a drogue-equipped USAF tanker fleet could help out the tanker-deficient USN aviation too. once they stop hating each other that is 😉

This has already been done… for YEARS.. USAF tankers, either KC-135s (with the drogue attachment) or the KC-10 ( has both methods ready ) have been a part of naval air op planning for a VERY long time.

All that screams “USAF don’t want to get its hands dirty”. And I doubt it will work, because today I can see no working/affordable technology that can defeat that proverbial small group of rifle-men/MANPATS-men/MANPADS-men from miles and miles away.
But propably Gen. Jumper talking about STOVL-JSFs for the USAF is a kind of pre-emptive sales pitch to defend overall F-35 numbers

A USAF or USMC GFAC will be able to take out small targets just fine if there is a fast mover fixed wing ( manned or unmanned ) orbiting above at 35000 + ft. If the GFAC can put a laser on it or from that get a LAT. / LONG, the target will die just fine from a GBU-12, SDB, JDAM etc with no problems. Doing it this way is far more versatile then dragging in ( and waiting ) on a slow A-10. A jet that has limited PGM ability ( even with LITENING ) and itself is still at risk from small SAMs, and newer MANPADs and even AAA from its limited ability to drag weapons up to 15-18k. A-10 is still useful. Just not as verstile as a netcentric fixed wing jet.

USMC getting SHs sooner would be a good thing. They would get some real ( non- lashup ) PGM ability with a new car smell. Put SH in their hands and you know it will get used well for the mud mission.

The army is competely incapable to run fast jets. Running them into the ground yes… running them and sustaining them NO. They have people problems with hair on them. A large portion of their leadership ( officer and NCO ) is just … bad. Army Aviation can’t even run what they have effectively… plus… you have the older traditional branchs… ( armor, inf. , arty, engineer ) that look down on Army Aviation and treat them like a red headed step child. Plus with that major culture problem, getting funding properly delt out is a not working. Again the culture problem above, you have some Army Aviators that do a great job but they are surrounded by career self seeking idiot officers that just want to punch a ticket and move on with their career. The only bright spot is the netcentric ( now in use ) Apache. Far more useful than the highly over-rated A-10. Of course in order to use the Apache correctly, you have to fire the occassional brigade or regiment commander that drives them en masse into a combat division like the charge of the light brigade and gets them all shot up. Again, no suprise there considering the U.S. Armys long trail of broken leadership. U.S.M.C. Air on the other hand knows what the hell they are doing and is good. Too bad they are ignored almost on serious funding and are allowed to waste a huge amount of cash on another waste which is V-22 instead of doing something useful like getting large new helos in their hands and getting some F-18E/Fs to replace a lot of their tired F-18s.

Fortunately you have the USAF and USMC that knows how to grow good officers and NCOs. Without that ability, it doesn’t matter what equipment you have, you will just ruin it and run it into the ground.

As for the JSF… that pig in STOVL form still has to fly.( I guess the product demo in 2001 was a bold face lie ) .. good luck. Add to that, that at 240 + billion, it is a complete waste and not needed.

Agreed ! And remember there is still the C-130-J which can be used as an AC-130.

They will probably find out that the vibration from firing off the 105 will shut down the civilian avionics on board. :p

AC-130 as mentioned is already a fearsome netcentric killer, including working with just about everything else at night too: Apaches, fixed wing strikers etc. Be even more scary as part of a netcentric node for A-45/47 UCAV.

Hey Dis, good to have you back at this cesspool of Eurolibs 🙂 I’m sure you feel a warm welcome here after all that bravery and freedom.

I disagree with you, but then i also disagree with the notion that the A400 is a strategical air-lifter. The size and payload is IMO just right for a modern-day tactical air-lifter. For some reason it is still commonly accepted that a 1950s design for a paratrooper-assault airplane is big and heavy enough for a tactical transport in the post-1989 (and post-2001) world, and whatever Lockheed wants us to believe: that is plain and simple BS. The Herk (or Jerk in it’s latest incarnation) is simply no longer suitable as an airlifter for modern-day armies. Just look at the awfully clumsy way the USArmy keeps on trying to have their Stryker fit the C-130, and how it somehow just never works. Jeep-sized vehicles have been replaced by Humvees (you won’t be able to fit a Humvee in a Caribou), logistical trains have increased, yet it’s all still supposed to fit inside a Hercules? Yeah, right. At least the German Puma isn’t supposed to fit in the woefully inadequate (for transporting armour at least) Herk, it’s only ment to fit in the somewhat less inadequate Airbus.

The Russians had realised this some time ago, and already replaced most of the An-12s in their tactical transport units with Il-76es, and were initially planning on replacing the remainder with An-70s. Far bigger aircraft, but still tasked with the same role: tactical transport.

I also think that the requirement for airlifting tanks is far exaggurated. Not only that Europe’s international political ambitions aren’t really likely to demand a quick deployment of heavy armour. But still, even if one aircraft brings in your 70 tons MBT, that doesn’t mean you already have brought an operational combat machine to the frontline. You’re still looking at an enormous amount of logistical support to keep that tank rolling, and it is that logistics train which easily exceeds your airlift capability. Especially if you are looking at prolonged operations with that armour, it becomes obvious that airlift is NOT the way to keep those panzer rolling in any significant numbers.

For the heavy tactical transport mission (the light job being for fixed-wing Chinooks like the G2222222222, CN235/295 and, yes, the C-130) i think the A-400 is going to fill in a niche in the market which has so far not been covered by any Western aircraft, and in the East is filled by the Il-76 and possibly the An-70. Indeed, the A-400 won’t be enough to do the heavy strategical airlift, and why should you if there is such a wonderful plane like the An-124 which you can rent for the same price as an inflight check of a C-5A.

Keeping strategical and tactical airlift separate by using hub airbases (much like FedEx or DHL do with on their airlift networks) also means that your strategical aircraft don’t need to have their flight economics hampered by rough-field-capability and other gadgets typically for tactical operations at tactical airfields. I can only see a need for those toys if you’ve managed to alienate yourself that much from the rest of the world that you are simply denied local hub airfields. But when you’ve reached that stage, i doubt military airborne logistics are the main issue to worry about.

How’s that for a welcoming essay 😉

The Stryker makes the Super Hornet look like a well procured, organized high performance weapons system that met all of its requirements. 🙂 The Stryker is an overweight pig and is junk. Funny we try and re-invent the wheel when there are already existing wheeled AFVs that are much better and will roll on and roll of a C-130. The U.S. Army lied its a$$ off on the Stryker program. C-130 ( non- J ) is just fine for most tac airlift. Don’t know exactly what Euro requirements for tac air are. Then again I don’t really care. The airlift mix we have is just fine here. The problem for us is too much unnecessary expeditionary warfare and too many foreign basings which serve no purpose or have any reality in todays threat mix.

Be interesting to see what those fancy multiblades on the A400 do on a dirt take off and landing. Like the J C-130 they might be just a bit too efficient on dirt including reverse thrust. This has FOD’d out more than a few C-130Js when they tried to be real C-130s on the dirt. We’ll see. Also the rules of physics don’t change for anyone. Runways for battlefield tactical use are as different as the different ground they reside on. The heavier the aircraft the less of these tactical runways it can get into. The C-130 will still be around for many mission types because it will be the only aircraft that can do certain special jobs. I am sure the A400 will be very useful. Just that it is a sliding scale. There are fields the C-17 can’t get into because of weight, length etc. There are fields the A400 can’t get into because of weight, length etc.There are fields the C-130 can’t get into because of weight, length etc. and so on. At the rate military spending is going in many European countries, you will have to depend on countries like France and Greece to be a large part of any huge NATO / Eurokorps effort that involves anything more than passing out food parcels.

Yeah there is one little French town that isn’t too happy about having a big piece of the A380 running on a truck with about 2 feet of clearance between the buildings, every few weeks. 😉

Cobra = risk of becoming a strafe target. Big SU’s don’t have the best rearward situational awareness anyway. The SU-27 3x has enough regime advantages in many other areas without going into a Cobra. Matter of fact what is never mentioned is that the high AOA and even better Thrust Vector nozzles… ( if you have those ) would help you get out of just about any vertical scissors vs. a jet where extreme AOA is not recommended ( F-16 ). Instead of a Cobra, pull hard, and go vertical or roll a way in another direction of your choosing. If it is high AOA enough, there are more than a few current ( modern ) jets that couldn’t follow quick enough. With top air forces playing catch up and getting High off bore sight helmet heaters, that might not even save you. WVR will be a blood bath no matter if you are a big SU, F-18E/F or Bison.