Air Force & Navy - tinfoil type question - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Air Force & Navy - tinfoil type question (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:13:52 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While some comments against the Air Force have been on target, this needs to be made clear.

You will always need our airlift, tankers, fighters, bombers, surveillance, satellites, and missiles.

And our plasma TVs in every office.

Each service plays a vital role in national defense. Don't forget that.

USN has all of this minus the plasma TV's and can haul it anywhere in the world in 48 hours.. But sustained operations do require some additional help.

The C-2 does not count as "airlift." And while we're at it, an F-18 with a buddy pack does not a tanker make.

We have C-130's.. Five squadrons.. We can tank, lift, etc. All prepositioned on a rotational detachment schedule from conus. Ask me how I know.

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:26:27 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
We have C-130's.. Five squadrons.. We can tank, lift, etc. All prepositioned on a rotational detachment schedule from conus. Ask me how I know.

Wow, 5 whole squadrons of C-130s. That'll equal out all the airlift the Air Force is doing in no time.

We could baffle you with numbers. As in the number of C-130s required to do the work of one C-17. Oh, and the number of C-17s that we have.

Wanna talk offloading of gas? Oh boy. Your tankers have nothing on ours.

I'll stop now.

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:36:51 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
We have C-130's.. Five squadrons.. We can tank, lift, etc. All prepositioned on a rotational detachment schedule from conus. Ask me how I know.

Wow, 5 whole squadrons of C-130s. That'll equal out all the airlift the Air Force is doing in no time.

We could baffle you with numbers. As in the number of C-130s required to do the work of one C-17. Oh, and the number of C-17s that we have.

Wanna talk offloading of gas? Oh boy. Your tankers have nothing on ours.

I'll stop now.

USAF pads its numbers when it comes to cargo hauling.. We stop for fuel at USAF field and the log our cargo, even though it never leaves the plane

I guarantee our five squadrons log more hours per AC than the equivelant number of USAF Hercs.

Further we dont need all the tanking capability you do. Our airfields are mobile!

I watched a USAF C-130 crew deny 36k in .50 cal ammo because it was too heavy.... We took it. Oh and USMC has plenty of Hercs that tank..

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:50:39 AM EDT

[#4]

Their (Navy) secret and most important weapon is the rank of Chief Petty Officer; just ask one of them and they'll set you straight.

Posted: 1/6/2006 12:05:53 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Their (Navy) secret and most important weapon is the rank of Chief Petty Officer; just ask one of them and they'll set you straight.

Ask The Chief!

Posted: 1/6/2006 12:09:30 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
...

Further we dont need all the tanking capability you do. Our airfields are mobile!

...

Oh and USMC has plenty of Hercs that tank..

The F-18E has a combat radius of 390nm. Kabul was 700 miles from the shore. Who doesn't need tankers again?

And as for the KC-130, the T model can carry a grand total of 86,320 pounds of fuel. Compare that to a KC-135R that can fly 11,192 miles while offloading 120,000 pounds.

And since the internet can be tough to read the intent of posters, this is all in good service rivalry.

KNATWG

Posted: 1/6/2006 12:27:49 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Wanna talk offloading of gas? Oh boy. Your tankers have nothing on ours.

I'll stop now.

Typically each one of our tankers is going to start off with 45,000 barrels of aviation gas each ... or do you mean those little tiny tankers that fly?

Posted: 1/6/2006 12:36:36 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Typically each one of our tankers is going to start off with 45,000 barrels of aviation gas each ... or do you mean those little tiny tankers that fly?

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/aoe-3-dvic018.jpg

Yeah but what happens when the hampsters stop running??

Posted: 1/6/2006 12:37:35 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Wanna talk offloading of gas? Oh boy. Your tankers have nothing on ours.

I'll stop now.

Typically each one of our tankers is going to start off with 45,000 barrels of aviation gas each ... or do you mean those little tiny tankers that fly?

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/aoe-3-dvic018.jpg

Next time I see one of those at 35,000 feet I'll let you know.

Posted: 1/7/2006 3:21:28 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Wanna talk offloading of gas? Oh boy. Your tankers have nothing on ours.
I'll stop now.

Your tankers can't land or take off from an aircraft carrier.

You can't get into an airlift pissing contest with the USAF because they do have the bigger dick.

HOWEVER, when it comes to flexable and on-demand airlift scheduling the Navy can and does work better for immediate Naval support and for direct Naval unit support.

BUT, when the Navy has to get something big somewhere in the world overnight they call on the Russians....err.....The USAF!

Posted: 1/7/2006 3:23:27 PM EDT

[#11]

The Air Force is just abunch of glorified bus drivers...

Posted: 1/7/2006 3:27:15 PM EDT

[#12]

As for an answer for the original question you can bet your last dollar that the Navy is helping to fund and is a part of any of the USAF "secret squirrel" projects that will directly benefit the Navy by either technology or by the services that the project can provide to the Navy and Marines.

The USAF is also involved in a lot of the Navys "secret squirrel" stuff in the same manner.
At a little known west coast NAS there were quite a few USAF project officers and engineers who had offices in the buildings where the "secret squirrel" stuff happened.

The US Army and Navy work together on a lot of "secret squirrel" stuff too.

Even if I had any first-hand knowledge of any projects that they might be working on I won't say on an internet gun forum board.

Posted: 1/7/2006 3:27:46 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
The Air Force is just abunch of glorified bus drivers...

Well paid bus drivers.....

Posted: 1/7/2006 4:05:15 PM EDT

[#14]

Actually, the truth about the F16 and its mishap record is that the F16 is nine gee fighter, which gives the pilot the option of G-LOC-ing himself out. (G-induced Loss Of Consciousness) Even with his
protective gear and even if he's conditioned to withstand maneuvers at 9Gs, sometimes even a
very experienced pilot can G-LOC himself out in an F16 and then FIT occurs. (Flight Into Terrain)

This is responsible for the majority of F16 operational losses.

Some other losses were due to failures in the afterburner augmentor casing on certain Pratt & Whitney
engines, while GE engines didn't have that problem. The P&W problems have been fixed.

Incidentally, of all other operational US aircraft, only the F-15 Eagle is also capable of 9 G maneuvering.
But G-LOC incidents on Eagles are very rare. I'm not sure why.

Most F16s that have crashed were in perfect condition until the earth smote them.

There have been some developments that can help, such as a tested GCAS system (Ground
Collision Avoidance System) and a TCAS system (Terrain Collision Avoidance System) that
at its most aggressive setting will allow the F16 to get within 100 feet of the obstacle. The
system takes over control from the pilot and does what's needed to avoid a collision and the
pilot has no input into it.

No test pilot has yet been able to actually test the system at its most aggressive setting.
Nobody has wanted to or it's scared him to death.

CJ

Posted: 1/7/2006 4:41:51 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Even if I had any first-hand knowledge of any projects that they might be working on I won't say on an internet gun forum board.

But in retrospect, what has been the Navy secret squirrel stuff? Other than the aborted A-12, the most I can think of is sub stuff and radars. I imagine there's som cooperation with the AF on the latter but what else would the AF have to offer.

Well, there's the Tridents, I suppose.

Posted: 1/7/2006 5:29:31 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The Air Force is just abunch of glorified bus drivers...

Well paid bus drivers.....

Pay rates don't change from service to service, you know that.

Posted: 1/7/2006 5:33:14 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Actually, the truth about the F16 and its mishap record is that the F16 is nine gee fighter, which gives the pilot the option of G-LOC-ing himself out. (G-induced Loss Of Consciousness) Even with his
protective gear and even if he's conditioned to withstand maneuvers at 9Gs, sometimes even a
very experienced pilot can G-LOC himself out in an F16 and then FIT occurs. (Flight Into Terrain)

This is responsible for the majority of F16 operational losses.

Some other losses were due to failures in the afterburner augmentor casing on certain Pratt & Whitney
engines, while GE engines didn't have that problem. The P&W problems have been fixed.

Incidentally, of all other operational US aircraft, only the F-15 Eagle is also capable of 9 G maneuvering.
But G-LOC incidents on Eagles are very rare. I'm not sure why.

Most F16s that have crashed were in perfect condition until the earth smote them.

There have been some developments that can help, such as a tested GCAS system (Ground
Collision Avoidance System) and a TCAS system (Terrain Collision Avoidance System) that
at its most aggressive setting will allow the F16 to get within 100 feet of the obstacle. The
system takes over control from the pilot and does what's needed to avoid a collision and the
pilot has no input into it.

No test pilot has yet been able to actually test the system at its most aggressive setting.
Nobody has wanted to or it's scared him to death.

CJ

Read up on G-LOCs in T-37 Tweets. It'll go from 1 G to 6.67 Gs faster than any other aircraft in the AF.

Graying out is fun!

Posted: 1/7/2006 6:05:33 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?

What naval base in the carribean?

Its' a secret..

Oh the irony.

I think he`s referring to the under water test range facility in the Bahamas. I don`t recall its name at the moment. I think Raytheon runs it for the Navy.

Posted: 1/7/2006 6:13:44 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Even if I had any first-hand knowledge of any projects that they might be working on I won't say on an internet gun forum board.

But in retrospect, what has been the Navy secret squirrel stuff? Other than the aborted A-12, the most I can think of is sub stuff and radars. I imagine there's som cooperation with the AF on the latter but what else would the AF have to offer.

Well, there's the Tridents, I suppose.

Up until recently the Navy was the lead service in UCAVs(Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles). I think it got turned into a joint program office with the AF.

Posted: 1/7/2006 7:59:41 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Air Force is just abunch of glorified bus drivers...

Well paid bus drivers.....

Pay rates don't change from service to service, you know that.

I know that.
An E-1 gets paid the same if he is in the Navy and fixing nuclear power plants on an aircraft carrier or if he is in the Air Force and is part of the 157th Tactical Lawn Mowing Squadron.....

Posted: 1/7/2006 8:02:41 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
But in retrospect, what has been the Navy secret squirrel stuff?

There is a reason why you have to ask questions like that.
Join the USAF or the USN or get a job working for a defense contractor and find out for yourself.

Posted: 1/7/2006 8:03:20 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I know that.
An E-1 gets paid the same if he is in the Navy and fixing nuclear power plants on an aircraft carrier or if he is in the Air Force and is part of the 157th Tactical Lawn Mowing Squadron.....

Man don't they just do the best jobs though? Perfect lines in the grass, just like the big leagues!

Posted: 1/7/2006 9:40:12 PM EDT

[#23]

AUTEC is the Acoustic Range in the Bahamas. Didn't it used to be run by the advanced physics lab of John Hopkins or Penn State.

Ask the AF about airlifitng M-1 Abrams tanks. C2s are airlift. The AF is good for lifting to the theatre one way, and if the Marines/Army/Navy haven't ensured they got go juice on the ground the AF isn't getting back at their "max" range.

I suggest you read Moving Mountains by Gen. Pagonis, pub'd by Harvard Business School. Bout Leadership and Logistics in the First Gulf War.

The AF can lift cargo or fuel, it can't do both.

As far as whiz ban Navy projects look up Sea Light Beam Director. http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/abl/abl011.htm
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/miracl.htm

Posted: 1/7/2006 10:53:16 PM EDT

[#24]

The Navy maintains GWB's hurricane machine in the gulf. Super hush G-15 classified black project the NY Times doesn't even know about.

Posted: 1/8/2006 3:06:46 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
The Navy maintains GWB's hurricane machine in the gulf. Super hush G-15 classified black project the NY Times doesn't even know about.

I think they moved this machine to Whidbey last fall. As a matter of fact, the earthquake machine was moved from Diego Garcia to Whidbey also in November. But the tornado and Nor'Easter machines remain in Pensacola. No, I cant account for the location of the human stroke machine... Maybe Bahrain?

Posted: 1/8/2006 3:07:42 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Wanna talk offloading of gas? Oh boy. Your tankers have nothing on ours.

I'll stop now.

Typically each one of our tankers is going to start off with 45,000 barrels of aviation gas each ... or do you mean those little tiny tankers that fly?

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/aoe-3-dvic018.jpg

WHAAA thats funny

Posted: 1/8/2006 3:10:25 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?

What naval base in the carribean?

Its' a secret..

Oh the irony.

I think he`s referring to the under water test range facility in the Bahamas. I don`t recall its name at the moment. I think Raytheon runs it for the Navy.

Another person who missed the joke.

Posted: 1/8/2006 3:48:05 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Navy realizes that dropping $200 million dollar aircraft into the ocean is going to get really old, really quick with the American public. They realized that with the F-14 and it's only worth 30 million. The Navy loses way too many aircraft launching and recovering, for it to afford anything bordering on a black project at least as far as aircraft go. And being that they have no real bombing capablity, their airpower contirbution to a war is limited at best. The Harrier's dismal accident ratio's make the F-16 look like a shining star, besides the obvious lack of perfromance.

The Navy's secrets are in it's subs and ships. It's attitude on aircraft is more of a throw away mentality, always has...always will.

Hmmmm...not really. Our A/C are hardly throw-away. In fact they have tons of neat "stuff" to help keep them flying in combat.c

In fact, the Navy's Class "Alpha" type loss ratio for launch and recover events is remarkably low, especially when one considers the flying environment for the Navy aviators. Just as a yardstick, I recommend you go to this site and review the record of the F-16 over the years. F-16 Ultimate Site Scroll down the left to the "Mishap News" and review that. The loss rate is actually very high and much higher than Navy A/C. That said, I REALLY like the F-16 so this is not an anti-USAF bias...just trying to calibrate you a bit.

As far as a "lack of bombing capability", I suggest you join the Navy, get into an aviation rating and deploy on a carrier. Then you would see how many bombing missions we fly. In DS I, the first wave of attack planes ingressing to downtown Baghdad and other targets was comprised of hundreds of Navy planes off of a six-carrier battle force. In fact, I don't have the raw numbers but I suspect there may have been more Navy sorties flown at least at first.

In the WOT, the ONLY bombing support in some cases was from the carriers in the North Arabian Sea, since initially, the USAF had no bases from which to sortie. Treaties were quickly arranged and now we have bases with fine 10,000 ft runways for the AF attack A/C. In the meantime, Navy carriers flew off hundreds of missions against the Taliban in both strategic and tactical missions.

Your military awareness fu is weak.

Alot of the F-16's class A rate comes from the fact it has only one trash can in the back. The lack of a second engine means that if you lose power, you're pretty much hitting the silk.

But as to your other statements, how do you explain this statement if the AF nad no bases from the begining (even though Diego Garcia has been availible for our use since before Deser Storm):

OEF began on Oct. 7, 2001. Gen. Richard B. Myers, the Air Force officer who had only recently become Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, announced the action. He said, "About 15 land-based bombers, some 25 strike aircraft from carriers, and US and British ships and submarines launching approximately 50 Tomahawk missiles have struck terrorist targets in Afghanistan."

And I was under the impression that the first jets in Desert Storm to fly over Baghdad (one of the most well defended chunks of airspace in the world at the time) were 10 F-117s, not several hundred carrier based jets.

Firstly, please don't get the impression I'm bashing the Boyz in Blue with the White Scarfs!

You are entirely correct, just after the T-Hawks hit Baghdad, the F-117s went in followed by the USN/USAF strike packages.

WRT the current war, I was referring to tactical air stikes on the Taliban. While it is true that the USAF heavy bombers flew from DeeGar, I don't believe that the ACC had any bases for the [relatively] short-legged attack A/C from which to fly into Afghanistan at that time.

As to the Viper mishaps: Again, you are correct and many of the MANY class As are due to an engine failure. So what? A class A is a class A. IF an aircraft falls out of the sky because it has only one engine then there is a systemic problem that must be fixed. It is patently incorrect to try and use the fact of "only" one engine as a crutch. Rather the USAF should (and has) attempt to reduce the numbers of mishaps by constantly searching for potential failure points in the aircraft.

Oh...and for the record, the Viper is my favorite fighter/bomber. Another work of genius by John Boyd and his team.

Posted: 1/8/2006 3:55:33 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Firstly, please don't get the impression I'm bashing the Boyz in Blue with the White Scarfs!

You are entirely correct, just after the T-Hawks hit Baghdad, the F-117s went in followed by the USN/USAF strike packages.

WRT the current war, I was referring to tactical air stikes on the Taliban. While it is true that the USAF heavy bombers flew from DeeGar, I don't believe that the ACC had any bases for the [relatively] short-legged attack A/C from which to fly into Afghanistan at that time.

Most of the Air Force's short-legged pointy-nose aircraft used in Afghanistan flew out of the Gulf region (Saudi, Kuwait, etc) or one of the Stan brothers (you know, UsbekiSTAN, KhasakSTAN, etc). They would take off, tank, tank again, do a mission, then spend the rest of the time doing push CAS until they ran out of ammo. Bombers did the same thing, only without all the tanks (except the B2s out of Whiteman--the first couple of months they only flew from home station--44 hour round trip

).

Posted: 1/8/2006 4:21:46 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
We have C-130's.. Five squadrons.. We can tank, lift, etc. All prepositioned on a rotational detachment schedule from conus. Ask me how I know.

How many C-130s are in a Navy squadron?

Posted: 1/8/2006 4:26:45 AM EDT

[#31]

3-5 Planes. We are expanding to 6 squadrons with plans to augment each with 1-2 more planes.

Posted: 1/8/2006 4:49:32 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Firstly, please don't get the impression I'm bashing the Boyz in Blue with the White Scarfs!

You are entirely correct, just after the T-Hawks hit Baghdad, the F-117s went in followed by the USN/USAF strike packages.

WRT the current war, I was referring to tactical air stikes on the Taliban. While it is true that the USAF heavy bombers flew from DeeGar, I don't believe that the ACC had any bases for the [relatively] short-legged attack A/C from which to fly into Afghanistan at that time.

Most of the Air Force's short-legged pointy-nose aircraft used in Afghanistan flew out of the Gulf region (Saudi, Kuwait, etc) or one of the Stan brothers (you know, UsbekiSTAN, KhasakSTAN, etc). They would take off, tank, tank again, do a mission, then spend the rest of the time doing push CAS until they ran out of ammo. Bombers did the same thing, only without all the tanks (except the B2s out of Whiteman--the first couple of months they only flew from home station--44 hour round trip ).

Agreed, but we didn't get those 'stan bases right away. It took a few months of deal making to acquire those former Soviet bases. Ain't life strange?

Posted: 1/8/2006 5:32:01 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Firstly, please don't get the impression I'm bashing the Boyz in Blue with the White Scarfs!

You are entirely correct, just after the T-Hawks hit Baghdad, the F-117s went in followed by the USN/USAF strike packages.

WRT the current war, I was referring to tactical air stikes on the Taliban. While it is true that the USAF heavy bombers flew from DeeGar, I don't believe that the ACC had any bases for the [relatively] short-legged attack A/C from which to fly into Afghanistan at that time.

Most of the Air Force's short-legged pointy-nose aircraft used in Afghanistan flew out of the Gulf region (Saudi, Kuwait, etc) or one of the Stan brothers (you know, UsbekiSTAN, KhasakSTAN, etc). They would take off, tank, tank again, do a mission, then spend the rest of the time doing push CAS until they ran out of ammo. Bombers did the same thing, only without all the tanks (except the B2s out of Whiteman--the first couple of months they only flew from home station--44 hour round trip ).

Agreed, but we didn't get those 'stan bases right away. It took a few months of deal making to acquire those former Soviet bases. Ain't life strange?

And the Navy strike acft also had help from Air Force tankers so they could get to targets in Afghanistan.

Posted: 1/8/2006 9:19:59 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
We have C-130's.. Five squadrons.. We can tank, lift, etc. All prepositioned on a rotational detachment schedule from conus. Ask me how I know.

How many C-130s are in a Navy squadron?

Quoted:
3-5 Planes. We are expanding to 6 squadrons with plans to augment each with 1-2 more planes.

The 517th Airlift Squadron in Alaska has 18 C-130s.

Posted: 1/10/2006 1:46:36 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
And the Navy strike acft also had help from Air Force tankers so they could get to targets in Afghanistan.
img388.imageshack.us/img388/4350/050420n6694b001large3na.jpg

No shame in that at all, that's what the Air Force does best, support the Navy and Marines.

Posted: 1/10/2006 1:56:28 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
The 517th Airlift Squadron in Alaska has 18 C-130s.

Apples to oranges, there is a HUGE difference between a Navy/Marine squadron and an Air Force squadron.

The 517th (USAF) is flung halfway across the word flying two different types of aircraft and supporting a lot of different missions.

VR-64 (US Navy) supports one mission, fleet logistics for the Navy and Marines.

At least the 517th absorbed the "maintenance squadron" and is more in line with REAL squadrons (Navy/USMC).

Posted: 1/10/2006 2:06:26 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

I know that.
An E-1 gets paid the same if he is in the Navy and fixing nuclear power plants on an aircraft carrier or if he is in the Air Force and is part of the 157th Tactical Lawn Mowing Squadron.....

I doubt you're going to find many E-1 nuclear power techs. They are E-3 upon arrival at boot camp, and get promoted to E-4 upon entering nuclear power school. From there, they usually get E-5 within six months of arriving to their ship. I was promoted to E-6 (frocked) shortly before my six year point (when I got out). I do recall seeing one E-1 in Nuke school. He looked kinda funny wearing only a specialty mark with no stripes under it. I knew a one guy who made E-5 while in school, but that is exceptionally rare (unlikely even with parfect score on rating exam)

ETA: The nuke probably also gets more since he will also get sea pay and an extra $150 per month for being a nuke.

Oh, and to keep this on topic, I heard some rumors concerningn the nuke plants that were pretty damn cool. No caterpillar type shit, but cool nonetheless... That's all I'm saying...

Did you know that submarines have outboard motors?

Posted: 1/10/2006 2:10:30 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
All they do at area 51 is play baseball.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/superdavarfcom/area51baseballl.jpg

Looks pretty good for a base that is no longer in use as that jackass from Popular Mechanics said about 5 years back. Freaking idiot was nowhere near A51 border when he did that article.

Posted: 1/10/2006 3:51:05 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Firstly, please don't get the impression I'm bashing the Boyz in Blue with the White Scarfs!

You are entirely correct, just after the T-Hawks hit Baghdad, the F-117s went in followed by the USN/USAF strike packages.

WRT the current war, I was referring to tactical air stikes on the Taliban. While it is true that the USAF heavy bombers flew from DeeGar, I don't believe that the ACC had any bases for the [relatively] short-legged attack A/C from which to fly into Afghanistan at that time.

Most of the Air Force's short-legged pointy-nose aircraft used in Afghanistan flew out of the Gulf region (Saudi, Kuwait, etc) or one of the Stan brothers (you know, UsbekiSTAN, KhasakSTAN, etc). They would take off, tank, tank again, do a mission, then spend the rest of the time doing push CAS until they ran out of ammo. Bombers did the same thing, only without all the tanks (except the B2s out of Whiteman--the first couple of months they only flew from home station--44 hour round trip ).

Agreed, but we didn't get those 'stan bases right away. It took a few months of deal making to acquire those former Soviet bases. Ain't life strange?

And the Navy strike acft also had help from Air Force tankers so they could get to targets in Afghanistan.

img388.imageshack.us/img388/4350/050420n6694b001large3na.jpg

Yup...sweet pic too!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Air Force & Navy - tinfoil type question (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us