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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Austin" wrote in message . ..
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... "Paul Austin" wrote in message . .. "Tony Williams" wrote I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun? By buying A400Ms? Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named Stryker? sacrifices too much for C-130 compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. How can you support that? The amount of protection required is dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat, operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies. The MagicTech remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted army viable. Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has found their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite jealous of the LAV in Panama. And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot more than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems for lack of water cooling on the hull). Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and ground mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy; therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA kind of solutions. That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I believe you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne armor deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of either light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy *more* survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that large void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention that the ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for. Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is tasked to provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a SOF raid (sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from Strykers? Kind of a no-brainer. The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces augmented by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech opponents. What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces did OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if the opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that defeating the US forces was pretty easy. Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the real question is, how would those same games have played out if it was our *current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how. And you never answered the question--do you want those air deployable LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you want to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be no-brainers to me. As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but the remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the case, then send the heavy mech units the same way No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early stages, which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable. The Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in Afghan land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the early entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded to no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces, which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to survive in higher intensity scenarios. Brooks |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"John Keeney" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... "Paul Austin" wrote in message . .. "Tony Williams" wrote I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun? By buying A400Ms? Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named Stryker? sacrifices too much for C-130 compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. How can you support that? The amount of protection required is dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat, operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies. Most common reply when asking folks working up the Stryker their opinion: "It tolls real nice." Tolls? Brooks |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"L'acrobat" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote in message m... (robert arndt) wrote in message . com... http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadl...ryker_C130.htm I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun? SNIP: Here is where Rumsfeld (not that I have much faith or praise for him) needs to take the opportunity to can the guys responsible for not integrating the "Stryker" (sic) with the C130 from the get-go. Makes one wonder if the master plan was to buy lots of Strykers and then say "oh, by the way, the 103's too small; now we need a lot more (fill in the blank) to replace those old obsolete C130s." What an opportunity to fumigate the Pentagon, brass and civvy alike. Walt BJ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... "Paul Austin" wrote in message . .. "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... "Paul Austin" wrote in message . .. "Tony Williams" wrote I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun? By buying A400Ms? Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named Stryker? sacrifices too much for C-130 compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. How can you support that? The amount of protection required is dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat, operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies. The MagicTech remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted army viable. Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has found their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite jealous of the LAV in Panama. And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot more than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems for lack of water cooling on the hull). Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and ground mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy; therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces. Read a little closer. The Marine combat teams had M1A1s to provide the heavy armor I was refereing to. With that backup (which will be missing with the Stryker units), the Marines could manuever aggressively when faced with enemy armor. Without that backup, doing so would be suicide. I mentioned the LVTP 7 only as a comparison to the Marines' LAVs. The LAVs showed much higher reliability than the LVTPs especially in reliability areas. LVTPs have much of their electronics in the bilge, in direct contact with the belly, assuming (most of the time) water cooling of the skin. Because of the prolonged operation away from water, the LVTPs suffered a lot of reliability failures in their mission electronics. The GDLS factory in Tallahassee is full of boxen back in the shop for repair. Your enthusiasm for Strykers is misplaced. While usually, I'll take good enough and now over better in the indefinite future, I can't in this case. Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are too heavy to deploy and too light to fight. According to a RAND study, the limiting factor in deploying a SBCT is ramp space at the entry airport. Assuming the ability to process, unload and turn around 4 C-17s an hour (which RAND considered heroically optimistic), the 96 hour deployment range for a SBCT using a fleet of 60 C-17s is 1325 miles. That puts a SBCT in place with 3 count them 3 days of beans and bullets but no POL. Time to Kandahar with 3 days of beans and bullets is 21 days, by which time the lead elements have long ago shot out their basic loads and have run out of gas. What do you get with your rapid deployment force? You get very little organic anti-armor, good mobility and vehicles proof against 14.5mm fire. I'm as in favor of improved strategic mobility as anyone but Stryker brigades sacrifice too much to that end. You get a force that isn't tolerant of the misfortunes of war and which is unable to sustain a momentary reverse. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA kind of solutions. That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I believe you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne armor deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of either light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy *more* survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that large void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention that the ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for. Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is tasked to provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a SOF raid (sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from Strykers? Kind of a no-brainer. The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces augmented by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech opponents. What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces did OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if the opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that defeating the US forces was pretty easy. Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the real question is, how would those same games have played out if it was our *current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how. Light infantry is just about useless today and Stryker units not a lot better. How many rounds are available for the HIMARS? As far as targeting those assets, the Red force managed as the real enemy will, given the incentives. How would I do it today? With a MEU or if necessary, a MEB. What's needed if the ability to move_much_greater tonnage by air to give the equivalent capability for land locked locations. And you never answered the question--do you want those air deployable LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you want to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be no-brainers to me. As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but the remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the case, then send the heavy mech units the same way No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early stages, which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable. The Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in Afghan land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the early entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded to no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces, which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to survive in higher intensity scenarios. Take a look at the logistical requirements for a single SBCT, just to get it in place. The lift doesn't exist to get the consumables there for intense combat. You should be unwilling to insert troops that we can't support unless we end up being limited to constabulary operations. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Austin" wrote in message .. .
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... "Paul Austin" wrote in message . .. "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... "Paul Austin" wrote in message . .. "Tony Williams" wrote I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun? By buying A400Ms? Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named Stryker? sacrifices too much for C-130 compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. How can you support that? The amount of protection required is dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat, operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies. The MagicTech remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted army viable. Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has found their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite jealous of the LAV in Panama. And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot more than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems for lack of water cooling on the hull). Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and ground mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy; therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces. Read a little closer. The Marine combat teams had M1A1s to provide the heavy armor I was refereing to. I was discussing the use in Panama; care to guess how many M1A1's the USMC had there? With that backup (which will be missing with the Stryker units), the Marines could manuever aggressively when faced with enemy armor. Without that backup, doing so would be suicide. They maneuvered rather aggressively in Panama, and in Afghanistan, without them. How many M1A1's were deployed into Afghanistan? Again--zero. As to facing enemy armor, which would you rather have in hand during the early entry phase if facing an enemy armored threat--a bunch of crunchies with no protected mobility, as we now have, or a SBCT with its (albeit limited) armor protection for the crunchies, some TOW launchers mounted, and those 105mm versions? I mentioned the LVTP 7 only as a comparison to the Marines' LAVs. The LAVs showed much higher reliability than the LVTPs especially in reliability areas. ??? LVTPs have much of their electronics in the bilge, in direct contact with the belly, assuming (most of the time) water cooling of the skin. Because of the prolonged operation away from water, the LVTPs suffered a lot of reliability failures in their mission electronics. The GDLS factory in Tallahassee is full of boxen back in the shop for repair. Your enthusiasm for Strykers is misplaced. While usually, I'll take good enough and now over better in the indefinite future, I can't in this case. Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are too heavy to deploy and too light to fight. They are much easier to deploy than their counterpart heavy force assets by air--there is no way you can argue otherwise. How much heavy armor was CENTCOM able to get into northern Iraq during OIF by air? As to being too light to fight, one can only imagine that you prefer the status quo for the early entry forces, which is even lighter--seems a bit illogical to me. According to a RAND study, the limiting factor in deploying a SBCT is ramp space at the entry airport. Assuming the ability to process, unload and turn around 4 C-17s an hour (which RAND considered heroically optimistic), the 96 hour deployment range for a SBCT using a fleet of 60 C-17s is 1325 miles. That puts a SBCT in place with 3 count them 3 days of beans and bullets but no POL. Time to Kandahar with 3 days of beans and bullets is 21 days, by which time the lead elements have long ago shot out their basic loads and have run out of gas. Gee, I guess Rand discounted the possibility of resupply, huh? Let's see, 60 C-17's leaves what, some 140 plus unused? Not to mention all of those C-130's, which do a fine job of hauling beans, bullets, and even POL. And they can even use other airstrips (like many highways in the world, not to mention the minimum FLS's constructed by 20th EN BDE assets on a routine basis), which means no challenge to ramp space at the principal APOD, right? All those extra C-17's hauling cargo to an aerial staging base outside the insertion area, with C-130's doing the short hauls (they could even LAPES the resupply packages, meaning an airstrip is not even required). What do you get with your rapid deployment force? You get very little organic anti-armor, But much better than what we have now, which is a few HMMWV's with TOW. good mobility and vehicles proof against 14.5mm fire. Let's see, how does that compare to the current alternative? Footmobility and proof against 7.62x39mm (as long as it hits one of those kevlar plates)? Looks like the SBCT is significantly better in both regards. I'm as in favor of improved strategic mobility as anyone but Stryker brigades sacrifice too much to that end. You get a force that isn't tolerant of the misfortunes of war and which is unable to sustain a momentary reverse. You seem to be focused on this as a force that is designed to aggressively strike into the heart of enemy heavy forces and win, but in reality it is an effort to provide early entry forces with more capability than they now have (no way you can argue that it does not do that), and to fill that "middle" niche that we currently don't cover between the light and heavy spectrum. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA kind of solutions. That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I believe you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne armor deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of either light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy *more* survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that large void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention that the ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for. Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is tasked to provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a SOF raid (sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from Strykers? Kind of a no-brainer. The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces augmented by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech opponents. What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces did OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if the opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that defeating the US forces was pretty easy. Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the real question is, how would those same games have played out if it was our *current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how. Light infantry is just about useless today and Stryker units not a lot better. Sounds like you are dodging the question. Which would you prefer, an all light early entry force, or one that also includes the SBCT? Not a hard choice to make IMO. How many rounds are available for the HIMARS? Probably the same UBL as what they would carry when accompanying the XVIII ABN Corps light assets into the theater. So what is the drawback to their support of the SBCT...? As far as targeting those assets, the Red force managed as the real enemy will, given the incentives. How would I do it today? With a MEU or if necessary, a MEB. What's needed if the ability to move_much_greater tonnage by air to give the equivalent capability for land locked locations. So, you seem to think that the answer lies solely in drastically increasing air transport capability? And this would take how long?? Not to mention that you, or more accurately Rand, has claimed that ramp space is the limiting factor--how are you making that problem go away, or are you now saying that it was never the severe problem that your earlier quote was based upon? And you never answered the question--do you want those air deployable LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you want to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be no-brainers to me. Your failure to answer this one again leaves me wondering if you have thought this all the way through. As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but the remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the case, then send the heavy mech units the same way No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early stages, which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable. The Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in Afghan land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the early entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded to no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces, which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to survive in higher intensity scenarios. Take a look at the logistical requirements for a single SBCT, just to get it in place. The lift doesn't exist to get the consumables there for intense combat. Yes it does. We have a heck of a lot more than 60 C-17's making up our air transport capability. You should be unwilling to insert troops that we can't support unless we end up being limited to constabulary operations. So your answer is, "sorry, Mr. president, but we can't go"? I don't think that alternative is acceptable to *either* side in this debate. FYI, I published an article a couple of years ago decrying the lack of emphasis on keeping our heavy force viable until the FCS does (if it ever does) enter full scale service, so I am no screaming Stryker fanatic. But it does indeed fill a niche that is completely unfilled without it, and all of the money you care to drop into airmobility is not going to change that in the near term--and the near-term is what Stryker is all about. Add in the fact that these "interim" vehicles will have a very long life serving with RC units even after they have been supplanted by FCS, and I see Stryker as a rather smart move on the part of the Army. Brooks |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 19 Sep 2003 22:38:57 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: It flies today, carrying a 3rd more farther and faster. No, it *was* flying last I knew, but then again it crashed, right? The 1st prototype did. Is it again flying? Yes, they took the next one built which was intended for static testing IIRC and made it airworthy. OK, but if it is so great, why again are the Russians dumping this program that they are a partner in? And how about those engine problems...? Brooks greg |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:
"Tony Williams" wrote I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun? By buying A400Ms? Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for C-130 compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The MagicTech remote sensing/remote fires stuff What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've head about? isn't ready yet, never mind "electric armor" And this? that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small ITYM A400M. -- A: top posting Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... "John Keeney" wrote in message ... Most common reply when asking folks working up the Stryker their opinion: "It tolls real nice." Tolls? snicker Excuse me, "It [tows] real nice." The bad thing is, I knew something was wrong when I wrote it; I just couldn't figure out what it was. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
---California International Air Show Pics Posted!!!! | Tyson Rininger | Aerobatics | 0 | February 23rd 04 11:51 AM |
TRUCKEE,CA DONNER LAKE 12-03 PICS. @ webshots | TRUCKEE_DONNER_LAKE | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | December 19th 03 04:48 PM |
Aviation Pics | Tyson Rininger | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 7th 03 01:04 AM |
b-17C interior pics site | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 03:42 AM |
Nam era F-4 pilot pics? | davidG35 | Military Aviation | 2 | August 4th 03 03:44 PM |