Re: Airscouts (was Level of Detail?)

[angevin@juno.com (Joseph P Benedetto)]

>>Depends on how well designed the hangars are. Sadam did a pretty good
job >>in harden hangars.

>   Saddam knew he was risking getting attacked on the groud by aircraft.
 He
>KNEW his enemies had capable attack aircraft.  Do the Five KNOW this? 
Or >do they suspect it, with no certainty?  Will they be able to justify
the expense
>of hardened shelters?  Is the Free State Air Force even just a little
>arrogant and not belive they are vunerable to air attack?

Interesting point.  You know, we suspected Japan might attack, yet at
Pearl Harbor we kept all of out planes out on the runway in neat little
rows--ostensibly to make it easy for the guards to keep an eye on them
and make sure they weren't sabotaged.  You can see that this is most
likely what would happen in the Free State (at least at first).
_____

>>There is no substitute for helicopters for ground support.  Give them
fusion
>>(electric) engines, and they are fantastic.
>
>   Agreed, though I prefer the A-10 Thunderbolt II if I'm the one
needing air
>support.  Failing that, then an AH-64 Apache.  Unfortunately, the
Project's
>inventory of these is low at the moment.  I hear that the Air Force is
trying
>to get rid of the Thunderbolt again, though.  You never know....

I hate to disagree with so many people, but I doubt the Project EVER
wanted to have ground attack aircraft.  I do not think the Project was
supposed to be a paramilitary force of the level many people have
suggested.  If it was EVERYONE would be in bulletproof vests and helmets,
and they'd be driving Sheridans and Chaffees, NOT V-150's and Rangers. 
So IN MY OPINION they would not have stuff like that.  Hence the Airscout
with it's minimalist (but usable) capabilities.

Joe
angevin@juno.com