AF Talking Points get defensive

[DaveGriffin]

Kill yourself.

Oh and Dave... we're (Navy, not you) now carrying 250 # bombs on Hornets, and a new 500 pounder with a reduced explosives fill for lower collateral damage. Shut the hell up.

That’s great SIG600!! Can’t the Hornet carry up to 24 SDBs? That sure beats the 8 the F-22 can carry. I’m not sure what that has to do with my comments though.


My beef with the AF is that it's using the SDB to perpetuate the myth that the F-22 is a multi-role airplane, which it is not. It’s way to expensive. The AF is happy to let (in the opinion of the AF) the less highly trained Navy and Marine F-18 pilots deal with the higher risk, less glamorous CAS and attack stuff.


While the SDB was primarily developed to give the F-22 a limited, multi-target attack capability, the good news is that the highly specialized SDB can be used by many other aircraft that are real attack airplanes.


What would really be kickin’ would be a C-130 Gunship with a couple of big racks of SDBs hanging off the bottom.

 

[Occam's Razor]

It's risky...but I'm gonna agree with a portion of that. I think it's a stretch to think the USAF is going to use the F-22 for traditional CAS missions. I think it's ability to carry and deliver sophisticated earth-moving ordanance was a "selling point", not a likely mission.

As for Dave Griffin, I don't agree with a lot of his posts, but I appreciate that he focuses on the issue...instead of attacking the person. I wish I could.

 

[spanky2]

DG,
CAS is a "mission" not an aircraft or a bomb. CAS, by nature, is not efficient use of ANY airpower. Some platforms/weapons are better for CAS than others. CAS becomes necessary in certain scenarios andd happens to be the nature of current ops in the middle east. Some people WANT to do CAS. Some people believe you do CAS because you have to. Big difference. Sounds like you "want" to do CAS.

The F/A-18 is a mutli-role fighter just like the F-16. The AF chose to reject the F/A-18 (F-17 at the time) in the LWF program of the 1970's. Your "technology" slam on the F-16 applies to the F/A-18 as well. There are many, many more AF platforms performing CAS (as we speak) compared to USMC/USN platforms. AF/USMC/USN are ALL using PGMs in their daily ops. God Bless them all.

But you knew all of this anyway, being the "expert"

 

[Scrapdog]

That’s great SIG600!! Can’t the Hornet carry up to 24 SDBs? That sure beats the 8 the F-22 can carry. I’m not sure what that has to do with my comments though.


My beef with the AF is that it's using the SDB to perpetuate the myth that the F-22 is a multi-role airplane, which it is not. It’s way to expensive. The AF is happy to let (in the opinion of the AF) the less highly trained Navy and Marine F-18 pilots deal with the higher risk, less glamorous CAS and attack stuff.


While the SDB was primarily developed to give the F-22 a limited, multi-target attack capability, the good news is that the highly specialized SDB can be used by many other aircraft that are real attack airplanes.


What would really be kickin’ would be a C-130 Gunship with a couple of big racks of SDBs hanging off the bottom.

Alright Dave - your views are so shortsighted and your knowledge so lacking, I'm not sure if I should laugh at you, or feel sorry for you (or do both at the same time).

One - as I mentioned to you in a prior post (which of course you had no rebuttal because it was entirely factual), the SDB - all 250 lbs of it - produces a punch VERY MUCH EQUAL to a 2000 lb JDAM. And with its casing, it has very potent penetration capes as well. I'm begging you - if you don't believe me - google the little b*tch and get back to me. I'm tired of doing your homework for you (although I do slightly enjoy how you constantly open your mouth and stick your foot in it).

Two - the F-22 is not an airplane designed for CAS. Holy sh*t Dave, for once you're actually right. However - if we look away from the only mission you think matters in all of tactical flying - i.e. CAS - you'll see the F-22 provides a capability unmatched in today's front line fighters. The thing has amazing stealth, speed, and long range WEZ envelopes for its PGM's that no hornet, viper, mud hen, or even your beloved AC-130 can match. That is where the F-22 is perfect for penetrating the double digit SAM MEZ's to provide very precise and lethal strikes against these very SAM's. I won't go into further detail, but our current fighter iron is very limited in this type of psuedo strategic attack. And our very possible threats of tomorrow are gobbling these double digit SAM's up. Bottom line, there is no way an F-18 or F-16 is going to penetrate these MEZ's and see daylight on the other side. I know, I must be crazy - this mission doesn't matter at all because it's not CAS, but just humor me a little Dave.

Three - the AF does more CAS in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Marines and the Navy currently, hands down. It's not a slam against the Navy/Marine flyers (all very good guys), but the AF is the AF for a reason, i.e. our sole purpose is putting jets in the air to put iron on target. Go take a look at the current deployed AF AD and ANG/Res units deployed over in the theater and you'll see the amount and the bulk of the current mission frag's. OK, I'll save you a little trouble - guess what, it's CAS.

Dave, just go away. You don't have a clue about the F-22, the SDB, or anything else besides your extremely minute amount of data on CAS. Once you get a pilot slot and actually start flying an airplane, maybe we can talk...maybe.

 

[SIG600]

The F/A-18 is a mutli-role fighter just like the F-16. The AF chose to reject the F/A-18 (F-17 at the time) in the LWF program of the 1970's. Your "technology" slam on the F-16 applies to the F/A-18 as well. There are many, many more AF platforms performing CAS (as we speak) compared to USMC/USN platforms. AF/USMC/USN are ALL using PGMs in their daily ops. God Bless them all.

But you knew all of this anyway, being the "expert"

Oh so now you wanna go there with it huh??? Just kidding... but the Hornet does have a lot of the latest gucci stuff. I'm currently flying with APG-73, MIDS/L16, CIT, etc. and the Rhino's APG-79 is mind blowing (not Raptor mind blowing but still amazing). What the Hornet dosen't have is the raw brute power the Viper has, 9G's, sustained turn rate, and blazing speed. We make up for it with Alpha though (speaking from a BFM perspective). Sorry to get all defensive there.

DG you amaze me that you even keep talking. You're a poser/tool/fake/homo/all of the above. We know you're not a Seal, and like a pirate in a termite nest, have no leg to stand on.

 

[pilotyip]

No one will argue that land based airplanes can lift more than carrier based airplanes. The message that Naval Aviation is irrelevant would probably echo a similar statement that could have been written in 1948. The newly minted USAF was the darling of the newly established Defense Department, with the B-36 and the "A" bomb there was no need for Naval Aviation or the USMC. The USAF with its ability to reach any part of the globe would insure U.S. superiority in any area. So effective was this message that in the spring of 1949 the new super carrier CV-58, to be named the United States was scrapped shortly after construction had begun. At this time the Navy had but one amphibious group left in the Pacific and one carrier in the Far East. Then in June of 1950 the North Koreans invaded South Korea. They pushed the UN forces back toward the Pusan perimeter. An amphibious landing in July of 1950 Pohang- dong area by the USMC and Army forces with tactical air support provided by carrier aircraft allowed the US to hold the line in Korea. The lack of joint tactical air doctrine, in addition to the limited range and payload of the tactical jets would not allow the USAF to provide the close air support needed for the landing. The Navy carrier based prop driven F4U’s and AD’s provided the support. An Amphibious Landing supported by Navy and USMC tactical air had preserved an allied foothold on the Korean peninsula. The next year congress approved the building the first four modern aircraft carriers of the Forrestal Class CVA-59 through CVA-62. In a world that would face conflict below the level of nuclear exchange, the need for Naval Aviation had been firmly established. "I don't but its been said Air Force wings are made of lead, I don't know but I've been told Navy wings are made of gold"

 

[spanky2]

SIG,
My point on the technology was not to slam the F & A-18. Both multirole fighters have seen the benefit of new toys. DG attempted to slam the F-16 by saying technology saved it. Technology has enhanced all of aviation. Vipers are flying with MIDS, HMCS, Sniper, etc. I had fun working with USMC and USN Hornet drivers on my last deployment...especially pointing out that the USMC versions were 2x seaters. Hornets are a fun fight.

 

[SIG600]

SIG,
My point on the technology was not to slam the F & A-18. Both multirole fighters have seen the benefit of new toys. DG attempted to slam the F-16 by saying technology saved it. Technology has enhanced all of aviation. Vipers are flying with MIDS, HMCS, Sniper, etc. I had fun working with USMC and USN Hornet drivers on my last deployment...especially pointing out that the USMC versions were 2x seaters. Hornets are a fun fight.

Ya I loved that "saved it" comment as well. Especially when you think back to the LWF competition and John Boyd's original vision for it. Completely devoid of anything tech whatsoever. Not even radar. A cheap, easy to build, BFM monster with the sole intent of killing air-air in massive waves. But I'm sure DG knows all about the history of the the developement of the -15,-16,-18.