User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 2:53:51 PM EDT
[#1]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 2:54:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 2:59:08 PM EDT
[#3]
lol...
The results were less than desirable. In fact, they were horrible. Within the first 48 hours of continuous combat operations the GEPOD30s were proven to be totally unable to satisfy their intended mission. Precision fire was almost impossible with the setup as the F-16s software had not been adequately modified for aiming, and the vibration was so bad when the gun was fired that software tweaks probably would have made little difference anyway and it wreaked havoc on the F-16's sensitive electronics and mechanical components. The reality is that the system was so ill-suited to the aircraft that just firing the gun multiple times would tweak the pylon it is attached to and thus it would become skewed far off zero. Not to mention that in comparison to the low and slower flying A-10, in actual combat the F-16's high speed made it hard to get a proper sight picture to aim during long strafing runs. Apparently maintainers and pilots had warned that the gun was ill-suited for the light fighter long before the deployment, but their mission was to try and make it work. Edit: What's that old saying? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 3:06:49 PM EDT
[#4]
16 whole aircraft??Look out big spenders
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 3:08:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 3:16:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
16 whole aircraft??Look out big spenders Perfect for FBHO's photo op air campaigns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 5:53:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Only 6 responses and that after Sylvan posted in it?
Sad sad sad... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 6:15:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only 6 responses and that after Sylvan posted in it? Sad sad sad... C'mon, it's like hunting over a baited field. Ridiculously over baited field. Where's the challenge?  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 6:19:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much?
Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:20:55 PM EDT
[#10]
I'll bite.
what would be plane would be ideal and how many do we need? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:25:23 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:26:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll bite. what would be plane would be ideal and how many do we need? ICBMs. All of them Disband the flying club. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:27:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago?
Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:29:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago?
Real jets break the sound barrier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:31:40 PM EDT
[#15]
A-10s - The Army wants them, and the Air Force won't let them have them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:32:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A-10s - The Army wants them, and the Air Force won't let them have them.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:35:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Bah... all we need are more Reapers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:36:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bah... all we need are more Reapers. As long as there will be no more pilots that would be an acceptable solution. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:42:29 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago?
Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:45:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Well whatever happens, I hope they paint them green again. Not for any important reason, but I think it looked pretty cool.
Interesting article though. While I am not at all in favor of cutting out the A-10, I would like to see a whole lot more artillery in the Army, both rocket and tube. There are some really interesting things they can do with rocket artillery now, and I'm really hoping they take advantage of some of it. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:46:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A-10s - The Army wants them, and the Air Force won't let them have them.
The A-10 would crush the Army's maintenance budget. OV-10 Bronco or Super Tucanos would be fine for expeditionary LIC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2016 11:51:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago? Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? Desert Storm showed the A-10 to have much lower survivability compared to faster aircraft, and that was against an air defense threat that is outdated by current standards. If some foreign power wanted to make life hard for us in Afghanistan like we did to the Soviets, all they would need to do is introduce MANPAD systems into theater with trained users, and A-10 pilots would have a serious problem, in addition to all rotary wing and low altitude drones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:00:13 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago?
Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? F-15E and F-16, F-15E has the legs to stay longer on station. A-10s are extremely vulnereable to ground fire but especially MANPADs. Luckliy for A10 pilots it usually doesnt result in an aircraft loss/eject scenario, but when they get hit they go home, and that means the mission is negated. People underestimate how difficult it is to hit a 500+ knot aircraft with any kind of mobile weaponry. You can zoom out of small arms and MANPAD range in seconds. We went low all the time and never got hit. We did have A10s take battle damage and Ill leave it at that. The A10s were designed in the day of unguided deliveries using the Mark 1 eyeball. That isnt how its done now. You dont even get to play if you arent dropping precision guided weapons...through a targeting pod...after being cleared hot by the Army or Marines. I dont blame them, a 10 meter bomb was considered excellent when I was learning visual unguided, but in combat never had a precision weapon miss by more than 6 feet. Which would you rather have called in next to you? Now if we are all going to use precision weapons through a targeting pod...why would you want to wait twice as long for them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:03:44 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Desert Storm showed the A-10 to have much lower survivability compared to faster aircraft, and that was against an air defense threat that is outdated by current standards. If some foreign power wanted to make life hard for us in Afghanistan like we did to the Soviets, all they would need to do is introduce MANPAD systems into theater with trained users, and A-10 pilots would have a serious problem, in addition to all rotary wing and low altitude drones. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago? Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? Desert Storm showed the A-10 to have much lower survivability compared to faster aircraft, and that was against an air defense threat that is outdated by current standards. If some foreign power wanted to make life hard for us in Afghanistan like we did to the Soviets, all they would need to do is introduce MANPAD systems into theater with trained users, and A-10 pilots would have a serious problem, in addition to all rotary wing and low altitude drones. With a range of around 3 or 4 miles wouldn't manpads be a threat to pretty much anything in a situation like Afghanistan? I mean you still have to take off and land. ETA: not saying the A-10 isn't outdated. Just that nothing seems to really be capable of effective CAS in the same manner and the Air Force doesn't want it, won't let the Army have it and refuse to put money into a new dedicated CAS platform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:12:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With a range of around 3 or 4 miles wouldn't manpads be a threat to pretty much anything in a situation like Afghanistan? I mean you still have to take off and land. ETA: not saying the A-10 isn't outdated. Just that nothing seems to really be capable of effective CAS in the same manner and the Air Force doesn't want it, won't let the Army have it and refuse to put money into a new dedicated CAS platform. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago? Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? Desert Storm showed the A-10 to have much lower survivability compared to faster aircraft, and that was against an air defense threat that is outdated by current standards. If some foreign power wanted to make life hard for us in Afghanistan like we did to the Soviets, all they would need to do is introduce MANPAD systems into theater with trained users, and A-10 pilots would have a serious problem, in addition to all rotary wing and low altitude drones. With a range of around 3 or 4 miles wouldn't manpads be a threat to pretty much anything in a situation like Afghanistan? I mean you still have to take off and land. ETA: not saying the A-10 isn't outdated. Just that nothing seems to really be capable of effective CAS in the same manner and the Air Force doesn't want it, won't let the Army have it and refuse to put money into a new dedicated CAS platform. Why do you say nothing seems to be really capable of effective CAS? The vast majority of CAS is not flown by A10s. Again, there is nothing the A10 does on target that cannot be accomplished by other aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:12:32 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll bite. what would be plane would be ideal and how many do we need? If it was up to me, it wouldn't be an Air Force mission. It'd be an Army mission, and they'd be a Division level asset. I'd like a 8x Super Tucanos (One Company) per Division. Put them into the existing aviation BDEs. Any threat that helicopters can face, a Super Tucano can face. Then comes the whole pilots-coordinating-with-commanders-pre-mission thing. That would be the important part. Kinda like how our Warrants in lift assets go to rehersals on occasion and know who they're supporting. You know, little things like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:25:51 AM EDT
[#27]
Then why did they strap a cannon on the F-16 to try and make it the A-10? It would seem to me, that the plane is still functional and it makes no since to ground it when it's getting the job done? Or just give it to the Marines to fly?
Didn't they just send A-10's to Syria, where there are in fact MANPADS? (I honestly don't remember but I think I read somewhere they did) To me, it would have made more since to keep making F-22's and then you would have the funding to keep everything flying until a better design of the A-10 could be made, reducing the chances of it being shot down? I don't have any experience, and may be talking out of my ass here, but this was just my line of thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:26:24 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-15E and F-16, F-15E has the legs to stay longer on station. A-10s are extremely vulnereable to ground fire but especially MANPADs. Luckliy for A10 pilots it usually doesnt result in an aircraft loss/eject scenario, but when they get hit they go home, and that means the mission is negated. People underestimate how difficult it is to hit a 500+ knot aircraft with any kind of mobile weaponry. You can zoom out of small arms and MANPAD range in seconds. We went low all the time and never got hit. We did have A10s take battle damage and Ill leave it at that. The A10s were designed in the day of unguided deliveries using the Mark 1 eyeball. That isnt how its done now. You dont even get to play if you arent dropping precision guided weapons...through a targeting pod...after being cleared hot by the Army or Marines. I dont blame them, a 10 meter bomb was considered excellent when I was learning visual unguided, but in combat never had a precision weapon miss by more than 6 feet. Which would you rather have called in next to you? Now if we are all going to use precision weapons through a targeting pod...why would you want to wait twice as long for them? This is an Air Force answer. 100%. And it's not going to fix anything. It's a platform statistics approach to solving an organizational issue. The issue isn't that we need more things blown up more accurately. If I needed a grid demolished, I should be calling the artillery guys, in a perfect world. Not the Air Force, who just gets in the way of fire missions and costs money. What I need aircraft for is for the pilot first, sensors and weapons second. I need him so he can understand what's going on, then help me know what's going on, and then help me kill bad guys. You know what would be better than having faster aircraft to catch up to the fight? Having aircaft on station at the fight when it starts. Even better would be if the pilot in the aircraft knew the plan on the ground before he showed up. The best would be if the pilot and the guy on the ground knew each other and had worked together before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:30:02 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why did they strap a cannon on the F-16 to try and make it the A-10? It would seem to me, that the plane is still functional and it makes no since to ground it when it's getting the job done? Or just give it to the Marines to fly? Didn't they just send A-10's to Syria, where there are in fact MANPADS? (I honestly don't remember but I think I read somewhere they did) To me, it would have made more since to keep making F-22's and then you would have the funding to keep everything flying until a better design of the A-10 could be made, reducing the chances of it being shot down? I don't have any experience, and may be talking out of my ass here, but this was just my line of thought. Strike missions aren't CAS missions. And yes, there are MANPADS in Syria. But the A10s aren't generally near the MANPADS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:31:04 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it was up to me, it wouldn't be an Air Force mission. It'd be an Army mission, and they'd be a Division level asset. I'd like a 8x Super Tucanos (One Company) per Division. Put them into the existing aviation BDEs. Any threat that helicopters can face, a Super Tucano can face. Then comes the whole pilots-coordinating-with-commanders-pre-mission thing. That would be the important part. Kinda like how our Warrants in lift assets go to rehersals on occasion and know who they're supporting. You know, little things like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll bite. what would be plane would be ideal and how many do we need? If it was up to me, it wouldn't be an Air Force mission. It'd be an Army mission, and they'd be a Division level asset. I'd like a 8x Super Tucanos (One Company) per Division. Put them into the existing aviation BDEs. Any threat that helicopters can face, a Super Tucano can face. Then comes the whole pilots-coordinating-with-commanders-pre-mission thing. That would be the important part. Kinda like how our Warrants in lift assets go to rehersals on occasion and know who they're supporting. You know, little things like that. If it were up to me the USAFF would be rolled back into the Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:33:34 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll bite. what would be plane would be ideal and how many do we need? This with a dozen Mavericks; a lot. 
Or maybe this with a Bofors instead of the 75mm: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:50:31 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is an Air Force answer. 100%. And it's not going to fix anything. It's a platform statistics approach to solving an organizational issue. The issue isn't that we need more things blown up more accurately. If I needed a grid demolished, I should be calling the artillery guys, in a perfect world. Not the Air Force, who just gets in the way of fire missions and costs money. What I need aircraft for is for the pilot first, sensors and weapons second. I need him so he can understand what's going on, then help me know what's going on, and then help me kill bad guys. You know what would be better than having faster aircraft to catch up to the fight? Having aircaft on station at the fight when it starts. Even better would be if the pilot in the aircraft knew the plan on the ground before he showed up. The best would be if the pilot and the guy on the ground knew each other and had worked together before. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
F-15E and F-16, F-15E has the legs to stay longer on station. A-10s are extremely vulnereable to ground fire but especially MANPADs. Luckliy for A10 pilots it usually doesnt result in an aircraft loss/eject scenario, but when they get hit they go home, and that means the mission is negated. People underestimate how difficult it is to hit a 500+ knot aircraft with any kind of mobile weaponry. You can zoom out of small arms and MANPAD range in seconds. We went low all the time and never got hit. We did have A10s take battle damage and Ill leave it at that. The A10s were designed in the day of unguided deliveries using the Mark 1 eyeball. That isnt how its done now. You dont even get to play if you arent dropping precision guided weapons...through a targeting pod...after being cleared hot by the Army or Marines. I dont blame them, a 10 meter bomb was considered excellent when I was learning visual unguided, but in combat never had a precision weapon miss by more than 6 feet. Which would you rather have called in next to you? Now if we are all going to use precision weapons through a targeting pod...why would you want to wait twice as long for them? This is an Air Force answer. 100%. And it's not going to fix anything. It's a platform statistics approach to solving an organizational issue. The issue isn't that we need more things blown up more accurately. If I needed a grid demolished, I should be calling the artillery guys, in a perfect world. Not the Air Force, who just gets in the way of fire missions and costs money. What I need aircraft for is for the pilot first, sensors and weapons second. I need him so he can understand what's going on, then help me know what's going on, and then help me kill bad guys. You know what would be better than having faster aircraft to catch up to the fight? Having aircaft on station at the fight when it starts. Even better would be if the pilot in the aircraft knew the plan on the ground before he showed up. The best would be if the pilot and the guy on the ground knew each other and had worked together before. No, its an honest answer. Being airborne does not bestow global rotating prismatic situational awareness on anyone. Airborne sensors are a soda straw view of the world, like looking through a sniper's scope...ok for overwatch in a limited, specific AO, but that isnt the kind of situational awareness you are seeking. The more detail I see, the less field of view. Thats not an organizational or even cultural problem, its a physics and technology problem. We could maybe do that in the open desert, but the vast majority of the times I was called in for troops in contact it was urban. The AF is working on that, with persistsnt drones that can stare and accumulate info. We actually did coordinate on the ground in person in the beginning of OIF, when there were phase lines and a forward line of troops and all that...and it went down the same way as when other times the first words I heard the man on the radio say were a 9 line. As for getting in the way of fire missions... I got called in to the coordinates of a motar hitting one of our FOBs, they asked me to check it out, in a grove of palms. It was a windy, dirt in the air day limiting visibility, so after seeing nothing through the targeting pod I did a LOW pass to see if anything flushed out, though normally these guys just shoot and scoot. Sure enough, I get a whitish puff of smoke under a palm, and roll back in on it to designate it and get clearance to crater it. On thst pass I get several more puffs of smoke in the grove, and it dawns on me that it wasnt multiple motars, but multiple 155 rounds arcing in from the FOB, confirmed by a radio call. I decided not to fly through it a third time, but youll never convince me we were holding up any fire missions. In summary, If I could give you absolute SA about your op from the air I would, but for now you'll have to live with air dominance and precision destruction of any target you give us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 12:56:49 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, its an honest answer. Being airborne does not bestow global rotating prismatic situational awareness on anyone. Airborne sensors are a soda straw view of the world, like looking through a sniper's scope...ok for overwatch in a limited, specific AO, but that isnt the kind of situational awareness you are seeking. The more detail I see, the less field of view. Thats not an organizational or even cultural problem, its a physics and technology problem. We could maybe do that in the open desert, but the vast majority of the times I was called in for troops in contact it was urban. The AF is working on that, with persistsnt drones that can stare and accumulate info. We actually did coordinate on the ground in person in the beginning of OIF, when there were phase lines and a forward line of troops and all that...and it went down the same way as when other times the first words I heard the man on the radio say were a 9 line. As for getting in the way of fire missions... I got called in to the coordinates of a motar hitting one of our FOBs, they asked me to check it out, in a grove of palms. It was a windy, dirt in the air day limiting visibility, so after seeing nothing through the targeting pod I did a LOW pass to see if anything flushed out, though normally these guys just shoot and scoot. Sure enough, I get a whitish puff of smoke under a palm, and roll back in on it to designate it and get clearance to crater it. On thst pass I get several more puffs of smoke in the grove, and it dawns on me that it wasnt multiple motars, but multiple 155 rounds arcing in from the FOB, confirmed by a radio call. I decided not to fly through it a third time, but youll never convince me we were holding up any fire missions. In summary, If I could give you absolute SA about your op from the air I would, but for now you'll have to live with air dominance and precision destruction of any target you give us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F-15E and F-16, F-15E has the legs to stay longer on station. A-10s are extremely vulnereable to ground fire but especially MANPADs. Luckliy for A10 pilots it usually doesnt result in an aircraft loss/eject scenario, but when they get hit they go home, and that means the mission is negated. People underestimate how difficult it is to hit a 500+ knot aircraft with any kind of mobile weaponry. You can zoom out of small arms and MANPAD range in seconds. We went low all the time and never got hit. We did have A10s take battle damage and Ill leave it at that. The A10s were designed in the day of unguided deliveries using the Mark 1 eyeball. That isnt how its done now. You dont even get to play if you arent dropping precision guided weapons...through a targeting pod...after being cleared hot by the Army or Marines. I dont blame them, a 10 meter bomb was considered excellent when I was learning visual unguided, but in combat never had a precision weapon miss by more than 6 feet. Which would you rather have called in next to you? Now if we are all going to use precision weapons through a targeting pod...why would you want to wait twice as long for them? This is an Air Force answer. 100%. And it's not going to fix anything. It's a platform statistics approach to solving an organizational issue. The issue isn't that we need more things blown up more accurately. If I needed a grid demolished, I should be calling the artillery guys, in a perfect world. Not the Air Force, who just gets in the way of fire missions and costs money. What I need aircraft for is for the pilot first, sensors and weapons second. I need him so he can understand what's going on, then help me know what's going on, and then help me kill bad guys. You know what would be better than having faster aircraft to catch up to the fight? Having aircaft on station at the fight when it starts. Even better would be if the pilot in the aircraft knew the plan on the ground before he showed up. The best would be if the pilot and the guy on the ground knew each other and had worked together before. No, its an honest answer. Being airborne does not bestow global rotating prismatic situational awareness on anyone. Airborne sensors are a soda straw view of the world, like looking through a sniper's scope...ok for overwatch in a limited, specific AO, but that isnt the kind of situational awareness you are seeking. The more detail I see, the less field of view. Thats not an organizational or even cultural problem, its a physics and technology problem. We could maybe do that in the open desert, but the vast majority of the times I was called in for troops in contact it was urban. The AF is working on that, with persistsnt drones that can stare and accumulate info. We actually did coordinate on the ground in person in the beginning of OIF, when there were phase lines and a forward line of troops and all that...and it went down the same way as when other times the first words I heard the man on the radio say were a 9 line. As for getting in the way of fire missions... I got called in to the coordinates of a motar hitting one of our FOBs, they asked me to check it out, in a grove of palms. It was a windy, dirt in the air day limiting visibility, so after seeing nothing through the targeting pod I did a LOW pass to see if anything flushed out, though normally these guys just shoot and scoot. Sure enough, I get a whitish puff of smoke under a palm, and roll back in on it to designate it and get clearance to crater it. On thst pass I get several more puffs of smoke in the grove, and it dawns on me that it wasnt multiple motars, but multiple 155 rounds arcing in from the FOB, confirmed by a radio call. I decided not to fly through it a third time, but youll never convince me we were holding up any fire missions. In summary, If I could give you absolute SA about your op from the air I would, but for now you'll have to live with air dominance and precision destruction of any target you give us. GORGON STARE is open source, but GD hates it because they're certain it will be used for domestic surveillance. Can't ever be happy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 1:05:16 AM EDT
[#34]
We have an ROE problem more than a technology problem, organizational structure, or any of that. I dont care what patch is on the opposite shoulder of the American flag on the flight suit...if the Army had F-15Es Id have been glad to fly em there...and we would still be having the same discussion. Wish I had a buck for everytime the guy I was supporting couldnt get the strike approved...Id use it to buy the Army some different generals, and our country some leadership that doesnt wring their hands when we fight, after being sent overseas to ....fight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 7:01:00 AM EDT
[#35]
I say that because the Air Force wouldn't keep postponing getting rid of it if something else were in inventory just as capable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 7:17:06 AM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 7:20:03 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bah... all we need are more Reapers. This. We have some more space on the ramp for some more here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 7:51:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Harvest HAWK ALL THE THINGS!
But seriously. This is simply to train JTACs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:25:50 AM EDT
[#39]
those ST's are some pretty bitches and without a doubt a solid platform for the need.
can Cessna or Lear make something compatible to our needs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:26:51 AM EDT
[#40]
Rhetorical question... We've got an entire generation whose focus has been the current fight. Who is looking forward to what the next fight will be? Brush war with goat headers? Goat herders with manpads? PO'd despots with 70's technology? Mad Ruusians/Chinese with some high order gear? What are the services preparing for? Answer wrong and you've killed lots of people and pissed away treasure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:37:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago?
The real answer is twofold: One: "no room for single-role single-seat aircraft in a resource constrained environment". Two: "CAS isn't even #3 in the top 3 missions the USAF has, so why waste a ton of money on supporting it. Come to think of it, it's probably not even in the top 5" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:47:16 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Desert Storm showed the A-10 to have much lower survivability compared to faster aircraft, and that was against an air defense threat that is outdated by current standards. If some foreign power wanted to make life hard for us in Afghanistan like we did to the Soviets, all they would need to do is introduce MANPAD systems into theater with trained users, and A-10 pilots would have a serious problem, in addition to all rotary wing and low altitude drones. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the AF hate the A-10 so much? Did an A10 pilot steal some future general's lunch money at the AF Academy decades ago? Because it takes at least twice as long to get where its needed, not survivable except in very low threat airspace, and does nothing that cant be done by other assets. People like it because it was dedicated to CAS only, and that blinds them to the obvious fact that in combat your focus ought to be on capability, not nostalgia. I'll bite. Focusing on capability, what can provide CAS effectively without the same speed/survivability concerns? Also, when was the last time an A10 was lost, and was it to a group with an affection for hooves? Desert Storm showed the A-10 to have much lower survivability compared to faster aircraft, and that was against an air defense threat that is outdated by current standards. If some foreign power wanted to make life hard for us in Afghanistan like we did to the Soviets, all they would need to do is introduce MANPAD systems into theater with trained users, and A-10 pilots would have a serious problem, in addition to all rotary wing and low altitude drones. I'd have to check my books at home, but IIRC, the A-10s were being sent deeper into Iraqi controlled space than they wanted, and deeper than the F-16s doing CAS like work. I recall a Staff or Flag officer saying something like "Why are my A-10s flying over F-16s to get to their targets?" So they felt they were being misused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:02:12 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you say nothing seems to be really capable of effective CAS? The vast majority of CAS is not flown by A10s. Again, there is nothing the A10 does on target that cannot be accomplished by other aircraft. The majority of CAS is not flown by A10's, but from long conversations with CCT's and my personal experience on the ground, the majority of successful CAS is flown by A10's. I dig up IEDs for a living and thanks to numerous precedents the only thing that makes me uneasy in combat is a fast mover providing CAS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:07:38 AM EDT
[#44]
Your time has finally come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But seriously, some of you are conflating a COIN aircraft with a CAS aircraft. One has to maybe deal with a DShK every so often, while the other would have to deal with a contested airspace in case of war with a modern opponent. Props and low and slow ain't gonna cut it in that case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:09:49 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-15E and F-16, F-15E has the legs to stay longer on station. A-10s are extremely vulnereable to ground fire but especially MANPADs. Luckliy for A10 pilots it usually doesnt result in an aircraft loss/eject scenario, but when they get hit they go home, and that means the mission is negated. People underestimate how difficult it is to hit a 500+ knot aircraft with any kind of mobile weaponry. You can zoom out of small arms and MANPAD range in seconds. We went low all the time and never got hit. We did have A10s take battle damage and Ill leave it at that. The A10s were designed in the day of unguided deliveries using the Mark 1 eyeball. That isnt how its done now. You dont even get to play if you arent dropping precision guided weapons...through a targeting pod...after being cleared hot by the Army or Marines. I dont blame them, a 10 meter bomb was considered excellent when I was learning visual unguided, but in combat never had a precision weapon miss by more than 6 feet. Which would you rather have called in next to you? Now if we are all going to use precision weapons through a targeting pod...why would you want to wait twice as long for them? Even though I shouldn't,I'm going to bite. No,the A-10 was not "designed in the day of unguided deliveries using the Mark 1 eyeball". Its primary means of killing tanks was always supposed to be Mavericks but let's not talk about 1972. What percentage of what A-10s have dropped in Iraq,Afghanistan and Syria been unguided by eyeball vs JDAMs and LGBs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:12:35 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
16 whole aircraft??Look out big spenders Since its the USAF it's probably 16 up jets or an entire MAG of TACAIR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:16:36 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Harvest HAWK ALL THE THINGS! But seriously. This is simply to train JTACs. Flight of the Old Dog it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:28:46 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, its an honest answer. Being airborne does not bestow global rotating prismatic situational awareness on anyone. Airborne sensors are a soda straw view of the world, like looking through a sniper's scope...ok for overwatch in a limited, specific AO, but that isnt the kind of situational awareness you are seeking. The more detail I see, the less field of view. Thats not an organizational or even cultural problem, its a physics and technology problem. We could maybe do that in the open desert, but the vast majority of the times I was called in for troops in contact it was urban. The AF is working on that, with persistsnt drones that can stare and accumulate info. We actually did coordinate on the ground in person in the beginning of OIF, when there were phase lines and a forward line of troops and all that...and it went down the same way as when other times the first words I heard the man on the radio say were a 9 line. As for getting in the way of fire missions... I got called in to the coordinates of a motar hitting one of our FOBs, they asked me to check it out, in a grove of palms. It was a windy, dirt in the air day limiting visibility, so after seeing nothing through the targeting pod I did a LOW pass to see if anything flushed out, though normally these guys just shoot and scoot. Sure enough, I get a whitish puff of smoke under a palm, and roll back in on it to designate it and get clearance to crater it. On thst pass I get several more puffs of smoke in the grove, and it dawns on me that it wasnt multiple motars, but multiple 155 rounds arcing in from the FOB, confirmed by a radio call. I decided not to fly through it a third time, but youll never convince me we were holding up any fire missions. In summary, If I could give you absolute SA about your op from the air I would, but for now you'll have to live with air dominance and precision destruction of any target you give us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F-15E and F-16, F-15E has the legs to stay longer on station. A-10s are extremely vulnereable to ground fire but especially MANPADs. Luckliy for A10 pilots it usually doesnt result in an aircraft loss/eject scenario, but when they get hit they go home, and that means the mission is negated. People underestimate how difficult it is to hit a 500+ knot aircraft with any kind of mobile weaponry. You can zoom out of small arms and MANPAD range in seconds. We went low all the time and never got hit. We did have A10s take battle damage and Ill leave it at that. The A10s were designed in the day of unguided deliveries using the Mark 1 eyeball. That isnt how its done now. You dont even get to play if you arent dropping precision guided weapons...through a targeting pod...after being cleared hot by the Army or Marines. I dont blame them, a 10 meter bomb was considered excellent when I was learning visual unguided, but in combat never had a precision weapon miss by more than 6 feet. Which would you rather have called in next to you? Now if we are all going to use precision weapons through a targeting pod...why would you want to wait twice as long for them? This is an Air Force answer. 100%. And it's not going to fix anything. It's a platform statistics approach to solving an organizational issue. The issue isn't that we need more things blown up more accurately. If I needed a grid demolished, I should be calling the artillery guys, in a perfect world. Not the Air Force, who just gets in the way of fire missions and costs money. What I need aircraft for is for the pilot first, sensors and weapons second. I need him so he can understand what's going on, then help me know what's going on, and then help me kill bad guys. You know what would be better than having faster aircraft to catch up to the fight? Having aircaft on station at the fight when it starts. Even better would be if the pilot in the aircraft knew the plan on the ground before he showed up. The best would be if the pilot and the guy on the ground knew each other and had worked together before. No, its an honest answer. Being airborne does not bestow global rotating prismatic situational awareness on anyone. Airborne sensors are a soda straw view of the world, like looking through a sniper's scope...ok for overwatch in a limited, specific AO, but that isnt the kind of situational awareness you are seeking. The more detail I see, the less field of view. Thats not an organizational or even cultural problem, its a physics and technology problem. We could maybe do that in the open desert, but the vast majority of the times I was called in for troops in contact it was urban. The AF is working on that, with persistsnt drones that can stare and accumulate info. We actually did coordinate on the ground in person in the beginning of OIF, when there were phase lines and a forward line of troops and all that...and it went down the same way as when other times the first words I heard the man on the radio say were a 9 line. As for getting in the way of fire missions... I got called in to the coordinates of a motar hitting one of our FOBs, they asked me to check it out, in a grove of palms. It was a windy, dirt in the air day limiting visibility, so after seeing nothing through the targeting pod I did a LOW pass to see if anything flushed out, though normally these guys just shoot and scoot. Sure enough, I get a whitish puff of smoke under a palm, and roll back in on it to designate it and get clearance to crater it. On thst pass I get several more puffs of smoke in the grove, and it dawns on me that it wasnt multiple motars, but multiple 155 rounds arcing in from the FOB, confirmed by a radio call. I decided not to fly through it a third time, but youll never convince me we were holding up any fire missions. In summary, If I could give you absolute SA about your op from the air I would, but for now you'll have to live with air dominance and precision destruction of any target you give us. As the Artillery guys say, "big sky, little bullet". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:36:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your time has finally come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/general_dynamics_a16_fighting_falcon.jpg But seriously, some of you are conflating a COIN aircraft with a CAS aircraft. One has to maybe deal with a DShK every so often, while the other would have to deal with a contested airspace in case of war with a modern opponent. Props and low and slow ain't gonna cut it in that case. yeah. cause the AF is gonna like totally be providing CAS in that environment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:39:58 AM EDT
[#50]
You really want me to spin your wheels!!
I am part of that stand up, and one of the 57th AMXS buildings got taken to support that F16 mission.. The planes are coming from Hill and it will support CIVILIAN maintainers.. Yeah you heard that right, no active duty gaurd or reserve get to work that aircraft. Guess who they had out there yesterday, fixing one of their jets?? My guys from Viper. Ended that shit real quick, as they sure didn't want our help to make that building better than it could have been. Wanted to do it ALL themselves.. And according to the badass girl general.. It's not a priority.. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
