A-4 / A-7 Question

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...

> It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted under
> Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died when the A-7
> did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10 when armed with the
> 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to an AC with the F/A-18
> perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million per copy. versus how much for
> an A-10 that requires constant TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
>


Anyone know what he is talking about ?
I've not heard of any system like this before.

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

[Thomas Schoene]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
> > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
> > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
> > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
> > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> >
>
>
> Anyone know what he is talking about ?
> I've not heard of any system like this before.

I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.

First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost the
same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New
York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took the
pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this
was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never
going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Tank Fixer]

In article t>,
says...
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
> > > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
> > > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
> > > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
> > > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> > > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Anyone know what he is talking about ?
> > I've not heard of any system like this before.
>
> I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.
>
> First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
> version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
> chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost the
> same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New
> York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
> GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took the
> pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.
>
> http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html
>
> Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
> afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
> Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this
> was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never
> going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.
>
> http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html
>


Thanks, I had heard of the F16 experiment but never one on the A-4 or A-7


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

[MLenoch]

Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
Thx,
VL

[C Knowles]

At least one is at the Edwards AFB museum.
Curt

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
> Thx,
> VL

[GregD]

I believe one is at WPABF - USAF Museum, and the other is at the Hill
AFB museum in Utah.

GregD

(MLenoch) wrote in message >...
> Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?

[John Carrier]

>The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10 when armed with the
> > 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to an AC with the F/A-18
> > perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million per copy.

The A-7 could have perhaps gotten F-18 thrust ... that's different in many
respects from F-18 performance.

The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
aircraft.

R / John

[Greg Hennessy]

On 08 Oct 2003 06:47:24 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:

>
>
>Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
>Thx,

On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs
reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ?

I seem to remember Mr Rasimus mentioning something about having worked
alongside A7Ds in the past, if you dont mind me asking Ed, what apart from
adding more grunt, would the F100 have made all that much a difference
given what the A7s were tasked with ?



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:06:11 +0100, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs
>reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ?
>
>I seem to remember Mr Rasimus mentioning something about having worked
>alongside A7Ds in the past, if you dont mind me asking Ed, what apart from
>adding more grunt, would the F100 have made all that much a difference
>given what the A7s were tasked with ?
>

I have no idea what the F100 fit would have done. I seem to recall
that the airframe was aerodynamically limited as far as max speed.

The real strength of the A-7D was the endurance. While it couldn't go
quite as fast as AF types would have preferred, it carried a
significant load for a long time. The true significance was
demonstrated during Linebacker when they A-7Ds of the 354th TFW out of
Korat would takeoff and fly unrefueled to Route Pack V or VI and
return. The F-4 and supporting F-105G Weasels departed Korat
afterward, tapped an inbound tanker and arrived on target at
approximately the same time. The F-4/F-105Gs then returned to a
post-strike tanker and arrived at Korat shortly before the returning
A-7s.

At issue (from an AF point of view, but not apparently from the USN
operator's perspective) was the ability to recover energy quickly when
placed on the defensive. A SAM break that took you down to very low
altitude, usually with high-G, would squander both kinetic and
potential energy. With AB you could regain both fairly rapidly.
Without AB you were in a precarious situation. The extra thrust of a
more efficient engine might have improved that aspect of A-7 ops.

[Guy Alcala]

Greg Hennessy wrote:

> On 08 Oct 2003 06:47:24 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
> >Thx,
>
> On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs
> reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ?

The A-7F, Corasair III, Strikefighter, etc. all included an airframe stretch
and extra fuel in addition to an F100 or F110. The airframe stretch was to
allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was
to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark.

For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to
use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be
easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A
constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root
area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the
F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees
to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed
nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on
carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity.

The "Strikefighter" was an upgraded A-7D with an F100 vice F110, and was the
design entered in a CAS/BAI contest against the F-16, AV-8B and F-20.

All data above from Dorr's Osprey book "Vought A-7 Corsair II." There are also
various issues of Air International from the '80s which describe the various
proposals in slightly more detail, but I'm too lazy to hunt them up.

Guy

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:46:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:


>> On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs
>> reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ?
>
>The A-7F, Corasair III, Strikefighter, etc. all included an airframe stretch
>and extra fuel in addition to an F100 or F110.

Interesting, I didnt know about the F110 being considered for it.

> The airframe stretch was to
>allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was
>to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark.

Any idea of the peformance improvement on the 'lo' part of an attack
mission with the F110/F100 ?

>
>For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to
>use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be
>easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A
>constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root
>area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the
>F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees
>to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed
>nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on
>carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity.

Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?





greg



--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:31:41 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:


>I have no idea what the F100 fit would have done. I seem to recall
>that the airframe was aerodynamically limited as far as max speed.

That goes with being nicknamed a 'SLUF' I suppose.

>
>The real strength of the A-7D was the endurance. While it couldn't go
>quite as fast as AF types would have preferred, it carried a
>significant load for a long time. The true significance was
>demonstrated during Linebacker when they A-7Ds of the 354th TFW out of
>Korat would takeoff and fly unrefueled to Route Pack V or VI and
>return.

Interesting, obviously something with equivalent legs which can fly 100+kts
quicker to/over/from the target is going to be more than just a minor
improvement. One is talking about serious potential in two seat variants
for wild weasel etc.

>
>At issue (from an AF point of view, but not apparently from the USN
>operator's perspective) was the ability to recover energy quickly when
>placed on the defensive. A SAM break that took you down to very low
>altitude, usually with high-G, would squander both kinetic and
>potential energy. With AB you could regain both fairly rapidly.
>Without AB you were in a precarious situation. The extra thrust of a
>more efficient engine might have improved that aspect of A-7 ops.

Obviously something to consider if the balloon ever went up in europe.
europe.

Its an interesting consideration of the road not travelled. Another would
be thinking about if the AF had procured single seat F16-Es 1 for 1 instead
of 'C's during the 80s. They would have made an interesting compliment to
the attack options available during Desert storm and elsewhere.


greg


>
>

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:38:27 +0100, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:31:41 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>>The real strength of the A-7D was the endurance. While it couldn't go
>>quite as fast as AF types would have preferred, it carried a
>>significant load for a long time. The true significance was
>>demonstrated during Linebacker when they A-7Ds of the 354th TFW out of
>>Korat would takeoff and fly unrefueled to Route Pack V or VI and
>>return.
>
>Interesting, obviously something with equivalent legs which can fly 100+kts
>quicker to/over/from the target is going to be more than just a minor
>improvement. One is talking about serious potential in two seat variants
>for wild weasel etc.

While the endurance and range were impressive, the energy available
was not. As I indicated below, the survivability in an intense SAM
environment was questionable. In fact, in short order during
Linebacker II, the A-7s were withheld from "downtown" targets out in
the flats of RP VI and used as bomb droppers on "diversionary" targets
in RP V and on the western edge of VI.

They did get downtown initially, but after the first couple of SAM
experiences, they didn't get back to the area. They wouldn't have made
a good Weasel.

The endurance and range, along with the ordinance carrying capability
did, however make them an excellent SAR airplane. They assumed the
Sandy mission for North Vietnam strikes very soon after arrival in
theater. That didn't take a two seat airplane when the A-1 did it and
didn't require two seats with an A-7 either.
>>
>>At issue (from an AF point of view, but not apparently from the USN
>>operator's perspective) was the ability to recover energy quickly when
>>placed on the defensive. A SAM break that took you down to very low
>>altitude, usually with high-G, would squander both kinetic and
>>potential energy. With AB you could regain both fairly rapidly.
>>Without AB you were in a precarious situation. The extra thrust of a
>>more efficient engine might have improved that aspect of A-7 ops.
>
>Its an interesting consideration of the road not travelled. Another would
>be thinking about if the AF had procured single seat F16-Es 1 for 1 instead
>of 'C's during the 80s. They would have made an interesting compliment to
>the attack options available during Desert storm and elsewhere.

You're unclear here. I assume you mean TWO seat F-16Es instead of Cs?
If, I again assume, that would mean a parallel development to the
F-15E?

Clearly without knowing something about what sort of weapons delivery
improvement an F-16E would have over a C, it's difficult to say much.
The CCIP delivery of dumb bombs by the F-16 A or C was always
exceptional--that's what was used on Isirik I believe. The LANTIRN
package for C models makes the airplane pretty good all-wx. And the
SEAD capability is acceptable for the C.

Are you maybe referring to the crank-wing F-16XL? There you would have
gotten more fuel in the big wing for more endurance and more lift
capacity. Still, there's little to have recommended going that way
rather than the considerably better performance and growth capacity of
the F-15E.

It seems as though they ran out of targets during Desert Storm long
before they ran out of attack options.


>
>
>greg
>
>
>>
>>

[Ron]

>It seems as though they ran out of targets during Desert Storm long
>before they ran out of attack options.
>
>
>>

F-4Gs ended up doing some strike missions, since they were running out of SEAD
targets to go after.

NMANG A-7s came close to being sent over there to the gulf in late 90


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:


>They did get downtown initially, but after the first couple of SAM
>experiences, they didn't get back to the area. They wouldn't have made
>a good Weasel.

Even with a F100/F110 ? I assume given it size it would also be down to a
lack of internal space to put all the electronic gear etc ?

>
>The endurance and range, along with the ordinance carrying capability
>did, however make them an excellent SAR airplane. They assumed the
>Sandy mission for North Vietnam strikes very soon after arrival in
>theater. That didn't take a two seat airplane when the A-1 did it and
>didn't require two seats with an A-7 either.

True.

>You're unclear here. I assume you mean TWO seat F-16Es instead of Cs?
>If, I again assume, that would mean a parallel development to the
>F-15E?

I meant the XL as you refer to below.

>
>Clearly without knowing something about what sort of weapons delivery
>improvement an F-16E would have over a C, it's difficult to say much.
>The CCIP delivery of dumb bombs by the F-16 A or C was always
>exceptional--that's what was used on Isirik I believe.

I remember you mentioning this before.

>Are you maybe referring to the crank-wing F-16XL? There you would have
>gotten more fuel in the big wing for more endurance and more lift
>capacity.

It was that side of the equation I was thinking about, I believe the
advertising went something along the lines of, carry the same load twice
the distance when compared to the standard model.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>> The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10 when armed with the
>>> 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to an AC with the F/A-18
>>> perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million per copy.
>
> The A-7 could have perhaps gotten F-18 thrust ... that's different in many
> respects from F-18 performance.
>
> The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
> well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
> and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
> could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
> in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
> aircraft.
>
> R / John
>
>

I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can get
low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most effective
choice.

Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to have
strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets via
level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to go
now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the ability
to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
noses at dirt will decrease even more.

Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.

--Woody

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:47:29 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
>Carrier" > wrote:
>>
>> The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
>> well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
>> and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
>> could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
>> in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
>> aircraft.
>>
>> R / John
>
>I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can get
>low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most effective
>choice.
>
>Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
>gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to have
>strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets via
>level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to go
>now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the ability
>to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
>noses at dirt will decrease even more.
>
>Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
>important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.
>
>--Woody

Glad to see the recognition of that. I can't begin to relate the
number of crusty ol' curmudgeons who bewail the loss to the inventory
of naplam and 2.75 FFARs because "we've abandoned CAS". They fail to
recongize the new technology that provides equivalent or better
close-in accuracy from afar. Lots of ol' timers couldn't match the CEP
of JDAM when doing laydown at 100 feet.

Also part of the equation is the changing face of war in which we
aren't seeing fixed battle positions and (hopefully) not encountering
"troops in the wire."

While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

[Mike Kanze]

All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
doctrine?

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"The day the telemarketers pay my phone bill, I'll be happy to give them
their right of free speech."

- Linda Seals


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:47:29 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
> >On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
> >Carrier" > wrote:
> >>
> >> The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
> >> well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the
range
> >> and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission.
You
> >> could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike
fighter
> >> in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
> >> aircraft.
> >>
> >> R / John
> >
> >I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can
get
> >low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most
effective
> >choice.
> >
> >Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
> >gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to
have
> >strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets
via
> >level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to
go
> >now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the
ability
> >to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
> >noses at dirt will decrease even more.
> >
> >Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
> >important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.
> >
> >--Woody
>
> Glad to see the recognition of that. I can't begin to relate the
> number of crusty ol' curmudgeons who bewail the loss to the inventory
> of naplam and 2.75 FFARs because "we've abandoned CAS". They fail to
> recongize the new technology that provides equivalent or better
> close-in accuracy from afar. Lots of ol' timers couldn't match the CEP
> of JDAM when doing laydown at 100 feet.
>
> Also part of the equation is the changing face of war in which we
> aren't seeing fixed battle positions and (hopefully) not encountering
> "troops in the wire."
>
> While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
> ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
> footage for some future war movie though.
>
>

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:29:48 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:


>
>While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
>ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
>footage for some future war movie though.
>

I would have thought that would depend on whether one was at the recieving
end of it or not LOL.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Joe Osman]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:47:29 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
> >On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
> >Carrier" > wrote:
> >>
> >> The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
> >> well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
> >> and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
> >> could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
> >> in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
> >> aircraft.
> >>
> >> R / John
> >
> >I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can get
> >low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most effective
> >choice.
> >
> >Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
> >gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to have
> >strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets via
> >level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to go
> >now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the ability
> >to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
> >noses at dirt will decrease even more.
> >
> >Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
> >important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.
> >
> >--Woody
>
> Glad to see the recognition of that. I can't begin to relate the
> number of crusty ol' curmudgeons who bewail the loss to the inventory
> of naplam and 2.75 FFARs because "we've abandoned CAS". They fail to
> recongize the new technology that provides equivalent or better
> close-in accuracy from afar. Lots of ol' timers couldn't match the CEP
> of JDAM when doing laydown at 100 feet.
>
> Also part of the equation is the changing face of war in which we
> aren't seeing fixed battle positions and (hopefully) not encountering
> "troops in the wire."
>
> While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
> ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
> footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[John R Weiss]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote...
> All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
> ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
> doctrine?

I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference back in 1989
or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now JSOW). The USMC rep was
adamant that they could not accept the concept of an autonomous standoff weapon
used for CAS targets in close proximity to friendly Marines. With the
possibility of mistargeting and no means of aborting the weapon, the risk was
too high. With conventional weapons, the FAC had the airplane in sight during
the roll-in and delivery, and had the opportunity to abort the run until just
prior to weapon release.

[Guy Alcala]

Greg Hennessy wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:46:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:

<snip>

> > The airframe stretch was to
> >allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was
> >to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark.
>
> Any idea of the peformance improvement on the 'lo' part of an attack
> mission with the F110/F100 ?

No. It might describe this in one of the AI articles, but I'd have to go digging
through 10 years or so of mags to find the right one, and I'm just feeling too
lazy.

> >For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to
> >use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be
> >easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A
> >constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root
> >area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the
> >F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees
> >to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed
> >nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on
> >carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity.
>
> Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?

No, they had the F-18. The stretches were mainly aimed at the ANG and (they hoped)
possible foreign customers.

Guy

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:02:17 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:


>
>No. It might describe this in one of the AI articles, but I'd have to go digging
>through 10 years or so of mags to find the right one, and I'm just feeling too
>lazy.

No worries :-), I was just curious.


>> Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?
>
>No, they had the F-18.

True, but something with 2 maybe 3 times the unrefuelled range carrying the
same a2g load.

>The stretches were mainly aimed at the ANG and (they hoped)
>possible foreign customers.
>

Neither the greeks or the portuguese took them up on that.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Thomas Schoene]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:Zmghb.528215$Oz4.404911@rwcrnsc54
> I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference
> back in 1989 or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now
> JSOW). The USMC rep was adamant that they could not accept the
> concept of an autonomous standoff weapon used for CAS targets in
> close proximity to friendly Marines.

The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" > wrote:

> All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
> ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
> doctrine?

Owl,

The customers LOVE it. Even now, they pass coords via secure. 6 minutes
later, there are warheads on foreheads. I think there's mutual agreement
that its both safer and more effective.

In effect, your old B/N job got replaced by GPS.

--Woody

P.S. I know. It's sad for me too.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/9/03 11:34 AM, in article , "Joe Osman"
> wrote:

> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>

>>
>> While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
>> ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
>> footage for some future war movie though.
>
> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
>
> Joe

No argument there. The dumb bomb capability should always be maintained,
BUT the mainstay these days is the safer, less exciting, more effective JDAM
CAS.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/9/03 11:52 AM, in article Zmghb.528215$Oz4.404911@rwcrnsc54, "John R
Weiss" > wrote:

> "Mike Kanze" > wrote...
>> All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
>> ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
>> doctrine?
>
> I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference back in 1989
> or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now JSOW). The USMC rep was
> adamant that they could not accept the concept of an autonomous standoff
> weapon
> used for CAS targets in close proximity to friendly Marines. With the
> possibility of mistargeting and no means of aborting the weapon, the risk was
> too high. With conventional weapons, the FAC had the airplane in sight during
> the roll-in and delivery, and had the opportunity to abort the run until just
> prior to weapon release.
>

That's changed. The TACP or FAC buys the hit once the pilot reads his
coordinates back off the DDI. When both parties are in agreement, the bomb
comes off the jet.

We dropped MANY through the weather.

--Woody

[John R Weiss]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote...
>
> The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
> for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.

Makes sense... Less collateral damage than the big ones. Also, can be carried
on the Harrier.

[John R Weiss]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>
> That's changed. The TACP or FAC buys the hit once the pilot reads his
> coordinates back off the DDI. When both parties are in agreement, the bomb
> comes off the jet.

Gotta LUV that technology! :-)

With 2-way digital 9-line briefs/readbacks, it's a lot easier.

[Helomech]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
> > > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
> > > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
> > > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
> > > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> > > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Anyone know what he is talking about ?
> > I've not heard of any system like this before.
>
> I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.
>
> First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
> version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
> chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost
the
> same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New
> York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
> GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took
the
> pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.
>
> http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html
>
> Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
> afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
> Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this
> was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never
> going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.
>
>

Howdy,

When I was in the A-4 community we had a 20MM Gau pod (I forget the number)
that could be hung on a station - usually the centerline, and was good for
chewing up pretty much anything - the Navy A-7 Squadrons had them also - I
saw them hang one or two around 1982- 1983 and do some gunnery with them -
rarely though.
I was in MAG-42 Det A at Cecil Field (FLying Gators) we had VA-203 next
door. I don't believe they carried much ammo though - perhaps 500 rounds?

I do know they pretty much sucked - they jammed alot and the Red Shirts
hated them... we had three or four - and they sat in storage.

But I never saw a 30mm pod on any aircraft ever......

Helomech

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/9/03 11:03 PM, in article
, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:

> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote...
>>
>> The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
>> for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.
>
> Makes sense... Less collateral damage than the big ones. Also, can be
> carried
> on the Harrier.
>

The primary driver behind the 500 lb JDAM was so the Harrier could carry it.
The rest of the services thought about it and figured it'd be a good idea
too.

Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

--Woody

[Grantland]

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

>In article >, Joe Osman
> wrote:
>snip
>> > While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
>> > ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
>> > footage for some future war movie though.
>>
>> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
>> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
>> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
>> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
>> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
>> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
>> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
>> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
>
>The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.
>
>The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
>deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
>you could be training for something more useful.
>Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
>not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
>
>I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
>the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk

Grantland
>
>--
>Harry Andreas
>Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Joe Osman
> wrote:
snip
> > While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
> > ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
> > footage for some future war movie though.
>
> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[John R Weiss]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>
> Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
> hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back around
89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/10/03 12:36 PM, in article B6Chb.729401$uu5.123386@sccrnsc04, "John R
Weiss" > wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>>
>> Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
>> hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!
>
> IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back
> around
> 89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it.
>

I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/10/03 6:56 AM, in article ,
"Grantland" > wrote:

> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>
>> In article >, Joe Osman
>> > wrote:
>> snip
>>>> While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
>>>> ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
>>>> footage for some future war movie though.
>>>
>>> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
>>> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
>>> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
>>> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
>>> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
>>> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
>>> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
>>> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
>>
>> The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.
>>
>> The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
>> deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
>> you could be training for something more useful.
>> Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
>> not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
>>
>> I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
>> the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.
>
> until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
> there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
> your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk
>
> Grantland
>>
>> --
>> Harry Andreas
>> Engineering raconteur
>

Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.

[John R Weiss]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>
> I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
> back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
> Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface on
the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the A-6F
only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have required
rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations;
the coax was not in the initial contract.

However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with
the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air Force
kept JDAM lead.

Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-)

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/10/03 3:38 PM, in article IMEhb.83326$%h1.87290@sccrnsc02, "John R
Weiss" > wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>>
>> I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
>> back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
>> Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.
>
> That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface
> on
> the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the
> A-6F
> only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have
> required
> rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations;
> the coax was not in the initial contract.
>

You are correct, J.R. 1553 would have needed to be upgraded to 1760. The
standard SWIP aircraft sans GPS could not have handled even a single JDAM.
GPS on the nav solution is a REQUIREMENT to drop JDAM. The SWIP Block 1A
(flew it at China Lake for about 80 or so hours) could have handled multiple
JDAM nicely (in theory/Woody speculation). It never made it past prototype,
but it was quite capable:

- ASN-139 RLG INS
- GPS
- CP-4 (vice CP-3B) Mission Computer 3X the memory, 4X the speed (still
not blazing)
- A no-kidding HUD for the pilot
- A (get this) DDI for the B/N
- An aerodynamic strake mod allowing it to max trap 9 knots slower at
38,400 lbs vice 36K. (As an aside, I once flew it on speed clean
wing at the field with 2.5 on the gas at 104 KIAS.)

All in all, it was to the Intruder what the F-14D is to the Tomcat, but it
was canned when the retirement of the Intruder was moved up.

The F/A-18A was re-wired/GPS'd to handle JDAM/JSOW. It's called the
F/A-18A+ (ECP-560/583).

> However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with
> the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air
> Force
> kept JDAM lead.
>
> Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-)
>

You're absolutely right... My faux pax. I always got ABF and AIWS mixed up
before they AGM-154A'd and GBU-32/35/31'd them.

ABC's right back atcha, J.R. |:-)

--Woody

[Dudhorse]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>
> >In article >, Joe Osman
> > wrote:
> >snip
> >> > While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
> >> > ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
> >> > footage for some future war movie though.
> >>
> >> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
> >> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
> >> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
> >> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
> >> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
> >> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
> >> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
> >> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
> >
> >The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.
> >
> >The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
> >deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
> >you could be training for something more useful.
> >Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
> >not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
> >
> >I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
> >the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.
>
> until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
> there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
> your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk
>
> Grantland
> >
> >--
> >Harry Andreas
> >Engineering raconteur
>
..... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
chance.

[Grantland]

"Dudhorse" > wrote:

>.... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
>their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
>infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
>defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
>networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
>future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
>chance.
>
Tue BUT: "Red" Chinese? No, Hong Kong (and, less so, Taiwan) showed
the "Reds" how errant they were. When they complete their program
they will be the most capitalist country on earth. Way beyond
high-tax, Socialist Amerika - Hong Kong writ gigantic. Taiwan
(peacefully, voluntarily) included. To *effect* this transformation
in an orderly manner, however, they need to stay in power. Hence the
Red hats. And nobody (in China) could care. Just keep up the 10%
growth.

So China is (should be) an ally, not a foe. Just like a fading
British Empire embracing the (virile, not-yet-corrupt) United States.
China is the future. Amerika is history.

Grantland

[Paul Austin]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote
> "Grantland" > wrote:
>
> > (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> >
> >> Joe Osman wrote:
> >> snip
> >>>> While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of
the good
> >>>> ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very
good
> >>>> footage for some future war movie though.
> >>>
> >>> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
> >>> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
> >>> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
> >>> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
> >>> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
> >>> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
> >>> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
> >>> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
> >>
> >> The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people
realize.
> >>
> >> The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
> >> deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources
when
> >> you could be training for something more useful.
> >> Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to
do it,
> >> not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
> >>
> >> I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor
of
> >> the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in
service.
> >
> > until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
> > there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
> > your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk
> >
>
> Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.
>
Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter
much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of
any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places,
some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing
the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated
power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do
see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires
with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart
munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to
interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks
to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/11/03 6:07 AM, in article ,
"Paul Austin" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote
>> "Grantland" > wrote:
>>
>>> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe Osman wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>> While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of
> the good
>>>>>> ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very
> good
>>>>>> footage for some future war movie though.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
>>>>> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
>>>>> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
>>>>> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
>>>>> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
>>>>> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
>>>>> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
>>>>> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
>>>>
>>>> The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people
> realize.
>>>>
>>>> The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
>>>> deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources
> when
>>>> you could be training for something more useful.
>>>> Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to
> do it,
>>>> not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
>>>>
>>>> I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor
> of
>>>> the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in
> service.
>>>
>>> until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
>>> there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
>>> your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk
>>>
>>
>> Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.
>>
> Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter
> much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of
> any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places,
> some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing
> the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated
> power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do
> see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires
> with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart
> munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to
> interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks
> to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages.
>
>

Love the automate 9-line concept. Never actually used it. All that is
usually required is a set of target coordinates and a friendly location.
The rest of the 9-line WRT JDAM CAS is useless. What I'm saying is that a
network attack may slow the process down--but even then only slightly. All
it really means is that the pilot better have a blank kneeboard card.

--Woody

[Mike Kanze]

Woody,

Sad - well maybe.

I can't think of a single shipmate who relished flying into combat with an
unreliable weapons system. Catshot-lovin' inertials; nonintuitive knobology
(all of us "old" B/Ns managed to cycle steering in memory point at some
embarrassing juncture); AMTI circuitry that classified freeway overpasses as
"movers" and Whack-A-Mole circuit-breaker management techniques (most often
performed in unusual attitudes) were all aspects of the A-6A that added
greatly to risk - especially when combined with a mission of dubious value.
(And there were many such missions during the VN conflict.)

But such was life in a first-generation technology.

I've always loved the idea of driving as many of the smarts as may be
feasible from the manned delivery vehicle into the unmanned weapon. Humans
shouldn't go into harm's way unless there is no better solution.

Besides - smart weapons make lousy POWs.

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is
not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the
California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest
publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC."

- Mike Kanze


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike
> Kanze" > wrote:
>
> > All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
> > ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
> > doctrine?
>
> Owl,
>
> The customers LOVE it. Even now, they pass coords via secure. 6 minutes
> later, there are warheads on foreheads. I think there's mutual agreement
> that its both safer and more effective.
>
> In effect, your old B/N job got replaced by GPS.
>
> --Woody
>
> P.S. I know. It's sad for me too.
>

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 04:46:26 GMT, "Dudhorse"
> wrote:

>
>"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
>> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, Joe Osman
>> > wrote:
>> >snip
>> >> > While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
>> >> > ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
>> >> > footage for some future war movie though.
>> >>
>> >> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
>> >> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
>> >> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
>> >> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
>> >> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
>> >> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
>> >> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
>> >> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
>> >
>> >The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.
>> >
>> >The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
>> >deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
>> >you could be training for something more useful.
>> >Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
>> >not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
>> >
>> >I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
>> >the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.
>>
>> until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
>> there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
>> your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk
>>
>> Grantland
>> >
>> >--
>> >Harry Andreas
>> >Engineering raconteur
>>
>.... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
>their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
>infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
>defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
>networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
>future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
>chance.
>
Trust me, that would be extremely difficult. Systems are EMP hardened,
encoded, and backed up. Not to mention the existence of systems that
are not discussed in public.

Al Minyard

[Daryl Hunt]

<piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article t>,
> says...
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > >
> > > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
> > > > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
> > > > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
> > > > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
> > > > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> > > > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone know what he is talking about ?
> > > I've not heard of any system like this before.
> >
> > I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.
> >
> > First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
> > version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
> > chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost
the
> > same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The
New
> > York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
> > GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took
the
> > pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.

This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to be
for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped all
research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached
production.


> >
> > http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html
> >
> > Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
> > afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
> > Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that
this
> > was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was
never
> > going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.
> >
> > http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html

The Air Force didn't want to give up the A-7 anymore than the Navy did. The
A-10 was helpless unless you had air superiority. The A-10 was a sitting
duck for even the Soviet SU7 Attack. This made the AF look at alternatives.
But the F-16A was the answer to that question when it was affordable.

And of course, the coming of the FA-18 filled the need for the Navy. At the
time, the FA-18 was still on the drawing board. But at 3.4 mil, the Super
Corsair was tempting. Things just happened before the need for the Super
A-7 was finished. Nothing lost in the end.



> >
>
>
> Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do
> daryl....

Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:02:00 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > says...
> >> >
> >> > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> >> > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
> >> > > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
> >> > > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
> >> > > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
> >> > > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> >> > > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> >> > >
> >> >
>
> >Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do
> >daryl....
>
> Personally I regarded the A7 as a boondoggle. For years the Air Force
> would not request any but it would be included in the budget because
> it was made in the district of a powerful politician.

The A-10 was at least 10 years in the future when the A-7 made it's debut.
In it's time, it was the replacement AC for the A1E Skyraider which had gone
through 3 wars and had a problem of being a Maintenance Pig in comparison to
a jet. The Navy didn't wish to give them up until the FA-18 hit and the Air
Force didn't want to give them up until the F-16 hit. The A-10 really
didn't have a mission except against Battle Tanks. The F-15, F-16, F-14,
FA-18 and almost any fighter in the inventory could handle anything less.
In order to use the A-10, complete Air Superiority had to be had before it
could even come into the area. Otherwise, any Subsonic Attack or Fighter
made by the Soviets, French, etc. in the last 30 years would just pick it
off. The A-10 had and still has too narrow of a mission requirement and
productions stopped a few years ago on it. The F-16 and the F-15E is
taking over the A-10s mission. And the Navy never did miss it.


>
> And as actual combat has shown - nothing beats the A10 in the CAS
> role.

How about a quote on that one. "Actual Combat"? Whose?

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Daryl Hunt says...
>
>
>"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
>>
>> Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the A-10
>>and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with a 30mm
>>>>gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.
>>
>> CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.
>
>You tell the AF that.

Oh, they already know it.

"Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used to like to say...
(funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia," huh?)

>They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason.

They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and hoped it would die.

I believe the A-10 has been upgraded exactly ONE time in the USAF, when they
hung a Pave Penny on it. The F-16 has been updated numerous times (F-16A -->
F-16C) with numerous "block" upgrades. I believe the current model is a F-16C
Block 50/52, correct?

The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and has come up with
numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the F-16XL and "A-16" - where the
USAF tried to convince everybody that a lizard green F-16C with a 30mm gunpod
was an A-10...).

There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that he Air Force looked at
briefly and then decided that it didn't want (what a surprise...).

The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods and fun stuff like
that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision Goggles.

It's pretty obvious where the USAF is spending it's money at.

Hell, the USAF never even wanted the A-10 in the first place, or haven't you
noticed that most of the USAF's attack birds were taken from USN designs (yes,
the Navy takes that role more seriously than the USAF does...).

USN: A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7 (not gonna include F/A-18 in that mix)

USAF: A-1 (taken from the Navy when the USAF realized they had no suitable
attack designs), A-7 (same as previous), A-10, AC-130

USMC: A-4, A-6, AV-8 (Brit designed, extensively modified by McD-D)(F/A-18 also)

The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even considered
the A-12, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a follow on for the
A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't fool anyone on that).

Are you telling me that the USAF is foolish enough to believe that everything
with wings has to be capable of enagaging MiGs in 1v1. Hell, the Army and the
Marine Corps don't think that everything with treads should be able to engage
MBTs...

(I won't even get into the whole P-51 (F-51) fiasco in Korea... although some
parellels could be made - the F-51 was "sexy" but the P-47 wasn't...)

>It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain.

As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the USAF doesn't want to
drop them does it?

>The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was designed to combat
>>can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore.

So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The Russian Air Force is a
joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need to nuke them anytime soon...

> And the F-16 can completely fill the role

The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody was daft enough to buy
it...

>the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).

Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?

>Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU is about 30 seconds.

The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?

And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g, can't fight
Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!!

This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards, because man lives on
the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the ground battle that's paramount.

> Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots.
>

Yeah, control the air but place no emphasis on what goes on in the ground...

>You are reading your Armies PR again.
>

No, just taking note of what the USAF has historically done.

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[[email protected]]

Replacement_Tommel wrote:
>> In article >,
Daryl Hunt
>> says...
>>
>>
>> "Replacement_Tommel"
>>
'SINVAL IDBABY>
wrote in
>> message ...
>>>
>>> Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid
rid of the
>>> A-10 and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in
green
>>> camoflage with a 30mm
>>>>> gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.
>>>
>>> CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.
>>
>> You tell the AF that.
>
> Oh, they already know it.
>
> "Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used
to like to
> say... (funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia,"
huh?)
>
>> They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason.
>
> They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and
hoped it
> would die.

Even the USAF A-10 pilots say that the USAF is ignoring the
A-10 and hoping it'll go away.

<snip>


>> It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain.
>
> As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the
USAF doesn't
> want to drop them does it?
>
No, the A-10s mission really began in Desert Storm when we
found out that it could do so much more than bust tanks.
The A-10 and AH-64 make a credible team for dealing with
hardened targets like bunkers and other defense works. It
is also an outstanding weapon in Close (and I mean close)
air support of ground operations providing covering fire as
effective (maybe more effective) as artillery and is more
versatile in "Danger Close" support missions because of its
ability to fly slow enough for the pilot to properly
identify ground targets. The A-10 can fly at altitudes
where the AH-64 is not effective such as the Hindu Kush
where they could be called against caves, stone works and
other defensive positions.


>> The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was
designed to
>> combat
>>> can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore.
>
> So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The
Russian Air
> Force is a joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need
to nuke them
> anytime soon...
>
The A-10 has a current mission and is more capable of
performing it than any other aircraft whether fixed or
rotary winged.

>> And the F-16 can completely fill the role
>
> The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody
was daft
> enough to buy it...
>
It can't fly slow enough and it can't direct gunfire
accurately enough. The numbers of "blue on blue" incidents
with F-16s should be enough to tell anyone that.

>> the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).
>
> Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?
>
Add Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Just Cause.
All of which have proven (at least to the US Army, US Navy
(hence A-12) and USMC that the A-10 is an excellent aircraft
with a continuing mission in Close Air Support.

>> Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU
is about 30
>> seconds.
>
> The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?
>
Do we expect that we will be unable to provide CAP and air
superiority anytime soon?

> And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's
s-l-o-w, b-i-g,
> can't fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an
A-10!!!
>
> This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards,
because man
> lives on the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the
ground battle
> that's paramount.
>
>> Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots.
>>
Life expectancy of an A-10 depends on the skill of the
Pilots as well. Or didn't you read about how they were
employed as "deep strike" aircraft in Desert Storm?

Snark

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> <piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article t>,
> > says...
> > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > k.net
> > > > In article >,
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > > > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
> > > > > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
> > > > > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
> > > > > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
> > > > > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> > > > > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyone know what he is talking about ?
> > > > I've not heard of any system like this before.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.
> > >
> > > First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
> > > version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
> > > chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost
> the
> > > same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The
> New
> > > York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
> > > GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took
> the
> > > pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.
>
> This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to be
> for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped all
> research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached
> production.
>

You're statement implied they existed and were used.



>
> > >
> > > http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html
> > >
> > > Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
> > > afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
> > > Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that
> this
> > > was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was
> never
> > > going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.
> > >
> > > http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html
>
> The Air Force didn't want to give up the A-7 anymore than the Navy did. The
> A-10 was helpless unless you had air superiority. The A-10 was a sitting
> duck for even the Soviet SU7 Attack. This made the AF look at alternatives.
> But the F-16A was the answer to that question when it was affordable.

I'm not talking down the A-7. It did a good job during it service time.

And I do not believe the A-10 would be helpless. Many an F4 pilot rued
the day they decided to get low and slow with Mig-17's in Vietnam.



> And of course, the coming of the FA-18 filled the need for the Navy. At the
> time, the FA-18 was still on the drawing board. But at 3.4 mil, the Super
> Corsair was tempting. Things just happened before the need for the Super
> A-7 was finished. Nothing lost in the end.
>
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do
> > daryl....
>
> Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling.

Sorry you feel that way. I asked those in RAM and they disagreed with you,
again.



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

[Paul Austin]

"Alan Minyard"wrote
> "Dudhorse" wrote:
>
> >
> >"Grantland" wrote in message
> >> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >, Joe Osman
> >> > wrote:
> >> >snip
> >> >> > While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of
the good
> >> >> > ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very
good
> >> >> > footage for some future war movie though.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
> >> >> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
> >> >> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
> >> >> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
> >> >> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
> >> >> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
> >> >> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
> >> >> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
> >> >
> >> >The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people
realize.
> >> >
> >> >The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
> >> >deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources
when
> >> >you could be training for something more useful.
> >> >Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to
do it,
> >> >not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
> >> >
> >> >I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor
of
> >> >the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in
service.
> >>
> >> until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
> >> there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There
goes
> >> your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk
> >>
> >> Grantland
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Harry Andreas
> >> >Engineering raconteur
> >>
> >.... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have
got one of
> >their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S.
digital
> >infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the
way to
> >defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
> >networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us
in the
> >future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to
stand a
> >chance.
> >
> Trust me, that would be extremely difficult. Systems are EMP
hardened,
> encoded, and backed up. Not to mention the existence of systems that
> are not discussed in public.

The most effective attacks would insert bogus calls for fire into the
network. If the net gets the reputation as being untrustworthy (and it
only takes a few instances for that to happen) then every goes back to
1992 paper ATOs. I don't have your faith in the invulnerability of
military networks since 1. enemy IW people have huge incentives to
penetrate our networks, 2. our networks by their nature are not
exposed to the kinds of constant "test by enemy fire" that open
networks are. Robust encryption and physical security of key sets is
probably our best line of defense.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
says...
> >
> >
> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
message
> ...
> >>
> >> Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the A-10
> >>and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with a
30mm
> >>>>gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.
> >>
> >> CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.
> >
> >You tell the AF that.
>
> Oh, they already know it.

And when required, they are very good at it as is the Navy. Newsflash, the
Army can't win em' all without support from the other branches.


>
> "Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used to like to
say...
> (funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia," huh?)

When the A-10 reaches it's Air Frame End, F-Xs will be all that is left.
The F-18 was originally also named the A-18. That designation has been
dropped as it's a true multirole Fighter. Like the F-16 and the F-15, the
F-18 feels just as much at home supporting Ground Troops as it does as a
fighter. And when it pickles it's load, it's a Fighter capable of going
into the Air Interdiction Role. The A-10? Just anothe target for a
Fighter.


>
> >They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason.
>
> They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and hoped it would
die.

Guess you know more than the AF does.


>
> I believe the A-10 has been upgraded exactly ONE time in the USAF, when
they
> hung a Pave Penny on it. The F-16 has been updated numerous times
(F-16A -->
> F-16C) with numerous "block" upgrades. I believe the current model is a
F-16C
> Block 50/52, correct?

Think about it.


>
> The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and has come up with
> numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the F-16XL and "A-16" - where
the
> USAF tried to convince everybody that a lizard green F-16C with a 30mm
gunpod
> was an A-10...).

You put good money into good and don't put good money into bad. The F-16
can go into the Attack role just by reconfiguring the load. So can the F-18
as well. And if they get into trouble with Fighters, they pickle their load
and fight even up.




>
> There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that he Air Force looked
at
> briefly and then decided that it didn't want (what a surprise...).

That gives two pilots the possibility of buying the farm to any Fighter
built since 1958.


>
> The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods and fun stuff
like
> that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision Goggles.

Don't spend good money on a bad idea. Sounds like a winner to me.


>
> It's pretty obvious where the USAF is spending it's money at.
>
> Hell, the USAF never even wanted the A-10 in the first place, or haven't
you
> noticed that most of the USAF's attack birds were taken from USN designs
(yes,
> the Navy takes that role more seriously than the USAF does...).

Funny, the F-16 predates the F-18. The only requirement difference is the
Navy wants two engines for obvious reasons.


>
> USN: A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7 (not gonna include F/A-18 in that mix)

You left off the F-4. It ended life as an attack platform and a WWW. It
took the F-14, F-15, F-16 and the F-18 to replace it. The A-10 wasn't even
needed had they spent a few buck on the F-4. But the Airframes were getting
long on the tooth.


>
> USAF: A-1 (taken from the Navy when the USAF realized they had no suitable
> attack designs), A-7 (same as previous), A-10, AC-130

The BD5 was paid for. And paid for itself in 3 wars.

And you left out the F-4. Imagine that. The first successful Multirole
Fighter ever produced. That AC was the beginning to the end of pure Attack
Aircraft.


>
> USMC: A-4, A-6, AV-8 (Brit designed, extensively modified by McD-D)(F/A-18
also)

You conveniently left off the F-4 once again.


>
> The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even
considered
> the A-12

The A-12? You mean the forerunner to the SR-71? Now there's a plane
without a mission.


, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a follow on for the
> A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't fool anyone on
that).

IT's not the Air Force attempting to fool anyone here. It was proven in
1980 that the A-10 was suseptable to any and all fighters including most
Attack Aircraft to include the A-7, A-4, SU7 and a host of other AC it was
supposed to replace. It never filled it's role completely.


>
> Are you telling me that the USAF is foolish enough to believe that
everything
> with wings has to be capable of enagaging MiGs in 1v1. Hell, the Army and
the
> Marine Corps don't think that everything with treads should be able to
engage
> MBTs...

Everything that has an F designator except the F-117. The old A-7 engaged
Migs almost daily before the Migs decided it was best not to screw with
those Insane Sluf Jockeys.


>
> (I won't even get into the whole P-51 (F-51) fiasco in Korea... although
some
> parellels could be made - the F-51 was "sexy" but the P-47 wasn't...)

You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of
Buckley in the late 50s.


>
> >It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain.
>
> As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the USAF doesn't want
to
> drop them does it?

Yes, the F-22s mission is not there as long as the F-14 and the F-15 can be
modded to do the job. But sooner or later, those Airframes will get long on
the tooth and need replaced. At that time, the F-22 comes back online.

The B-2 is the B-52 replacement. Sooner or later, the Buff will fall out of
the sky and the B-2 will pick up where it left off.

You don't drop the next generation if you can help it.



>
> >The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was designed to
combat
> >>can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore.
>
> So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The Russian Air Force is
a
> joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need to nuke them anytime soon...

Easy. Check out the Air Frame dates on the F-15 (fighters have a very short
lifespan compared to a bomber) and don't forget to check the Air Frame Dates
on the Buffs. Those are much older than you are. The Pilots were born
after the Buff was produced.


>
> > And the F-16 can completely fill the role
>
> The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody was daft enough
to buy
> it...

Newsflash. The F-16 fills that role nicely with just a different loadout.
The A-18 designation was dropped as well for the F-18 Designation. You
really have to do better than that.


>
> >the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).
>
> Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?

They were paid for. The F-16 could have easily done the same job. As for
Heavy Armor, it wasn't the A-10 that was used to do the job. The Buff was
used by carpet bombing. The A-10 had to find a mission.


>
> >Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU is about 30
seconds.
>
> The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?

Nope, it's not multirole one bit. It depends on the Fighters to keep it
alive. Drop the A-10 and let the Fighters do the job.


>
> And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g, can't
fight
> Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!!

Since you have never seen one inoperation, I don't wonder why you would say
something as silly. Hide in your bunker and the Bunker goes boom. Hide in
the Trees and the trees go boom. Drive your truck in an irratic manner to
avoid faster AC, your Truck goes boom. And so do you and all your buddies.
You may hike up your head and take shots at a fighter or an A-10 but NO ONE
puts their head up when Spectre is operating. Well, at least, more than
once. The AC-130 has the same firepower as a WWII Destroyer. And it
pinpoint accuracy.



>
> This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards, because man
lives on
> the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the ground battle that's
paramount.

Tell that to the Elite Guard outside Bagdad. Oh, you can't. They are dead.
Things kept falling on them and going booooommmmmm.


>
> > Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots.
> >
>
> Yeah, control the air but place no emphasis on what goes on in the
ground...

Then reload most of your F-16s and F-18s for Ground attack role.


>
> >You are reading your Armies PR again.
> >
>
> No, just taking note of what the USAF has historically done.

BS.


>
> http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html
>
> -Tom
>
> "For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For
the
> Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus
Banks,
> "What I Live for"
>
> UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)
>

[Daryl Hunt]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Replacement_Tommel wrote:
> >> In article >,
> Daryl Hunt
> >> says...
> >>
> >>
> >> "Replacement_Tommel"
> >>
> 'SINVAL IDBABY>
> wrote in
> >> message ...
> >>>
> >>> Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid
> rid of the
> >>> A-10 and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in
> green
> >>> camoflage with a 30mm
> >>>>> gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.
> >>>
> >>> CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.
> >>
> >> You tell the AF that.
> >
> > Oh, they already know it.
> >
> > "Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used
> to like to
> > say... (funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia,"
> huh?)
> >
> >> They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason.
> >
> > They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and
> hoped it
> > would die.
>
> Even the USAF A-10 pilots say that the USAF is ignoring the
> A-10 and hoping it'll go away.

Of course. It's the end of a way of life. The A-10 owes much of it's life
to the Skyraider. Ever been "Had by a Spad?"


>
> <snip>
>
>
> >> It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain.
> >
> > As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the
> USAF doesn't
> > want to drop them does it?
> >
> No, the A-10s mission really began in Desert Storm when we
> found out that it could do so much more than bust tanks.
> The A-10 and AH-64 make a credible team for dealing with
> hardened targets like bunkers and other defense works. It
> is also an outstanding weapon in Close (and I mean close)
> air support of ground operations providing covering fire as
> effective (maybe more effective) as artillery and is more
> versatile in "Danger Close" support missions because of its
> ability to fly slow enough for the pilot to properly
> identify ground targets. The A-10 can fly at altitudes
> where the AH-64 is not effective such as the Hindu Kush
> where they could be called against caves, stone works and
> other defensive positions.

And so can the F-16 in ground loadout.

>
>
> >> The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was
> designed to
> >> combat
> >>> can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore.
> >
> > So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The
> Russian Air
> > Force is a joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need
> to nuke them
> > anytime soon...
> >
> The A-10 has a current mission and is more capable of
> performing it than any other aircraft whether fixed or
> rotary winged.

What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
Everything else, the F-16 and the F-18 can do with a normal load for ground
support.


>
> >> And the F-16 can completely fill the role
> >
> > The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody
> was daft
> > enough to buy it...
> >
> It can't fly slow enough and it can't direct gunfire
> accurately enough. The numbers of "blue on blue" incidents
> with F-16s should be enough to tell anyone that.

You seem to forget the number of A-10s as well. The 16 and the 18 can slow
down to 200 kts like the A-10 can and still deliver the load.


>
> >> the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).
> >
> > Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?
> >
> Add Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Just Cause.
> All of which have proven (at least to the US Army, US Navy
> (hence A-12) and USMC that the A-10 is an excellent aircraft
> with a continuing mission in Close Air Support.

You are using ground pounder PR. It's not going to save the A-10. The only
reason they use it is that it's paid for. It saves a tremendous amount of
money than buying the support equipment for the F-16. When each 10 comes
offline, a 16 more than steps up to the plate.


>
> >> Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU
> is about 30
> >> seconds.
> >
> > The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?
> >
> Do we expect that we will be unable to provide CAP and air
> superiority anytime soon?

And if we go against a Military with a decent AF, what then? Do we just
leave you ground pounders to fend for yourselves until AS can be
established? Do we leave the A-10 home until then? What happens if there
is no forward Air Fields? The Forward AFs become the Carriers (F-18) and
the AF F-16s with external tanks. The A-10 sits out of range. North Korea
is a prime example.


>
> > And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's
> s-l-o-w, b-i-g,
> > can't fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an
> A-10!!!
> >
> > This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards,
> because man
> > lives on the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the
> ground battle
> > that's paramount.
> >
> >> Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots.
> >>
> Life expectancy of an A-10 depends on the skill of the
> Pilots as well. Or didn't you read about how they were
> employed as "deep strike" aircraft in Desert Storm?

Yes, that skill was used by the Skyraiders as well. Evade or Die.

[Daryl Hunt]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Replacement_Tommel wrote:
> >> In article
> et>,
> >>> says...
> >>
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>
> >> I heard a rumor that as part of transformation the US
> Army
> >> wants to take over the A-10 and put it under Army
> Aviation
> >> and even build a few more. It might be a viscious rumor
> >> but, I hope its true.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It almost happened in the early nineties... the USAF was
> going to
> > drop the A-10 and said that they didn't want them. THe
> Army said that
> > they would gladly take them off of the USAF's hands and
> argued that
> > part of the old Key West agreement could be modified so
> that fixed
> > wing CAS would become an Army mission again. IIRC, some
> congress
> > critter got the defense appropriations bill tagged with a
> requirement
> > that for every A-10 the USAF wanted to retire, it would be
> > "transferred" to the Army with its support crew... the
> USAF quickly
> > dropped the idea of retiring the A-10.
> >
> > About 144 A-10s were deployed to Saudi Arabia in Operation
> Desert
> > Storm. They did not have built in night-vision capability,
> GPS
> > support or laser-targeting, and yet they flew more than
> 8,900 sorties
> > - nearly 30 percent of all Allied missions - and accounted
> for 50
> > percent of confirmed Iraqi equipment losses, including
> nearly 1,100
> > of Iraq's 1,500 tanks, 1,500+ armored vehicles and 51 SCUD
> missiles
> > and launchers. Even with only a 'marginal' precision
> capability, the
> > A-10s fired 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles
> used in the
> > Gulf War, employing them with great success. Since they
> were easy to
> > service in the field, A-10s maintained a 96 percent
> mission
> > availability rate - the highest of any aircraft type
> during the first
> > Gulf War - and proved to be quite durable repeatedly
> returning home
> > with large holes in the wings and fuselage...
> >
> > Yet somehow guys like DM and the rest of the "faster,
> higher and
> > sexier" crowd believe that the A-10 can't get the job
> done - which is
> > in contrast to what USAF General Horner said about them
> (-i.e. "I
> > take back all the bad things I have ever said about the
> A-10. I love
> > them! They're saving our asses!").
> >
> > -Tom
> > (Stats are from "The A-10 Warthog and Close Air Support:
> The Warthog
> > and the Combat Air Support Debate" by Douglas Campell,
> former A-7 and
> > A-10 pilot)
>
> I've heard the same stats on "Wings". Too bad it didn't
> happen. The Army could use some additional CAS assets since
> unlike the Navy or the Marines the USAF (other than the A-10
> Squadrons) doesn't like to fly CAS missions the way they
> should be in order to put the payload on target, on time.
> While having a BOne or Buff dropping LGBUs may be
> spectacular and more accurate than not these days. They
> can't quite get the same effect as a 30mm GAU on a pack
> train or moving troops. Using the BOne or Buff is a bit of
> overkill and you risk your own troops going down to collect
> intelligence afterwards from the UXEs that invariably occur.
>
> Snark

Not going to happen.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> > <piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article t>,
> > > says...
> > > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > > k.net
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > > > > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That
died
> > > > > > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the
A-10
> > > > > > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7
to
> > > > > > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5
million
> > > > > > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> > > > > > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone know what he is talking about ?
> > > > > I've not heard of any system like this before.
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.
> > > >
> > > > First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a
four-barrel
> > > > version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless
nor a
> > > > chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters
almost
> > the
> > > > same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well.
The
> > New
> > > > York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with
the
> > > > GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They
took
> > the
> > > > pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them
again.
> >
> > This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to
be
> > for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped
all
> > research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached
> > production.
> >
>
> You're statement implied they existed and were used.

Still trolling and misinterpreting any way that makes you look good. They
never went into production as the mission for the A-7 was never realized.
The same reasoning was used as to why no money is being spent on upgrading
the A-10. Don't dump good money into bad.



>
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html
> > > >
> > > > Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7
with
> > > > afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was
Air
> > > > Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that
> > this
> > > > was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was
> > never
> > > > going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the
Hornet.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html
> >
> > The Air Force didn't want to give up the A-7 anymore than the Navy did.
The
> > A-10 was helpless unless you had air superiority. The A-10 was a
sitting
> > duck for even the Soviet SU7 Attack. This made the AF look at
alternatives.
> > But the F-16A was the answer to that question when it was affordable.
>
> I'm not talking down the A-7. It did a good job during it service time.
>
> And I do not believe the A-10 would be helpless. Many an F4 pilot rued
> the day they decided to get low and slow with Mig-17's in Vietnam.

The F-4 was a miltirole and would do standoff with the Mig-17. Or use it's
superior thrust. The Mig-17 could only win if the F-4 didn't know he was
there. But, then again, a Piper Cub with a Missile would work just as well
in that situtation against any Fighter in our Present inventory. It took
Red Flag and the Navy Equiv to teach the pilots new techniques. After that,
the Migs didn't even break cloud cover when any of the Fs were in operation.
Ever hear about the Triple Nickel ruse?


>
>
>
> > And of course, the coming of the FA-18 filled the need for the Navy. At
the
> > time, the FA-18 was still on the drawing board. But at 3.4 mil, the
Super
> > Corsair was tempting. Things just happened before the need for the
Super
> > A-7 was finished. Nothing lost in the end.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do
> > > daryl....
> >
> > Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling.
>
> Sorry you feel that way. I asked those in RAM and they disagreed with you,
> again.

You reading fiction once again? Most backed me up. But you go ahead with
your story. But start it with, "And there I was........" or "Once upon a
time".

[Daryl Hunt]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Tank Fixer wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
>
> (RAM snipped out of courtesy)
>
> > > > Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you
do
> > > > daryl....
> > >
> > > Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling.
> >
> > Sorry you feel that way. I asked those in RAM and they disagreed with
you,
> > again.
>
> funny how that happens, isn't it? %-)

You ground pounders can't read either.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Daryl Hunt says...
>

(snippum)

>
" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>

(snip)


>>
>> Even the USAF A-10 pilots say that the USAF is ignoring the
>> A-10 and hoping it'll go away.
>
>Of course. It's the end of a way of life.

Tell the USAF that. I've been reading a few new articles and the USAF claims
that the A-10 will be in their inventory until 2028. They are even (finally)
updating it.

>The A-10 owes much of it's life
>to the Skyraider. Ever been "Had by a Spad?"
>

When we got involved in Vietnam, the USAF (once again) found itself without a
suitable attack aircraft - one that could carry gobs of ordinance, was slow and
had a long loiter time... and once again the USAF had to take a USN aircraft,
the A-1 Skyraider, to fufill a role that they neglected...

(snip)

>
>And so can the F-16 in ground loadout.
>

If the USAF lets them. The USAF has a tendency to keep their sexy jets away from
CAS because it doesn't want to get their pretty jets hurt.

From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack runs
in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the F-16.

(snip)

>What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even
the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back
everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")

>Everything else, the F-16 and the F-18 can do with a normal load for ground
>support.
>

F-16s pilots do not practice CAS enough.

>>
>> >> And the F-16 can completely fill the role
>> >
>> > The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody
>> was daft
>> > enough to buy it...
>> >
>> It can't fly slow enough and it can't direct gunfire
>> accurately enough. The numbers of "blue on blue" incidents
>> with F-16s should be enough to tell anyone that.
>
>You seem to forget the number of A-10s as well. The 16 and the 18 can slow
>down to 200 kts like the A-10 can and still deliver the load.
>

The A-10 can go down to about 110 knots. It's got some big ass boards on its
wings so that it can slow down effectively - the F-16 doesn't have that. The
A-10 is also more maneveurable than a F-16 at these speeds.

And unlike the F-16, the A-10 is a relatively "quiet" aircraft and is more adept
at sneaking up to mobile ground targets than a F-16 is (I know this cause one
snuck up on me at one time...).


>
>>
>> >> the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).
>> >
>> > Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?
>> >
>> Add Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Just Cause.
>> All of which have proven (at least to the US Army, US Navy
>> (hence A-12) and USMC that the A-10 is an excellent aircraft
>> with a continuing mission in Close Air Support.
>
>You are using ground pounder PR. It's not going to save the A-10.

2028?

(snip)

>> >> Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU
>> is about 30
>> >> seconds.
>> >
>> > The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?
>> >
>> Do we expect that we will be unable to provide CAP and air
>> superiority anytime soon?
>
>And if we go against a Military with a decent AF, what then?

What are those F-22s and F-15s for?

> Do we just leave you ground pounders to fend for yourselves until AS can be
>established?

F-22s and F-15s can't fly escort for A-10s?

> Do we leave the A-10 home until then? What happens if there
>is no forward Air Fields?

Odd thing about the A-10... it can fly off relatively unimproved airfields... if
we did go up against some country with a **** Hot Air Force, it'll be the F-22s,
F-16s, and F-15s that'll be grounded because their air bases and runways have
been shot up.

The A-10, OTOH, will be flying from makeshift runways...

> The Forward AFs become the Carriers (F-18) and
>the AF F-16s with external tanks. The A-10 sits out of range. North Korea
>is a prime example.
>

See above.

There were USAF A-10s at Bagram Air Field in the Sandbox, but there sure as hell
weren't any USAF F-16s there...

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Daryl Hunt says...
>
>
>"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
>> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
>says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Replacement_Tommel"
>> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
>message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the A-10
>> >>and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with a
>> >>30mm gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.
>> >>
>> >> CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.
>> >
>> >You tell the AF that.
>>
>> Oh, they already know it.
>
>And when required, they are very good at it as is the Navy.

I've read that grunts on the ground preffered asking the Navy and Marines for
CAS over the USAF.

>Newsflash, the Army can't win em' all without support from the other branches.
>

No **** - why do you think I'm bitching about the USAF neglecting such things?

(snip)

>
>>
>> The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and has come up with
>> numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the F-16XL and "A-16" - where
>>the USAF tried to convince everybody that a lizard green F-16C with a 30mm
>>gunpod was an A-10...).
>
>You put good money into good and don't put good money into bad. The F-16
>can go into the Attack role just by reconfiguring the load. So can the F-18
>as well. And if they get into trouble with Fighters, they pickle their load
>and fight even up.
>
>>>
>> There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that he Air Force looked
>>at briefly and then decided that it didn't want (what a surprise...).
>
>That gives two pilots the possibility of buying the farm to any Fighter
>built since 1958.
>
>
>>
>> The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods and fun stuff
>>>> that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision Goggles.
>
>Don't spend good money on a bad idea. Sounds like a winner to me.
>

Well, Daryl... I'm going to correct myself, but at the same time embarrass you.
The USAF has recently adopted the "Hog Up" program, and will be keeping the A-10
around until 2028.

http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.asp?edition=79&storyid=2109

(That's a year old article - hopefully the USAF hasn't changed its mind on this)

(snip)

>>>
>> The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even
>considered
>> the A-12
>
>The A-12? You mean the forerunner to the SR-71? Now there's a plane
>without a mission.
>

No. I mean the stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted.

http://www.aerofiles.com/gendym-a12.jpg

>
>, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a follow on for the
>> A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't fool anyone on
>that).
>
>IT's not the Air Force attempting to fool anyone here. It was proven in
>1980 that the A-10 was suseptable to any and all fighters including most
>Attack Aircraft to include the A-7, A-4, SU7 and a host of other AC it was
>supposed to replace. It never filled it's role completely.
>

It's role is CAS. It has done that well. 80% of the tanks destroyed in Desert
Storm were done by A-10s.

(snip)

>>
>> And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g, can't
>>fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!!
>
>Since you have never seen one inoperation, I don't wonder why you would say
>something as silly.

By your standards, since it is low and slow and vulnerable to MIGs, it's not
worth a damn.

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
says...
> >
>
> (snippum)
>
> >
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
>
> (snip)
>
>
> >>
> >> Even the USAF A-10 pilots say that the USAF is ignoring the
> >> A-10 and hoping it'll go away.
> >
> >Of course. It's the end of a way of life.
>
> Tell the USAF that. I've been reading a few new articles and the USAF
claims
> that the A-10 will be in their inventory until 2028. They are even
(finally)
> updating it.
>
> >The A-10 owes much of it's life
> >to the Skyraider. Ever been "Had by a Spad?"
> >
>
> When we got involved in Vietnam, the USAF (once again) found itself
without a
> suitable attack aircraft - one that could carry gobs of ordinance, was
slow and
> had a long loiter time... and once again the USAF had to take a USN
aircraft,
> the A-1 Skyraider, to fufill a role that they neglected...

You really need to get a new schtic. This one is stail and quite uniformed.
The AF didn't get it from the Navy, they got it from the boneyard where the
Navy put them in the first place. Then again, quite a few AC were retired
to the Boneyard only to find themselves back on duty. Like the C-124
Globemaster.


>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >And so can the F-16 in ground loadout.
> >
>
> If the USAF lets them. The USAF has a tendency to keep their sexy jets
away from
> CAS because it doesn't want to get their pretty jets hurt.

Again, ask the Elite Guard that was outside Bagdad. Oh, that's right. They
are all dead from things falling on their heads and going boom.



>
> From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack
runs
> in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the
F-16.

Then you need to see better. Both can do more than 2, I assure you. The
difference is, the F-16 has a higher survivalbility rate due to it being
able to slow down to 200 kts and then speed up to Mach if need be to exit.
The 10 doesn't have to slow down. It's already slow.

>
> (snip)
>
> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
>
> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s -
even
> the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back
> everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) but the
Buffs were nailing the Republican Guard Armor with Carpet Bombing long
before you characters set foot in even Saudiland.



>
> >Everything else, the F-16 and the F-18 can do with a normal load for
ground
> >support.
> >
>
> F-16s pilots do not practice CAS enough.

I suggest you voice you concerns to the Head of the Air Force. He could use
a nice bit of humor. And since when does anyone in the Military get enough
Battle Practice anyway? I suggest you learn to read roadmaps.



>
> >>
> >> >> And the F-16 can completely fill the role
> >> >
> >> > The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody
> >> was daft
> >> > enough to buy it...
> >> >
> >> It can't fly slow enough and it can't direct gunfire
> >> accurately enough. The numbers of "blue on blue" incidents
> >> with F-16s should be enough to tell anyone that.
> >
> >You seem to forget the number of A-10s as well. The 16 and the 18 can
slow
> >down to 200 kts like the A-10 can and still deliver the load.
> >
>
> The A-10 can go down to about 110 knots. It's got some big ass boards on
its
> wings so that it can slow down effectively - the F-16 doesn't have that.
The
> A-10 is also more maneveurable than a F-16 at these speeds.

At 110 kts, you can knock it down with a handgun. At 200 KTs it's a bit
harder to hit it and no pilot in their right mind slows down much below
that. Those that are not in their right mind and slow it down to stall
speed are dead.


>
> And unlike the F-16, the A-10 is a relatively "quiet" aircraft and is more
adept
> at sneaking up to mobile ground targets than a F-16 is (I know this cause
one
> snuck up on me at one time...).

Yup. Except when the 16 closes, it's usually running at a speed where the
sound is reaching the ground just behind the AC passing. The Doppler affect
makes it appear to be dead quiet. If you heard it, you weren't the target.



>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).
> >> >
> >> > Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?
> >> >
> >> Add Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Just Cause.
> >> All of which have proven (at least to the US Army, US Navy
> >> (hence A-12) and USMC that the A-10 is an excellent aircraft
> >> with a continuing mission in Close Air Support.
> >
> >You are using ground pounder PR. It's not going to save the A-10.
>
> 2028?

Is that a REg or your hat size?


>
> (snip)
>
> >> >> Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU
> >> is about 30
> >> >> seconds.
> >> >
> >> > The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?
> >> >
> >> Do we expect that we will be unable to provide CAP and air
> >> superiority anytime soon?
> >
> >And if we go against a Military with a decent AF, what then?
>
> What are those F-22s and F-15s for?

Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think
are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during
Vietnam but didn't.


>
> > Do we just leave you ground pounders to fend for yourselves until AS can
be
> >established?
>
> F-22s and F-15s can't fly escort for A-10s?

Why would they need to. The 16 doesn't need the cover nearly as much. The
A-7s often flew with no Topcap. And the Mig Pilots learned to leave the
Sluf alone due to a high deathrate of their own.



>
> > Do we leave the A-10 home until then? What happens if there
> >is no forward Air Fields?
>
> Odd thing about the A-10... it can fly off relatively unimproved
airfields... if
> we did go up against some country with a **** Hot Air Force, it'll be the
F-22s,
> F-16s, and F-15s that'll be grounded because their air bases and runways
have
> been shot up.

Rave on. Name one place on the earth that the F-15 with Conformal Packs,
the F-16 with external tanks and the Tankers can't get to. There isn't one
place on earth.



>
> The A-10, OTOH, will be flying from makeshift runways...

Without the F-15s, 16s and such, the A-10 will be parked on a very
comfortable Airfield well behind the lines. Completely out of range where
the Junk 1950s Fighters from a 3rd rate AF can't get to them and blow them
all to hell and gone.


>
> > The Forward AFs become the Carriers (F-18) and
> >the AF F-16s with external tanks. The A-10 sits out of range. North
Korea
> >is a prime example.
> >
>
> See above.

See above.


>
> There were USAF A-10s at Bagram Air Field in the Sandbox, but there sure
as hell
> weren't any USAF F-16s there...

Newsflash, there also was no opposing Air Force either. It had already been
plowed away to nothing or thought better of taking off. Attack that A-10
and you get a frontline Fighter on your way in. You won't make it.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
says...
> >
> >
> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
message
> ...
> >> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
> >says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> >> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
> >message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the
A-10
> >> >>and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with
a
> >> >>30mm gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.
> >> >>
> >> >> CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.
> >> >
> >> >You tell the AF that.
> >>
> >> Oh, they already know it.
> >
> >And when required, they are very good at it as is the Navy.
>
> I've read that grunts on the ground preffered asking the Navy and Marines
for
> CAS over the USAF.

Ohm My, guess you need to ask the Elite Guard right outside Bagdad. Oh,
that's right. You can't. They are dead. A bunch of idiots in US Air Force
Jets mistakenly missed you and hit them instead. Oh what a huge miss
considering you were sitting safely driving your armchair Army game
stateside.



>
> >Newsflash, the Army can't win em' all without support from the other
branches.
> >
>
> No **** - why do you think I'm bitching about the USAF neglecting such
things?

You are just trolling. Get it right.


>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >>
> >> The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and has come up
with
> >> numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the F-16XL and "A-16" -
where
> >>the USAF tried to convince everybody that a lizard green F-16C with a
30mm
> >>gunpod was an A-10...).
> >
> >You put good money into good and don't put good money into bad. The F-16
> >can go into the Attack role just by reconfiguring the load. So can the
F-18
> >as well. And if they get into trouble with Fighters, they pickle their
load
> >and fight even up.
> >
> >>>
> >> There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that he Air Force
looked
> >>at briefly and then decided that it didn't want (what a surprise...).
> >
> >That gives two pilots the possibility of buying the farm to any Fighter
> >built since 1958.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods and fun stuff
> >>>> that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision Goggles.
> >
> >Don't spend good money on a bad idea. Sounds like a winner to me.
> >
>
> Well, Daryl... I'm going to correct myself, but at the same time embarrass
you.
> The USAF has recently adopted the "Hog Up" program, and will be keeping
the A-10
> around until 2028.
>
> http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.asp?edition=79&storyid=2109
>
> (That's a year old article - hopefully the USAF hasn't changed its mind on
this)

Due to cost, a lot of things will be kept around for a very long time. 2028
is the time that that AF runs out of time. Now, if something comes up that
can pop off the 10 like a flash bulb then it may be quite shorter. And I
read this as doing mods that needed to be done anyway. As I said, the F-16
costs more when you have to buy it. The A-10 is paid for and 12 years past
it's out of service date. Let a shoulder fired missile come out that can
knock it out of the air consistently, look for it to head for DM, Afb real
fast.


>
> (snip)
>
> >>>
> >> The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even
> >considered
> >> the A-12
> >
> >The A-12? You mean the forerunner to the SR-71? Now there's a plane
> >without a mission.
> >
>
> No. I mean the stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted.
>
> http://www.aerofiles.com/gendym-a12.jpg

Rave on. Nice mockup.


>
> >
> >, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a follow on for the
> >> A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't fool anyone on
> >that).
> >
> >IT's not the Air Force attempting to fool anyone here. It was proven in
> >1980 that the A-10 was suseptable to any and all fighters including most
> >Attack Aircraft to include the A-7, A-4, SU7 and a host of other AC it
was
> >supposed to replace. It never filled it's role completely.
> >
>
> It's role is CAS. It has done that well. 80% of the tanks destroyed in
Desert
> Storm were done by A-10s.

After you got there. Most were already gone before the Army even set foot
on the sand. You honestly think the Air Force, Navy and Marines were just
flying cookies in the sky for 6 weeks before the Army showed up?


>
> (snip)
>
> >>
> >> And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g,
can't
> >>fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!!
> >
> >Since you have never seen one inoperation, I don't wonder why you would
say
> >something as silly.
>
> By your standards, since it is low and slow and vulnerable to MIGs, it's
not
> worth a damn.

You read it the way you want. I stated it very well. That AC is justified.

I can thank the God(s) that you aren't a policy maker of any kind.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Daryl Hunt says...
>
>
>"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
>> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
>says...
>> >
>>
>>
>> From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack
>runs
>> in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the
>F-16.
>
>Then you need to see better.

You need to read better.

"In the same time..." means in the same amount of time, an A-10 can do two
attack runs whereas the F-16 will only do one.

>>
>> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
>>
>> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s -
>>even
>> the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back
>> everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")
>
>I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the armored vehicles destroyed by
coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles
A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I
take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They
saved our ass."33 Furthermore, a captured Iraqi officer reported that the
"single most recognizable and feared aircraft at low level was the A-10.
Although the actual bomb run was terrifying, the aircraft's loitering around the
target area caused as much, if not more, anxiety since the Iraqi soldiers were
unsure of the chosen target."34 Another source reported that A-10s killed over
50 percent of all enemy tanks, more than 50 percent of all field artillery
pieces, and 31 percent of all armored personnel carriers. Interestingly enough,
they also accounted for more air-to-air combat kills than the multirole F-16
Fighting Falcon.35 Clearly, the A-10s were decisive combat multipliers on the
battlefield and were instrumental in minimizing US ground losses in the ground
campaign that liberated Kuwait. And, once again, the Air Force used B-52s in the
BAI role to bomb Republican Guard positions as well as troop or equipment
concentrations.36"

32. "`The Air Campaign' Videotape Script," in Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book, vol. 9 (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University, 1993), 37-51.

33. Smallwood, 96.

34. Ibid., 203.

35. "Letters," Air Force Magazine, September 1991, 9-10.

36. Hallion, 221.

It's also in "White Paper - Air Force Performance in Desert Storm, Department of
the Air Force, April 1991."

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that the Russians have a three stage
SAM...

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[redc1c4]

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(snipage occurs, fore and aft)

> Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think
> are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during
> Vietnam but didn't.

really? that appears to be news to most folks:

Three early F-14As were delivered in the autumn of 1972 to VX-4 at NAS
Point Mugu, California for operational evaluation. The replacement
squadron VF-124 at NAS Miramar received its first Tomcats in June of
1972.
The job of VF-124 was to train Tomcat crews for duty with operational
carrier-based squadrons. The first two operational Tomcat squadrons
were VF-1 Wolfpack and VF-2 Bounty Hunters, both based at NAS Miramar.
These units deployed aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in mid-1974.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f014.html

redc1c4,
do you enjoy getting caught lying, or are you just stupid?
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, wrote:

> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>
> >In article >, Joe Osman
> > wrote:
> >snip
> >> > While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
> >> > ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
> >> > footage for some future war movie though.
> >>
> >> That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
> >> fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
> >> ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
> >> last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
> >> release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
> >> terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
> >> capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
> >> where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".
> >
> >The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.
> >
> >The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
> >deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
> >you could be training for something more useful.
> >Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
> >not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
> >
> >I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
> >the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.
>
> until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
> there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
> your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk

....and the odds of that are?

Like I said, you got to bet on the odds.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > <piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
> > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > > In article t>,
> > > > says...
> > > > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > > > k.net
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > says...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > > > > > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That
> died
> > > > > > > when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the
> A-10
> > > > > > > when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7
> to
> > > > > > > an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5
> million
> > > > > > > per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
> > > > > > > TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone know what he is talking about ?
> > > > > > I've not heard of any system like this before.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.
> > > > >
> > > > > First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a
> four-barrel
> > > > > version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless
> nor a
> > > > > chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters
> almost
> > > the
> > > > > same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well.
> The
> > > New
> > > > > York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with
> the
> > > > > GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They
> took
> > > the
> > > > > pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them
> again.
> > >
> > > This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to
> be
> > > for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped
> all
> > > research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached
> > > production.
> > >
> >
> > You're statement implied they existed and were used.
>
> Still trolling and misinterpreting any way that makes you look good. They
> never went into production as the mission for the A-7 was never realized.
> The same reasoning was used as to why no money is being spent on upgrading
> the A-10. Don't dump good money into bad.
>
>

Do you remember saying this ??

==
> > > > > > It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
> > > > > > under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
> > > > > > when the A-7 did
===

Seems you were saying they were built....




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

[B2431]

>DM howler (was Re: A-4 / A-7
>From: redc1c4
>Date: 10/12/2003 10:38 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>(snipage occurs, fore and aft)
>
>> Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think
>> are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during
>> Vietnam but didn't.
>
>really? that appears to be news to most folks:
>
You didn't know we also had AH-64s and M-1 tanks in Viet Nam? Egad, friend,
have you not read war novels and watched movies?

I have seen such memorable lines as "didn't you fly Apaches in Viet Nam" and
stuff like that there.

Then again FOX's War Stories with Oliver North has had such memorable
statements as "most never came back" when referring to the 8th AF bombing
missions.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Replacement_Tommel wrote:
>> In article >,
Daryl Hunt
>> says...
>>
>>
>> "Replacement_Tommel"
>>
'SINVAL IDBABY>
wrote in
>> message ...
>>>> In article
>, Daryl
>>>> Hunt says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Replacement_Tommel"
>>>>
'SINVAL IDBABY>
wrote in
>> message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get
rid rid of
>>>>> the A-10 and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16
in green
>>>>> camoflage with a 30mm gatling gun pod on its center
hardpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the
USAF.
>>>>
>>>> You tell the AF that.
>>>
>>> Oh, they already know it.
>>
>> And when required, they are very good at it as is the
Navy.
>
> I've read that grunts on the ground preffered asking the
Navy and
> Marines for CAS over the USAF.
>
IMHO, based upon experience, I'd call in Army Aviation if it
didn't require heavy ordnance loads or wasn't at too high an
elevation, then Marine Air, then Navy air and if I have a
very good fix on the target, it is a stationary target and
it is at a range in excess of 500 M away from any US
personnel and can be easily identified by someone flying too
high, too fast to be really useful in CAS, (in other words,
not an A-10) then I'd call in the USAF.

>> Newsflash, the Army can't win em' all without support
from the other
>> branches.
>>
>
> No **** - why do you think I'm bitching about the USAF
neglecting
> such things?
>
> (snip)
>
>>
>>>
>>> The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and
has come
>>> up with numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the
F-16XL and
>>> "A-16" - where the USAF tried to convince everybody that
a lizard
>>> green F-16C with a 30mm gunpod was an A-10...).
>>
>> You put good money into good and don't put good money
into bad. The
>> F-16
>> can go into the Attack role just by reconfiguring the
load. So can
>> the F-18 as well. And if they get into trouble with
Fighters, they
>> pickle their load and fight even up.
>>
>>>>
>>> There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that
he Air Force
>>> looked at briefly and then decided that it didn't want
(what a
>>> surprise...).
>>
>> That gives two pilots the possibility of buying the farm
to any
>> Fighter
>> built since 1958.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods
and fun
>>> stuff
>>>>> that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision
Goggles.
>>
>> Don't spend good money on a bad idea. Sounds like a
winner to me.
>>
>
> Well, Daryl... I'm going to correct myself, but at the
same time
> embarrass you. The USAF has recently adopted the "Hog Up"
program,
> and will be keeping the A-10 around until 2028.
>
>
http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.asp?edition=79&storyid=210
9
>
> (That's a year old article - hopefully the USAF hasn't
changed its
> mind on this)
>

There are a lot of US Army aviation types who want the A-10
in Army service. I doubt that the Air Force is too keen on
that as about the only missions they've had recently are in
support of ground operations.

There haven't been any fighter to fighter duels in a long
time.


> (snip)
>
>>>>
>>> The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft.
The Navy
>>> even considered the A-12
>>
>> The A-12? You mean the forerunner to the SR-71? Now
there's a plane
>> without a mission.
>>
>
> No. I mean the stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted.
>
> http://www.aerofiles.com/gendym-a12.jpg
>

Looks interesting and quite possibly a good ground attack
platform (much better than the F/A-18 which isn't much for F
and less for A according to some of the older USMC pilots I
knew.

>>
>> , whereas the the USAF has never really considered a
follow on for
>> the
>>> A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't
fool
>>> anyone on that).
>>
>> IT's not the Air Force attempting to fool anyone here.
It was
>> proven in 1980 that the A-10 was suseptable to any and
all fighters
>> including most Attack Aircraft to include the A-7, A-4,
SU7 and a
>> host of other AC it was supposed to replace. It never
filled it's
>> role completely.
>>
>
> It's role is CAS. It has done that well. 80% of the tanks
destroyed
> in Desert Storm were done by A-10s.
>
> (snip)
>
>>>
>>> And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's
s-l-o-w, b-i-g,
>>> can't fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an
A-10!!!
>>
>> Since you have never seen one inoperation, I don't wonder
why you
>> would say something as silly.
>
> By your standards, since it is low and slow and vulnerable
to MIGs,
> it's not worth a damn.
>


I've seen them in operation, I've also called for AC-130
strikes. It is a good point and area weapon system but very
vulnerable to AAA and to hand held weapons like the SAM 7
and similar missiles. The only countermeasures they have
that work against the missiles are flares and they usually
don't carry a lot of them. If the "bad guys" have a lot
of 12.7 or bigger stuff going up along with missiles the
AC-130 has to get out and wait for the AA to be neutralized
before they can be effective. That generally means the
enemy can seek cover and disperse while the F-15s or F-16s
come in to try to neutralize the AA.

Snark

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
says...
> >
> >
> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
message
> ...
> >> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
> >says...
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two
attack
> >runs
> >> in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the
> >F-16.
> >
> >Then you need to see better.
>
> You need to read better.
>
> "In the same time..." means in the same amount of time, an A-10 can do two
> attack runs whereas the F-16 will only do one.

And the A-10 Pilot is more than twice as vulnerable to everything. You sure
put a low price on a Pilots Life.


>
> >>
> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s -
> >>even
> >> the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took
back
> >> everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")
> >
> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)
>
> Tell the USAF that:
>
> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html

<mercy snip>

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.
Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. And ANY type of
A or F could do this. Bring back the OV-10 or the armed version of the O-2
and they could do it as well. The A-10 was primarily used AFTER the
Fighters and Bombers killed the Armor and made everyone put their heads
down.

End of discussion, Troll Boy.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Daryl Hunt says...
>
>
>"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
>> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
>says...
>> >

(sbip)

>> >>
>> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
>>>>>A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that
>>>>>>>>>>he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his
>>>>>>>>>ass.")
>> >
>> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)
>>
>> Tell the USAF that:
>>
>> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html
>
><mercy snip>
>
>You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>) ARMORED
(<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

> If the A-10 had done the bulk
>of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>) ARMORED
(<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

>Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
says...
> >
> >
> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
message
> ...
> >> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
> >says...
> >> >
>
> (sbip)
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
> >>>>>A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked
that
> >>>>>>>>>>he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
"saved his
> >>>>>>>>>ass.")
> >> >
> >> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)
> >>
> >> Tell the USAF that:
> >>
> >> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html
> >
> ><mercy snip>
> >
> >You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".
>
> Huh?
>
> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
ARMORED
> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
> latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force
air
> component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad
things
> that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "
>
> > If the A-10 had done the bulk
> >of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.
>
> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
ARMORED
> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."
>
> >Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.
>
> The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.
>
> Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.
>
> Your reading skills are pitiful.

Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.

[dvick]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
wrote:

>
>"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
>> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
>says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Replacement_Tommel"
>> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
>message
>> ...
>> >> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
>> >says...
>> >> >
>>
>> (sbip)
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
>> >>>>>A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked
>that
>> >>>>>>>>>>he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
>"saved his
>> >>>>>>>>>ass.")
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)
>> >>
>> >> Tell the USAF that:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html
>> >
>> ><mercy snip>
>> >
>> >You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
>assets,
>> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
>ARMORED
>> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
>> latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force
>air
>> component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad
>things
>> that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "
>>
>> > If the A-10 had done the bulk
>> >of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.
>>
>> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
>assets,
>> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
>ARMORED
>> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."
>>
>> >Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.
>>
>> The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.
>>
>> Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.
>>
>> Your reading skills are pitiful.
>
>Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
>The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the
>Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
>statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
>was NOT an official Air Force Statement.
>
>

So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.

[Daryl Hunt]

"dvick" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
message
> ...
> >> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
> >says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> >> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
> >message
> >> ...
> >> >> >In article >, Daryl
Hunt
> >> >says...
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> (sbip)
> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by
Bombers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
> >> >>>>>A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner
remarked
> >that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
> >"saved his
> >> >>>>>>>>>ass.")
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)
> >> >>
> >> >> Tell the USAF that:
> >> >>
> >> >>
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html
> >> >
> >> ><mercy snip>
> >> >
> >> >You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >>
> >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
> >assets,
> >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
> >ARMORED
> >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During
the
> >> latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint
force
> >air
> >> component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the
bad
> >things
> >> that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "
> >>
> >> > If the A-10 had done the bulk
> >> >of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that
claim.
> >>
> >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
> >assets,
> >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
> >ARMORED
> >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."
> >>
> >> >Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.
> >>
> >> The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.
> >>
> >> Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.
> >>
> >> Your reading skills are pitiful.
> >
> >Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
> >The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of
the
> >Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
> >statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
> >was NOT an official Air Force Statement.
> >
> >
>
> So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
> Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
> Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
> You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
> said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.

I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on.
Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer
necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.

But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.

[redc1c4]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> "dvick" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Replacement_Tommel"
> > 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
> message
> > ...
> > >> >In article >, Daryl Hunt
> > >says...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> > >> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
> > >message
> > >> ...
> > >> >> >In article >, Daryl
> Hunt
> > >> >says...
> > >> >> >
> > >>
> > >> (sbip)
> > >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by
> Bombers.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
> > >> >>>>>A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner
> remarked
> > >that
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
> > >"saved his
> > >> >>>>>>>>>ass.")
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Tell the USAF that:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html
> > >> >
> > >> ><mercy snip>
> > >> >
> > >> >You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".
> > >>
> > >> Huh?
> > >>
> > >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
> > >assets,
> > >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
> > >ARMORED
> > >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During
> the
> > >> latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint
> force
> > >air
> > >> component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the
> bad
> > >things
> > >> that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "
> > >>
> > >> > If the A-10 had done the bulk
> > >> >of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that
> claim.
> > >>
> > >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
> > >assets,
> > >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------>)
> > >ARMORED
> > >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."
> > >>
> > >> >Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.
> > >>
> > >> The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.
> > >>
> > >> Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.
> > >>
> > >> Your reading skills are pitiful.
> > >
> > >Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
> > >The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of
> the
> > >Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
> > >statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
> > >was NOT an official Air Force Statement.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
> > Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
> > Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
> > You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
> > said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.
>
> I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on.
> Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer
> necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.
>
> But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.

we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way.

redc1c4,
not likely, but there's always one optimist in the crowd.... %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[Daryl Hunt]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> > "dvick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Replacement_Tommel"
> > > 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
> > message
> > > ...
> > > >> >In article >, Daryl
Hunt
> > > >says...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> > > >> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote
in
> > > >message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> >> >In article >, Daryl
> > Hunt
> > > >> >says...
> > > >> >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> (sbip)
> > > >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by
> > Bombers.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done
by
> > > >> >>>>>A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner
> > remarked
> > > >that
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>he took back everything bad he said about the A-10
because it
> > > >"saved his
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>ass.")
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of
course)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Tell the USAF that:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> ><mercy snip>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".
> > > >>
> > > >> Huh?
> > > >>
> > > >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's
air
> > > >assets,
> > > >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look
Daryl ------>)
> > > >ARMORED
> > > >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32
During
> > the
> > > >> latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint
> > force
> > > >air
> > > >> component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of
the
> > bad
> > > >things
> > > >> that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "
> > > >>
> > > >> > If the A-10 had done the bulk
> > > >> >of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that
> > claim.
> > > >>
> > > >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's
air
> > > >assets,
> > > >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look
Daryl ------>)
> > > >ARMORED
> > > >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."
> > > >>
> > > >> >Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.
> > > >>
> > > >> The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.
> > > >>
> > > >> Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Your reading skills are pitiful.
> > > >
> > > >Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10
arrived.
> > > >The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80%
of
> > the
> > > >Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
> > > >statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it?
This
> > > >was NOT an official Air Force Statement.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
> > > Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
> > > Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
> > > You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
> > > said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.
> >
> > I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes
on.
> > Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no
longer
> > necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.
> >
> > But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.
>
> we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way.

Already presented it. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't
make it any less.

We have beaten this to death.

Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts.

[redc1c4]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Daryl Hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > "dvick" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Replacement_Tommel"
> > > > 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> >In article >, Daryl
> Hunt
> > > > >says...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >"Replacement_Tommel"
> > > > >> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote
> in
> > > > >message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> >> >In article >, Daryl
> > > Hunt
> > > > >> >says...
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (sbip)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by
> > > Bombers.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done
> by
> > > > >> >>>>>A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner
> > > remarked
> > > > >that
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>he took back everything bad he said about the A-10
> because it
> > > > >"saved his
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>ass.")
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of
> course)
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Tell the USAF that:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/fedor2a.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> ><mercy snip>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Huh?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's
> air
> > > > >assets,
> > > > >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look
> Daryl ------>)
> > > > >ARMORED
> > > > >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32
> During
> > > the
> > > > >> latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint
> > > force
> > > > >air
> > > > >> component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of
> the
> > > bad
> > > > >things
> > > > >> that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > If the A-10 had done the bulk
> > > > >> >of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that
> > > claim.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's
> air
> > > > >assets,
> > > > >> A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look
> Daryl ------>)
> > > > >ARMORED
> > > > >> (<----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Your reading skills are pitiful.
> > > > >
> > > > >Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10
> arrived.
> > > > >The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80%
> of
> > > the
> > > > >Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
> > > > >statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it?
> This
> > > > >was NOT an official Air Force Statement.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
> > > > Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
> > > > Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
> > > > You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
> > > > said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.
> > >
> > > I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes
> on.
> > > Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no
> longer
> > > necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.
> > >
> > > But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.
> >
> > we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way.
>
> Already presented it. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't
> make it any less.
>
> We have beaten this to death.
>
> Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts.

now you're channeling V-Man? you are desperate..........

who is Keyser Sose, BTW? %-)

redc1c4,
permanent party here @ FSB UMA
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[Matt Wiser]

(B2431) wrote:
>>DM howler (was Re: A-4 / A-7
>>From: redc1c4
>
>>Date: 10/12/2003 10:38 PM Central Daylight
>Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Daryl Hunt wrote:
>>
>>(snipage occurs, fore and aft)
>>
>>> Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and
>just how many F-22s do you think
>>> are in the active duty inventory? We could
>have used the F-14 during
>>> Vietnam but didn't.
FYI the F-14 was not considered ready until 1974. VF-1 and VF-2 made the
first cruise on USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) in 1975. They did participate in
Operation FREQUENT WIND on 28-29 Apr 1975 covering the evacuation. Several
were fired on by NVA triple-A but no damage or loss of aircraft. And no MiGs
came to disrupt the evac.
The ship had moved on to the IO when USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) covered the Mayaguez
rescue in May.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[redc1c4]

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(massive snipage, fore and aft)

> You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
> enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of
> Buckley in the late 50s.

so i asked the folks who would know:

To: AFHSO Research
Subject: P 38 Lightning question

when was it pulled from active duty?

their reply:

The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
Honduras.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"):

thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up:

were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of
front
line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?:

they said:

I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
reserve
units.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back
in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions
are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic.

either that, or you're a congenital liar.

redc1c4,
(yes, this is a SPNAK! %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[Daryl Hunt]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> (massive snipage, fore and aft)
>
> > You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
> > enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out
of
> > Buckley in the late 50s.
>
> so i asked the folks who would know:
>
> To: AFHSO Research
> Subject: P 38 Lightning question
>
> when was it pulled from active duty?
>
> their reply:
>
> The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
> private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
> Honduras.
>
> Air Force History Support Office
> Reference and Analysis Branch
> AFHSO/HOR
>
>
> and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"):
>
> thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up:
>
> were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of
> front
> line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?:
>
> they said:
>
> I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
> reserve
> units.
>
> Air Force History Support Office
> Reference and Analysis Branch
> AFHSO/HOR
>
>
> so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back
> in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions
> are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic.
>
> either that, or you're a congenital liar.

I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight come
from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except, "Plane"
in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that
phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so that
it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again.
> I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
> reserve
> units
means that they don't have that information available either way. So, you
piece of mudslinging, sucking garbage, crawl back under your rock.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight
come
> from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except,
"Plane"
> in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that
> phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so that
> it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again.

From
http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/p-38.asp

"The last P-38 was delivered in September 1945, and the type
was phased out of service in 1949."

Keith

[Daryl Hunt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight
> come
> > from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except,
> "Plane"
> > in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that
> > phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so
that
> > it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again.
>
> From
> http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/p-38.asp
>
> "The last P-38 was delivered in September 1945, and the type
> was phased out of service in 1949."

Yes. The operative word was Active Duty. Buckley Air Field was Guard up to
2001. Buckley has just recently become and Active Duty AFB in 2001.

Your information does coincide with the aholes info.

The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
Honduras.

Front line usually means Active Regulars. But to make a point, look up the
reasons that the P-47, P-51 and the P-38 was shoved into holes during Korea.
In order to get the P-80s, they had to get rid of the Prop Jobs. That would
place all of them well past 1949. Of course,

The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950. They
were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you get
a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s as
well.

The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during Korea
before they were replaced.

There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough
to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
buried many of them to get the new jets.

[David Casey]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:44:56 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:

> There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough
> to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
> Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> buried many of them to get the new jets.

You should email these folks to help them set their records straight:

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

B Co, 404th Signal Battalion,
404th Infantry Division (Lemming)
"We *are* UMA!"

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, redc1c4 says...
>
>Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>(massive snipage, fore and aft)
>
>> You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
>> enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of
>> Buckley in the late 50s.
>
>so i asked the folks who would know:
>
>To: AFHSO Research
>Subject: P 38 Lightning question
>
>when was it pulled from active duty?
>
>their reply:
>
>The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
>private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
>Honduras.
>
>Air Force History Support Office
>Reference and Analysis Branch
>AFHSO/HOR

>
>and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"):
>
>thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up:
>
>were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of
>front
>line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?:
>
>they said:
>
>I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
>reserve
>units.
>
>Air Force History Support Office
>Reference and Analysis Branch
>AFHSO/HOR

>
>so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back
>in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions
>are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic.
>
>either that, or you're a congenital liar.
>
>redc1c4,
>(yes, this is a SPNAK! %-)
>--

IIRC when WWII was over the USAF had a choice between scrapping the P-51 or
scrapping the P-47, since the P-51 was a "sexier" plane, they chose the P-51
(desiginated F-51 later on). When Korea rolled around, the prop jobs were
assigned CAS duties. The Navy and the Marines were using air-cooled Corsairs
(not the SLUF Daryl, the original one - the bent wing bird) and enjoyerd a
greater success with them than the USAF did.

Why?

Because an air-cooled engine is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a
liquid-cooled engine is.

BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is full of
it...

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Daryl Hunt]

"David Casey" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:44:56 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> > There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just
enough
> > to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of
the
> > Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> > buried many of them to get the new jets.
>
> You should email these folks to help them set their records straight:
>
> Air Force History Support Office
> Reference and Analysis Branch
> AFHSO/HOR
>

You do it if it's that important to you. History is written by the winners
and we all know that there is only the history that we are fed. Sort of
like, "What was the real reason behind the Civil War". History says that it
was over slavery (depending on whom you speak to), the North says it was
about the Secession of the South. But the South says it was over the one
sided economics of the day. It was definately NOT slavery as Lincoln vetoed
the Emancipation the first time through.

But you keep reading those books and stay inside.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >In article >, redc1c4 says...
> >
> >Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> >(massive snipage, fore and aft)
> >
> >> You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
> >> enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out
of
> >> Buckley in the late 50s.
> >
> >so i asked the folks who would know:
> >
> >To: AFHSO Research
> >Subject: P 38 Lightning question
> >
> >when was it pulled from active duty?
> >
> >their reply:
> >
> >The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
> >private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
> >Honduras.
> >
> >Air Force History Support Office
> >Reference and Analysis Branch
> >AFHSO/HOR
>
> >
> >and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"):
> >
> >thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up:
> >
> >were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of
> >front
> >line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?:
> >
> >they said:
> >
> >I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
> >reserve
> >units.
> >
> >Air Force History Support Office
> >Reference and Analysis Branch
> >AFHSO/HOR
>
> >
> >so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back
> >in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions
> >are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic.
> >
> >either that, or you're a congenital liar.
> >
> >redc1c4,
> >(yes, this is a SPNAK! %-)
> >--
>
> IIRC when WWII was over the USAF had a choice between scrapping the P-51
or
> scrapping the P-47, since the P-51 was a "sexier" plane, they chose the
P-51
> (desiginated F-51 later on). When Korea rolled around, the prop jobs were
> assigned CAS duties. The Navy and the Marines were using air-cooled
Corsairs
> (not the SLUF Daryl, the original one - the bent wing bird) and enjoyerd a
> greater success with them than the USAF did.

Gee and to think you made the claim that they went out of service in 1949.
Imagine that. They were used into the 1950s exactly as I stated. The P-38
was as well as the P-51.

Now, answer this one. Why was the Corsair such a sucky bird overall and why
did the Gyrenes drool when a P-38 past them in flight? Why were there so
many ground loops from the F-4U? Time for you to hit the google search
engine and the books once again. But make sure you stay inside. It's not
safe out in the real world.


>
> Why?
>
> Because an air-cooled engine is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire
than a
> liquid-cooled engine is.

hate to bust your bubble but I entered the AF as a Recip Mechanic. It was
later on changed to Propulsion Technician. My uniforms weren't green. They
were black.

The P-38 was the first fighter to be able to disengage anytime it wished.
The others didn't have that option. As one Lighting pilot put it, "If I was
Jumped from above and didn't like the situation, I just disengaged". If the
38 lost an engine, they found the nearest cloud bank and hid out. Unless
you were in one of the pieces of crap that was sold to the British, that is.
Now, what was the main difference between the export 38s and the domestic?
Comon Hero, let's hear it.


>
> BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is
full of
> it...

No, just you.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Daryl Hunt says...
>
>
>"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
>
>>
>> IIRC when WWII was over the USAF had a choice between scrapping the P-51
>or
>> scrapping the P-47, since the P-51 was a "sexier" plane, they chose the
>P-51
>> (desiginated F-51 later on). When Korea rolled around, the prop jobs were
>> assigned CAS duties. The Navy and the Marines were using air-cooled
>>Corsairs
>> (not the SLUF Daryl, the original one - the bent wing bird) and enjoyerd a
>> greater success with them than the USAF did.
>
>Gee and to think you made the claim that they went out of service in 1949.

Apparently, the P-38 Lightning did.

>Imagine that. They were used into the 1950s exactly as I stated.

I mentioned the P-51 (F-51), the P-47 and the the Corsair. The P-38 was gone by
then, Daryl.

> The P-38 was as well as the P-51.
>

Daryl, by the Korean war they were gone.

>Now, answer this one. Why was the Corsair such a sucky bird overall and why
>did the Gyrenes drool when a P-38 past them in flight? Why were there so
>many ground loops from the F-4U? Time for you to hit the google search
>engine and the books once again. But make sure you stay inside. It's not
>safe out in the real world.
>

Daryl, I don't have to hit Google for this because I'm a bit of a warbird buff.
The Corsair wasn't a sucky bird at all. It had some problems, yes - The long
nose was thought (by the Navy) to be problematic during landings, it had a habit
of throwing oil, but it was generally considered a good fighter and considered
by many to be the best one in the PTO.

>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because an air-cooled engine is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire
>>than a liquid-cooled engine is.
>
>hate to bust your bubble but I entered the AF as a Recip Mechanic. It was
>later on changed to Propulsion Technician. My uniforms weren't green. They
>were black.
>
>The P-38 was the first fighter to be able to disengage anytime it wished.
>The others didn't have that option. As one Lighting pilot put it, "If I was
>Jumped from above and didn't like the situation, I just disengaged". If the
>38 lost an engine, they found the nearest cloud bank and hid out. Unless
>you were in one of the pieces of crap that was sold to the British, that is.
>Now, what was the main difference between the export 38s and the domestic?
>Comon Hero, let's hear it.
>

They had crappier engines installed in them.

BTW what does that have to do with the statement "Because an air-cooled engine
is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a liquid-cooled engine is."?

BTW are you claiming to have worked on P-38s now?

And I trust you know why the P-38s weren't considered a great fighter in ETO and
why most of them were shipped off to the PTO don't you?

>
>>
>> BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is
>>full of it...
>
>No, just you.
>

So you admit that they were right and that P-38s were withdrawn before the
Korean War then?

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[David Casey]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:06:14 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:

>>> There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just
>>> enough to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the
>>> beginning of the Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets,
>>> they stated that the buried many of them to get the new jets.
>>
>> You should email these folks to help them set their records straight:
>>
>> Air Force History Support Office
>> Reference and Analysis Branch
>> AFHSO/HOR
>>
>
> You do it if it's that important to you. History is written by the winners
> and we all know that there is only the history that we are fed. Sort of
> like, "What was the real reason behind the Civil War". History says that it
> was over slavery (depending on whom you speak to), the North says it was
> about the Secession of the South. But the South says it was over the one
> sided economics of the day. It was definately NOT slavery as Lincoln vetoed
> the Emancipation the first time through.
>
> But you keep reading those books and stay inside.

First, it wasn't a book but an actual email from someone who has access to
that information which red posted which (surprise surprise) showed you to
be wrong.

Second, "history is written by the winners" doesn't apply here as it's US
military history we're talking about and last I checked the US military
wasn't fighting itself during WWII.

Third, if you're so brain dead as to take someone who *knows* what you're
talking about as a bunch of crap it's no wonder you've been laughed at from
one end of Usenet to the other.

Fourth, why are you trying to change the subject to the Civil War when we're
talking about the P-38 and your claim it was still in active service after
1949 when the Air Force itself says you're wrong?

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

B Co, 404th Signal Battalion,
404th Infantry Division (Lemming)
"We *are* UMA!"

[Keith Willshaw]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that
flight
> > come
> > > from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except,
> > "Plane"
> > > in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for
that
> > > phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so
> that
> > > it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again.
> >
> > From
> > http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/p-38.asp
> >
> > "The last P-38 was delivered in September 1945, and the type
> > was phased out of service in 1949."
>
> Yes. The operative word was Active Duty. Buckley Air Field was Guard up
to
> 2001. Buckley has just recently become and Active Duty AFB in 2001.
>
> Your information does coincide with the aholes info.
>
> The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
> private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
> Honduras.
>
> Front line usually means Active Regulars. But to make a point, look up
the
> reasons that the P-47, P-51 and the P-38 was shoved into holes during
Korea.
> In order to get the P-80s, they had to get rid of the Prop Jobs. That
would
> place all of them well past 1949. Of course,
>

The P-38's and P-47's were gone by Korea says the AF says and they
should know. The F-51's did indeed soldier on.

> The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950. They
> were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you
get
> a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s as
> well.
>

Not according to their unit history, it says they were only
at Kimpo in Korea in 1950 and further says they were all P-80
by that time having converted from P-51's in 1948

They onlyP-38's they had were for training when first formed in Jan 1941

http://www.osan.af.mil/Public/51FW/51fw-history.html

> The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during
Korea
> before they were replaced.
>

They were inactivated on 9 Sept 1945 as 97 Fighter Squadron, Two Engine

They reformed as a P-51 unit on 12 Apr. 1947 and were
officially designated 97 Fighter Squadron, Single Engine, on, 15 Aug. 1947

http://www.82ndfightergroup.com/97history.htm

> There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just
enough
> to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
> Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> buried many of them to get the new jets.
>

There's plenty of information about F-51 and Corsair service
but it doesnt seem likely any P-38's or P-47's served in official
roles in Korea.

Keith

[Marc Reeve]

Daryl Hunt > wrote:

> The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950. They
> were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you
> get a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s
> as well.
>
> The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during Korea
> before they were replaced.
>
> There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough
> to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
> Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> buried many of them to get the new jets.

Martin Caidin, not that he's necessarily a valid source, stated such in
the intro to his book "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38". Claimed that orders
came down to "dispose" of the Lightnings - but they weren't to be handed
to our nominal allies, the South Koreans, so they were bulldozed into a
ditch and covered over. (He then maunders about how much those planes
would be worth today, yadda yadda yadda.) The implication was that he
had witnessed it personally, but again, it was Caidin, so who knows if
that was true.

-Marc

(actually, my bull**** alarm is pinging - he may have been referring to
the initial withdrawal of US troops from Korea that led the DPRK to
think it'd be safe to invade. I'll have to dig up the book & check.)
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Keith Willshaw]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
...
> Daryl Hunt > wrote:
>
> > The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950.
They
> > were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you
> > get a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s
> > as well.
> >
> > The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during
Korea
> > before they were replaced.
> >
> > There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just
enough
> > to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of
the
> > Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> > buried many of them to get the new jets.
>
> Martin Caidin, not that he's necessarily a valid source, stated such in
> the intro to his book "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38". Claimed that orders
> came down to "dispose" of the Lightnings - but they weren't to be handed
> to our nominal allies, the South Koreans, so they were bulldozed into a
> ditch and covered over. (He then maunders about how much those planes
> would be worth today, yadda yadda yadda.) The implication was that he
> had witnessed it personally, but again, it was Caidin, so who knows if
> that was true.
>
> -Marc
>
> (actually, my bull**** alarm is pinging - he may have been referring to
> the initial withdrawal of US troops from Korea that led the DPRK to
> think it'd be safe to invade. I'll have to dig up the book & check.)
> --

I suspect he's right BUT that incident happened in 1945 , a lot of other
planes got treated the same way right after the war as the units
were disbanded and the men shipped home.

Keith

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:52:51 +0100, a stranger
called by some "Keith Willshaw" >
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>> The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950. They
>> were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you
>get
>> a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s as
>> well.
>
>Not according to their unit history, it says they were only
>at Kimpo in Korea in 1950 and further says they were all P-80
>by that time having converted from P-51's in 1948

Wait! What are doing confusing Daryl with facts? Don't you know that
Daryl was a super-secret special Air Force guy? Who went through
Airborne School dunk? And that he's always right even though the
United States Air Force says he's wrong?

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >hate to bust your bubble but I entered the AF as a Recip Mechanic. It
was
> >later on changed to Propulsion Technician. My uniforms weren't green.
They
> >were black.
> >
> >The P-38 was the first fighter to be able to disengage anytime it wished.
> >The others didn't have that option. As one Lighting pilot put it, "If I
was
> >Jumped from above and didn't like the situation, I just disengaged". If
the
> >38 lost an engine, they found the nearest cloud bank and hid out. Unless
> >you were in one of the pieces of crap that was sold to the British, that
is.
> >Now, what was the main difference between the export 38s and the
domestic?
> >Comon Hero, let's hear it.
> >
>
> They had crappier engines installed in them.

BZZTTT, wrong answer. The domestics had counterrotating engines. If you
lost and engine, the torgue factor was lessened. The Exports had right turn
engines only and were prone to spriral when the Left Engine was lost.


>
> BTW what does that have to do with the statement "Because an air-cooled
engine
> is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a liquid-cooled engine
is."?
>
> BTW are you claiming to have worked on P-38s now?

Give your trolling a rest for a bit.


>
> And I trust you know why the P-38s weren't considered a great fighter in
ETO and
> why most of them were shipped off to the PTO don't you?

Do you? Or are you going to post something by a long since dead author.
Newsflash, those are opinions as well.


>
> >
> >>
> >> BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is
> >>full of it...
> >
> >No, just you.
> >
>
> So you admit that they were right and that P-38s were withdrawn before the
> Korean War then?

My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron of them
overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of Buckley
Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.

[av8r]

> Front line usually means Active Regulars.

Really...what lines do you think the Air National Guard and the U.S.A.F.
Reserve were on when they took part in the Viet Nam War, Gulf War and
other hotspots since then.


>But to make a point, look up the reasons that the P-47, P-51 and the P-38 was shoved
into holes during Korea. > In order to get the P-80s, they had to get
rid of the Prop Jobs.
That would place all of them well past 1949. Of course,


* You are quite delusional making a statement like this. No one in
their right mind would risk a court martial or worse for such an act.
It would have certainly taken more than one person to dispose of an
aircraft in the manner you are suggesting. How long do think something
like this could be kept a secret?


> The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950. They
> were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you get
> a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s as
> well.


* The 51st Fighter Interceptor Wing duty stations:

Itazuke Air Base, Japan - September 22nd, 1950
Kimpo Air Base, South Korea (K-14) - October 10th, 1950
Itazuke Air Base, Japan - December 10th, 1950
Tsuiki Air Base, Japan - January 15th, 1951
Suwon Air Base, South Korea (K-13) - October 1st, 1951 through to July
26th, 1954

NOTE: The 51st F.I.W. was redesignated 51st Air Base Wing on the 20th of
October, 1971 and activated on the 1st of November, 1970 at Osan Air
Base, Republic of Korea.

The 51st F.I.W. used the following types of aircraft:

Northrop F-61
1948 to 1950

Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star
1948 to 1951

North American F-82 Mustang
1949 to 1950

North American F-86 Sabre
1951 to 1960

Lockheed F-94 Starfire
1954 to 1955

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
1959 to 1964

I'll leave it at this point. So much for P-38's, which incidentally in
1948 were redesignated F-38. And the same for P-51 (F-51) Mustangs and
the P-47 (F-47) Thunderbolts.


> The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during Korea
> before they were replaced.


* More Grade 'A' bull****. The 82nd Fighter Wing was established on the
28th of July, 1947. It was organized on the 15th of August, 1947. The
wing was discontinued on the 1st of August, 1948. It was activated on
the the same day. On the 2nd of October, 1949 it was inactivated. On
the 22nd of June, 1972 it was redesignated the 82nd Flying Wing and
subsequently activated on the 1st of February, 1973.


* The 82nd Fighter Wing was assigned to Strategic Air Command. Duty
stations included:

Grenier Field, New Hampshire - August 15th, 1947 to 1st of August, 1948

Grenier Air Force Base, New Hampshire - 1st of August, 1948 to 2nd of
October, 1949.

Williams Air Force Base, Arizona - 1st of February, 1973


* The 82nd Fighter Wing operated the following types of aircraft:

North American P-51D Mustang
1947-1948

North American F-51D Mustang
1948-1949


> There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough
> to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
> Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> buried many of them to get the new jets.


* Have you been hearing strange voices again!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers...Chris

[Michael Williamson]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "Replacement_Tommel"
> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>hate to bust your bubble but I entered the AF as a Recip Mechanic. It
>>
> was
>
>>>later on changed to Propulsion Technician. My uniforms weren't green.
>>
> They
>
>>>were black.
>>>
>>>The P-38 was the first fighter to be able to disengage anytime it wished.
>>>The others didn't have that option. As one Lighting pilot put it, "If I
>>
> was
>
>>>Jumped from above and didn't like the situation, I just disengaged". If
>>
> the
>
>>>38 lost an engine, they found the nearest cloud bank and hid out. Unless
>>>you were in one of the pieces of crap that was sold to the British, that
>>
> is.

In this discussion, I presume the export versions mentioned below
and the "pieces of crap ... sold to the British" both refer to the
Lightning I and Lightning II (which were modified by due to the
British specifications, which called for a different engine
and no turbosupercharging (in the case of the Lightning I),
along with other system changes (radios, O2 equipment, etc.).

None of the Lightning Is were actually accepted by the British.
The Lightning IIs were similarly rejected by the British, even
though these were from a later specification and would have
suffered from none of the flaws that the British felt the
Lightning I suffered. The Lightning I's were used by the USAAF
as P-322 or RP-322 aricraft, IIRC, while the Lightning IIs were
reworked on the assembly lines, becoming P-38F or G models.
British pilots never flew the Lightning in combat that I've
seen documented. Later P-38s and F-4/F-5 aircraft used
by the Free French, Chinese, etc., were supplied straight
out of normal production and were therefore identical to
US airframes when delivered- radios, etc., may have been
changed out, but the aircraft themselves were straight off
the assembly lines as standard delivery models. So the
British never bought (or paid for) any Lightnings from
Lockheed. Perhaps they might have if the contracts
(especially for the Lightning II) were under the later
lend-lease program, but they weren't and the British
nearly defaulted on the contract, being "saved" from
doing so when the US Army snapped up all Lightnings
after the US entry into the war.

>
>>>Now, what was the main difference between the export 38s and the
>>
> domestic?
>
>>>Comon Hero, let's hear it.
>>>
>>
>>They had crappier engines installed in them.
>
>
> BZZTTT, wrong answer. The domestics had counterrotating engines. If you
> lost and engine, the torgue factor was lessened. The Exports had right turn
> engines only and were prone to spriral when the Left Engine was lost.
>

These export models did indeed have C series 1710's, which were
installed in the XP-38, but abandoned for engines with different gear
cases (F series I think, don't have reference handy). The C
series both rotated in the same direction to ease supply issues, and
were common to the P-40s in British service. They also developed less
power than the later series engines. The result of the rotation
change from the P-38's was poorer handling, IIRC, but the main
performance problem was related to the removal of the
turbosuperchargers. Supercharger production was fairly low rate at
the time, and up to the placement of the order, air combat had taken
place at relatively low altitudes. By the time the aircraft were
coming off the assembly line, British requirements no longer matched
what they had ordered. The lack of turbosupercharger for the V-1710
engines resulted in high altitude performance which was not acceptable
to the British (it was, however, within the performance specs of
the contract). There was also the issue of high speed buffet, but
that was also something not specified in the contract, and corrected
shortly thereafter by introduction of the leading edge fillets for
the wing center sections.

BTW, as far as entering a spiral if the left engine was lost,
the right hand rotation of the prop would have resulted in the
same rotation on the remaining engine whether in a Lightning I
or P-38 of any model except the XP (props on production P-38s
rotated outwards, so the right engine had right rotation).
This actually INCREASED P-factor which resulted in yawing
and rolling tendencies, but was found to be necessary during
flight testing of the XP-38 due to disturbed airflow over
the wing center section.

As a note, the XP-38 and Ligntning I engine nacelles are
easily distinguishable from other models, as the thrust line
off the engine gearbox was lower on the C series, and the
prop sits visibly lower on the those two aircraft than on
the P-38s using the later series engine. The XP of course,
had numerous other differences and didn't really look like
any of the P-38s from the YP on.

Mike

[Michael]

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message >...
> Daryl Hunt > wrote:
>
> > The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950.

Their main type was the F-82 from '48 to May '51 when they switched to
F-86s.

> > They
> > were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you
> > get a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s
> > as well.
> >
> > The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during Korea
> > before they were replaced.

Who? According to

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/Wings/FighterWings.htm

the 82nd Fighter Wing was in Europe as part of SAC from Jan '48 to
October '49 then inactivated. Are you referring to another unit
maybe?

> > There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough
> > to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
> > Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> > buried many of them to get the new jets.

The USAF had gotten rid of the P-38 and P-47 by '50, though some ANG
units might have still had P-47s. The P-51 was used throughout the
entire Korean War IIRC.

~Michael

[Michael]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> "Replacement_Tommel"
> 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
> ...
> > >hate to bust your bubble but I entered the AF as a Recip Mechanic. It
> was
> > >later on changed to Propulsion Technician. My uniforms weren't green.
> They
> > >were black.
> > >
> > >The P-38 was the first fighter to be able to disengage anytime it wished.
> > >The others didn't have that option. As one Lighting pilot put it, "If I
> was
> > >Jumped from above and didn't like the situation, I just disengaged". If
> the
> > >38 lost an engine, they found the nearest cloud bank and hid out. Unless
> > >you were in one of the pieces of crap that was sold to the British, that
> is.
> > >Now, what was the main difference between the export 38s and the
> domestic?
> > >Comon Hero, let's hear it.
> > >
> >
> > They had crappier engines installed in them.
>
> BZZTTT, wrong answer. The domestics had counterrotating engines. If you
> lost and engine, the torgue factor was lessened. The Exports had right turn
> engines only and were prone to spriral when the Left Engine was lost.
>
>
> >
> > BTW what does that have to do with the statement "Because an air-cooled
> engine
> > is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a liquid-cooled engine
> is."?
> >
> > BTW are you claiming to have worked on P-38s now?
>
> Give your trolling a rest for a bit.
>
>
> >
> > And I trust you know why the P-38s weren't considered a great fighter in
> ETO and
> > why most of them were shipped off to the PTO don't you?
>
> Do you? Or are you going to post something by a long since dead author.
> Newsflash, those are opinions as well.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is
> > >>full of it...
> > >
> > >No, just you.
> > >
> >
> > So you admit that they were right and that P-38s were withdrawn before the
> > Korean War then?
>
> My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron of them
> overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of Buckley
> Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.

According to

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm

Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.

~Michael

[David Casey]

On 17 Oct 2003 07:52:17 -0700, Michael wrote:

>> My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron of them
>> overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of Buckley
>> Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
>
> According to
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
>
> Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.

Oh now you're just trolling Daryl. ;-)

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

B Co, 404th Signal Battalion,
404th Infantry Division (Lemming)
"We *are* UMA!"

[Daryl Hunt]

"David Casey" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Oct 2003 07:52:17 -0700, Michael wrote:
>
> >> My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron of
them
> >> overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of
Buckley
> >> Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
> >
> > According to
> >
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
> >
> > Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
>
> Oh now you're just trolling Daryl. ;-)

He stated a fact, Troll. Buckley has been through so many Command Changes,
the USAF is now the flavor of the month.

[redc1c4]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> "David Casey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 17 Oct 2003 07:52:17 -0700, Michael wrote:
> >
> > >> My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron of
> them
> > >> overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of
> Buckley
> > >> Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
> > >
> > > According to
> > >
> > > http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
> > >
> > > Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
> >
> > Oh now you're just trolling Daryl. ;-)
>
> He stated a fact, Troll. Buckley has been through so many Command Changes,
> the USAF is now the flavor of the month.

but how do you square the fact that it was Navy during the "late 50's"
with your claim that a flight of Air Force P/F-38's was based there?

face it, you're breaking the law again with your posts in this thread.

redc1c4,
http://www.buckley.af.mil/heritage.htm (base history starts on pg 5 %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[David Casey]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:30:40 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:

>>> According to
>>>
>>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
>>>
>>> Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
>>
>> Oh now you're just trolling Daryl. ;-)
>
> He stated a fact, Troll. Buckley has been through so many Command Changes,
> the USAF is now the flavor of the month.

Funny, it appears someone else showed you to be wrong *again*. So, now
we're just trolling you, right? LOL!

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

B Co, 404th Signal Battalion,
404th Infantry Division (Lemming)
"We *are* UMA!"

[Peter Stickney]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Daryl Hunt > wrote:
> >
> > > The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950.
> They
> > > were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you
> > > get a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s
> > > as well.
> > >
> > > The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during
> Korea
> > > before they were replaced.
> > >
> > > There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just
> enough
> > > to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of
> the
> > > Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
> > > buried many of them to get the new jets.
> >
> > Martin Caidin, not that he's necessarily a valid source, stated such in
> > the intro to his book "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38". Claimed that orders
> > came down to "dispose" of the Lightnings - but they weren't to be handed
> > to our nominal allies, the South Koreans, so they were bulldozed into a
> > ditch and covered over. (He then maunders about how much those planes
> > would be worth today, yadda yadda yadda.) The implication was that he
> > had witnessed it personally, but again, it was Caidin, so who knows if
> > that was true.
> >
> > -Marc
> >
> > (actually, my bull**** alarm is pinging - he may have been referring to
> > the initial withdrawal of US troops from Korea that led the DPRK to
> > think it'd be safe to invade. I'll have to dig up the book & check.)
> > --
>
> I suspect he's right BUT that incident happened in 1945 , a lot of other
> planes got treated the same way right after the war as the units
> were disbanded and the men shipped home.

I'm probably going to fan all sorts of foolishness, but here's what
the Air Force History Office, via _Combat Units of the Air Force_,
Maurer Maurer, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., and
_Combat Squadrons of the Air Force_, Maurer Maurer, Governmnet
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
have to say on the subject of Fighter Equipment in the post-WW 2 era:

P-38 units:
The following units were equipped with P-38s just postwar:
1st Fighter Group - Inactivated October 1945
8th Fighter Group - Converted to P-51s in 1946
49th Fighter Group - Converted to P-51s in 1946
51st Fighter Group - Inactivated in late 1945
57th Fighter Group - Converted to P-51s in early 1947
67th Recon Group - Inactivated in March 1946
347th Fighter Group - Inactivated December 45
474th Fighter Group - Inactivated November 45
475th Fighter Group - Stationed at Kimpo, Koea in September '45
Converted to P-51s in mid '46.
Moved to Japan in 1948, Inactivated April '49
So - A couple of things- I looks liks all the P-38s wer gone from
frontline units by January 1947. A few might have been around long
enough to get redesignated as F-38s, but none were serving in combat
units.
As far as the Guard and Reserves goes, the Air Force Reserve didn't
have organized flying units at that time. When it did organize units,
they "partnered" with active units at the same bases, flying the same
equipment. (Similar to the Reserve Associate Units today).
The Air National Guard was more formally organized - Light Bomber
units flew B-26s, (Invaders), and Fighter Units West of the
Mississippi floew F-51s. Fighter units in the East flew P-47s. This
started to get a bit jumbled up as units converted to other types -
F-80s and F-84B/Cs mostly, (The B C model Hogs were pretty much
hopeless as combat aircraft) but still pretty much held true until
after the Korean War. While each squadron had a couple of T-6s, an
L-5, or similar, and a C-47 as hacks, the Guard never got F-38s.

The F-47 and the F-51 stuck around for quite a while.
Here's the pre-Korean War situation
Active F-47 units were:
18th Fighter Group - converted to F-51s in '48
36th Fighter Group - converted to F-80s in '47
81st Fighter Group - Flew F-47s between January 48 and May 49.
86th FIghter Group - converted to F-84s in 1950.

Active F-51 units: Until outbreak of the Korean War
8th Fighter Group/Fighter Bomber Group - converted to F-80s in 1950.
10th Recon Group/Tactical Recon Group - converted to RF-80s in April
'49
18th Fighter Group/Fighter Bomber Group - converted to F-80s in late
1949.
35th Fighter Group/Fighter Interceptor Group - conv. to F-80s in 1950.
49th FG/FBG - conv to F-80s in '48 (But there weren't enough to go
around - they had F-51s on hand until late '49)

At the time of the North Korean Invasion, all Fighter Groups of the
Far East Air Forces (Later PACAF) were equipped with F-80s. There
were also 3 Fighter(All Weather) Squadrons that had just traded their
clapped-out F-61s for F-82s.
It was soon found that the F-80, flying from Japanese bases, didn't
have enough loiter time to supply proper close air support to the UN
troops on the Lorean Peninsula. They also had runway requirements
that made their use from unimprooved airstrips difficult. To supply
proper CAS (Since at that time, CAS meant flying low and visually
dropping bombs and strafing), FEAF decided to re-equip some units with
the F-51s that ere still in storage in Japan and the Philippines. The
8th FBG and 35th FIG each re-equipped 2 of their 3 squadrons with
F-51s, and maitained a single F-80 squadron. The 18th FBG equipped
all of its squadrons with F-51s, and also acted as host units for the
77 Squadron, RAAF, and 2 Sqn, RSAAF, Mustang squadrons that had been
part of the Japanese occupation force. The 8th FBG reverted to all
F-80s in December 1950, and the 35th FIG re-equipped with jets (F-80s,
F-85s, and F-94s) in 1951. The 18th FBG flew F-51s until 1953, when
they re-equipped with F86F-20s. (The Fighter-Bomber version with 4
wing pylons)

Most of the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units were called
up during the Korean War. With the exception of a couple of Light
Bomber and Troop Carrier groups, the called-up Reserve units were
disbanded, and their personnel used to fill out active units. Air
Guard units fleshed out the expanding Air Defence Command, Tactical
Air Command, and Strategic Air Command organizations. Some activated
Air Guard units did deploy overseas, but all fighter units who did so
were converted to either F-84s or F-86s.
The point to that ramble is that if the Air FOrce had decided that it
really needed F-47s rather than F-51s be used in Korea, they were
immediately available and ready. (BTW the last F-47 flying hours were
recorded in Calender Year 1955, according to the Air Force Safety
Office)
With the rapid expansion of the USAF during the Korean War, there were
sometimes more units being formed than new aircraft were available to
equip them. The following units were temporatily equipped with F-51s
until their jets became available.

21st Fighter Bomber Group - Activated in Jan. '53, conv. to F-86 in
April 53
50th FBG - Activated Jan 53, conv to F-86 in Spring 53
366th FBG - Activated Jan 53, conv to F-84 in Spring 53
479th FBG - Activated Dec 52 - COnv to F-86 early 53.

So to make a long story short - No F-38s in any combat units after
1947.
Nobody bulldozing F-51s in order to get jets. In fact, 3 units put
jets into storage in otder to reequip with F-51s.

--
Pete Stickney

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> > "Replacement_Tommel"
> > 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >hate to bust your bubble but I entered the AF as a Recip Mechanic. It
> > was
> > > >later on changed to Propulsion Technician. My uniforms weren't green.
> > They
> > > >were black.
> > > >
> > > >The P-38 was the first fighter to be able to disengage anytime it wished.
> > > >The others didn't have that option. As one Lighting pilot put it, "If I
> > was
> > > >Jumped from above and didn't like the situation, I just disengaged". If
> > the
> > > >38 lost an engine, they found the nearest cloud bank and hid out. Unless
> > > >you were in one of the pieces of crap that was sold to the British, that
> > is.
> > > >Now, what was the main difference between the export 38s and the
> > domestic?
> > > >Comon Hero, let's hear it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They had crappier engines installed in them.
> >
> > BZZTTT, wrong answer. The domestics had counterrotating engines. If you
> > lost and engine, the torgue factor was lessened. The Exports had right turn
> > engines only and were prone to spriral when the Left Engine was lost.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > BTW what does that have to do with the statement "Because an air-cooled
> > engine
> > > is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a liquid-cooled engine
> > is."?
> > >
> > > BTW are you claiming to have worked on P-38s now?
> >
> > Give your trolling a rest for a bit.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And I trust you know why the P-38s weren't considered a great fighter in
> > ETO and
> > > why most of them were shipped off to the PTO don't you?
> >
> > Do you? Or are you going to post something by a long since dead author.
> > Newsflash, those are opinions as well.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is
> > > >>full of it...
> > > >
> > > >No, just you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you admit that they were right and that P-38s were withdrawn before the
> > > Korean War then?
> >
> > My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron of them
> > overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of Buckley
> > Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
>
> According to
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
>
> Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
>

Did you also note he went from one to a squadron.....

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

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
>...
> > > "Replacement_Tommel"
> > > 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in
message
> > > ...
> > > > >hate to bust your bubble but I entered the AF as a Recip Mechanic.
It
> > > was
> > > > >later on changed to Propulsion Technician. My uniforms weren't
green.
> > > They
> > > > >were black.
> > > > >
> > > > >The P-38 was the first fighter to be able to disengage anytime it
wished.
> > > > >The others didn't have that option. As one Lighting pilot put it,
"If I
> > > was
> > > > >Jumped from above and didn't like the situation, I just
disengaged". If
> > > the
> > > > >38 lost an engine, they found the nearest cloud bank and hid out.
Unless
> > > > >you were in one of the pieces of crap that was sold to the British,
that
> > > is.
> > > > >Now, what was the main difference between the export 38s and the
> > > domestic?
> > > > >Comon Hero, let's hear it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They had crappier engines installed in them.
> > >
> > > BZZTTT, wrong answer. The domestics had counterrotating engines. If
you
> > > lost and engine, the torgue factor was lessened. The Exports had
right turn
> > > engines only and were prone to spriral when the Left Engine was lost.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > BTW what does that have to do with the statement "Because an
air-cooled
> > > engine
> > > > is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a liquid-cooled
engine
> > > is."?
> > > >
> > > > BTW are you claiming to have worked on P-38s now?
> > >
> > > Give your trolling a rest for a bit.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And I trust you know why the P-38s weren't considered a great
fighter in
> > > ETO and
> > > > why most of them were shipped off to the PTO don't you?
> > >
> > > Do you? Or are you going to post something by a long since dead
author.
> > > Newsflash, those are opinions as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support
Office is
> > > > >>full of it...
> > > > >
> > > > >No, just you.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you admit that they were right and that P-38s were withdrawn
before the
> > > > Korean War then?
> > >
> > > My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron
of them
> > > overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of
Buckley
> > > Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
> >
> > According to
> >
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
> >
> > Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
> >
>
> Did you also note he went from one to a squadron.....

Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it had been
one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many to be
from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep trolling on
and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as well.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on 17 Oct 2003 15:53:34 -0700, a stranger called
by some (Peter Stickney) came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

>I'm probably going to fan all sorts of foolishness, but here's what
>the Air Force History Office, via _Combat Units of the Air Force_,
>Maurer Maurer, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., and
>_Combat Squadrons of the Air Force_, Maurer Maurer, Governmnet
>Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
>have to say on the subject of Fighter Equipment in the post-WW 2 era:

Excellent information, sir!

Of course, Daryl will cry, scream and accusde you of being a Troll.
But once again, he has been shown to be a lying ignoramus.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it had been
> one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many to be
> from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep trolling on
> and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as well.

I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?



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

[Michael]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> "David Casey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 17 Oct 2003 07:52:17 -0700, Michael wrote:
> >
> > >> My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the squadron of
> them
> > >> overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out of
> Buckley
> > >> Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
> > >
> > > According to
> > >
> > > http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
> > >
> > > Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
> >
> > Oh now you're just trolling Daryl. ;-)
>
> He stated a fact, Troll. Buckley has been through so many Command Changes,
> the USAF is now the flavor of the month.

Right, but the Navy was the flavor of the month when you supposedly
saw P-38s fying out of there. So what's your next story? The Navy
was flying P-38s?

~Michael

[Daryl Hunt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
>...
> > "David Casey" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 07:52:17 -0700, Michael wrote:
> > >
> > > >> My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the
squadron of
> > them
> > > >> overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out
of
> > Buckley
> > > >> Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
> > > >
> > > > According to
> > > >
> > > > http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
> > > >
> > > > Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
> > >
> > > Oh now you're just trolling Daryl. ;-)
> >
> > He stated a fact, Troll. Buckley has been through so many Command
Changes,
> > the USAF is now the flavor of the month.
>
> Right, but the Navy was the flavor of the month when you supposedly
> saw P-38s fying out of there. So what's your next story? The Navy
> was flying P-38s?

Are you aware that each one has taken command for Admin reasons? Buckley
didn't change in it's Services represented. It still has a large Navy,
Marine, Army and Airforce representation. Regardless of who's' turn it is
to command it, it's mission for support for the Rocky Mountain Region hasn't
changed in decades. There is even Coast Guard Units. The Aircraft that are
permenently stationed there are Air National Guard as well as Marine and
Army. All that ever changes is the Administrative Command. The Air Force
decided with the loss of Lowry and the Regional Hospital that an expansion
was needed to fill in those gaps. But the Units have not changed nor has
the mission. Check out what Buckley actually does. You may be surprised.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it had
been
> > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many to
be
> > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep trolling
on
> > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as
well.
>
> I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?

I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my Uncle
what they were and he stated they were P-38s. My Uncle retired from Lowry
AFB as a GS-15 about 20 years ago with 33 years. I believe I will accept
his explanation over yours.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it had
> been
> > > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many to
> be
> > > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep trolling
> on
> > > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as
> well.
> >
> > I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
>
> I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my Uncle
> what they were and he stated they were P-38s. My Uncle retired from Lowry
> AFB as a GS-15 about 20 years ago with 33 years. I believe I will accept
> his explanation over yours.

So it must have been prior to 1947 or so wasn't it ?



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

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,

> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it
had
> > been
> > > > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many
to
> > be
> > > > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep
trolling
> > on
> > > > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as
> > well.
> > >
> > > I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
> >
> > I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my
Uncle
> > what they were and he stated they were P-38s. My Uncle retired from
Lowry
> > AFB as a GS-15 about 20 years ago with 33 years. I believe I will
accept
> > his explanation over yours.
>
> So it must have been prior to 1947 or so wasn't it ?

Your story keeps changing. Was it 1947? Or was it 1949? Or was it 1950?
You really need to review what you write before you answer.

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:20:24 -0600, a stranger
called by some "Daryl Hunt" > came forth and told this
tale in us.military.army

>> I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
>
>I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my Uncle
>what they were and he stated they were P-38s. My Uncle retired from Lowry
>AFB as a GS-15 about 20 years ago with 33 years. I believe I will accept
>his explanation over yours.

And, of course, Daryl was drunk at the time.

Anybody else notice that whenever Daryl is pushed for facts he says he
was drunk, or "pretty young" or has some other BS excuse to cover up
the fact that he's full of crap?

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it
> had
> > > been
> > > > > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many
> to
> > > be
> > > > > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep
> trolling
> > > on
> > > > > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as
> > > well.
> > > >
> > > > I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
> > >
> > > I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my
> Uncle
> > > what they were and he stated they were P-38s. My Uncle retired from
> Lowry
> > > AFB as a GS-15 about 20 years ago with 33 years. I believe I will
> accept
> > > his explanation over yours.
> >
> > So it must have been prior to 1947 or so wasn't it ?
>
> Your story keeps changing. Was it 1947? Or was it 1949? Or was it 1950?
> You really need to review what you write before you answer.

I'm not the one claiming to have seen squadron strength flights of P-38's
in the Denver area after WW2, you were.

But since you can't seem to remember the year and the USAF history office
disagree's with you....

Now about those P-38's in Korea....


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

[Michael]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "David Casey" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 17 Oct 2003 07:52:17 -0700, Michael wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> My vision may be failing now but it was fine when I saw the
> squadron of
> them
> > > > >> overfly the Dairy I was living at at the time. And they were out
> of
> Buckley
> > > > >> Air Field outside of Denver. In otherwords, Air National Guard.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/buckley.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Buckley was a Naval Air Station from '47 to '59.
> > > >
> > > > Oh now you're just trolling Daryl. ;-)
> > >
> > > He stated a fact, Troll. Buckley has been through so many Command
> Changes,
> > > the USAF is now the flavor of the month.
> >
> > Right, but the Navy was the flavor of the month when you supposedly
> > saw P-38s fying out of there. So what's your next story? The Navy
> > was flying P-38s?
>
> Are you aware that each one has taken command for Admin reasons? Buckley
> didn't change in it's Services represented. It still has a large Navy,
> Marine, Army and Airforce representation. Regardless of who's' turn it is
> to command it, it's mission for support for the Rocky Mountain Region hasn't
> changed in decades. There is even Coast Guard Units. The Aircraft that are
> permenently stationed there are Air National Guard as well as Marine and
> Army. All that ever changes is the Administrative Command. The Air Force
> decided with the loss of Lowry and the Regional Hospital that an expansion
> was needed to fill in those gaps. But the Units have not changed nor has
> the mission. Check out what Buckley actually does. You may be surprised.

Let's see, looking at the heritage section of

http://www.buckley.af.mil/

it looks like the ANG maintained a presence there through the 50s.
But, it looks like the 120th TFS and 140th Wing flew F-51s when you
say they were supposed to be flying P-38s.

~Michael

[Michael]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it had
> been
> > > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many to
> be
> > > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep trolling
> on
> > > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as
> well.
> >
> > I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
>
> I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my Uncle
> what they were and he stated they were P-38s.

Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the world
facts can beat that.

~Michael

[Daryl Hunt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,

> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it
had
> > been
> > > > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many
to
> > be
> > > > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep
trolling
> > on
> > > > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as
> > well.
> > >
> > > I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
> >
> > I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my
Uncle
> > what they were and he stated they were P-38s.
>
> Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
> from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the world
> facts can beat that.

Facts are made up of many things. A 50 year old memory is also fact.
History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one. History is
written by the winners.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If it
> had
> > > been
> > > > > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too many
> to
> > > be
> > > > > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep
> trolling
> > > on
> > > > > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions as
> > > well.
> > > >
> > > > I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
> > >
> > > I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my
> Uncle
> > > what they were and he stated they were P-38s.
> >
> > Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
> > from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the world
> > facts can beat that.
>
> Facts are made up of many things. A 50 year old memory is also fact.
> History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one. History is
> written by the winners.


A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.

However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.





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

[Daryl Hunt]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > > k.net...
> > > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > > says...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nice troll, moron. I didn't say that it was a single one. If
it
> > had
> > > > been
> > > > > > one, it very well have been the Confederate AF. There were too
many
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > from the CAF. But I don't expect you to understand. Just keep
> > trolling
> > > > on
> > > > > > and reading those books. Just remember, those are just opinions
as
> > > > well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I forgot, what year did you see these P-38 over the Denver area ?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what year. I was pretty young at the time. I asked my
> > Uncle
> > > > what they were and he stated they were P-38s.
> > >
> > > Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
> > > from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the world
> > > facts can beat that.
> >
> > Facts are made up of many things. A 50 year old memory is also fact.
> > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one. History
is
> > written by the winners.
>
>
> A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
>
> However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.

[Michael]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > > om...

<snip>

> > > > Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
> > > > from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the world
> > > > facts can beat that.
> > >
> > > Facts are made up of many things. A 50 year old memory is also fact.

No it's not. In this case, it's nothing more than a vague
recollection.

> > > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one. History
> is
> > > written by the winners.

And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
history?

> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
> >
> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

Several times in this thread already.

> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.

No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.

~Michael

[Daryl Hunt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,

> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
> > > > > from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the
world
> > > > > facts can beat that.
> > > >
> > > > Facts are made up of many things. A 50 year old memory is also
fact.
>
> No it's not. In this case, it's nothing more than a vague
> recollection.
>
> > > > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one.
History
> > is
> > > > written by the winners.
>
> And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
> that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
> history?
>
> > > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
> > >
> > > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
>
> Several times in this thread already.
>
> > What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't
quite
> > agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.
>
> No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
> ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
> childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.

And the Civil War was fought because of Slavery as taught in most Public
School Systems.

[Replacement_Tommel]

>In article >, Michael says...
>
>>"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
>...

(snip)

>
>> > > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one. History
>> is
>> > > written by the winners.
>
>And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
>that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
>history?
>
>> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
>> >
>> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
>
>Several times in this thread already.
>
>> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
>> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.
>
>No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
>ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
>childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.
>
>~Michael

Oh c'mon Mike, you oughtta know by now that Daryl will never admit he's wrong
about anything... just add this one to where you put his super secret Soviet 3
stage SAM tall tale and move on... ;-P

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs resistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:17:07 -0600, a stranger
called by some "Daryl Hunt" > came forth and told this
tale in us.military.army

>> No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
>> ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
>> childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.
>
>And the Civil War was fought because of Slavery as taught in most Public
>School Systems.

ROTFLMAO!!!

This is priceless! Watching you squirm and deny, being caught in lie
after lie! Keep it up man, you are great entertainment.

You want facts? Every single USAF record that has been found has
shown that the P-38 was out of USAF service before the Korean War.
The units that *you* mentioned were shown to have ditched the P-38
before 1950. This isn't something being taught to bored 12-year-olds,
this is what the United States Air Force states in official histories.

Purple smoke out!

Or are they lying as well? Is the entire universe out to conceal the
truth that only you know? How clever of them to conceal the truth
starting when you were a mere child, knowing that in fifty years there
would be a world-wide computer network and you would us the vague
recollection of childhood memories as facts? The fiends! Maybe
that's why you spent all of your Airborne training so drunk that you
couldn't tell the difference between a 40' tower and a 250' one!

I love you man!

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Daryl Hunt]

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
> >In article >, Michael
says...
> >
> >>"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >> > > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one.
History
> >> is
> >> > > written by the winners.
> >
> >And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
> >that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
> >history?
> >
> >> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
> >> >
> >> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
> >
> >Several times in this thread already.
> >
> >> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't
quite
> >> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.
> >
> >No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
> >ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
> >childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.
> >
> >~Michael
>
> Oh c'mon Mike, you oughtta know by now that Daryl will never admit he's
wrong
> about anything... just add this one to where you put his super secret
Soviet 3
> stage SAM tall tale and move on... ;-P

You are still following me around like a little puppy dog. Keep up the bad
work.

End of String.

[Replacement_Tommel]

In article >, Daryl Hunt says...
>
>
>"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message
...
>> >In article >, Michael
>says...
>> >
>> >>"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> >
>> >> > > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one.
>History
>> >> is
>> >> > > written by the winners.
>> >
>> >And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
>> >that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
>> >history?
>> >
>> >> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
>> >> >
>> >> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
>> >
>> >Several times in this thread already.
>> >
>> >> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't
>quite
>> >> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.
>> >
>> >No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
>> >ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
>> >childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.
>> >
>> >~Michael
>>
>> Oh c'mon Mike, you oughtta know by now that Daryl will never admit he's
>wrong
>> about anything... just add this one to where you put his super secret
>Soviet 3
>> stage SAM tall tale and move on... ;-P
>
>You are still following me around like a little puppy dog. Keep up the bad
>work.
>
>End of String.
>

Now now Daryl, we all know that it is you that foloows around the Lemmings and
not not vice versa.

And don't pretend that you didn't read this.

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs resistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

[Michael]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
> > > > > > from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the
> world
> > > > > > facts can beat that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Facts are made up of many things. A 50 year old memory is also
> fact.
> >
> > No it's not. In this case, it's nothing more than a vague
> > recollection.
> >
> > > > > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one.
> History
> is
> > > > > written by the winners.
> >
> > And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
> > that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
> > history?
> >
> > > > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
> > > >
> > > > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
> >
> > Several times in this thread already.
> >
> > > What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't
> quite
> > > agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.
> >
> > No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
> > ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
> > childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.
>
> And the Civil War was fought because of Slavery as taught in most Public
> School Systems.

Man, I'm done with this conversation. Enjoy your fantasy P-38 world.

~Michael

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:24:05 -0600, a stranger
called by some "Daryl Hunt" > came forth and told this
tale in us.military.army

>You are still following me around like a little puppy dog. Keep up the bad
>work.
>
>End of String.

You wish. You have been caught (again) and your list of lies grows
and grows.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Michael]

Replacement_Tommel 'SINVAL IDBABY> wrote in message >...
> >In article >, Michael says...
> >
> >>"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >> > > History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one. History
> is
> >> > > written by the winners.
> >
> >And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
> >that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
> >history?
> >
> >> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
> >> >
> >> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
> >
> >Several times in this thread already.
> >
> >> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
> >> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.
> >
> >No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
> >ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
> >childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.
> >
> >~Michael
>
> Oh c'mon Mike, you oughtta know by now that Daryl will never admit he's wrong
> about anything...

After participating in this thread and reading others he's been in, I
can see that now! There should be some sorta warning about him in the
FAQ.

>just add this one to where you put his super secret Soviet 3
>stage SAM tall tale and move on... ;-P

Missed that one. Musta been pretty entertaining!

~Michael

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:
> Replacement_Tommel
> 'SINVAL IDBABY>
wrote in
> message >...
<snip>
>> Oh c'mon Mike, you oughtta know by now that Daryl will
never admit
>> he's wrong about anything...
>
> After participating in this thread and reading others he's
been in, I
> can see that now! There should be some sorta warning
about him in the
> FAQ.
>
If you'd like to write something up, to provide others like
yourself with a warning, I'd be happy to add it to the uma
FAQ.


>> just add this one to where you put his super secret
Soviet 3
>> stage SAM tall tale and move on... ;-P
>
> Missed that one. Musta been pretty entertaining!
>
It was first posted in rec.aviation.military in a thread
about the SR-71. Look it up in Google. It's a hoot he even
tried to tell a former Officer in the PVO Strany that he
didn't know what he was talking about when he claimed the
Soviets had a three stage SAM. There's also a claim in the
thread about there being a geosynchronous satellite over the
Kamchatka peninsula. It's very amusing reading.

Snark

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...



> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
> >
> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
>
> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
> publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
> accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
> following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.
>

The ones from the USAF Office of History ?

You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
document things and keep the history of the service ?


--
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 >,
says...

snipp..

> After participating in this thread and reading others he's been in, I
> can see that now! There should be some sorta warning about him in the
> FAQ.
>


There is in the us.military.army FAQ.
Perhaps the keeper of the one for RAM should add a section.... ?



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

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:59:44 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tank Fixer > came
forth and told this tale in us.military.army

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>
>> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
>> >
>> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
>>
>> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
>> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
>> publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
>> accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
>> following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.
>
>The ones from the USAF Office of History ?
>
>You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
>document things and keep the history of the service ?

A friend of mine came uo with a possible solution. Matbe someone
threw a P-38 can opener at Daryl, hitiing him in the head and giving
him all sorts of delusions.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[charles krin]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
> wrote:

>Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:59:44 GMT, a stranger
>called by some Tank Fixer > came
>forth and told this tale in us.military.army
>
>>In article >,
>>says...
>>>
>>> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>
>>> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
>>> >
>>> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
>>>
>>> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
>>> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
>>> publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
>>> accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
>>> following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.
>>
>>The ones from the USAF Office of History ?
>>
>>You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
>>document things and keep the history of the service ?
>
>A friend of mine came uo with a possible solution. Matbe someone
>threw a P-38 can opener at Daryl, hitiing him in the head and giving
>him all sorts of delusions.

nah...it must have been a can of beanie weanies from an old C rat
package...you know, one of the cans that gave the P 38 opener it's
name...

ck
--
The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court
building, But here was a good reason for the move.*

You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and
politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Edna H. on alt.books.m-lackey, 20030930

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry > wrote:

>Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:59:44 GMT, a stranger
>called by some Tank Fixer > came
>forth and told this tale in us.military.army
>
>>In article >,
>>says...
>>>
>>> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>
>>> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
>>> >
>>> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
>>>
>>> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
>>> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
>>> publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
>>> accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
>>> following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.
>>
>>The ones from the USAF Office of History ?
>>
>>You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
>>document things and keep the history of the service ?
>
>A friend of mine came uo with a possible solution. Matbe someone
>threw a P-38 can opener at Daryl, hitiing him in the head and giving
>him all sorts of delusions.

I suppose he could have seen some transient P-61s ?

Al Minyard

[Michael Williamson]

Alan Minyard wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry > wrote:
>
>
> I suppose he could have seen some transient P-61s ?
>
> Al Minyard

Based on a mention of F-82s in service at the time, I'd guess that
a flight of F-82s (night/all weather types, with the central radar
pod) might have been mistaken for P-38s. Two booms, with a central
pod might be mistaken for a P-38 in the right circumstances, given
the similar planforms.

Mike

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Michael Williamson > writes:
> Alan Minyard wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry > wrote:
>>
>>
>> I suppose he could have seen some transient P-61s ?
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
> Based on a mention of F-82s in service at the time, I'd guess that
> a flight of F-82s (night/all weather types, with the central radar
> pod) might have been mistaken for P-38s. Two booms, with a central
> pod might be mistaken for a P-38 in the right circumstances, given
> the similar planforms.

The F-61s were pretty much gone by 1949-1950 - I think the last
operational ones ended up being scrapped in place in the Philippines
at that time. The F-82s didn't last much beyond 1953 - the last ones
were F-82Hs modified for Arctic conditions and plown in Alaska.
The F-82s wore out pretty fast - the V1710s that they used had pretty
much reached the peak of piston engine development, and were rather
highly stressed and tempremental critters. Due to teh postwar
cutbacks, there weren't many of them built. With the advent of the
Tu-4 and higher performing Soviet bombers, the Twin Mustangs were
dropped as soon as F-94s and F-89s became available. The Air National
Guard and Air Force Reserves never got any,

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry > wrote:
>
> >Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:59:44 GMT, a stranger
> >called by some Tank Fixer > came
> >forth and told this tale in us.military.army
> >
> >>In article >,
> >>says...
> >>>
> >>> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> >>> k.net...
> >>
> >>> > A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.
> >>> >
> >>> > However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
> >>> agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
> >>> publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
> >>> accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
> >>> following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.
> >>
> >>The ones from the USAF Office of History ?
> >>
> >>You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
> >>document things and keep the history of the service ?
> >
> >A friend of mine came uo with a possible solution. Matbe someone
> >threw a P-38 can opener at Daryl, hitiing him in the head and giving
> >him all sorts of delusions.
>
> I suppose he could have seen some transient P-61s ?
>


I was thinking F-82's myself.

When did they leave Air Guard/Airforce reserve service ?


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

[WaltBJ]

(Harry Andreas) wrote in message >...
SNIP>
> > >The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
> > >deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
> > >you could be training for something more useful.
> > >Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
> > >not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
SNIP>
I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
circa 10m accuracies. This accuracy is obtained with substantially
less practice than with the old fixed reticle and 'that looks about
right' (TLAR) we had to use in the F4 and earlier jets. The A7 with
its continuous predicting bomb sight was also easier to use and more
accurate that the depressed reticle sight. Where the depressed reticle
really gave fits was with the first bomb dropped in high winds - an
aim-off point of 600 feet is damn hard to eyeball over targets without
that big white known-dimension circle around them. That also means in
one pass-haul ass areas with no known 'yardstick' down there hits
become more a matter of luck with the old TLAR and dumb sight. Yeah,
we had dive-toss, radar ranging and the INS with a bombing computer.
But one 'no release' in a hot area kind of puts you off dive toss
until you get back to Avon park FL. :</
Walt BJ

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/23/03 8:22 PM, in article
, "WaltBJ"
> wrote:

> (Harry Andreas) wrote in message
> >...
> SNIP>
>>>> The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
>>>> deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
>>>> you could be training for something more useful.
>>>> Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
>>>> not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
> SNIP>
> I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
> gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
> computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
> circa 10m accuracies. This accuracy is obtained with substantially
> less practice than with the old fixed reticle and 'that looks about
> right' (TLAR) we had to use in the F4 and earlier jets. The A7 with
> its continuous predicting bomb sight was also easier to use and more
> accurate that the depressed reticle sight. Where the depressed reticle
> really gave fits was with the first bomb dropped in high winds - an
> aim-off point of 600 feet is damn hard to eyeball over targets without
> that big white known-dimension circle around them. That also means in
> one pass-haul ass areas with no known 'yardstick' down there hits
> become more a matter of luck with the old TLAR and dumb sight. Yeah,
> we had dive-toss, radar ranging and the INS with a bombing computer.
> But one 'no release' in a hot area kind of puts you off dive toss
> until you get back to Avon park FL. :</
> Walt BJ

You're bringing back my A-6 memories. I have a lot of time on iron sights.
Don't miss it.

All valid points. Substantially less time training to dumb bomb deliveries
when it's so easy to get a good hit.

--Woody

[John R Weiss]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>> SNIP>
>> The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
>> deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
>> you could be training for something more useful.
>> Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
>> not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
> > SNIP>
> >I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
> >gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
> >computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
> >circa 10m accuracies.
>> SNIP>
> You're bringing back my A-6 memories. I have a lot of time on iron sights.
> Don't miss it.
>
> All valid points. Substantially less time training to dumb bomb deliveries
> when it's so easy to get a good hit.

Since we have gotten to the time when aircraft systems are reliable enough to
count on in the short hairs, you have a valid point. HOWEVER, I believe it is
still a "good idea" for an air-to-mud pilot to understand the basic principles
behind what the computer is doing for him.

With about 1700 hours each in the A-4 and A-6, including an instructor tour in
the A-4, I've seen a lot of reasons in the past for a pilot to be able to "feel"
when the computer is about to do something bad -- like release a load of Mk 82s
a mile short of the target. I got to be really good at dive bombing from the
back seat of the TA-4, using the clock as a gunsight (no self-respecting SNA
would DARE to NOT hit the pickle when I said "Pickle," even if it did cost him a
beer). Later, when flying with newbie B/Ns (and an occasional weak "old guy")
in the A-6, I could often sense well ahead of time when things weren't going
quite right, and had to make use of the planned manual backup. Then there are
the times when rolling in for a CCIP or General Boresight attack, a press on the
Attack button decided to cause general hate & discontent in the computer, and a
quick slap of the gunsight button to Manual allowed a good hit in spite of it.

Then there's the case for "airmanship" and "air sense." Being proficient at
manual bombing means a pilot is proficient at detecting and correcting for
errors in real time, as well as getting himself to the proper point at the
proper time in the first place. Also, while the computer may make up for a
suboptimal delivery profile and get the bomb on target, it cannot make up for
the loss of Pk when the impact angle is suboptimal in a delivery against a hard
target.

Some of these considerations are no longer totally relevant when dropping a JDAM
from a Hornet, but when going back to CAS with dumb bombs, it's still "a good
thing" to be able to support your Grunt buddies even if the computer craps out
at the last minute. They may not have the luxury of waiting for the backup...

[Mike Kanze]

John,

I second your point about needing to understand the basic principles.

>Later, when flying with newbie B/Ns (and an occasional weak "old guy") in
the A-6, I could often sense well ahead of time when things weren't going
quite right, and had to make use of the planned manual backup. Then there
are the times when rolling in for a CCIP or General Boresight attack, a
press on the Attack button decided to cause general hate & discontent in the
computer, and a quick slap of the gunsight button to Manual allowed a good
hit in spite of it.

Brings back many memories of the A-6A and its squirrelly AN/ASQ-61 computer.
In this machine that sense of "sense" you mentioned was often a lifesaver.
An experienced and coordinated pilot-B/N crew could often tell pretty
quickly how well the Q-61 was going to hold together, and (as you said)
would have a backup for the all-too-frequent times when things turned to
worms. (Most B/Ns of that era - myself included - had tighter degraded
system CEPs than full-system ones.)

The OB-16 low-level route (through the eastern Oregon canyons) was a good
test of the team and machine. How you both felt about the "tightness" of
the system determined how low into the canyons you went - if at all.

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

"Owl", B/N
A-6A, A-6B (PAT ARM), KA-6D

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"Friends don't let friends take home ugly men."
- Women's restroom, Starboard, Dewey Beach, DE, USA

"Beauty is only a light switch away."
- Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA


"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:ZQemb.18835$Fm2.9908@attbi_s04...
[snipped]