User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 3:34:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Until we're ready (both technologically and philosophically) to let every step of the "kill chain" including weapon release happen autonomously, manned platforms are still going to be the preferred method of missions like CAS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only possible advantage added by a manned aircraft is reconnaissance. Manned aircraft as also flexible. Humans are really good at exploiting advantages quickly. Air combat is really three dimensional chess played in a 45000 foot by 400 mile by 400 mile box, where the adversaries are constantly matching their advantages of sensors, endurance, speed, altitude, and weapons against adversary disadvantages of the same at speeds where seconds are measured in miles. Until we're ready (both technologically and philosophically) to let every step of the "kill chain" including weapon release happen autonomously, manned platforms are still going to be the preferred method of missions like CAS. Even then, we'll be banking on a huge commo backhaul that won't be either pressured by other demands or degraded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 3:28:26 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its kinda amazing that after 70 years of amazing support from the AF to the Army, the Navy and Marines haven't seen the light and abandoned having their own tactical air forces. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Manned aircraft as also flexible. Humans are really good at exploiting advantages quickly. Air combat is really three dimensional chess played in a 45000 foot by 400 mile by 400 mile box, where the adversaries are constantly matching their advantages of sensors, endurance, speed, altitude, and weapons against adversary disadvantages of the same at speeds where seconds are measured in miles. Let's make sure we tie them to a 72 hour planning model. 
The USMC and USN saw this early on, which is why MAGTF sorties and ship defense sorties are doctrinally carved out of Joint doctrine, and why USN/USMC operations are by definition not Joint. Its kinda amazing that after 70 years of amazing support from the AF to the Army, the Navy and Marines haven't seen the light and abandoned having their own tactical air forces. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 3:29:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amazing that the Army ever let theirs go. Then again, the Army doesn't do so well with flying things http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/2000*1156/1446067143_Military+Blimp.jpg Well, it was a faustian bargain. we gave up our air support, but we got rid of our pilots. On the whole, totally worth it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 3:30:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, it was a faustian bargain. we gave up our air support, but we got rid of our pilots. On the whole, totally worth it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Amazing that the Army ever let theirs go. Then again, the Army doesn't do so well with flying things http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/2000*1156/1446067143_Military+Blimp.jpg Well, it was a faustian bargain. we gave up our air support, but we got rid of our pilots. On the whole, totally worth it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 5:47:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, it was a faustian bargain. we gave up our air support, but we got rid of our pilots. On the whole, totally worth it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Amazing that the Army ever let theirs go. Then again, the Army doesn't do so well with flying things http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/2000*1156/1446067143_Military+Blimp.jpg Well, it was a faustian bargain. we gave up our air support, but we got rid of our pilots. On the whole, totally worth it. According to Screech, you still have pilots and the big, tough infantry mafia that dominates the Army 4-star roster can't get organic Army fixed wing LAAR because a bunch of CWOs and terminal Majors won't let them move past rotary wing. Sounds like Big Green could use a few more pilots in charge since they apparently dominate the infantry branch in getting what they want. Maybe they could win some budget battles against big blue and powder blue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 6:21:52 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 6:31:02 PM EDT
[#7]
In before the Supe... oh, never mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 6:50:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryKharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2017 6:51:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
funny the parallels. Also funny for a pussy who has never been on the ground and won't even fly close to it to talk smack. but I am sure he saved thousands of soldiers by his brave dropping bombs on grids given to him by someone else.  Savage as fuck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2017 12:22:03 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to Screech, you still have pilots and the big, tough infantry mafia that dominates the Army 4-star roster can't get organic Army fixed wing LAAR because a bunch of CWOs and terminal Majors won't let them move past rotary wing. Sounds like Big Green could use a few more pilots in charge since they apparently dominate the infantry branch in getting what they want. Maybe they could win some budget battles against big blue and powder blue. Its actually the GS staff, more than the uniformed staff within in the Branch/Institutional Army, that in my opinion, is ultimately to blame. Perhaps you could argue you shouldn't put a helo pilot or an Academy grad in charge of anything 
Now, could an aviator centric officer corps with a more healthy view of the pros/cons and limfacs of a combined RW/FW team and its integration with other elements of combat power be a benefit? Sure. Now, the problem is that outside of the maritime services, that doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2017 11:33:09 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its actually the GS staff, more than the uniformed staff within in the Branch/Institutional Army, that in my opinion, is ultimately to blame. Perhaps you could argue you shouldn't put a helo pilot or an Academy grad in charge of anything So apparently, as an Academy grad, former helo pilot, current govvie, I possess all of the tools necessary to dominate Army aviation 
Time to start perusing USAJobs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2017 11:36:17 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So apparently, as an Academy grad, former helo pilot, current govvie, I possess all of the tools necessary to dominate Army aviation
Time to start perusing USAJobs. You've got my vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 3:13:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amazing that the Army ever let theirs go. Then again, the Army doesn't do so well with flying things http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/2000*1156/1446067143_Military+Blimp.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Manned aircraft as also flexible. Humans are really good at exploiting advantages quickly. Air combat is really three dimensional chess played in a 45000 foot by 400 mile by 400 mile box, where the adversaries are constantly matching their advantages of sensors, endurance, speed, altitude, and weapons against adversary disadvantages of the same at speeds where seconds are measured in miles. Let's make sure we tie them to a 72 hour planning model.
The USMC and USN saw this early on, which is why MAGTF sorties and ship defense sorties are doctrinally carved out of Joint doctrine, and why USN/USMC operations are by definition not Joint. Its kinda amazing that after 70 years of amazing support from the AF to the Army, the Navy and Marines haven't seen the light and abandoned having their own tactical air forces. http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/2000*1156/1446067143_Military+Blimp.jpg You know what always amuses me? 
Army's Gray Eagle. Uses enlisted controllers that deploy with the aircraft. Imagine that! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 3:25:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to Screech, you still have pilots and the big, tough infantry mafia that dominates the Army 4-star roster can't get organic Army fixed wing LAAR because a bunch of CWOs and terminal Majors won't let them move past rotary wing. Sounds like Big Green could use a few more pilots in charge since they apparently dominate the infantry branch in getting what they want. Maybe they could win some budget battles against big blue and powder blue. We do have fixed wing aviation, but it is kept low key. Mostly MC-12 intelligence assets IIRC along with a few others. All the pilots I met were warrant officers that were flying the fixed wings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 3:30:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do have fixed wing aviation, but it is kept low key. Mostly MC-12 intelligence assets IIRC along with a few others. All the pilots I met were warrant officers that were flying the fixed wings. fixed wing doesn't go beyond company level so you need a LT or CPT who is already rotary qualified but have enough time to get a fixed wing ticket. aka, guard. They are out there, but they are rare. and there area a lot of fixed wing dets below the company level which often have zero commissioned officers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 3:45:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do have fixed wing aviation, but it is kept low key. Mostly MC-12 intelligence assets IIRC along with a few others. All the pilots I met were warrant officers that were flying the fixed wings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
According to Screech, you still have pilots and the big, tough infantry mafia that dominates the Army 4-star roster can't get organic Army fixed wing LAAR because a bunch of CWOs and terminal Majors won't let them move past rotary wing. Sounds like Big Green could use a few more pilots in charge since they apparently dominate the infantry branch in getting what they want. Maybe they could win some budget battles against big blue and powder blue. We do have fixed wing aviation, but it is kept low key. Mostly MC-12 intelligence assets IIRC along with a few others. All the pilots I met were warrant officers that were flying the fixed wings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 3:45:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been wondering why the Marines didn't buy their own years ago. Kharn 20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. Now, the Harriers are done, they aren't making new ones, and the boneyards are about out of parts. Carrier ops are brutal on airframes. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The Marines need STOAL on rough airfields. Since the beginning of WWII, they have been putting airfields as close to the front lines as possible to minimize turnaround time, and maximize loiter time. On Okinawa, Marine pilots running to their aircraft in the revetments were taken under aimed rifle fire In OIF I, they at least located the improvised strips for Harriers out of arty range, but just barely. We have the F-35 though, the aircraft that was supposed to replace all these specialized aircraft, except it does nothing particularly well... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 3:54:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Bring back Gothas, Vimys, and zeppelins!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 3:58:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one (intelligent) has said that the LAAR should fly all sorties and replace all high performance aircraft in all situations. That's retarded. But 85%+ of the time, they could do the job. Particularly in a low intensity environment. As for deployments, I bet the LAAR has longer legs than rotary wing aircraft. Those still deploy all the time, somehow. The support going on in Mosul right now would be perfect for the LAAR. So someone can answer this I imagine. What is the cost of having more airfields? Wouldn't this prospective aircraft need more of them because of it's slower speed? Sure it can stay up for 8 hours or whatever, but how good is that if it takes 2-3x as long to get to the operating area? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:04:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In OIF I, they at least located the improvised strips for Harriers out of arty range, but just barely. That may have more to do with the range/endurance of the Harrier than it does with any desire to have improvised airfields as close as possible to the FLOT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:05:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So someone can answer this I imagine. What is the cost of having more airfields? Wouldn't this prospective aircraft need more of them because of it's slower speed? Sure it can stay up for 8 hours or whatever, but how good is that if it takes 2-3x as long to get to the operating area? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No one (intelligent) has said that the LAAR should fly all sorties and replace all high performance aircraft in all situations. That's retarded. But 85%+ of the time, they could do the job. Particularly in a low intensity environment. As for deployments, I bet the LAAR has longer legs than rotary wing aircraft. Those still deploy all the time, somehow. The support going on in Mosul right now would be perfect for the LAAR. So someone can answer this I imagine. What is the cost of having more airfields? Wouldn't this prospective aircraft need more of them because of it's slower speed? Sure it can stay up for 8 hours or whatever, but how good is that if it takes 2-3x as long to get to the operating area? 
We already build tons of them. And we already fly helicopters in support of ground forces, which are slower than any LAAR proposal. So, I'm estimating $0 additional for more airfields. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:16:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you start thinking of LAAR as a faster, cheaper-to-operate attack helicopter that just needs a little more pavement to take off, the concept starts to make more sense. To me, anyway. A little? I'm just sitting back and reading most of this thread to avoid talking about what I don't know about. But I do know airports and runways. From my experience, they are very, very big and runways come in one very specific shape. The costs to achieve the bare minimum of security for a civilian airport are incredible. And those standards don't even get the job done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:18:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/iraq-fobs-2006mar01.jpg http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/afghanistan-2006.jpg We already build tons of them. And we already fly helicopters in support of ground forces, which are slower than any LAAR proposal. So, I'm estimating $0 additional for more airfields. Do all of those have runways suitable for those types of aircraft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:24:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do all of those have runways suitable for those types of aircraft? Pretty much every province in A-stan has a C-130 capable strip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:31:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little? I'm just sitting back and reading most of this thread to avoid talking about what I don't know about. But I do know airports and runways. From my experience, they are very, very big and runways come in one very specific shape. The costs to achieve the bare minimum of security for a civilian airport are incredible. And those standards don't even get the job done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you start thinking of LAAR as a faster, cheaper-to-operate attack helicopter that just needs a little more pavement to take off, the concept starts to make more sense. To me, anyway. A little? I'm just sitting back and reading most of this thread to avoid talking about what I don't know about. But I do know airports and runways. From my experience, they are very, very big and runways come in one very specific shape. The costs to achieve the bare minimum of security for a civilian airport are incredible. And those standards don't even get the job done. It's an extreme rarity for an airfield to just be helicopter only. Helicopters have very short legs, and yet support ground forces, either in lift assets, or in CCA. Regardless, those big bases are still nice-to-haves, not necessary for operation. Like Sylvan said, a few horizontal engineer assets can get an air strip to IOC in a pretty short amount of time. It would depend on the situation for how long, but a few days to go from bare land to being able to fly aircraft is not unreasonable. For security, those same engineers can build berms after the airfield starts working, and then you get some vertical engineer guys to build guard towers, and get a platoon of infantry dudes (maybe platoon plus) to man the towers, ECP, and some minor patrols. Situation dependent, of course. Again, everything else is pretty much helpful, but not required. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:41:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. Now, the Harriers are done, they aren't making new ones, and the boneyards are about out of parts. Carrier ops are brutal on airframes. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The Marines need STOAL on rough airfields. Since the beginning of WWII, they have been putting airfields as close to the front lines as possible to minimize turnaround time, and maximize loiter time. On Okinawa, Marine pilots running to their aircraft in the revetments were taken under aimed rifle fire In OIF I, they at least located the improvised strips for Harriers out of arty range, but just barely. We have the F-35 though, the aircraft that was supposed to replace all these specialized aircraft, except it does nothing particularly well... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've been wondering why the Marines didn't buy their own years ago. Kharn 20 years ago, the Harrier could do everything a Super T could do, but better. Payload, range, speed, and the ability to in flight refuel. Now, the Harriers are done, they aren't making new ones, and the boneyards are about out of parts. Carrier ops are brutal on airframes. Unfortunately, the F-35 happened. If the F-35B variant didn't exist, the F-35 would be in full service by now. The Marines need STOAL on rough airfields. Since the beginning of WWII, they have been putting airfields as close to the front lines as possible to minimize turnaround time, and maximize loiter time. On Okinawa, Marine pilots running to their aircraft in the revetments were taken under aimed rifle fire In OIF I, they at least located the improvised strips for Harriers out of arty range, but just barely. We have the F-35 though, the aircraft that was supposed to replace all these specialized aircraft, except it does nothing particularly well... The Harrier also costs 50% more per hour than an F-16 that has even better payload, range, speed, and ability to in flight refuel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:44:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's an extreme rarity for an airfield to just be helicopter only. Helicopters have very short legs, and yet support ground forces, either in lift assets, or in CCA. Regardless, those big bases are still nice-to-haves, not necessary for operation. Like Sylvan said, a few horizontal engineer assets can get an air strip to IOC in a pretty short amount of time. It would depend on the situation for how long, but a few days to go from bare land to being able to fly aircraft is not unreasonable. For security, those same engineers can build berms after the airfield starts working, and then you get some vertical engineer guys to build guard towers, and get a platoon of infantry dudes (maybe platoon plus) to man the towers, ECP, and some minor patrols. Situation dependent, of course. Again, everything else is pretty much helpful, but not required. So the costs for building, maintaining, and securing an airfield for continuous light cas operations aren't really different than what we do now? Though I would say it's important to understand that these light CAS aircraft aren't necessarily suited for the rough fields a c-130 could handle. What surface do these airfields generally have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:50:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the costs for building, maintaining, and securing an airfield for continuous light cas operations aren't really different than what we do now? Though I would say it's important to understand that these light CAS aircraft aren't necessarily suited for the rough fields a c-130 could handle. What surface do these airfields generally have? You can't fly a Tucano off dirt. No sir.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:53:14 PM EDT
[#29]
The biggest negative of the Tucano is it doesn't have the rough field capability of the Ag-Tractor or Bronco. But it also doesn't have the huge weight that makes a improvised air strip such a PITA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:55:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the costs for building, maintaining, and securing an airfield for continuous light cas operations aren't really different than what we do now? Though I would say it's important to understand that these light CAS aircraft aren't necessarily suited for the rough fields a c-130 could handle. What surface do these airfields generally have? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's an extreme rarity for an airfield to just be helicopter only. Helicopters have very short legs, and yet support ground forces, either in lift assets, or in CCA. Regardless, those big bases are still nice-to-haves, not necessary for operation. Like Sylvan said, a few horizontal engineer assets can get an air strip to IOC in a pretty short amount of time. It would depend on the situation for how long, but a few days to go from bare land to being able to fly aircraft is not unreasonable. For security, those same engineers can build berms after the airfield starts working, and then you get some vertical engineer guys to build guard towers, and get a platoon of infantry dudes (maybe platoon plus) to man the towers, ECP, and some minor patrols. Situation dependent, of course. Again, everything else is pretty much helpful, but not required. So the costs for building, maintaining, and securing an airfield for continuous light cas operations aren't really different than what we do now? Though I would say it's important to understand that these light CAS aircraft aren't necessarily suited for the rough fields a c-130 could handle. What surface do these airfields generally have? Correct. It would be relatively easy to just include them when doing RW operations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 4:55:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't fly a Tucano off dirt. No sir. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/17907/IMG-9928-137452.JPG Not sure how well they handle that regularly I mean, I have seen a video of a C-17 taking off and landing on dirt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 5:12:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So someone can answer this I imagine. What is the cost of having more airfields? Wouldn't this prospective aircraft need more of them because of it's slower speed? Sure it can stay up for 8 hours or whatever, but how good is that if it takes 2-3x as long to get to the operating area? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No one (intelligent) has said that the LAAR should fly all sorties and replace all high performance aircraft in all situations. That's retarded. But 85%+ of the time, they could do the job. Particularly in a low intensity environment. As for deployments, I bet the LAAR has longer legs than rotary wing aircraft. Those still deploy all the time, somehow. The support going on in Mosul right now would be perfect for the LAAR. So someone can answer this I imagine. What is the cost of having more airfields? Wouldn't this prospective aircraft need more of them because of it's slower speed? Sure it can stay up for 8 hours or whatever, but how good is that if it takes 2-3x as long to get to the operating area? There were plenty of airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to be in a theater for long enough to do WAS, you will require airfields for logistics and troop rotation. What country are we going to invade that has less infastructure than Afghanistan? What country on earth doesn't have any airports? In the few instances this existing infrastructure doesn't work for our operations, we have already purchased entire units who have a focus of developing new airfields... It's a non issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 5:19:44 PM EDT
[#33]
AT-802U
MAGA |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 5:23:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. It would be relatively easy to just include them when doing RW operations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's an extreme rarity for an airfield to just be helicopter only. Helicopters have very short legs, and yet support ground forces, either in lift assets, or in CCA. Regardless, those big bases are still nice-to-haves, not necessary for operation. Like Sylvan said, a few horizontal engineer assets can get an air strip to IOC in a pretty short amount of time. It would depend on the situation for how long, but a few days to go from bare land to being able to fly aircraft is not unreasonable. For security, those same engineers can build berms after the airfield starts working, and then you get some vertical engineer guys to build guard towers, and get a platoon of infantry dudes (maybe platoon plus) to man the towers, ECP, and some minor patrols. Situation dependent, of course. Again, everything else is pretty much helpful, but not required. So the costs for building, maintaining, and securing an airfield for continuous light cas operations aren't really different than what we do now? Though I would say it's important to understand that these light CAS aircraft aren't necessarily suited for the rough fields a c-130 could handle. What surface do these airfields generally have? Correct. It would be relatively easy to just include them when doing RW operations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 5:26:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How big of a log footprint would prop ops need vs. RW ops? a lot smaller. less fuel, less maintenance, fewer aircraft for the same support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 6:05:09 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 6:05:40 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 6:57:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't fly a Tucano off dirt. No sir. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/17907/IMG-9928-137452.JPG Yep, if the Tucano is the aircraft purchased it would appear you can fly them off of a suitable dirt runway for a time. Hope it doesn't rain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:01:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, if the Tucano is the aircraft purchased it would appear you can fly them off of a suitable dirt runway for a time. Hope it doesn't rain. It's almost like the Army has units that build airstrips. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:03:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There were plenty of airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to be in a theater for long enough to do WAS, you will require airfields for logistics and troop rotation. What country are we going to invade that has less infastructure than Afghanistan? What country on earth doesn't have any airports? In the few instances this existing infrastructure doesn't work for our operations, we have already purchased entire units who have a focus of developing new airfields... It's a non issue. Infrastructure was only a part of my question. Capt_Planet has answered the other part, namely the defense and supply of something with the acreage and shape of an airfield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:06:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Infrastructure was only a part of my question. Capt_Planet has answered the other part, namely the defense and supply of something with the acreage and shape of an airfield. Building airfields in a foreign country and defending them is not an exotic mission. It's done regularly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:13:31 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's almost like the Army has units that build airstrips. Of course they do. But there is still an economy to be figured into building an airstrip that will support these aircraft for X duration. That dirt strip may be fine for a short bit. If they still use something like a marston mat, that would last longer still. But as the OP states, we are at 15 years of involvement. Which is about the lifespan of an asphalt surface. Just like anything else, there are a lot of variables that go into something like this, I'm trying to figure out what I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:16:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Building airfields in a foreign country and defending them is not an exotic mission. It's done regularly. The reason I had asked about that was I recalled earlier in Afghanistan and Iraq, convoys for fuel and supplies were the big targets and also cost centers. So it seems natural to imagine that more airfields wouldn't make that easier. But if those airfields already exist and are easy enough to supply, then I have my answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:17:34 PM EDT
[#44]
What percentage of current US rotary-wing ops happening overseas are coming from facilities that already have a LAAR-capable landing strip?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:20:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What percentage of current US rotary-wing ops happening overseas are coming from facilities that already have a LAAR-capable landing strip? A huge majority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:23:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A huge majority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What percentage of current US rotary-wing ops happening overseas are coming from facilities that already have a LAAR-capable landing strip? A huge majority. That was my observation in Bosnia. The choppers flew their missions out of Tuzla, which has a big-ass runway (one of those giant AN-124s landed there once.  )
By the time you build the infrastructure and facilities needed to conduct worthwhile rotary ops (and the Army seems to be pretty good at making this happen in all corners of the world), adding a half-mile strip of tarmac just really isn't a huge deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:27:06 PM EDT
[#47]
The Army can conduct ops out of a backyard if it needs to.
However, the logistics train is much easier at a place with a runway to bring stuff. Still though, we can, and do, and have, operated out of anything.....anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 7:29:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah because enlisted flying will fix everything. 
We cannot fill the open spots we have now, magically allowing enlisted to fly will change NOTHING. Jeez, really? Last time I looked they wanted perfect eyesight, ideal age, ideal height and weight, straight As, letters from Senators, two degrees, to have started at least four community service organizations, and a 20" dick just to get into a UPT board. Times must have changed under Zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 8:35:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jeez, really? Last time I looked they wanted perfect eyesight, ideal age, ideal height and weight, straight As, letters from Senators, two degrees, to have started at least four community service organizations, and a 20" dick just to get into a UPT board. Times must have changed under Zero. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
yeah because enlisted flying will fix everything.
We cannot fill the open spots we have now, magically allowing enlisted to fly will change NOTHING. Jeez, really? Last time I looked they wanted perfect eyesight, ideal age, ideal height and weight, straight As, letters from Senators, two degrees, to have started at least four community service organizations, and a 20" dick just to get into a UPT board. Times must have changed under Zero. Standards have gone WAY up. Now they only recruit gay minority trannies, who are only willing to fly F35s and fight a war with China or Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2017 8:39:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Standards have gone WAY up. Now they only recruit gay minority trannies, who are only willing to fly F35s and fight a war with China or Russia. Wait, do gay male to female trannies bang chicks or dudes? Can you be transminority? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File