Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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.

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."

No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy. Besides, why would
you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?



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

"Mike Kanze" wrote in message . ..
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.

Before it received the designation "A6", the original bird emerged from Grumman's drawing boards with another name, A2F, IIRC, under the old designation pattern. Along with a different designator the proposal (and maybe the prototype) arrived with what were intended to be vectored thrust nozzles for the exhausts of its twin engines.

The company already had a history with twins for the Navy, the XF5F-1 (actually flown in cartoon combat by a famous comic squadron, notable for a nose which didn't quite extend to the wing's leading edge), the F7F, a sleek fuselage mated to two big radials, and the S2F "Stoof", stubbier than sleek, with its stablemate, the "commuter" airliner, the C1A.

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.

: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.

: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.

:Besides, why would
:you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?

Well, there is that.

[And this might explain that issue that so many grunts had with USAF
CAS. :-)]

--
"The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart
right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his
body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life
will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."
-- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo

Ed Rasimus wrote:

No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy.

Ummm...on the other hand, wars have been lost by failing to out-land the
enemy. (Without landings, attrition becomes pretty severe.)

--
St. John

Williams and Holland's Law:
If enough data is collected, anything may be proven by
statistical methods.

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. 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.

: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.

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.

: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.

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
operations.

[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.

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

The original A2F-1 / A-6A design is not what I was referring to earlier.

The single-cockpit "A-6" was a design based upon the already (at that time) in-existence A-6 airframe. The Iron Works folks basically tried to save time by building upon something already flying about the place.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"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

"TOliver" wrote in message ...

"Mike Kanze" wrote in message . ..
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.

Before it received the designation "A6", the original bird emerged from Grumman's drawing boards with another name, A2F, IIRC, under the old designation pattern. Along with a different designator the proposal (and maybe the prototype) arrived with what were intended to be vectored thrust nozzles for the exhausts of its twin engines.

The company already had a history with twins for the Navy, the XF5F-1 (actually flown in cartoon combat by a famous comic squadron, notable for a nose which didn't quite extend to the wing's leading edge), the F7F, a sleek fuselage mated to two big radials, and the S2F "Stoof", stubbier than sleek, with its stablemate, the "commuter" airliner, the C1A.

Let the interservice Holy Wars begin! g

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...
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.

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."

No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy. Besides, why would
you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?



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

"Mike Kanze" wrote in
:

Let the interservice Holy Wars begin! g


deep voice Yay-yuh! /deep voice

Can't y'all learn to play nice together? I've seen better manners in a
kindergarten class. ;~)

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN Ret

TOliver wrote:


"Mike Kanze"
wrote in message . ..
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.
Before it received the designation "A6", the original bird emerged
from Grumman's drawing boards with another name, A2F, IIRC, under
the old designation pattern. Along with a different designator the
proposal (and maybe the prototype) arrived with what were intended
to be vectored thrust nozzles for the exhausts of its twin engines.

The company already had a history with twins for the Navy, the
XF5F-1 (actually flown in cartoon combat by a famous comic squadron,
notable for a nose which didn't quite extend to the wing's leading
edge), the F7F, a sleek fuselage mated to two big radials, and the
S2F "Stoof", stubbier than sleek, with its stablemate, the
"commuter" airliner, the C1A.

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.

But I did see a video of a beautiful Stoof working on a California
brushfire last week.

Rick

Mike Kanze wrote:
The original A2F-1 / A-6A design is not what I was referring to earlier.

The single-cockpit "A-6" was a design based upon the already (at that
time) in-existence A-6 airframe. The Iron Works folks basically tried to
save time by building upon something already flying about the place.

That light-attack competition actually required that the competitors be
based on existing designs, so they got a Super A-4, a Single-Seat A-6,
and a Scrunched F-8 (aka the A-7). Funny how the A-7 won, as it was
probably the one with the least actual relationship with its notional
ancestor. I don't know if there are any structural elements in common
between the A-7 and the F-8.

Sound familiar? The Navy does this a lot.

--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"