In message , "Doug \"Woody\" and
Erin Beal" writes
On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:
The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
have".

CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
aircraft, and a good DASC.

And the equation for "time on station" includes time to and from home
base, and time to turn the aircraft around. For a given force size, the
nearer your bases for refuelling and rearming, the more aircraft in the
cabrank and the fewer in transit to and from. Tankers are useful
extenders, but only if fuel is the limiting factor: we're not yet able
to do air-to-air rearming.

Again, HMS Sheathbill in 1982 is instructive for the extension in cover
it allowed.

I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
where/when/how we'll have to fight).

What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
cost.

You could say the same about helicopters: IIRC helo crashes were the
biggest single killer of British troops in Telic / Iraqi Freedom.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk