"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"

On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote:
The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...


How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
combat zone?

wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote:
The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...


How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
combat zone?



AV-8?

Dave wrote:
wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote:
The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...

How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
combat zone?



AV-8?

Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote:

Dave wrote:
wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote:
The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...

How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
combat zone?

AV-8?

Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
though.

In article ,
NVALID (Steve Hix) wrote:

There was always some level of noise about operating them with
reduced loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have
actually done it, though.

Never been very practical. There's never been a Harrier or AV-8 with
enough thrust to lift a worthwhile combination of fuel and bombs in a
vertical takeoff. And a ski-jump takeoff involves plenty of forward
speed.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote:

Dave wrote:
wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote:
The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
combat zone?
AV-8?
Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
though.

The British used to forward deploy them, but for various values of
"forward".. They don't go hover mode in a combat area (Where they are
being shot at)

In message , Steve Hix
writes
In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote:
Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
though.

"Forward zone" means "far enough behind the FEBA that nobody's shooting
at you or dropping much nastiness on the base". The USMC moved AV-8Bs up
to highway strips during Desert Storm, from memory, with reasonable
success: put them a lot closer to the action, allowed them to carry more
ordnance and less fuel, and the logistic problems were manageable over a
couple of days. You certainly wouldn't be basing Harriers out of a
location exposed to direct enemy fire, though, and for the same reason
Harriers don't transition to or from the hover where anyone might shoot
at them. (Besides, on highway strips the preferred option is apparently
short rolling takeoffs and landings: more payload and less FOD)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve Hix
writes
In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote:
Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
though.

"Forward zone" means "far enough behind the FEBA that nobody's shooting at
you or dropping much nastiness on the base". The USMC moved AV-8Bs up to
highway strips during Desert Storm, from memory, with reasonable success:
put them a lot closer to the action, allowed them to carry more ordnance
and less fuel, and the logistic problems were manageable over a couple of
days. You certainly wouldn't be basing Harriers out of a location exposed
to direct enemy fire, though, and for the same reason Harriers don't
transition to or from the hover where anyone might shoot at them.
(Besides, on highway strips the preferred option is apparently short
rolling takeoffs and landings: more payload and less FOD)





During the sixties , MoD thinking was that 'concrete' runways would be
rendered inoperable within hours of the 'balloon going up'; so the emphasis
was on fielding an expeditionary air force capable of operating from 'rough'
and dispersed fields. Although the integrated grand design was scuppered by
Wilson's government with (amongst others) the cancellation of TSR2 , the
Supersonic 'Harrier / Kestrel' P1154, and a STOL freighter the feeling
amongst the RAF was towards a move away from fixed airfields and towards a
more expeditionary force. Many 'air-relocatable' groups, wings squadrons and
units were formed including, but not limited to, 38 Grp with its 1 Air
Traffic Control Unit and its embedded Airmobile Radar Station , etc. etc.

Against this background , I recall, but have been unable to find a reference
for, units were anxious to engage in 'my aircraft is more 'rough field' than
yours!' stunts.

I recall Harriers being scattered under trees in a married patch in Germany
and being marshalled through the streets while kids wended their way to
school. "See! _We_ don't need a runway!".

The Sepecat Jaguar advocates demonstrated their prowess by using a completed
but not connected portion of a Motorway [I believe it was the M55 ,more or
less adjacent to the Warton airfield]
to operate Jaguars from ; ' See!, We can use a motorway/highway!'

When the Harrier crowd retorted; 'We can use Motorways too!', the Jaguar
adherents cried' True! But we didn't have to resurface it afterwards!'

All from memory of three(?) decades ago .... facts may have changed !

[I was in Canberra when a four-ringer said , when "If they think I'm gonna
plonk down a Harrier in the middle of the ulu, they must think I'm mad!"}

MAG32 did deploy AV8A to some God-forsaken part of North Carolina for 'rough
field' trails and may have used an Erector-kit launching ramp. 1973(?)

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote:

Against this background , I recall, but have been unable to find a reference
for, units were anxious to engage in 'my aircraft is more 'rough field' than
yours!' stunts.

I recall Harriers being scattered under trees in a married patch in Germany
and being marshalled through the streets while kids wended their way to
school. "See! _We_ don't need a runway!".

The Sepecat Jaguar advocates demonstrated their prowess by using a completed
but not connected portion of a Motorway [I believe it was the M55 ,more or
less adjacent to the Warton airfield]
to operate Jaguars from ; ' See!, We can use a motorway/highway!'

When the Harrier crowd retorted; 'We can use Motorways too!', the Jaguar
adherents cried' True! But we didn't have to resurface it afterwards!'

All from memory of three(?) decades ago .... facts may have changed !

SEPECAT ran a series of ads in magzines like Flight showing the Jaguar
on a motorway. Which wasn't such a big deal because Swedish Drakens
and Viggenst had been routinley operating from motorways.

My all time favourite, and one has to bend the imagination here,
aerospace ad was the one that claimed, "Softly, silently the Harrier
steals in on Dowty landing gear."

Eugene L Griessel

A man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, sail a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialisation is for insects.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

On Oct 17, 4:24?pm, Dave wrote:
wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote:
The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...

How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
combat zone?

AV-8?

Does the AV-8 haul 24 soldiers???

Rob