Re: Re: What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Distiller
In Iraq logistics couldn’t even supply the ground units properly. Take a calculator and type in what amount of fuel, ammo, spares, etc a fighterbomber squadron needs! A minimum of 500tons each and every 24 hours (or do you want ot use KC-135 tankers to support VTOL jets?). Noway you can’t do that on a regular basis with the current available airlift assets (you’d need double and tripple the current number of C-17s – which would be a good idea btw), and then those C-17s you’d need are not VTOL, they are CTOL, so there is no point to supply VTOL-fighterbombers with CTOL cargoplanes. You will resort to ground based logistics, ideally rail. And where there is rail or a road big enough for large trucks you don’t need VTOL jets because you have infrastructure enough for CTOL jets.
Back in the 1960’s the Germans developed the triade Do-31, VJ-101, VAK-191. And it was axed by US pressure, and NATO decided not to go VTOL and it degenerated into a naval aviation sideshow.

And that point about the USMC AV-8B ops: The reason they did forward refueling and arming was the crowded situation on their main base. And those FOBs were only a couple of flight minutes away from their MOBs.

I mean, a modern fighterbomber is no Stuka or Messerschmidt and can’t be operated out of a tent with a few truckloads of fuel and ammo (read “Die Strasse von Messina” written by Steinhoff or “Unbesiegt” by Rudel or “Die ersten und die letzten” by Galland to get an idea what operating that way meant 60 years ago!). The only time such a thing was done by U.S. air assets was Korea and there they did it along the coast with all the support based on ships.

Why are you telling me this? Tell it to the Air Force General because you already have the answers to this problem. According to you, Distiller, it won’t work.

Look it can be managed, if you build facility and have the right equipment.

Anyway where hell did you get the number 500 tons??? I think your calculator is broken.
because 500 tons = 1,000,000 lbs. a day?!?!?!?
And why would you take a spares!!!! If you got problems go back to the Base, the FOB or re-arming station is for reloading weapons and taking on enough fuel to go back up.

Paveway 4 bombs are 500 lbs, so that is quarter of a ton, 4 equals 1 ton. So they are going to need 2000 Paveway bombs?

And how do you supply this FOB, air drops from C-17.

You say fuel, well what about them? If you are going to have Tanker flying around, why couldn’t they support STOVL? Harriers have refueling probe and JSF one of the first thing they tested was re-fueling probe. Most planes take off full load of bombs and get refueled while in the air anyway.
And the reason why you can’t do this with CTOL is because you still need a runway for them, and only one plane can take off or land at a time. STOVL, they can land vertically, and take very short distance to take off. so you can have a whole squadron off in minutes. See how they do this on the Royal Navy and Marine Amphibious ships. .

Your reasoning for FOB that Marines used: Over crowding, well that is problem isn’t it, and USAF wants to avoid this kind of congestion to get CAS as quickly as possible to the front line troops. So why are you against it? That’s another reason why they need to do this.

Your reasons are valid, but your calculations are way off.

What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Mark2
As you said, JSF “on call” is the best scenario, but what if they run out of munitions? Go back to the base?
Actually… Yes

Which brings us back to the problem of rapid reaction. USAF is saying there arent enough bases they can operate their planes out of. or When they have one its too far away. And the whole point of CAS is how quickly can you get there to support the troops. Closer you are, faster they can react.

There will be tankers loitering around for lots of things. This is (IMHO) one of the things that makes the USAF what it is, the ability to put up tankers and hence reap all the benefits that come with them.

You can re-fill the planes but pilots do need rest and most importantly you can’t rearm the planes. Can solve this whole problem by have couple of squadron near the front.

Let’s review:

Bring the gas and weapons to a MOB. Arrange for the trucks/personnel [or if you have the resources not being used for something more useful, intra-theater airlift (e.g. C-130)] to get these to the FOB.

Bring the needed support equipment to load, arm weapons and fuel the aircraft (see same as above for how to get it there)

Bring the personnel to do the above (and the security forces to keep them from getting RPG’d every night).

Bring the food, equipment, personnel to support the above personnel…. They do need to eat, sleep, ‘hit the can’

You get the idea!!!!

My god!!! You have it all wrong! These forward operating bases are not right behind the front, they will be few miles back. In a location that are already secure.

Think about this:
Scenario 1:
CTOL planes need to be in the air fully loaded. Need to be re-fueled occasionally.
They get the call from ground troops, they unload their weapons on the enemy. Planes are no longer useful since it has no weapons. He has to fly back to the base. He needs to refuel first since he’s got a long way to fly, he has to fly to a designated location and meet up with fuel tanker in order for him to fly back to the base. After refueling he needs to fly back to the base. Once on the base he needs to fuel up again and get re-armed. Again fly to a designated location to refuel. Then either go back to the area that called for air strike or loiter again for additional calls.
The total time spend in transit is way too long. Because air base with runway they can use is far away, as the USAF has found out in Iraq and no guarantee that this situation will be unique to Iraq.

Scenario 2:
STOVL aircraft is loitering fully loaded, it gets refuel in the mid-air. Get a call for air strike on the enemy. Unloads his weapons and head back, But no need to refuel, since FOB is few miles back.
Vertical landing on a highway. refuel and re-arm. Get a call for another air strike, Short takeoff and he is on site in few minutes. Unload only half his bombs, so he decides to stick around and get refueled.

So there you go, if you were the guys on the ground which do you prefer? and if you are the General, which do you prefer? If they are doing this with harrier, think what they can do with a F-35 with bigger payload and longer flight time.

As far as moving the support and personnel, well that is war and logistic is a big part of it. Any modern military does this whether they have FOB or not. In Iraq, they moved too fast too far, but in more conventional war this would be slower. But what does not change is the distance the CTOL planes has to travel.

Effective, yes, but how were they based? How many of the sorties flown by Marines were from a FOB (WHERE STOVL? I will freely admit that I don’t know, but my gut tells me — not many (if any). Overall percentage of FOB ops u

This is the text verbatim from the article:
“The Stovl version is going to be important,” Hagee said. “Look at what the [AV-8B] Harriers did in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We had five squadrons in the Gulf during major combat operations. They flew 45% of the tactical air sorties that were flown in support of the Marine division. They were able to go into forward arming and refueling points–small spots in the road in the desert–rearm and refuel and go back up and provide close air support to those troops. That allows you to generate a lot more sorties. The Joint Strike Fighter Stovl version is going to give us that capability plus longer legs and stealth.”

Marines just did this in Iraq, so I don’t know why you are arguing against it?

Originally posted by Mark2
USAF JSF STOVL does nothing for CAS except provide some very limited PR value.

I’ll admit I’m pretty stupid sometimes, but where does STOVL improve CAS???

Ah… you’re closer to the ‘troops’ using partially useable runways and/or unprepared surfaces thus reducing transit time. Don’t think so… the most responsive CAS support will be provided by JSFs that have just come off the tanker and are sitting in ‘on-call’ CAS orbits. Having the JSF closer in terms of ‘bare basing’ does nothing more than greatly increase complexity of getting the gas, weapons, support equipment, etc etc to this ‘forward’ base.

I’m still of the opinion the STOVL JSFs are only there to ensure the requirement for the ‘boats’ that go with them!!!!

Mark

Well A-10 is the slowest plane in USAF inventory. So having a supersonic STOVL jet near by is a good thing.

As you said, JSF “on call” is the best scenario, but what if they run out of munitions? Go back to the base? Better solution would be to have a rearming station not too far behind the line. Don’t need to have Tanker loitering around. And last time I checked they can’t re-arm planes in the air.
Hell take a stretch of Highway and use it at forward airbase, its been done before, and trucks can travel pretty fast on a road.

When you say complexity, what exactly do you mean?

As far as effectiveness of the Jump jets, you will have to ask the Marines. And I think USAF asked and they got the answers they were looking for.