User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:48:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snipped for reading clarity: Your attribution of USAF preoccupations with nuclear warfare are slightly off. TAC had the preoccupation with nuke delivery from tactical aircraft. Every Service and every branch at some level in the 1950's was preoccupied with nuclear warfare. Why? It's where the funding was. Army artillery branch was developing/fielding Honest John and nuclear artillery. Combined arms units were playing with the Davy Crockett. The Army itself was reorganizing into the Pentomic structure to survive on the nuclear battlefield. The Navy was trying to launch Regulus's off everything and building the Forrestall class capable of Skywarrior ops. The AF of course had SAC, and the only way TAC was to get funds was to go nuke, just like everyone else. I too have read Schlight's book and know where you've gotten your information on the initial plans for the F-111. The FB-111 was a separate development envisioned as a B-58 stopgap replacement. The FB-111 was a completely different aircraft to the standard F-111, having larger wings and different avionics. Not having Schlight's book in front of me, I would like to know how the F-111 was to be the optimal CAS a/c in Vietnam considering America was not fully engaged there at the time (1963). The AF may have said that the F-111 was optimal for CAS, but just like today, their hand was forced. The F-111 was MacNamara's monster, a DoD nightmare that was supposed to do everything just because his Whiz Kids piled every requirement on it. In the early 1960's it was the only new a/c in the development pipeline. The Century series was nearing the end of their production run, the F-4 was ramping up and being modded (F-4E), but there was nothing in the pipeline for either the USN or USAF (due to DoD insistence) except the F-111. Once the Vietnam War started in earnest, the A-7 came about, and USN & USAF flight testing determined that the F-111 was indeed not a cure-all. Macnamras departure allowed the services to go their own ways (USAF - F-15/16 and USN F-14 and eventually F-18). The F-111 development wasn't a AF problem, it was a DoD one that the AF was forced to embrace. As to the F-35 replacing the A-10 I don't know. I have not worked F-35 procurement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snipped for reading clarity: Quoted:
The USAF has often tried to determine what a future war will look like. For example, in response to many complaints about CAS during Korea, the USAF replied that the conventional fighting in Korea was atypical and would not be repeated in future conflicts . In 1963 the Air Force predicted that the FB-111 would be the optimal CAS aircraft for Vietnam. . The procurement of the A-10 in the closing stages of Vietnam might be seen as a commitment to supporting the Army. The main impetus for procuring the A-10, however, wasn’t to kill enemy ground forces; it was to kill the Army’s proposed follow on attack helicopter, the AH-56 Cheyenne . In a replay of the FB-111 prediction, the Air Force has determined that the supersonic, stealthy F35A is the best replacement for the A-10 . The loiter, armament and armor which made the A-10 the premier conventional CAS aircraft all being abandoned for stealth and speed. The GAU-8 30mm Gun with 1100 rounds of ammunition will be substituted by GAU 12 25mm gun with 180 rounds of ammunition providing only four seconds of total firing time . The costs, too, will increase. The $17,000 per flight hour cost of the A-10 is estimated to at least double for the F35A . The 1970s vintage A-10s have been flown hard in their career and require an approximately $2.7 billion upgrade program . With network centric, high intensity conflict seen as the future challenges by the USAF, the A-10 has no place and is seen as an expensive albatross. With the greatly increased operating cost and the many missions slated for the F35A few, if any, hours will be dedicated for training F35A pilots on CAS. This situation, too, is not unprecedented. In 1955 the Air Force identified the F100D as the USAF’s primary CAS platform. Yet by 1959, no F100D pilots were trained to drop conventional munitions due to the USAFs preoccupation with the delivery of nuclear weapons by tactical aircraft . Your attribution of USAF preoccupations with nuclear warfare are slightly off. TAC had the preoccupation with nuke delivery from tactical aircraft. Every Service and every branch at some level in the 1950's was preoccupied with nuclear warfare. Why? It's where the funding was. Army artillery branch was developing/fielding Honest John and nuclear artillery. Combined arms units were playing with the Davy Crockett. The Army itself was reorganizing into the Pentomic structure to survive on the nuclear battlefield. The Navy was trying to launch Regulus's off everything and building the Forrestall class capable of Skywarrior ops. The AF of course had SAC, and the only way TAC was to get funds was to go nuke, just like everyone else. I too have read Schlight's book and know where you've gotten your information on the initial plans for the F-111. The FB-111 was a separate development envisioned as a B-58 stopgap replacement. The FB-111 was a completely different aircraft to the standard F-111, having larger wings and different avionics. Not having Schlight's book in front of me, I would like to know how the F-111 was to be the optimal CAS a/c in Vietnam considering America was not fully engaged there at the time (1963). The AF may have said that the F-111 was optimal for CAS, but just like today, their hand was forced. The F-111 was MacNamara's monster, a DoD nightmare that was supposed to do everything just because his Whiz Kids piled every requirement on it. In the early 1960's it was the only new a/c in the development pipeline. The Century series was nearing the end of their production run, the F-4 was ramping up and being modded (F-4E), but there was nothing in the pipeline for either the USN or USAF (due to DoD insistence) except the F-111. Once the Vietnam War started in earnest, the A-7 came about, and USN & USAF flight testing determined that the F-111 was indeed not a cure-all. Macnamras departure allowed the services to go their own ways (USAF - F-15/16 and USN F-14 and eventually F-18). The F-111 development wasn't a AF problem, it was a DoD one that the AF was forced to embrace. As to the F-35 replacing the A-10 I don't know. I have not worked F-35 procurement. You are not the first to correct me on the large differences between the F-111 and FB-111. No one forces you to say anything. AF wanted the F111 as badly as MacNamara and the idea that they would force a program down the Navy's throat was a much sought after power grab for the air force. What was their alternative? The original F15 program was looking at a swept wing design very similar to the F14/F111 if Boyd and Spey are to be believed. F35s will be about as good at CAS as A10s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:50:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well you're little mister Lt.Col Strawman today, aren't you? I guess I'll just respond to the ones where you're only deping slightly more than usual. I'm not talking about maintenance people quitting because they have to turn wrenches, that's fucking stupid and you know it, and you're being intentionally dense throwing shit on the wall hoping for something to stick. I'm talking about them getting killed. In order for you to have those nifty little planes, you're going to have to have them in vulnerable places. Places where the people who keep them airworthy are likely to get shot or blowed up. Now on your putting the F15 pilot in charge, isn't that what the Air Force already does? And I agree with you, pilots make shitty commanders, and have no business whatsoever in the echelons of command. That said, it is their Air Force, and as I've said to you before, you're the officer. You pushing for change is a lot more potent than my six stripes begging for it. They can tell me to embrace the suck while they dine on caviar and have interesting debates over 1996 Eisweine with people like you. My post isn't really a rant, yours is, however. My "Rant" as you say, isn't official Air Force policy in regards to war fighting, just my opinion. And in my opinion we got into an un-winable war and started fighting it to the strengths of the enemy. THAT is what got our people killed more than any lack of CAS assets ever would, have, or did. We are an MMA champion trying to out box Mike Tyson instead of taking his silly ass to the ground and breaking his arms. And your entire rant is one stupid fucking Strawman after another. If that's how you're going to act this time around, I'll just put you back on ignore and tell you to fuck off. Again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ah. So are helicopters, more so even. Guess we better ground those. In fact, fuck it. Lets surrender now. War is only OK when risk free? Thats a different way of looking at it. So maintenance guys are going to quit if they have to turn wrenches? Fuck, I wonder where AF gets the reputation it does. So if we have more aircraft we won't have any more CAS. Well, if we give them to the AF, you are probably right. Airpower is awesome, we just fight the wrong wars. Why have a president? We should just take the F15C pilot with the most hours and put him in charge. problem solved, problem staying solved. your whole rant is, the AF doesn't like the wars we fight, so we shouldn't fight them. brilliant. and it does reflect the attitude of the AF. Just sucks for the people who actually fight and die in these wars. Well you're little mister Lt.Col Strawman today, aren't you? I guess I'll just respond to the ones where you're only deping slightly more than usual. I'm not talking about maintenance people quitting because they have to turn wrenches, that's fucking stupid and you know it, and you're being intentionally dense throwing shit on the wall hoping for something to stick. I'm talking about them getting killed. In order for you to have those nifty little planes, you're going to have to have them in vulnerable places. Places where the people who keep them airworthy are likely to get shot or blowed up. Now on your putting the F15 pilot in charge, isn't that what the Air Force already does? And I agree with you, pilots make shitty commanders, and have no business whatsoever in the echelons of command. That said, it is their Air Force, and as I've said to you before, you're the officer. You pushing for change is a lot more potent than my six stripes begging for it. They can tell me to embrace the suck while they dine on caviar and have interesting debates over 1996 Eisweine with people like you. My post isn't really a rant, yours is, however. My "Rant" as you say, isn't official Air Force policy in regards to war fighting, just my opinion. And in my opinion we got into an un-winable war and started fighting it to the strengths of the enemy. THAT is what got our people killed more than any lack of CAS assets ever would, have, or did. We are an MMA champion trying to out box Mike Tyson instead of taking his silly ass to the ground and breaking his arms. And your entire rant is one stupid fucking Strawman after another. If that's how you're going to act this time around, I'll just put you back on ignore and tell you to fuck off. Again. oh god, you mean they would have to live in FOBs in like war and stuff? The funny thing is, most guys love being out in the boonies. Its why you choose to wear a uniform instead of the 9-5. I think you underestimate the airman's desire to be in the fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:51:36 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With regards to losing experienced people in wartime... ... it's not like the AF has ever operated out of airfields in shitty locations (small, austere, or otherwise) where Airmen had to deal with the occasional sniping, mortar attacks and sometimes even enemy troops inside the wire. Ever hear of a little place called Vietnam? The AF lost people in some of those attacks, and lost aircrew and aircraft getting the goods to the Army, or evacuating wounded, or evacuating entire bases being over-run. Tac Airlift, the CAS guys, the fighter guys, the rescue guys, etc... all did what they were tasked to do back then. People were injured, killed, and some spent time in garden spots like the Hanoi Hilton. Those guys had valuable experience, and it took time to train and season them. Just as it does maintainers. Just like the aircrew that have been lost since 2001. Just like the Army helo drivers. And I'm fairly certain infantry aren't turned out in a matter of a few weeks either - it takes time to train and season them as well. Same with our brothers and sisters in the Navy and Marines. Do we need to throw away lives, experience, assets? No. But there are risks associated with preparing for, and actually engaging in hostilities. The AF has become more risk averse over the years. From my perspective, it was becoming apparent in the 1980's, and was quite noticeable in the 1990's. Maybe the VN guys who were in our leadership positions during my early career saw it occurring even earlier? As for the CAS issue as a whole... ...there is absolutely no reason the issue cannot be made to work better, other than a lack of interest from senior leadership on both sides of the equation. No reason why the Army and the AF cannot sit down and try to figure out how to make the existing force work better, for the current war-fighting. No reason why the Army and AF cannot do exchange programs, where the relevant positions work on the other end of the stick to get real-life experience on the ball of wax in its entirety. Then take that experience, and build a CAS force that is more responsive to user need in future war-fighting. And possibly even make the force joint - put Army guys in the command/ control/ scheduling, maintenance and crew mix. Or make changes to the agreements and just give the primary CAS role to the Army if they want it. This inter-service rivalry we used to enjoy sure seems more of an actual "hate" thing these days. That attitude making its way to the upper levels of leadership are going to compound problems in the future, if it isn't already "there". Just the opinion of a cranky dinosaur. IMHO, YMMV, yada yada yada AF got rocked in Vietnam. The leadership in the 80s and 90s were the ones who lost a lot of friends in vietnam. But thats what being a war fighting organization is about. I wish they would care about all casualties, not just the zipper suited sun gods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:54:56 AM EDT
[#4]
So what do you guys need from civilians with regard to voting and writing reps? What can the rest of us do to help the situation?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:08:04 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what do you guys need from civilians with regard to voting and writing reps? What can the rest of us do to help the situation? It's not something a politician can fix. The Air Force leadership needs to undergo a giant enema in the way they see themselves and how they fit into and will support the overall DoD mission. I still blame McPeak with the way the mentality of the AF has changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:09:49 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AF got rocked in Vietnam. The leadership in the 80s and 90s were the ones who lost a lot of friends in vietnam. But thats what being a war fighting organization is about. I wish they would care about all casualties, not just the zipper suited sun gods. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: With regards to losing experienced people in wartime... ... it's not like the AF has ever operated out of airfields in shitty locations (small, austere, or otherwise) where Airmen had to deal with the occasional sniping, mortar attacks and sometimes even enemy troops inside the wire. Ever hear of a little place called Vietnam? The AF lost people in some of those attacks, and lost aircrew and aircraft getting the goods to the Army, or evacuating wounded, or evacuating entire bases being over-run. Tac Airlift, the CAS guys, the fighter guys, the rescue guys, etc... all did what they were tasked to do back then. People were injured, killed, and some spent time in garden spots like the Hanoi Hilton. Those guys had valuable experience, and it took time to train and season them. Just as it does maintainers. Just like the aircrew that have been lost since 2001. Just like the Army helo drivers. And I'm fairly certain infantry aren't turned out in a matter of a few weeks either - it takes time to train and season them as well. Same with our brothers and sisters in the Navy and Marines. Do we need to throw away lives, experience, assets? No. But there are risks associated with preparing for, and actually engaging in hostilities. The AF has become more risk averse over the years. From my perspective, it was becoming apparent in the 1980's, and was quite noticeable in the 1990's. Maybe the VN guys who were in our leadership positions during my early career saw it occurring even earlier? As for the CAS issue as a whole... ...there is absolutely no reason the issue cannot be made to work better, other than a lack of interest from senior leadership on both sides of the equation. No reason why the Army and the AF cannot sit down and try to figure out how to make the existing force work better, for the current war-fighting. No reason why the Army and AF cannot do exchange programs, where the relevant positions work on the other end of the stick to get real-life experience on the ball of wax in its entirety. Then take that experience, and build a CAS force that is more responsive to user need in future war-fighting. And possibly even make the force joint - put Army guys in the command/ control/ scheduling, maintenance and crew mix. Or make changes to the agreements and just give the primary CAS role to the Army if they want it. This inter-service rivalry we used to enjoy sure seems more of an actual "hate" thing these days. That attitude making its way to the upper levels of leadership are going to compound problems in the future, if it isn't already "there". Just the opinion of a cranky dinosaur. IMHO, YMMV, yada yada yada AF got rocked in Vietnam. The leadership in the 80s and 90s were the ones who lost a lot of friends in vietnam. But thats what being a war fighting organization is about. I wish they would care about all casualties, not just the zipper suited sun gods. IMHO, most of us do, regardless of the shit-talking between the services. I hope you all realize that. Most of us are not in positions to affect Big Blue policy. I think the empire building and inter-command battles within the AF since VN has worsened issues within the service. Again, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:11:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not something a politician can fix. The Air Force leadership needs to undergo a giant enema in the way they see themselves and how they fit into and will support the overall DoD mission. I still blame McPeak with the way the mentality of the AF has changed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So what do you guys need from civilians with regard to voting and writing reps? What can the rest of us do to help the situation? It's not something a politician can fix. The Air Force leadership needs to undergo a giant enema in the way they see themselves and how they fit into and will support the overall DoD mission. I still blame McPeak with the way the mentality of the AF has changed. You'll find a lot of agreement with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:11:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are not the first to correct me on the large differences between the F-111 and FB-111. No one forces you to say anything. AF wanted the F111 as badly as MacNamara and the idea that they would force a program down the Navy's throat was a much sought after power grab for the air force. What was their alternative? The original F15 program was looking at a swept wing design very similar to the F14/F111 if Boyd and Spey are to be believed. F35s will be about as good at CAS as A10s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Snipped for reading clarity: Quoted:
The USAF has often tried to determine what a future war will look like. For example, in response to many complaints about CAS during Korea, the USAF replied that the conventional fighting in Korea was atypical and would not be repeated in future conflicts . In 1963 the Air Force predicted that the FB-111 would be the optimal CAS aircraft for Vietnam. . The procurement of the A-10 in the closing stages of Vietnam might be seen as a commitment to supporting the Army. The main impetus for procuring the A-10, however, wasn’t to kill enemy ground forces; it was to kill the Army’s proposed follow on attack helicopter, the AH-56 Cheyenne . In a replay of the FB-111 prediction, the Air Force has determined that the supersonic, stealthy F35A is the best replacement for the A-10 . The loiter, armament and armor which made the A-10 the premier conventional CAS aircraft all being abandoned for stealth and speed. The GAU-8 30mm Gun with 1100 rounds of ammunition will be substituted by GAU 12 25mm gun with 180 rounds of ammunition providing only four seconds of total firing time . The costs, too, will increase. The $17,000 per flight hour cost of the A-10 is estimated to at least double for the F35A . The 1970s vintage A-10s have been flown hard in their career and require an approximately $2.7 billion upgrade program . With network centric, high intensity conflict seen as the future challenges by the USAF, the A-10 has no place and is seen as an expensive albatross. With the greatly increased operating cost and the many missions slated for the F35A few, if any, hours will be dedicated for training F35A pilots on CAS. This situation, too, is not unprecedented. In 1955 the Air Force identified the F100D as the USAF’s primary CAS platform. Yet by 1959, no F100D pilots were trained to drop conventional munitions due to the USAFs preoccupation with the delivery of nuclear weapons by tactical aircraft . Your attribution of USAF preoccupations with nuclear warfare are slightly off. TAC had the preoccupation with nuke delivery from tactical aircraft. Every Service and every branch at some level in the 1950's was preoccupied with nuclear warfare. Why? It's where the funding was. Army artillery branch was developing/fielding Honest John and nuclear artillery. Combined arms units were playing with the Davy Crockett. The Army itself was reorganizing into the Pentomic structure to survive on the nuclear battlefield. The Navy was trying to launch Regulus's off everything and building the Forrestall class capable of Skywarrior ops. The AF of course had SAC, and the only way TAC was to get funds was to go nuke, just like everyone else. I too have read Schlight's book and know where you've gotten your information on the initial plans for the F-111. The FB-111 was a separate development envisioned as a B-58 stopgap replacement. The FB-111 was a completely different aircraft to the standard F-111, having larger wings and different avionics. Not having Schlight's book in front of me, I would like to know how the F-111 was to be the optimal CAS a/c in Vietnam considering America was not fully engaged there at the time (1963). The AF may have said that the F-111 was optimal for CAS, but just like today, their hand was forced. The F-111 was MacNamara's monster, a DoD nightmare that was supposed to do everything just because his Whiz Kids piled every requirement on it. In the early 1960's it was the only new a/c in the development pipeline. The Century series was nearing the end of their production run, the F-4 was ramping up and being modded (F-4E), but there was nothing in the pipeline for either the USN or USAF (due to DoD insistence) except the F-111. Once the Vietnam War started in earnest, the A-7 came about, and USN & USAF flight testing determined that the F-111 was indeed not a cure-all. Macnamras departure allowed the services to go their own ways (USAF - F-15/16 and USN F-14 and eventually F-18). The F-111 development wasn't a AF problem, it was a DoD one that the AF was forced to embrace. As to the F-35 replacing the A-10 I don't know. I have not worked F-35 procurement. You are not the first to correct me on the large differences between the F-111 and FB-111. No one forces you to say anything. AF wanted the F111 as badly as MacNamara and the idea that they would force a program down the Navy's throat was a much sought after power grab for the air force. What was their alternative? The original F15 program was looking at a swept wing design very similar to the F14/F111 if Boyd and Spey are to be believed. F35s will be about as good at CAS as A10s. The original F-15's in the very early planning looked into the swing wing, which was definitely a "in vogue" concept for aviation engineers in the late 50's / early 60's. It allowed for an aircraft to have both straight wing and swept performance, effectively meshing two flight envelopes. In use however, it was a complex system that imposed weight and performance penalties on platforms which used them. If you're fielding a large heavy craft (F-111, F-14, B-1, Tu-160, and to a lesser extent the Tornado) you can take that weight hit and keep on trucking. For an air to air fighter however, you're better off with a normal style wing like the F-15 went with. The F-15 is also blessed to not have the TF30 as its powerplant, though the F100 had its share of initial problems. If there was a power grab, it was by the DoD against the USAF and USN. Programs like the F-108 and F6D Missileer were axed. MacNamara ordered the conglomeration of the USAF and USN requirements. MacNamra even went as far as to award the F-111 to General Dynamics despite USAF and USN on the Boeing design. For a quick read of the nightmare that was the original F-111 procurement: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f111_1.html F-15 origins (with mention of the original swing wing): http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_1.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:11:31 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not something a politician can fix. The Air Force leadership needs to undergo a giant enema in the way they see themselves and how they fit into and will support the overall DoD mission. I still blame McPeak with the way the mentality of the AF has changed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what do you guys need from civilians with regard to voting and writing reps? What can the rest of us do to help the situation? It's not something a politician can fix. The Air Force leadership needs to undergo a giant enema in the way they see themselves and how they fit into and will support the overall DoD mission. I still blame McPeak with the way the mentality of the AF has changed. Generals are involved in politics aren't they? Would pressure on Rep/Sen help pressure leadership in the direction you need? Not sure what to say though really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:16:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMHO, most of us do, regardless of the shit-talking between the services. I hope you all realize that. Most of us are not in positions to affect Big Blue policy. I think the empire building and inter-command battles within the AF since VN has worsened issues within the service. Again, IMHO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With regards to losing experienced people in wartime... ... it's not like the AF has ever operated out of airfields in shitty locations (small, austere, or otherwise) where Airmen had to deal with the occasional sniping, mortar attacks and sometimes even enemy troops inside the wire. Ever hear of a little place called Vietnam? The AF lost people in some of those attacks, and lost aircrew and aircraft getting the goods to the Army, or evacuating wounded, or evacuating entire bases being over-run. Tac Airlift, the CAS guys, the fighter guys, the rescue guys, etc... all did what they were tasked to do back then. People were injured, killed, and some spent time in garden spots like the Hanoi Hilton. Those guys had valuable experience, and it took time to train and season them. Just as it does maintainers. Just like the aircrew that have been lost since 2001. Just like the Army helo drivers. And I'm fairly certain infantry aren't turned out in a matter of a few weeks either - it takes time to train and season them as well. Same with our brothers and sisters in the Navy and Marines. Do we need to throw away lives, experience, assets? No. But there are risks associated with preparing for, and actually engaging in hostilities. The AF has become more risk averse over the years. From my perspective, it was becoming apparent in the 1980's, and was quite noticeable in the 1990's. Maybe the VN guys who were in our leadership positions during my early career saw it occurring even earlier? As for the CAS issue as a whole... ...there is absolutely no reason the issue cannot be made to work better, other than a lack of interest from senior leadership on both sides of the equation. No reason why the Army and the AF cannot sit down and try to figure out how to make the existing force work better, for the current war-fighting. No reason why the Army and AF cannot do exchange programs, where the relevant positions work on the other end of the stick to get real-life experience on the ball of wax in its entirety. Then take that experience, and build a CAS force that is more responsive to user need in future war-fighting. And possibly even make the force joint - put Army guys in the command/ control/ scheduling, maintenance and crew mix. Or make changes to the agreements and just give the primary CAS role to the Army if they want it. This inter-service rivalry we used to enjoy sure seems more of an actual "hate" thing these days. That attitude making its way to the upper levels of leadership are going to compound problems in the future, if it isn't already "there". Just the opinion of a cranky dinosaur. IMHO, YMMV, yada yada yada AF got rocked in Vietnam. The leadership in the 80s and 90s were the ones who lost a lot of friends in vietnam. But thats what being a war fighting organization is about. I wish they would care about all casualties, not just the zipper suited sun gods. IMHO, most of us do, regardless of the shit-talking between the services. I hope you all realize that. Most of us are not in positions to affect Big Blue policy. I think the empire building and inter-command battles within the AF since VN has worsened issues within the service. Again, IMHO. You are right. My apologies. I have met plenty of great airmen. my uncle was one of them, as was my great uncle. corporate air force drives me crazy. 5 guys got bombed today in afghanistan. what will be the adjustment? less CAS? RON made this observation and I believe it true, the Marines start off brainwashing new marines, but it wears off. AF shoves the kool aid down your throat for so long that career airmen are much less capable of honest self-criticism than the most rabid jarhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:18:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The original F-15's in the very early planning looked into the swing wing, which was definitely a "in vogue" concept for aviation engineers in the late 50's / early 60's. It allowed for an aircraft to have both straight wing and swept performance, effectively meshing two flight envelopes. In use however, it was a complex system that imposed weight and performance penalties on platforms which used them. If you're fielding a large heavy craft (F-111, F-14, B-1, Tu-160, and to a lesser extent the Tornado) you can take that weight hit and keep on trucking. For an air to air fighter however, you're better off with a normal style wing like the F-15 went with. The F-15 is also blessed to not have the TF30 as its powerplant, though the F100 had its share of initial problems. If there was a power grab, it was by the DoD against the USAF and USN. Programs like the F-108 and F6D Missileer were axed. MacNamara ordered the conglomeration of the USAF and USN requirements. MacNamra even went as far as to award the F-111 to General Dynamics despite USAF and USN on the Boeing design. For a quick read of the nightmare that was the original F-111 procurement: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f111_1.html F-15 origins (with mention of the original swing wing): http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_1.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snipped for reading clarity: Quoted:
The USAF has often tried to determine what a future war will look like. For example, in response to many complaints about CAS during Korea, the USAF replied that the conventional fighting in Korea was atypical and would not be repeated in future conflicts . In 1963 the Air Force predicted that the FB-111 would be the optimal CAS aircraft for Vietnam. . The procurement of the A-10 in the closing stages of Vietnam might be seen as a commitment to supporting the Army. The main impetus for procuring the A-10, however, wasn’t to kill enemy ground forces; it was to kill the Army’s proposed follow on attack helicopter, the AH-56 Cheyenne . In a replay of the FB-111 prediction, the Air Force has determined that the supersonic, stealthy F35A is the best replacement for the A-10 . The loiter, armament and armor which made the A-10 the premier conventional CAS aircraft all being abandoned for stealth and speed. The GAU-8 30mm Gun with 1100 rounds of ammunition will be substituted by GAU 12 25mm gun with 180 rounds of ammunition providing only four seconds of total firing time . The costs, too, will increase. The $17,000 per flight hour cost of the A-10 is estimated to at least double for the F35A . The 1970s vintage A-10s have been flown hard in their career and require an approximately $2.7 billion upgrade program . With network centric, high intensity conflict seen as the future challenges by the USAF, the A-10 has no place and is seen as an expensive albatross. With the greatly increased operating cost and the many missions slated for the F35A few, if any, hours will be dedicated for training F35A pilots on CAS. This situation, too, is not unprecedented. In 1955 the Air Force identified the F100D as the USAF’s primary CAS platform. Yet by 1959, no F100D pilots were trained to drop conventional munitions due to the USAFs preoccupation with the delivery of nuclear weapons by tactical aircraft . Your attribution of USAF preoccupations with nuclear warfare are slightly off. TAC had the preoccupation with nuke delivery from tactical aircraft. Every Service and every branch at some level in the 1950's was preoccupied with nuclear warfare. Why? It's where the funding was. Army artillery branch was developing/fielding Honest John and nuclear artillery. Combined arms units were playing with the Davy Crockett. The Army itself was reorganizing into the Pentomic structure to survive on the nuclear battlefield. The Navy was trying to launch Regulus's off everything and building the Forrestall class capable of Skywarrior ops. The AF of course had SAC, and the only way TAC was to get funds was to go nuke, just like everyone else. I too have read Schlight's book and know where you've gotten your information on the initial plans for the F-111. The FB-111 was a separate development envisioned as a B-58 stopgap replacement. The FB-111 was a completely different aircraft to the standard F-111, having larger wings and different avionics. Not having Schlight's book in front of me, I would like to know how the F-111 was to be the optimal CAS a/c in Vietnam considering America was not fully engaged there at the time (1963). The AF may have said that the F-111 was optimal for CAS, but just like today, their hand was forced. The F-111 was MacNamara's monster, a DoD nightmare that was supposed to do everything just because his Whiz Kids piled every requirement on it. In the early 1960's it was the only new a/c in the development pipeline. The Century series was nearing the end of their production run, the F-4 was ramping up and being modded (F-4E), but there was nothing in the pipeline for either the USN or USAF (due to DoD insistence) except the F-111. Once the Vietnam War started in earnest, the A-7 came about, and USN & USAF flight testing determined that the F-111 was indeed not a cure-all. Macnamras departure allowed the services to go their own ways (USAF - F-15/16 and USN F-14 and eventually F-18). The F-111 development wasn't a AF problem, it was a DoD one that the AF was forced to embrace. As to the F-35 replacing the A-10 I don't know. I have not worked F-35 procurement. You are not the first to correct me on the large differences between the F-111 and FB-111. No one forces you to say anything. AF wanted the F111 as badly as MacNamara and the idea that they would force a program down the Navy's throat was a much sought after power grab for the air force. What was their alternative? The original F15 program was looking at a swept wing design very similar to the F14/F111 if Boyd and Spey are to be believed. F35s will be about as good at CAS as A10s. The original F-15's in the very early planning looked into the swing wing, which was definitely a "in vogue" concept for aviation engineers in the late 50's / early 60's. It allowed for an aircraft to have both straight wing and swept performance, effectively meshing two flight envelopes. In use however, it was a complex system that imposed weight and performance penalties on platforms which used them. If you're fielding a large heavy craft (F-111, F-14, B-1, Tu-160, and to a lesser extent the Tornado) you can take that weight hit and keep on trucking. For an air to air fighter however, you're better off with a normal style wing like the F-15 went with. The F-15 is also blessed to not have the TF30 as its powerplant, though the F100 had its share of initial problems. If there was a power grab, it was by the DoD against the USAF and USN. Programs like the F-108 and F6D Missileer were axed. MacNamara ordered the conglomeration of the USAF and USN requirements. MacNamra even went as far as to award the F-111 to General Dynamics despite USAF and USN on the Boeing design. For a quick read of the nightmare that was the original F-111 procurement: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f111_1.html F-15 origins (with mention of the original swing wing): http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_1.html I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the subject and look into it some more. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 8:25:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RON made this observation and I believe it true, the Marines start off brainwashing new marines, but it wears off. AF shoves the kool aid down your throat for so long that career airmen are much less capable of honest self-criticism than the most rabid jarhead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
RON made this observation and I believe it true, the Marines start off brainwashing new marines, but it wears off. AF shoves the kool aid down your throat for so long that career airmen are much less capable of honest self-criticism than the most rabid jarhead. Marine Kool-Aid is all about outstanding team performance due to high individual standards. The team is awesome because everyone in the team is awesome, and when they're awesome together, they just get more awesome. That leads to a culture where, if you're not awesome enough, people let you know. Consequently, you're always thinking about whether you're awesome enough, and how you might be more awesome. To put it in a 'word': Ooh-rah. It's not my speed, but I guess it works for killing people, and I can't argue with effectiveness. The Air Force Kool-Aid has this weird egalitarian teamwork dynamic and obsession with "professionalism" thing going on. It's like everyone is in a supporting role, somehow, and nobody is really the head shit. I guess maybe pilots? It's all less spear, more... I dunno, chakram ring? Consider this, direct from the horse's mouth: Excellence
Community excellence is achieved when the members of an organization can work together to successfully reach a common goal in an atmosphere that is free from fear and that preserves individual self-worth. Some of the factors influencing interpersonal excellence are: Mutual respect Genuine respect involves viewing another person as an individual of fundamental worth. Obviously, this means that a person is never judged on the basis of his/her possession of an attribute that places him/her in some racial, ethnic, economic or gender-based category. Benefit of the doubt Working hand in glove with mutual respect is that attitude that says all coworkers are innocent until proven guilty. Before rushing to judgment about a person or his/her behavior, it is important to have the whole story. That sounds like kindergarden rules. So... I dunno. ETA: link: http://www.airforce.com/learn-about/our-values/ I know it's just silly advertising psychobable, but that's how they define the word excellence. I'm just saying, you ask a Marine to define excellence, and he'll flex and show you his 20" biceps, then grunt and/or bark at you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:09:19 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F22 has been around since the 90's and we are still trying to figure out all the quirks of that plane. Remember the oxygen issues? F35 is a boondoggle. It's literally air power cancer that is costing ten times what it's supposed to and only doing half as much. It's like a bunch of fighter jocks sat around and said, "Hey, let's cram every possible ability into this one fighter!" Plainly, it's not going to work, and thus far isn't. If you want to make that argument, hey, jump in the backseat, I'm driving this bitch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
F22 has been around since the 90's and we are still trying to figure out all the quirks of that plane. Remember the oxygen issues? F35 is a boondoggle. It's literally air power cancer that is costing ten times what it's supposed to and only doing half as much. It's like a bunch of fighter jocks sat around and said, "Hey, let's cram every possible ability into this one fighter!" Plainly, it's not going to work, and thus far isn't. If you want to make that argument, hey, jump in the backseat, I'm driving this bitch. While I know nothing about CAS, I am knowledgeable enough in the above topics to say what's written is not accurate. Quoted:
We would have to literally create an entire new supply system. Turcanos use a different engine than everything else we fly, and 99% of the other parts are unique too. Are you going to forward deploy maintenance, supply, and every other support they need? Lamenting the lack of commonality of Super Tucano parts, and bashing the F-35 because it has parts commonality doesn't seem very consistent. The F-15, F-16, F-18C/D, F-18E/F, F-22 and F-35 ... Aside from the engines of the F-15/16, and ejection seats on the F-15/16/22 and F-18/35s, I can't think of much commonality between any of those platforms, other than some MSP. Some ECS equipment on the F-18 C/D and E/F might be the same. Some cockpit display equipment might be same for the F-15/16/18/22. Aside from an F100 engine, I might be able to fit all of the common parts between any two of those platforms in the bed of my pickup truck. Some of the MSP might topple the applecart, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:11:16 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:15:43 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:16:33 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I know nothing about CAS, I am knowledgeable enough in the above topics to say what's written is not accurate. Lamenting the lack of commonality of Super Tucano parts, and bashing the F-35 because it has parts commonality doesn't seem very consistent. The F-15, F-16, F-18C/D, F-18E/F, F-22 and F-35 ... Aside from the engines of the F-15/16, and ejection seats on the F-15/16/22 and F-18/35s, I can't think of much commonality between any of those platforms, other than some MSP. Some ECS equipment on the F-18 C/D and E/F might be the same. Some cockpit display equipment might be same for the F-15/16/18/22. Aside from an F100 engine, I might be able to fit all of the common parts between any two of those platforms in the bed of my pickup truck. Some of the MSP might topple the applecart, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
F22 has been around since the 90's and we are still trying to figure out all the quirks of that plane. Remember the oxygen issues? F35 is a boondoggle. It's literally air power cancer that is costing ten times what it's supposed to and only doing half as much. It's like a bunch of fighter jocks sat around and said, "Hey, let's cram every possible ability into this one fighter!" Plainly, it's not going to work, and thus far isn't. If you want to make that argument, hey, jump in the backseat, I'm driving this bitch. While I know nothing about CAS, I am knowledgeable enough in the above topics to say what's written is not accurate. Quoted:
We would have to literally create an entire new supply system. Turcanos use a different engine than everything else we fly, and 99% of the other parts are unique too. Are you going to forward deploy maintenance, supply, and every other support they need? Lamenting the lack of commonality of Super Tucano parts, and bashing the F-35 because it has parts commonality doesn't seem very consistent. The F-15, F-16, F-18C/D, F-18E/F, F-22 and F-35 ... Aside from the engines of the F-15/16, and ejection seats on the F-15/16/22 and F-18/35s, I can't think of much commonality between any of those platforms, other than some MSP. Some ECS equipment on the F-18 C/D and E/F might be the same. Some cockpit display equipment might be same for the F-15/16/18/22. Aside from an F100 engine, I might be able to fit all of the common parts between any two of those platforms in the bed of my pickup truck. Some of the MSP might topple the applecart, though. He's not talking about parts commonality with current airframes. He's saying that a 100% unique airframe (and it would be except for our normal mil-spec radio suite and IFF systems) is a logistics nightmare. That's what killed the C-27, no matter what you might hear to the contrary on here. Alenia simply can't support their product adequately with spares and other support requirements. Buying a super Tuco, that is designed and built in Brazil with mostly custom parts and pieces would be a support challenge of monumental proportions. Though the AT-6 isn't as good a platform, it at least exists in the US military system already, so it could be supported more easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:25:44 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistorySafety stand-downs, Commander's Calls, and sexual assault awareness training. All. The. Fucking. Time. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:33:40 AM EDT
[#18]
90% of the ST is made in the US.
We are getting a lot of vague answers from the blue suiters. How about some research? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:40:52 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
90% of the ST is made in the US. We are getting a lot of vague answers from the blue suiters. How about some research? 
Where did you dig up that tidbit? The engine is made in Canada, and the airframes for LAS that would be "built" in Florida will be major assemblies built in Brazil and bolted together in the US. It's what we do with every pork barrel project, try to spread a little into the US. That doesn't obviate the support difficulties in any way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 10:01:49 AM EDT
[#20]
I looked it up on Aviation Pros and Airframer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 4:54:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's not talking about parts commonality with current airframes. He's saying that a 100% unique airframe (and it would be except for our normal mil-spec radio suite and IFF systems) is a logistics nightmare. That's what killed the C-27, no matter what you might hear to the contrary on here. Alenia simply can't support their product adequately with spares and other support requirements. Buying a super Tuco, that is designed and built in Brazil with mostly custom parts and pieces would be a support challenge of monumental proportions. Though the AT-6 isn't as good a platform, it at least exists in the US military system already, so it could be supported more easily. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F22 has been around since the 90's and we are still trying to figure out all the quirks of that plane. Remember the oxygen issues? F35 is a boondoggle. It's literally air power cancer that is costing ten times what it's supposed to and only doing half as much. It's like a bunch of fighter jocks sat around and said, "Hey, let's cram every possible ability into this one fighter!" Plainly, it's not going to work, and thus far isn't. If you want to make that argument, hey, jump in the backseat, I'm driving this bitch. While I know nothing about CAS, I am knowledgeable enough in the above topics to say what's written is not accurate. Quoted:
We would have to literally create an entire new supply system. Turcanos use a different engine than everything else we fly, and 99% of the other parts are unique too. Are you going to forward deploy maintenance, supply, and every other support they need? Lamenting the lack of commonality of Super Tucano parts, and bashing the F-35 because it has parts commonality doesn't seem very consistent. The F-15, F-16, F-18C/D, F-18E/F, F-22 and F-35 ... Aside from the engines of the F-15/16, and ejection seats on the F-15/16/22 and F-18/35s, I can't think of much commonality between any of those platforms, other than some MSP. Some ECS equipment on the F-18 C/D and E/F might be the same. Some cockpit display equipment might be same for the F-15/16/18/22. Aside from an F100 engine, I might be able to fit all of the common parts between any two of those platforms in the bed of my pickup truck. Some of the MSP might topple the applecart, though. He's not talking about parts commonality with current airframes. He's saying that a 100% unique airframe (and it would be except for our normal mil-spec radio suite and IFF systems) is a logistics nightmare. That's what killed the C-27, no matter what you might hear to the contrary on here. Alenia simply can't support their product adequately with spares and other support requirements. Buying a super Tuco, that is designed and built in Brazil with mostly custom parts and pieces would be a support challenge of monumental proportions. Though the AT-6 isn't as good a platform, it at least exists in the US military system already, so it could be supported more easily. I don't think anyone is saying it has to be the super-T. There are many options. The Super-T just happens to be one that has been fairly successful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:02:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well you're little mister Lt.Col Strawman today, aren't you? I guess I'll just respond to the ones where you're only deping slightly more than usual. I'm not talking about maintenance people quitting because they have to turn wrenches, that's fucking stupid and you know it, and you're being intentionally dense throwing shit on the wall hoping for something to stick. I'm talking about them getting killed. In order for you to have those nifty little planes, you're going to have to have them in vulnerable places. Places where the people who keep them airworthy are likely to get shot or blowed up. Now on your putting the F15 pilot in charge, isn't that what the Air Force already does? And I agree with you, pilots make shitty commanders, and have no business whatsoever in the echelons of command. That said, it is their Air Force, and as I've said to you before, you're the officer. You pushing for change is a lot more potent than my six stripes begging for it. They can tell me to embrace the suck while they dine on caviar and have interesting debates over 1996 Eisweine with people like you. My post isn't really a rant, yours is, however. My "Rant" as you say, isn't official Air Force policy in regards to war fighting, just my opinion. And in my opinion we got into an un-winable war and started fighting it to the strengths of the enemy. THAT is what got our people killed more than any lack of CAS assets ever would, have, or did. We are an MMA champion trying to out box Mike Tyson instead of taking his silly ass to the ground and breaking his arms. And your entire rant is one stupid fucking Strawman after another. If that's how you're going to act this time around, I'll just put you back on ignore and tell you to fuck off. Again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ah. So are helicopters, more so even. Guess we better ground those. In fact, fuck it. Lets surrender now. War is only OK when risk free? Thats a different way of looking at it. So maintenance guys are going to quit if they have to turn wrenches? Fuck, I wonder where AF gets the reputation it does. So if we have more aircraft we won't have any more CAS. Well, if we give them to the AF, you are probably right. Airpower is awesome, we just fight the wrong wars. Why have a president? We should just take the F15C pilot with the most hours and put him in charge. problem solved, problem staying solved. your whole rant is, the AF doesn't like the wars we fight, so we shouldn't fight them. brilliant. and it does reflect the attitude of the AF. Just sucks for the people who actually fight and die in these wars. Well you're little mister Lt.Col Strawman today, aren't you? I guess I'll just respond to the ones where you're only deping slightly more than usual. I'm not talking about maintenance people quitting because they have to turn wrenches, that's fucking stupid and you know it, and you're being intentionally dense throwing shit on the wall hoping for something to stick. I'm talking about them getting killed. In order for you to have those nifty little planes, you're going to have to have them in vulnerable places. Places where the people who keep them airworthy are likely to get shot or blowed up. Now on your putting the F15 pilot in charge, isn't that what the Air Force already does? And I agree with you, pilots make shitty commanders, and have no business whatsoever in the echelons of command. That said, it is their Air Force, and as I've said to you before, you're the officer. You pushing for change is a lot more potent than my six stripes begging for it. They can tell me to embrace the suck while they dine on caviar and have interesting debates over 1996 Eisweine with people like you. My post isn't really a rant, yours is, however. My "Rant" as you say, isn't official Air Force policy in regards to war fighting, just my opinion. And in my opinion we got into an un-winable war and started fighting it to the strengths of the enemy. THAT is what got our people killed more than any lack of CAS assets ever would, have, or did. We are an MMA champion trying to out box Mike Tyson instead of taking his silly ass to the ground and breaking his arms. And your entire rant is one stupid fucking Strawman after another. If that's how you're going to act this time around, I'll just put you back on ignore and tell you to fuck off. Again. Wow, you're telling a field grade Infantry Officer that people who go to war might get killed? That's rich. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:03:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where did you dig up that tidbit? The engine is made in Canada, and the airframes for LAS that would be "built" in Florida will be major assemblies built in Brazil and bolted together in the US. It's what we do with every pork barrel project, try to spread a little into the US. That doesn't obviate the support difficulties in any way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 90% of the ST is made in the US. We are getting a lot of vague answers from the blue suiters. How about some research? Where did you dig up that tidbit? The engine is made in Canada, and the airframes for LAS that would be "built" in Florida will be major assemblies built in Brazil and bolted together in the US. It's what we do with every pork barrel project, try to spread a little into the US. That doesn't obviate the support difficulties in any way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:05:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, to take it from the top, we're talking about replacing a 100 million dollar airframe with a bunch of really inexpensive airframes to radically increase the capability. Creating pilots is not hard. It takes a little bit of time. Nobody ever said that we're simply going to cut a check and have this capability tomorrow. A couple of years is easily doable, and gives plenty of time to address the logistics issues as well. You think we are going to still be there in two years? And these issues sound like they need to be addressed now. You're taking some ridiculous concept and pretending that's what I'm addressing. No one ever said that every maneuver element on the ground is going to get full time CAS assets overhead 24/7. That's never going to happen. The idea we're discussing is radically increasing availability of CAS so the whole theater isn't at the mercy of a B-1B flying from ten thousand miles away and a couple of F-15s or A-10s flying from the other side of the country. And this is somehow different than a ST flying in from the other side of the country at half the speed too? And having every single element have it's own CAS is EXACTLY what Sylvan and about every other infantry guy is asking for here. And I wholly agree with you that is unpossible. Would it be nice, yup, possible, nope. There are no MANPADS. The discussion isn't even worth having, because they simply aren't there. Hmm... We had several LAIRCM activations where a full lock and emission occurred, and that's a pretty smart system. I'm no intel weenie, but if that system is saying there's something on the ground worth lasing, I'm going to go with what it said. And it wasn't known sources or refraction of sunlight as they'd happen all times of the day and night, and in different areas. The point is not Afghanistan specifically, it's the fact we need the capability and we don't have it. Afghanistan won't be the last war ever. The fact we can't get to the ideal perfect solution doesn't mean we throw up our hands and do nothing. That's what you're advocating. Ok, when was the last time anything in Afghanistan was launched on by a MANPADS? Not since the Muj kicked the Soviets out? Got it. I know one or two were found in a cave in a puddle of water or something, that doesn't mean that there is a credible threat, and as Sylvan pointed out already, the Helo guys don't stop flying because there might be somebody with a 30 year old rocket on the ground, and they're far more vulnerable than any fixed wing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:10:12 PM EDT
[#25]
whats the worst friendly fire incident youve ever heard of delivered from air? all theaters any time
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:15:21 PM EDT
[#26]
might have found answer to my Q: Cap Arcona Incident
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:17:57 PM EDT
[#27]
This has quite honestly been the first thread in GD where I have read every-single-post.
Since I have nothing substantive to offer to the discussion, I will say that it has been very informative, entertaining, and in some senses an indictment of how the Puzzle Palace on the Potomac needs a RIF as much as Congress does. And the whore-house analogy was fucking hilarious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:21:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't read all 8 pages so I apologize if this question has already been asked. What is your opinion of the USAF turning over the CAS mission to the army and allowing the army to have armed fixed wing assets. to do that job? Well, I have read all 10 now pages and this looks like a good place for me to jump in. To answer your question, F/W platforms (to include UASs) are not the best platform for supporting ground forces in enemy contact...what most here (and everywhere else) refer to as CAS. But before I go any further, let's look at what CAS and CCA (to which CFII and Sylvan have already alluded) really are. CAS delivers ordnance to a grid...period (which is exactly how accidents like the one which started this thread happen...ordnance delivered to the wrong grid). USA R/W CCA delivers ordnance to a target to achieve a desired effect and is "friendly centric". When Apaches/Kiowas show up at a fight, the first thing they do is ID friendlies; then they find the bad guys. This alone practically eliminates fratricide. Now don't all yous USAF types get riled up...the USAF is the mightiest military force in the world (in spite of it's over organization  ), has the nukes to destroy everyone X times over, has all those satellites, all the coolest toys, best bases in the best places, all that $, etc., and I often really wish I had joined the USAF.
The argument shouldn't be about how to get more/better CAS support from the USAF but how, in the case of the Army, to provide more/better organic CCA support. ETA: Except for the AC...they are a fantastic F/W CAS platform. Even the A-10s, while great at striking ground targets don't have the SA or even the ability to gain enough SA (at X00' and 300KTS) to provide the best support to ground forces. And yes, I love the A-10 but R/W CCA is still more effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:23:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True, from my experiences the Airforce can't get a plane to take off from any exotic location without "breaking" so the crew can party for a few days, I imagine the same gremlins exist for parts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 90% of the ST is made in the US. We are getting a lot of vague answers from the blue suiters. How about some research? Where did you dig up that tidbit? The engine is made in Canada, and the airframes for LAS that would be "built" in Florida will be major assemblies built in Brazil and bolted together in the US. It's what we do with every pork barrel project, try to spread a little into the US. That doesn't obviate the support difficulties in any way. Okay, sure, I've broken in some pretty sweet places. Always honest breaks. But I've been in plenty of shitty spots as well, and taken fire. Frankly, I'm glad to see Sylvan apologize for desparaging comments about all AF. There are plenty of us who give a real shit about the ground pounders; a good number of us come from being ground pounders. But it's outside of our abilities to change the idiotic policies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:24:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ask a guy who has never received CAS anything you want to know about CAS. Any virgins want to give some pointers on sex while we are at it? Holy shit that is funny. I was thinking it's kind of like complaining to the DMV clerk that their customer service sucks. Not only do they not care and are uninterested in doing better, it seems they refuse to believe it can and has been done better. 9.5 more pages of this to go. I can't believe I didn't see this earlier, and it isn't locked yet. In on 10. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:36:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy shit that is funny. I was thinking it's kind of like complaining to the DMV clerk that their customer service sucks. Not only do they not care and are uninterested in doing better, it seems they refuse to believe it can and has been done better. 9.5 more pages of this to go. I can't believe I didn't see this earlier, and it isn't locked yet. In on 10. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ask a guy who has never received CAS anything you want to know about CAS. Any virgins want to give some pointers on sex while we are at it? Holy shit that is funny. I was thinking it's kind of like complaining to the DMV clerk that their customer service sucks. Not only do they not care and are uninterested in doing better, it seems they refuse to believe it can and has been done better. 9.5 more pages of this to go. I can't believe I didn't see this earlier, and it isn't locked yet. In on 10. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:44:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, from my experiences the Airforce can't get a plane to take off from any exotic location without "breaking" so the crew can party for a few days, I imagine the same gremlins exist for parts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
90% of the ST is made in the US. We are getting a lot of vague answers from the blue suiters. How about some research?
Where did you dig up that tidbit? The engine is made in Canada, and the airframes for LAS that would be "built" in Florida will be major assemblies built in Brazil and bolted together in the US. It's what we do with every pork barrel project, try to spread a little into the US. That doesn't obviate the support difficulties in any way. I know some former personnel associated with Air Force Two. So I'm told, the XO of the unit liked to plan training runs to Ireland because it was the right number of hours for the pilots and he particularly liked the whiskey. Empty plane, just training, three days on per diem and flight pay, a few times a month. And you know what? I don't even give a shit. Do it, have a blast. But it's an issue if other jobs are going undone or poorly done while other people are having fun. "Work hard, party hard" is completely fine. But step one of that is work hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:45:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
whats the worst friendly fire incident youve ever heard of delivered from air? all theaters any time Off the top of my head I'd have to say Tamarak Farm for recent conflicts. For CIVCAS, not sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:50:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CAS delivers ordnance to a grid...period (which is exactly how accidents like the one which started this thread happen...ordnance delivered to the wrong grid). USA R/W CCA delivers ordnance to a target to achieve a desired effect and is "friendly centric". When Apaches/Kiowas show up at a fight, the first thing they do is ID friendlies; then they find the bad guys. This alone practically eliminates fratricide. Absolutely incorrect statement. I'm wondering where you got that from? ETA: 
I don't add that to denigrate army aviation, only illustrate that the fog of war, human error, bad C2, and any number of terrible cascading effects can lead to frat. This video was required training for us. That guy is likely still in a living hell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:52:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are right. My apologies. I have met plenty of great airmen. my uncle was one of them, as was my great uncle. corporate air force drives me crazy. 5 guys got bombed today in afghanistan. what will be the adjustment? less CAS? RON made this observation and I believe it true, the Marines start off brainwashing new marines, but it wears off. AF shoves the kool aid down your throat for so long that career airmen are much less capable of honest self-criticism than the most rabid jarhead. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> AF got rocked in Vietnam. The leadership in the 80s and 90s were the ones who lost a lot of friends in vietnam. But thats what being a war fighting organization is about. I wish they would care about all casualties, not just the zipper suited sun gods. IMHO, most of us do, regardless of the shit-talking between the services. I hope you all realize that. Most of us are not in positions to affect Big Blue policy. I think the empire building and inter-command battles within the AF since VN has worsened issues within the service. Again, IMHO. You are right. My apologies. I have met plenty of great airmen. my uncle was one of them, as was my great uncle. corporate air force drives me crazy. 5 guys got bombed today in afghanistan. what will be the adjustment? less CAS? RON made this observation and I believe it true, the Marines start off brainwashing new marines, but it wears off. AF shoves the kool aid down your throat for so long that career airmen are much less capable of honest self-criticism than the most rabid jarhead. Thanks - but I'm not sure I'm due one. I'm retired more than a decade now, and have no real dog in this fight. It just irritates the hell out of me to see things go from "that" to "this", to see things we used to do being discussed as too risky now, or watch as a certain community has to be re-develop and re-learn tactics all over again because someone somewhere thought we wouldn't need that antiquated shit anymore. My Dad was career Army. Just a pogue, but he went and did his part. I grew up around the Army. I don't have any issues with Army. I can feel your frustration with the CAS issue, although I'll never completely understand it from your perspective. I have no clue as to what will come out of yesterday's tragedy. I really wish Big Blue and Big Green could sit down and hammer out the CAS issues. I think AF kool aid is the single biggest relic of SAC. It should have been attributes other than that.  Again, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:56:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay, sure, I've broken in some pretty sweet places. Always honest breaks. But I've been in plenty of shitty spots as well, and taken fire. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 90% of the ST is made in the US. We are getting a lot of vague answers from the blue suiters. How about some research? Where did you dig up that tidbit? The engine is made in Canada, and the airframes for LAS that would be "built" in Florida will be major assemblies built in Brazil and bolted together in the US. It's what we do with every pork barrel project, try to spread a little into the US. That doesn't obviate the support difficulties in any way. Okay, sure, I've broken in some pretty sweet places. Always honest breaks. But I've been in plenty of shitty spots as well, and taken fire. Frankly, I'm glad to see Sylvan apologize for desparaging comments about all AF. There are plenty of us who give a real shit about the ground pounders; a good number of us come from being ground pounders. But it's outside of our abilities to change the idiotic policies. And I'm one of those "lucky" ones who "broke" in many more shitholes than garden spots during 16 years of flying. I nursed a lot of broke-ass Hercs out of shitholes and back to locations with repair capability. Then again, outside of rote, many of our "exotic locations" were places like Pope AFB/ Ft Bragg and Ft Benning for extensive amounts of airdrop work with the Army, Kulusuk Island, Tuktoyaktuk, Kwajalein, Lubumbashi, Beni Suef, Soto Cano, Puerto Cabezas, and dozens of other places speckled all over the world that the vast majority of people don't even know exist.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:00:11 PM EDT
[#37]
All the AF hate.... I guess I am glad I decided to join the Army.
This question isn't for the OP really. What is it that the Air Force isn't doing properly when performing CAS? No acronyms, no dick swinging. I want a rational answer that I can understand |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:18:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the AF hate.... I guess I am glad I decided to join the Army. This question isn't for the OP really. What is it that the Air Force isn't doing properly when performing CAS? No acronyms, no dick swinging. I want a rational answer that I can understand As I understand it, and I'll oversimplify- some think every unit should have their own organic CAS assets to use however they want. This fails to take into account that those assets, and the infrastructure required to enable that just don't exist. Somehow, this means that the USAF, as an institution, doesn't care about the "customer", and the customer is always right... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:23:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the AF hate.... I guess I am glad I decided to join the Army. This question isn't for the OP really. What is it that the Air Force isn't doing properly when performing CAS? No acronyms, no dick swinging. I want a rational answer that I can understand Close Air Support. I want the aircraft to be involved in the fight. Give some heat to the enemy, take some heat off of me. Gain and maintain situational awareness of my location and the enemy's location. That is why the grunt on the ground would rather have an OH-58 Kiowa, with its small caliber machineguns, small amount of rockets, and a crazy ass warrant officer hanging out the side with an M4 than a billion dollar stealth bomber. Once the aircraft is on station the pilot needs to take commands from the ground force commander. Even better, the pilot needs to be integrated into the planning and after action review process at the GFC level. The USAF does not even want to speak to the grunt on the ground. They insist on embedding their own grunt with our grunts to talk to their pilots. If all I wanted to do was flatten a grid coordinate, we have artillery for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 6:26:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... The original F15 program was looking at a swept wing design very similar to the F14/F111 if Boyd and Spey are to be believed. F35s will be about as good at CAS as A10s. The perfection of the F-15 required several dozen design trades before the final configuration was settled. The culture in that day still made features earn their way onto the airplane. Some of the configurations are barely recognizable as forerunners to the F-15. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 8:18:22 PM EDT
[#41]
IN!
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever been supported by CAS in a firefight? Nope. OUT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:23:28 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has there been any high level debate, regarding a revisit of the Pace-Finletter MOU 1952, and it's arbitrary denial of Fixed wing assets to the Army? It's tragic that we didn't have ground attack aircraft covering every inch of Afghanistan and Iraq. We should have had thousands of armed turboprops in the theatre, orbiting overhead, just waiting for the chance to attack. We established air superiority within days, and then proceeded to fight the war primarily from the ground. A lot of guys are dead and crippled because we chose to fight the enemy on his terms. I realize this gets into other areas of discussion such as COIN, but if the Airforce cares about CAS, why haven't they developed an effective and efficient means to deliver it? And if the Army cares about their troops getting the CAS they need, why haven't they fought for the right to field armed ground attack aircraft? Something like a Pilatus PC12. It's cheaper in every way than a helicopter, yet can lift more and carry it faster and much further. And it can orbit for 8 hours. This seems to be one of the greatest oversights of the war. Bureaucratic blindness and inertia is the only thing that can explain it. This is worth repeating. The Army hasn't learned anything either. Killing the Kiowa in favor of Apaches is dumber than killing the A10 for F35's. How often do Division Commanders delegate Opcon or Tacon of RW assets? In the Cav, we had aircraft Opcon down to the maneuver Squadron Commanders when it made sense. It worked really well. As others have experienced here, units with air support like that tend to not get fucked with. The enemy finds a weaker target. It works really well for the Marines. It works really well for JSOC. But the regular Army could never be given OPCON and tell the Airforce how to execute tactical CAS. That's a total failure of strategic thinking.
The real root cause is guys who are micro managers wanting to retain a thimble of power and relevance in a war fought by Squads, platoons and sometimes Companies. They aren't bad guys, most of them don't even realize how much or how bad they are fucking over the guys on the ground by supporting a failing system, because the failure is hard to see from where they are. Most guys born and bred in a system to fight top down operations against the Russians can't rewire their brain and effect institutional changes to the system. It's just the way it is. They are ignorant micro managers to their very core. In COIN it simply doesn't work. Assets need to be controlled at the lowest level possible, that is the ground force Commander. They also need to be a part of the ground force commanders planning cycle for that mission. JSOC and Marines have figured this out. The USAF and Army have not. TAACS/AAGS is the opposite and completely ass backwards for COIN. Any asset controlled at the theater level is going to be mismanaged and worthless the majority of the time to the men on the ground. That's just common sense. What is ironic is that the system has for 10 years produced the results it is claiming it exists to prevent: wasting the precious resource of "strategic air power." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:36:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. But I've talked to quite a few who were on the receiving end of the support I provided. I made it a point to seek them out. Weird thing happened to me last year. I was watching History Channel's "Eyewitness War". It was a fairly intense episode, with US troops pinned down in a wadi outside a village that they were trying to search for something something terrorists. It got bad enough to declare a TIC and they made the call. Within minutes, a two-ship was overhead, dropping bombs on enemy positions. They guy with the Go Pro camera featured in the bulk of the episode, upon hearing the jet noise, said: "You hear that? Know I know it's going to be a good day" They went on to remark, in the after-interview, that the air support saved their lives, and was a huge morale booster. I then saw the date that the film was taken. It was during my tenure at the ASOC, during my shift. I put together that CAS package. It made me feel pretty good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Time and again I see people post opinions and speculations about the use of Air Power in support of ground operations that suggests to me that there is a widespread misunderstanding of how the apparatus works. Have you ever been supported by CAS in a firefight? Nope. But I've talked to quite a few who were on the receiving end of the support I provided. I made it a point to seek them out. Weird thing happened to me last year. I was watching History Channel's "Eyewitness War". It was a fairly intense episode, with US troops pinned down in a wadi outside a village that they were trying to search for something something terrorists. It got bad enough to declare a TIC and they made the call. Within minutes, a two-ship was overhead, dropping bombs on enemy positions. They guy with the Go Pro camera featured in the bulk of the episode, upon hearing the jet noise, said: "You hear that? Know I know it's going to be a good day" They went on to remark, in the after-interview, that the air support saved their lives, and was a huge morale booster. I then saw the date that the film was taken. It was during my tenure at the ASOC, during my shift. I put together that CAS package. It made me feel pretty good. You said this at the top of the thread: I will NOT discuss any particular missions/operations |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:37:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Late for the fagparty?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 9:41:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You said this at the top of the thread: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Time and again I see people post opinions and speculations about the use of Air Power in support of ground operations that suggests to me that there is a widespread misunderstanding of how the apparatus works. Have you ever been supported by CAS in a firefight? Nope. But I've talked to quite a few who were on the receiving end of the support I provided. I made it a point to seek them out. Weird thing happened to me last year. I was watching History Channel's "Eyewitness War". It was a fairly intense episode, with US troops pinned down in a wadi outside a village that they were trying to search for something something terrorists. It got bad enough to declare a TIC and they made the call. Within minutes, a two-ship was overhead, dropping bombs on enemy positions. They guy with the Go Pro camera featured in the bulk of the episode, upon hearing the jet noise, said: "You hear that? Know I know it's going to be a good day" They went on to remark, in the after-interview, that the air support saved their lives, and was a huge morale booster. I then saw the date that the film was taken. It was during my tenure at the ASOC, during my shift. I put together that CAS package. It made me feel pretty good. You said this at the top of the thread: I will NOT discuss any particular missions/operations He mentioned something that he saw on TV. You 'tarded or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 10:00:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Late for the fagparty? You BRING the fagparty, buck, I've missed your musk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 10:06:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote History[b]Quoted:]
CAS delivers ordnance to a grid...period Seriously? Do you know what a target talk on is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 10:12:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously? Do you know what a target talk on is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:]
CAS delivers ordnance to a grid...period Seriously? Do you know what a target talk on is? PERIOD |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 10:26:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but what you seem to not figure into your logic is that you don't get to replace the bomber with the turboprop. Or that the bomber is going to be flying whether it's war time or not. You don't get to trade the $550,000,000 bomber for the $10,000,000 turboprop...you can only spend $10,000,000 more. Sort of what some people have been trying to explain...you aren't seeing the big picture, or the long term requirements...you're focused on the here-and-now. Probably not a bad thing for someone in combat, but the further you get from the front lines, the longer your vision has to be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't help but shake my head at all the responses where people think we can just buy a bunch more planes, plop ready-made pilots in 'em, and provide CAS-on-demand. Maybe go recruit some crop dusters. The Air Force doesn't like to risk pilots because the air superiority that ISN'T needed in Afghanistan today has to be ready to respond to Russia, N. Korea, China tomorrow. Pilots take a long time to train...we can't draft them up, send them to a couple months' training, and send them to the trenches. We have what we have, and what we have has to be ready to serve their primary mission...and when I mean ready, I mean both planes and pilots ready to pack up and fly to the other side of the world in very short order. We can't buy a whole separate set of aircraft for CAS because we can't afford it. There is no such thing as cheap aircraft. Total lifecycle cost is a bitch, and the AF knows that all too well. The B1 costs $750,000 per 12 hour sortie, not including capital costs or tanker support. A single engine turboprop could fly a years worth of combat missions for that. It would cost $10,000,000, compared to the $550,000,000 that a new bomber would cost. And that's before the price doubles over the next ten years. Have you run these numbers? I've been in an AVN unit, if only for a short period of time. I'm familiar with maintenance. Yeah, but what you seem to not figure into your logic is that you don't get to replace the bomber with the turboprop. Or that the bomber is going to be flying whether it's war time or not. You don't get to trade the $550,000,000 bomber for the $10,000,000 turboprop...you can only spend $10,000,000 more. Sort of what some people have been trying to explain...you aren't seeing the big picture, or the long term requirements...you're focused on the here-and-now. Probably not a bad thing for someone in combat, but the further you get from the front lines, the longer your vision has to be. We aren't saying ditch all bombers. Build a few less "bombers" (akaF35) and build 55 more turboprops per. Same money spent. Both missions covered. I might have screwed that up because math is hard, but the concept is simple. It can be done. Blue doesn't want to do it. Green isn't much better, and certainly won't be holding their feet to the fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 10:37:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We aren't saying ditch all bombers. Build a few less "bombers" (akaF35) and build 55 more turboprops per. Same money spent. Both missions covered. I might have screwed that up because math is hard, but the concept is simple. It can be done. Blue doesn't want to do it. Green isn't much better, and certainly won't be holding their feet to the fire. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't help but shake my head at all the responses where people think we can just buy a bunch more planes, plop ready-made pilots in 'em, and provide CAS-on-demand. Maybe go recruit some crop dusters. The Air Force doesn't like to risk pilots because the air superiority that ISN'T needed in Afghanistan today has to be ready to respond to Russia, N. Korea, China tomorrow. Pilots take a long time to train...we can't draft them up, send them to a couple months' training, and send them to the trenches. We have what we have, and what we have has to be ready to serve their primary mission...and when I mean ready, I mean both planes and pilots ready to pack up and fly to the other side of the world in very short order. We can't buy a whole separate set of aircraft for CAS because we can't afford it. There is no such thing as cheap aircraft. Total lifecycle cost is a bitch, and the AF knows that all too well. The B1 costs $750,000 per 12 hour sortie, not including capital costs or tanker support. A single engine turboprop could fly a years worth of combat missions for that. It would cost $10,000,000, compared to the $550,000,000 that a new bomber would cost. And that's before the price doubles over the next ten years. Have you run these numbers? I've been in an AVN unit, if only for a short period of time. I'm familiar with maintenance. Yeah, but what you seem to not figure into your logic is that you don't get to replace the bomber with the turboprop. Or that the bomber is going to be flying whether it's war time or not. You don't get to trade the $550,000,000 bomber for the $10,000,000 turboprop...you can only spend $10,000,000 more. Sort of what some people have been trying to explain...you aren't seeing the big picture, or the long term requirements...you're focused on the here-and-now. Probably not a bad thing for someone in combat, but the further you get from the front lines, the longer your vision has to be. We aren't saying ditch all bombers. Build a few less "bombers" (akaF35) and build 55 more turboprops per. Same money spent. Both missions covered. I might have screwed that up because math is hard, but the concept is simple. It can be done. Blue doesn't want to do it. Green isn't much better, and certainly won't be holding their feet to the fire. Marine Corps can handle this. Oh, wait, USMC is all in on the F-35 and a primary reason for some of the design compromises. |
|
|
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.
