F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

SNIP


My point was the unusual nature of taking a general conclusion from a
very limited anecdotal sampling and one that was arguably not an
expert observer. It would be similar to taking testimony regarding an
individual who has been shot and extrapolating their experience to
some level of expertise in firearms.


I'm in trail with your point - and I agree with it, but in the absence
of everything else, you go with what you've got. The last few exchanges
have been an education. I disagree with your discounting a non-"expert
observer" in this case. I drive submarines for a living, and I'm certain
I can tell the difference between dive bombing and high altitude level
bombing when I see it; no reason to expect anything different from
anyone else.


If you were in attendance at "the US Army's General Staff College"
(can I assume you mean C&GSC?), then I would further assume a
professional military background and some exposure during your
educational background to some coverage of the Battle of Britain, the
blitz, and the bombing of London.

The Battle of Britain was not covered at CGSC in any great detail as
part of the general course - you had to take an elective to get that,
one I was not able to take due to other requirements. The course is
joint oriented, and therefore is very effects based centric, especially
for those working out of rate, ie: a Navy guy like me working on an Army
staff in a traditionally green suiter role. We didn't really discuss the
technical aspects of various types of bomb delivery, and the effects of
the bombing, regardless of type, were more relevant to our discussions.
One of the lessons learned from Vietnam is that those kinds of details
are best left to the experts. During exercises/war-games, while acting
as the S3 of a joint staff, I wouldn't dream of requesting a certain
type of bomb delivery. I would discuss the effect I was trying to
achieve with the Strike Cell. The pilots, missileers and artillerymen
assigned to the cell would put the details together to create the
effect. While I can do the math and physics on a wide variety of
ordnance targeting and delivery, I don't have a good feel for what it
takes for the crews (at least air crews) to make it happen. While I'd
like to learn some of those details simply for professional development,
I much prefer the effects based planning, and I bet you would as well.
How would you like to be leading a squadron of your 105s on a strike
that had been planned by somebody who's complete exposure to the details
of air warfare included being certified as a private pilot, and had
numerous briefings and rides in a variety of tactical aircraft over the
course of his career?




One could go a step further and, as Harry Andreas has pointed out,
"high speed/low altitude" is probably not the best characterization of
dive bombing either. Lay-down or skip-bombing display those attributes
more accurately.

Agreed.



Other than the oral history aspect of seeing a real live WW II British
Tommy, what was the point of his presentation at C&GSC? Was this part
of some larger program? Inquiring minds, etc. . . .

It was one part of a larger program - but one involving military history
- the recording of and study of, rather than any strategic, operational
or tactical application. The US Army has a rather rigorous approach to
history. They even have an officer skill designator for 'historian'.

DS





Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

DeepSea wrote:

snip

That would explain the British complaint with the early P-51's lack of
high altitude performance. Based on the information I had, I (apparently
incorrectly) assumed that there was no need for a fighter with good high
altitude performance - I thought that most of the action during the BoB
was down low where the early P-51 was actually pretty capable.

The Mustang didn't arrive 'til well long after the Battle of Britain, so the
point is moot anyway. Requirements would have moved on.

Graham

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Ricardo
writes
Incidentally, a few sources have claimed that the Packard built Merlin,
whilst a superb engine, lacked the power levels of the Rolls Royce
version. This, it is claimed, was because the British kept secret the
composition of the phosphor-bronze bearings that they used in the
engine. No, I can't quote a source/s.

On the other hand, I heard - from "old factory hands" lecturing on
manufacturing technique at Highbury College in 1988 - that a big
difference between Packard and Rolls-Royce was in fitting the cylinder
head.

Rolls-Royce used a precision hand-scraped metal-to-metal fit. Very
effective, though extremely demanding in scarce skilled labour.
(Attempting to 'file flat' is a useful exercise for a trainee mechanical
engineer; it teaches a certain humility in demanding surface finishes)

Packard cleaned up the castings, milled the mating faces approximately
flat (at least, compared to a metal-metal seal) and put a gasket between
them. I don't recall hearing tales of P-51s routinely or regularly
falling from the skies when their engines failed, nor of the Packard
Spitfires being execrated for unreliability (or, for that matter, lack
of horsepower).

I think it's fair to say that Packard 'productionised' the design of the
Merlin which made it easier and quicker to build, possibly more reliable
too.

Graham

Ricardo wrote:

At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on stream
that particular battle was virtually over,

Entirely over by over a year in fact !

Graham

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.

Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.

Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
the early war versions.

"US folk" cranked out so much hardware because there were more of
us, we had more natural resources at hand, and we weren't being bombed.

Well, I don't know when mine was built but I do know that it
certainly was no precision piece of shootin 'arn for sure...it
worked ok but didn't look to be 'well made'
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Ricardo wrote:


Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
Ricardo wrote:



What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?


In brief, a dive bomber based on the early P-51 airframe, officially
named "Apache".

- Three-blade rather than four-blade prop.

- Allison V-1710 engine, rather than Allison Merlin, as used in
original Mustang.

- Dive brakes included on inboard underside of wings, similar to
Douglas Dauntless.

About 500 made, used mostly in CBI and Mediterranean/North African
theaters.

The Collings Foundation is restoring one in Florida.

Thanks Steve,

Each day we learn a little more...

Ricardo

PS Allison Merlin? - I thought Packard were the boys for the Merlin
production. Here I'm going to learn something else...


Duuuh. Packard is right.

I blame it on the poison oak what I got around my eyes currently.

Glasses are a *good* thing...

So is doing it by feel...

Ricardo

"DeepSea" wrote in message
. 136...
Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

snip


The discussion was not about "what dive bombing is all about", the
technicalities or merits of dive bombing, nor was the talk. Simply that
in his experience, he mostly saw dive bombing. This was important to my
point of view because his talk was my only exposure to primary source
material on the subject (at least until Brian posted the weblink).



The topic as been 'done to death' and You'll (Dep Sea) are probably
regretting the assertion that 'England was mostly sunjected to attack using
Dive-bombers .
I can somewhat understand your inference as (apparently) you've only ever
experienced a talk from _one_ person that had endured aerial attack ( in
England?).
I'm a mid-War 'baby'. [My mother and her neighbours _might_ have been the
female ordnance workers clustered around the weapon shown on the Liverpool
Blitz website ... as they all were 'conscripted/drafted' for war work into
the Royal Ordnance Factory which was at Kirkby!]. I know and have been
exposed to primary source material off hundreds of relatives / neighbours
that survived the Blitz.

My playgrounds were the bombed sites (called Debris, pronounced deb-ree)
that surounded our homes. I can still 'hear' the cries of neighbours,
mothers and scuffers yelling 'Gerr'off that deb-ree!' to us kids.

Later whilst serving in the RAF, I was exposed to primary source material
from Pilots that had survived 'The War'. I was privileged to serve
with -that's probably best described as 'at the same station, during the
same time' - with 'Ginger Lacey'.

http://www.battle-of-britain.com/BoB.../RAF/lacey.htm

One of the nicest man that one could encounter. (then) Flt. Lt. Lacey was
serving his 'last tour' as a (Master) Fighter Controller at RAF Buchan.
During the long midnight watches -as we anticipated the outbreak of WW1II -
we youngsters would listen enthralled to Flt. Lt. Lacey's recounting his
engagements. { I must stress that he was incredibly modest and
unassuming -it was we, youngsters, who pushed him into telling 'War-ies'. I
had a feeling of watching an updated 'Boyhood of Raleigh' scene with
'Ginger' playing the part of the oldster and the audience, the youngsters,
cluttered about the feet: albeit everybody was wearing air-force blue, and
the light was emanating off the Tote Board, Display Table and flickering
consoles.

This is the reason I felt that the original statement 'most ... dive
bombing' needed clarification.

--

Brian

In article ,
Ricardo wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Ricardo wrote:


Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
Ricardo wrote:



What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?


In brief, a dive bomber based on the early P-51 airframe, officially
named "Apache".

- Three-blade rather than four-blade prop.

- Allison V-1710 engine, rather than Allison Merlin, as used in
original Mustang.

- Dive brakes included on inboard underside of wings, similar to
Douglas Dauntless.

About 500 made, used mostly in CBI and Mediterranean/North African
theaters.

The Collings Foundation is restoring one in Florida.

Thanks Steve,

Each day we learn a little more...

Ricardo

PS Allison Merlin? - I thought Packard were the boys for the Merlin
production. Here I'm going to learn something else...


Duuuh. Packard is right.

I blame it on the poison oak what I got around my eyes currently.

Glasses are a *good* thing...

So is doing it by feel...

Heh. That was my dad and uncle, who got horrible cases of poison oak
collecting pretty red leaves and ferns for table decorations while my
mom and aunt fixed dinner on a camping trip shortly after they got
married. A good two weeks before either could so much as touch their new
brides. Dad was always just a bit twitchy about camping after that; we
three kids didn't find out why until years later.

This time I got it from water that apparently had poison oak oil
(urushiol) on it splashed in my face while kayaking last week. Not the
first time I've gotten it without contacting the stupid plant at all.
Yay for spectacle; else I'd have had it in my eyes, rather than just
around them.

In article ,
(Brian Sharrock) wrote:

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_
have Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed
for Close-Air-Support of advancing troops

Just about all the Luftwaffe bombers including the He177 were
theoretically capable of dive bombing (stressed for it plus dive
brakes) however it seems that actual dive bombing was confined to
Stuka units due to the specialist training required.

Ken Young

In article ,
(Ricardo) wrote:

Incidentally, a few sources have claimed that the Packard
built Merlin, whilst a superb engine, lacked the power levels
of the Rolls Royce version. This, it is claimed, was because
the British kept secret the composition of the phosphor-bronze
bearings that they used in the engine.

The Packard Merlin did differ as far as I know but also as far
as I know it was not because of secrets. The British versions
were to closer tolerances requiring much more skill in assembly.
In "Sigh for a Merlin" a fault called skew gear failure was
traced to a difference in assembly order from Rolls Royce in one
of the (British) shadow factories.

Ken Young