A-10 gear fairing

Juvat wrote in message . ..
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Kevin
Brooks blurted out:

How many of those opponents to the F-4, or even the F-16, were in the
USAF, though?

Against the F-4? Hmmm, guys flying single seat fighters that carried a
gun. "Two seats? WTF do you do with the wasted space?"

Any real evidence of this alleged opposition to the F-4? Let's see,
the F-100. etc., were apparently going to have some problems with the
range requirements into North Vietnam, the F-105, while proving to be
a prettty rugged and capable strike platform that did indeed down a
few Migs, was not exactly what those fighter pilots were thinking of
when you say, "fighter aircraft"...where was this opposition again?


How about the HQ Staff folks that were concerrned that if the F-16
were fielded, the F-15 program would suffer. How could the F-15
program suffer? Some bright person would figure a way to task the F-15
for surface attack ("not a pound for air-to-ground") and give the
air-to-air role to the F-16. In Trest's book on Boyd, he mentions the
concerns the F-15 supporters had about the F-16.

I don't recall the opposition against the F-16 as being anything like
that that the A-10 faced early on, as well as later in its career--and
where is all of that anti-F-16 later opposition?


And there were more than a few officers above John Boyd that flat out
didn't like him, ergo his pet project.

Not sure how accurate that is; from what I have read, the F-16 was
planned as a multi-role platform during its initial development phase,
well before it ever entered into service.

Read Trest's book on John Boyd. His proposal for the F-16 didn't even
include a radar, much less thinking of carrying a bomb. Boyd's concept
was air-to-air all the way.

Thank goodness that his concept was not what ended up rolling off the
assembly line then, as we know that the F-16 was indeed planned for
multirole use from very early in its development.

Brooks


Juvat

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om

But the development of Army aviation, while initially aimed at
supplementing artillery, changed quite a bit with the development of
the divisional aviation brigade, which instead became a fourth
maneuver element, as opposed to a fire support element. If your attack
aviation assets are tied up with a deep mission, or with a continuous
attack mission along some axis, then the need for CAS on the part of
the ground maneuver brigades has not really been lessened. I never
thought of the aviation assets as so much substituting for CAS as much
as they *complement* it (JAAT being an example of the latter).

But are JAAT and JAWS even *practiced* any more?

JAAT was still included in the doctrine available in mid-96, which is
the date of publication of my CGSC text.

Brooks

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:17:50 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Ed, did you work with a particular Brigae whiel you were there?
Tank Boy (The youngest brother in the family) was in D/4/68th
Armor at the same time. (If you saw an early '70s Chevelle with the
New Hampshire license plate "LETHAL", that was him.

Yes, I was in 2d Bde. I went to NTC with 4/68 and 1/77.

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message news

Not quite. It missed Grenada, where the only CAS missions were flown
by the USN and USAF AC-130's, and it was also not used in Panama,
where IIRC the only fixed wing CAS missions were flown by the ANG
A-7's that were down there on rotation (and that strange F-117
mission...).

Well, when you cruise at 250 knots, the war is sometimes going to be
over before you get there!

Just joking of course - and it is a bit odd that the planners didn't
include A-10s in those actions. Anyone know why?

As far as F-15 colors - remember they originally came out in "Air
Superiority Blue" - absolutely the dumbest color ever painted on a
fighter plane! That didn't last long. Not sure if the change to gray
came before or after the F-16 came out - and there have apparently
been several iterations of F-15A/B/C/D gray paint jobs with various
countershadings.

Re 15000' over Kosovo: Where were the troops in contact? Why go lower
(and they did, when necessary) when all you are doing is plinking
tanks? Getting shot down doesn't help the troops in contact - it
isn't like a russian airshow! The idea that you should be eyeball to
eyeball with the enemy doesn't hold up if you have the right weapons,
or if the enemy has the wrong weapons (SA-16/18s).

Kirk

dave999 wrote in message ...
Asked the crew chief at the last airshow. He showed me the spiral
antenna and the wire which you can see by looking up inside the gear
sponson behind that black plastic cover (not just black paint). Don't
know exactly what it's for tho.

Thanks. Now if we can just get someone to find out what it is for
(assuming it isn't classified).

More and more curious.

Kirk

On 26 Sep 2003 08:04:04 -0700, Kirk Stant wrote:

As far as F-15 colors - remember they originally came out in "Air
Superiority Blue" - absolutely the dumbest color ever painted on a
fighter plane!

I remember reading an article about USAF Eagles from Kadena flying up to
Chitose to for a little slap-n-tickle with JASDF F-15s.

The Air Force, regarding the whole thing as the goodwill mission it was,
made sure all their people conformed to 35-10 and all their aircraft were
polished and gleaming.

When they got to Chitose they noticed with some amusement that the JASDF
birds were all rather greasy and dirty. They felt sure they would have
many things to teach their Japanese compatriots... until they got into the
air and had trouble seeing the JASDF Eagles against the gray overcast.

Their robin's-egg blue F-15s were easy to spot, though.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:21:27 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

[previous post snipped]

No, emphatically no. Anyone who spends more than one tour (penance) in
the TACS (Tactical Air Control System--i.e., FACs and ALOs) is of
minimal value. Sorry in advance to those career FAC/ALOs that I've
offended.

I was an ALO in the 4th ID, Fort Carson Colorado from '85-'87. This
was after being passed over seven times for O-5 and with an extension
in service for two years. Assignment taken to get a move from Holloman
AFB (great place to fly, lousy place to retire) to Colorado Springs.
Nuff said.

I liked, and more importantly respected, everyone that I ever
encountered in Army Aviation. Mas grande cojones, en todos.


When I was at Ft. Hood in the late '70s they (Army helicopter pilots)
used to give "orientation rides" to new ALOs and visiting FACs. The
orientation rides often consisted of lots of contour and NOE flying at
extremely low altitudes and for some strange reason many of these ALOs
and FACs got airsick. Not that any Army aviation people would be
doing any of this on purpose, of course.... ;-)

John Hairell )

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,Kevin Brooks
blurted out:

Any real evidence of this alleged opposition to the F-4? Let's see,
the F-100. ... the F-105, ... was not exactly what those fighter pilots were thinking of
when you say, "fighter aircraft"...where was this opposition again?

Let me try again and see if you recognize opposition. Single seat
fighter pilots "opposed" to the extra body sitting in an aircraft that
lacked a gun. Do you see it?...single seat fighter pilots not wanting
to fly with another guy in the jet...and not wanting to fly a fighter
that didn't have a friggin' gun. There were lots of guys that thought
this was not a very smart move on the part of the USAF. One might even
say they were "opposed" to the idea of a two-seat, no gun tactical
fighter. This doesn't suggest an alternative to the two-seated, no-gun
jet...simply opposition to an extra body and no gun.

Then there's the other convenient fact that the USAF was adopting a
USN jet. The corporate culture clash of the USAF vs USN is fairly well
recognized. Part of the "not invented here" POV that is/was reluctant
to embrace the other service's equipment or tactics.

This opposition doesn't negate the eventual acceptance and embracing
to the F-4 by the USAF culture.

See? I'm pretty sure that even in the Army those facts qualify as
opposition.

I don't recall the opposition against the F-16 as being anything like
that that the A-10 faced early on,

I agree...but I was addressing your incorrect analysis that there had
been NO USAF opposition to the F-16. Kevin, you're tossing out extra
bits and pieces simply to take the discussion off on a tangent.

as well as later in its career--and
where is all of that anti-F-16 later opposition?

There is none. I never suggested there was. My response was addressing
opposition to the introduction of the F-16 into the USAF inventroy.

But if you were ever around WSOs in an F-4 squadron making the
transition to F-16s I think you might have noted some displeasure
toward the Viper. [say 1987-88 at Moody AFB or Osan AB after that]

I flew the F-16, I loved the F-16. However WSOs losing their job in
F-4 squadrons were not uniformly happy. One might even say they were
"opposed" to the F-16...exception were made for the B and D.

Thank goodness that his concept was not what ended up rolling off the
assembly line then, as we know that the F-16 was indeed planned for
multirole use from very early in its development.

Agreed...the "concept" [as opposed to the "plan"] was for a guns and
heater air-to-air jet, as this wonderful airframe has matured it has
successfully taken on many missions not intended by John Boyd.
Thankfully the USAF had other plans.

Juvat

On 26 Sep 2003 08:08:25 -0700, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

dave999 wrote in message ...
Asked the crew chief at the last airshow. He showed me the spiral
antenna and the wire which you can see by looking up inside the gear
sponson behind that black plastic cover (not just black paint). Don't
know exactly what it's for tho.

Thanks. Now if we can just get someone to find out what it is for
(assuming it isn't classified).

More and more curious.

Kirk

Old UHF/TACAN Antenna?

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/a...chemesdb_1.htm


Each had the underside UHF/TACAN antenna mounted forward, next to the
nose gear door

All had the old box-style antenna under the nose (to the right of the
gun) and under the tail

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...

Actually, I think all of the F-102's were painted either gray (albeit
not the same flat colors used by the later tactical aircraft) or SEA
camo; I believe the type of alloy used on the skin required painting,
which is why you don't see any photos of "silver" F-102's other than
the prototype.


Hmmm, most of the photos of F-102s I've seen had them painted white.


Now that's odd, because when I was looking for references to build and paint
a model F-102, all I could find were AD Grey schemes.

Nick