banner
banner

22 Mar 2019, 06:25 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 08:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 09/29/10
Posts: 3886
Post Likes: +2322
Company: USAF Simulator Instructor
Location: Burkburnett, TX
Aircraft: Bonanza G35
Username Protected wrote:
That is a good story.
I wonder if I can trust the NEWS media - especially with the need to support a certain view.

Since I personally know those involved in my scenario - I'm more likely to believe the factual nature of that event. I wonder was relevant facts were left out of that story?
Yes...I'm bias in this fact.

3.000' AGL? :coffee:
Not a reason that ANY aircraft couldn't get below a 3,000' AGL cloud layer.

I agree with Brian. Two points:
1. See the quote below from the article. True, the A-10C has no ground mapping radar but it does have a very accurate INS/GPS and a moving map display that gives near WAAS position accuracy. It also has an advanced radar altimeter with terrain avoidance capability. Letting down into the valley would be challenging but not the super-human task implied by the article.
Quote:
But the A-10 had no radar to guide them, no local maps, and no real way of safely penetrating the weather and avoiding the mountains surrounding the valley.


2. 3,000 foot ceilings are within the capability of most jet fighters. We routinely operated F-4s (not a very maneuverable aircraft in anyone’s book) under those kinds of ceilings in Okinawa and Korea.

Donald: Give it a rest.


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 09:17 
Online


 Profile

Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 1774
Post Likes: +856
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F
Username Protected wrote:
That is a good story.
I wonder if I can trust the NEWS media - especially with the need to support a certain view.

Since I personally know those involved in my scenario - I'm more likely to believe the factual nature of that event. I wonder was relevant facts were left out of that story?
Yes...I'm bias in this fact.

3.000' AGL? :coffee:
Not a reason that ANY aircraft couldn't get below a 3,000' AGL cloud layer.

I agree with Brian. Two points:
1. See the quote below from the article. True, the A-10C has no ground mapping radar but it does have a very accurate INS/GPS and a moving map display that gives near WAAS position accuracy. It also has an advanced radar altimeter with terrain avoidance capability. Letting down into the valley would be challenging but not the super-human task implied by the article.
Quote:
But the A-10 had no radar to guide them, no local maps, and no real way of safely penetrating the weather and avoiding the mountains surrounding the valley.


2. 3,000 foot ceilings are within the capability of most jet fighters. We routinely operated F-4s (not a very maneuverable aircraft in anyone’s book) under those kinds of ceilings in Okinawa and Korea.

Donald: Give it a rest.

If we are talking capabilities here - that is the point that we are both making.
The A-10 has no capability to let down through the weather here that the Hornet’s do not have AND the Hornet’s DO have air-ground radar, digital moving maps, and that same weapons grade commensurate coordinates.

There is more to the story here.

Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 09:40 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 8842
Post Likes: +10393
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Aircraft: in storage
Like 99.9% of the population I know nothing of the technical merits one way or the other. But when the experts at the pentagon spend years determining what they need, and then at the last minute congresscritters intervene and say "no you'll do this instead" I tend to ask myself, when was the last time congress got something right ?


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 11:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 7959
Post Likes: +3126
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: C90; Citation II, V
This controversy will continue as what the Army folks relate they need is very different than what the Air Force wants to provide in this role. One can take a simple approach and say it's the Army's mission and the Air Force's job is to support that mission in the manner specified. Or, one can understand, the Air Force has multiple other missions. With out Air superiority or at least parity, CAS probably won't be available.
If we look to past wars and after actions reports, there were very strong write ups about the lack of CAS to ground units in post action joint reports. Part of this is definitional, but mainly it's because of the different vision the Army has of CAS v. the Air Force's view. The Naval/Marine units seem to be more in agreement.
Raising voices and discussing the bravery of other providers won't change this. One can clearly see how loitering low and slow in a medium to high intensity environment would be short lived. But, we do have a lot of circumstances where that can still be done. Army aviation certainly fills an important role, but there is a place between where those capabilities end and the Air Force picks up that will constantly be debated.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 15:31 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 641
Post Likes: +176
Location: North Florida
...some of you are attempting, without success, to basically argue against history......from a historical perspective, it's not even a debatable point...the AF has for decades failed to provide adequate CAS as they have promised time and time again in their justification to keep the fixed wing $$$...

...as to my "article" referenced a few post ago, actually the DOD accounts providing the basis for decorating the Hog pilots are quite clear on the matter...I'd post it, but just out of basic privacy issues I'm hesitant to do so...bottom line, the HOG went in when the fast movers would not...it's a fact...DOD Historical Archives...for you doubters, look it up and do your own research...I'm anxiously awaiting your analysis

...but in any event, I've been actually too charitable to my friends in blue...if you really look at it from an intellectual perspective the AF has basically outlive its' usefulness as a separate Branch if they won't with enthusiasm support the ground forces...

...reading thru the past few posts...true, I suppose fast movers can fly below a 3000K foot ceiling...no kidding...but that is really not the point...point is what can they do when they get there in comparison to the HOG in the CAS role at those levels

...and your kidding yourself if you think the fast movers can fly below 3000K in low visibility AND restricted terrain as the HOG can... :rofl:

...so many questions I've posted that remain unanswered by the AF apologists in this virtual hangar....guess one of the biggest ones in my perspective is why did the AF leadership basically have to lie time and time again in their testimony before Congress and why did the AF current leadership make threats of charging their Airmen with treason if they talked to Congress about the capability about the HOG...

...it all boils down to what you think is important I guess...headed to Ft. Benning next month for an event with the Infantry Foundation...as part of the week we get to witness the graduation of some of the troops completing basic as they hold many of those ceremonies at the wonderful parade grounds by the Museum...from my perspective, these young men deserve the best we can provide for CAS in future conflicts that some of them will no doubt be in...and the best "CAS" we can provide ain't from ascot wearing fast mover pilots...fact


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 23:24 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/22/16
Posts: 147
Post Likes: +102
The third and perhaps the most important element of CAS is the FAC (Forward Air Controller) whether he/she be on the ground or in the air. The success of a CAS mission is only as good as the FAC is in putting the eyes of the fighter on the target.

"Hit my smoke, cleared hot."


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 08:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 09/29/10
Posts: 3886
Post Likes: +2322
Company: USAF Simulator Instructor
Location: Burkburnett, TX
Aircraft: Bonanza G35
Username Protected wrote:
"Hit my smoke, cleared hot."

Fortunately, that phrase is almost never heard anymore. The same electronic revolution that has taken over our GA cockpits has also taken over war fighting. If your CAS experience is more than five or ten years old, you need to go find an active duty, Guard or reserve warrior in any branch of service who is currently conducting CAS. The capabilities of the hardened, reliable, easy-to-use hardware we have deployed will astound you. The services still practice “classic CAS” in training just like we still practice VOR approaches. But that’s not how they fight any more than a VOR approach is our primary method of landing in low IFR.


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 10:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 7959
Post Likes: +3126
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: C90; Citation II, V
War is the unfolding of miscalculations. Barbara Tuchman.

It’s wonderful that we have new targeting devices and interactive communications, when they all work. Of course, there are still limitations and times other methods may be needed.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 12:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/16/13
Posts: 83
Post Likes: +28
Company: AAT
Location: Hendersonville Tn M33
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
For the type of operations such as in Afghanistan an increased use of Predator drones and covert CIA ops, SEALS, etc. is the better play in my mind, if we do it at all. Fighting these kinds of wars with uniformed troops overtly with bulls eyes on their backs is just costing too many of our troops lives, a lot of them with IED's. We shouldn't be "occupying" Afghanistan.

When I saw what was going on in the Gulf wars first hand, Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex rang out loud and clear to me.



Yep, as my good friend said to me after Mosul fell the 2nd or 3rd time, your year in Iraq was a waste just like my year in Vietnam. I came back very cynical. I love my country but enough is enough.

My last assignment was a liason to FEMA, as my boss, 2 star general said, it's American's helping Americans! Now that's the miilitary i like

_________________
John Wallace
CFI, II, MEI

I'm making my own luck


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 17:55 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 641
Post Likes: +176
Location: North Florida
...and the hits just keep on coming.... :bang:

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 14190.html

Air Force May Lose Credibility With Industry Over Light Attack Decision
By Dan Gouré

February 18, 2019

"The U.S. Air Force has loudly and consistently proclaimed its commitment to acquisition reform. Part of that commitment is forging a closer working relationship with industry. However, its recent decision to indefinitely postpone procurement of a Light Attack Aircraft (LAA) calls into question that commitment. It also may cause industry to hesitate when it comes to investing its resources in support of future rapid acquisition initiatives.

On January 18, 2019, without warning, the Air Force announced the indefinite suspension of the LAA program. This decision was particularly problematic given that only weeks before the Air Force had been working with industry to refine a Request for Proposal (RFP) in anticipation of releasing the final version around the end of 2018."


...problematic...indeed...

...question of commitment to CAS? ...this is just the latest chapter of decades of lack of commitment to the CAS mission from the AF

"Air Force leaders have offered a smorgasbord of reasons for suspending the LAA procurement. According to Chief of Staff General David Goldfein, after more than two decades of counterinsurgency operations on multiple continents, the Air Force still doesn’t know what the right mix of fixed-wing, rotary-wing, manned and unmanned is that can do the business of light attack. He also seemed to suggest that the Air Force hadn’t done its market research regarding the demand for a light attack capability and lacked a plan for convincing allies and partners to participate in the LAA program. Other Air Force sources suggested that the experiments which preceded the initial decision to acquire LAA somehow hadn’t provided sufficient information on performance or the cost of operating these aircraft."

…"smorgasbord of reasons"...this sounds eerily familiar to the AF's rationale to dump the A-10...

"AF still doesn't know what the right mix of fixed-wing, rotary-wing, manned and unmanned is that can do the business of light attack..."

...actually, not true...AF JTACS and the HOG pilots know damn well what aircraft (or type of aircraft) is required to complete the mission, no matter whether light, medium, or high intensity......problem is that AF leadership won't listen to them

"It is difficult to take seriously the Air Force’s various and even conflicting rationales for its 11th-hour decision to suspend the LAA procurement. …."

...no kidding

"What the Air Force did on the LAA RFP impacted its credibility with the private sector. Industry had spent years responding to the Air Force’s requests for information, supporting various experiments and preparing for the release of the LAA RFP. The costs to the companies that participated in these activities were substantial. Given the way the Air Force pulled the rug out from under them, it is fair to wonder whether they will be willing to put out a similar effort for a new, nebulously defined experiment. As retired Air Force General Michael Loh observed, there has to be a business case in order for private companies to play in the Air Force’s experiments: “There’s got to be a requirement or funding or both at the end of that, otherwise you’ve got guys in industry that are investing a lot of money, and they’re looking back at light-attack aircraft. What did you do? Nothing. You put it on the back burner.”

...AF has put the CAS mission on the "back burner" for decades, no matter low, medium, or high intensity...

...but this article really misses the main point...that the whole notion of a "light" attack or CAS aircraft is b.s....history tells us a "light" attack aircraft is just too vulnerable to small arms fire...not to mention that they don't have the loiter time, or capacity to carry the required ordinance, etc...

...the most common sense post on this thread about a light attack aircraft was from Warren when he said: "those are cute... When no one is shooting back at you..."

...bottom line--and it is painful to say...but the AF keeps backing up to the pay window to take the fixed wing DOD budget dollars, all the while keeping the Army from the assets to perform the mission themselves...AF doesn't give a damn about the CAS mission...historical fact


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 00:16 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 07/02/13
Posts: 2413
Post Likes: +1999
Location: Stamping Ground, Ky
Aircraft: twin bonanza
:deadhorse: :tape:


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 23:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 09/29/10
Posts: 3886
Post Likes: +2322
Company: USAF Simulator Instructor
Location: Burkburnett, TX
Aircraft: Bonanza G35
We could always go back to this idea:
Bazooka Charlie


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6




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 2007-2019

.nexair_85x100.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2019-03-21.png.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.hpair-85x50.jpg.
.CAV_85x50_2017_12_4.jpg.
.Blackhawk_85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.Omaha_Airplane_Supply_85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.weatherspork_85x50.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.cubcrafters.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.sureflight-85x50.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.fliteelectronics.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.L3_85x100.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.phillipangert-85x50.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.AviationCreation_85x50.jpg.
.jlosborne-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Showalter.jpg.
.FreeFlight_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Aircraft_Assoc_85x50.png.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.teebee.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.lopresti_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.selectairparts-85x100.jpg.
.Electroair.jpg.
.jetfuelx-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.jetacquisitions-85x50.png.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.Trace.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.americanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Steel_85x50.jpg.
.tulsair-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.concorde-2017-11-01.jpg.
.Outright_85_50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.