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

Sure doesn't take too long for any discussion of F-35B to turn into a debate
about ships eh??

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"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.

Jake also wrote:

"Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in."

Tell us what programs you've been involved in "Jake"... and what, pray tell,
made F35 so memorable. I assume you know Turbo?

"Jake Donovan" wrote in message
newslc_b.12812$iB.12075@lakeread06...
Tom,

I really cant go much further than what I said, but look at the B1B.

I can paraphrase Aviation Week - The procurement #s of Raptors have been
lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will be
replacing them as soon as they are available.

I do agree with you on the AF ANG and Reserves flying very new and up to
date platforms unlike the days of old.

Jake

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jake Donovan wrote:

2- The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as
the F35 comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the
operating parameters of the 22 vs the 35.

I'd like to see the basis for that. But in any case, rememeber that the
Guard and Reserves no longer fly second-rate aircraft handed down from
the
active force. They fly the same aircraft types for the most part, and
have
the same basic missions. I'd be very surprised indeed if the F-22 is
scheduled to be withdrawn from the active force at that time.
--
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)

On 2/24/04 6:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


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

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

I don't know anything about the 777 other than it has some features that
make V1 cuts easy (that most airline pilots don't get to use in the
simulator very often).


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.


Sounds like you just made my point for me. A couple of malfunctioning gyros
could be bad for you.

On 2/24/04 9:17 PM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" wrote:


SNIP
|That'd be a bad move fiscally for the USAF considering that the ANG's get
|money from both the states and the USAF. Subsidy is good.

Actually the states use the Guard as a means to fund various
things. The average state does not pu much money into the Guard.
It is more of a way to get more federal dollars.


Perhaps, David, but most ANG units I know brag of their OT&E successes that
they attribute to extra funding from the states--which is why ANG and
reserve Viper outfits have SADL and active duty units are still waiting for
MIDS (or whatever the USAF version of MIDS is).

It may be a cash cow that feeds many.

--Woody

On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:


"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



Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).

It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly out
of ignorance.

--Woody

On 2/25/04 4:24 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
wrote:


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

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

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.


I'd like to see the USN reduce their reliance on USAF tanking.

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
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.

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!
How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:



Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).


So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
aircraft.


It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly
out
of ignorance.


Indeed

Keith

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


Something about loadout and range and other minor problems to solve. The most
efficient way to actually carry something and get it there is the cat/trap
system. VStol is nice but it, even in the F-35, has severe limitations.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

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."

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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