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.

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 2/25/04 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

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.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

snip


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.

Wait a sec. Weren't the USMC fixed wing assets in this conflict under
control of the CAOC and responsive to the joint ATO?

Brooks

snip

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:


"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.


I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

As I said before, my opinions are based on ready room chat with a few pilots
I know who fly the Airbus. The knowledge I have is on a macro level (i.e.
not from a standpoint of having been formally schooled on it), but it's
certainly enough to allow me to form a rational and reasonable opinion.

I've also taken the honest road and admitted my short-comings on the issue.

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


Indeed

So add some intellectual meat to the discussion. If you have time in an
Airbus or knowledge to the contrary and you'd like to lend an opposing view,
feel free. All things being equal, I like Boeing's approach to the issue
better.

--Woody

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

--Woody


The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm