"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:24:01 GMT, eponymous cowherd
wrote:

In article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

You complain that we need more CAS, and then say we don't need the -35,
which
was designed for CAS. The -15,-16, and -18 were not originally designed
for CAS,
if you count the -17 as the start of the -18 program. The more CAS we
need, the
more -35s we need.

With all due respect, the-18 was designed with CAS as a mission from the
outset.

I wrote that the -18 was not designed for CAS if "you count the -17 as the start
of the program". I think that's a fair statement, the YF-17 was offered as a
lightweight fighter.

My impression was always that the YF-16/17 flyoff was for a high
volume replacement for the F-4 in ground attack roles while the F-15A
was solely air superiority. Both aircraft were going to be capable of
all of the A/G missions of the F-4 although both reflected de-emphasis
of the tactical nuke mission and neither was viewed at the time as a
potential Wild Weasel. CAS was part of the retained capability--this
despite the A-10.

In 1986, while ALO with the 4th ID (Mech) deployed to Ft. Irwin, I
watched F-16As from Nellis doing tosses of BDU-33s in live fire over
the heads of the FLOT and achieving direct hits (through the plywood)
on enemy tank targets. It should be noted that exercise referees
refused to give kill credit because "the fighters failed to over-fly
the target"--they didn't acknowledge the hits and applied criteria for
scoring that related to a previous generation of CAS aircraft.

We've still got a lot of that thinking with regard to CAS today.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed you are soooo right and one would think that the USAF and Army are closer
but NOT, they are miles apart and going for distance


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:24:01 GMT, eponymous cowherd
wrote:

In article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

You complain that we need more CAS, and then say we don't need
the -35,
which
was designed for CAS. The -15,-16, and -18 were not originally
designed
for CAS,
if you count the -17 as the start of the -18 program. The more CAS we
need, the
more -35s we need.

With all due respect, the-18 was designed with CAS as a mission from the
outset.

I wrote that the -18 was not designed for CAS if "you count the -17 as the
start
of the program". I think that's a fair statement, the YF-17 was offered as
a
lightweight fighter.

My impression was always that the YF-16/17 flyoff was for a high
volume replacement for the F-4 in ground attack roles while the F-15A
was solely air superiority. Both aircraft were going to be capable of
all of the A/G missions of the F-4 although both reflected de-emphasis
of the tactical nuke mission and neither was viewed at the time as a
potential Wild Weasel. CAS was part of the retained capability--this
despite the A-10.

In 1986, while ALO with the 4th ID (Mech) deployed to Ft. Irwin, I
watched F-16As from Nellis doing tosses of BDU-33s in live fire over
the heads of the FLOT and achieving direct hits (through the plywood)
on enemy tank targets. It should be noted that exercise referees
refused to give kill credit because "the fighters failed to over-fly
the target"--they didn't acknowledge the hits and applied criteria for
scoring that related to a previous generation of CAS aircraft.

We've still got a lot of that thinking with regard to CAS today.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com