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

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.

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

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.

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...

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?

See the other posts in this thread about the V-22 Osprey, or read up on
parachure sropping/resupply. You also have a lot of situations where
the Marines would have a forward location, a few hundred miles outside
of the range of carrier jets, but still accessible from the ground.

It's also nice to have fast-reaction fighter jets that don't have to
live on a big, obvious target like an airfeld.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On 2/25/04 2:21 PM, in article , "Michael
Zaharis" wrote:



Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

--Woody


The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm


Just read it. Sorry, folks, I was misinformed.

--Woody

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
airplane yourself are long gone.

For the F-22, yep.

For the F/A-18, mostly.

For the F-14, nope!

For other airplanes in service, not even close!

"Michael Zaharis" wrote...

The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.

It's not only a function of high-bypass engines! The J-65 engines in the older
model A-4s had about a 13-second spool-up time, and the centrifugal-flow engines
in the old F-9s were even worse!

Some people were spoiled by the J-85, J-79 and other later-generation turbojets
that had great spool-up times. The J-52 was not as good, but a far cry better
than the J-65! The high-bypass turbofan just took ONE engine performance factor
back to the "stone age" of jet propulsion...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed to
mean?!?

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously -- airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm, from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to handle
them.

I suppose this is an addendum to your claims in another thread that

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
it is normal operation.

and

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

and

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.


I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John R Weiss wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

snip

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

and

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

Guy

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to
mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

That is a good question.

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

Then you have departed from reality.

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John R Weiss wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

snip

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the
flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

and

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

That would be a fact.