AirTalk.org

Otis Willie PIO The Ameri · Guest

F-35 Will Bring 5TH Generation Capability to Navy
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2007/0004558161&EDATE=

{EXCERPT} PR Newswire (press release), NY - 31 minutes ago O'Bryan addressed reporters at a pre- Navy League news conference. "We are committed to meeting or exceeding the Navy's requirements for the
F-35C.......

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
with our laws this report cannot be provided in
its entirety. However, you can read it in full
today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634

Military Webmaster Site Link Request Form:
http://www.amervets.com/linkreq.htm

Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/share.htm

fudog50 · Guest

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:17:59 GMT, Otis Willie PIO The American War
Library <themilitarytoday (AT) pacbell (DOT) net> wrote:

F-35 and the Navy will never happen in our lifetime. It's a pipedream,
but hey it does employ a lot of crabs.

Too many upgrades to the carrier, it will die. For example total
replacement of AESS external Electrical Power requirements is esimated
for all carriers at upwards of 130 million. And that is just one
example.

There are no ground support electrical units currently in the
inventory that can supply the Electrical Power necessary for F-35. A
whole new Mobile Electric Power Plant System (MEPPS) will have to be
designed and developed. Good luck!

John Carrier · Guest

You hit upon a very real problem in the F-35 airframe ... it has huge
electrical demands (both from an external and internal power perspective).
It also introduces some other problems in the logistics train (an engine
that can't be flown aboard as a single unit). It might well be a nice
complement to the F-22 for the USAF. It's not quite there as an airframe
for the Navy (and I have doubts about the USMC variant as well). A pity,
because the WCS and sensor suite are awesome.

R / John

<fudog50> wrote in message
news:e1u0235ssh0j1r9d3mhd7d0s0aq55csmdp (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

Yeff · Guest

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:57:49 -0500, John Carrier wrote:

John Carrier · Guest

The lift fan and its gearbox/clutch are going to create maintenance
headaches. AV-8B isn't a free lunch. They're struggling to keep it flying.
JO's are coming off of first tours with approx 300 hours in type (vice
typical 800-1000). Of course, this is exacerbated by USMC MAW's proclivity
to allow senior types to get lion's share of available flight time to the
detriment of JO training.

R / John

"Yeff" <zoomie (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote in message
news:59ri60cf7hul$.dlg (AT) lemming (DOT) militia.com...

Flashnews · Guest

But just about everything "good" that you mention about the JSF in its
avionics can be retrofitted to the legacy fleet of aircraft (and
something's perhaps should be dropped finally). But I don't think it is
a question of the JSF being "good" or "bad" overall - it is a question
of can it be afforded NOW and what does it do NOW for the war at hand
and neither answers are "yes it can". And as long as it is being pushed
to carry normal bomb-racks, external tanks, and just about everything
else so it can act like an F-18 or an F-16 you have to ask "why?" - we
have those machines in good supply and can keep them in production at
accelerated rates for this war (keeping jobs, infrastructure, and FMS
sales potential) while the JSF is "fined tuned" in a continued
development program that allows these inconsistencies with the various
versions to be worked out. Of course I would also like to see it merge
with UCAS/UCAV and become both manned and unmanned, add a laser cannon,
and work to make the remoted pilot a reality - all while replacing STOVL
with a better STOL using a vectored thrust engine (recall seeing the
MiG-29 OVT BTW) and sort of making it the platform of choice to deal
with China, NKorea, Iran some 10 to 15 years down the road which is
reasonable. The JSF savings would macro-other major decisions, the
LHA(R) would die, it would inspire an full rethink of Marine
Expeditionary Aviation enabling the JFK to be refurbished in tune with
that goal and a massive economy buy of F-18E/F/G's to fill Marine, Navy,
and export needs setting up for a new CTOL F-35 in around 10 years. Is
that possible - well most people in the institutionalized world of "what
is" are fighting it tooth and nail - but the economics are crushing - so
we shall see

"John Carrier" <jxc2 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:JOWdnaYsYYRsXL3bnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com...

Yeff · Guest

On Sun, 13 May 2007 07:43:07 -0400, Flashnews wrote: