banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 04:44 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 15:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 6629
Post Likes: +7931
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
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.


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 23:26 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 1346
Post Likes: +772
Location: North Florida
...I'm just not following conceptually the AF's notion of an off the shelf aircraft for "low intensity" conflicts

...personally, I don't think they have thought this thru at all

...more a PR stunt to mask the fact that they haven't developed a CAS aircraft since the HOG...and to mask that they intend to dump the HOG--even if it goes against Congressional intent

...but more to the point, interesting PODCAST below for those interested in the history of the HOG

...the A-10 according to Sprey, was designed for fighting "men in pajamas" with rifles and machine guns as well as armor forces...that in order to take on the bad guys in a so called low intensity fight then you still need characteristics such as pilot survivability and an aircraft that is designed to have redundancy in its systems and have the prevention of on board fires a key design component...to separate the fuel storage from the engines...

...and history shows us the vulnerability of most aircraft to small arms fire--especially in the realm of what historically takes down most aircraft in combat: fires on board, and loss of systems that don't have redudancy...so, even in a low intensity conflict don't see how the A-10 or a similar aircraft would be too much of an aircraft for the mission...

...the podcast below is pretty interesting...also have read some fascinating history from Sprey about a potential replacement for the Hog...that in the 80s, well after the Hog was fielded, his team was looking at the next generation CAS aircraft to build on the Hog's known strengths and weaknesses....and this was the Reagan years, who would do anything to support the guys on the ground and $$$ was not a problem

...but, AF shut down Sprey and group at every turn on helping with the next generation CAS aircraft...and of course, now we have the AF Brass parading in front of Congress saying that the A-10 has to be deactivated because it is old, and of course they can't conduct CAS in a high intensity conflict--another lie...and, so we have off the shelf CAS aircraft discussions...total nonsense

...as an aside, I wish we could import Pierre Sprey's passion for the CAS mission and obvious love and respect for our guys on the ground into our friends in blue...one of the ironies of our time...that an aircraft designer from France would "get it", and our own friends in blue Not...

...personally, I think Sprey should be awarded the Presidential Freedom Award for his life long dedication to our Marines and Troops in the fight...I'll put that on my wish list for when I can catch our CIC at the next Mar-a-Logo Charity event...

:popcorn:

Pierre Sprey on the Birth of the A-10

https://soundcloud.com/user-832840864/p ... f-the-a-10


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 07:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/02/13
Posts: 3127
Post Likes: +2979
Location: Stamping Ground, Ky
Aircraft: twin bonanza
[quote="Dave Siciliano"We've always had this divide between Army and AF on CAS. Reading about Korea now and it was the same thing there. AF wanted to control its missions and allocate which ground guys got priority while ground guys in contact might need immediate responsiveness. [/quote]

Dave, the allocation and apportionment of CAS sorties is usually not clearly understood by Army Ground commander in the field. The Air Force apportions a set number of assets that it can field in a given 24 hour period in support of the Ground Component's needs. These include preplanned CAS, to support planned ground ops, immediate ICAS, which are basically airborne assets available for unplanned troops in conflict, and CAS alert, which has a slower response due to time in transit, but covers a much longer window. ICAS can be a wasted mission if nothing pops up, as the sorties get burned whether or not weapons get expended. (That is a slightly mangled summary, but contains the essentials)

The Army gets to determine how those sorties are used. A CAS request is made, and the Army determines whether or not to support that request based on what assets are available, and whether or not organic supporting assets (artillery) would be a be a better solution. The Air Force doesn't accept or deny CAS requests, the Army Ground Commander does.

In TIC situations, the Air Force will pull assets from other operations and retask them, although available platforms might not be ideally suited or equipped for that operation. This is difficult as fuel, weapons load, and location may not be ideal.

Short story, the Army controls CAS allocation. The Air Force provides an agreed upon number of sorties during a given period, based on assets available and overall Joint Force needs.

Way more than anyone wants to know, but a peak into the CAS world https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 12:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 17514
Post Likes: +21046
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
Thanks Jim. I wrote a long response that was lost when I hit some incorrect combination of buttons. I'll try to reply later. I'm highly supportive of what the AF does and missions it has besides CAS, I just know how critical CAS is to ground folks and budget cuts and long term AF requests don't give it much priority. Kinna a blue collar mission for the AF and wasn't must respected in the past as a career path.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 19:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/11/08
Posts: 475
Post Likes: +182
Aircraft: PA28-161
John, that was a very clear and concise analysis. I personally object to the cost of ANY weapon system as expensive as the F 35 but I don't think the A-X program would be any better as a place to expend our resources. The truth is we have always had to put our eggs in the most likely basket and hope it meets the needs we encounter when the stuff hits the fan. I know one Army armor officer involved in the initial A-10 debate who felt strongly that it wasn't going to be successful in a war against first class Warsaw Pact air defenses then deployed along the Fulda Gap. Ironically, he felt the AF jammed the A-10 down the Army's throat when, in his opinion, the A-7 was more survivable with its higher altitude and airspeed weapon delivery. Not my area of expertise but he was doing test and evaluation at Fort Ord at the time so I think he must have had an idea.


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 20:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/02/13
Posts: 3127
Post Likes: +2979
Location: Stamping Ground, Ky
Aircraft: twin bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
John, that was a very clear and concise analysis. I personally object to the cost of ANY weapon system as expensive as the F 35 but I don't think the A-X program would be any better as a place to expend our resources. The truth is we have always had to put our eggs in the most likely basket and hope it meets the needs we encounter when the stuff hits the fan. I know one Army armor officer involved in the initial A-10 debate who felt strongly that it wasn't going to be successful in a war against first class Warsaw Pact air defenses then deployed along the Fulda Gap. Ironically, he felt the AF jammed the A-10 down the Army's throat when, in his opinion, the A-7 was more survivable with its higher altitude and airspeed weapon delivery. Not my area of expertise but he was doing test and evaluation at Fort Ord at the time so I think he must have had an idea.

The A7 was a hell of an airplane. As a former A10 guy, I figured the first days of a Fulda gap scenario would take an enormous toll on the A10. It was designed for a Vietnam style conflict (the “last war” at the time) then jammed into a high threat CAS role for which it wasn’t terribly well suited. Nothing another 250 knots wouldn’t fix.
If they want to keep the Hog, it needs bigger engines. I remember talk of a 404 teethed that would hold 450 knots and 7 gs until it ran out of gas. The ability to sprint a bit, even just to 450, would be a game changer.


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2018, 17:52 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 1346
Post Likes: +772
Location: North Florida
"Short story, the Army controls CAS allocation. The Air Force provides an agreed upon number of sorties during a given period, based on assets available and overall Joint Force needs."

…interesting take, but even conceding, arguendo, the Army controls "CAS allocation" which is a stretch and a play on the facts, the issue isn't necessarily "CAS allocation"...but it is "assets available", and that goes to the point of having a dedicated aircraft suitable for the mission and crew adequately trained for CAS...to which the AF has historically been opposed and failed miserably at

...or as Pierre Sprey opined once the AF declined to develop the next generation successor to the Hog: "...USAF to America Combat Troops In Trouble....Your on your own, we have better things to do..."

...Sprey and crew in the 80s once the Hog was fielded were well aware of some of the Hog's limitations...and that stand's to reason--you wouldn't expect the first aircraft ever designed for specifically the CAS role to be perfect out of the gate...but, alas, Sprey and crew got no support from the AF in moving forward with the next generation CAS platform, despite the fact that this was during the Reagan years when the Pentagon budgets were flush

"As a former A10 guy, I figured the first days of a Fulda gap scenario would take an enormous toll on the A10. It was designed for a Vietnam style conflict (the “last war” at the time) then jammed into a high threat CAS role for which it wasn’t terribly well suited."

...sorry, that's just not historically accurate...the Hog was designed in part out of the failures of CAS in Vietnam (with the notable exception of the A1) and also in part for the AF to keep procurement monies that otherwise the Army was seeking for development of the Cheyenne at the time...and a host of other factors...but as the A-10 project evolved in the 70s there were specifications added specifically for the WP Armor threat, one of which was the pilot basically was bathed in a titanium tub...fact

...yes, indeed, a Fulda Gap scenario would have taken an enormous toll on the HOG...such a scenario would have taken an enormous toll on the Army's Armor and Mechanized forces as well...doesn't mean our Tanks weren't up to the task...doesn't mean the Hog wasn't either...this just in, don't mean to be flippant, but we were planning on a fight against the WP--there is going to be some casualties

...the Hog is especially suited for a high threat CAS role because of its inherent survivability based in part due to factors as redundancy in its systems and separation of the fuel from its engines...the Hog was well suited for the Fulda Gap--.especially assuming that it was to be operated in the overall concept of Combined Arms Operations where the Army would be assisting in suppressing the enemy AD assets...and the Army had considerable assets to defeat the enemy's AD--including artillery, helicopter gun ships (Cobra) and direct fire)...back in the day, the Cobra and A-10 worked hand in hand (JAAT)--to watch them maneuver in concert over the beautiful West Germany countryside was like poetry....don't tell me those guys wouldn't have taken out their fair share of the bad guy's armor and mechanized forces had the balloon went up

...and, importantly--have to take into consideration that the WP forces would have been much more vulnerable (and their AD systems less lethal) in the Attack (versus Defensive) mode

"a Fulda gap scenario would take an enormous toll on the A10" ...no kidding, welcome to the club...but this goes to the essence of the AF's aversion to risk, which is by the way another reason why as an institution (as their are many individual pilot exceptions) they aren't suited for the CAS role...our troops in harms way deserve better...all of our forces would have been subject to an "enormous toll"--doesn't mean we didn't have good weapon systems...

...and as an aside, because of costs compared to say, well, the F35, the Hog is more suited to the CAS role because to an extent it is more "expendable"...fact

...back in the day in the 80s-- my best friend was a Cavalry Officer in the 11ACR (and now rests in Fiddler's Green) and the Eastern European and Soviet Front Line Units would have damn sure taken a hell of a "toll" on his M1 Abrams tanks...that doesn't mean his tanks weren't up to the task of going into the fight...damn good tank...and Eric's troopers would have damn sure taken a "toll" on the WP forces....fact

" The ability to sprint a bit, even just to 450, would be a game changer".

...maybe true, would be good for the next generation CAS aircraft to be able to "sprint" at a higher rate to get out of trouble...but that's not the real issue as to speed...the biggest problem in regard to speed is that that the fast movers can't maneuver slow enough to perform the CAS role--to see the enemy and friendly forces; to maneuver in restricted terrain and weather; to turn while keeping the enemy in your sights, and so on....none of the fast movers can do that...the key component of a CAS platform is to be able to fly at a slow enough speed to be effective...

:scratch:

but here is the real question...if the Hog wasn't the best aircraft for the CAS role to take on the WP during the height of the Cold War in the early 80's what was then?

what would have been the alternative to the HOG for the fight in the Fulda Gap
?

__________
:popcorn:
...and, by the way, the WP, indeed, would have been a formidable adversary had they attacked...but they, and their "AD" assets, were hardly "10 feet tall" as you suggest...we would have stopped them before they made it to the Rhine

__________
as an aside, must have been great to fly the A-10...well done


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2018, 19:35 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5098
Post Likes: +3642
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
Donald -

I generally agree with your views on many of the military issues raised on the forum and as a Marine - appreciate your ground pounders view of CAS and the importance of the mission, BUT; did you just TRY to school an A-10 pilot.........on the A-10? :scratch:

AS for fast movers not being able to perform CAS, the Hornet might be the slowest of the 4th generation fighters, but I was well trained, equipped, and pretty darn good at CAS Donald.

Slow in today's high threat environment is failure. :crazy:


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2018, 20:35 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 1346
Post Likes: +772
Location: North Florida
Username Protected wrote:
Donald -

I generally agree with your views on many of the military issues raised on the forum and as a Marine - appreciate your ground pounders view of CAS and the importance of the mission, BUT; did you just TRY to school an A-10 pilot.........on the A-10? :scratch:

AS for fast movers not being able to perform CAS, the Hornet might be the slowest of the 4th generation fighters, but I was well trained, equipped, and pretty darn good at CAS Donald.

Slow in today's high threat environment is failure. :crazy:


...this is more interesting now with a Marine in the mix and also that I've admittedly had a few adult beverages...and lighting a cigar....

...pouring you a Cognac Brian...let's discuss

...factually speaking, where was the A-10 pilot accurate over my assessments? ...please feel free to elaborate....and pls do so with specifics, as opposed to hyperbole, if you will.. :scratch:

...and, no doubt you did the best you could with the Hornet in the CAS role...and I'm guessing the best you could was pretty damn good---esp. given the inherent limitations of your aircraft in the CAS role...it might be the slowest of the 4th generational fighters as you say, but it is too damn fast for the CAS role in the traditional sense...fact

...I know a few Marine Infantry Officers who have recently been leading Marines in the fight...and, I know them pretty well...and, they--not withstanding their appreciation of their own Marine pilots-- would prefer an A-10 over a Hornet in the CAS role to show up on station when they were in a fight 7 days a week and twice on Sundays

...you don't really believe, say in recent fights in Afghanistan for example that the Hornet's capabilities could match the Hog in that hostile terrain and traditional low cloud cover? ... that the Hornet could in any way match the Hog in firepower and intimidating the bad guys? ..I've been told of Hogs completing missions that the Hornet would not have even attempted

...an individual rifleman could take down a Hornet with a good shot...no way that happens with a HOG
_____
:popcorn:

but Brian, this is what intrigues me the most...especially coming from a Marine as yourself:

"Slow in today's high threat environment is failure"

--am I to beleive that a Marine is succumbing to the AF fighter pilot's view that CAS in a traditional sense can't be conducted in a high intensity conflict?

--I'm just totally confused as to how we had planned to take on the WP back in the day and accepted the risks, but now similar tasks seem too big a hurdle?

....I'm calling B.S....by definition, a fast mover can't maneuver slow enough to put eyes on the enemy and friendlies...they are too vulnerable to enemy fires, even small arms fire...not enough firepower in their weaponry ...can't maneuver in limited terrain and weather...and so on and so on...

...as a Marine, I would think that you could appreciate that an aircraft with maneuver speed and characteristics as the Hog could survive in a high intensity conflict--esp. if the Army was using Attack Helicopters, Artillery, Direct fire, and even EW assets to defeat the enemies AD working in concert with the A-10...

...not to mention that the enemies AD capabilities are not as lethal in the attack versus the defense

...I'm well into my second life now, and totally missed when we phased to where we can't conduct CAS in a high intensity conflict....it's all smoke and mirrors from the AF that never had an interest or intention to follow thru on its many promises to provide the ground troops with adequate CAS in exchange for keeping the fixed winged aviation assets (and procurement $$$ that come with same)


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2018, 23:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/17
Posts: 668
Post Likes: +336
Company: Cessna (retired)
Possiblilty In a Fulda gap scenario:

A-10 or equivalent suffers very high casualties, but, in conjunction ith other assets, stops the invasion.

F-16, F-35, or equivalent, is only fielded in lower numbers due to cost and other missions, actually suffers lower proportion of casualties, but doesn't stop the invasion so the survivors are loaded with nukes.

Casualties are not everything.


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2018, 08:17 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5098
Post Likes: +3642
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
Username Protected wrote:
...pouring you a Cognac Brian...let's discuss

We've discussed many times before. Nearly every thread that has a subject close to this we seem to go down the same road. :cheers:

Quote:
...factually speaking, where was the A-10 pilot accurate over my assessments? ...please feel free to elaborate....and pls do so with specifics, as opposed to hyperbole, if you will.. :scratch:

Not sure about hyperbole. Factually speaking, I doubt you need to try and educate a former A-10 on the history, development, TTPs of the A-10.

Quote:
...and, no doubt you did the best you could with the Hornet in the CAS role...and I'm guessing the best you could was pretty damn good---esp. given the inherent limitations of your aircraft in the CAS role...it might be the slowest of the 4th generational fighters as you say, but it is too damn fast for the CAS role in the traditional sense...fact

What are the limitations of my former aircraft in the CAS role? You are stuck on something here that you deem 'traditional CAS'. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. It seems to have something to do with hanging out in a target area, low and slow. Yeah.....that is dead.

Quote:
...I know a few Marine Infantry Officers who have recently been leading Marines in the fight...and, I know them pretty well...and, they--not withstanding their appreciation of their own Marine pilots-- would prefer an A-10 over a Hornet in the CAS role to show up on station when they were in a fight 7 days a week and twice on Sundays

The grunts I worked with and trained with my entire career wanted responsive air support. We all loved the brotherhood of the Corps, but to think that a gent was going to blow off a pair of F-16s in favor for waiting for an A-10 to show up is just poppycock.

Quote:
...you don't really believe, say in recent fights in Afghanistan for example that the Hornet's capabilities could match the Hog in that hostile terrain and traditional low cloud cover? ... that the Hornet could in any way match the Hog in firepower and intimidating the bad guys? ..I've been told of Hogs completing missions that the Hornet would not have even attempted

Funny you bring up low cloud cover and support. Do you remember the HUD video of a F/A-18 strafing Serb APCs for harassing NATO position? That was a former CO of mine. He was the VMFA-251 CO at the time. He took off from Aviano AB without even being on the ATO (mil pilots - think about that!) and engaged those targets. HE was there because no one else could/would get below the cloud cover - to include the A-10s that were airborne at the time.
Again - your ideas of CAS capabilities seems dated here

Quote:
...an individual rifleman could take down a Hornet with a good shot...no way that happens with a HOG

Sorry Donald - you watch to much 'Flight of the Intruder'.

Quote:
--am I to beleive that a Marine is succumbing to the AF fighter pilot's view that CAS in a traditional sense can't be conducted in a high intensity conflict?

No more so than a Marine grunt believes in maneuver warfare and doesn't think that frontal assaults on a fortified position are the norm. Ever wonder why an artillery or air strike in called in on a sniper position in many clips on YouTube during urban combat in Iraq for example instead of the squad/platoon just pressing forward ala 'Full Metal Jacket'?

Quote:
--I'm just totally confused as to how we had planned to take on the WP back in the day and accepted the risks, but now similar tasks seem too big a hurdle?

Different fight, different time Donald. If we were get involved in a WORLD WAR with the Chinese nowadays, I'm sure the fight would play out differently than the insurgency warfare that we have been involved in for so many years now. Do you remember the A-10 getting restricted to above 10,000' after some losses in the Gulf War; and beside over and around the Baghdad "Super MEZ", that wasn't even considered a 'high threat' environment (of course it is easy to call it that when your not the one being shot at)

Quote:
....I'm calling B.S....by definition, a fast mover can't maneuver slow enough to put eyes on the enemy and friendlies...they are too vulnerable to enemy fires, even small arms fire...not enough firepower in their weaponry ...can't maneuver in limited terrain and weather...and so on and so on...

You really need to stop with this line. It shows that you don't understand modern day FW CAS. Speed is a defense in and of itself, just like the A-10 nice armored cockpit. Maybe you should listen to an A-10 pilot who is wishing they had a little more speed. :deadhorse:

Quote:
...as a Marine, I would think that you could appreciate that an aircraft with maneuver speed and characteristics as the Hog could survive in a high intensity conflict--esp. if the Army was using Attack Helicopters, Artillery, Direct fire, and even EW assets to defeat the enemies AD working in concert with the A-10...

I've said it so many times on this forum when discussing the A-10; that I would have been an USAF A-10 pilot or the first Marine A-10 pilot if the cards had fallen that way - so of course I appreciate what the A-10 brings to the table. :bang:

Quote:
...not to mention that the enemies AD capabilities are not as lethal in the attack versus the defense
[/quote] :scratch:
The incredibly lethality of the current crop of double digits MANPADs ou there today don't know or care if they are on the attack or defense. This saying must be something from the past when you were on the ground in Germany. It is not a current thought process in aerial warfare that I've ever heard.

Hey current A-10 types.....are you guys equipped to drop JDAM?


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2018, 23:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/26/15
Posts: 357
Post Likes: +296
Location: KHSV
Aircraft: SR22
So getting back to the idea of light attack/CAS...

A couple thoughts:
1) People generally understand the threat of a Drone swarm. Could we have a light-attack “swarm” as a valid TTP?
2) Should we diversify our aircraft “portfolio?” (I.e. Do we always need to buy the expensive hammer?)
3) Do we expect “pointy-nose” pilots (read: jet pilots) to not select a jet for an attack role?
4) If we go to a full-out war, will we be able to train F35 pilots fast enough? Will we be able to make F35s fast enough?
5) Could a fleet of QA-29’s or QT-6’s (read: automous varieties) be a nice complement to the A29/AT6... or even F22/F35?

_________________
Dan Brown
Yours: Bell 406, EC45, BE20, C182, H60, TEX2, H500
Mine: SR22


Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2018, 16:16 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/07/09
Posts: 1346
Post Likes: +772
Location: North Florida
...interesting discussion...handing out cigars and opening the Cognac... :cheers:

"Not sure about hyperbole. Factually speaking, I doubt you need to try and educate a former A-10 on the history, development, TTPs of the A-10."

...ok then...set aside the hyperbole, and give us specifics of where the A-10 driver's history, development, and TTPs of the Hog was more accurate of what I set forth :scratch:

...and, pls do share with us "specifics"...

"What are the limitations of my former aircraft in the CAS role? You are stuck on something here that you deem 'traditional CAS'. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. It seems to have something to do with hanging out in a target area, low and slow. Yeah.....that is dead."

...that's a "remarkable statement" to quote the former Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee...

...I think that you, and our friends in Blue, might be confusing putting Ordinance somewhere vicinity the bad guys "somewhere in a grid square" with conducting an actual CAS mission...

...for reference, pls review the following:

John McCain: "Don't insult my intelligence...".

:popcorn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_up7IHd3LDs


"The grunts I worked with and trained with my entire career wanted responsive air support. We all loved the brotherhood of the Corps, but to think that a gent was going to blow off a pair of F-16s in favor for waiting for an A-10 to show up is just poppycock."

…"blow off a pair of F-16s"? ...straw man alert :ahhh: ...of course any of our troops or Marines in a fire fight would welcome any fast movers appearing on station...but that doesn't have anything to do with the debate of the A-10's superior qualities of performing CAS provided the AF has them in Theater and properly positioned on the battlefield

...but that's is really a "remarkable statement"...because, if the AF would deploy the A-10 forward with our ground maneuver units as it was designed for our troops on the ground and in the fight would not have to wait for them to to show up from where they are hidden in rear support areas as you say

"Funny you bring up low cloud cover and support. Do you remember the HUD video of a F/A-18 strafing Serb APCs for harassing NATO position? That was a former CO of mine. He was the VMFA-251 CO at the time. He took off from Aviano AB without even being on the ATO (mil pilots - think about that!) and engaged those targets. HE was there because no one else could/would get below the cloud cover - to include the A-10s that were airborne at the time.
Again - your ideas of CAS capabilities seems dated here"


...and no doubt your former CO performed the mission with distinction...but your giving an extreme example out of the mainstream as it pertains to the conduct of traditional CAS missions in most scenarios

"Quote:
...an individual rifleman could take down a Hornet with a good shot...no way that happens with a HOG
Sorry Donald - you watch to much 'Flight of the Intruder'."


...another remarkable statement...your not really saying that a Hornet is not vulnerable to small arms fire?....that defies all the lessons we have learned from Vietnam about fast mover's vulnerability to the bad guys small arms fire...not to mention what we have learned from the Arab-Israel Wars

...that is why, my friend, that all the grunts "get it" that they will never see the F35 down in the weeds with them performing CAS....because the F35s are too expensive and too vulnerable to getting shot down

"Do you remember the A-10 getting restricted to above 10,000' after some losses in the Gulf War; and beside over and around the Baghdad "Super MEZ", that wasn't even considered a 'high threat' environment (of course it is easy to call it that when your not the one being shot at)"

...yea, more of the A-10s were shot down in the Gulf War than the fast movers which lead the risk adverse AF to put altitude restrictions on them....no kidding...

...of course more A-10s would be shot down...they were the aircraft that were down in the dirt taking out the bad guys' armor....that shouldn't give the AF license to change the definition of CAS....the Germans lost a lot of Stukas fighting off the Russians--they didn't pitch their tent and go home

"You really need to stop with this line. It shows that you don't understand modern day FW CAS. Speed is a defense in and of itself, just like the A-10 nice armored cockpit. Maybe you should listen to an A-10 pilot who is wishing they had a little more speed."

….I understand CAS very well, thank you...but of course the A-10 wished they had a little
more speed, esp. to evade the AD threat...but their are trade-offs with the benefits of speed versus being able to perform CAS....take your fast mover for example--too damn fast to make a turn and still keep the bad guys your engaging in your sights...and too damn fast to operate in restricted terrain....Fact

...but, more to the point----Pierre Sprey and crew very well recognized there were limitations with the HOG...and that stands to reason...after all, this was the first aircraft ever designed specifically by the U.S. for the CAS role....indeed, Pierre Sprey and crew attempted to develop a successor to HOG 1 in the 80s after the A-10 was fielded but they were met by Resistance from our ascot wearing friends in blue...Fact

...next Charity event at Mar-A-Lago I've got to corner our CIC and ask him to make Hans Rudel's "Stuka Pilot" mandatory reading for all of our military pilots...we damn sure read it at Benning...Rudel's "Stuka Pilot" is a textbook on how to conduct CAS/ground attack missions that was based on the Germans Stuka's experience in taking on the Russian's Armor Forces...and they were damn effective

...speaking of Rudel--despite our resident A-10 driver's assertion that the Hog was developed for "last War" citing Vietnam and not for taking on Soviet Armor forces in the Fulda Gap--Pierre Sprey had all of his fellow Hog designers read Rudel's book....Indeed, Pierre Sprey Interviewed Rudel to pick his brain on how to develop an Aircraft to take on the Soviet Armor and Mechanized forces...


Last edited on 08 Sep 2018, 17:06, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2018, 16:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 17514
Post Likes: +21046
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
Don: Those of us with a sense of history have heard this over and over. During WWII; Korea, Early RVN, etc. When the North NV solders started firing the Strella missile, the AF FACs were restricted to 7,000 feet as a hard floor. As an air mission commander of an Army Air Cav unit my second tour, I used to mark targets and turn them over to the FAC. In this case, I stayed on station to adjust the bombs as the jets rolled in because the FACs couldn't get down under lower ceilings to see the targets. Even when clear, they were so far up, they couldn't see specific ground targets.
I understand, night vision, infra red and precision ammo has changed the game, but one can only call in 1,000 pound bombs so close to friendlies.
Army aviation is great for immediate, close support but also has limitations. In Iraq, there were nights to dark to use night vision and sand storms could limit use. One entire unit was grounded after taking heavy ground fire from directed ground folks with a lot of guns just firing blindly.
I very much admire what the AF and Navy fliers do. Getting air superiority on the battle field is number one and I tip my hat to them for that. Attacking other targets of troops, equipment, supplies and infrastructure certainly can swing the strategic picture.
I have a very good friend that flew A-10s and loved the mission. We Army folks thought we would get them for awhile, but it didn't go that way. Saying close air support can be provided as well by an F-35 as a plane and pilot that can see the enemy and engage directly, is simply a lack of understanding what the front line ground folks sometimes need. There is a place for each of these. I just wish more top level folks would understand that better.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Last edited on 08 Sep 2018, 18:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2018, 17:45 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/02/13
Posts: 3127
Post Likes: +2979
Location: Stamping Ground, Ky
Aircraft: twin bonanza
Donald, you have pieced together a web of misinformation, half truths, and outright falsehoods to support a rather ludicrous position on The A10. You compound it with mind numbing verbosity.

You don’t believe what I’ve learned in 800 hours of nothing but CAS in Korea, Europe, and Desert Storm, and a mercifully brief stint as an ALO in 2006-2007. Low, medium, high threat, got to try it all. That’s fine. Continue to cherry pick pr clips that fit your reality. Lots of folks live that way. If you want to learn anything about CAS, or the A10, find a guy who flew the Hog, then went to another airframe.

Have fun. Time to stop flailing the dead equine carcass here though.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next




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 2007-2024

.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.