Re: [FYI] World's Longest page on tracks vs wheels

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:47:33 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>--- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced the F22 is a white elephant.
>> Perhaps having worked 
>> at LockMart for a time I'm biased, but I think it or
>> the F23 are good 
>> for the AF. So is JSF imho.

Yes, Ryan, good for the USAF (and remember I was a Zoomie - yeah a medic
but still a Zoomie) and in the very long run Air superiority is still #1
for mission success.  You don't control the air then the 82nd becomes
"too expensive to use" Light Infantry, the real life Reforger mission is
a very bloody exercise (not that the exercises are not always sanitized
against losing transportation craft going down IMO,) **Everything**
flown
by commercial or military transportation assets is vulnerable, and you
might even have to look at bring people (as opposed to critical
logistics) in by boat [now that's a loss of logistics carrying capacity
that is a nightmare to planners.]

>
>The USAF has NO competition, and will have none for
>the next 20 years unless the Europeans sell their
>newest fighters to the Chinese in wholesale lots (and
>since the French are involved, this is possible).  

Fortunately they apparently have (as we called him cynically) pilots of
the caliber of "Wong Way" it seems.

The
>F-15 can take almost any plane flying and fold it in
>half--and that's with evenly matched pilots.  Oh,
>yeah, and AMRAAMs are the best air to air missles
>flying.  Given the extra edge the USAF has in pilot
>training (except, obviously for IFF training since
>zoomies can't tell a Blackhawk from a Hind D) over any
>likely opponent (ie: The IDF and some European powers
>are in our league as far as hours they can afford to
>let their pilots fly.	No one else is.), WTF do they
>did another expensive air superiority fighter for?
>

Hmm, can I talk strictly speculatively here?  *None* of this would ever
happen, right?	And it would be impolite to discuss some of it in
'friendly' company okay?  And I never said it.

Remember the statement - "Countries have no friends"?  All planners have
that ingrained in them it seems.

What if the rest of the world tightens up and gets better pilots?  The
Chinese aren't stupid just; thank God, busy with more problems then one
nation has a need for solving, saddled with more corruption then the
mind
can handle (even for Chinese and Asian history,) saddled with a military
where naval air translates (IIRC) as The People's Army Navy Air Force -
as in the Army owns the Navy that owns those planes,) and a military
leadership burdened with a fair number of their leaders running
factories
not Corps.  Add on the fight between those wanting to expand/modernize
the economy and those wanting to expand/modernize the Army (at each
other's expense,) plus the usual Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Pragmatist
party
faction jockeying and you have a nation that is capable of spasmodic,
intense, regional warfare.

Politically it offers us something to dangle in front of other nations
(Israel, Taiwan, Singapore, selected bits of Africa, any European nation
looking for a new fighter) as in "Well, we can't sell one the F-22 of
course but we *do* have these surplus F-15A's that we might lease to a
friendly government... That ought to make the neighbors a little less
threatening, no?"  And, yes, we never learn, do we?

>JSF's big problem is that it's too damn fast.	You
>can't do CAS with a fast bird.
>

I have a perversion to reveal.	Yes, security knows.  My favorite
airplane of all time is the A-10, although the F15E tempted me for a
while and the F16 tried; but she's just a fashion plate trying to look
like the wholesome 'girl next door' once you get to know her.	I guess
I'm hopeless.  I like to watch tracked and wheeled things go boom.  The
short time I was in the ROTC I wanted, in order, Combat Engineer or
Artillery - really frustrated the Major who eventually left (the year
SOF
became it's own entity (well publicly) within a week after it became
public he had orders and was gone a week after that.)

>> The life cycle development cost for something based
>> on an extant 
>> chassis is very low. Either the Bradly chassis or
>> the M113. Its not 
>> nearly the same as developing a system from the
>> ground up. Also, the 
>> development costs get spread over the export sales
>> too.
>
>Yeah.	But we just can't afford it.  If you add all
>the US Army procurement and R&D programs together and
>compare it to individual procurement and R&D programs
>(ie: CVNX, JSF, F-22, etc. etc.) it comes in as #8. 
>Either the first 3 or 4 are aircraft procurement
>programs.  None of which are for aircraft that the
>military actually needs.
>

Neo-Isolationist (half a mind)set - "We just need a reaction force to
mop
after the precision strikes.  WW3 will not be like WW2, in fact WW3 will
never happen..."

>> >he M8 AGS.
>> >
>> >Hrm. . . I'm not 100% on this.
>> >
>> >If I had my way I'd mount them all in Wiesels.
>> 
>> Hmm. Perhaps. Though you can't mount a 105mm gun on
>> a Wiesel.
>
>If you're dropping your airborne into a fight where
>they NEED a 105mm gun, you're misusing them.
>

Assuming if it's that ugly, the USAF better have some plan for replacing
transportation assets....  And the ground guys sure wil have 'promotion
possibilities". Shudder.

>John
>

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.