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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:47:22 -0800, Yofuri
wrote: Speaking of stablemates, how could you fail to mention the most elegantly graceful and aesthetically pleasing Grumman product ever built, the W2F Fudd? The Tracker, the Trader and the Tracer, three different versions of two T-28's welded to a dumpster. HEY!!!!!!!!!! I resemble that remark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) But I did see a video of a beautiful Stoof working on a California brushfire last week. The Brazilian AF runs a half dozen or so McKinnon coversion S2s. I don't know if operate off thier carrier, though. Bill Kambic VS-27, VS-30, VS-73 Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Ed Rasimus wrote: snip Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the better choice. With modern technology it isn't necessary to go nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. The bombs are more accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a much larger area. It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary. Still not funny. I've had a lot of grunts buy me drinks when they found out my specialty. And, if we're talking about threat exposure, I'd point you toward a list of the services of returning POWs for the last several wars. Ed, have you seen some of the MC testing concepts on aircraft as manuever elements instead of simply fire support elements? CAS from 30,000ft may be better CAS in it's traditional role of flying artillery, but what about interdiction, observation and utilizing fixed wings aircrafts improved reaction time, multiple terrain reach and improved sensor and firepower capabilities to free it from "fire mission on grid WXYZ, troops in the open"? Seems like there is still a role for low and (relativly) slow. Just a thought, would love your feedback. (Flamers will be kill filed, respond civily) SPC Reed Dyer, 41st BCT OARNG P.S. I am one of those groundpounder and an OIF vet. If you ever find yourself near Portland OR or Olympia WA, I'll be more then happy to cover that next drink. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
a square plug can go supersonic nicely While may referred to the MickeyD F-4 as proof that with enough thrust, bricks could fly, no sane person could ever expect the A-10 to near Mach 1 in any situation when it wasn't shedding pieces constantly. I'm not sure what would leave first: the engine nacelle, the tail or the wings. TCJ Warthog Lover in it's intended role: Tank Killer Extrodinare |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Mike Kanze wrote: Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL. If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so. Is this the one you are refering to? http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=19797 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Ed Rasimus wrote:
:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:18:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Ed Rasimus wrote: : ::On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:08:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::Ed Rasimus wrote: :: :::The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending :::them! :: ::Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same ::stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many ::years in providing close air support for the Army. :-) :: ::Even with the smiley face at the end, that is patently absurd. I could ::introduce you to a lot of AF airplane drivers both current and dating ::back to SEA that spent a lot of time putting ordnance "in the wires" ::and working both at night and under the weather in support of guys on ::the ground. There is no more important mission. : :And I could introduce you to a lot of grunts on the ground that :thought parts of the Air Force were being taught that CAS was :something you did from 30,000 feet and would rather have the Marines, :the Navy, or the Australians up there. : :Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the :better choice. Yeah, you lot were just ahead of your time, trying it 40 years ago. :With modern technology it isn't necessary to go :nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. Depends on the mission profile. If you're self-lasing you can't be clear the hell up in "God's Country". :The bombs are more :accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a :much larger area. Variable. I'd still rather the guy up in the air had some good idea of where things are on the ground before he just takes the hand-off targeting and bombs the Chinese Embassy or some baby milk factory. :It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the :troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary. Again, depends on the mission. ::I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no ::USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on ::final to trap, with the caption: :: :: "If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it." :: ::You ought to put up a video clip of Baghdad in the middle of the night ::with all of those missile trails and tracers then one of Sadaam's Hq ::buildings being excised from amidst the neighborhoods without ::collateral damage by an F-117, B-2 or F-15E. The caption can be: :: :: "If the Navy could reach it, we wouldn't have to do it." : :Except, of course, that would be preposterous since the Navy could and :did 'reach it'. We didn't have 5 carriers over there for sport, :sport. : :Until the Navy gets stealthy, there are going to be a lot of high :value targets that can't get serviced. This is what 'stand-off' is for. :We operate a lot more jointly today than we ever have in the past. :That means USAF, USN, USMC, Army Aviation, and Allied nations get :integrated into the battle plan. Nobody does it alone, Sport. Now try telling me something I don't know, Sport. Oh, and USN and USMC assets are still pretty likely to 'push back' because they think your plan is sloppy, Sport. ::No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy. : :Uh, that's how you win the air war. If a higher percentage of your :take-offs end in landings than the enemy can manage, you get air :superiority. : :That is a different spin than the first statement. Do all the cats and :traps you want, but if you don't put iron on targets you don't win the :war. Yes, you always need to come home at the end of the :mission--failure to do so is a victory for the other side. But there :have been enough AF exchange guys landing on boats to make your first :statement a bit of hyperbole. It's a ****ing JOKE, Ed. Get over it! Gods, you powder blue types get all up yourselves and cry SO easily. :Hell, I even had a USN exchange guy as one of my IPs when I went :through F-105 training. He holds a couple of distinctions beyond just :imparting some wisdom to me in my youth--he was later skipper of the :Blues and tragically he was the last fixed wing operator to be lost in :the Vietnam War. Harley Hall. : ::Besides, why would ::you want to fight a war from any place without a bar? : :Well, there is that. (?) : :A good point, particularly with consideration of today's theaters of perations. : :[And this might explain that issue that so many grunts had with USAF :CAS. :-)] : :Still not funny. I've had a lot of grunts buy me drinks when they :found out my specialty. And, if we're talking about threat exposure, :I'd point you toward a list of the services of returning POWs for the :last several wars. See above. Sense of Humor - If you can't get one through USAF supply, I'm sure they're available over on the Navy side. Just another thing you lot will have to bludge off us. Oh, and there *is* still a serious aspect to that when you go back to SE Asia days. Why do you think they took Marine Air away from just supporting Marines (and why were Marines upset about this and Army guys real happy)? -- "May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it." -- General George S Patton, Jr. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 10 Feb 2006 18:10:41 -0800, "Reed Judd-Dyer"
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: snip Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the better choice. With modern technology it isn't necessary to go nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. The bombs are more accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a much larger area. It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary. Ed, have you seen some of the MC testing concepts on aircraft as manuever elements instead of simply fire support elements? One need only look at Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom to see the application of aircraft (multi-service) as maneuver elements. In DS we saw approximately 100 days of operations preceding a 100 hour ground war. In OIF it was "Shock and Awe" leading to the roll down the highway to Basra and Baghdad. In both cases you could easily apply a metaphor of aircraft as modern, precise and very fast cavalry. Which doesn't even touch the "tank plinking" and "Scud hunting" aspects. CAS from 30,000ft may be better CAS in it's traditional role of flying artillery, but what about interdiction, observation and utilizing fixed wings aircrafts improved reaction time, multiple terrain reach and improved sensor and firepower capabilities to free it from "fire mission on grid WXYZ, troops in the open"? Here again, you point out the flexibility of modern tac air. As much as folks love to point at specifically roled aircraft, the reality is that every commander needs the flex to be able to reallocate his weapons to other missions as the needs of the war evolve. While you might really enjoy a fleet of air dominance fighters on day one, by day three you would rather have a bunch of deep interdiction and recce assets and if you get bogged down on day fifteen you'd like something with endurance and precision to supply the CAS. Seems like there is still a role for low and (relativly) slow. Just a thought, would love your feedback. Low and slow allows for a lot of things that high and fast does not. But, it adds a lot of vulnerability. Army aviation assets are ideal for these tasks and they have developed tactics to carry them out effectively. Integration of artillery, aviation and fixed wing assets for fire support is what the fire support coordination team does in the ops center. And, of course, we've now added the Predator. SPC Reed Dyer, 41st BCT OARNG P.S. I am one of those groundpounder and an OIF vet. If you ever find yourself near Portland OR or Olympia WA, I'll be more then happy to cover that next drink. Actually, it should be me buying for you. Thanks for your service. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:34:47 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: : :Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the :better choice. Yeah, you lot were just ahead of your time, trying it 40 years ago. You might want to do an update on what was possible and common forty years ago. My experience was in the interdiction and defense suppression mission primarily, not in CAS. We didn't (and usually couldn't) make it that high. Delivery was high angle dive and PGMs were in very short supply and with very few qualified systems/crews to deliver them. CAS flown in the in-country war in SEA was very much low angle laydown delivery, "Snake and Nape". :With modern technology it isn't necessary to go :nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. Depends on the mission profile. If you're self-lasing you can't be clear the hell up in "God's Country". JDAM. There is very little application for self-lasing. Most units have organic lasing capability if such weapons are used. :The bombs are more :accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a :much larger area. Variable. I'd still rather the guy up in the air had some good idea of where things are on the ground before he just takes the hand-off targeting and bombs the Chinese Embassy or some baby milk factory. The baby milk factory was IIRC hit by a Tomahawk. And, the "baby milk" aspects were very questionable. Neither that strike nor the Chinese Embassy were CAS situations. But don't let that get in the way of a snappy retort. :We operate a lot more jointly today than we ever have in the past. :That means USAF, USN, USMC, Army Aviation, and Allied nations get :integrated into the battle plan. Nobody does it alone, Sport. Now try telling me something I don't know, Sport. Oh, and USN and USMC assets are still pretty likely to 'push back' because they think your plan is sloppy, Sport. What "plan" is that? I've not proposed anything here, but have simply pointed out that there is no longer a tactical necessity for "up close" CAS. CAS is always under the primary control of the ground commander. That hasn't changed. Targeting is always coordinated with the ground commander. The FAC/ALO/FSCO/S-3?ANGLICO or whatever is working for and with the ground commander. What is new is the ability to accurately provide target location with GPS and lasing. That means "hit my smoke" or "100 meters N. of my flash" isn't necessary and was never very accurate. Oh, and there *is* still a serious aspect to that when you go back to SE Asia days. Why do you think they took Marine Air away from just supporting Marines (and why were Marines upset about this and Army guys real happy)? ???? "They"??? You seem to be oblivious to command/control in a combat zone. Joint operations means that if you have a ground unit calling for air and you have airplanes available but they just happen to be from another service you use them anyway. No one "took Marine Air away" from anybody. Marine Air gets used when their number come up, just like Navy air and USAF. I never heard a ground commander express a request for a particular flavor of airplane to service his immediate request. Or, maybe you've made the call? "Oh, they're Air Force? I'll hold out a bit longer here until you get some of those red-blooded Marines to come to me aid..." Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 03:09:06 -0800, "KDR" wrote: [snip] BTW, I'd greatly appreciate if you could recount any exercise in which your F-4C defended the fleet against air threat. I never did any fleet air defense. We did, however, plan for land-based aircraft to provide CAP over convoys, amphibious operations, task forces operating w/out their own CV, etc. [snip] Thanks for relating your experience while you were at Torrejon. Do you remember any details about the plan to provide CAP over ships? That is what I am looking for most of all. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Is this the one you are refering to?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=19797 Precisely. Thanks for sharing it. If the A-7 was sometimes referred to as the "Thalidomide Crusader," I wonder what name the troops would have given the light attack "A-6" (Model G-12) had it entered service? "One-Eyed Ugly?" -- Mike Kanze "If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter...you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer." (I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.) -- Douglas Berry "KDR" wrote in message ups.com... Mike Kanze wrote: Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL. If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so. Is this the one you are refering to? http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=19797 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
"New helicopters join fleet of airborne Border Patrol" | Mike | Rotorcraft | 1 | August 16th 04 09:37 PM |
Carrier strike groups test new Fleet Response Plan | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 18th 04 10:25 PM |
Fleet Air Arm | Tonka Dude | Military Aviation | 0 | November 22nd 03 09:28 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |