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

"Jake Donovan" wrote in message
news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06...
nafod40,

One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not
address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"?

Brooks


Then you can appreciate why I rarely post. I read a lot. Once in awhile
some one who will post something so off the wall it gets my dander up and
I
speak up. The google search you mentioned is a good example. If you
followed the thread you will see my "credibility" was established very
quickly. I actually chatted with the original poster and knew who he was
refering to and what program the SEAL had been through. Once the dust
settled, he understood why every one was up and arms over the wording he
was
a Navy Pilot.

There are some good friends of mine that read this NG and rarely post
anymore for the same reasons. Many who are reading this know me in real
life so as I stated earlier, Joe Smith doesn't give me credibility, I
really
dont care and I shouldn't have let it get to me the way it did.

Let's call it a bad day at the office.

Jake

PS - As for insider tidbits, I have never done so. Any comments I make or
have made can be found in the mainstream press and unclassified material
that if you know where to look, you can find it.


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jake Donovan" wrote in message
news:dqf_b.12902$iB.7776@lakeread06...
I really, really hate to mess with your "credibility" but the F35 was
NOT
designed as a carrier aircraft. The JSF concept was for an aircraft
that
can be used by different players with differnt requiremnets. NOT as a
CARRIER aircraft.

As much as I hate to defend Andrew, your argument does not really make
much
sense. The program was indeed designed to accomodate different customers

with differing requirements, one of which is the requirement for carrier
compatability in *both* the F-35C and F-35B. The JSF program was NOT one
where the competing firms were told, "Design and build us a land based
fighter, then come back and tell us how you would make it carrier
compatable." The need for carrier compatability was included in the
original
JSF program requirements, so the products were indeed designed to
include
that capability. Note that Andrew was commenting on the "F-35" program
(AKA
JSF), not the "F-35A".


The F-35C was. Argue all you want, but that leaves two other variants
of
the F35 that were NOT designed to be carrier aircraft. The A, a CTOV
variant for the Airforce to replace F-16's, A-10's, and yes, in the up
coming future, the F-22.

The F-35A was designed to *replace* the F-22? Where in tarnation did you
get
that rather strange idea? It is intended to replace the other aircraft
you
note, but not the F-22.


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.

What, you know some Marines who'd claim that the AV-8B was not designed
with
carrier requirements in mind? Or who would claim that the AV-8B is *not*
routinely deployed shipboard, just as the F-35B will be?

The B will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's.

You mean those same "land based" F-18's that sometimes are tasked to be
part
of a CAW?

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.

Do you think that the fact that both the RN (or would that be RAF under
the
Joint Harrier Force concept, or both services?) and the USMC do indeed
plan
to operate the B model from naval vessels (i.e., "carriers") might be
taken
into account during its design?


The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty
much
fall
in line with the above.

I doubt that, since your info as outlined above does not seem to be very
accurate.


Respectfully
Jake

PS - Oh, wait a minute, please quote some credible documentation to
back
up
your above statement. I don't seem to be able to find any.

Well, why don't YOU find us some "credible documentation" that states
that
the JSF program did not take carrier compatability into account from the
outset, and indeed make that a program requirement, or that the F-35B is
neither intended to be operated from shipboard by the USMC nor does its
design incorporate any of the requirements for such shipboard use?

Brooks



"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
modified to be a carrier aircraft.

Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.

The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was
DESIGNED
AS a carrier aircraft.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Jake Donovan" wrote in message
news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06...

nafod40,


One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not
address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"?

Thou hast not heard of me? Why, my name is bandied about in the finest
parlors and reading rooms of our most clever intellectuals, in
various...business establishments...in ports around our busy globe, and
only on the rarest occasions on 243.0, and then probably only to relay
some else's predicament, I being far too smart to make their mistakes.

Thank you for asking...

In article ,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" wrote:

China has let it be known, there
are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.

Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic
exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies.

Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a
rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*...

Especially after they decided to buy some Su-30s. Kinda makes you
wonder if they really bought the naval variant, plan on doing the mods
themselves, or have a naval version of their own somewhere.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"nafod40" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Jake Donovan" wrote in message
news:jHB_b.2817$TT5.244@lakeread06...

nafod40,


One can only assume you attached this to the wrong post, as it does not
address the points I raised. And who/what is "nafod40"?

Thou hast not heard of me? Why, my name is bandied about in the finest
parlors and reading rooms of our most clever intellectuals, in
various...business establishments...in ports around our busy globe,

And now in my kill-file.

Brooks

and
only on the rarest occasions on 243.0, and then probably only to relay
some else's predicament, I being far too smart to make their mistakes.

Thank you for asking...

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"nafod40" wrote


Thou hast not heard of me?


And now in my kill-file.

I'm sure I'll have good company.

"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.


and Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:44:58 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"R. David Steele" wrote in message
.. .

|
|Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
|airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.
|

In other words it is an UAV with pilot on board?

As are most civilian transports. Software driven electric control
systems
are the future, UAV, or fighter.

"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?

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...



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

Because they also plan to operate aircraft like the E2 Hawkeye
and F-18E

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 they already gave the ships.

Keith

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

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

Because that zero/short capability comes with a heavy cost in range and
performance. Building much smaller carriers that have to get to within
a hundred miles of the enemy coast before launching doesn't gain you
much.

Having the capability to put small but effective air strikes together
from very small ships does have some advantages, but for overall
atrategic power, you need range and payload.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

puttster wrote:

snip

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?

Whether the navy goes all VSTOL or keeps the F-35C and its other catapult-launched, arrested
recovery a/c and their associated catapults/arresting gear, on a per a/c embarked basis a larger
carrier is always cheaper than a smaller one, as the overhead in radars and support a/c is the same
in either case. These requirements are set by the threat, and can't be reduced.

For most missions the CV/CVNs provide more capability than is needed, and in such cases a smaller
carrier is sufficient. The USN has the LHA/LHDs to provide the numbers for these missions. But
when it comes to the power projection mission, size _does_ matter, both for numbers of a/c you can
operate and how long you can sustain them. The Brits ran into this problem first with their small
carriers in the '50s, where, by the time they'd provided the CAP, AEW, and ASW a/c to protect the
task group, there was little room left for strike a/c or their escorts, and the carriers lacked the
size for fuel, ordnance etc. for sustainment. They attempted to get around this by first replacing
fixed-wing ASW a/c with helos, and then moving the ASW helos off the carriers entirely, to CAHs
(Tigers) or CVSs (the Invincible class).

The U.S. had gone the CVS route from the start, first with CVEs, then with unmodified Essexes, but
had to bring the ASW a/c back to the CVs when the Essexes were retired and not replaced. The
CV/CVNs are large enough that the ASW a/c make up a relatively small percentage of the air wing,
and take up relatively little space. In addition, the current lack of a serious blue water sub
threat has allowed us to phase out the fixed-wing carrier ASW a/c, and only use helos. That could
change, of course.

Guy