![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 11, 1:34 am, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote: "Tiger" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: "Mike" wrote in message ... Inside the Air Force Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As --------------------------------- Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1 Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers. What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish quantities with great precision. What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you..... I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon... AHS I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a carrier-able version of the A-10 or a new design. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a carrier-able version of the A-10 Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry. or a new design. Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35? Oh. -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a carrier-able version of the A-10 Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry. or a new design. Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35? One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs. One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag. Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47 will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the 100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age. Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlfor more 411 -- "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win medals and gets them in bar fights. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win medals and gets them in bar fights. And you know this how? -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win medals and gets them in bar fights. And you know this how? -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a "combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked like a regularly scheduled event. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win medals and gets them in bar fights. And you know this how? -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a "combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked like a regularly scheduled event. Your mileage may vary, but I've got a couple of gongs for ground support and none for air/air. CAS is one of the most fun missions you can do in a tactical aircraft. The only bar fight I ever saw was between folks fighting to be the first to buy an fighter pilot a beer for CAS the grunts had appreciated. The major difference today isn't that CAS is hated by the AF, but simply that CAS looks a lot different than it did in the past. No more "gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM from the menopause brings more precise support without the grunt ever seeing the airplane. It might just as well be organic artillery fire. He never knows. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) www.thundertales.blogspot.com www.thunderchief.org |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win medals and gets them in bar fights. And you know this how? -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a "combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked like a regularly scheduled event. Your mileage may vary, but I've got a couple of gongs for ground support and none for air/air. CAS is one of the most fun missions you can do in a tactical aircraft. The only bar fight I ever saw was between folks fighting to be the first to buy an fighter pilot a beer for CAS the grunts had appreciated. The major difference today isn't that CAS is hated by the AF, but simply that CAS looks a lot different than it did in the past. No more "gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM from the menopause brings more precise support without the grunt ever seeing the airplane. It might just as well be organic artillery fire. He never knows. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) www.thundertales.blogspot.com www.thunderchief.org No more Sandys dumping napalm on the treeline from knife-fight altitude - a scene much used by Hollywood. I wonder how the movies would portray LGBs arriving out of the blue? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Rasimus wrote:
No more "gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM from the menopause ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ROTFL! What is it they say about old fighter pilots? ;-) Jeff |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 13, 12:15*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a carrier-able version of the A-10 Not gonna happen. *Increase the strength of the landing gear and you sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry. or a new design. Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb load. *Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35? One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. *Part of the whole design concept behind it. *One Aircraft with 80% parts interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs. One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. *I know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag. Perhaps the *SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at for this role as the A-10 ages. *After all it projected that the SM-47 will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the 100 Million+ F-35. *It also doesn't leave our field personnel without a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age. Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411 -- "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win medals and gets them in bar fights. Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway, I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always better to have something under the control of somebody who actually have the incentive to develop it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
wrote: On Jun 13, 12:15*am, Jack Linthicum wrote: On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote: I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a carrier-able version of the A-10 Not gonna happen. *Increase the strength of the landing gear and you sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry. or a new design. Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb load. *Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35? One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. *Part of the whole design concept behind it. *One Aircraft with 80% parts interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs. One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. *I know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag. Perhaps the *SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at for this role as the A-10 ages. *After all it projected that the SM-47 will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the 100 Million+ F-35. *It also doesn't leave our field personnel without a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age. Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411 -- "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win medals and gets them in bar fights. Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway, I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always better to have something under the control of somebody who actually have the incentive to develop it. How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this "hate"? Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give it to the Army? You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint operations. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) www.thundertales.blogspot.com www.thunderchief.org |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logger Choice | Jamie Denton | Soaring | 10 | July 6th 07 03:13 PM |
Headset Choice | jad | Piloting | 14 | August 9th 06 07:59 AM |
Which DC Headphone is best choice? | [email protected] | Piloting | 65 | June 27th 06 11:50 PM |
!! HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Military Aviation | 2 | September 3rd 04 04:48 PM |
!!HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Soaring | 0 | September 3rd 04 12:01 AM |