User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 1:07:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I heart you. kinda homo. If we could just get apportioned airpower down to the BSO and keep the same pilots for a year, give the mission to the AF. 50 planes remain in theater, all fighter/strike pilots go through a 2 month train up/transition at NTC/JRTC with a maneuver/fires guy in the back seat. we could stack bodies at 20% of the current footprint. Lol. Whatever, just let me kill it when it needs to be killed. You and I have had our differences in the past because I thought you were a no CAS no matter what kind of guy, which I saw some of which got people killed, and I realize now you are not that guy. I am still bitter about the stupidity I saw. It is enraging to be sitting in a $60 million weapon, watching bad guys shoot and kill our own men from rooftops with $250 RPGs, when I know I can make that go away without hurting a single friendly, only to be told that there was too much collateral risk or something along those lines most times. It was never about fighting and winning. The "men" sending our own into harms way without understanding that wars involving killing needed to be in those humvees instead. Worse, some of these policymakers probably did understand it and didnt care because it wasnt politically expedient, and in the end SGLI isnt that much money. I look at pictures of Dresden, and it makes me want to puke that we were too sensitive at times to knock over a damn hut to save our men. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 1:09:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The newer version really improved visibility for the pilot/WSO. the first version you could barely tell there was a backseat. guess they figured out that the thermal POD isn't the only thing you should be looking around with. there is a lesson in there for those willing to learn it. https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fbigtalksmalltalk.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F04%2F18u9ajr3mo56kjpg.jpg&f=1 I started flying around with binos in the 15E. I needed something with a wider FOV than the close up that pod had but better than my eyes. Kinda funny now that I look back on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 1:11:07 PM EDT
[#3]
I like killing bad guys and think up ways to do it better.
PM pending |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 1:12:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I started flying around with binos in the 15E. I needed something with a wider FOV than the close up that pod had but better than my eyes. Kinda funny now that I look back on it. Mach was issued a leopold rifle scope that had a little clicky mount when he flew 15Cs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 1:23:28 PM EDT
[#5]
A thought on Stavatti.
They have thrown endless vaporware against the wall....and it has got them a lot of attention. (which is a good thing for them) But they do have an actual product, which I suspect is the current real goal. Throwing all that vaporware out there gets them attention for it. There is an airplane, the ATV Javelin. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATG_Javelin  Javelin Maiden Flight This is a real plane that was put together by a pretty impressive cadre of people. They produced a flying example. They just could not come up with the 10 figures to get it into production. There really was no market at the time and their business model was to sell this thing as a civilian toy and hope that lead to military sales. Stavatti has part of the rights to all things Javelin now and there is a lot of market for it now. It is the kind of plane that could even have a shot at the Air Force replacement for the T-38. (I doubt they could get that contract, but again, they can get a lot of mileage out of trying) It is certainly a company worth keeping an eye on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 1:31:01 PM EDT
[#6]
that thing looks like an absolute hoot to fly clean, but I would hate to see the wing loading with actual ordnance.
Makes the F104 look like a bird dog. OK, maybe an exaggeration, but still. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:09:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that thing looks like an absolute hoot to fly clean, but I would hate to see the wing loading with actual ordnance. Makes the F104 look like a bird dog. OK, maybe an exaggeration, but still. Oddly enough, the stall speed is around 90kt. Depending on weight the approach speeds are in the 110-130kt range. It is better than pretty much all fighters and the T-38. It is shockingly light weight. It has better wing loading than a T-38, which beats the F-16, which beats the F-104. Specifications (Javelin MK-10) General characteristics Crew: 2 Capacity: 2 Length: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m) Wingspan: 25 ft 1 in (7.65 m) Height: 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m) Wing area: 140 ft² (13 m²) Empty weight: 4,655 lb (2 111 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 6,900 lb (3 100 kg) Powerplant: 2 × Williams FJ33-4-19J turbofans, 1,750 lbf (8.0 kN) each Performance Maximum speed: 500 knots (575 mph, 925 km/h) Range: 1,000 nm (1,151 mi, 1,852 km) Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13 700 m) Rate of climb: 9,000 ft/min (46 m/s) Max. wing loading: 46 lb/ft² (220 kg/m²) Minimum thrust/weight: 0.56 _______________ Specifications (T-38A)[edit] Northrop T-38A Talon 3-side view.png Data from USAF factsheet[5] General characteristics Crew: two: student and instructor Length: 46 ft 4.5 in (14.14 m) Wingspan: 25 ft 3 in (7.7 m) Height: 12 ft 10.5 in (3.92 m) Wing area: 170 ft² (15.79 m²) Empty weight: 7,200 lb (3,270 kg) Loaded weight: 11,820 lb (5,360 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 12,093 lb (5,485 kg) Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J85-5A (J85-5R after PMP modification) afterburning turbojets Dry thrust: 2,050 lb (9.1 kN) each Thrust with afterburner: 2,900 lbf[59] (17.1 kN) each Performance Maximum speed: Mach 1.3 (858 mph, 1,381 km/h) Range: 1,140 mi (1,835 km) Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,240 m) Rate of climb: 33,600 ft/min[60] (170.7 m/s) () Wing loading: 69.53 lb/ft² (339.4 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 0.65 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:11:48 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like killing bad guys and think up ways to do it better. PM pending Got your pm, but my reply wont go through for some reason, so Ill post it here I will read them. I regret the extent to which our previous exchanges got personal. I think we agree on 99.9% of the issues that face our country. My passion on CAS is a direct result of the incredible frustration I had witnessing the preventable deaths of the men I was supposed to protect...as I am sure is the case for you as well. I apologize if and when I offended you. Now that our war has become (redacted's) war, I am sure you are more invested in the subject than ever. My wish for (.) is the same as yours, and will add that I also wish (.) would have more help than you did. Whatever the myriad causes of the many failings in this war, my bitterness about them is amplified by my belief that they were predictable and preventable. Thanks for the pm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:18:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
or just use LAAR driven by army aviators and I don't have to carry a drone, won't need 10Xs as many F35s and won't need a completely unrestricted EMS. There is lots of ways to drive a win. But we can develop a concept that provides distributed and ubiquitous support instead of an exquisite and highly restricted support. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Were those UAV's issued to boots on the ground? I'm no expert but I'm thinking CAS directed by drones packed in by infantry units + F35 + resources on the net = good guy win. Just a thought. or just use LAAR driven by army aviators and I don't have to carry a drone, won't need 10Xs as many F35s and won't need a completely unrestricted EMS. There is lots of ways to drive a win. But we can develop a concept that provides distributed and ubiquitous support instead of an exquisite and highly restricted support. Understood. I'm going to be asking some very basic questions as I'm a cherry and downright ignorant in these types of subjects. Looking to learn. Some of the LAAR aircraft being floated around are lacking powerplant redundancy. Why isn't this a major problem considering their intended role? One I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the OV-10. Redundancy everywhere, and it can can carry tons of munitions and/or cargo including peeps. I imagine they're also relatively inexpensive to produce. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:28:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, they went to the trouble of putting the cannon in it. 
More fuel would have been a better choice. This. Forward-firing guns on fixed wing are silly in 2017. Big huge heavy forward firing guns on fixed wing that can't kill modern MBTs are pants-on-head retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:33:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryI used to draw shit like that in middle school. Guess I should start a aeronautics company and solicit government contracts. Who want's a link to my Gofundme? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:33:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Looks like something from that movie "Team America"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:34:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like something from that movie "Team America" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:45:49 PM EDT
[#14]
I see no Stealth.
I see no L.O. I see no Sensor Fusion. I see no VTOL. I see no Sea Service model. I see no HK Advanced Warfighter version. I see no SOCOM (peculiar) version. I see no 5th Gen Fighter version capable of defeating all near-peer adversaries into the 22nd century. Worst of all, I see a Guy In Back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:50:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I nominate the B-25H: https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/mort6.jpg?w=479 That site has several Mort Kunstler paintings of interest to Arfcomer's. NSFW, and maybe GD. The H didn't work as well as planned, the J with the 8 gun nose, 4 dorsal 50's ant the top turret pointed forward gave the gun nose J a total of 14 forward firing 50's that translates to 4,725,000 grains per minute! There's some serious ability to inflict some damage, throw some bombs and rockets into the fray and you have some serious ground support. While the H was a great concept, most were converted into gun nose J's in theater. As long as we're talking about medium bombers for cas, I'd put up the A/B26, gun nose or even better the Invader K's faster with just as much destructive power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:54:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G.I. JOOOOOOOOE |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:00:12 PM EDT
[#17]
It needs two engines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:09:40 PM EDT
[#18]
They should draw some more guns on it! And lasers! PEW PEW!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:11:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey! Let's develop a brand new weapons system! It can be a propeller driven, single purpose, ground attack fighter to compliment our F-35B fleet. Oh and it won't be this: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/50575/fuckingduh-164046.JPG And you people wonder why I think that the Marines would turn silencers for everyone into a waste of money. Strafing at 0.32. 
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:16:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got your pm, but my reply wont go through for some reason, so Ill post it here I will read them. I regret the extent to which our previous exchanges got personal. I think we agree on 99.9% of the issues that face our country. My passion on CAS is a direct result of the incredible frustration I had witnessing the preventable deaths of the men I was supposed to protect...as I am sure is the case for you as well. I apologize if and when I offended you. Now that our war has become (redacted's) war, I am sure you are more invested in the subject than ever. My wish for (.) is the same as yours, and will add that I also wish (.) would have more help than you did. Whatever the myriad causes of the many failings in this war, my bitterness about them is amplified by my belief that they were predictable and preventable. Thanks for the pm. Im too much a psychopath to care what others think of me. suffice for this that you will have to trust me that infantry officers have no problem killing people. But in limited warfare, killing the right people, the right way, is more important than I believe some in the CAOC can understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:17:28 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We don't wonder why you think that. We know it's because you don't know jack shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And you people wonder why I think that the Marines would turn silencers for everyone into a waste of money. We don't wonder why you think that. We know it's because you don't know jack shit. This. And the guy thinks we need to invest more into a new stealth bomber. 
He's probably a Senator or a General or some shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:19:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understood. I'm going to be asking some very basic questions as I'm a cherry and downright ignorant in these types of subjects. Looking to learn. Some of the LAAR aircraft being floated around are lacking powerplant redundancy. Why isn't this a major problem considering their intended role? One I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the OV-10. Redundancy everywhere, and it can can carry tons of munitions and/or cargo including peeps. I imagine they're also relatively inexpensive to produce. Thoughts? Like the F35? I talked to the PM of OV-10X several years ago during the peak of the LAAR craze v 2. AF told him personally it was going nowhere so boeing killed it quickly rather than waste money on it. LAAR is the right answer for everyone but the AF. So they will lie about it to keep everyone happy, delay everything, and hope it goes away while continuing to procure F35s which can't perform the mission and there is no timeline for when all the promised goodies will actually work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:23:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Oh for fucks sake......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:27:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I heart you. kinda homo. If we could just get apportioned airpower down to the BSO and keep the same pilots for a year, give the mission to the AF. 50 planes remain in theater, all fighter/strike pilots go through a 2 month train up/transition at NTC/JRTC with a maneuver/fires guy in the back seat. we could stack bodies at 20% of the current footprint. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree wholeheartedly, and agree with most everything in your CAS definition post above. As long as general's on both sides are more interested in the budget wars than actual wars, and more interested in career risk mitigation than fighting and winning, not a thing will change. As I have said before, having loved the mission I would have been happy to fly anything, in any uniform, that would accomplish that mission. First just give me a general that will let me kill the enemy and wreck the enemy's stuff if our own are in harm's way. Thats all I ask. I heart you. kinda homo. If we could just get apportioned airpower down to the BSO and keep the same pilots for a year, give the mission to the AF. 50 planes remain in theater, all fighter/strike pilots go through a 2 month train up/transition at NTC/JRTC with a maneuver/fires guy in the back seat. we could stack bodies at 20% of the current footprint. 
I disagree the mission should be given to the AF. If for no other reason than Warrants are better pilots. I'd much rather track down a bunch of the old OH58 crowd, and have them fly this mission, than the bottom of the F16 gene pool. I work with a bunch of great AF pilots and former pilots... But they are on average completely clueless on planning, warfighting, joint integration, combined arms, and nearly everything else important to this mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:27:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The H didn't work as well as planned, the J with the 8 gun nose, 4 dorsal 50's ant the top turret pointed forward gave the gun nose J a total of 14 forward firing 50's that translates to 4,725,000 grains per minute! There's some serious ability to inflict some damage, throw some bombs and rockets into the fray and you have some serious ground support. While the H was a great concept, most were converted into gun nose J's in theater. As long as we're talking about medium bombers for cas, I'd put up the A/B26, gun nose or even better the Invader K's faster with just as much destructive power. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I nominate the B-25H: https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/mort6.jpg?w=479 That site has several Mort Kunstler paintings of interest to Arfcomer's. NSFW, and maybe GD. The H didn't work as well as planned, the J with the 8 gun nose, 4 dorsal 50's ant the top turret pointed forward gave the gun nose J a total of 14 forward firing 50's that translates to 4,725,000 grains per minute! There's some serious ability to inflict some damage, throw some bombs and rockets into the fray and you have some serious ground support. While the H was a great concept, most were converted into gun nose J's in theater. As long as we're talking about medium bombers for cas, I'd put up the A/B26, gun nose or even better the Invader K's faster with just as much destructive power. I wasn't serious. The B-25H fits the AR15.com spec sheet; two motors, preferably radials, and guns, lots of guns, guns pointing everywhere and shooting everything. Still better than a helicopter, on the other hand. Also, if had to choose, it's the A-26, which I've posted here before. Just because I think it's a cooler airplane in just about aspect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:31:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Get your GAU on!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:32:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:51:09 PM EDT
[#28]
I have come to believe that a major part of the CAS problem this country seems to be enduring for many years is rooted in the very old "agreement" that the Air Force would be the almost universal user of fixed-wing aircraft for whatever mission. I am aware that the Army has lots of fixed-wing A/C, but combat isn't their mission, generally speaking.
What if the Agreement was amended so that the Army could have fixed-wing A/C whose primary mission was CAS, and the Air Force all other aircraft? The Army could cease spending a lot of money on expensive and hard to maintain rotary wing aircraft, or at least reduce by a significant amount. The Army, and perhaps the Marines could cooperate on a land-based fixed wing CAS A/C design that would probably be cheaper than an equivalent helo, with greater loiter time and reduced maintenance expenses. What's more to the point, the Army's getting their own CAS aircraft would put their design and deployment into the hands of the end user, the organization with the most to gain from successful deployment. I keep hearing, over the decades, the refrain that the AF looks at CAS as a distasteful secondary mission, and so they aren't inclined to support CAS adequately. Allow me to say that I have nothing against the AF and if I was in charge of the AF, I might be inclined to view CAS as a red-headed stepchild that I couldn't ignore, but neither could I make them go away. I understand such a viewpoint, and so I'm trying to point out what I feel is the root of the ongoing problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:05:02 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have come to believe that a major part of the CAS problem this country seems to be enduring for many years is rooted in the very old "agreement" that the Air Force would be the almost universal user of fixed-wing aircraft for whatever mission. I am aware that the Army has lots of fixed-wing A/C, but combat isn't their mission, generally speaking. What if the Agreement was amended so that the Army could have fixed-wing A/C whose primary mission was CAS, and the Air Force all other aircraft? The Army could cease spending a lot of money on expensive and hard to maintain rotary wing aircraft, or at least reduce by a significant amount. The Army, and perhaps the Marines could cooperate on a land-based fixed wing CAS A/C design that would probably be cheaper than an equivalent helo, with greater loiter time and reduced maintenance expenses. What's more to the point, the Army's getting their own CAS aircraft would put their design and deployment into the hands of the end user, the organization with the most to gain from successful deployment. I keep hearing, over the decades, the refrain that the AF looks at CAS as a distasteful secondary mission, and so they aren't inclined to support CAS adequately. Allow me to say that I have nothing against the AF and if I was in charge of the AF, I might be inclined to view CAS as a red-headed stepchild that I couldn't ignore, but neither could I make them go away. I understand such a viewpoint, and so I'm trying to point out what I feel is the root of the ongoing problem. Morph the USAF into Tech Com, like from the Terminator universe. Give them all cyber and orbital ops, let them keep the ICBMs and VIP transport mission. Give everything else back to the damn Army. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:05:15 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:07:58 PM EDT
[#31]
I must not understand airframe design very well; that doesn't look like a low and slow, remain on station for close air support aircraft to me. addig a propeller should slow it down though.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:11:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must not understand airframe design very well; that doesn't look like a low and slow, remain on station for close air support aircraft to me. addig a propeller should slow it down though..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:16:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like the F35? I talked to the PM of OV-10X several years ago during the peak of the LAAR craze v 2. AF told him personally it was going nowhere so boeing killed it quickly rather than waste money on it. LAAR is the right answer for everyone but the AF. So they will lie about it to keep everyone happy, delay everything, and hope it goes away while continuing to procure F35s which can't perform the mission and there is no timeline for when all the promised goodies will actually work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Understood. I'm going to be asking some very basic questions as I'm a cherry and downright ignorant in these types of subjects. Looking to learn. Some of the LAAR aircraft being floated around are lacking powerplant redundancy. Why isn't this a major problem considering their intended role? One I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the OV-10. Redundancy everywhere, and it can can carry tons of munitions and/or cargo including peeps. I imagine they're also relatively inexpensive to produce. Thoughts? Like the F35? I talked to the PM of OV-10X several years ago during the peak of the LAAR craze v 2. AF told him personally it was going nowhere so boeing killed it quickly rather than waste money on it. LAAR is the right answer for everyone but the AF. So they will lie about it to keep everyone happy, delay everything, and hope it goes away while continuing to procure F35s which can't perform the mission and there is no timeline for when all the promised goodies will actually work. I don't know the proper terminology for this subject so I'm going to wing it. Isn't the F35 designed as a 'stand off' vehicle that has the capability to receive and process information from all battlefield elements (including air) in real time and pass it on and/or act on it if needed? Everyone plugged into the network would be able to follow what the others are doing, and communicate with each other. Or did I read too much into what little I've read? If what I've read is correct, then I agree with your statement about being too exquisite is correct and that would nullify any engine redundancy anyway. I liked what I thought about it initially, but after your statement it seems it does have a bunch of possible fail points. It's too complex. ETA I'm losing my memory, going insane, not reading posts, or just dense. Why is the AF wanting a new CAS aircraft? Didn't they seemingly *not* want to perform CAS at some point in these wars? Is this strictly about money, nothing more? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:31:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The counter rotating turboprop is interesting. Reminds me of this plane. http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/republic-xf84h-thunderscreech.jpg Not counter rotating, just loud, really really loud. This is a counter rotating turboprop. 
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:39:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know the proper terminology for this subject so I'm going to wing it. Isn't the F35 designed as a 'stand off' vehicle that has the capability to receive and process information from all battlefield elements (including air) in real time and pass it on and/or act on it if needed? Everyone plugged into the network would be able to follow what the others are doing, and communicate with each other. Or did I read too much into what little I've read? If what I've read is correct, then I agree with your statement about being too exquisite is correct and that would nullify any engine redundancy anyway. I liked what I thought about it initially, but after your statement it seems it does have a bunch of possible fail points. It's too complex. ETA I'm losing my memory, going insane, not reading posts, or just dense. Why is the AF wanting a new CAS aircraft? Didn't they seemingly *not* want to perform CAS at some point in these wars? Is this strictly about money, nothing more? Stand off CAS is called artillery. The air force DOES NOT want this air frame. But it wants to placate everyone with a brain who realizes we need it. If they put up a stink, people might start looking at other retarded air force project (new bomber, F35, etc) So they will talk about 300 air frames for a while, hoping the war changes/politicians change/something changes, so they will throw a 2 star at it, a few billion dollars and kill it in 5 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:42:32 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://media.makeameme.org/created/stop-my-penis-ezulzv.jpg I disagree the mission should be given to the AF. If for no other reason than Warrants are better pilots. I'd much rather track down a bunch of the old OH58 crowd, and have them fly this mission, than the bottom of the F16 gene pool. I work with a bunch of great AF pilots and former pilots... But they are on average completely clueless on planning, warfighting, joint integration, combined arms, and nearly everything else important to this mission. If I am at the same FOB as the pilots and they are assigned to my command for the duration of the deployment, they will perform as well as army aviators. You get pilots with the right killer mind set in your TOC and they will do everything you need. I just don't need a new pilot in my air space EVERY FUCKING TIC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:57:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have come to believe that a major part of the CAS problem this country seems to be enduring for many years is rooted in the very old "agreement" that the Air Force would be the almost universal user of fixed-wing aircraft for whatever mission. I am aware that the Army has lots of fixed-wing A/C, but combat isn't their mission, generally speaking. What if the Agreement was amended so that the Army could have fixed-wing A/C whose primary mission was CAS, and the Air Force all other aircraft? The Army could cease spending a lot of money on expensive and hard to maintain rotary wing aircraft, or at least reduce by a significant amount. The Army, and perhaps the Marines could cooperate on a land-based fixed wing CAS A/C design that would probably be cheaper than an equivalent helo, with greater loiter time and reduced maintenance expenses. What's more to the point, the Army's getting their own CAS aircraft would put their design and deployment into the hands of the end user, the organization with the most to gain from successful deployment. I keep hearing, over the decades, the refrain that the AF looks at CAS as a distasteful secondary mission, and so they aren't inclined to support CAS adequately. Allow me to say that I have nothing against the AF and if I was in charge of the AF, I might be inclined to view CAS as a red-headed stepchild that I couldn't ignore, but neither could I make them go away. I understand such a viewpoint, and so I'm trying to point out what I feel is the root of the ongoing problem. The Marines are about CAS and integration and their answer for the platform is the F-35. In no small part there exists a problem because the military has gotten so much smaller than it was, so we now have to have a collection of multi-role aircraft. Back in Vietnam we had in the Air Force alone had four different strike aircraft and four types of forward observers. Everything is a secondary mission when you have to do all the missions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:00:23 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like the F35? I talked to the PM of OV-10X several years ago during the peak of the LAAR craze v 2. AF told him personally it was going nowhere so boeing killed it quickly rather than waste money on it. LAAR is the right answer for everyone but the AF. So they will lie about it to keep everyone happy, delay everything, and hope it goes away while continuing to procure F35s which can't perform the mission and there is no timeline for when all the promised goodies will actually work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Understood. I'm going to be asking some very basic questions as I'm a cherry and downright ignorant in these types of subjects. Looking to learn. Some of the LAAR aircraft being floated around are lacking powerplant redundancy. Why isn't this a major problem considering their intended role? One I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the OV-10. Redundancy everywhere, and it can can carry tons of munitions and/or cargo including peeps. I imagine they're also relatively inexpensive to produce. Thoughts? Like the F35? I talked to the PM of OV-10X several years ago during the peak of the LAAR craze v 2. AF told him personally it was going nowhere so boeing killed it quickly rather than waste money on it. LAAR is the right answer for everyone but the AF. So they will lie about it to keep everyone happy, delay everything, and hope it goes away while continuing to procure F35s which can't perform the mission and there is no timeline for when all the promised goodies will actually work. The LAAR is the right answer for everyone. But the Marines, who do their own CAS and get get their own aircraft never even had an RFP for the capability. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:01:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Something needs to replace it. Cuz I'm sorry, but the USAF making a case that their F-35's will fill the close combat role, is laughable, AT BEST.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:04:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I am at the same FOB as the pilots and they are assigned to my command for the duration of the deployment, they will perform as well as army aviators. You get pilots with the right killer mind set in your TOC and they will do everything you need. I just don't need a new pilot in my air space EVERY FUCKING TIC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://media.makeameme.org/created/stop-my-penis-ezulzv.jpg I disagree the mission should be given to the AF. If for no other reason than Warrants are better pilots. I'd much rather track down a bunch of the old OH58 crowd, and have them fly this mission, than the bottom of the F16 gene pool. I work with a bunch of great AF pilots and former pilots... But they are on average completely clueless on planning, warfighting, joint integration, combined arms, and nearly everything else important to this mission. If I am at the same FOB as the pilots and they are assigned to my command for the duration of the deployment, they will perform as well as army aviators. You get pilots with the right killer mind set in your TOC and they will do everything you need. I just don't need a new pilot in my air space EVERY FUCKING TIC. Yours can't possibly be the only voice of reason within the circles of discussion that matter. If the AF doesn't want it, but feel they have to placate those who do, then those who do want it are Army and USMC? Is the shitshow due to the branches' respective budgets? IOW, USMC/Army are broke, AF is not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:09:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yours can't possibly be the only voice of reason within the circles of discussion that matter. If the AF doesn't want it, but feel they have to placate those who do, then those who do want it are Army and USMC? Is the shitshow due to the branches' respective budgets? IOW, USMC/Army are broke, AF is not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://media.makeameme.org/created/stop-my-penis-ezulzv.jpg I disagree the mission should be given to the AF. If for no other reason than Warrants are better pilots. I'd much rather track down a bunch of the old OH58 crowd, and have them fly this mission, than the bottom of the F16 gene pool. I work with a bunch of great AF pilots and former pilots... But they are on average completely clueless on planning, warfighting, joint integration, combined arms, and nearly everything else important to this mission. If I am at the same FOB as the pilots and they are assigned to my command for the duration of the deployment, they will perform as well as army aviators. You get pilots with the right killer mind set in your TOC and they will do everything you need. I just don't need a new pilot in my air space EVERY FUCKING TIC. Yours can't possibly be the only voice of reason within the circles of discussion that matter. If the AF doesn't want it, but feel they have to placate those who do, then those who do want it are Army and USMC? Is the shitshow due to the branches' respective budgets? IOW, USMC/Army are broke, AF is not? The Air Force sold its soul to recapitalization and we are still flying a fleet that averages 27 years old.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:15:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yours can't possibly be the only voice of reason within the circles of discussion that matter. If the AF doesn't want it, but feel they have to placate those who do, then those who do want it are Army and USMC? Is the shitshow due to the branches' respective budgets? IOW, USMC/Army are broke, AF is not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://media.makeameme.org/created/stop-my-penis-ezulzv.jpg I disagree the mission should be given to the AF. If for no other reason than Warrants are better pilots. I'd much rather track down a bunch of the old OH58 crowd, and have them fly this mission, than the bottom of the F16 gene pool. I work with a bunch of great AF pilots and former pilots... But they are on average completely clueless on planning, warfighting, joint integration, combined arms, and nearly everything else important to this mission. If I am at the same FOB as the pilots and they are assigned to my command for the duration of the deployment, they will perform as well as army aviators. You get pilots with the right killer mind set in your TOC and they will do everything you need. I just don't need a new pilot in my air space EVERY FUCKING TIC. Yours can't possibly be the only voice of reason within the circles of discussion that matter. If the AF doesn't want it, but feel they have to placate those who do, then those who do want it are Army and USMC? Is the shitshow due to the branches' respective budgets? IOW, USMC/Army are broke, AF is not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:16:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryJust as important, it has too long a nose, and so obstructs the pilot's view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:22:09 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Winning the funding battle and securing retirement positions is a better indicator of how someone's career will fare than slaying bodies and winning wars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:27:12 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:37:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dumb question ..... Why replace the A-10 ? Everything I read says "it's ___ yrs old we need a new plane .... Why not build new A-10s ? It's not like it's a pos . Build new ones replace old ones . Because the Republic Aviation Corporation doesn't exist anymore. They were bought out by Fairchild Aircraft (Fairchild-Republic) who were bought out by M7 who were bought out by the Israeli Elbit Systems. I doubt Elbit will want to spend what capital they have on retooling and starting up an assembly line. ESPECIALLY if it is widely known that the USAF doesn't want the A-10. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 5:59:46 PM EDT
[#47]
There's no point in discussing this. The plane will never get any further than those concept illustrations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 6:00:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines are about CAS and integration and their answer for the platform is the F-35. In no small part there exists a problem because the military has gotten so much smaller than it was, so we now have to have a collection of multi-role aircraft. Back in Vietnam we had in the Air Force alone had four different strike aircraft and four types of forward observers. Everything is a secondary mission when you have to do all the missions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have come to believe that a major part of the CAS problem this country seems to be enduring for many years is rooted in the very old "agreement" that the Air Force would be the almost universal user of fixed-wing aircraft for whatever mission. I am aware that the Army has lots of fixed-wing A/C, but combat isn't their mission, generally speaking. What if the Agreement was amended so that the Army could have fixed-wing A/C whose primary mission was CAS, and the Air Force all other aircraft? The Army could cease spending a lot of money on expensive and hard to maintain rotary wing aircraft, or at least reduce by a significant amount. The Army, and perhaps the Marines could cooperate on a land-based fixed wing CAS A/C design that would probably be cheaper than an equivalent helo, with greater loiter time and reduced maintenance expenses. What's more to the point, the Army's getting their own CAS aircraft would put their design and deployment into the hands of the end user, the organization with the most to gain from successful deployment. I keep hearing, over the decades, the refrain that the AF looks at CAS as a distasteful secondary mission, and so they aren't inclined to support CAS adequately. Allow me to say that I have nothing against the AF and if I was in charge of the AF, I might be inclined to view CAS as a red-headed stepchild that I couldn't ignore, but neither could I make them go away. I understand such a viewpoint, and so I'm trying to point out what I feel is the root of the ongoing problem. The Marines are about CAS and integration and their answer for the platform is the F-35. In no small part there exists a problem because the military has gotten so much smaller than it was, so we now have to have a collection of multi-role aircraft. Back in Vietnam we had in the Air Force alone had four different strike aircraft and four types of forward observers. Everything is a secondary mission when you have to do all the missions. The F-35 debate reminds me of the Robert McNamara-era TFX/F111 aircraft, which was full of politics and yielded an aircraft that after a long development period, was soon declared obsolete. Mcnamara and the TFX. Again,, an aircraft frame, suitably modified, that would be used by all aircraft users. Turned out, not so much. In passing, FRM. The concept of one aircraft satisfactorily fulfilling a number of different missions flies in the face of both history and current sense. IMHO. But let me introduce another viewpoint, namely Capt Eric Brown, RN. As one of the world's foremost Naval Aviators, and test pilots, he believed that every aircraft should be rather narrowly purpose-built, so that it had a decent chance to fulfil its' intended mission. The numerous "multi-role" aircraft he tested and upon which he commented were almost always what he considered less than optimal compared to purpose-built aircraft. So, my misgivings about the multirole F-35. Again. without diverting this thread, I believe that a group of people, without bias, would NOT have selected such an aircraft for CAS. As a strike aircraft the F-35 might shine, eventually. As a CAS Aircraft, it is a needless expense where less expensive aircraft, much more suited to the CAS role would be preferable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 6:04:56 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... So, my misgivings about the multirole F-35. Again. without diverting this thread, I believe that a group of people, without bias, would NOT have selected such an aircraft for CAS. As a strike aircraft the F-35 might shine, eventually. As a CAS Aircraft, it is a needless expense where less expensive aircraft, much more suited to the CAS role would be preferable. Agreed. It's just, as I said in another post, we don't buy single purpose jets any more. Since Vietnam the Air Force has gone from around 13,000 aircraft to 5,500. You can't have those sort of declines in numbers while still holding onto a collection of boutique airframes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 6:26:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. It's just, as I said in another post, we don't buy single purpose jets any more. Since Vietnam the Air Force has gone from around 13,000 aircraft to 5,500. You can't have those sort of declines in numbers while still holding onto a collection of boutique airframes. OTOH, if the Army took over purely CAS aircraft, then the AF could build better, more purpose-built A/C since they did not have to perform the CAS role. And the Army wouldn't have to build so many expensive helos to do the same job, or at least not so many. |
|
|
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.
Attached File