banner
banner

16 Oct 2018, 18:35 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2017, 14:37 
Online

BeechTalk Vendor


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 06/18/12
Posts: 4324
Post Likes: +2261
Location: Cincinnati, OH (I69)
Aircraft: 1960 Bonanza M35
Username Protected wrote:
" I signed a deal for contract light attack services at Nellis AFB. Soon we'll having piston aircraft flying close air support to help with JTAC training."

it must be pretty damn exciting to be involved in that project... and your contributions are no doubt substantial... :cheers:


It was and is. I will get some photos and videos of them flying, conducting strafing runs, and dropping BDU-33s. But we are still working our way through some frustrating and paralyzingly environmental planning :pullhair: . One Gubermint bureaucracy paralyzingly another Gubermint bureaucracy. Someday I'll do a post on it when I get them flying.

_________________
James
AMEL, ASEL, CFI


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 22:06 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/22/16
Posts: 111
Post Likes: +63
Username Protected wrote:

And we don't get anything for it. A-29 is 20 years late. Oh wait we did have something like it years ago. They called it an A-37, and it was used much the same way.



Isn't there a place in the desert the Air Force keeps old planes so they can be used in a time of war? Why don't they just go there and pull planes out and use those (A-37)? Didn't they just get done sending like 400 of them out there (T-37) a couple years ago?


All the A-37's (actually called OA-37) retired to south of the border. The Air Force was so hard up for a FAC a/c the ANG gave them back to the active duty AF in the early 80's. Not a very "manly" a/c but sure was fun to fly.

Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2017, 13:55 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 02/23/14
Posts: 1167
Post Likes: +526
Location: KCOU
Aircraft: PA-28 / C-182
So why don't we just build that aircraft again (A-37)? We own the tooling. The Air Force seemed to like the plane. We have the drawings. Why can't we raid the patent office and put out a contract to build that plane and not pay to redesign the wheel for the six or seventh time?

If an airplane doesn't match everyone's requirement how about we compromise or change tactics and do something so that these men in black pajamas will stop whatever it is they do that we don't agree with.

End results we are talking about here WW2 we did in 5 years 8 months and 7 days in Europe. From 9/11 to now 15 years 9 months 3 days. We have a serious problem here.

_________________
John Chancellor
PPL ASEL, AGI, IGI
In memory of the victims of the Dictatorship


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 20:19 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 625
Post Likes: +167
Location: North Florida
...and the hits just keep on coming...POGO's recent report on the HOG is out, and their most recent update on the Hog (January 17, 2018) and specifically their reporting of the AF's Brass most recent shenanigans paints--yet again-- a dismal picture...especially so if your one of our Troops or Marines on the ground and in the fight in some far away land and counting on CAS...

...some of the highlights from the article referenced below that demonstrates the AF's efforts toward dumping the A-10 are like the eternal gift that keeps on giving...it would be hard to make this stuff up:

"Congress wants to keep the A-10 flying. Lawmakers have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to maintaining a dedicated ground attack aircraft and, more importantly, an effective close air support capability. They have done so through legislation in successive National Defense Authorizations Acts since 2013. In the most recent NDAA, Congress authorized $103 million for the Air Force to complete the job of installing urgently needed new replacement wings on the A-10 fleet. But a senior Air Force official recently told a meeting of A-10 personnel that the Air Force has no intention of fully implementing the re-winging effort and has no intention of keeping any more A-10s flying than the 171 that have already been upgraded, thus thwarting Congressional intent and legislation".

...so, speaking of "treason" (re AF Brass stating last year that any AF personnel that spoke to Congress about the capabilities of the A-10 was committing)--isn't that "treason" when the AF states they have no intention of following Congressional intent?

...not to mention that the AF is wasting taxpayer monies (in the same vein as they are also squandering our dollars when they conduct CAS against a low intensity threat with supersonic nuclear capable strategic stealth bombers) as documented in the article referenced below when they haphazardly stop/restart production lines:

"Boeing won the contract to build new wings for 242 A-10s in 2007. Air Force leadership deliberately allowed this contract to lapse in 2016 after only 171 aircraft received the new wings. Because Air Force officials allowed the earlier production line to shut down, they are now saddling the taxpayers with extra costs of more than $103 million to restart the wing production line."

...interestingly in the context of the Hog debate, I took the time to recently to re-read Clancy's great novel Red Storm Rising which of course is based on what would have happened had the WP and NATO fought back in the day at the height of the Cold War...I had first read it actually when I was stationed in the Army in Germany back in the 80s so it was fascinating to revisit the book at this time...

...indeed, Clancy's work was interesting to re-contemplate in the context of our AF's Brass most recent dubious arguments that (according to the AF) we must "rethink our doctrine" and specifically the feasibility of conducting CAS in high intensity conflicts because of the AF's concern of the danger to our pilots--and indeed (according to the AF) potentially change the doctrine of even having CAS as we know it today in future conflicts at all...interesting because CAS--on both sides--was so critical to all the land battles in Clancy's well researched/thought out depiction of how a high intensity conflict might play out...and in particular the A-10 played a critical role in the novel supporting our own Cavalry Troops and Mechanized Forces at the Tip of the Spear against the WP forces...

...fast forward to today...sadly, our AF is "rethinking" the validity of CAS in a high intensity conflict...that is indeed troublesome, because it's doubtful in these dangerous times of Putin's resurgence against NATO that Putin and his Military Leaders are sitting around having adult beverages in the Kremlin considering such drastic changing of CAS doctrine in any future conflicts they may initiate on European soil....

________________________________________
Investigative Lead: Air Force Actively Defies Congressional Mandate to Maintain A-10 Fleet

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapo ... -a-10.html


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 21:09 
Online


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 7307
Post Likes: +2364
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: C90; Citation II, V
Meanwhile, we just deployed 10 from Whiteman AFB to Pakistan.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 21:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 1516
Post Likes: +1006
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
Username Protected wrote:
Meanwhile, we just deployed 10 from Whiteman AFB to Pakistan.


And Kandahar, Afghanistan.


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 13:50 
Online


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 7307
Post Likes: +2364
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: C90; Citation II, V
Username Protected wrote:
Meanwhile, we just deployed 10 from Whiteman AFB to Pakistan.


And Kandahar, Afghanistan.


Thanks for correcting Paul. That's what I meant.
_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 21:24 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 625
Post Likes: +167
Location: North Florida
----And the hits just keep on coming...courtesy of our friends in Blue conducting the CAS fly offs...more of the same--cooking the books...some highlights below...most interesting relevant to our recent discussions in our virtual hangar is the insightful commentary about the realities of CAS in a high intensity environment that debunks the AFs contention that that you need fast movers for CAS in such scenarios...that as I've contended and many other Infantry Officers have said the same that Combined Arms tactics and the Services working in concert could defeat or suppress enemy air defense to the extent that an aircraft as the HOG could be effective

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapo ... farce.html

Close Air Support Fly-off Farce
F-35 Versus A-10 Fly-off Tests Designed to Mislead


"Rather than telling us whether or not the F-35 can actually provide the kind of close support our ground forces need to survive and prevail, this grossly inadequate test has been designed to mislead. Air Force leaders, in lockstep with senior civilian appointees, will undoubtedly march up to Capitol Hill with results in hand, saying that they conducted the tests with great care and the F-35 performed brilliantly, thus justifying bigger buys and getting rid of the A-10 sooner. Our troops deserve better than a surreptitious test rigged in favor of a weapon that can’t do the job and against the one that can.
...
"They are staging an unpublicized, quickie test on existing training ranges, creating unrealistic scenarios that presuppose an ignorant and inert enemy force, writing ground rules for the tests that make the F-35 look good—and they got the new testing director, the retired Air Force general Robert Behler, to approve all of it.

According to sources closely involved with the A-10 versus F-35 fly-off, who wished to remain anonymous out of concerns about retaliation, this testing program was designed without ever consulting the Air Force’s resident experts on close air support, A-10 pilots and joint terminal attack ground controllers ".


:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

----some of the one of the more insightful portion of POGO's update I believe is quoted below...and interestingly directly related to some of our spirited debate in this virtual hangar...debunks the notion that the HOG couldn't conduct CAS in a high intensity conflict...

" Air Force leaders are fond of saying the F-35’s stealth characteristics will allow it to perform close air support in situations with heavy air defenses in a way the A-10 cannot. They like to paint a picture of a close-support aircraft having to drop a bomb on a target surrounded by enemy surface-to-air missiles but strangely devoid of friendly soldiers. Such a scenario is manifestly not close air support—simply because close means close to our troops. Unlike the way this quickie test is being staged, close air support, particularly in the kind of high-intensity combat against the peer enemy Air Force leaders are so fond of describing, always involves significant friendly ground forces engaged in a combined-arms campaign. These tests won’t help determine whether or not the F-35 can hit moving targets that are actively trying to evade attack while also being accurate enough to avoid hitting friendly ground forces.

The very nature of combined-arms warfare means all arms mutually support one another so that the strength of one weapon makes up for the weakness of another. For example, an Army brigade combat team urgently needing close support will be employing artillery, mortars, rockets, and electronic countermeasure to suppress enemy air defenses in order to protect the aircraft providing them support. Additionally, if ground forces are doing their job correctly, they’ll be disrupting the enemy’s air-defense forces so much that their missile crews will be concentrating on evading attack rather than firing at our airplanes. It is difficult to aim any weapon properly when being shot at by a tank’s main gun. These ground-brigade measures to suppress air defenses, in turn, greatly increase the effectiveness of the close support that the brigade combat team needs. "


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 12:36 
Online


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 7307
Post Likes: +2364
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: C90; Citation II, V
Don: This goes way back. There's a movie called Flying Leathernecks where at the beginning of WWII Naval Aviators had to prove the value of close air support. Of course, the Navy excelled at that during the island hopping in the Pacific. The P-51 and 47 were used more in Europe, but ground to air commo wasn't great. Still, they could get low and close enough to see enemy targets and directly engage many times. The entire time I was on active duty, this debate raged and the aircraft that best provided CAS. The AF guys in general, didn't see it as an attractive mission or career path. We loved the A1-E when we called them, but they were soon phased our of RVN. Of course, army air support could be great, but limited to what rotary wing could do. Of course, Spooky, Puff and Spectre gun ships were developed and played a strong ground support role, but not really CAS when I was in. We loved the A-10 with it's capabilities for loiter time and ability of the pilot to see us little infantry guys. It was designed for more of an anti armor role, but still could really help ground units in deep Kimchi. Amazing that the AF still pushes these fast movers as being able to complete a mission that is really, low, slow with long loiter time and the ability of the pilot to see the friendly and enemy position close up.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 16:40 
Online


 Profile

Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 1527
Post Likes: +626
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F
Username Protected wrote:
Don: This goes way back. There's a movie called Flying Leathernecks where at the beginning of WWII Naval Aviators had to prove the value of close air support. Of course, the Navy excelled at that during the island hopping in the Pacific. The P-51 and 47 were used more in Europe, but ground to air commo wasn't great. Still, they could get low and close enough to see enemy targets and directly engage many times. The entire time I was on active duty, this debate raged and the aircraft that best provided CAS. The AF guys in general, didn't see it as an attractive mission or career path. We loved the A1-E when we called them, but they were soon phased our of RVN. Of course, army air support could be great, but limited to what rotary wing could do. Of course, Spooky, Puff and Spectre gun ships were developed and played a strong ground support role, but not really CAS when I was in. We loved the A-10 with it's capabilities for loiter time and ability of the pilot to see us little infantry guys. It was designed for more of an anti armor role, but still could really help ground units in deep Kimchi. Amazing that the AF still pushes these fast movers as being able to complete a mission that is really, low, slow with long loiter time and the ability of the pilot to see the friendly and enemy position close up.


Would like to see mention of MARINE AIR - especially when referencing 'The Flying Leathernecks' :peace: :D


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 17:19 
Online


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 7307
Post Likes: +2364
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: C90; Citation II, V
A clear err on my part not to mention Marine air! Clearly a talented group of fliers that paved the way for CAS!

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 18:08 
Online


 Profile

Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 1527
Post Likes: +626
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F
Username Protected wrote:
A clear err on my part not to mention Marine air! Clearly a talented group of fliers that paved the way for CAS!



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

:bud: :bud: :bud:

I love(d) CAS.
It was my favorite thing.
To ME (not to Ben and others I admit) - staring at a radar screen and targeting blimps was the absolutely most boring thing we did.
But even from my first thinking about being a pilot I wanted to **attack** things on the ground. I remember as a very young child, 5 or 6 at the most, looking at the 1966 World Book Encyclopedia, under United States Air Force, there was picture of a F-105 being loaded with bullets and a small stick picture almost of Strategic Bombing (a big bomber dropping bombs on a city I think) and tactical bombing (a picture of an aircraft strafing things on the ground) and I said I wanted to do the strafing with bullets! :pray:

Most of it worked out perfectly.


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 14 Jul 2018, 16:08 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 625
Post Likes: +167
Location: North Florida
Username Protected wrote:
Don: This goes way back. There's a movie called Flying Leathernecks where at the beginning of WWII Naval Aviators had to prove the value of close air support. Of course, the Navy excelled at that during the island hopping in the Pacific. The P-51 and 47 were used more in Europe, but ground to air commo wasn't great. Still, they could get low and close enough to see enemy targets and directly engage many times. The entire time I was on active duty, this debate raged and the aircraft that best provided CAS. The AF guys in general, didn't see it as an attractive mission or career path. We loved the A1-E when we called them, but they were soon phased our of RVN. Of course, army air support could be great, but limited to what rotary wing could do. Of course, Spooky, Puff and Spectre gun ships were developed and played a strong ground support role, but not really CAS when I was in. We loved the A-10 with it's capabilities for loiter time and ability of the pilot to see us little infantry guys. It was designed for more of an anti armor role, but still could really help ground units in deep Kimchi. Amazing that the AF still pushes these fast movers as being able to complete a mission that is really, low, slow with long loiter time and the ability of the pilot to see the friendly and enemy position close up.



interesting Dave on the Leathernecks in WWII..carried on to Korea...MacArthur when he was at his best on the offensive before he began to defy civilian leadership always preferred to have Marine CAS at the tip of the spear...even back then n Korea the AF (newly formed as a separate branch) was whining about getting into the weeds for CAS


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 14 Jul 2018, 16:52 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 625
Post Likes: +167
Location: North Florida
--from a philosophical standpoint it is really one of the most significant military related debates in history...to argue the issue would almost be fascinating and engaging, enjoyable to be sure-- if it wasn't for the fact that the lives of our future Army Infantry and Marines going into harms way hang in the balance...

--can the USAF conduct CAS in a high intensity conflict, or not?

--of course, the AF having exhausted all their other dubious arguments to justify dumping the HOG (and failing miserably in the process) now use the "we can't conduct CAS in a high intensity conflict" as their final fall back position...indeed, we have seen this argument from the AF fighter community in our own virtual hangar

--of course that the AF's contention that they can't conduct CAS in a high intensity conflict is total BS...sure, they don't want to because of the associated risks, not to mention that it might soil their ascots in the process (A-10 pilots excluded), but that doesn't mean they can't...as I have every time I get the chance when I run across my elected Representatives, typically at a Veterans related event, I bring up the A10 and offer my opinion that no matter how beautiful those silver wings are to not trust the AF leadership on this issue...that they should discuss the issue with Air Force enlisted JTACs, or an Army Armor or Infantry Officer that has Commanded at the Brigade Task Force level...or to talk the issue thru with any of our terrific young Marine Corps Officers that have led men in Combat in our recent conflicts...that the typical AF Fighter Pilot knows as much about CAS as I do about flying fighter jets

....ten minutes with our Cdr in Chief at the next Mar-a-Lago charity event and I could convince him...not sure what advice he is getting from Mad Dog about this as he has had some perplexing stances on some critical issues, but hopefully Kelly is coaching him up on this ...

...the fact the our friends in blue conducted this A-10/F-35 CAS "Fly--Off" without Army Infantry Officers completely and 100 percent involved in the process is a joke....a travesty really when you think of the impact this will have on the lives of our young Infantrymen training at Fort Benning as we speak that will without doubt be put in harms way at some point in their future career...


Top

 Post subject: Re: POGO Says: USAF Brass Cooked the Books to Ground the War
PostPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 19:06 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 03/11/08
Posts: 459
Post Likes: +153
Aircraft: PA28-161
interesting Dave on the Leathernecks in WWII..carried on to Korea...MacArthur when he was at his best on the offensive before he began to defy civilian leadership always preferred to have Marine CAS at the tip of the spear...even back then n Korea the AF (newly formed as a separate branch) was whining about getting into the weeds for CAS[/quote]

Hey Don, my dad went to the Far East to take over a P 80 squadron and almost literally woke up on a MATS transport to Korea to go fly P-51s. Nothing but CAS and truck/train busting interdiction for the next two years in the same outfit as Chappie James. Their airfield was on an island in the middle of the Han River with the NK army on one side and the ROKs on the other. I never heard him disparage the mission or complain. It had to be done so they did it. Did they have it as bad as the grunts-no, of course not. But it wasn't any walk in the park and they took a lot of losses in the process. Your frustrations as a former infantry officer aside, assigning worst case motives to those who argue a different point of view is unfair and probably inaccurate. (And this is coming from a Navy guy who had his own knock down drag out arguments with the Old Man.)


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next



Greenwich AeroGroup

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2018

.FASTAviation.jpg.
.AviationCreation_85x50.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.weatherspork_85x50.jpg.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.textron-85x200-2018-07-19.jpg.
.phillipangert-85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-g500.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.lopresti_85x50.jpg.
.sureflight-85x50.jpg.
.tulsair-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.americanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.aps-85x150.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Nexus.jpg.
.jetacquisitions-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.avfab-85x50.jpg.
.wilco.jpg.
.concorde-2017-11-01.jpg.
.jlosborne-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.CAV_85x50_2017_12_4.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.metarmap_85x50.jpg.
.pwi-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Trace.jpg.
.Blackhawk_85x100.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.hpair-85x50.jpg.
.Showalter.jpg.
.Electroair.jpg.
.teebee.png.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.goodrich-85x150-2018-09-01.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.cubcrafters.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.Outright_85_50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.selectairparts-85x100.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.jetfuelx-85x50.jpg.
.wholesalepowertools.jpg.