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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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" - I like this! The A-10 was painted "**** It!-- Leave 'em to the Air Force Green". The Cub is painted "NORDO Yellow". all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Juvat wrote in message . ..
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. You really need to cool your jets a bit. Getting your panties in a wad is not gonna help, now is it? Now...any evidence of this great tide of opposition available? I have no doubt that just about *every* program has had *someone* in the service in disagreement; but few (and I have yet to see anything that indicates thet in the case of either the F-4 or F-16 this was the case) have approached the level of in-service animosity (to the point of wanting to kill them all off during the timeframe leading up to ODS) that the A-10 garnered. 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. What would be incorrect about this is your statement that I said "NO USAF opposition". Go back and reread my comment in this regard; since you snipped it, here it is: "How many of those opponents to the F-4, or even the F-16, were in the USAF, though?" Note that the point here was that there was no tremendous institutional opposition that approached the level that was apparent in the case of the A-10--I believe you have now *agreed* that this is accurate? Did I say there was "no opposition"? Nope. That would be you trying to insert words into my mouth, I believe. 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. I did not say that you did. I was just pointing out the tremendous difference in scale of opposition that the A-10 faced in comparison to *any* opposition that the F-16, or for that matter by any other modern USAF aircraft procurement project (well, other than the USAF's animosity towards continuing C-130 production in the form of the J model, due to Congressional budget insertions--but even the USAF has flip-flopped on that one, and is supporting procurement of C-130Js and CC-130J's (where the heck did THAT designation come from?)). Brooks 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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
The A-10 was painted "**** It!-- Leave 'em to the Air Force Green". The Cub is painted "NORDO Yellow". Dan, most every day you tempt me to put a filter on you. all the best -- Mike Marron http://www.marronair.com/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Kevin
Brooks blurted out: You really need to cool your jets a bit. (ouch) Getting your panties in a wad is not gonna help, now is it? Some times it's almost a requirement to point out the obvious...if it takes a 2" x 4" sorry...some folks are slow, and some keep moving the target. I may have to use a Louisville Slugger with you. Now...any evidence of this great tide of opposition available? Ummm, have you actually been reading what I'm typing? Now you want Congressional testimony...okay you win. There was never any opposition to the F-4 or the F-16. Trest was fabricating about the F-15 supporters (above the rank Internet of aviation expert) trying to scuttle the F-16. I have no proof of institutional opposition to either the F-4 or the F-16...and can find no institutional opposition to the A-10 (but I'm aware of anecdotal opposition, snide remarks and limited roles). "How many of those opponents to the F-4, or even the F-16, were in the USAF, though?" Note that the point here was that there was no tremendous institutional opposition that approached the level that was apparent in the case of the A-10-- Fair enough, I missed the part where you explained you meant "tremendous institutional opposition approaching the level" vis-a-vis the A-10. I'm pretty sure you would characterize any other poster's alibi like this as "back pedaling." Keep reading, I'll get to what you describe as INSTITUTIONAL opposition. Since you didn't specify which institution, I'm going with USAF. Did I say there was "no opposition"? Nope. That would be you trying to insert words into my mouth, I believe. Considering your rapier wit, the question,__"How many of those opponents to the F-4, or even the F-16, were in the USAF, though?" __ carries a certain amount of ambiguity, leaving you ample wiggle room to either clarify or back pedal. But I digress. Here's some "facts" for you Buckwheat, regarding USAF institutional opposition to the A-10. "In addition to the F-X air superiority, the Air Force laid plans for the A-X close-air support aircraft. In June 1966 General McConnell [ CSAF] directed the Air Staff to make analyses of what areas of close air support were not being filled to the Army's satisfaction....There was a need of a follow-on Air Force close-air-support aircraft since it was already evident that the A-7 was too costly and lacked desired CAS performance capabilites. In September 1966 General McConnell directed immediate and positive action to obtain a specialized A-X air-support aircraft for the 1970s." So the proposal gets rolling in 1966...in 1971 Secretary Seamans [Sec AF] tells the Senate Appropriations Commitee, "We are going through an important aircraft development phase in the Air Force with the A-X [A-9 vs A-10 competition], the B-1, with the F-15, and with AWACS, and feel it is not a time to procure large numbers of additional aircraft." In 1971, outgoing Commander of Tactical Air Command, "General [William W] Momyer had earlier opposed specialized aircraft, but in 1971 he conceived that military requirements must be rationally developed from the future threat toward Europe...The promised intensity of conflict in Europe, Momyer concluded, established 'a requirement for a large number of airframes and tend[ed] to emphasize specialization." 17 Jan 1973 Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council selected the A-10 in the A-X prototype competition. Also 1973 the Yom Kippur War began to change the viability of the A-X as planned, at least in some minds. "A Joint Chiefs of Staff [note Kev, not just USAF] survey team agreed that a lesson to be learned from the Yom Kippur War was that a close-support airplane needed to attack at high speed, needed excess thrust for maneuverability to avoid SAMs and sustain high speed, and needed a computer-aided bombing system for an accurate first-pass delivery. Another point raised by the JCS team was that airborne FACs in slow-moving planes could not have survived in such an intense air-defense environment " Guess what the INSTITUTIONAL Air Force response was to the JCS conclusions? Glad you asked... "The Air Force's response to these assertions was that there was a trade-off between speed and relative invulnerability (ability to take hits) in an aircraft. Speed made it more difficult for a pilot to acquire a target. Thus this trade-off was being reflected in the A-X (now the A-10) close-air-support plane. The finding on the survivability of an airborne FAC was additional support for the A-10, since it could --unlike a faster aircraft-- find its own targets." "General Robert J Dixon, Commander of the Tactical Air Command, expressed his insight in to the Yom Kippur War in a rebuttal to the generalization that missile defenses brought an era where tactical aircraft could no longer survive over a battlefield. His judgment was 'less startling but more credible.' Tactical air power would need to 'control the air-space, suppress the defenses, operate as combined arms team." [please nod your cranium if you understand "operate as combined arms team" implies support of the Army] In November 1975, former CinC USAFE General David C Jones said, "In a war in Central Europe, the intial and principal task of Allied Air Forces must be to assist friendly forces in halting the Pact ground offensive. This requires that NATO air power become immediately and heavily engaged in close air support operations, while attaining local air superiority as necessary. Less immediate critical objectives, such as achieving theater-wide air superiority, must await a REDUCED NEED FOR CLOSE AIR SUPPORT." I could go on regarding the USAF A-X versus the USA Cheyenne versus the Harrier debate, or the 1977 proposal for a FAC-X (two seat A-10) proposed by the USAF. In none of these can you find your so-called USAF institutional opposition to the A-10. I can also point to quotes by USAF Leadership flat out saying the Light Weight Fighter should not even make it to the prototype phase. And I can quote CinC USAFE saying CAS is a vital mission, but a swing-LWF vice single mission jet would be a better option based upon force structure costs. This applies equally to the single purpose RF-4. I'm also ignoring the disparity between NATO's the US concept of how to stop WP armor. (Hint: We included the A-10). Of course none of this applies because I'm certain you will re-define what exactly institutional opposition is, or specify some time twenty years after the A-10 entered the inventrory as proof of "institutional opposition." |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Kirk Stant" wrote in message m... A question for any Warthog jocks (or fans) out the Why is the front of the right gear fairing on all A-10s painted gloss black? Is is a radome of some sort? If so, what for? Unless, of course, you would have to kill me if you told me, etc... Just curious, Kirk Old F-4 WSO I posted your question onto the Warthog territory forum. It is the ILS antenna. The Mike Badrocke cutaway drawings still have the ILS in the nose (an early manufacturer concept), but this was moved to the starboard gear fairing due to Avenger vibration. Info straight from the guys who fly and fix 'em. TJ |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"TJ" wrote in message ... The Mike Badrocke cutaway drawings still have the ILS in the nose (an early manufacturer concept), but this was moved to the starboard gear fairing due to Avenger vibration. Info straight from the guys who fly and fix 'em. TJ Say again type of vibration. There has to be a story here somewhere. Tex |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Tex Houston" wrote in message
"TJ" wrote in message ... The Mike Badrocke cutaway drawings still have the ILS in the nose (an early manufacturer concept), but this was moved to the starboard gear fairing due to Avenger vibration. Info straight from the guys who fly and fix 'em. TJ Say again type of vibration. There has to be a story here somewhere. How much of a story do you need to explain this? Placing an antenna in close proximity to a very energetic 30mm gatling gun muzzle seems like an obvious trouble spot. I'm slightly surprised the RWR antennas are still up there. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message ink.net... "Tex Houston" wrote in message "TJ" wrote in message ... The Mike Badrocke cutaway drawings still have the ILS in the nose (an early manufacturer concept), but this was moved to the starboard gear fairing due to Avenger vibration. Info straight from the guys who fly and fix 'em. TJ Say again type of vibration. There has to be a story here somewhere. How much of a story do you need to explain this? Placing an antenna in close proximity to a very energetic 30mm gatling gun muzzle seems like an obvious trouble spot. I'm slightly surprised the RWR antennas are still up there. You still did not explain "Avenger". Tex |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:24:27 -0600, Tex Houston wrote:
You still did not explain "Avenger". GAU-8A/Avenger 30mm cannon. -Jeff B. yeff at erols dot com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 24th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 03 03:52 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |
Landing gear door operation | Elliot Wilen | Military Aviation | 11 | July 8th 03 03:30 AM |