Comments on: So Long, Key West

By: tiffany

tiffany — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:25:43 +0000

I’m a big fan of jointness, but the Army will have to step up with its own gear if the Air Force continues to make combat air support a low priority in there procurement planning. The Key West Agreement’s tiffany slow death is further proof that the R&D and procurement worlds remain relatively untouched by the ’87 Goldwater-Nichols Act.

By: buy fiesta Gold

buy fiesta Gold — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:49:11 +0000

but we often have a same topic, that is how to buy fiesta Gold, every time we were very happy.

By: fiesta money

fiesta money — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:47:21 +0000

in the game if you have enough fiesta money, you can get the comfortable life

By: fiesta Gold

fiesta Gold — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:46:29 +0000

I think for you it is easy, do not have enough fiesta Gold, the game screen was clear and concise, in the game the monster were very lovely

By: rf gold

rf gold — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:40:23 +0000

An accidental click, RF brilliant figures, elegant scenery was leap forward in my eye. RF rich content let me full of boundless curiosity to her. And thus I began to search the RF information include RF gold.

By: Timid observer

Timid observer — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:31:20 +0000

What about turboprop trainers (T-6B Texan II,PC-9).
Smaller target,greater range and loitering time,available now.Characteristics are almost ideal. Already used in Afrika by some private forces in the same role.Reported as far superior then M24 Hind in this role.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:55:09 +0000

Good Morning Jimmy,
I agree with you on the price of aircraft and I have no doubts that if a Platoon get into trouble such as the 2nd. Plt., of C Troop 3/7 Cav., 3ID did during the invasion phase of the Iraqi War there would be serious thought about bringing $100Million+ Fighter Bombers below 10K Ft. to help them out. As with this Platoon they would have to fight their way out with what they had organic to their unit.
The Apachie after the Fasco at the Karabala Gap by the 11th. Avn. Reg. put use of the AH-64 or any future AH’s as aforward strike aircraft in serious doubt. The bad guys have ther number.
I believe that Army Doctrine is deveolping into the first 2k Meters of battle space will belong to direct and indirect groung fire. Maybe the AH-64’s if Heavy Armor is involved, but they will engage from behind the American lines.
After 2K Meters it will be the Job of the Air Force and Navy Carrier based aircraft to handle the problems from 10K Ft. and above. Now way do I see the Pentagon willing expose $100Million plus value airframes to RPG’s or pther shoulder fired AAA weapons that will develope.
The FO, ATC, and Recon. task is already almost exclusivity the job of UCAV’s now.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:23:46 +0000

Asking for the newer/better is warranted of course but let’s formulize the org chart with current people (aka weapon platforms) before enhancing the people (aka weapon platforms). No good in creating a better platform is the Air Force is simply going to say ‘this thing is cool, let’s keep it for ourselves’.
The OV-10 would be mean refielding an older technology, along with redefining command & control, while the A-10 would mean redefining the command & control only.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:42:10 +0000

Bring back the A-1 Skyraider. That plane could take a lot of punishment, it’s low tech, had a big air cooled radial engine, can carrry 10,000 pounds of ordnance, and can fly slow and low. Perfect aircraft for COIN and CAS.

By: Jimmy Wu

Jimmy Wu — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:53:41 +0000

I advocated something like the OV-10 because:
UAVs’ sensor technology still cannot match the Mk I mod 0 eyeball in terms of peripheral vision and change detection, etc. When the sensors can exceed human vision, then I’ll take the UAV.
A-10 is not optimal. It is a jet, which means it is too fast, too much maintenance, and burns too much gas. Its armor is nice, but we just don’t need something that fast. Plus, the A-10 seats only one, whereas 2 sets of eyeballs are always better than 1. A-10 is in the heavy attack class, carrying up to 7.2 tons, whereas OV-10 and AH-64 are in the light attack class, of up to 3 tons.
AH-64 also burns too much gas and too much maintenance, as I said.
Byron, if we were to bring back the OV-10, we will increase its armor. However, the cheapness of the airframe ($480k in 1970) means we can replace the aircraft even if it’s shot down. By comparison, AH-64D is now $56m+. Pilots wearing interceptor body armor will be safe in the current air defense environment. A low-flying aircraft like the OV-10 is not worried about SAMs.
And Byron, according to your argument on light attack, why do we even have the AH-64? The Air Force can do it all, right? The Army always needs its own air corps because the Air Force is more worried about air superiority and battlefield interdiction than it is on close air support and artillery spotting.