home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / sci / military / 12930 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-28  |  2.2 KB  |  52 lines
  1. Newsgroups: sci.military
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
  3. From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
  4. Subject: Re: Tornado F3 replacement
  5. Message-ID: <C1H2zw.FBn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
  6. Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
  7. Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
  8. References: <C124r8.7Iy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C143p2.382@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C1F6tE.KG8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
  9. Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:43 GMT
  10. Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
  11. Lines: 39
  12.  
  13.  
  14. From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
  15.  
  16. In article <C1F6tE.KG8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
  17. >
  18. >    Interesting.  If its so good, why then hasn't the USN adopted it?
  19. >Surely it would fulfill all their requirements?  Or is it case, as in the
  20. >case of the abortive P1154 design that a "bigger, better Harrier" has more
  21. >inherent problems than you might realise, including the ones found during
  22. >the Gulf Conflict in the light of combat experience (ie its rather extreme
  23. >vulnerability to heat seeking weapons due to location of probable hits
  24. >near its exhausts). 
  25. >
  26.  
  27. There was recently a very good discussion on the various advantages and 
  28. deficiencies of a VTOL/STOVL design on sci.aeronautics.  I wish I had saved 
  29. some of the posts, but I will tell you what I remember.
  30.  
  31. The main advantages discussed were:
  32.     * Basing flexibility
  33.     * The ability to use damaged/destroyed airfields.  
  34.  
  35. The disadvantages were:
  36.     * Vulnerability to shoulder launched and other IR-guided SAM's, and the
  37.         problem of massive structural damage when a missile struck near
  38.         the engine exhausts, ie amidships.
  39.     * Reduced load capabilities to allow vertical or shortened take-
  40.         off, when compared with similar-sized conventional designs.
  41.     * Reduced range capabilities, again when compared to similar-sized 
  42.         conventional designs.
  43.  
  44. If I had saved any of the posts, I would re-post them on this newsgroup, but I 
  45. would advise checking sci.aeronautics if you are still interested in the 
  46. subject.
  47.  
  48. Chad Wemyss
  49. Worcester Polytechnic Institute
  50.  
  51.  
  52.