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 |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
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 space for them will be available, both of which were in short supply last year. In 1991, because we had access to Saudi and Turkish bases, the USAF was able to put 350 tankers on just 5 airbases. Last year, they only had 200 tankers (plus 100 for the airbridge; others were supporting ops in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa), and had to scatter them on 15 airbases. Because of the lack of ramp space, the marines graded a FOB in the northern Kuwaiti desert with a parallel pair of 6,000 foot dirt runways, where they based many of their KC-130s and helos. In addition, they offloaded the helos, men and equipment from two LHA/LHDs, operating each of them with a full AV-8B squadron, just so they wouldn't take up space on an airfield in Kuwait that was needed by the CTOL aircraft. The USAF weren't the only ones with tanker problems. From an article in the April 14th, 2003 AvLeak, "Lessons Learned", pg. 26, by AvLeak's correspondent at a Marine airbase in Kuwait: "Its air campaign has been shaped to a large extent by the fact that the service has only 24 KC-130 tankers in the region, a relatively small number compared with the number of strike aircraft it has assembled. What further complicated the tanker issue is that most KC-130 sorties were dedicated to transporting fuel for helicopters, as well as tanks and other ground vehicles, to forward areas. It is a "rare occurence" for a Marine F/A-18 or AV-8B to be refueled in the air, said a senior Marine Air Group 13 representative, who described the tanker shortage as 'huge'. Problems the USAF has had with its own tankers -- such as poor availability because of the age of the KC-135s -- have exacerbated the dilemma, Marine Corps officials asserted. 'Tanking was very limited,' one Royal Air Force Harrier pilot noted . . . . "Without refueling, fixed-wing a/c operating from here can only fly over Baghdad or points north for a few minutes before having to return to base. Pilots from Harrier squadron VMA-214 noted that without aerial refueling, they had little time to find targets in the 30 x 30-mi. 'kill boxes' set up around Baghdad. "The Marines hope to mitigate the problem by establishing forward operating bases for AV-8Bs and potential F/A-18s. For its helicopter force, the Marines have already built an extensive series of [FARPs]. So far, the Marines have built more than 10 FARPs and have even closed down the first few that are no longer tactically relevant." They definitely established a Harrier FARP and were sitting ground alert and/or turning AV-8Bs at an airfield east of the Euphrates that the marines had captured 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. Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary. Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their USMC brethren? Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring that the STOVL version doesn't get axed. 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? 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). Brooks 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 |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
familiar with I have the AvWeek writeups somewhere. I used this (among others) as 'don't do this - think it out first' safety talks with my av students. The one I'm talking about is the Air France A320 chief pilot giving a group of disabled kids a ride during a demo flight in the new airplane. He made a low slow 'silent' pass with engines at idle, and got too slow, started sinking and couldn't get the engines spooled up before the tail of the fuelage hit the trees and of course then not being able to rotate any higher and with the engine FADECs taking their own sweet time to spool up - crashed, killing some of the kids and injuring the others. And he was a graduate of the FAF test pilot school, too. Great example of complacency and hubris. Walt BJ |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message .. . (John Alger) wrote: The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA power. This absolutely floors me...WHY wouldn't he intimately KNOW this?...I find it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't. What was the cojo doing all this while?...had they never heard of CRM over there?... -- The CVR transcript is on line at http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_acf296.shtml Keith Thanks Keith... -- -Gord. |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney" wrote: "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me. The RAF , RN and USMC disagree Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they are interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as well. It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-) Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch... They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now it's HUGE! COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size department and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I believe. The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
|
#216
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
(WaltBJ) wrote: Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the automation was a factor. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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. 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? --Woody |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
STOVL F-35 being built. 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. Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is hard to argue with them. 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. 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? Build some new A-10s with state of the art avionics and new engines. I know that's not going to happen, but indeed it would make perfect fighting sense. I still look in wonder at the costly "stealth" features incorporated into the Rhino, and then you load the poor thing over with a bunch of hanging-ons, canted outwards, that make it look like a Xmas tree on any half-decent scope... _____________ José Herculano |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | July 8th 04 07:01 AM |
More LED's | Veeduber | Home Built | 19 | June 9th 04 10:07 PM |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 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 |