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

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Funny how you can't ever seem to find anything to back your opinions
up...

It's like talking to a movie PR person.

"Lockheed Martin Sells One of Many Avionics Subsidiaries."

Tarver reads:

"Lockheed Martin Sells... Avionics Subsidiaries."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

R. David Steele wrote:
Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
to plan for this potential war.

Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff
plans for all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick
Chairmen of the JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the
Chairman's job is mostly to supervise current ops; the Staff does
long-term planning regardless of who is in charge.

There were several articles in the Washington Post here, when the
GWOT started (just after Sept 11th), on how Gen. Myers was
selected to plan for a possible war with China.

Strange, I cna't find any such articles in their archives. The only
relevant articles I could find with the words Myewrs and China were about
his recent visit, where the rtalked about the improvement of relations
between the US and China.

Please cite a specific article (or even a specific date).

And how he was
out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
here in DC,

That "here in DC" stuff won't play. Whatever was "common knowledge" in your
world certianly wasn't common knowledge in Crystal City (which is where I
was on 9/11).

Not everyone in the world sees appeasement as being fair minded.
Many see those who use appeasement as being weak thus prey.

I said not a word in favor of appeasement. If China were demanding what you
say, yes, I'd agree with your conclusions. But they aren't.

Look, I know I won't convince you, and you certainly won't convince me. So
I'm not going to argue with you. Just promise to come back in a decade when
there hasn't been a war with China.

A war over Taiwean doesn't count, BTW. That is the one area I could easily
see a war breaking out, but it won't be about excluding the US from Asia or
any such nonsense. .

--
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)

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

| Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
| David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
| them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
| should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
| Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
| worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!
|
|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.

In article ,
R. David Steele wrote:

|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.

Tarver can't tell the difference between Army and Air Force programs,
which isn't a shock to the rest of us.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

John,

Thank you. You restored my faith that people actually read full posts and
not what they want to read in to it.

As for it being used as an asset to an CVN Deployed Airwing?

Jake

"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

nafod40,

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/

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

Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
to plan for this potential war.

Happens all the time with lots of countries. Strictly used for weapons
buying plans.

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.
The Japanese own office buildings all over the place, but we're not going to
war with Japan are we?

Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
North Africa.

It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
2012.


Okay, Nostradamus. I'll mark my calendar.

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.

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.

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works
in
the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.


Dont get me wrong here. For plinking tanks, vehicles and dugouts the
smaller bomb size is a good idea. As well as permitting an aircraft to
carry more weapons they limit collateral damage. My point was simply
that there are some targets for which you'll stay want the option of the
larger bomb.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...
Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)?

Lots of luck making a carrier landing in an F-22

well it could do it ...but only once :-)