Folks,

Below is something that the US found out about those spy trawlers the Russians had that shadowed our carriers. Also, a little toy that the USN worries about being given to the wrong people (ie the one with the green flag). Drug smugglers already have crude vessels like this. The Iranian version is not crude. Strange, we Americans (the rebels) came up with the idea during our Civil War and now the US Navy has to worry about them again over a 150 years later!!

Jack E. Hammond

PS> Do a google on CSS DAVID

.

And a better question. If the manufacture of the Gripen was to go to the years of R&D and $$$$$$$ to develop a naval version of the Gripen: What nations navy would buy it??????

Jack E. Hammond

.

Vulnerability could indeed be a problem, I just read that during the Venezuelan coup one was shot down by a 12,7mm machine gun, and that during a single day of operations.

Dear Member,

Probably true. But those were the “A” models. The newer models would have armor protection. But as I stated it would be no more vulnerable than the AH-64 Apaches or the other small armed helicopters they are using. An article I read said one of the weaknesses that the British helicopter forces had on rescues was that the AH-64 could not keep up with the CH-47 to escort them.

But either way, the USAF is looking for something to replace having to use expensive F-16s, etc. One is the version of the Texan II with a FLIR and laser pod on its belly that can patrol at altitude at use laser for ground launched stand off weapons or Hellfirers. I think a version of the OV-10 with its twin engines and larger capacity would make a better option. And unlike armed UAVs nothing can ever replace the Mark I eyeball in an aircraft as a British Special Ops general once stated. If anything someone with a pair of those zoom-stabalized binoculars to find out where to zoom the FLIR/TV/Laser pod.

Jack E. Hammond

.

OV-10D NOS info package

Folks,

Back in 1980when I was starving I got into the writer businesses for about 10 years (hard way to make money). In 1982 I requested some information from Rockwell on the OV-10A and OV-10D program. They sent me everything but the kitchen sink. Below is the pages from one of the booklets they sent on the USMC OV-10D Night Observation System program. If the OV-10 Bronco is put into production this is what they need. It is basically a PREDATOR with a human interface along for the ride. One problem though if operating in Afghanistan is its one engine performance. The one great weakiness of the Bronco. Not enough “ponys”.

Also one page is titled “OV-10D NOS Air Ground Team Support Mission”. About a year ago the President of the United States of American presented the Medal of Honor to the parents of US SEAL team leader who died (along with three others of a four man team) in Afghanistan because he had to expose himself to make a radio link with a satellite phone. If an OV-10 NOS had been circling discretely in the distance he would not have had to expose himself. And “just” maybe they would have lived because that OV-10D could have given some air support till the cavalry came.

Finally, look at the second to last page. This is the option needed IMHO.

Jack E. Hammond

[u]Please Click Thumbnails Below For Full Size Pages[/u]

.

Dear Jesper,

It was in Cambodia. It was a CIA Mike Team that did secret reconn missions into “neutral” Cambodia. The author “owed” that CIA team big time, because when the USAF would not come to the rescue of a USAF pilot who had ejected and landed on the wrong side of the border, he called the CIA agent in charge and he came with everything he had (ie he told the author that if he was ever shot down, everyone was coming for him, including himself). They rescued that USAF pilot. They had to physically restrain him when he returned to base when he found out the USAF was not going to rescue him or allow the US Army.

Well later a six man team had been unmasked and was being chased by the North Vietnamese in Cambodia. He directed them to a road and landed his OV-10A on that road at night and told them how to unlatch the back hatch and all six squeezed in and he flew them to safety.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Not to mention the less than stellar reputation of the de Gaulle.;)

Dear Members,

Again, that old British saying “A battalion today, is better than a division a month from now.” In any situation other than going up against a US CVN a deGaulle is still a good bet.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Folks,

On the subject of the CVA-01 and the “Alaskan Taxiway” below is a comment I got from a retired USN officer who was carrier fighter pilot from the 1950s to the 1970s (ie F-8s in Vietnam and F-4s after that war ended).

Jack E. Hammond

Jack,
This idea doesn’t make sense to me. Several reasons. The Air Boss and Mini Boss have to be able to see all aircraft deck movements. This scheme would make that hard to do. You want the island as far out of the way (to the right) and small as practical. You need a bridge which allows the Captain and ODs to conn the ship visually. The Admiral also has a bridge from which he directs the activity of the battle group. Obviously, you need a perch for your Air Boss and his minions. So the old retractable island scheme was greatly flawed. Things go on on the flight deck 24/7. Somebody has to keep herd on the flight deck chaos. The flight deck configuration we have now has been designed over many years of blood, sweat, and tears. It’s one thing to be different but quite another to be better.