Define your idea of short field ops Donald?
To Marines - it means field carrier arrested landing operations - at least the capability of.



They know A LOT about CAS as it is taught at EVERY STAGE of their training to some degree; but do Marine Infantry Officers know that much about aircraft capability and employment or TTPs? Not always. That is why we have Marine aircrew assigned down to the Battalion level to act as Air Officers and /FACs.


Those officers, public or not, are going to speak passionately about anything, or anyone, that provides them support when they need it. If that can't be organic Marine Air - then support from other aviation services (or even some type of Naval GunFire Support) is welcomed!

Jim said:

Well, Pentagon says it's not a good fighter because it's not supposed to be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... ire-story/

They are probably right, for now - with the advanced sensors etc. F-35 should be able to find and shoot down anything that gets close before they know what hit them.

But here is the interesting part - soon the enemies will have 5th generation fighters too. Now you can't see them on radar and you can't shot long-range missiles at them. What's left - back to dog fight?

Good point Jason

But if the U.S. forces don't need fighters anymore, why spend a trillion dollars on one that doesn't work?

"Donald, the A10 is a lousy short field airplane. It can operate from austere locations with long runways. Lands short, but needs normal runways for takeoff."

...lousy short field capability compared to what? and define "normal" runways?...but in any event, the key to the Warthog from my understanding is its ability to operate out of airstrips that other AF planes can't...and we know from recent experiences that the A-10 has been first to deploy to initiate operations in hostile environments when other aircraft could not until airstrips were improved...that's got to count for something; but yet, not much discussion on this aspect from the AF brass in their talking points to dump A-10

...interesting too regarding the A-10's ability to operate out of austere strips...from a historical perspective looking back to the Cold War--the A-10 had much more ability to disperse to isolated areas for its own force protection away from the large AF bases in the lead in time period to expected hostilities...not so easily done for the fast movers...

"After 800 hours in the A10, I'm fairly familiar with it's strengths and limitations."
...that's awesome Jim...one hell of an accomplishment...

"As far as Army understanding of CAS, I'm pretty familiar with that too. Not gonna rehash the A10 thread".

...I thought we were talking about the Marines? ...and you'll need to bring more to the table if your going to now attempt a dig on the Army Officer's CAS knowledge...

...and as I've said before, if the Army had control of the CAS you wouldn't have supersonic nuclear capable bombers performing missions in support of small unit operations in a low intensity conflict from 10,000 feet+

"Define your idea of short field ops Donald?
To Marines - it means field carrier arrested landing operations - at least the capability of."

...I see your point Brian...and again, I don't see the Warthog as a good fit for Marine Corps Air for among the reasons you mention...but presently and historically as well, the Marines have often relied on the AF for CAS as well when feasible and in that regard their Infantry Officers favor the A-10...

"They know A LOT about CAS as it is taught at EVERY STAGE of their training to some degree; but do Marine Infantry Officers know that much about aircraft capability and employment or TTPs? Not always. That is why we have Marine aircrew assigned down to the Battalion level to act as Air Officers and /FACs."

...no doubt the Marine's methodology of deploying aircrew to maneuver units is effective, and they been doing this with success and refinement of same really took off during the Korean War...and of course the AF's JTACs are also effective...

...my beef was really with the comment "...ground guys don't know that much about CAS"

one is kidding themselves if they don't believe that a Marine Infantry Officer could very effectively call in air strikes whenever necessary...

"Those officers, public or not, are going to speak passionately about anything, or anyone, that provides them support when they need it. If that can't be organic Marine Air - then support from other aviation services (or even some type of Naval GunFire Support) is welcomed!"

...well said...but at the end of the day Marine Infantry Officers recently back from the fight will say that they would take the A-10 over the fast movers in the majority of the scenarios they faced...

__________

...and here we are a little over a year since the AF proposed their ill-designed plan to dump the A-10...and we are still waiting for them to make their case with a logical and coherent argument without resorting to deception, trickaration, and the utilization of smoke and mirrors

... so all why the deception? ...is it perhaps a solid argument to dump the A-10 can't be made logically otherwise?

Good point Jason

But if the U.S. forces don't need fighters anymore, why spend a trillion dollars on one that doesn't work?

I don't want to divert this thread, but I will point out that other than 6% debt service, nothing that's listed on this chart as "mandatory" is really mandatory.

Transportation of course