Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier Aircraft
Message-ID: <1991Mar19.045728.10530@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Mar 91 04:57:28 GMT
References: <1991Mar13.003648.7991@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar8.021800.7056@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Lines: 56
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
In article <1991Mar13.003648.7991@cbnews.att.com>, igor!yoda!wab@uunet.UU.NET
   (Bill Baker) writes;

>      Isn't one of the advanced fighter candidates incorporating thrust
> vectoring?  

   Yes.  The Lockheed YF-22 employees thrust vectoring nozzles.

> [...] Wouldn't that permit much lower sink rates for carrier landings?

   No -- the nozzles have essentially no effect on approach
characteristics.  Their main use is in increasing pitch and roll rate
and authority.  The nozzle design is quite different than the type used
on the Harrier.  The YF-22 cannot hover or use its nozzle thrust for
direct lift. 

> I've always assumed that the reason the F-4 converted so easily to carrier
> flight was that it was built like a tank anyway.

    You've got that backwards.  The F-4 was designed as a carrier aircraft
from the outset and later adopted by the Air Force.

>      I would think that, regardless of whether they procure a version
> of the ATF, the Navy would insist on thrust vectoring on the next
> generation of carrier aircraft.

   Why?  The Air Force didn't insist on vectoring for the ATF.  The
Northrop YF-23 doesn't have thrust vectoring and (allegedly) meets the
same control specs.

  The weight savings from airframe
> downgrading could translate into much more range, more room for
> weapons and avionics, etc.

   These "savings" don't exist.  Note that the Harrier has less range,
less speed, and less room for equipment.  This doesn't mean that thrust
vectoring doesn't have value (it does) and that aircraft such as the
Harrier don't have their place (they do).  It simply means that
vectoring isn't the answer to all problems.
  
> When the time comes to replace the E-2, why not design a new radar
> platform with real STOL characteristics?

   Because those "real STOL characteristics" aren't necessary to get on
and off of a carrier, and usually involve penalties in weight and
complexity.  All "real STOL" aircraft built to date have accepted large
tradeoffs in performance (speed and range) to get their STOL performance.
These are tradeoffs that are incompatible with the mission of an attack
carrier.

						   Steve
					(the certified flying fanatic)
					    stevenp@decwrl.dec.com