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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mark wrote:
And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support equipment, food/water, etc etc etc.... Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment, and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations? (With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of the package.) Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time, measured in days - before moving on to a different location; perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies from the more-rearward located base.) The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO) Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
To clarify my point (slightly)...
If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much the forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft) airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a potential show stopper to effective operations. wrt 'been done'.... Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall impact on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective opinion) Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers, or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their stuff"?? I see a difference. Mark "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Mark wrote: And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support equipment, food/water, etc etc etc.... Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment, and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations? (With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of the package.) Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time, measured in days - before moving on to a different location; perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies from the more-rearward located base.) The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO) Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mark wrote:
To clarify my point (slightly)... If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? What airfield? We're talking about a parking lot - reached via overland convoy by all except the pilots of the aircraft - the LAST to arrive at the FOL. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:56:13 GMT, "Mark"
wrote: To clarify my point (slightly)... If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much the forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft) airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a potential show stopper to effective operations. A C-130 can get into a very small field that a CTOL F-35 could not get into, but a Harrier/STOVL F-35 could. wrt 'been done'.... Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall impact on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective opinion) With Afghanistan the impact was rather greater since the rest of the TACAIR had *very* long transits, so having Harriers (& A-10s?) close by was more useful. Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers, or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their stuff"?? I see a difference. Dependent on the size of the strip an A-10 may have been an option, but fast movers need a lot of length to operate at decent weights. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Apart from the observation that there are many misconceptions about how
"forward bases" are used, I would add that it's not just about "...prosecuting the air war...". Ask the guys getting shot at on the ground. Forward bases can provide increased sortie generation, reach, time on station, and reduced use of what are critical assets -- airborne tankers. If anybody thinks tanker availability isn't an issue, talk to the Navy. Or talk to air planners who worked at the CAOC during OAF. Or how about OEF...? Most 'forward bases' have been used simply for fuel, obviating the logistics issues that most cite as prohibitive. In simple terms, when you don't need much more than a couple thousand feet of hard surface (e.g. a road, an old/repaired airfield), and you can get some fuel bladders there via 53s or Battle Hercs, your options increase dramatically. The Air Force actually used a FW forward site during OIF before the USMC did. Was that an "operational imperative," or was the USAF "showing their stuff?" The Marine Corps waited to use a location further north (within about 60nm of Baghdad) in anticipation of having to support ops north/well north of Baghdad. In addition to a large number of RW sorties (Army and Marine), it supported about 200 Harrier sorties before major combat ops ended. Earlier, four Harriers landed and fueled on a road location that some of the helicopters were using further south, but it was deemed too narrow and too unsecure and not used for FW again. Forward basing is often less about how a jet takes off and lands than it is about having the support assets necessary to conduct various levels of airfield operations at austere/expeditionary locations. That's why the Marine Corps has the MWSSs (Marine Wing Support Squadrons). Forward bases are typically formed from what's available -- the MWSS's rarely have to start from scratch, though the Wing has the ability to do so if necessary. During ODS, the primary airfield the Harriers used wasn't on anybody's dance card. If it had been such an easy thing to use, others would have been all over it since it was further north by a considerable margin. The difference? -- 3300 sorties. "Mark" wrote in message m... To clarify my point (slightly)... If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much the forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft) airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a potential show stopper to effective operations. wrt 'been done'.... Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall impact on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective opinion) Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers, or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their stuff"?? I see a difference. Mark "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Mark wrote: And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft support equipment, food/water, etc etc etc.... Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment, and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations? (With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of the package.) Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time, measured in days - before moving on to a different location; perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies from the more-rearward located base.) The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO) Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 11th 04 12:06 AM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 05:24 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Air Force announces acquisition management reorganization | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 21st 03 09:16 PM |