|
|
|
Trooper
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/24/2008 6:13 PM
Posts: 576,
Visits: 356
|
|
Just got back and want to bring up that reading the Army Times and they said the AF was going to keep the A-10. So that should settle the problem with everyone trying to get the A-10 under Army control as it ain't gonna happen. My point that everyone chose to ignore is that transferring the spare parts from the AF to the Army would have been a mess and the Army would not have been able to buy spares until the supply system showed out. If any of you have worked with the supply system with aviation you understand what a mess it can be. It would be better if the Army could have FW CAS to make their own system that would fit there Maintenance, tactics and budget rather than taking the A-10,which as I pointed out would be like buying a used car with problems. The A-10 was and is a good A/C but the AF should keep it until it is retired.
D6 your solution to pilots not wanting to transfer to the Army of letting them out or putting them behind a desk wouldn't work. The last number on the amount it cost to train a pilot was about 1Million dollars. Futhermore a CO can admin ground as pilot but the only way they can be grounded and put on desk duty is from an FEB or asking to quit or medical problems. Failure to maintain qualification reckless flying and other sins would be referred to an FEB. With the money invested in pilots they would transition the pilots that refused to transfer to the Army into other A/C.
RAKK your contention about simulators is skewed. The only time I saw a simulator in flight school was to work on instrument flying. As a matter of fact instrument flying was the only time I ever flew a simulator. As a matter of fact I never flew a simulator while transitioning to another A/C The newer simulators are probably better but flying a simulator teaches pilots procedures and how to fly a simulator. Flying a simulator is like beating your meat while flying an aircraft is pure pu$$y. I guess I'd better bring up the fact that as an unit IP I gave more check rides than I took. We used to have a saying that "with a stick and enough bananas We could teach a monkey tofly a helicopter." I have no problem with people who disagree with me and I have no illusions that I don't know a lot. But your post that questioned my liking the UAV was too sarcastic to let pass. I never jump down anyones throat unless I feel they have tried to put me down. I will not let anyone belittle my views just because they disagree with my point of view. Yes I do see them as the wave of the future. In my opinion they at the same point of developement as fixed wing A/C were in 1914.
Someone posted a write up that they were buying more UAV's that could carry more and were all weather. As far as the V-22,in 1964
my class in flight school went to a GD plant in Ft Worth that was working on a VSTOL 4 engine A/C that would hover and fly like a small transport. I think it was the XC142,It never got off the ground. So Iam keeping an open mind on the V-22. If they can get it to fly as it was supposed to,it would be a welcome addition. As a matter of fact the Army should consider using them as the price would drop with additional buyers. Again that is a big if. In 1970 Army aviation wanted to replace the CH47 and it is still around. We got replacments for the UH1 and Cobra and they arestill looking for a relacement for the CH47. I can't believe they can't come up with a replacement.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 6/18/2007 2:59 PM
Posts: 2,321,
Visits: 978
|
|
Dutch, guess I shouldnt have used the word "enamored".-
That came off a little smarmy. So I apoligize for coming off like that. Rest assured I have nothing but respect for a carear Soldier such as yourself.
"I have the Americans with me, and they have their death ray. Surrender or die!" Gen. Abdul Rashid Dotsum. Afghan Warlord.
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/7/2008 5:22 PM
Posts: 1,006,
Visits: 995
|
|
Dutch,
I work acquistions for the AF, new weapons, parts, equipment, and re-procurement of old...your point on spares was my point!
Actually, should the army go and buy v-22's it would drop the unit cost. Take the HUMRAAM for example. The Marines get a good system that uses AF missiles. The AF out of the deal gets to buy more missiles because unit price drops.
The B-2 stealth is another. We bought ~20 for roughly 2$bill per...had we been able to procure the number that the AF wanted, ~130...unit price would have dropped to $500mil...Economies of scale rule!
 
Fighters are our salvation, But BOMBERS alone provide us with the means of VICTORY! - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/24/2008 6:13 PM
Posts: 576,
Visits: 356
|
|
No problem Rakk. Sometimes I get a burr in my butt, and say or write things I regret, but I don't hold grudges over opinions. I got angry and probably was too harsh in some of my comments. So in the future I'll try to be a little more difficult to anger hopefully.
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/24/2008 6:13 PM
Posts: 576,
Visits: 356
|
|
Pusher
It is easy unless you have a background in aqquisitions to forget that spare parts and economies of scale figure in all systems. I did some time as an aviation a maintenance officer and the supply system was the biggest problem with keeping A/C flying. We did a lot of cannabalization to keep birds flying. As I have stated that is a slippery slope. Ever so often they would come up with one of their "Maximum Effort" days where each lift company had to put 16 of their 20 A/C. Some times we put up birds that were 10 hours past a PE to meet the ME.
Another job I had was a platform instructor at Ft Eustis,VA for turbine engine maintenanace. We covered the T-53 (Huey) T-55 (Chinook) and the engines for the OH6 and OH 58 (I don't remember the model no for the 6 and 58) for Aviation Maintenance Officers. I rewrote the entire syballus for the course (it was a 20 hour block of instruction) and changed it from a rote memory test to an open book quiz. I felt in the field a MO would be referencing the TM a lot and the quiz forced them to go into the -20 for the A/C.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
The 23mm I was thinking about is the ZSU-23-4. That is a quad 23mm on a T-55 chassis with some mods(one pair of road wheels gone...).
Okay
The Army can't have the A-10s because the USAF wants to keep them after all. Maybe its time to consider a follow on aircraft. Do we even need a tree scraping CAS platform? What are the pros and cons?
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/24/2008 6:13 PM
Posts: 576,
Visits: 356
|
|
Hmarshal
Your point was well made. I also brought the political aspects up Service air roles when the Army was forced to disarmed the Cavs Mohawks and transfered the Caribous to the AF because it violated that agreements back in the 60's. I think a lot of the discussion was sort of what if. Not only would a CAS role for the Army possibly improve support but where the Army could really help itself in my opinion is with internal transports(something similar to the 130). If the Army had internal transport it would simplify movement of Airborne and light units provided the Army had enough air assets. Again the air transport element was an aspect of that same agreement. That's why the AF got the Caribous back in the 60's. Again the Army will not get the CAS or transport role as long as that agreement is in effect. Could any are all of that agreement be modified or changed? Of course but considering how the services have to compete for budget $$ I don't see any service giving any ground on any role air or otherwise.
What did you fly? what outfit were you with? I'm an old aviator (1964-75). Keep me up on how things changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |