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

Henry J Cobb wrote:

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
wrote:
It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)

Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...

They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
it's HUGE!

The bigger problem is cooling it.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...cle.cfm?Id=994
Cooling a laser is a “very difficult engineering challenge,” said Zimet,
especially when the goal is to generate high levels of power. In a 100
kw solid-state laser, for example, there could conceivably be 900 kw of
wasted power that has to be eliminated. That is because, by nature,
solid-state lasers are not efficient. Ten percent is considered high
efficiency, compared to most solid-state lasers that average 1 percent
efficiency.

AvLeak article on F-35 and laser/HPM he

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/p...20708/aw32.htm

Guy

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in message
...
JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
diagonal stripes.

Pretty conclusive, yes?

Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
same one presented in court.

Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?

Jerry

Try this Jerry:

http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml

Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader.


Phil
--
Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson

On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
SNIP
The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
have".


CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
aircraft, and a good DASC.

Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.

Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in
this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind
of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to
transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a
big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's
and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is
the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
USMC brethren?

Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping
to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring
that the STOVL version doesn't get axed.

I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
where/when/how we'll have to fight).

Brooks


What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
cost.

--Woody

John Miller wrote in message ...
running with scissors wrote:
every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
looking straight down at the midpoint...


ahh but in tarverworld past the end the runway is an unmapped part of
the A-320's flight control system.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:11:23 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +1100, Phil Miller
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in message
...
JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
diagonal stripes.

Pretty conclusive, yes?

Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
same one presented in court.

Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?

Jerry

Try this Jerry:

http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml

Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader.

Thanks, Phil. I'd seen that bit earlier. It clearly looks like the same
boxes to me. I have no idea where the conspiracy theory is supported by
that, other than the written text which alleges it.

Jerry

Yeah. How anyone can draw any conclusion from such a terrible picture is
boggling. Seems fairly consistent with this pic for mine:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_sidefront_lg.jpg

but too fuzzy (and the box is on a fair old angle to the photographer)
to say whether the stripes are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or it's
just a white blob and not stripes at all.


Phil
--
The biggest conspiracy has always been the
fact that there is no conspiracy.
Nobody's out to get you.
Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
There, you feel better now?
-- Dennis Miller

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
SNIP

snip


Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required
in
this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that
kind
of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had
to
transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be
a
big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those
F-15E's
and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why
is
the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
USMC brethren?

Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely
hoping
to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by
ensuring
that the STOVL version doesn't get axed.

That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL
version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two
versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's
with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have
postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because
the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any
*reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few
billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want?


I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that
would
not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
where/when/how we'll have to fight).

Brooks


What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for
that
cost.

Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the
STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...

Brooks


--Woody

Save the enlarged pic in that repeort, open it in any graphics editor and
use the color chooser (usually an eyedropper) and check the colors. The box
in the enlargement clearly has 1 red corner at the bottom, the other bottom
corner (closest to the photog) has a white bottom. The stripes are diagonal.
The IPSC should lay off the wine during investigations.

"Phil Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:11:23 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +1100, Phil Miller
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in message
...
JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was
performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or
demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with
passengers and
came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but
the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both
captains in
a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by
descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of
TOGA power
to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the
above
'explanation'.

You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the
official
story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance
of the
box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after
the
crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court
had
diagonal stripes.

Pretty conclusive, yes?

Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way
is it the
same one presented in court.

Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?

Jerry

Try this Jerry:

http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml

Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader.

Thanks, Phil. I'd seen that bit earlier. It clearly looks like the same
boxes to me. I have no idea where the conspiracy theory is supported by
that, other than the written text which alleges it.

Jerry

Yeah. How anyone can draw any conclusion from such a terrible picture is
boggling. Seems fairly consistent with this pic for mine:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_sidefront_lg.jpg

but too fuzzy (and the box is on a fair old angle to the photographer)
to say whether the stripes are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or it's
just a white blob and not stripes at all.


Phil
--
The biggest conspiracy has always been the
fact that there is no conspiracy.
Nobody's out to get you.
Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
There, you feel better now?
-- Dennis Miller

LOL you call:

"expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as
demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
shipping. assault support from amphibious shipping or from
expeditionary locations ashore?"

anything but yada yada gobbledygook? You have just described a good
mission for an air/sea rescue helicoptor!

Please though, don't try again, you are wasting everyone's time.


"Frijoles" wrote in message thlink.net...
Your question was (quote) "Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could
not be none by the navy?" The question was answered with specific
operational capabilities (exercised in combat operations) that the Navy does
not possess. You are obviously ignorant of the process by which
"requirements" are generated and validated. You are obviously ignorant of
how procurement #s are generated. You are ignorant of the numbers of
aircraft resident in the USMC TACAIR inventory, and you are ignorant of how
they are employed -- to wit, " 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!"

Come back with some intelligent questions after you've done some research.

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give
me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect
reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's.

"Frijoles" wrote in message
hlink.net...
No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW)
ashore, as
demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
expeditionary locations ashore?

Should I go on?

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
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."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

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.

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in message
...
JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
diagonal stripes.

Pretty conclusive, yes?

Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
same one presented in court.

Surely there are some good still images from this footage available,
right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'?

It's so long ago, Jerry that I don't have cites readily to hand. I most certainly did
take a great interest in this crash. UK TV did too, with certainly more than one
decent documentary about this event. I believe I may still have a vid of at least one
of the documentaries in question. And before you try discrediting TV documentaries -
realise that in the UK we don't have the same commercial pressures as in the USA and
we make possibly the worlds' finest docs.

I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live recorded
footage - and it was a fairly tatty looking one ( well worn ). The one presented at
the investigation / court was entirely diiferent - almost pristine.

There is also I believe a question over 7 or 10 IIRC 'missing seconds' from the DFDR
record !!

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Graham

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:08:49 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:



JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

Cite?

Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ?

Are you sure that you're not thinking of Norbert Jaquet? I thought that
Mazieres (the FO) flew for AF for some time after the accident. I could be
wrong, however.

If it was common knowledge, a cite should be a simple matter. Unless you
mean 'common knowledge' in the Tarverian sense.

I stand corrected, I got the 2 confused. It's been a long time since it happened. The
F.O. stayed 'shtumb' ( is that how you spell it ) and kept out of the way of the flak.

Do you not think it strange that someone who criticised the official findings and
supported the captain being declared mentally insane is a very odd way to go about an
accident investigation ?

Graham