WT Forums

Jack,

While we are on the subject was your opinion of that aircraft program?? Why did the Navy spend so much time trying to do the USAF's job for funding when it could have spent $$$ evolving into what it is today only with better aircraft....They didn't realize it as much then, but Naval Aviation is unique, while it can have a strategic detterant role, like SAC..(RIP) TAC, SAC, r the ACC they have become today cannot even remotley match the flexiability and mobility of NAVAIR....

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

I hate to point this out, but without USAF tanking assets, the USN is SEVERELY limited in it's action radius.

It's hard for me to think of any target anywhere in the world that the USAF isn't BETTER suited to hit than the USN.



"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Your comparing apples and oranges...

With the F-18E/F and no organic tanking asstes, I would agree to a point.

With an organic tanking bird...Medium range strike aircraft such as the F-14D or A-6E/F, or even the A-12...The Navy is pretty well suited, your argument also overlooks a pretty important flaw. The USAF cannot always rely on its foreign base structure. case in point, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Is it really worth while to on a round the world marathon from either Barksdale AFB...or Diego Garcia, when a CVNBG is there? Also...The F-111's from the UK were forced to divert around France, and Spain to participate in the strikes agaisnt Libya.

Sometimes the USAF is a better tool, sometimes it is not...But you still cannot say that USN stike aircraft suffer the same geo-political constraints that the USAF does...The USN suffers from one thing, and one thing only...The lack of capable aircraft and assets from the CVNBG, and we have already discussed that SNAFU at great lengths.

One more thing...also note the dwindling number of long rifles in the USAF's inventory. B-1's B-52's are getting old, B-2's are in very limited numbers....Where is the replacements?, and what happends in a multiple advesary confrontaion..Hypotheticaly Iran, North Korea, and Communist China at one time...Could we quell all of those threats using ACC bombing and tanking assets alone???? Not a chance.


Now back to the A-5.



If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 06 2003 2:03 PM

The USAF can hit any target anywhere in the world from it's bases in CONUS.

Those big bombers don't need foriegn bases.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Chad, I agree that naval aviation is unique and has some great flexibility. That is what allowed their fighters to be the first ones into Afghanistan. However, without air force tankers not a single US navy fighter would have been able to fly a mission over Afghanistan. Nope, not even the F14...they ALL hit KC135s and/or KC10s on their way in AND out.

So, while the Navy provides much needed flexibility and first presence for fighters in some situations, Sniper is 100% correct that the radius of action is limited for them without tanker support. Of course the navy has their own 'tanker' assets but they too are limited and could perhaps support a few missions with a slightly expanded combat reach. The non stop tanker support from the big USAF fleet of gas is what makes constant and far reaching strikes possible from fighter aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The USAF can hit any target anywhere in the world from it's bases in CONUS.

Those big bombers don't need foriegn bases
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ok...Ask yourself a few questions before you use that blanket statement as your argument. #1 Range is only part of the issue. If a B-2 embarks on a strike from Whitman, or B-52's from Barksdale, they still are hours away from their target. CVBG's are often foward deployed to prosepctive choke points, and trouble spots, thus have an advantage in first strike, and suprise. I never said the USN was independent from USAF tanker support, the retirement of the KA-6 assured that, however unless you start hanging iron bombs on KC-10's and KC-135's...What USAF aircraft will be in a position for pre-emptive, or retalitory action quickly?

You say those big bombers don't need foreign bases? Well that is also only part of the issue, just because they have the legs to get to their target...Doesn't mean a friendly "Ally" will allow us to over fly their country, to get to the target. So to say that the USAF' ACC strategic assets can eliminate the need for, or are a better tool than US Navy CVBG's is over looking the situation and what it calls for. I really don't know what point you were trying to make. I agree that the USN does need USAF tanking support, but when you go further to say that the USAF has better capabilities to be better suited...well you are wrong. Sometimes the USAF is a better option, sometimes not. The point is we need both, and we cannot overlook the fact that we cannot just rely on one....

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Sometimes the USAF is a better option, sometimes not. The point is we need both<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree completely...and a whole ton of admirals, generals, and the like all agree as well....seeing as that is how we actually fight wars....

I was mainly just breaking yer stones Chad.

You know i believe the Navy is extremely important, which is why i get so worked up when they do stupid things.

Together with the USAF the USN is a dominant force today, as it has been everyday since the Battle of Midway.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I was mainly just breaking yer stones Chad. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You must be learning Jedi mind melting techniques from Horrido...lol Maybe I have a defend my view at all cost attitude, I really strive not to, hence the editing of my posts..........

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

[quote]
Jack,

While we are on the subject was your opinion of that aircraft program?? -------------

The Vigie started off as a heavy attack bird, it couldn't drop bombs properly they bumped off the fuselage. At a cost of 70 million per bird they turned them into a Recon bird. You won't find that cost anywhere I got it from a Master Chief in the Navy.

SOB was faster than a Phantom even in a drag race.

It was a Caddy when it ran right. Maintenance nightmare starting with the hydraulics.

Vigie drivers were damn good and partied hearty. Although they admitted they hated to be shot off the waist cats at night. The nose gear was behind the pilot and looking down at water wasn't thrilling as they lined them up for the shot.

I flew with some of the best Vigie drivers in the fleet. Irony is it was retired by the late 70s and replaced with the RF-8.

Some have thought the Mig-25 was designed on the RA-5C.

Last time I saw Vigies flying was at Key West in 76 or so. They were hot seating them to get in their FCLP work.

It was one of those birds that looked hot, flew hot, and very pricey to run.

Jack

Jack,

Feel free to jump into the Iowa class BB debate...

Yeah I read that the A-5 had mucho issues with the linear bomb bay design, but was a shit hot bird when it was going, in fact isn't it the largest and fasted jet to fly from a CV?

Also whats your take on the current "littoral" doctrine the USN is using v. the Blue Water....Foward from the Sea stratagey used durring much of the cold war.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

We can have that debate here, that's fine with me.

The navy doesn't have a littoral strategy, lol....well, at least not that i can tell.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jun 09 2003 3:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The navy doesn't have a littoral strategy, lol....well, at least not that i can tell <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thats the latest euphanism for not having any medium ranged aircraft...And thats the official shift in doctrine to justify the lack there of.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

[quote]
Jack,

Feel free to jump into the Iowa class BB debate...

Yeah I read that the A-5 had mucho issues with the linear bomb bay design, but was a shit hot bird when it was going, in fact isn't it the largest and fasted jet to fly from a CV?

--------------------

Damn Vigie pilots were wild for one reason, they were shit hot sticks and needed to be to fly the beast. I flew with one dude for a year flying VIPs before I found out he had 300 odd traps in Vigies and most of those in Nam. I stole his Caddy comment. Old Virgil was probably the smoothest stick I flew with. I knew half dozen more Vigie drivers in the Ferry Squadron. One dude had flown A-4s in the 50s over France at 50' practicing the nuke mission. Yeah, it was the biggest and fastest. Although am trying to think if the F-8s were close for speed on final.

BBs are moot. They aren't coming back. They Navy is stuck in the Cold War and Blue water era of a big battle. They hate brown water ops. There are some sweet non nuke subs they could build for almost 10% of what a Virginia Class boat costs.

Navy is going to be stuck with the Hornets for decades. JSF is bogged down and Raptor has some serious computer problems. Without Raptor code, JSF is hosed.

I know Snipe has read some of Meyer's ideas for some real gun boats in the Navy.

All battlegroups are wedded to the speed of their support ships. Regarding Carrier speeds, I have had sailors tell me 60MPH or so. They have flown and recovered U-2s on carriers also.

Navy screwed the pooch in the 80s and are paying for it. During the Iraq War, they were using Hornets as gas passers. Real waste of an attack bird. Navy did have 40 odd KA-6Ds until they retired them. My Ferry squadron managed to crash one going into NAS Alameda because the asshole ran out of fuel. Good ejections. On final no less. I knew the BN in it, he was pissed off. Told the pilot to cut the corner and take a short final. Whoops.

Navy better watch it. New proposed CV is going to be 10 billion bucks without the Air Wing costs.

We need a serious debate on roles, missions, and what actually works in the future. Let alone the costs and maintenance of the systems.

Jack

I hate saying this...It goes against everything I believe in, but..

They way things look in the future, based on the procurment debacles, mismanagement, and lack of foward thinking. To field a modern military tommorrow. Give the USAF every aspect of Tactical and Strategic warefare...Let them have the finest, most capable aircraft...Let them be the throughbreds, and teach them to be naval aviators. The Navy...Well let them be the Navy, have the ships, subs, carriers, and people they need. Let them be the sea warriers. Combine the two...We would then have not only the best ships, but we would also have the best aircraft flying from them..No compromises, and no stupid stop gap aircraft procurments to save face, and carry on. I have dumbed this argument down considerably just to post it here, and it pisses me off that we may have reached this point...But it makes more sense than building 10 billion dollar carriers to haul second class airframes. Let the USAF absorb Naval Aviation.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>All battlegroups are wedded to the speed of their support ships. Regarding Carrier speeds, I have had sailors tell me 60MPH or so. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I have heard simmiliar figures from a QMMC(SW)...Also told me that a CG hit almost 50kts off of Hawaii running in a new powerplant. I know better than to argue with a Master Chief.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

C-130's have also landed and taken off from carriers right? Thing is, I read somewhere that the C-130's DIDN'T use tailhooks. Does this make any sense?

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

"BBs are moot. They aren't coming back. They Navy is stuck in the Cold War and Blue water era of a big battle. They hate brown water ops. There are some sweet non nuke subs they could build for almost 10% of what a Virginia Class boat costs."

Actually, the BB's have never left. They're still in CatB reserve.

Yup, not only did i read 'myers' ideas for gun boats....but i wrote the article at g2mil that described them and discussed their role, cause they were my ideas, lol.

Too bad im not in charge, the Navy would actually be able to support OMFTS.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jun 09 2003 11:56 PM

A-3 Skywarrior was the largest to be in service on a carrier, at max weight of 82,000 lbs. The Vigilante was only about a ton behind, both empty and max.

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/index.htm



A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Yup, not only did i read 'myers' ideas for gun boats....but i wrote the article at g2mil that described them and discussed their role, cause they were my ideas, lol.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Here's your scoobie snack......



<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Actually, the BB's have never left. They're still in CatB reserve.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thats excluding the Mighty MO........

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Wasn't the BB-61 Iowa also put out of service due to an explosion in one of the guns?

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

The Iowa is in reserve status as well, most of the work to fix the gun turrent in question has been completeted, with the rest of the repair/replacement materials inside the turrent to complete the work.

BB's may come back, I dunno....The 16" guns present mobile, cheap, and deadly firepower. And considering that the Navy says its gonna be a "littoral" Navy the Iowa's make alot of sense....Just need to modernize them a bit more.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

[quote]

Yup, not only did i read 'myers' ideas for gun boats....but i wrote the article at g2mil that described them and discussed their role, cause they were my ideas, lol.
--------------------

ROFL.

I knew the damn A-3 was close on weight and they also took away the attack mission fairly early and turned them into tankers, etc. They have a couple of EA-3s parked at Van Nuys Airport. I have seen them fly now and then. Still had them in Pt. Mugu colors and owned privately.

Main reason the C-130 wouldn't work at the boat was in case of mech problems the deck was fouled. I actually met the copilot on it. The AC was some famed aviator that made Flag rank later. Flatley or close to it.

Jack

Think they realized they needed a bigger COD with a ramp and viola the C-2. Not sure if the C-2 was first or the E-2.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's bridge," recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO HOOK." <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

LOLOL!!!

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

Iowa and Wisconson are still in CatB reserve, NJ and Missouri are museums(The NJ is moored about 5 miles from my house- looks brand new).

I agree they would need modernization. USNFSA has a plan that would cost about 1-2 billion per hull to convert the two left to BBG's(I had a very small part in the design process). You can still check it out on their site i think.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"