28 Mar 2024, 18:10 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 16 Sep 2018, 10:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17508 Post Likes: +21022 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Sorry guys, I’ve had a bit of a cold, so, have been quiet. Just finished that other book I was reading (Atlas Shrugged) so, I can get on to the exciting CAS joint pub. Seems each side has thoroughly staked out their position . I’ll try to read everything again. I also have a good friend that flew A-10s in GW1. I’ll get his opinion. Just to clarify, the AF has done an outstanding job. They’ve gained air superiority in each war going back to WWII. I don’t think anyone questions that. Without air power, the outcome in several conflicts may have been much different. The focus here is CAS and no matter how you define it, I mean close to friendlies. Less than 1,000 meters in different intensity environments. One of the loneliest feelings I had as a ground commander was having received CAS, then, watching those birds leave while we still had a fight on our hands. I’m still here, although I don’t know how sometimes, but still remember watching air support leave with no other support available. So, this can get emotional.
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 16 Sep 2018, 13:14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17508 Post Likes: +21022 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
After reading several reports which I'll post below for reference, it's clear the Army and Air Force have different perspectives on what CAS should be and how it should be provided. From page 3 of the recent Rand study: Although some have questioned whether the Army’s CAS requirements have changed since the Key West agreement was signed, our analysis of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan highlights and reinforces the continuing need for two critical CAS capabilities: (1) the ability to dynamically engage and reengage enemy threats that are in close proximity to friendly ground forces in all types of operations and threat environments and (2) the ability, during stability operations, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, to provide a “show of force” to support relatively small and dispersed, remotely located ground units, such as combat outposts and patrols. For the Army, it is, therefore, important to understand how the decommissioning of the A-10 would affect the Air Forces’ ability to maintain these specific CAS capabilities in the near and long.... https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... RR1233.pdf
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
Last edited on 16 Sep 2018, 14:36, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 16 Sep 2018, 13:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17508 Post Likes: +21022 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Conclusions of a Naval War College study: The close air support controversy between the US Air Force and US Army has entered its forty-third year. The USAF has declared the A-10 Thunderbolt II obsolete and proposes to replace it with a multirole aircraft. Congress has intervened and directed a piecemeal transfer of the A-10 to the Army and Marine Corps for use as an observation aircraft. Analysis indicates that the USAF has always considered close air support(CAS) for the Army a low priority mission, choosing instead to concentrate effort and resources on strategic roles; air superiority and air interdiction missions. It has been reluctant, however, to transfer the CAS mission to the."Arny who, in turn, has been reluctant to accept it. Subtle differences between Air Force and Army doctrine have aggravated the controversy. Centralized control/decentralized execution are interpreted differently by Air Force and Army officers. Availability, command and control of CAS assets is an on-going problem. The debate can be ended by compromise. A blending of roles and missions is required. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a236551.pdf
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 16 Sep 2018, 13:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17508 Post Likes: +21022 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
From an AF colonel who makes excellent points. Make no mistake about it, the Air Force and Naval aviation fly a lot of close air support. Not only have we been flying around 20,000 CAS sorties per year for more than a decade (assembled from US Air Forces Central Command data), but this number dwarfs the sortie count for all other combat missions combined. That makes a great deal of sense. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely been in support of irregular warfare operations, where there is no real need for counterair, defense suppression, or strategic attack missions. Between 2006 and July of 2015, the Air Force and Naval Aviation flew well over a quarter million CAS sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan – not counting sorties against ISIL. The impact of this has been severe. The Air Force’s fighter enterprise is as close to broken as it has ever been, a result of expending the force to provide support to U.S. forces in harm’s way. I can cite statistics until I turn blue and it won’t matter one bit, because this is not an intellectual issue, it’s an emotional one. No matter how many CAS sorties the Air Force flies in support of the ground component, it will never be enough. https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/clash ... -the-army/
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 29 Sep 2018, 17:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/09 Posts: 1346 Post Likes: +772 Location: North Florida
|
|
Username Protected wrote: ...and sorry, but "getting shot at" should be considered to be part of the deal when the AF pilots sign up...Army Officers damn sure understand that
I think all members of the military understand that. And am pretty sure you aren’t saying fast mover pilots are avoiding the dangers of combat. Should infantry and armor guys berate transportation officers because they are not combat arms? No, you normally choose your poison in the military. I was an army attack pilot for my career by choice. I knew that I’d get shot at and be close to the fight. But I still had fellow army officers of other branches basically “bitch” that I received flight pay and flew “away”after the fight like I had no risk. My response always almost no matter the rank. “Flight school starts every two weeks Sir”
...sorry, but this is pretty thin....I expect more from a Rucker Grad...kinda sorta sounds like someone trying to be politically correct and fit in with a predominately Naval/AF clique on this site...
...actually, my friend, most members of the military that sign up don't think "getting shot at" is part of the deal...FACT--not even close...and I can attest to that from being an Army Recruiting Company Commander where I enlisted thousands of young men and women into the Army...and, more recently in my Second Life I've personally conducted dozens of interviews with the Veteran's History Project of Veterans from all services and branches and ranks and dating from WWII Vets to more recent Vets from the War on Terror...
....and, cheap shot my friend...I wasn't even close to "berating" Transportation Officers for not being Combat Arms...
...I have nothing but the deepest respect for anyone that serves our country in any branch and any rank and any job title…. FACT
...but if I had a dollar for every VHP interview I've conducted where the Vet said I joined this, that, or the other branch or selected this, that, or the other MOS because I didn't want to be in the "Infantry", then, well, I'd have dozens of dollars...
…but, my friend, your missing the point...again, for example, our motto for our local VHP where I have conducted dozens of interviews is that "Every Veteran has a Story"...and, I coined the phrase my friend...and, I firmly believe it...doesn't matter if you were a chef, or in the Infantry, or for instance my most recent interview of an AF enlisted man that worked as a Morale and Support NCO for years--EVERY Veteran has a Story and Every Veteran has contributed Significantly toward our Defense... I love them all
...and, this quote is priceless: "And am pretty sure you aren’t saying fast mover pilots are avoiding the dangers of combat" ...
I'm glad, my friend, your pretty sure about this....because, I said specifically I wasn't questioning the courage of fast mover pilots...that they were great Americans, all...
...and, as long as I'm on a role, as far as Army Aviators and flight pay--.I think they deserve every damn penny of it...when I was at the 101ST every time I got on a Chopper I trusted those pilots, men and women, explicitly with my life...you want to define a great American--an Army Pilot in the 101ST!
...but having said all that....there is a distinction between Infantry and Armor Officers...doesn't even mean we are better...but there is a difference....
...so what is my point? ….point is that to conduct the CAS mission, my friend, you need an Armor or Infantry mentality...Dave S. knows what I'm talking about...our troops on the ground and marines in the fight deserve the best...and, sorry to offend, but the best person to perform CAS isn't a Fast Mover Pilot...
...because, my friend, Fast Mover Pilot didn't sign up to be in the weeds and mud with the Infantry...one of the greatest CAS pilots in history, Hans Ruddel, defined himself as a "Soldier" and his German leadership in WWII defined Ruddel as a great "soldier"...our Fast Mover Pilots, for the most part, see themselves as Fast Mover Pilots...
...and the disgraceful part of all of this is that the AF, despite not having their heart in the CAS Mission--FACT, FACT, FACT--won't give it up and let the Army take care of business...it's a disgrace
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 29 Sep 2018, 17:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/09 Posts: 1346 Post Likes: +772 Location: North Florida
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What's interesting after perusing several reference materials is the Army didn't what to support the A-10 budget and the Air Force didn't want to absorb it either. The Air Force currently wants multi-mission aircraft. The Army still wants a dedicated CAS air craft that has capabilities greater than those of rotary wing aircraft. We've heard all the issues about concern of survivability in a high intensity conflict. At the same time, there is a place for a dedicated air craft in low intensity environments. So, my conclusion is we will continue to see this vigorous debate, at least until more specific environments can be defined. Each service makes good points. It's hard to be sympathetic with the Army's position if they aren't willing to put a dedicated CAS aircraft like this in their budget. ...problem is though Dave, CAS is a primarily a fixed wing mission...the Army can't fund the A-10 from its current budget because they don't have much fixed wing money dedicated to them in the first place... ...AF has all the fixed wing DOD dollars...and time and time again from the Key West agreement to other accords they have promised that if they get the fixed wing DOD dollars that they will provide premier CAS to the Army ...and, time and time again the AF has showed--FACT--that they had no intention of providing premier CAS to the Army...but yet, they don't want to give the fixed wing dollars to the Army so they can take care of business.. ...like I said, national disgrace... ...btw, your not conceding that CAS can't be conducted in a high intensity conflict?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 29 Sep 2018, 17:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/09 Posts: 1346 Post Likes: +772 Location: North Florida
|
|
Username Protected wrote: From an AF colonel who makes excellent points. Make no mistake about it, the Air Force and Naval aviation fly a lot of close air support. Not only have we been flying around 20,000 CAS sorties per year for more than a decade (assembled from US Air Forces Central Command data), but this number dwarfs the sortie count for all other combat missions combined. That makes a great deal of sense. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely been in support of irregular warfare operations, where there is no real need for counterair, defense suppression, or strategic attack missions. Between 2006 and July of 2015, the Air Force and Naval Aviation flew well over a quarter million CAS sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan – not counting sorties against ISIL. The impact of this has been severe. The Air Force’s fighter enterprise is as close to broken as it has ever been, a result of expending the force to provide support to U.S. forces in harm’s way. I can cite statistics until I turn blue and it won’t matter one bit, because this is not an intellectual issue, it’s an emotional one. No matter how many CAS sorties the Air Force flies in support of the ground component, it will never be enough. https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/clash ... -the-army/...problem is Dave, the AF is playing fast and loose with the facts...smoke and mirrors... ...they can claim all they wish, until the cows come home, indeed, that they are performing a significant amount of CAS missions with fast movers and supersonic nuclear capable strategic bombers, but, basically, it is all B.S. ...in some sense, they are basically changing the definition of CAS...a lot of the "CAS" missions the fast movers and B-1 Bombers are taking credit for are not at all CAS in the traditional sense, at all... ....or as one JTAC put it--the "Bone" as they refer to the B-1 might be good for blowing up a cave entrance for example where bad guys are shooting from across the valley, this isn't a traditional CAS mission...hell, artillery could do that mission...not saying the fast movers or the Bones aren't good to have around, but they are hardly a substitute for a real CAS aircraft like the HOG ...and, after all, don't our terrific Marines and Soldiers deserve a dedicated CAS aircraft? ...and, even if the fast movers and nuclear capable supersonic strategic flight level only flying bombers Are conducting CAS, doesn't mean they are doing it well, or as good as the HOG does... ...hell, you want to solve the CAS issue in our current fight ...leave the fast movers and Bones at home...deploy enough A-10s forward with our ground maneuver elements...let our terrific outstanding Army Division Commanders control their own CAS aircraft and we will be fine ...bottom line ...there is no aircraft in the current inventory that can conduct a high angle straffing attack with the firepower of the 30mm rounds to support our troops on the ground fighting in close combat with the enemy in the ditch only meters from their position like the HOG....the rest of the discussion is coffee house folk music smoke filled AF BS
Last edited on 29 Sep 2018, 18:04, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 29 Sep 2018, 17:57 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/09 Posts: 1346 Post Likes: +772 Location: North Florida
|
|
Username Protected wrote: :bang: ...but Brian, I've resupplied on Cigars and Cognac...
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: AF new CAS aircraft Posted: 01 Oct 2018, 01:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/02/13 Posts: 3127 Post Likes: +2979 Location: Stamping Ground, Ky
Aircraft: twin bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: From an AF colonel who makes excellent points. Make no mistake about it, the Air Force and Naval aviation fly a lot of close air support. Not only have we been flying around 20,000 CAS sorties per year for more than a decade (assembled from US Air Forces Central Command data), but this number dwarfs the sortie count for all other combat missions combined. That makes a great deal of sense. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely been in support of irregular warfare operations, where there is no real need for counterair, defense suppression, or strategic attack missions. Between 2006 and July of 2015, the Air Force and Naval Aviation flew well over a quarter million CAS sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan – not counting sorties against ISIL. The impact of this has been severe. The Air Force’s fighter enterprise is as close to broken as it has ever been, a result of expending the force to provide support to U.S. forces in harm’s way. I can cite statistics until I turn blue and it won’t matter one bit, because this is not an intellectual issue, it’s an emotional one. No matter how many CAS sorties the Air Force flies in support of the ground component, it will never be enough. https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/clash ... -the-army/...problem is Dave, the AF is playing fast and loose with the facts...smoke and mirrors... ...they can claim all they wish, until the cows come home, indeed, that they are performing a significant amount of CAS missions with fast movers and supersonic nuclear capable strategic bombers, but, basically, it is all B.S. ...in some sense, they are basically changing the definition of CAS...a lot of the "CAS" missions the fast movers and B-1 Bombers are taking credit for are not at all CAS in the traditional sense, at all... ....or as one JTAC put it--the "Bone" as they refer to the B-1 might be good for blowing up a cave entrance for example where bad guys are shooting from across the valley, this isn't a traditional CAS mission...hell, artillery could do that mission...not saying the fast movers or the Bones aren't good to have around, but they are hardly a substitute for a real CAS aircraft like the HOG ...and, after all, don't our terrific Marines and Soldiers deserve a dedicated CAS aircraft? ...and, even if the fast movers and nuclear capable supersonic strategic flight level only flying bombers Are conducting CAS, doesn't mean they are doing it well, or as good as the HOG does... ...hell, you want to solve the CAS issue in our current fight . N m..leave the fast movers and Bones at home...deploy enough A-10s forward with our ground maneuver elements...let our terrific outstanding Army Division Commanders control their own CAS aircraft and we will be fine ...bottom line ...there is no aircraft in the current inventory that can conduct a high angle straffing attack with the firepower of the 30mm rounds to support our troops on the ground fighting in close combat with the enemy in the ditch only meters from their position like the HOG....the rest of the discussion is coffee house folk music smoke filled AF BS Another load of mistruths... If you want a lot of loiter time and a huge load of precision ordinance, a B1 loaded with JDAMs is tough to beat. There are a number of scenarios where an AC130 or F18 are a better choice for CAS than a Hog.
Giving CAS assets to a Division Commander isn’t a great way to use CAS. Never saw one who really understood how to use it. One of the constants in dealing with the Army was trying to keep them from calling for CAS when their own arty could range the threat.
Not sure how often I’ve said it, but the idea that A10s can operate from a Forward location with the Army is a fantasy. They don’t do that any better than any other jet. 7-8000feet of runway, fuel munitions and maintenance sounds like an airfield.
Because of low speed, Hogs are more susceptible to small arms than fast movers. Witness Desert Storm and the altitude restrictions imposed there because of high losses. 10k iirc, with an allowance down to 5k when delivering ordinance.
It is a good low threat airplane, but high threat, you end up wasting assets with no real results, except having to train a bunch of replacements.
Classic CAS isn’t anymore. Anyone with a rover pod can deliver insanely accurate munitions.
FWIW, the number one tank killer in Desert Storm was the F111...
Strafing attacks are neat, but only useful and practical in very limited situations. In those situations, an AC130 is nice to have around.
The supposed “advantage” of the slow speed of the A10 is a rationalization, not a realistic assessment of the aircraft’s capabilities. F16s actually turn just as tight a turn circle. The difference is, they can operate at corner speed, whereas as the Hog is immediately way below corner as soon as the turn is commenced.
High threat CAS the way the army rank and file imagine it would require hundreds of expendable aircraft and pilots. We can’t afford either one. That reality is why the AF would like to get rid of the A10. Other platforms do CAS as well, and in some cases better, than the Hog.
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|