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

On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
...
As regards to civilian transports,

One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
while still maintaining actual control, if desired.

The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
aircraft.

No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
operator.

When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.


While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight control
computers).

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

--Woody

On 2/24/04 4:21 PM, in article
, "puttster"
wrote:

"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?

Don't you mean excellent *predicted* V/STOL capability, since the jet hasn't
actually IOC'ed yet the true capability remains to be seen.

The payloads you can launch off of those large carriers (CVN's) are heavier,
the CVN can carry more jets and project more power, and you don't run the
risk of the many consecutive miracles required to transition the F-35B from
forward flight to VSTOL--which can be painful if something fails.

VSTOL is a risky concept that has never matured (no not even in the
Harrier--I've seen way to many crash over the years killing or hurting good
Marines... not their current maintenance nightmares), but for some reason,
weapons buyers are enamored with the concept. The cost isn't worth the
benefits.

--Woody

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
...
As regards to civilian transports,

One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
while still maintaining actual control, if desired.

The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
aircraft.

No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
operator.

When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.


While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
control
computers).

The 777 fakes the pilot into thinking it is a conventional airplane, which
it is not.

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

Missing code/flight control vioaltions can be fatal.

With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still
demand those giant carriers?

Read about the Falklands War and maybe you'll see why.

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)


"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?

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
news

| Wrong, as usual.
|
| Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.
|
| Get a room, guys!
|
|Poor Chad, so distantly seperated from reality.
|
|So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down
the
|F-22 rathole?

The Comanche was an Army project, different pile of money.

That bodes even worse for the F-22. If the money were USAF money, they
would have another $35 billion to spend.

R. David Steele wrote:
I am seeing you folks get the nomenclature wrong. The "A"
version is AF, the "B" version is Navy and the "C" version is
Marine and V/STOL

Not according to Lockheed Martin. From the variant descriptions linked from
http://www.lmaeronautics.com/product...35/design.html

"The F-35A for the U.S. Air Force matches or exceeds F-16 performance
levels"

"The F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal
Navy employs a short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) capability. "

"U.S. Navy carrier operations account for most of the differences between
the F-35C and the other JSF variants."

The Air Force and the JSF program office agree with this terminology. See
page 8 of this JSF program brief:

http://www.jsf.mil/Program/Briefings...gram_brief.pdf

or this article from Airpower journal:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...03/phispr03.ht
ml

BTW: for folks wondering about the benefits of conventioanl carriers, this
article hits the key one: radius of action for the STOVL version is 450 nm,
for the CV version it's over 700nm. That's a 55% increase.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-35.htm

Which is apparently out of date and incorrect. It seems to have been taken
from the original DoD press release, which was in error. (or at least has
been overtaken by events).


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"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.
Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

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
littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm to
650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's one
that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that 400nm
is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
services:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written at
ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so take the
analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you think
appropriate.

Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters service,
that particular justification need no longer exist. IIRR it was Adm. Holloway,
when CNO in the '80s(?), who planned to have the navy go all VSTOL sooner rather
than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down, especially
the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what have
you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required performance, in
view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the more
specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions, but the
ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big savings
on training, spares and unit cost.

Whether this changeover actually happens is another matter, as there doesn't
appear to be a big VSTOL backer inside the navy at the moment, and the navy is
afraid that going all VSTOL will make it easier for politicians to decide that,
because VSTOL a/c _can_ operate from smaller, cheaper carriers, there's no need
to buy big ones, ignoring the operational benefits of larger carriers in power
projection. OTOH, the USAF's recent volte-face (they want some again) on buying
some STOVL F-35s for themselves, may put more pressure on the navy to go VSTOL.
Or not :-)

Guy

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:



While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
control
computers).

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

--Woody


The trouble with that little tale is that the A-300 doesnt have fly by wire

Keith

"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.

littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm
to
650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's
one
that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that
400nm
is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
services:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

I tried to look, but I became too impatient and gave up on the down load.

Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written
at
ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so
take the
analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you
think
appropriate.

Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters
service,
that particular justification need no longer exist.

Putting a spinning top on a V-22 sounds scary to me, have to be plum tall to
see
over those rotors. Might do an EV-22 with a phased array.
As for the COD role: the C-2 does 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of
1,000 nm. The CV-22 can provide VTOL with 8,300lb of cargo for 220 nm.
Obviously you aren't going to move as much as fast using CV-22 vs C-2.

Let's assume for the moment that the V-22 can handle COD and radar missions.
Then you are stuck with the tanker problem and three choices:
1) Use the V-22 as a tanker.
r) Odds on bet the V-22 is too slow.
2) Buddy store off a F-35B.
r) Yea, that would make buddy storing off F-18s look positively lovely.
How much passable gas could you actually get off the deck?
3) Call the Air Force.
r) Left as an exercise for the reader.

than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down,
especially
the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what
have
you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required
performance, in
view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the
more
specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions,
but the
ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big
savings
on training, spares and unit cost.