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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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/elevo...r_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!" |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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 et, lid 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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
DM howler (was 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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Replacement_Tommel wrote:
In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY 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.as...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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY 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/a...4/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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Daryl Hunt says...
"Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY 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/a...4/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) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY 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/a...4/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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote: "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY 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/a...4/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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"dvick" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY 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/a...4/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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |