A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 25th 07, 12:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Harry Andreas
writes
In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:


In an underkeel detonation (influence-fuzed mine or torpedo) armouring
the hull stiffens it. So, instead of fairly vigorous movements, flexing,
and whipping - like the USS PRINCETON in 1991 - you get more transmitted
shock, which tends to do more damage to systems mounted to the hull.
PRINCETON set off two mines, was significantly damaged, but was able to
get key systems back up, resume her duties as AAWC and await relief and
a tug back to Bahrain: two months after that she returned to the US
under her own power (though she did need a fair bit of repair)

HMS Belfast ran over a mine in late 1939, was similarly sized to
PRINCETON, suffered nineteen casualties, mostly broken legs and ankles
from the shock, and had such serious shock effects that her torpedo
tubes were thrown off their mounts. (She also had major problems from
cast-iron pipes and machinery bases shattering, but that was an issue
quickly designed out of ships). It was the end of 1942 before she
returned to service.


Thanks

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #22  
Old April 25th 07, 06:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.


Though I respect your opinions, Mr Cobb, I cannot agree with you in
one point:

When the venerable A-6 Intruder was retired, Carrier Air Wings were
left with 36 Navy strike fighter squadrons (equipped either with F-14A/
B/D or with F/A-18A/C). Four squadrons were missing to form 10 full
CVWs with 4 squadrons each, so four Marine squadrons were transferred
to fill the gap.

The original plan to buy 548, or even more, Super Hornets called for
re-establishing 4 squadrons (as far as I know at least VA-75 Sunday
Punchers were considered to transition to F/A-18), to make those
Marine squadrons redundant in CVWs and free for land-based deployment
again. So, that's quite opposite to what you said...

Buying more F/A-18E/Fs at the moment seems the only reasonable idea.
Boeing is wise enough to suggest that, but decision-makers might be
not wise enough to accept...


2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."


As far as I understand, recent years all strikefighter aircraft
available - doesn't matter if F-14, or Navy F/A-18, or Marine F/A-18s
flew missions like CAS or FAC(A) in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Introducing F/A-18E/F makes the open way to combine tanker, CAP and
ASuW missions in a single plane, thus increasing availability of
aircraft for littoral warfare.

So I cannot understand really what is the problem...

The only answer coming to my mind is a difference between training to
carrier-based and land-based deployments.

Best regards,
Jacek


  #24  
Old April 26th 07, 11:53 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

Coming back to the small deck vs. large deck and F-35B issue:

Rust-eaten CV 67 does not seem to be the right choice. If CVN 65 was
indeed switched to the joint USN/USMC "floating forward airfield"
role, I think it would be just a kind of a single experiment - like
with one of older assault ships (USS Inchon?) being converted into a
large mine-hunting ship with helicopters on board - more than a serial
solution.

On the other hand, with fewer squadrons/aircraft embarked, now there
is more place on Nimitz-class carriers for possible USMC or special
ops helicopters (as it was already made in the mid-1990s aboard USS
Theodore Roosevelt).

And as for F-35B, I think it is a matter of comparison between costs
and capabilities that will decide if the STOVL version is produced or
not, either making it the first supersonic STOVL fighter in service,
or dooming it to share Yak-141 fate.

Best regards,
Jacek

superhornet at o2 dot pl


On 25 Kwi, 14:20, Henry J Cobb wrote:
My fear is that stripping the strike aircraft off of the gators while
land based squadrons are depleted to fill the big decks will leave the
Marines to repeat The Battle Off Samar with a different outcome.

There is no alternative to the F-35B.

-HJC



  #26  
Old April 27th 07, 11:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

In message , rstro
writes
sure there is/.........
call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14


Useless gold-plated junk dependent on radar (which never works) and
missiles (worse than useless). How many missile kills in the Korean War?
QED.

Get *real* aircraft. Re-equip the USN with F6F Hellcats.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk
  #27  
Old April 28th 07, 12:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
prevent part sales to Iran.



On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" wrote:
sure there is/.........
call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14


  #28  
Old April 28th 07, 03:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Bob Urz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy



wrote:

Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
prevent part sales to Iran.



On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" wrote:

sure there is/.........
call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14



NO QF-14 DRONES ??????????

BOB


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #29  
Old April 28th 07, 03:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
j*c*d*a*t*a@/gmail.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

It would be too complex to have a QF-14.

On Apr 27, 10:47 pm, Bob Urz wrote:
wrote:
Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
prevent part sales to Iran.


On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" wrote:


sure there is/.........
call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14


NO QF-14 DRONES ??????????

BOB

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----



  #30  
Old April 28th 07, 06:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
rstro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Boeing Offers Additional F/A-18 Sale to U.S. Navy

actually that is incorrect-
a number( I have no idea how many) are marked as "War Reserves" and will be
manintained in storage at AMARC


" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not for long, the F-14s at AMARC got the go to be shredded as to
prevent part sales to Iran.



On Apr 27, 4:39 pm, "rstro" wrote:
sure there is/.........
call ARMARC and get some real airplanes back in the Navy--F-14



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bush Orders Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Eisenhower and Additional Navy Ships To Iran's Western Coast [email protected] Naval Aviation 0 October 15th 06 06:39 AM
Navy Performs Maximum Range Test of Boeing SLAM-ER KDR Naval Aviation 7 June 13th 05 07:56 AM
Boeing contract with Navy could help with Air Force tanker deal Henry J Cobb Military Aviation 0 June 20th 04 10:32 PM
"Boeing sale to China skirts ban on technology transfer" Mike Military Aviation 1 February 6th 04 05:57 AM
U.S. Navy ordered 210 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet attack jets Larry Dighera Military Aviation 3 December 31st 03 09:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.