View Single Post
  #6  
Old February 29th 04, 06:12 PM
Frijoles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Woody says, "...the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had
the Harriers not
been around to help out..."

There's a stronger case for the Harriers in OIF than there is for a CV Navy
that arrives in the stack with no time-on-station and an understanding of
air support that consists of "gimme a 6-digit grid."

Woody further states "Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a
bona fide mission--and
can auto-rotate."

Who's being ridiculous? I guess it doesn't count as bona fide mission
unless it's launched from a CV eh? .



"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
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 donšt 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