The Latest Military Airspace Grab: 700 Square Miles!

Blueskies wrote:

There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something,

So they get all their training over the Pacific and wind up learning on the job
when they fly missions over the mountains of Afghanistan? Not a good idea.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Poor Steve, he doesn't want to be inconvenienced and he'd rather have
those guys and gals who strap their butts into the big iron go to war
to protect him without being properly trained. Maybe they need a
community relations program at Cannon in which guys like Steve get
taken for a ride so they could get a clue. About 30 minutes of
air-to-air should do the job.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our
pilots to be properly trained. There should be a big chunk set aside, say,
out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They
would be able to turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too
much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the air to
ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set
aside for that. Why all the airspace grabs these days?

You need to take a gander at where the air assets are based these days. And
not just the active duty folks, either. Gonna get kind of expensive to have
the ANG F-16's out of Upper Kumquat in Indiana or Illinois being trolled
along by a continuous stream of KC-135's out to your mythical Massive
Pacific MOA during their weekend drill, huh?

Brooks

Keep in mind that the newest weapons systems need a lot of airspace so
their capabilities can be fully exercised. Even in the F4E we really
needed about 100 nm minimum separation so the WSOs had to work for a
radar detection. Many times I've been only 65 or so away and kept radar
contact on the 'oppo' F4 all the way out and all the way back in. And
that was working subsonic. Now try M2.0 speeds and a merge rate of 40
nm/minute really eats up that separation. Of course, if BRAC wants to
close Cannon I don't suppose too many USAF types will shed a tear. I
know I wouldn't, having stopped there a couple times. Walt BJ

Blueskies wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...


Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.
Airspace being released because the nearby base got closed doesn't
draw attention (although the closing itself usually does), while
opening new airspace at a different base which now has twice as
much training going on with a brand new mission to account for
because units moved from their previous (now closed) base gets
a lot of press. The result is the perception of more special
use airspace, even if the reality is that the amount is less.

As for putting all your training airspace over the Pacific, a
very large number of bases aren't anywhere near the ocean, or Nevada
for that matter. Those near the ocean typically do a fair amount of
training in Warning Areas in international airspace off the coast,
but then we have traffic conflicts if they are anywhere near the
major trans-oceanic hubs as well. Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.

Mike

Mike Williamson wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not
wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for
all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh,
they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada
and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.
Airspace being released because the nearby base got closed doesn't
draw attention (although the closing itself usually does), while
opening new airspace at a different base which now has twice as
much training going on with a brand new mission to account for
because units moved from their previous (now closed) base gets
a lot of press. The result is the perception of more special
use airspace, even if the reality is that the amount is less.

As for putting all your training airspace over the Pacific, a
very large number of bases aren't anywhere near the ocean, or Nevada
for that matter. Those near the ocean typically do a fair amount of
training in Warning Areas in international airspace off the coast,
but then we have traffic conflicts if they are anywhere near the
major trans-oceanic hubs as well. Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.

Mike

...and if an pilot gets into trouble, where would be rather end up? in
the ocean or on terra firma?
David

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
. net::

Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.

What is your feeling about the likely success or failure of the use of
see-and-avoid to separate 5,000' AGL supersonic military aircraft from
VFR civil aircraft within joint-use MOA airspace?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote in
. net::


Additionally, good training,
particularly for fighter/attack types, require a pretty good
proportion of clear weather, which makes New Mexico, Arizona,
etc., prime training grounds.


What is your feeling about the likely success or failure of the use of
see-and-avoid to separate 5,000' AGL supersonic military aircraft from
VFR civil aircraft within joint-use MOA airspace?


As I see it, VFR traffic is never *required* to fly through the MOA,
and I'd certainly recommend against it. If you don't feel that those
that would fly through it aren't capable of exercising the required
caution, then by all means campaign to have all the MOAs turned into
restricted areas...

"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
ink.net...


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.


Don't know what it looked like before, but there is sure a lot potentially tied up:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1942408A

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:52:57 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote in
::


"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
link.net...


There is less airspace used by the military than there used to be.


Don't know what it looked like before, but there is sure a lot potentially tied up:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1942408A



That's an interesting link. Thanks.

Unfortunately, the depiction of Special Use Airspace is incomplete.
It fails to show Military Training Routes. That spider web of routes
ensnares most of the west. Finding the current status of MTRs
continues to be a problem for pilots.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:55:51 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote:

Blueskies wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...


Airspace is airspace. There are no comments about anyone not wanting our pilots to be properly trained. There should be
a big chunk set aside, say, out over the pacific or something, for all the air to air training. They would be able to
turn and burn and go mach whatever without worrying too much (oh, they do that already?). If the folks need to do the
air to ground work, there is already plenty of space out in Nevada and Calif set aside for that. Why all the airspace
grabs these days?

Please edit your post more carefully. The above quote was not said by
me and the attribution line refers to my specific refutation of the
absurd suggestion.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com