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