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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:18:39 GMT,
R. David Steele attempted to say .....

>
> It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
> 2012.

That's when the PRC has the next Chinese Civil war and breaks apart..

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:47:53 GMT,
R. David Steele attempted to say .....

>
> |> Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
> |> the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
> |> to plan for this potential war.
> |
> |Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff plans for
> |all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick Chairmen of the
> |JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the Chairman's job is mostly to
> |supervise current ops; the Staff does long-term planning regardless of who
> |is in charge.
>
> There were several articles in the Washington Post here, when the
> GWOT started (just after Sept 11th), on how Gen. Myers was
> selected to plan for a possible war with China. And how he was
> out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
> here in DC, that we do have a war in the making with China. It
> would be nice to avoid that war. But Gen Myers does have that
> mission.


That is hardly a ringing endorsement for your sources.
And if such a thing is "common knowledge" then some folks need to be both
fired AND thrown in jail.



>
> | China has let it be known, there
> |> are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> |> school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> |> east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> |> Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
> |
> |China's policy appears to be primarily focussed on ensuring that no one else
> |interfrres with their own territory.
>
> And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
> Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
> has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
> is do you want to be shut out of that area?

They haven't ruled it in a thousand years. And couldn't if they tried.
In fact they seem to be having a hard time ruling the territories they
currently occupy.



> |> Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
> |> 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
> |> throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
> |> San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
> |> North Africa.
> |
> |Oh, good grief. China has commercial intereasts worldwide, yes. But
> |there's no evidence that running port operations in Panama (NOT running the
> |Canal proper, BTW) translates into any sort of aggressive intent. INdeed,
> |the company that runs those ops is a Hong Kong-based multinational, not
> |controlled by the Chinese government as the fearmongers would have you
> |believe.
>
> Since much of "business" in China is owned by the People's
> Republican Army (PRA), business is seen as an arm of the
> military.

Where, did you say you worked ? A contractor doing Intel ?
It's the "People's Revolutionary Army"


>
> Whether we like it or not, things change. China has been looking
> for a chance to be player. With the USSR gone, and Russia weak,
> they have their chance. Most of us have no problem if they play
> fair and equal. But if they treat business much the way the
> mafia does then we will have to learn to be equally aggressive.

The party elite like their MB limo's too much to cause problems.


> Not everyone in the world sees appeasement as being fair minded.
> Many see those who use appeasement as being weak thus prey.




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:04:20 GMT,
Chad Irby attempted to say .....

> In article >,
> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:
>
> > On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
> > "R. David Steele" > wrote:
>
> > > China has let it be known, there
> > > are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> > > school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> > > east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> > > Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
> >
> > Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic
> > exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies.
>
> Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a
> rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*...
>

They won't have operational CV's and airwings for 20 years. And the PRC
won't last that long so it wont matter.


> Especially after they decided to buy some Su-30s. Kinda makes you
> wonder if they really bought the naval variant, plan on doing the mods
> themselves, or have a naval version of their own somewhere.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Tank Fixer > wrote:

> In article >,
> on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:04:20 GMT,
> Chad Irby attempted to say .....
>
> > In article >,
> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
> > > "R. David Steele" > wrote:
> >
> > > > China has let it be known, there
> > > > are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
> > > > school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
> > > > east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
> > > > Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
> > >
> > > Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic
> > > exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies.
> >
> > Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a
> > rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*...
>
> They won't have operational CV's and airwings for 20 years.

Only if they're following the US model. You should know that they've
been having their pilots practice carrier landings on mockups on ground,
for example. If they're going up against anyone but the US, all they
have to do is be able to do fair-weather ops.

With a couple of wings of moderately-new knockoffs of some of the
Russian planes, they'd go from no real naval air to the second or third
biggest carrier-borne air capability in just a few years.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Guy Alcala]

Frijoles wrote:

<snip>

> On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of
> stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or
> B-2s. (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the
> same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?) And
> if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what a
> great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft provides...?

Especially since they had to send four more F-18Es to the theater during the
war, to boost the navy's own tanker assets (and of course, taking away airbridge
tanker assets from other jobs, to get them there).

> 45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's hardly
> a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at, or
> facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect fires.
> IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships, principally
> Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were flown
> from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad.

<snip>

Would you happen to know which airfield? I've found one source that says it was
"60nm south" of Baghdad, but no other details. Looking at a map,

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_planning_print_2003.jpg

Shayka Mazhar and Al Iskandariyah New appear to be too close to the city, Salman
Pak East is too close and too far east (although the Marines did go by there
IIRR). An Najaf New is due south of Baghdad and about the right distance, but
AFAIK the marines weren't near there in any strength, having crossed the
Euphrates at Nasiriya before heading up between the rivers towards Baghdad. The
Shaykh Hantush Highway Strip seems to be the closest match for distance and
direction, but the marines also went through al Kut, which puts An Numaniyah (I
know they took that) or Al Jarrah in the picture (although they're more SE than
S), and possibly the fields south and/or east of Al Kut, altough they're a bit
far and definitely southeast.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

> On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article
> , "Guy Alcala"
> > wrote:
>
> > Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down
> <SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats>
> > on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy
> > wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around
> > al-Kut.
>
> There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the
> demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF
> is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it
> (OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood
> sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and
> the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and
> the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not
> been around to help out.
>
> Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging
> your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle.

Tell it to the attack helo guys, who leap-frogged their way to Baghdad. Is there
some reason why FARPS for helos to avoid the round trip to Kuwait make sense, but
doesn't for STOVL fixed-wing a/c? The benefits are the same, a mix of more time on
station/shorter cycle time/fewer hours on the airframe/less fuel wasted in transit.

> <SNIP
> > And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a
> > somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile
> > one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able
> > to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a
> > good thing?
>
> Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
> STOVL F-35 being built.

That and the fact that (AFAIK) the A-10s have been the only (USAF) attack a/c based
in Afghanistan since OEF. Along with the Harriers.

> Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is
> jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
> low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
> about.

If you've got at least 3-4,000 feet of usable runway, it might be. Anything less
and it's just as useless as all the other conventional fixed-wing strikers.

>
>
> <SNIP>
> >> 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.
> >
> > And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get
> > rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping
> > like flies.
> >
> > Guy
>
> Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and
> can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them?

Because they're more dangerous than pure fixed-wing a/c, of course. The same
justification you use for saying that STOVL isn't worthwhile. As to auto-rotation
ability, that doesn't seem to have kept the helo crew/pax casualty count down very
much in the current war. Damaging/destroying the tail rotor, its controls or the
drive shaft makes auto-rotations rather difficult.

Guy

[Pooh Bear]

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

> Not surprising for Puke Bear.

Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?

I once thought you were an intelligent person.

Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
case of Berteimania ?


Graham

[Scott M. Kozel]

Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> > Not surprising for Puke Bear.
>
> Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?
>
> I once thought you were an intelligent person.
>
> Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
> case of Berteimania ?

YOU sound hysterical.

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

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

<snip>

> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?
> >
> > When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our
> > manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least
> > one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second
> ejection
> > from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd
> returned
> > to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew
> > of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only
> > flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry,
> > that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I
> was
> > on a roll.)
>
> Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me.

<snip>

The Harrier accident rate is and has been noticeably worse, Kevin. How much of
that is due to accidents during transition/hovering (which would be the only
relevant stat, to compare with CTOL accidents during landing), I don't have the
data for. The AV-8B is apparently a lot easier to handle in the transition and
hover than the AV-8A was owing to its SAAHS and aerodynamic improvements, and
the F-35B will be even easier (accounts I've read suggest its trivial), probably
owing to a combination of different aerodynamic design and FBW controls. After
all, the basic Harrier design dates to about 1960, or even 1958.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

"José Herculano" wrote:

<snip>

> I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their
> assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL
> rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute.

Why? The F-35s have considerably better range than their F-18A/Cs, and
apparently equal or better range than the F-18E/Fs.

> Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political
> generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger
> numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will
> have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch
> of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar
> on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from
> bellow and still be useful on its original role?

<snip>

As was mentioned in the Comanche decision briefing, when doing CAS (at least
recently), RCS has been irrelevant. IR, visual and aural signatures are far
more important, along with sensors and weapons. The F-35 has all of those, PLUS
radar stealth for those first night of the war missions. And for BAI, INT, OCA,
DCA, etc.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?
> > >
> > > When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in
our
> > > manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at
least
> > > one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second
> > ejection
> > > from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd
> > returned
> > > to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I
knew
> > > of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The
only
> > > flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier.
(Sorry,
> > > that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion.
I
> > was
> > > on a roll.)
> >
> > Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to
me.
>
> <snip>
>
> The Harrier accident rate is and has been noticeably worse, Kevin. How
much of
> that is due to accidents during transition/hovering (which would be the
only
> relevant stat, to compare with CTOL accidents during landing), I don't
have the
> data for. The AV-8B is apparently a lot easier to handle in the
transition and
> hover than the AV-8A was owing to its SAAHS and aerodynamic improvements,
and
> the F-35B will be even easier (accounts I've read suggest its trivial),
probably
> owing to a combination of different aerodynamic design and FBW controls.
After
> all, the basic Harrier design dates to about 1960, or even 1958.

I kind of figured it would be a bit worse than some of its contemporaries,
but not demonstrably so. Of course, that says little as regards the F-35B,
which uses a completely different lift system, which is reportedly a lot
better than that ised in the Harrier family, which is why I included the,
"Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a
different lift system" part.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>
>

[Phil Miller]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:17:16 -0500, JL Grasso >
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:20 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:
>
>>JL Grasso wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:03:00 +0000, Pooh Bear
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>< snip old stuff >
>>
>>> >There were also known and documented defects with various A320 systems at that time -
>>> >including throttle response and height indication. Capt Assiline asserts that the a/c
>>> >showed 100 ft altitude when it was actually flying much lower.
>>>
>>> Anyone who would rely on a pressure altimeter to operate a low, slow
>>> aircraft 100 feet from the ground when a radar altimiter was fucntioning
>>> (and apparently giving accurate aural information) and available is not
>>> making a prudent decision. The pressure altimiter (servo, ADC or
>>> otherwise) is only required to be accurate to app +/- 30 feet at sea level
>>> to begin with (and the DFDR was only required to show pressure altitude
>>> resolution to +/- 100 ft, but may have been more on this unit). A radar
>>> altimiter is accurate (depending on a given antenna/plane configuration)
>>> to within 5 feet (and quite likely less) between wheel height and terrain.
>>>
>>> Read the CVR transcript again and tell me how the Captain could possibly
>>> be surprised later when told/shown he was below 100 feet during the
>>> fly-over.
>>
>>With delight. Sorry about the lost formatting when text posting
>>
>>(French text is translated into English)
>>
>>Time: Source: Contents:
>>
>>12.44:27 TOWER QNH Habsheim 1012 Fox Echo 9.8.4
>> Captain OK
>>
>>12.44:31 Co-pilot Roger
>>
>>12.44:32 Captain 9.8.4 put in 9.8.4
>>
>>12.44:34 Co-pilot 9.8.4 QFE selected!
>>
>>12.44:37 Good gear is down; flaps 2!
>>
>>12.44:42 Captain Flaps 3
>>
>>12.44:45 Co-pilot Flaps 3!
>> Captain That's the airfield, you confirm?
>>
>>12.44:48 Co-pilot Affirmative
>>
>>12.44:51 Co-pilot You see it LL 01, when we get there you're at 1 nautical mile, that's right.
>>
>>12.44:55 [GONG!] - nosewheel valve
>>
>>12.45:04.7 GPWS [Too Low Terrain!]
>> Co-pilot OK!
>>
>>12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty]
>>
>>12.45:04.7 [GONG!] - GPWS cut off
>>
>>12.45:05.7 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]
>>
>>12.45.11 Co-pilot P.....G.....! (name of flight safety officer)
>>
>>12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]
>>
>>12.45.12 Co-pilot G.. is going to ...eh!
>>
>>12.45:14 Co-pilot OK, you're at 100ft there, watch, watch
>>
>>12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred]
>>
>>12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty]
>>
>>12.45:23.6 Radio altimeter [Fifty]
>>
>>12.45:26 Captain OK ,I'm OK there, disconnect autothrottle
>>
>>12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty]
>>
>>12.45:32 Co-pilot Watch out for those pylons ahaead, eh. See them?
>>
>>12.45:33 Co-pilot Yeah, yeah, don't worry.
>>
>>12.45:34.5 [Clack! Clack! Clack!] - power lever dentents
>>
>>12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]
>>
>>12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter [Thirty]
>>
>>12.45:37 Co-pilot TOGA/SRS
>>
>>12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]
>>
>>12.45:39 Captain Go around track
>>
>>12.45:39.9 Captain Sh...!
>>
>>12.45:41.5 END OF TAPE
>>
>>
>>
>>NOTE
>>
>>12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]
>>12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred]
>>
>>that's a sudden sink rate of 4000 fpm as reported by the 'radio altimeter' whilst at around
>>100ft !
>>
>>I assume that the second time is actually incorrect since it's out of sequence but I found the
>>same on another copy of the transcript.
>>
>>Let's assume say it should be 12.45:15 ( more in lline with other timings ) - still indicates a
>>sudden sink @ around 1800 fpm !
>>
>>So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak
>>spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC.
>>
>>I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and
>>reverted to baro readings.
>>
>>
>>Regds, Graham
>
>You need to know that at 12:45:11, the aircraft was still well off the
>airport area by several thousand yards. They were over a hilly,
>partially-forested area (Hardt Forest) to the right of the approach end of
>runway 02 (which was the actual runway they were supposed to parallel
>during the flyover). You should also know that radar altimeters report the
>distance between the transceiver antennas and any objects below. So, if
>the topography of the area below varies, or the altitude varies, the
>readings change nearly immediately. Changes in the attitude of the
>aircraft can sometimes have effects on the readings also. This is
>something that an experienced Captain would know, and something a
>planespotter would not.
>
>If you would actually read something comprehensive concerning this
>accident, you could see that the RadAlt was consistent while over the
>relatively level terrain of the airfield - just as one would expect.

As in (as quoted by Pooh):

>>12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty]
>>
>>12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]
>>
>>12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter [Thirty]
>>
>>12.45:37 Co-pilot TOGA/SRS
>>
>>12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]


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

[Pooh Bear]

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >
> > > Not surprising for Puke Bear.
> >
> > Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?
> >
> > I once thought you were an intelligent person.
> >
> > Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
> > case of Berteimania ?
>
> YOU sound hysterical.

Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad.

So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ?

I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ?

You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level
currently shown by most a.d.a contributors.

I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal
abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty
much voids you of any credibility.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:20 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak
> >spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC.
> >
> >I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and
> >reverted to baro readings.
> >
> >
> >Regds, Graham
>
> You need to know that at 12:45:11, the aircraft was still well off the
> airport area by several thousand yards. They were over a hilly,
> partially-forested area (Hardt Forest) to the right of the approach end of
> runway 02 (which was the actual runway they were supposed to parallel
> during the flyover).

Ahh - the problem with the briefing !

> You should also know that radar altimeters report the
> distance between the transceiver antennas and any objects below.

Yes indeed - I do.

> So, if
> the topography of the area below varies, or the altitude varies, the
> readings change nearly immediately.

Agreed.

So let's check the topography then ? The flight path etc. From my own experience, that general area
is pretty flat but I'm interested in seeing any info.

> Changes in the attitude of the
> aircraft can sometimes have effects on the readings also.

I can see that too - indeed you could possibly call it a deficiency of rad alts.

> This is
> something that an experienced Captain would know, and something a
> planespotter would not.

Can't resist being Bertei's pal ? If only I had the time to go spot planes ! Last time I had a
look-around I saw some nice kit at Panshanger. I'd rather spend my time 'spotting' attractive women
- and getting to know them actually.

> If you would actually read something comprehensive concerning this accident, you could see that
> the RadAlt was consistent while over the relatively level terrain of the airfield - just as one
> would expect.

Indeed it is.


> I also assume that if the radar altimeter was broken, it would have been
> deferred MMEL and cited as such in the investigation.

I never asserted it was broken. Simply that the implementation at that time in the A320 had given
rise to concerns about its accuracy.

Actually - you succeeded in diverting my attention from what I consider to be one of the more
intruiging aspects of this crash - notably a suggested compressor stall.


Graham

[John Keeney]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/29/04 12:03 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> <SNIP>
> >> They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right
now
> >> it's HUGE!
> >
> > COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size
> > department
> > and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I
> > believe.
> > The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train.
> >
> >
>
> Not familiar... Got a reference link? I'm interested.

Not any more, I sacrificed that pile of papers to a fire during
a training exercise.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> > Pooh Bear > wrote:
> > > "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not surprising for Puke Bear.
> > >
> > > Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?
> > >
> > > I once thought you were an intelligent person.
> > >
> > > Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
> > > case of Berteimania ?
> >
> > YOU sound hysterical.
>
> Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad.
>
> So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ?
>
> I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ?
>
> You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level
> currently shown by most a.d.a contributors.
>
> I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal
> abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty
> much voids you of any credibility.

You allege I "resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse", and then you post
strings of personal abuse.

Hypocrite!

[Pechs1]

ice-<< On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of
stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or
B-2s. >><BR><BR>

Maybe B-1s, but not the B-2...particularly when the sun comes up.

ice-<< (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the
same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?
>><BR><BR>

One F-18, after the B-1 gets bagged....

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pooh Bear]

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:19:22 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:19:55 +0000, Pooh Bear
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >JL Grasso wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Citing your recollection of a news clip (which you saw live in 1998)
> >> >
> >> >Please illustrate where I said that ? 1998 ! Uh ?
> >>
> >> "I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live
> >> recorded footage"
> >
> >Note that I said clearly 'in recorded footage' that was taken live. I didn't say I saw it live
> >myself.
> >
> >Presumably you meant 1988 ?
>
> Whether you meant that you compared them from recollection, or that you
> relied solely on the documentary for comparison really is not significant
> to me at this point.

You would dismiss photographic evidence ? I can see I'll have to ferret out that tape if it still
exists.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

> You allege I "resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse", and then you post
> strings of personal abuse.

You started the name calling. Now let's stop it - ok ?

>
> Hypocrite!

Quite !

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:44:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Not surprising for Puke Bear.
> >> >
> >> > Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?
> >> >
> >> > I once thought you were an intelligent person.
> >> >
> >> > Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
> >> > case of Berteimania ?
> >>
> >> YOU sound hysterical.
> >
> >Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad.
> >
> >So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ?
> >
> >I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ?
> >
> >You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level
> >currently shown by most a.d.a contributors.
> >
> >I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal
> >abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty
> >much voids you of any credibility.
>
> I assume you may have been addressing me here in your reply to Scott.

In part.

> I
> apologize for any slight(s) that you may deem personally insulting.

Thank you kindly.

>
> Understand that it's a bit tedious and somewhat frustrating to debate with
> someone who ignores points that should be understood of certain
> technologies which are called into question.
>
> I will grant you that your technical knowledge is likely greater than that
> of the average planespotter, and I'll try and keep the debate on an
> accordingly professional level.

Much appreciated.

Your comments have been very interesting actually.

Regds, Graham

[Pooh Bear]

JL Grasso wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:58:20 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >You would dismiss photographic evidence ? I can see I'll have to ferret out that tape if it still
> >exists.
>
> All that I've seen is the photographs (stills) on the airdisaster.com
> site, and I don't feel that there is any signicance whatsoever in what is
> shown there. Still, I'm open to whatever arises, and will gladly admit
> that I'm wrong should I be shown compelling evidence which supports your
> assertion.
>
> I'd also be more than interested in viewing the documentary(s) that you
> reference. If you know how / where I could purchase one, please let me
> know.

I found a link that gave a number to order a copy of the Channel 4 Equinox programme - need to
backtrack and find again. Actually, I have a feeling they did more than one programme on this - but no
matter.

It's likely to be UK PAL though - can you view that ?

> We need to get this resolved before you start trying to tell me that a 757
> did not hit the Pentagon!

LOL, Graham

[Woody Beal]

On 2/29/04 8:58, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Not at all; your argument was so lacking in logic that I saw little reason
> to bother. But if you are so interested in improving yourself, here goes:

Quite the condescending gentleman aren't you?

> "CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it
<SNIP>
>
> What you ignore is that the "capping" (by which you actually menat
> "stacking", I presume) is utterly dependent upon a number of external
> factors that don't necessarily impact the operations of a STOVL aircraft.

'Round and 'round. First of all, stack is not a verb. It's a noun. If I'm
in the CAS stack, I'm capping.

> You have to have tankers to support the CAS stack--tankers are a commodity
<SNIP>
> the ground commander's needs. He wants some CBU-105's in the mix? <SNIP>

You make a correct argument. The nearer an airfield/CV is to the battle,
the more sorties you can generate. Afghanistan is a good example of a place
that was hard to get to by both CV and the USAF.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk/extra cost, and I disagree with your
assessment of how many scenarios make the concept worth the cost. The
decision has been made. I disagree with it.

<SNIP>
>> It was actually YOU that suggested that the USAF was trying to make nice
>> with the USMC.
>
> No, it was not. I was being quite facetious with that query. That you found
> it palusible is rather telling of your grasp of this situation.
>

I've got a darned good grasp of it. Perhaps you have a problem
communicating your point. Leave the sarcasm out, and we can conduct an
intelligent discussion.

> Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most
<SNIP>
>They are already onboard. They just seem to grasp the importance of being
> more versatile a bit better than you do.

I grasp what's useful and what's not.

>>
>>>
>>> Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
<SNIP>
>> that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I
>> was on a roll.)
>
> Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me.
> Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a
> different lift system.
>

You asked. I answered. The data for more experienced pilots stacks up the
same. I included the 500 hrs or less data because it's what I had at my
fingertips. Most military pilots will tell you that the AV-8B's mishap
rates are above other military aircraft--and it's a maintenance hog.

>>
>> According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few
<SNIP>
>
> So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an indictment of
> the STOVL concept itself.
>

That is simply burying your head in the sand. A more complex airplane will
fail more often than a less complex airplane. Historically, the AV-8B has
meted this out.


<SNIP>
>
> Unless you can't support the operation adequately with the CTOL aircraft.
>
> Brooks
>

Which you can.

--Woody

>>
>> Now ask me if I think it's a good idea that the F-35 is a single engine
>> aircraft or whether I think it's a good idea that the Navy guys have
>> decided not to put an internal gun on their version.
>>
>> --Woody
>>
>
>

[running with scissors]

Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> JL Grasso wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:20 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak
> > >spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC.
> > >
> > >I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and
> > >reverted to baro readings.
> > >
> > >
> > >Regds, Graham
> >
> > You need to know that at 12:45:11, the aircraft was still well off the
> > airport area by several thousand yards. They were over a hilly,
> > partially-forested area (Hardt Forest) to the right of the approach end of
> > runway 02 (which was the actual runway they were supposed to parallel
> > during the flyover).
>
> Ahh - the problem with the briefing !
>
> > You should also know that radar altimeters report the
> > distance between the transceiver antennas and any objects below.
>
> Yes indeed - I do.
>
> > So, if
> > the topography of the area below varies, or the altitude varies, the
> > readings change nearly immediately.
>
> Agreed.
>
> So let's check the topography then ? The flight path etc. From my own experience, that general area
> is pretty flat but I'm interested in seeing any info.
>
> > Changes in the attitude of the
> > aircraft can sometimes have effects on the readings also.
>
> I can see that too - indeed you could possibly call it a deficiency of rad alts.
>
> > This is
> > something that an experienced Captain would know, and something a
> > planespotter would not.
>
> Can't resist being Bertei's pal ? If only I had the time to go spot planes ! Last time I had a
> look-around I saw some nice kit at Panshanger. I'd rather spend my time 'spotting' attractive women
> - and getting to know them actually.
>
> > If you would actually read something comprehensive concerning this accident, you could see that
> > the RadAlt was consistent while over the relatively level terrain of the airfield - just as one
> > would expect.
>
> Indeed it is.
>
>
> > I also assume that if the radar altimeter was broken, it would have been
> > deferred MMEL and cited as such in the investigation.
>
> I never asserted it was broken. Simply that the implementation at that time in the A320 had given
> rise to concerns about its accuracy.
>
> Actually - you succeeded in diverting my attention from what I consider to be one of the more
> intruiging aspects of this crash - notably a suggested compressor stall.
>
>
> Graham

nope no comressor stall.

according to tarver, airbus's crash at the end of the runway because
its unknown and unmapped.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/29/04 8:58, in article , "Kevin
> Brooks" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Not at all; your argument was so lacking in logic that I saw little
reason
> > to bother. But if you are so interested in improving yourself, here
goes:
>
> Quite the condescending gentleman aren't you?

Not really. I was willing to let that particular passage go unanswered, but
you are so all fired up to debate it that you wanted to make a big point of
it, so you got your answer.

>
> > "CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because
it
> <SNIP>
> >
> > What you ignore is that the "capping" (by which you actually menat
> > "stacking", I presume) is utterly dependent upon a number of external
> > factors that don't necessarily impact the operations of a STOVL
aircraft.
>
> 'Round and 'round. First of all, stack is not a verb. It's a noun.

Better check the ol' dictionary again. It is indeed also a verb; my
handy-dandy Webster's defines it as "to pile up in a stack".

If I'm
> in the CAS stack, I'm capping.

Whatever you say, pal. I had assumed you were referring to some
verb-transformed version of CAP, as in "combat air patrol". If so you might
want to clue DoD in on your change to the definition of CAP, which is, "An
aircraft patrol provided over an objective area, the force protected, the
critical area of a combat zone, or in an air defense area, for the purpose
of intercepting and destroying hostile aircraft before they reach their
targets. Also called CAP. See also airborne alert; barrier combat air
patrol; patrol; rescue combat air patrol." Don't see any reference to CAS
usage there. ( http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/c/01033.html )
Of course, to be completely honest, there is no reference to the term CAS
stack in that publication, either. So why don't we just both claim victory
regarding this particularly weighty matter and be done with it? :)

>
> > You have to have tankers to support the CAS stack--tankers are a
commodity
> <SNIP>
> > the ground commander's needs. He wants some CBU-105's in the mix? <SNIP>
>
> You make a correct argument. The nearer an airfield/CV is to the battle,
> the more sorties you can generate. Afghanistan is a good example of a
place
> that was hard to get to by both CV and the USAF.

And it was also one where the inability to provide specific weapons loadout
requests in a timely manner was problematic, as witnessed by the Anaconda
fight, where the aircraft were not always optimally loaded out to handle the
requirments of the ground force at that given moment--this is another
advantage of the STOVL platform, which can hit a FARP to load out the
required munitions.

>
> I'm saying it's not worth the risk/extra cost, and I disagree with your
> assessment of how many scenarios make the concept worth the cost. The
> decision has been made. I disagree with it.

Fine. Disagreement within our military is, IMO, what makes it great. As
Patton once said, "If everybody is in agreement, then somebody is not
thinking" (or something similarly worded--been a few years since I read that
quote). I'll take the opposite stance, in that I view increasing our
versatility as a key requirement for our future military needs, especially
in view of the environment that we find ourselves in and facing for the
foreseeable future, where a lack of specific threat characterization until
that threat is immediately immenent is the norm.

>
> <SNIP>
> >> It was actually YOU that suggested that the USAF was trying to make
nice
> >> with the USMC.
> >
> > No, it was not. I was being quite facetious with that query. That you
found
> > it palusible is rather telling of your grasp of this situation.
> >
>
> I've got a darned good grasp of it. Perhaps you have a problem
> communicating your point. Leave the sarcasm out, and we can conduct an
> intelligent discussion.

Apologies if you were offended. The sarcasm introduced in my original
comment regarding whether you thought the USAF was merely making nice to the
USMC was IMO rather mild--hang around Usenet long enough and you will
experience much worse, I promise you. Suffice it to say that the USAF is not
pursuing the purchase of the STVL version of the F-35 as a minor portion of
their overall F-35 buy due to any desire to make things easy for the USMC,
OK?

>
> > Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most
> <SNIP>
> >They are already onboard. They just seem to grasp the importance of being
> > more versatile a bit better than you do.
>
> I grasp what's useful and what's not.

If you can't grasp the "usefulness" of versatility in the modern and future
military picture, then I beleive you need to reconsider. Had I told you in
August of 2001 that we needed to be able and ready to go into Afghanistan
with a combination of airpower and landpower, you'd have laughed at me. The
plain fact of the matter is that we don't *know* where, when, how, or what
the next threat will be or its nature. That requires versatility on the part
of the military forces. The USAF has probably been one of the more energetic
proponents of improving the versatility of its units and platforms; the USMC
another. The Army and Navy have been IMO relative late bloomers in this
regard, but now we are seeing some real movement in their camps as well. The
flip-side of this versatility card is that those forces that *don't* become
versatile, or can't become more versatile, become prime fodder for
elimination by being labled as "non-transformational" (the Army, for
example, is *finally* moving towards the concept of the brigade combat team
being its primary unit of action, as opposed to the Cold War
mentality-inspired division; this helps a bit in making their heavy
formations a bit more versatile in terms of how we will use them). A USAF
tactical fighter force that includes some STOVL F-35B's along with the CTOL
F-35A's is by definition going to be a more versatile force than one which
is solely A model equipped.

>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
> <SNIP>
> >> that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I
> >> was on a roll.)
> >
> > Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to
me.
> > Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a
> > different lift system.
> >
>
> You asked. I answered. The data for more experienced pilots stacks up
the
> same. I included the 500 hrs or less data because it's what I had at my
> fingertips. Most military pilots will tell you that the AV-8B's mishap
> rates are above other military aircraft--and it's a maintenance hog.

OK, here are a couple of numbers I ran over: AV-8 accident rate per 100K
hours was 12 (admittedly an "ouch!", but I am not sure they were not lumping
together *all* AV-8 records, to include the early AV-8A)...and the accident
rate for the old CTOL F-8 Crusader through its lifetime? 16. That does not
equate to a definite case of being able to claim that STOVL is inherently
more risky than CTOL.

>
> >>
> >> According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few
> <SNIP>
> >
> > So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an
indictment of
> > the STOVL concept itself.
> >
>
> That is simply burying your head in the sand. A more complex airplane
will
> fail more often than a less complex airplane. Historically, the AV-8B has
> meted this out.

And the F-8 Crusader? The F-104, which peaked at an astounding 139 per 100K
hours back in the 1960's? The Century Series fighters generally all had
accident rates that exceeded those for the AV-8. If increased complexity
resulted in a direct and irreversable increase in the accident rate, then
why are today's more complex aircraft exhibiting a much lower accident rate
than their earlier ancestors?

Finally, how does the AV-8 accident rate imply a direct connection with that
which can be expected for the F-35B, which will use a radically different
lift system (partly because of the past problems with the AV-8?)?

>
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > Unless you can't support the operation adequately with the CTOL
aircraft.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> Which you can.

You can't guarantee that. Imagine a scenario where the fight in Afghanistan
had not been able to rely as heavily as it did upon the Northern Alliance in
the ground combat role. When US lives are on the line in that ground
environment, the demand for CAS will inevitably increase. The demand for
tanker support to keep the C-17's flowing into the intermediate staging
base, or even directly into the area of operations' aerial port of
debarkation (APOD), will increase, meaning less available to support the use
of CTOL fighters in the loooong range CAS effort. Or, imagine a scenario
where we are forced to (gasp!) take on two different simulataneous combat
operations in different theaters, one being a more major conflict that
consumes the lions share of the available tanking and bomber (read as
"really long range and high capacity CAS platform, in addition to its BAI
and "strategic" roles") assets. You don't have the option of just saying,
"Sorry, no CAS for you guys in theater B due to the range restrictions."
Versatility rules.

Brooks

>
> --Woody
>
> >>
> >> Now ask me if I think it's a good idea that the F-35 is a single engine
> >> aircraft or whether I think it's a good idea that the Navy guys have
> >> decided not to put an internal gun on their version.
> >>
> >> --Woody
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Woody Beal]

On 3/1/04 21:44, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" > wrote:

>
> "Woody Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
<SNIP>
> Not really. I was willing to let that particular passage go unanswered, but
> you are so all fired up to debate it that you wanted to make a big point of
> it, so you got your answer.
>

Fair enough. I'll put it to bed.

>>
>>> "CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because
<SNIP>
> stack in that publication, either. So why don't we just both claim victory
> regarding this particularly weighty matter and be done with it? :)
>

I'm done with this point too.

>>
>>> You have to have tankers to support the CAS stack--tankers are a
<SNIP>
>>
>> I've got a darned good grasp of it. Perhaps you have a problem
>> communicating your point. Leave the sarcasm out, and we can conduct an
>> intelligent discussion.
>
> Apologies if you were offended. The sarcasm introduced in my original
> comment regarding whether you thought the USAF was merely making nice to the
> USMC was IMO rather mild--hang around Usenet long enough and you will
> experience much worse, I promise you. Suffice it to say that the USAF is not
> pursuing the purchase of the STVL version of the F-35 as a minor portion of
> their overall F-35 buy due to any desire to make things easy for the USMC,
> OK?
>

OK. Now we're ebbing and flowing. Any offense taken on my part was
certainly minor. I hope that I haven't given you the impression that I'm
the thin-skinned type. I've been dealing with critique and criticism for
years (not just since I started conversing on RAMN in about 1995 either).
Frankly, the more I learn about aviation and tactics, the more I realize I
don't know.

Honestly, any speculation on my part about why the USAF is buying STOVL
F-35's is just that.

<SNIP>
> formations a bit more versatile in terms of how we will use them). A USAF
> tactical fighter force that includes some STOVL F-35B's along with the CTOL
> F-35A's is by definition going to be a more versatile force than one which
> is solely A model equipped.

Yes it is. It also provides them a shot at expansion and secures a foothold
in what they probably consider to be a growth area in tactical aviation.
The blue-suited brethren are fairly savvy folk.

>>>>> Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
>> <SNIP>
>
> OK, here are a couple of numbers I ran over: AV-8 accident rate per 100K
> hours was 12 (admittedly an "ouch!", but I am not sure they were not lumping
> together *all* AV-8 records, to include the early AV-8A)...and the accident
> rate for the old CTOL F-8 Crusader through its lifetime? 16. That does not
> equate to a definite case of being able to claim that STOVL is inherently
> more risky than CTOL.
>

F-8 and AV-8B are apples and oranges (old apples, young oranges?) due to
their operating in mostly different eras. During a portion of the F-8's
life span, many of the safety programs that were input in later years (e.g.
the NATOPS program IIRC) were not in effect. Compare the F/A-18 or F-14
rates with the AV-8B.

The microcosm I mentioned at China Lake (while certainly anecdotal), speaks
to the larger issue. On the way to dinner tonight, I polled a couple of
(Hornet) pilots as to how they thought the AV-8B stacked up to the F/A-18
from a safety standpoint. Death trap was the general consensus. Granted,
they think neanderthal, like me.

>>
>>>>
>>>> According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an
> indictment of
>>> the STOVL concept itself.
>>>
>>
>> That is simply burying your head in the sand. A more complex airplane
> will
>> fail more often than a less complex airplane. Historically, the AV-8B has
>> meted this out.
>
> And the F-8 Crusader? The F-104, which peaked at an astounding 139 per 100K
> hours back in the 1960's? The Century Series fighters generally all had
> accident rates that exceeded those for the AV-8. If increased complexity
> resulted in a direct and irreversable increase in the accident rate, then
> why are today's more complex aircraft exhibiting a much lower accident rate
> than their earlier ancestors?
>

Time period is important in this discussion as alluded to above because of
safety programs (currency requirements, NATOPS, annual check rides, etc.
that were put into effect).

> Finally, how does the AV-8 accident rate imply a direct connection with that
> which can be expected for the F-35B, which will use a radically different
> lift system (partly because of the past problems with the AV-8?)?
>

Honestly, no one knows for sure. Most likely better because we've learned
some important lessons from the AV-8A/B and are applying a different
solution to the problem of STOVL. My guess is that because it still relies
on more moving parts than it's CTOL counterparts in a critical phase of
flight, it'll have a higher mishap rate.

Again, unofficial dinner poll: Opinion of the STOVL F-35? Not worth it.

<SNIP>
> "Sorry, no CAS for you guys in theater B due to the range restrictions."
> Versatility rules.
>
> Brooks
>

Ironically, I also find myself arguing from the same perspective when I talk
to USAF dudes who say that CV's are washed up and not cost effective, so
believe me when I say, I see your points.

--Woody

[Kevin Brooks]

"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/1/04 21:44, in article , "Kevin
> Brooks" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Woody Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...

<snip>

>
> OK. Now we're ebbing and flowing. Any offense taken on my part was
> certainly minor. I hope that I haven't given you the impression that I'm
> the thin-skinned type. I've been dealing with critique and criticism for
> years (not just since I started conversing on RAMN in about 1995 either).
> Frankly, the more I learn about aviation and tactics, the more I realize I
> don't know.

Shoot, I don't know diddly about actual air tactics beyond what I have read,
so you are light years ahead of me. I have had some experience with the CAS
planning cycle from the groundpounder's perspective, and one of the biggest
gripes we had was the lack of responsiveness and that 72-48-24 hour
timeline. To give the USAF credit where it is due, it sounds like that
situation has improved mightily over the past couple of years.

>
> Honestly, any speculation on my part about why the USAF is buying STOVL
> F-35's is just that.
>
> <SNIP>
> > formations a bit more versatile in terms of how we will use them). A
USAF
> > tactical fighter force that includes some STOVL F-35B's along with the
CTOL
> > F-35A's is by definition going to be a more versatile force than one
which
> > is solely A model equipped.
>
> Yes it is. It also provides them a shot at expansion and secures a
foothold
> in what they probably consider to be a growth area in tactical aviation.
> The blue-suited brethren are fairly savvy folk.

That is true too. Though my take is that the term "joint" now has a
significantly more concrete meaning in all of the services than it did even
five or six years ago.

>
> >>>>> Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or
any
> >> <SNIP>
> >
> > OK, here are a couple of numbers I ran over: AV-8 accident rate per 100K
> > hours was 12 (admittedly an "ouch!", but I am not sure they were not
lumping
> > together *all* AV-8 records, to include the early AV-8A)...and the
accident
> > rate for the old CTOL F-8 Crusader through its lifetime? 16. That does
not
> > equate to a definite case of being able to claim that STOVL is
inherently
> > more risky than CTOL.
> >
>
> F-8 and AV-8B are apples and oranges (old apples, young oranges?) due to
> their operating in mostly different eras. During a portion of the F-8's
> life span, many of the safety programs that were input in later years
(e.g.
> the NATOPS program IIRC) were not in effect. Compare the F/A-18 or F-14
> rates with the AV-8B.

Twin engined aircraft with single engine aircraft? I don't think so. Take
the F-16, which does indeed have a significantly lower accident rate (a bit
under three per 100K hours IIRC). I can see your point, and acknowledge that
the AV-8 is indeed more accident prone than its contemporaries--but that
does noy IMO yield a concrete conclusion versus the F-35B.

>
> The microcosm I mentioned at China Lake (while certainly anecdotal),
speaks
> to the larger issue. On the way to dinner tonight, I polled a couple of
> (Hornet) pilots as to how they thought the AV-8B stacked up to the F/A-18
> from a safety standpoint. Death trap was the general consensus. Granted,
> they think neanderthal, like me.

Yeah, I once attended a joint course with a polyglot of participants,
including both an F-18 pilot and a P-3 bus driver. The Hornet driver was
ceaseless in his hammering of the Orion guy--I think he was mainly ****ed
because to him "deployment" meant six months on a CVN halfway around the
world, while the VP folks were pulling up to 179-day (in order to keep it
under that TDY pay maximum) rotations to Iceland, where the fishing is
outstanding (I don't recall him decrying the VP folks also having to do
those tours during the winter months...). Definitely neanderthal... :-)

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an
> > indictment of
> >>> the STOVL concept itself.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is simply burying your head in the sand. A more complex airplane
> > will
> >> fail more often than a less complex airplane. Historically, the AV-8B
has
> >> meted this out.
> >
> > And the F-8 Crusader? The F-104, which peaked at an astounding 139 per
100K
> > hours back in the 1960's? The Century Series fighters generally all had
> > accident rates that exceeded those for the AV-8. If increased complexity
> > resulted in a direct and irreversable increase in the accident rate,
then
> > why are today's more complex aircraft exhibiting a much lower accident
rate
> > than their earlier ancestors?
> >
>
> Time period is important in this discussion as alluded to above because of
> safety programs (currency requirements, NATOPS, annual check rides, etc.
> that were put into effect).

I have no doubt that those factors are important. But when all is said and
done, the fact is that as aircraft complexity has increased, the accident
rate has generally decreased. This is true even *since* such safety programs
were initiated--witness the low rate for the F-16, which has within its own
career grown increasingly complex (compare a F-16A Block 10 to the F-16C
Block 52). I do believe that its accident rate is abit lower than that of
the F-4, which had that whole extra engine included... :)

>
> > Finally, how does the AV-8 accident rate imply a direct connection with
that
> > which can be expected for the F-35B, which will use a radically
different
> > lift system (partly because of the past problems with the AV-8?)?
> >
>
> Honestly, no one knows for sure. Most likely better because we've learned
> some important lessons from the AV-8A/B and are applying a different
> solution to the problem of STOVL. My guess is that because it still
relies
> on more moving parts than it's CTOL counterparts in a critical phase of
> flight, it'll have a higher mishap rate.

Maybe. But then again, maybe not. For all we know the typically "increased
risk" associated with operatins from a CVN may lead to the C model having a
worse accident record. I don't think there is enough information that
*could* be available at this point to postively conclude either way.

>
> Again, unofficial dinner poll: Opinion of the STOVL F-35? Not worth it.

OK. But go back to those folks and ask them to earnestly try to put
themselves in the boots of the brigade commander on the ground who has
troops in contact, is outnumbered (as we can expect to be in many cases),
and needs to shift his air support quickly from one target set to a whole
new class of targets, while also needing/desperately wanting an increase of
maybe 30% in the CAS sortie count--and oh, by the way, the nearest CTOL
fighter airstrip is 1000 miles away, since they have yet to reconstruct the
airfield in his AO that is supporting him via C-130 shuttle. Do you think
that *he* might value having a squadron (USAF type, with 24 birds) of SOVL
assets capable of hitting a FARP ten or twelve klicks to the rear of his CP?

Or alternatively, when the CVN's are all clustered in (choose body of water)
handling the major contingency going down with (choose potential foe), and
your USMC BLT is forced to devite from its transit to that area while
enroute and FRAGO'd to execute operations independently elsewhere, would you
want the services of some F-35B's operating as part of your parent amphib
strike group?

>
> <SNIP>
> > "Sorry, no CAS for you guys in theater B due to the range restrictions."
> > Versatility rules.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> Ironically, I also find myself arguing from the same perspective when I
talk
> to USAF dudes who say that CV's are washed up and not cost effective, so
> believe me when I say, I see your points.

OK. I personally find the CVN to be of immense import--in specific
circumstances and conditions. Much like the F-35B--it ain't the best
all-around strike/CAS platform available, but it does have its niches.
Neither is necessarily the best tool for *all* potentialities.

Are you still at China Lake? Wonderful place (note my sarcasm)...right next
to that other gardenspot I used to frequent on occasion, FT Irwin (even more
sarcasm). Last time I went through that area I spent the night in that
little town near the main entrance to China Lake, enroute to Lone Pine for a
few days fishing in the higher elevations.

Brooks

>
> --Woody
>

[Guy Alcala]

Pechs1 wrote:

> ice-<< On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of
> stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or
> B-2s. >><BR><BR>
>
> Maybe B-1s, but not the B-2...particularly when the sun comes up.

Don't see why, the B-2's got a far better ceiling than the B-1, as well as being
radar/IR stealthy.

> ice-<< (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the
> same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?
> >><BR><BR>
>
> One F-18, after the B-1 gets bagged....

Up to now, at least, its the F-18s that have been getting bagged.

Guy

[Pechs1]

Guy-<< Don't see why, the B-2's got a far better ceiling than the B-1, as well
as being
radar/IR stealthy. >><BR><BR>

Wingy to lead-"What's that thing at right 2 oclock?"

"HS, a B-2, lead's in hot."

Get in front of it and strafe it like a truck.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Woody Beal]

On 3/2/04 0:18, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" > wrote:

>
> "Woody Beal" > wrote in message
<SNIP>
>
> Shoot, I don't know diddly about actual air tactics beyond what I have read,
> so you are light years ahead of me. I have had some experience with the CAS
> planning cycle from the groundpounder's perspective, and one of the biggest
> gripes we had was the lack of responsiveness and that 72-48-24 hour
> timeline. To give the USAF credit where it is due, it sounds like that
> situation has improved mightily over the past couple of years.
>

I know a bit--all from the perspective of Naval Aviation. I know what we
bring to the table.

<SNIP>
>
> Twin engined aircraft with single engine aircraft? I don't think so. Take
> the F-16, which does indeed have a significantly lower accident rate (a bit
> under three per 100K hours IIRC). I can see your point, and acknowledge that
> the AV-8 is indeed more accident prone than its contemporaries--but that
> does noy IMO yield a concrete conclusion versus the F-35B.
>

Concur that it does not yield a concrete conclusion, but it does yield a
tendency based on several possible single point failures. If lift fan doors
don't open, if lift rotor fails to engage properly, if engine fails during
transition to STOVL life gets tough at a very critical and low altitude
moment. These problems (though not identical) are similar to those
experienced in the AV-8B.

Mechanical failures in the STOVL regime are unforgiving because of their low
altitude locale.

>>
>> The microcosm I mentioned at China Lake (while certainly anecdotal),
<SNIP>
> those tours during the winter months...). Definitely neanderthal... :-)
>

Beating up on P-3 guys is a standard Hornet pilot sport. I choose not to
participate--kind of like clubbing baby seals--no sport in it.

<SNIP>
>> Time period is important in this discussion as alluded to above because of
>> safety programs (currency requirements, NATOPS, annual check rides, etc.
>> that were put into effect).
>
> I have no doubt that those factors are important. But when all is said and
> done, the fact is that as aircraft complexity has increased, the accident
> rate has generally decreased. This is true even *since* such safety programs
> were initiated--witness the low rate for the F-16, which has within its own
> career grown increasingly complex (compare a F-16A Block 10 to the F-16C
> Block 52). I do believe that its accident rate is abit lower than that of
> the F-4, which had that whole extra engine included... :)
>

Complexity is not the sole issue as you point out. Sometimes it goes toward
mission accomplishment, sometimes survivability, and some of that complexity
goes toward increasing flight safety. In the case of the F-16 or the
F/A-18, the mechanical complexity associated with the flight controls
actually keeps those aircraft in the air. In the case of the F-14, the DFCS
makes the jet more stable. The complexity of the F-35B when compared to the
C or the A only gives it an additional option for landing--a complexity with
several possible single point failures in a critical flight regime.

>>
>>> Finally, how does the AV-8 accident rate imply a direct connection with
> that
>>> which can be expected for the F-35B, which will use a radically
> different
>>> lift system (partly because of the past problems with the AV-8?)?
>>>
>>
>> Honestly, no one knows for sure. Most likely better because we've learned
>> some important lessons from the AV-8A/B and are applying a different
>> solution to the problem of STOVL. My guess is that because it still
> relies
>> on more moving parts than it's CTOL counterparts in a critical phase of
>> flight, it'll have a higher mishap rate.
>
> Maybe. But then again, maybe not. For all we know the typically "increased
> risk" associated with operatins from a CVN may lead to the C model having a
> worse accident record. I don't think there is enough information that
> *could* be available at this point to postively conclude either way.
>

My experience tells me that the STOVL will crash more than the CV which will
crash more than the CTOL.

>>
>> Again, unofficial dinner poll: Opinion of the STOVL F-35? Not worth it.
>
> OK. But go back to those folks and ask them to earnestly try to put
> themselves in the boots of the brigade commander on the ground who has
> troops in contact, is outnumbered (as we can expect to be in many cases),
> and needs to shift his air support quickly from one target set to a whole
> new class of targets, while also needing/desperately wanting an increase of
> maybe 30% in the CAS sortie count--and oh, by the way, the nearest CTOL
> fighter airstrip is 1000 miles away, since they have yet to reconstruct the
> airfield in his AO that is supporting him via C-130 shuttle. Do you think
> that *he* might value having a squadron (USAF type, with 24 birds) of SOVL
> assets capable of hitting a FARP ten or twelve klicks to the rear of his CP?
>

Absolutely. There aren't many scenarios like this in the world, though.
China maybe? Even in OIF, aircraft from ship's in the north (much further
than in the south) transited only about 350NM ro so to get into theater.

> Or alternatively, when the CVN's are all clustered in (choose body of water)
> handling the major contingency going down with (choose potential foe), and
> your USMC BLT is forced to devite from its transit to that area while
> enroute and FRAGO'd to execute operations independently elsewhere, would you
> want the services of some F-35B's operating as part of your parent amphib
> strike group?
>

Again, a luxury. "All the CVN's" tells me that you could easily spit one to
support the strike group--up to the elephants to fight out.

<SNIP>
> OK. I personally find the CVN to be of immense import--in specific
> circumstances and conditions. Much like the F-35B--it ain't the best
> all-around strike/CAS platform available, but it does have its niches.
> Neither is necessarily the best tool for *all* potentialities.
>

And I would like the U.S. Military to buy every weapons system out there...
Including F-35B's (which they will). I'd like them to have the money to
continue to recapitalize filling Carrier decks, and ARG's and MAG's with
aircraft. I'd like them to buy SATCOM for all of my Army buddies on the
ground--you get the picture.

I disagree with the way we've decided to spend our limited funds (F-35B, CV
version with no gun, F-22, etc).

> Are you still at China Lake? Wonderful place (note my sarcasm)...right next
> to that other gardenspot I used to frequent on occasion, FT Irwin (even more
> sarcasm). Last time I went through that area I spent the night in that
> little town near the main entrance to China Lake, enroute to Lone Pine for a
> few days fishing in the higher elevations.
>
> Brooks

Nope. Left there for the fleet in 1996. Loved living there though. Best
flying I've ever done. Worked for a great boss. Learned a LOT about RDT&E,
BRAC, civil servants, and the ins and outs of large organizations.

--Woody

[Guy Alcala]

Pechs1 wrote:

> Guy-<< Don't see why, the B-2's got a far better ceiling than the B-1, as well
> as being
> radar/IR stealthy. >><BR><BR>
>
> Wingy to lead-"What's that thing at right 2 oclock?"
>
> "HS, a B-2, lead's in hot."
>
> Get in front of it and strafe it like a truck.

And how many layers of CAP are they going to have to get through before they'd
even have the chance? That is, assuming we haven't destroyed every runway and
taxiway in the country first with cruise missiles or other weapons, and it's
pretty damned unlikely that we'd risk a B-1 or B-2 by day before we had air
supremacy.

Guy

[Pete Schaefer]

"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> Concur that it does not yield a concrete conclusion, but it does yield a
> tendency based on several possible single point failures. If lift fan
doors
> don't open, if lift rotor fails to engage properly, if engine fails during
> transition to STOVL life gets tough at a very critical and low altitude
> moment. These problems (though not identical) are similar to those
> experienced in the AV-8B.

Actually, conversion is done at an altitude and speed that, if it fails,
you're still wing-borne. The airplane fails back to a regular engine. Just
pop the TVL forward and continue to fly conventional. THe diciest moment
for the lift-fan system is during clutch engagement, but you don't perform
that in a high-exposure kind of situation. Doors and all that aren't really
a problem, cuz you'll know there's a problem before you expose yourself.

> Mechanical failures in the STOVL regime are unforgiving because of their
low
> altitude locale.

Yup. But a lot of stuff in the engine/lift-fan system is monitored. Health
checking on the B model propulsion system is way beyond anything that has
been put into service to-date. THe problem here is that health monitoring
tech is really only good for known failure modes. It's the "gee we never
considered that" kind of problems that can get scary. Infant mortality. WIth
the lift-fan system, you'll typically know if you have a mechanical problem
before you go jet-borne. Once transitioning to jet-borne, you just gotta
watch all the critical temps (turbine inlet, exhaust gas....yadda yadda).

Also, much of the unforgiving nature of jet-borne flight has been addressed
through the inceptor mapping. Switching from rates to attitude commands
makes overcontrol type slip-ups much less likely. The F-35B will be much
more forgiving to exhausted pilots.

> makes the jet more stable. The complexity of the F-35B when compared to
the
> C or the A only gives it an additional option for landing--a complexity
with
> several possible single point failures in a critical flight regime.

Keep in mind that the operational environment envisioned for the F-35B is
much more varied than what has been done with the Harrier. So, exposure to
hazards (thinking mainly weather) will be much greater.


Pete
(worked on the X-35B for a couple of years designing the yaw-axis control
laws).

[Pechs1]

guy-<< And how many layers of CAP are they going to have to get through before
they'd
even have the chance? That is, assuming we haven't destroyed every runway and
taxiway in the country first with cruise missiles or other weapons, and it's
pretty damned unlikely that we'd risk a B-1 or B-2 by day before we had air
supremacy. >><BR><BR>

Why don't you re-read your original post...something about how a B-1 or B-2
could do the job of a whole airwing of F-18s...or some such whizbangery.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Guy Alcala]

Pechs1 wrote:

> guy-<< And how many layers of CAP are they going to have to get through before
> they'd
> even have the chance? That is, assuming we haven't destroyed every runway and
> taxiway in the country first with cruise missiles or other weapons, and it's
> pretty damned unlikely that we'd risk a B-1 or B-2 by day before we had air
> supremacy. >><BR><BR>
>
> Why don't you re-read your original post...something about how a B-1 or B-2
> could do the job of a whole airwing of F-18s...or some such whizbangery.

First it wasn't my original post, and second, I was replying to your comment
below:

> ice-<< (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the
> same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?
> >><BR><BR>
>
> One F-18, after the B-1 gets bagged....

I also pointed out that so far its been the f-18s that have gotten bagged.

Is there anywhere there where I intimate that a B-1 could do its (conventional,
limited war) job without air superiority/supremacy?

Guy

[Frijoles]

Which airfield? Sorry, I don't have the reference here at home. Its the
same place where the Army POWs were transferred to the KC-130 on TV.

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
> Frijoles wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of
> > stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s
or
> > B-2s. (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover
the
> > same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?)
And
> > if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what
a
> > great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft
provides...?
>
> Especially since they had to send four more F-18Es to the theater during
the
> war, to boost the navy's own tanker assets (and of course, taking away
airbridge
> tanker assets from other jobs, to get them there).
>
> > 45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's
hardly
> > a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at,
or
> > facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect
fires.
> > IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships,
principally
> > Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were
flown
> > from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad.
>
> <snip>
>
> Would you happen to know which airfield? I've found one source that says
it was
> "60nm south" of Baghdad, but no other details. Looking at a map,
>
>
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_planning_print_2003.jpg
>
> Shayka Mazhar and Al Iskandariyah New appear to be too close to the city,
Salman
> Pak East is too close and too far east (although the Marines did go by
there
> IIRR). An Najaf New is due south of Baghdad and about the right distance,
but
> AFAIK the marines weren't near there in any strength, having crossed the
> Euphrates at Nasiriya before heading up between the rivers towards
Baghdad. The
> Shaykh Hantush Highway Strip seems to be the closest match for distance
and
> direction, but the marines also went through al Kut, which puts An
Numaniyah (I
> know they took that) or Al Jarrah in the picture (although they're more SE
than
> S), and possibly the fields south and/or east of Al Kut, altough they're a
bit
> far and definitely southeast.
>
> Guy
>

[Guy Alcala]

Frijoles wrote:

> Which airfield? Sorry, I don't have the reference here at home. Its the
> same place where the Army POWs were transferred to the KC-130 on TV.

Thanks. I think that was Tallil down near Nasiriyah, which seems a bit far from
Baghdad (a lot more than 60 nm), but I know there was a big hospital set up there,
as well as a FOB for A-10s.

Guy

[running with scissors]

Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> running with scissors wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> >
> > > Actually - you succeeded in diverting my attention from what I consider to be one of the more
> > > intruiging aspects of this crash - notably a suggested compressor stall.
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > nope no comressor stall.
> >
> > according to tarver, airbus's crash at the end of the runway because
> > its unknown and unmapped.
>
> Scary concept ! Is it in the annals ?
>
>
> Graham

its utter ********. like any of tarvers theories.

[Pechs1]

guy-<< > ice-<< (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover
the
> same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?
> >> >><BR><BR>

I'm not 'ice', guess you aren't either..gotta love the ng....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Guy Alcala]

Pechs1 wrote:

> guy-<< > ice-<< (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover
> the
> > same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?
> > >> >><BR><BR>
>
> I'm not 'ice', guess you aren't either..gotta love the ng....

I know you're not 'ice'. He posed the above question, you then replied "One F-18,
after the B-1 gets bagged....", and I replied to you "Don't see why . . . " etc..
Are we all clear now, about who was saying what to whom? ;-)

Guy

[Frijoles]

You're correct that the A-10 FOB was "near Nasiryah" -- but that was well
south of the location that the Marine Corps used. The Marine Corps wanted
something further north to support possible operations to the north (and
well north) of Baghdad.

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
> Frijoles wrote:
>
> > Which airfield? Sorry, I don't have the reference here at home. Its
the
> > same place where the Army POWs were transferred to the KC-130 on TV.
>
> Thanks. I think that was Tallil down near Nasiriyah, which seems a bit
far from
> Baghdad (a lot more than 60 nm), but I know there was a big hospital set
up there,
> as well as a FOB for A-10s.
>
> Guy
>
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

Frijoles wrote:

> You're correct that the A-10 FOB was "near Nasiryah" -- but that was well
> south of the location that the Marine Corps used.

That's what I thought. I finally found a news story that ID'ed the airfield
they were flown to by CH-46 as Numaniyah.

> The Marine Corps wanted
> something further north to support possible operations to the north (and
> well north) of Baghdad.

Just found a news story that confirmed use of Numaniyah as a Harrier FARP:

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/7895F00735DE2CB485256D66007B63BF?opendocument

Guy

[Frijoles]

The answer to the trivia question is, of course, "it depends." It depends
on a whole host of circumstantial factors -- which jet, which targets, which
weapons, range to target area, tankers available etc etc etc. BUT, I was
glad to see the Navy finally get on-board with the SDB program since ONE B-1
can carry 288 of 'em. If the CV boys could only carry the heavier iron (at
3-4 per jet) -- do the math...

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pechs1 wrote:
>
> > guy-<< > ice-<< (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take
to cover
> > the
> > > same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?
> > > >> >><BR><BR>
> >
> > I'm not 'ice', guess you aren't either..gotta love the ng....
>
> I know you're not 'ice'. He posed the above question, you then replied
"One F-18,
> after the B-1 gets bagged....", and I replied to you "Don't see why . . .
" etc..
> Are we all clear now, about who was saying what to whom? ;-)
>
> Guy
>
>
>
>