Re: STOVL Discussion
F-14D said:
For the record, I never said USAF was horrible, just that USAF simply isn't interested in any regular operations that aren't conducted from one of its mega-bases. That's why there's Marine and USN air. I also said that barring a breakthrough a STOVL NGAD is unlikely.
Downright absurd is more like it, if the navy wanted a STOVL plane they'd just buy the F-35B. Not that this would make any damn sense when the USN has a 100 billion dollars worth of aircraft carriers with catapults and wires. The USAF will never go for it, for the same reason every other air force except the RAF rejected STOVL aircraft, and even the RAF fielded more Tornadoes then Harriers.
Not really relevant. The US hasn't faced a serious air threat to our ground troops since WWII, yet we have been involved in one or two "misunderstandings" since then.
If you are going to suggest that enemy air opposition is a non factor in the design of a plane being labeled as for 'air dominance' I don't think your really on the same page as anyone else.
Yeah considering the US ran away from fights all the time, that no ground victory was capable of ending the threat and winning the war, and that the US ended up completely loosing the war anyway for a long list of reasons, yeah, not vital.
Yeah for the troops on the ground it was. Low and slow gave the best possible support, and it worked best when flown by VNAF pilots who had far more combat hours then any US pilots could.
When USAF's choices were it or the F-100, F-105 or F-4 it did a better job if it could get there in time. Again, though, if it took longer than 22 minutes to get there, it wouldn't change the outcome of the battle.
Considering many major battles lasted for days, even weeks, I think your 22 minute figure always being the rule is more then a bit of an exaggeration. Might be true of small unit actions, but small unit actions are then also ideal for quick reaction by artillery as I have mentioned before. Just as importantly the Skyraider had a great deal of endurance without refueling so it could stick around the cover operations for protracted periods, while fast jets normally had to be held on some kind of ground alert and then left after making one or two passes. This is after all one of the reasons why the A-10 was then created as a slow plane that could fly a long time.
It also suffered a high loss rate, not surprising, given its speed and size.
Yes, but it was also a very cheap plane to buy, and cost a fraction of what a jet did to fly. Still worked out great considering it came from WW2.
It's worthy of note that in that conflict USAF did the unbelievable and actually voluntarily acquired a Navy aircraft, the A-7.
Yeah, you know they also had already acquired the Phantom II from the Navy, but the heavy losses of F-105s and the desire to phase out the A-1, which was running out of service life, also it was desired to give the ones left to the VNAF didn't leave the USAF with much choice. I'm not sure why this really matters though, I like the A-7 but it sure isn't STOVL.
In fact, they did such a good job with that plane that USN decided to buy the USAF version. BTW, USAF only suffered four A-7 combat losses in the entire war.
The USAF also mostly flew the A-7 over the south and the trail, which were low on air defenses and it had a fair bit of armor so low losses are not surprising, the USN lost more of them. I'm not sure what your point is though, the Harrier has a fairly high loss rate and the A-7 sure wasn't a STOVL aircraft. In fact 10% of Harriers sent to the Gulf were lost, and this is in spite of the plane never being called upon to fly over the heavily defended regions of central Iraq.
Never mind its rather high high peacetime accident rate, though a lot of that is linked to the VTOL features themselves and should hopefully not affect the F-35B with lift fan.
Finally! Someone admits USAF isn't that interested in CAS.
That's why it bought all those hundreds of Soviet tank killing A-10s to fight in Europe right? Because it totally didn't care?
Artillery is always the best thing if the target is in range and you know exactly where it is. But lots of times you have neither A nor B. You can't do saturation of an area to deal with the lack of precise location with missiles, they aren't that low costs. BTW, Afghanistan was made to order for Crusader, but we canceled that.
Lack of precision is a huge problem for CAS you know, when the number one goal is not killing friendly forces.
GMLRS will be getting a shrapnel warhead soon enough to deal with area targets. When you consider the F-35, all models, are is expected to cost over 30,000 dollars an hour to fly, and that it has to fly high numbers of hours just to keep the pilot trained in peacetime, the cost of missiles doesn't look so bad at all. Your talking about being able to buy several thousand of them for the lifecycle cost of a single F-35, and any follow on jet is only going to be more expensive, while the cost of a GMLRS like weapon can realistically go down. Crusader was very expensive, I would have liked to have it, but having it would have meant a number of other projects didn't happen including the GPS capability on GMLRS.
Yes, the A-10 is capable of operating from limited areas, 2,500 feet is all it really needs provided you've got good weather and you're willing to offload a lot of payload. The difference with a STOVL aircraft is that it operates from its ~300 meter area with design payload over its design radius. That's the whole point.
I doubt an A-10 with reduced payload will be any less then the payload an AV-8B is going to lift off that short runway, and the A-10 has the gun from hell. Not sure what an F-35B is going to get off the ground with in that kind of run, nor I think does anybody precisely, since at last word it wasn't meeting its runway requirement specs, but the designers were still hopeful for improvement.
They're called "trucks" or "helicopters". They easily operate from FOBs that only have 300 metes of operating surface. Air supply simply isn't available way to do resupply to a base on a sustained basis for an extended period of time.
Trucks need a source of supply, that becomes very situational, and its own exposure. Such as, are they being unloaded from big navy ships that are sitting ducks at anchor? What bridges do they cross? Do they need escorts that much be drawn from ground combat unit through hostile towns?
Helicopter resupply isn't going to cut it for any serious scale of deployment. Internal fuel for an F-35B is 18,000lb, when you add in the weight of the tanks to hold this is basically a single CH-53E sortie just for that, it might have the payload for a few spare parts and weapons as well but not many of either, depending on the radius that must be flown. Max payload radius is only around 50nm which is pretty crummy. Might as well keep the jet on the ship offshore at that point. Nobody ever has enough rotary wing transport assets for what they want to do, all the more so a very helicopter centered operation like the USMC.
Well, no one said we were going to park the STOVLs 86 feet behind the front line. 35 nm is less than 4 1/2 minutes flying time, but is an awful long way for an enemy force to penetrate undetected. Frankly, as has been seen multiple times, being well to the rear doesn't guarantee safety. In fact it could be argued that the large rear base brings with it its own vulnerabilities given its much larger perimeter, whereas the STOVL operating area is easier to defend, you can get the a/c away to safety easier, can set up shop all over the place and can relocate quickly and tends to be organically located with the staging area of the force its working with, which brings with it its own defenses.
The problem is, STOVL forward strip concepts tend to involve invading the enemy, so the enemy doesn't have to penetrate, your coming in right on top of him already. We can also expect his artillery to reach upwards of several hundred kilometers with fairly small tactical missiles, and if you fight China life is going to be very tough inside a thousand plus kilometers. If the enemy is not China, you quickly slide down the scale to the point that a Super Tucano is credible CAS. Cheap enough to fly endlessly CAS instead of waiting for jets from strip alert.
Yes, F-16s have operated from road on very specialized occasions, but again you offload a lot of payload to operate from roads two or thee times as long as what a STOVL needs and its not a routine thing. A STOVL can do it just about anytime. A-10s can also forward deploy. Col. Robert Rasmussen authored an excellent paper on this very thing sometime in the late '70s. Even so it can't operate in the conditions under which a STOVL can (there's a reason why the A-10 was the 2nd strike aircraft to operate in Afghanistan).
Yeah, mainly that the Marines were in the lead of the invasion, as they should be. If the Army airborne were in the lead they would have parachuted onto an air base and had A-10s backing them up as soon as possible as they are assigned to 17th airborne corps. Still not seeing why we'd want to sacrifice performance in an air superiority platform to do any of this when the Marines are already getting F-35B at such a massive cost. F-16 might only do a road with reduced load, but then it can also do its full load all the rest of the time, it didn't physically limit itself for all time in the process. STVOL does do this. A air superiority jet that had some kind of clip on STVOL ability would be cool, but unworkable in reality.
Actually, a Harrier can operate from grass.
Got proof of that? Seriously I am interested, because in the Falklands War the British seized a functional grass airfield at Goose Green, and then built a steel matted runway on it before they would fly Harriers out of it. If they could have just flown off the grass, they surely would not have bothered given how scare of resources they had. Maybe only really firm, well drained grass will support Harriers? In any event, the FOD hazard of grass operations is considerable, and the downblast of a landing Harrier or F-35B would be a very serious problem. Jet exhaust is going to strip off the turf quickly.
USAF was going to buy the Super Tucano for the Afghans, not for its own use.
That is incorrect. The Super Tucanos were for the USAF, and at one point they hoped for over a hundred aircraft. Part of the reason was to help facilitate training the Afghan and other air forces in the use of light planes, but they were fully intended to be operational for US attack missions, specifically because they could be easily operated at very low costs and still pack a couple thousand pounds of weapons.
Regarding your various knock out the base scenarios, they are all valid, but they are even more so for a CTOL force. It's a lot easier to move a STOVL flock under threat (find another 300 meter flat surface) than it is a CTOL one.
You have to move all your ground equipment and secure a supply line, not just find another flat surface. As I have been saying, when it comes to air base survivability this stuff is a lot more vulnerable then the runway.
Even if you don't move them, you've got to knock out the operating strip, any taxiways and a good portion of whatever you're using for a parking area in order to keep them from getting away. In fact, if it's just a matter of moving them, only put on a minimum weapons load and you don't need any ground run.
Assuming the enemy is ever so nice as to only target the runway. I really don't get why people think this is what an enemy is going to make his priority.
While your description of an F-15 takeoff roll is accurate, it's also something they are only going to do in dire circumstances from a damaged runway and in the air to air role that would require a good deal of 'burner which means a fairly short flight time and a divert. The STOVL would do it routinely. Also, I'm not sure how reassuring it would be to anyone with a ground target to hear that a/c with AIM-120s and AIM-9s are on the way.
Winning and maintaining air superiority is the first goal of an air force, and rationally the first goal of an aircraft labeled as 'air dominance'. The ground pounders have other support. In fact over reliance of CAS in a permissive air environment is probably the number one weakness of the US military today, and should be addressed by increasing the firepower of ground units. Against someone like China this could be a fatal weakness in action, against weak powers, USAF runways aren't getting blown up in the first place and can be built at will, and in general conflicts will be executed on the whim of the United States. If the US is loosing because forward units are being sent into action with no artillery support, that means the war strategy is wrong. Just like Vietnam was wrong in every possible way perhaps.
We could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: If you've got an 8,000-9,000 runway always available whenever you need it to be in a timely manner where you need it to be, then STOVL makes no sense. Most of the time, STOVLs are going to operate from the same bases that CTOLs do for peacetime operations. What STOVL gives you is a flexibility and versatility when you need it, and there are significant cases where it is the only option.
Sure, but this is why the tip of the spear, the Marines get STOVL and already have it in the works. I see no reason presented why the USAF and USN, especially the USN which already has all those big mobile carrier flight decks, should do the same for a new design. That has been my point, and I see precious little attempt to address it. The endless focus on ground support is dodging the issue, and an issue which is already addressed by several existing platforms, and could be further addressed with cheap additional weapons without hampering design of a new high end fighter. If it was zero performance penalty, then sure, go for it, but that's never going to be the case. The USAF and USN need fighters that can deal with the best enemy aircraft, and since no enemy is interested in STOVL, maybe you know, because they have good reason not to want to cripple designs like that, that means building conventional fighters.
Some things are surprising. There have been multiple reported cases in Afghanistan where Harriers actually had more loiter time than A-10s. I'm not implying that the AV-8 loiters better in the air than does a Warthog. It doesn't. It's because in those cases it was loitering on the ground with the engine off and then flew a much shorter distance to where it was needed whereas the A-10 had to fly a considerable distance to get where it was needed in those cases.
So? The US has deliberately limited its presence in Afghanistan, and is now planning to scale it back without securing a victory. Different air units operate in different parts of the country, though about all of them from paved runways, how well do you think a harrier flying up from Kandahar to to the north east of the country would do on loiter?
Yes, USAF has the finest tanker fleet in the world, but since you raised the issue about air superiority, those tankers aren't going to be operating where we don't have total control of the air, and they're already stretched too thin, they made not be available on short notice when we need them.
The tankers only go part of the way, and then allow a fully refueled fighter to fly into opposed airspace. Meanwhile the fighter and tanker are operating from a base outside the unrefueled range of the enemy, which is awesome protection. If you think the enemy is going to shoot down the tankers, I'd love to know how you think STOVL will survive inside enemy range when like any combat aircraft it spends the majority of its time on the ground. The USAF considers new tankers its number one priority for good reason, its a shame the latest program has been so delayed by nonsense.
For those that say we then shouldn't be operating in those cases, that's again the tail wagging the dog. The other forces shouldn't be limited to what is best for air, air should figure out how to be where those forces are when they need it. In many (but not by any means all) cases, you're talking STOVL.
Yeah actually, its completely suicidal to commit expeditionary ground forces into battle when the enemy has a serious ability to challenge US air power. Modern weapons are far too destructive against ground forces, and US forces are so critically lacking in forward deployed air defenses. This is why gaining control of the air is going to take place first against a serious enemy threat, and for that range and speed are vital. No surprise that the USN wants a plane with more of both vs the Hornet.
In closing let me remind everyone of an oft forgotten factoid: After Gulf War I, Gen Norma Schwarzkopf and his staff identified only three air assets that were critical in winning the War. The first was the F-117. The 2nd was the AH-64 (hey, he's Army, he has to say that!). The third was not the F-15E, not the F-16, not the F/A-18, not the B-52, C-130, Chinook or A-10. It was the AV-8B.
I'd love to see a quote on that in context. Course its a joke anyway considering that most US tanks never fired a shot, no tank fired off a full load of ammunition and the US took only a few hundred dead while killing so many tens of thousands of Iraqis we can't even settle on a number accurate to within ten thousand. The war was a complete curb stomp and its completely blatant that huge portions of the Coalition Forces could have been removed, and the Coalition still would have won. Sure helps that most of the good Iraqi units retreated without trying to engage either. In fact I do recall that Schwarzkopf also commented years later, might have been in that Clancy book Into the Storm, that the ground war would have been fine had V Corps never been deployed from Germany.