Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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