Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: blackdog
An Air Force officer I knew in the 1980's said the reason the AF didn't have Harriers was because the Marines were the only people crazy enough to fly em.
11 posted on 12/13/2002 7:47:02 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Eric in the Ozarks
LOL!

One thing I've always wondered was, why a VTOL fighter jet?

A fighter cannot pick up troops, only provide cover and napalm. A fighter in such a role needs to get there fast, the Harrier is not fast enough. What exactly is a VTOL fighter going to do in the field with VTOL capabilities? I think the Brits use it because of their limited realestate in England which frowns on having a few dozen 15,000' long runways taking up the countryside. A fighter craft needs a constant supply of fuel and weapons. Unless fuel trucks and bomb delivery trucks are roaming the edges of the battle zone, parked in shopping malls and Staples, I don't see how VTOL is practical or beneficial in a fighter platform?

Troop transport, you bet! That is the platform for needing a VTOL. We aint there yet. Those big monster turboprops on the Osprey scare the living hell out of me. Propellers and enemy fire do not mix well. But if my sorry ass position is being over-run by Abdullah mortaring Sarrin at me, I'll be glad to see anything that can extract me from terra firma.

37 posted on 12/13/2002 8:39:10 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson