Posted on 11/23/2001 7:00:03 PM PST by dvwjr
...'The carriers have proven their value, but the claims of some carrier proponents frequently defy reality. Carrier effectiveness, though significant, has been inflated to mythic proportions.
Dramatic film footage of carrier-based aircraft being catapulted into the skies frequently dominates televised coverage of periodic US crises with Iraq, even though that image does not reflect actual composition of the joint US force in the region. In early 1998, Rear Adm. John B. Nathman, commander of Task Force 50 aboard USS Nimitz in the Gulf, actually declared, "I attribute the cessation of Iraqi no-fly zone violations to our presence" in the area.
In official statements, the Navy claims that "the carrier battle group, operating in international waters, does not need the permission of host countries for landing or overflight rights." They can operate independently and present "a unique range of options" to the President, the service adds.' .
.
."Navy carriers are a valuable tool, but their warfighting contribution must be judged against an airpower standard, not just against a sea-control standard. World War II's fast carrier task forces won their place in history because they conducted sustained operations, and their commanders, like Adms. Raymond A. Spruance and Marc A. Mitscher, were masters of air warfare. Until carriers have an all-aspect stealth aircraft, naval aviators will be unable to perform many critical wartime missions. Navy aircraft are not expected to match the penetration and survivability of the F-117, much less the payload of the B-2. The nation will call on aircraft carriers to take the lead in smaller-scale contingencies, to provide presence in locations like the Taiwan Strait, and to add their capabilities to joint operations. For many of the most critical tasks, however, only land-based aircraft from in-theater bases will do."
Personally , I dont want to hear it. Visit my profile page and you will see why.
Cheney and the head of Grumman (at the time - I forgot his name) had a bit of a snit. Grumman guy was bragging about how the Navy couldn't get anyone else to build aircraft like they could. Cheney decided to throw a bit of testosterone around to show him "what-for", and had the contract cancelled (he was Secretary of Defense at the time). Also, wrote an amendment to it as part of close out to destroy the tooling, and paid for it. There was no public announcement.
There are a few words to describe it: Small-minded, spiteful, asinine, short-sighted, bordering-on-treason to deprive the country of its best war-fighting fighter jet.
Freeper SARgunner says he is mystified by Air Force people he meets who act like they have nothing to be proud about. He and I are both enormously proud of our contribution to the liberation of oppressed peoples.
I'm a big fan of the Marine Corps, but let's state it for the record: Col. John Boyd, USAF, won a victory against every single air-to-air opponent in less than 40 seconds, including some Marines who were sure an Air Force weenie couldn't handle them. I don't know, by the way, if your average young Marine officer knows John Boyd's name, but you can bet your last dime they know his tactical philosophies, which have influenced Marine doctrine.
Oh, and then there's these...just 1 or 2 from each war, otherwise you'll be here all day...
Air Force and Army Air Corps Recipients of the Medal of Honor (asterisk indicates KIA)
*LUKE, FRANK, JR.
Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army Air Corps, 27th Aero Squadron, 1st Pursuit Group, Air Service. Place and date: Near Murvaux, France, 29 September 1918. Entered service at: Phoenix, Ariz. Born: 19 May 1897, Phoenix, Ariz. G.O. No.: 59, W.D., 1919. Citation: After having previously destroyed a number of enemy aircraft within 17 days he voluntarily started on a patrol after German observation balloons. Though pursued by 8 German planes which were protecting the enemy balloon line, he unhesitatingly attacked and shot down in flames 3 German balloons, being himself under heavy fire from ground batteries and the hostile planes. Severely wounded, he descended to within 50 meters of the ground, and flying at this low altitude near the town of Murvaux opened fire upon enemy troops, killing 6 and wounding as many more. Forced to make a landing and surrounded on all sides by the enemy, who called upon him to surrender, he drew his automatic pistol and defended himself gallantly until he fell dead from a wound in the chest.
RICKENBACKER, EDWARD V.
Rank and organization: First Lieutenant, U.S. Army Air Corps, 94th Aero Squadron, Air Service. Place and date: Near Billy, France, 25 September 1918. Entered service at: Columbus, Ohio. Born: 8 October 1890, Columbus, Ohio. G.O. No.: 2, W.D., 1931. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy near Billy, France, 25 September 1918. While on a voluntary patrol over the lines, 1st Lt. Rickenbacker attacked 7 enemy planes (5 type Fokker, protecting two type Halberstadt). Disregarding the odds against him, he dived on them and shot down one of the Fokkers out of control. He then attacked one of the Halberstadts and sent it down also.
*BAKER, ADDISON E.
Rank and organization: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Air Corps, 93d Heavy Bombardment Group. Place and date: Ploesti Raid, Rumania, 1 August 1943. Entered service at: Akron, Ohio. Born: 1 January 1907, Chicago, Ill. G.O. No.: 20, 11 March 1944. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy on 1 August 1943. On this date he led his command, the 93d Heavy Bombardment Group, on a daring low-level attack against enemy oil refineries and installations at Ploesti, Rumania. Approaching the target, his aircraft was hit by a large caliber antiaircraft shell, seriously damaged and set on fire. Ignoring the fact he was flying over terrain suitable for safe landing, he refused to jeopardize the mission by breaking up the lead formation and continued unswervingly to lead his group to the target upon which he dropped his bombs with devastating effect. Only then did he leave formation, but his valiant attempts to gain sufficient altitude for the crew to escape by parachute were unavailing and his aircraft crashed in flames after his successful efforts to avoid other planes in formation. By extraordinary flying skill, gallant leadership and intrepidity, Lt. Col. Baker rendered outstanding, distinguished, and valorous service to our Nation.
*DAVIS, GEORGE ANDREW, JR.
Rank and organization: Major, U.S. Air Force, CO, 334th Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Group, 5th Air Force. Place and date: Near Sinuiju-Yalu River area, Korea, 10 February 1952. Entered service at: Lubbock, Tex. Born: 1 December 1920, Dublin, Tex. Citation: Maj. Davis distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. While leading a flight of 4 F-86 Saberjets on a combat aerial patrol mission near the Manchurian border, Maj. Davis' element leader ran out of oxygen and was forced to retire from the flight with his wingman accompanying him. Maj. Davis and the remaining F-86's continued the mission and sighted a formation of approximately 12 enemy MIG-15 aircraft speeding southward toward an area where friendly fighter-bombers were conducting low level operations against the Communist lines of communications. With selfless disregard for the numerical superiority of the enemy, Maj. Davis positioned his 2 aircraft, then dove at the MIG formation. While speeding through the formation from the rear he singled out a MIG-15 and destroyed it with a concentrated burst of fire. Although he was now under continuous fire from the enemy fighters to his rear, Maj. Davis sustained his attack. He fired at another MIG-15 which, bursting into smoke and flames, went into a vertical dive. Rather than maintain his superior speed and evade the enemy fire being concentrated on him, he elected to reduce his speed and sought out still a third MIG-15. During this latest attack his aircraft sustained a direct hit, went out of control, then crashed into a mountain 30 miles south of the Yalu River. Maj. Davis' bold attack completely disrupted the enemy formation, permitting the friendly fighter-bombers to successfully complete their interdiction mission. Maj. Davis, by his indomitable fighting spirit, heroic aggressiveness, and superb courage in engaging the enemy against formidable odds exemplified valor at its highest.
DAY, GEORGE E.
Rank and organization: Colonel (then Major), U.S. Air Force, Forward Air Controller Pilot of an F-100 aircraft. Place and date: North Vietnam, 26 August 1967. Entered service at: Sioux City, Iowa. Born: 24 February 1925, Sioux City, Iowa. Citation: On 26 August 1967, Col. Day was forced to eject from his aircraft over North Vietnam when it was hit by ground fire. His right arm was broken in 3 places, and his left knee was badly sprained. He was immediately captured by hostile forces and taken to a prison camp where he was interrogated and severely tortured. After causing the guards to relax their vigilance, Col. Day escaped into the jungle and began the trek toward South Vietnam. Despite injuries inflicted by fragments of a bomb or rocket, he continued southward surviving only on a few berries and uncooked frogs. He successfully evaded enemy patrols and reached the Ben Hai River, where he encountered U.S. artillery barrages. With the aid of a bamboo log float, Col. Day swam across the river and entered the demilitarized zone. Due to delirium, he lost his sense of direction and wandered aimlessly for several days. After several unsuccessful attempts to signal U.S. aircraft, he was ambushed and recaptured by the Viet Cong, sustaining gunshot wounds to his left hand and thigh. He was returned to the prison from which he had escaped and later was moved to Hanoi after giving his captors false information to questions put before him. Physically, Col. Day was totally debilitated and unable to perform even the simplest task for himself. Despite his many injuries, he continued to offer maximum resistance. His personal bravery in the face of deadly enemy pressure was significant in saving the lives of fellow aviators who were still flying against the enemy. Col. Day's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Armed Forces.
And then there's these guys...
Dec. 10th. 1941. A B-17 piloted by Capt. Colin Kelly is attacked by Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai. Kelly's crew bailed out, but Capt. Kelly was killed whilst trying to land the damaged bomber, thus becoming the the first highly publicized American hero of the war.
On March 31st. and April 1st. 1945, flying their distinctive red-tailed Mustangs, the Tuskegee airmen roamed the skies over southern Germany, shooting down twenty five enemy aircraft for only one loss to themselves, a remarkable feat for which they are justifiably proud.
And how could i not be justifiably proud of being a small part of a heritage like that?
Actually, competition is healthy. I would worry if the AF was NOT trying to promote and improve it's systems.
"Lets see now, how long does it take to get a carrier battle group from say the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean? Two maybe three or more weeks?"
"How long could the same amount (or really more) of airpower take to get there from a continental US based Air Force base...ummm, 15, 20 hours?"
If a carrier battle group had to transit from Norfolk to the Indian Ocean, it would take around two weeks. However, the Navy has this habit of prepositioning carrier battle groups around the world oceans via an exercise they call "deployments" or "cruises" so that they are never two or three weeks away from having force projection from air-power available anywhere in the world. If the Air Force has operational aircraft within the refueled combat radius of their Air Wings it makes sense to use them. The large four-engine aircraft can us CONUS or Diego Garcia to ingress and egress from the target area because they have a pilot/co-pilot team who can spell each other on the long-range 15-34 hour world-wide flights. If the US Air Force does not have a base or basing-rights near the field of conflict, then they must undertake long flights to include multiple in-flight re-fuelings to get to and return from the operational area. The problem with this in fighter or strike aircraft is crew exhaustion. Sitting on your ass for 12-14 hours limits the number of sorties that particular aircraft/crew can achieve to no more than one per day. The advantage that the US Naval Air brings to the party is that in this situation the mission combat radius can be decreased by moving the airbase (carrier) closer to the operational area. This ability can limit crew exhaustion, number of in-flight refuelings, and generate multiple sorties per day per aircraft/crew. You might be interested in the opinions of some FR posters such as Pukin Dog who were Tomcat drivers if they respond...
"Another thing, what's the cost difference, between sending and refueling planes from a base, versus sending a carrier group? Carrier groups are what, 20, 50 or 100 times as expensive?"
You have to balance that with the cost of the base from which the Air Force Wing would operate. Even the "Expeditionary" Wings must land and operate from somewhere which is not cost free. If they operate out of an foreign base then in many cases fuel/supplies must be flown in to maintain operational tempo. The Expeditionary Wing must also bring along Air Force base defense personnel to secure the perimeter. It depends on where the Air Force Wing is operating, from a long-time pre-developed base such as existed in Saudi Arabia in the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars close to the operational areas, or somewhere not so hospitable. I would say that the carrier battle group operational costs are greater than any well-developed fixed Air Force base, but not when the Air Force Air Wing is in "Expeditionary: mode...
"In both Bosnia and Iraq, which did the most ammount of damage(by far)--Navy or Air Force planes?"
As the magazine article points out when the Air Force can generate sorties from well developed fixed bases close to the operational area they can generate the most sorties/ordinance on target such as Bosnia and Iraq. However that is balance by the example of Afghanistan in which the US Navy/Marine aircraft provided most of the sorties necessary to support US Special Forces/Northern Alliance formations. Only Air Force tankers in support of US Navy Air and Air Force B-52s got into the game until the old Soviet airbase was repaired/re-built for the Air Force tactical aircraft.
dvwjr
Yes, but only the Navy can also bring the FIELD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.