US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

"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.

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.

"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

"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.

"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.