 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 ? snip numerous references of unexplained applicability IT'S GOING TO BE LATE AND EXPENSIVE AND IS ****ING OFF THE AUSSIE'S Brooks |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Merlin wrote:
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. You seem to have a problem with your Caps lock key. Guy |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED. So what? 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)? 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? 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. 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? Brooks Brooks |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote:
Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft with a common platform. JMO 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. I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers. Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey, but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-( -- Peter Kemp "Life is short...drink faster" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote: Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft with a common platform. JMO 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. I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers. But it does make some sense for a Navy that is trying to further stretch its reach by implementing such things as the Expeditionary Strike Group concept, using the less capable amphibious assault ships, etc., as the core of those forces as opposed to having a CVN required in all instances. The fact that we remain sommitted to CTOL carriers does not mean that we have an infinite supply of them ready for handling multiple contingencies spaced out around the globe, nor does it mean that those vessels possess an unlimited on-station capability--which is why the ESG concept is being pursued. Brooks Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey, but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-( -- Peter Kemp "Life is short...drink faster" |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Carriers don't operate alone in a vacuum. US carrier groups include
subs, frigates, and destroyers, all of which either are or have assets dedicated to killing the enemy sub threat. Fixed-wing dedicated ASW doesn't make AS much sense now as it did twenty years ago, anyway, since the number and quality of hostile sub threats has decreased without the USSR pushing the envelope, and there are alternatives for airborne ASW that make more sense than Hoovers. UAVs and lighter-than-air platforms with dedicated sensors could provide a lot more coverage with a lot less manpower for maintenance and operation. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:11 +0000, Peter Kemp
wrote: On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:22:05 -0800, Lyle wrote: Then there will probably be developed a ASW Version of the Osprey, if you ask me the Osprey is the most logical assest we have to replace the C-2 Greyhound, E-2 Hawkeye, and S-3 Vikeing, and Tanker aircraft with a common platform. JMO 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. I never flew the S-3 but had friends that did. From what they tell me it did the job reasonably well. Problems were more likely to come from Air Wing types who knew nothing about ASW or its problems and had no desire to learn. I just don't see the extra complexity of the VTOL as a good thing for a navy that is committed to CTOL carriers. You're probably right. Now for the RN, there may well be some use in an AEW/Tanker Osprey, but IMO it's unlikely to happen. More likely a Merlin will get a radome, and we'll do without organic tankers :-( The cost of the Osprey is so high that I don't see it being a viable candidate for anything other than the specialized missions it is already slated for. Could there also be an operational problem with trying to tank from an Osprey? Those rotor/prop blades are VERY large and would disturb a LOT of air. I have seen photos of aircraft tanking from Marine KC-130s so it can be done. Still, the 130 prop looks a lot smaller than the Osprey prop. Bill Kambic |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Brooks,
How about some more 'ranting' from yourself ? The lateness of the F-35 is causing the Aussies problems. 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. Since you are the 'expert' on the 'F-35' I was rather hoping that you would 'wax-lyrical' and rant about this wonderful machine? 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. A carrier group protected by a 'ring of steal' of a battle group? How about Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising' scenario ? 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 BRITISH AEROSPACE HAD A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FUNDED. So what? 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)? 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? 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. 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? Brooks Brooks |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Merlin" wrote in message oups.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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |