If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:18:39 GMT, R. David Steele VE attempted to say ..... It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and 2012. That's when the PRC has the next Chinese Civil war and breaks apart.. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
Tank Fixer wrote: In article , on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:04:20 GMT, Chad Irby attempted to say ..... In article , "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote: On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article , "R. David Steele" wrote: China has let it be known, there are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies. Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*... They won't have operational CV's and airwings for 20 years. Only if they're following the US model. You should know that they've been having their pilots practice carrier landings on mockups on ground, for example. If they're going up against anyone but the US, all they have to do is be able to do fair-weather ops. With a couple of wings of moderately-new knockoffs of some of the Russian planes, they'd go from no real naval air to the second or third biggest carrier-borne air capability in just a few years. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Frijoles wrote:
snip On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or B-2s. (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?) And if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what a great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft provides...? Especially since they had to send four more F-18Es to the theater during the war, to boost the navy's own tanker assets (and of course, taking away airbridge tanker assets from other jobs, to get them there). 45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's hardly a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at, or facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect fires. IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships, principally Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were flown from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad. snip Would you happen to know which airfield? I've found one source that says it was "60nm south" of Baghdad, but no other details. Looking at a map, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...print_2003.jpg Shayka Mazhar and Al Iskandariyah New appear to be too close to the city, Salman Pak East is too close and too far east (although the Marines did go by there IIRR). An Najaf New is due south of Baghdad and about the right distance, but AFAIK the marines weren't near there in any strength, having crossed the Euphrates at Nasiriya before heading up between the rivers towards Baghdad. The Shaykh Hantush Highway Strip seems to be the closest match for distance and direction, but the marines also went through al Kut, which puts An Numaniyah (I know they took that) or Al Jarrah in the picture (although they're more SE than S), and possibly the fields south and/or east of Al Kut, altough they're a bit far and definitely southeast. Guy |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article , "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message SNIP The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately* throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to have". CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC. That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around al-Kut. There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it (OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not been around to help out. Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle. Tell it to the attack helo guys, who leap-frogged their way to Baghdad. Is there some reason why FARPS for helos to avoid the round trip to Kuwait make sense, but doesn't for STOVL fixed-wing a/c? The benefits are the same, a mix of more time on station/shorter cycle time/fewer hours on the airframe/less fuel wasted in transit. SNIP And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a good thing? Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a STOVL F-35 being built. That and the fact that (AFAIK) the A-10s have been the only (USAF) attack a/c based in Afghanistan since OEF. Along with the Harriers. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking about. If you've got at least 3-4,000 feet of usable runway, it might be. Anything less and it's just as useless as all the other conventional fixed-wing strikers. SNIP What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping like flies. Guy Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them? Because they're more dangerous than pure fixed-wing a/c, of course. The same justification you use for saying that STOVL isn't worthwhile. As to auto-rotation ability, that doesn't seem to have kept the helo crew/pax casualty count down very much in the current war. Damaging/destroying the tail rotor, its controls or the drive shaft makes auto-rotations rather difficult. Guy |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
Not surprising for Puke Bear. Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ? I once thought you were an intelligent person. Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a case of Berteimania ? Graham |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: Not surprising for Puke Bear. Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ? I once thought you were an intelligent person. Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a case of Berteimania ? YOU sound hysterical. |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message snip Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well... Brooks Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation? When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second ejection from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd returned to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry, that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I was on a roll.) Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me. snip The Harrier accident rate is and has been noticeably worse, Kevin. How much of that is due to accidents during transition/hovering (which would be the only relevant stat, to compare with CTOL accidents during landing), I don't have the data for. The AV-8B is apparently a lot easier to handle in the transition and hover than the AV-8A was owing to its SAAHS and aerodynamic improvements, and the F-35B will be even easier (accounts I've read suggest its trivial), probably owing to a combination of different aerodynamic design and FBW controls. After all, the basic Harrier design dates to about 1960, or even 1958. Guy |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
"José Herculano" wrote:
snip I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute. Why? The F-35s have considerably better range than their F-18A/Cs, and apparently equal or better range than the F-18E/Fs. Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from bellow and still be useful on its original role? snip As was mentioned in the Comanche decision briefing, when doing CAS (at least recently), RCS has been irrelevant. IR, visual and aural signatures are far more important, along with sensors and weapons. The F-35 has all of those, PLUS radar stealth for those first night of the war missions. And for BAI, INT, OCA, DCA, etc. Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 06:22 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |