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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. And as Andrew well knows, only two of the three F-35 variants have been designed to operate off of ships. The F-35A is no more sutiable for shipboard service than the F/A-22 is. -HJC |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Ian" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "R. David Steele" wrote in message ... |The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think.... |There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned, like |now is too late...watch and see. | |The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a |replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval |Aviation very well. | |There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling |fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years. |Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or future |enemy threat that can match it. Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is online, even those versions will be dated. Less dated than the F-22. You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96 Ada and the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a generation ahead of the F-22. What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95? The F-22 is older than that. Thats interesting cos I'm sure I've read somewhere that Eurofighter is written in Ada-95 and flight standard C? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Ian" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "R. David Steele" wrote in message ... |The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think.... |There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned, like |now is too late...watch and see. | |The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a |replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval |Aviation very well. | |There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling |fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years. |Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or future |enemy threat that can match it. Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is online, even those versions will be dated. Less dated than the F-22. You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96 Ada and the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a generation ahead of the F-22. What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95? The F-22 is older than that. Thats interesting cos I'm sure I've read somewhere that Eurofighter is written in Ada-95 and flight standard C? After a series of discussions WRT Ada here at ram with Ada experts i was willing to accept the idea that Ada was fixed by 1996. Perhaps I am using an incorrect identifier and it is Ada-95 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"R. David Steele" wrote in message ... For some reason I had thought that the C-17 was built by Lockheed, not McDonald Douglas (now Boeing). That would McDonnell Douglas Since Boeing is now the contractor, Make that owner. what do they have in their line up that would be similar? Basically that would be the short field operation plus being able load and unload like the C-17 does. Civilian use doesnt typically require such a facility. I am not a fan of idea of taking an airliner design and making it a cargo plane. Most civilian cargo planes are just that. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote: The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based solely on it being post '96 Ada Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is based on the F-22 software... -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"R. David Steele" wrote in message ... | | Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of | | the decade. | | | |Are you planning to fight them all yourself or do |you have a couple of buddies lined up to help ? | |Keith 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. 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. Hey if they choose to take on India and Russia they'll have enough on their plate that they wont take on the USA as well Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. No they dont , Hutchison Whampoa who own the Panama Canal Co are a Hong Kong based limited company run the canal. Have bases all throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in San Diego. Last time I checked the port of San Diego was a Public Benefit Corporation Keith And they have extensive operations all throughout North Africa. It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and 2012. Yeah I'll be watching as you and your buds invade China Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | | | I know that the current F-22 was | not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be | re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber | version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future. | Why not upgrade it then? | | |3 x 2000 lbs perhaps certainly not 30 | In a bomber version, the fuselage would be longer and the wings far larger to give the bomber greater range more than 1,600 miles, compared with the F-22's 600-plus and bomb-carrying capacity. That takes a little more than stretching the airframe to achieve this. The suggested FB-22 does not have the range or mods you claim. Such an aircraft would be a new design and given the progress being made with UCAV's is unlikely to happen IMHO The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24 Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as a 2,000-pound bomb. No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for 2000lb bombs A regular F/A-22 would carry eight Small Diameter Bombs. An FB-22 would carry 30. Which would make a bomb load of 8000 lbs not 60,000 Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based solely on it being post '96 Ada Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is based on the F-22 software... Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"R. David Steele" wrote in message ... | The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based solely on | it being post '96 Ada | |Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it |was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is |based on the F-22 software... I thought that we had moved beyond ADA? How? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Pete,
You are even closer than you think. 1- Whomever said the F35 is almost the same as a F22, I have this reply, gee, that Honda 250 Dirt Bike looks just like my sons Mongoose BMX bike. 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. 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. Stepping out of the Sims and into the aircraft, you found you could push the 35 well past what the Sims prepared you for. That was a first in my career. Although the Raptor is a very capable aircraft, If I had the choice and had a 35 on the line, I wouldn't leave home with out it. It looks like they got it right the first time out and the F35 will be with us for some time to come. Jake "Pechs1" wrote in message ... steele- Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future. Why not upgrade it then? BRBR F35 better, cheaper, sooner and designed for shipboard use. Why not scrape the F-22, and replace it with F35? These things are 'expensive', to say the least. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 06:22 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |