![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Paul F Austin" wrote: "Kevin Brooks" wrote "Paul F Austin" wrote in message Of course it's not. It's not even "my idea". I'm under no illusion that I or anyone on this forum will "think up" a new paradigm that those blockheads at the Pentagon, yadayada... Real analysis doesn't happen on Usenet. Although why the Army restricts its thinking to rotorcraft is a good question. Can we say "Key West Agreement"? No ****? It's time to ****can the Key West Agreement. This business of half-fast CAS for the Army and fast CAS for the Air Force is absurd. It's past time to look at the mission requirements, decide who does the scope and provide the right platform. The idea that the Air Force has the franchise on fixed wing combat aircraft was an artifact of yesteryear. Right now, the Air Force is doing it's patented "we'll do the CAS mission with very fast movers that can also be used for other missions" by planning on replacing the A-10 with the F-35. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Paul F
Austin" wrote: "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Paul F Austin" wrote: "Kevin Brooks" wrote "Paul F Austin" wrote in message Of course it's not. It's not even "my idea". I'm under no illusion that I or anyone on this forum will "think up" a new paradigm that those blockheads at the Pentagon, yadayada... Real analysis doesn't happen on Usenet. Although why the Army restricts its thinking to rotorcraft is a good question. Can we say "Key West Agreement"? No ****? It's time to ****can the Key West Agreement. This business of half-fast CAS for the Army and fast CAS for the Air Force is absurd. It's past time to look at the mission requirements, decide who does the scope and provide the right platform. The idea that the Air Force has the franchise on fixed wing combat aircraft was an artifact of yesteryear. Right now, the Air Force is doing it's patented "we'll do the CAS mission with very fast movers that can also be used for other missions" by planning on replacing the A-10 with the F-35. Please don't assume I'm defending the thing! But it probably is the reason for the rotorcraft emphasis. If we look at roles and missions, there are cases where operational and routine control could very reasonably differ. For example, long-range air defense assets like Patriot and SM-2 could go, operationally, to the service component with the best battlespace management capability. Might be Air Force, might be Navy. But logistic and maintenance support for the Patriot vehicles, given commonality with other platforms, belongs in the Army. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul F Austin" wrote in message . .. "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Paul F Austin" wrote: "Kevin Brooks" wrote "Paul F Austin" wrote in message Of course it's not. It's not even "my idea". I'm under no illusion that I or anyone on this forum will "think up" a new paradigm that those blockheads at the Pentagon, yadayada... Real analysis doesn't happen on Usenet. Although why the Army restricts its thinking to rotorcraft is a good question. Can we say "Key West Agreement"? No ****? It's time to ****can the Key West Agreement. This business of half-fast CAS for the Army and fast CAS for the Air Force is absurd. It's past time to look at the mission requirements, decide who does the scope and provide the right platform. The idea that the Air Force has the franchise on fixed wing combat aircraft was an artifact of yesteryear. Right now, the Air Force is doing it's patented "we'll do the CAS mission with very fast movers that can also be used for other missions" by planning on replacing the A-10 with the F-35. I once thought similarly to you on this issue, but not anymore. The concept of jointness is much more palapable today than it was even five years ago, for one thing. Second, the advent of economical and reliable PGM's means that those fast movers (or for that matter the heavy movers like the Buff), given decent info from the ground, can acheive darned good effects in the CAS role. The Army does not need to compete for, or takeover from, the USAF the CAS mission. What it *can* do is complement the USAF capabilities such that the ground commander has the widest range of options available to him to handle any contingencies he may face--which is why including the attack helo in the mix for the foreseeable future is a wise move. Apparently the Army agrees with that sentiment--they have no designs on taking over the A-10 mission (which those nasty USAF types have the *audacity* to announce now that they are enhancing by upgrading the A-10's which will remain in the force until the F-35's can replace them, sometime in the next ten to fifteen years), and have announced that they will indeed incorporate some of the Commanche sensor and UAV control capabilites into the Block III Longbow program. face it, paul--those attack helos are gonna be around for a while..along with the new scout aircraft they are also going to buy. Brooks |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Paul F Austin" wrote in message . .. "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Paul F Austin" wrote: "Kevin Brooks" wrote "Paul F Austin" wrote in message Of course it's not. It's not even "my idea". I'm under no illusion that I or anyone on this forum will "think up" a new paradigm that those blockheads at the Pentagon, yadayada... Real analysis doesn't happen on Usenet. Although why the Army restricts its thinking to rotorcraft is a good question. Can we say "Key West Agreement"? No ****? It's time to ****can the Key West Agreement. This business of half-fast CAS for the Army and fast CAS for the Air Force is absurd. It's past time to look at the mission requirements, decide who does the scope and provide the right platform. The idea that the Air Force has the franchise on fixed wing combat aircraft was an artifact of yesteryear. Right now, the Air Force is doing it's patented "we'll do the CAS mission with very fast movers that can also be used for other missions" by planning on replacing the A-10 with the F-35. I once thought similarly to you on this issue, but not anymore. The concept of jointness is much more palapable today than it was even five years ago, for one thing. Second, the advent of economical and reliable PGM's means that those fast movers (or for that matter the heavy movers like the Buff), given decent info from the ground, can acheive darned good effects in the CAS role. The Army does not need to compete for, or takeover from, the USAF the CAS mission. What it *can* do is complement the USAF capabilities such that the ground commander has the widest range of options available to him to handle any contingencies he may face--which is why including the attack helo in the mix for the foreseeable future is a wise move. Apparently the Army agrees with that sentiment--they have no designs on taking over the A-10 mission (which those nasty USAF types have the *audacity* to announce now that they are enhancing by upgrading the A-10's which will remain in the force until the F-35's can replace them, sometime in the next ten to fifteen years), and have announced that they will indeed incorporate some of the Commanche sensor and UAV control capabilites into the Block III Longbow program. face it, paul--those attack helos are gonna be around for a while..along with the new scout aircraft they are also going to buy. I don't know why, but I get suspicious when the AF says that their CAS platform is going to be a supercruiser. Maybe it's just me... I hope AHs remain survivable. I don think it's interesting that (according to AvWeek) the Iraqi insurgents are reserving the SA-16 and up for helos because they figure the Pk of any MANPADS against a large transport is low. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul F Austin" wrote in message .. . I don't know why, but I get suspicious when the AF says that their CAS platform is going to be a supercruiser. Maybe it's just me... I hope AHs remain survivable. The B-one has been doing CAS, Austin. The nature of the technology has changed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Army ends 20-year helicopter program | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 12 | February 27th 04 07:48 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |
About French cowards. | Michael Smith | Military Aviation | 45 | October 22nd 03 03:15 PM |
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French | The Black Monk | Military Aviation | 62 | October 16th 03 08:05 AM |