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

Ozman Trad wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:5Ob_b.4176

A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
a military-derived cargo plane

The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give
the taxpayers a break

Check the part you snipped: "Very few users need the short-field or
oversized cargo capacity..." Well, the military is one of those very few
users. A 747 won't carry a tank, nor will it land in a short unimproved
strip in the back of beyond to deliver its cargo.

However, you will find that the military does use civil-style freighters for
lots of its cargo hauling. They just happen to belong to the Civil Reserve
Air Fleet rather than actually being owned by the US military.

--
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)

"Ozman Trad" wrote in message
...
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:5Ob_b.4176

A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
a military-derived cargo plane

The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give the
taxpayers a break

They sometimes do, under charter. But are you going to task that 747-400
freighter to, say for example, try and conduct an airborne insertion? I
don't think so...

Brooks

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.

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.

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.

The Brits have a little different take on the uses but they pretty much fall
in line with the above.

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.


"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/

In article ,
"Ozman Trad" wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news:5Ob_b.4176

A 747-400 Freighter carries more cargo, cheaper, than
a military-derived cargo plane

The obvious question is why doesn't the military use them and give the
taxpayers a break

Because they're a horrendous pain in the ass to load and unload when
you're not working at an improved runway or airport, and don't have the
special handling equipment to do that loading and unloading.

They're also not very good at carrying oversized cargo without heavy
modification.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"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/

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering the
sofware.

That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95 than
it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
develop.

Wch is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of the
F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make maintaining
the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).

Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter.

That's an odd statement. "Tabbed to?" In common usage, that means
they're connected directly, but sine they aren't you must mean something
else.

Are you aware of BAE Systems?

Yes, they're making a lot of the ECM and other systems *hardware* for
the F-35. To be controlled by the software that LockMart is developing
for controlling the whole plane.

Different systems than are used on the Eurofighter, by the way.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering
the
sofware.

That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95 than
it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
develop.

As in the old software doesn't work.

The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to BAE
Systems.

Wch is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of
the
F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make
maintaining
the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).

Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter.

That's an odd statement. "Tabbed to?" In common usage, that means
they're connected directly, but sine they aren't you must mean something
else.

Think real hard.

Are you aware of BAE Systems?

Yes, they're making a lot of the ECM and other systems *hardware* for
the F-35. To be controlled by the software that LockMart is developing
for controlling the whole plane.

Bull****.

The SDB will have an autopilot which will allow it to reach the target with
more kinetic energy than a standard JDAM flight profile. Combine that with a
new explosive package and they SAY it will have the same effectiveness as a
2000lb bomb. The ER (or is it EX) version will have a potential range of 60
miles.

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

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

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

Depends on what that SDB is aimed at. A 250lb rock is just as lethal for a
tank as a 2000lb bomb would be.

8 x 250lb bombs would be (assuming they all hit their targets) more lethal
for an enemy tank company than one 2000lb bomb.

Pete

"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)? 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?
|
|There are stresses from carrier ops that just aren't allowed for
|in the design of Air Force fighters, mainly having to do with the
|landing and arrestment. Unless the plane is designed with these
|forces from the start, you basically have to redesign the plane's
|frame (which means moving dang near *everything*) to get it
|ready.

The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
modified to be a carrier aircraft.

Not really, the F-35 has half the engines, is significantly smaller and
was designed from the get-go as a carrier plane. They share a family
resemblance but that's it.

| Also why not market the C-17 to the air freight community?
|
|The C-17 was marketed to commercial users with the government
|offering incentives. The plane has design elements for its
|military missions that make it less economical to operate in
|the civilian world that civil designs.

What is its civilian reference.

I don't know off hand. I don't even remember seeing it referred to
as any thing other than a C-17, not to say it didn't have another
marketing name, just that it made no impression on me.

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
m...
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.

It's a lot closer: The F-35A at least has a structure that won't pull apart
during a short arrested landing. Well, given its higher landing speed may
be not as short as the Navy's version, but one heck of a lot closer than a
F-22.