This

popcorn.gif

This must be just driving Sylvan crazy lol. nobody to listen and to respond the ramblings!

This tells me all I need to know.

You want to have another Amway sales presentation where no dissention is allowed.

I've got over 24 hours of USAF airpower instruction. During every block, every instructor save one gave the same appeal to authority.

As an observer of this thread who has not a single clue as to how any of this works....

Is Sylvan's comment saying that CAS is only used as a last resort, but should be used in normal day to day operations instead of calling in the cavalry once shit goes bad?

Please do.  I could not care less.

I wish the AF would care about the nuclear deterrence mission instead of plugging their ears from customers complaints, we all have desires.

If I don't know what I am talking about, prove it.

I will guarantee I have read more of your doctrine, your history, airpower theory, deterrence theory as well as having been a customer of CAS than 99% of the AF officer corps.

I don't drink your kool-aid.  That doesn't make me ignorant.  It actually makes me informed.

What Sylvan is saying is that it shows up late.

My first deployment in 2009 we got Fixed wing assets once. Granted even Rotary wing assets didn't get to us in time cause we were in the middle of fucking no where in Wardak.
I fought a lot of fights with the only support from my buddy with a 60mm mortar. Sure woulda been fucking nice if we could have had CAS on hand.

TRG

Well, this gang-rape is proceeding exactly as I expected.

As you were.

Hell in 2011 in Marjah, we couldn't even get a goddamn fight out of them because their was always air overhead. It makes em less sporty.

GRRRRR>.....


I typed out a very long response to this and it disappeared.  I'll revisit it later.

BLUF:

The DASC/TACC model only works because it is small scale, and is only made possible by the existence of the ASOC.

I ahd a LOT more, but I'll expound later.

Seems Pretty easy to push them off some so you can get a fight then bring in CAS to engage.

Let's look at some successful combined arms COIN operational models.

Rhodesian Fire Force.

Air, both fixed and rotary, was integrated at the planning stage, and integrated under a single commander, the battlespace owner.

This is a good start SOFREP report on Rhodesian FF ops

USN Riverine ops in Vietnam. A combination of forces, including organic FW and Rotary wing, operating in direct support of riverine, SOF and Army forces in an environment ready-built for insurgent operations.

Air Power is much, much more than just the airspace above the battle space... That's what *some* people here can't understand.  To answer your question: Yes.  It is appropriate.  An analogous question would be is have a Combined Forces Commander really appropriate in a war being conducted in a nation the size of Texas?

In order to meet the CFC's strategy, vision, and intent, you cannot have air power fiefdoms.

MAGTF air works in the absence of an ASOC.

Small scale fights seem to dominate the post nuclear era.

Maybe there is a reason for that.

I thought Air Power was sitting in decaying and dilapidated silos in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, manned by the AF third string.

I hear you.  If I could wave a magic want and have unlimited aircraft, pilots, gas, maintainers, and time- I'd give every Joe his own personal A-10 squadron.  But if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle... it's just not the way things are.

Air Power is exceedingly scare.  Tankers are exceedingly scares.  Maintainers are scarce.  Parts are scare.  Flight hours are limited.  For that reason, employment of air power absolutely must be exercised sparingly, in accordance with CFC's intent, in an attempt to get the most benefit for the very limited resource.

What I find curious is that the Air Force seems to get blame for the Army not getting the air support they want.  This is an issue to take up with Army Fires in nearly all cases except TICs, as it is ARMY FIRES who assigns priorities to ASRs.

If the US proceeds with a land and sea based deterrent posture, there is no institutional value-added they bring to the table that cannot be replicated by the DoN. We pay for two DOD elements duplicatively providing the same service.

You keep saying airpower, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Let me help you out.

“Airpower is the means by which a nation exerts its will directly through the air.  Air power is the strategical [sic] weapon that can reach beyond the range of surface arms and strike at the foundations of the enemy strength.  Air power consists of airplanes of great range and great power that can strike blows alone and unaided by the surface arms.  And air power consists of the specialized organization required to design, produce and operate such airplanes.”  William Hue.

“To stop the aggressor nation from even planning the attack, through fear of retaliation.  Air power should be seen not as a war fighting instrument but as an instrument of national policy. One capable of toppling the diplomatic balance and perhaps eventually creating mutual deterrence through terror between two nations both capable of power air actions.”
MG Andrews

The first step is to understand what airpower is.  What it is not is a word to be thrown about to justify archaic doctrines being executed by billion dollar aircraft.

stop losing nukes, then we can talk about CAS.

I know that it is being considered.  I don't oppose it.  I think the capabilities should dictate who gets it.  If it's slow and with limited playtime, incapable of AR, and with a small life support and Mx footprint, then I think it would make an excellent category as a joint service asset.

OMG-  did I just suggest that the ARMY should get owndership?

If it can hit 350 Kts + and can AR, making it useful theater wide employment, or if it has a big Mx Footprint, I'd say keep it under USAF

what you list are own goals inflicted by the AF.  We seem to have no shortage of C-130s that don't fly, or F16s sitting on the deck CONUS.

That the AF buys the wrong airplanes because they fight with a doctrine designed to fight a war that airpower theory strongly suggests (and history has so far proven) we will never fight is the heart of my argument.

gentlemen, fascinating topic for this civilian.  please don't get it locked.

Tag

Serious question: how much of that is an AF problem and how much of that is a Congress problem?

Sylvan,

I've worked more Fallen Angels in coordination with the JPRC arranging RESCORT and overwatch than I am comfortable with.  Each and every one affected me.    Really... how dare you?

Furthermore, since I'm no longer AD, I'm just going to say it.  You, sir, are an asshole.

And fuck it.  I'm putting you on /ignore.  You have nothing to say that I want to read.

Where the fuck is that purse fight .gif when you need it?

purse fight?



tables and chairs are better





 

OK, what is "air power" then? You've answered a direct question with a fortune cookie response.

But, as we operate now, we DO have air power fiefdoms...those sorties in CVN strike group support, rotary wing operations, and USMC strike sorties not on the ATO. So, doctrinally, we do it, now.

Now, during MCO, I can certainly see the value behind such centralization, but AF isn't an MCO.



This is an assertion that is not logically supported. I'd say again, we do. Second, what happens when a commander, like say, McCrystal basically outlaws all but in extremis CAS? I'd argue that his strategy, vision and intent wasn't being answered correctly by his air power resources.

It's down for maintenance. Someone is working up a powerpoint now on how to fix it.

Thank you for posting that, I forgot that existed.

I should have been more precise, because Sylvan linked to an article that mentioned the AC130.



I was talking something like the Super Taco, or Mohawk replacement.  



 

Former ANGLICO Marine checking in and tagged. Lighting out.

Do you think the Kenyan gave the Taliban the secrets to spoof CAS targeting  to release Bergdahl?   5 U.S. servicemen were killed by a misplaced aerial bomb after Bergdahl's release.

Not even I am crazy enough to think that.



 

What about thunder from the sea?

Just got my car back from the dealer.  Now headed to vote, then work.  I'll revisit after work.  Looking forward to continuing this engaging discussion

I'll just take this lawn chair over here with a beer and a smoke.

Obviously, Congress pays the piper and Congress calls the tune.

But the USAF's actions with regard to both the LAAR and C-27J suggest the USAF is not honest about their willingness to support the Army and the Army is too institutionally stupid to know that it is being snowed, and too lethargic and bureaucratic to generate a riposte.

This thread is

I get bitchy when I watch my friends die and when people partially responsible for it respond with ad hominens instead of fixing the problem.

5 dead Soldiers from AF CAS today.

Maybe they didn't need to die.

Have any experiences with USMC MACS units? specifically anything to do with Air defense controllers? Any comparison to USAF counterparts?

What do you see happening with the the AC130s now that the Harvest Hawks are up and running?

You would think. Our platoon commander wasn't big on actually luring them into a fight. He was more of a "if we don't have to shoot at anyone it's a good day" kind of guy. We hated him.

Is that like an Infantryman writing an article about what kind of small combatant the Navy should procure?

most of the dumb ones were dead by 2011.

When you have air support, they go away.

when you have air support from the get-go, they generally never show up.

there is a lesson there.

damn........

Cease fire, target destroyed.

That was co-authored with a fine naval officer, btw.

See I've gone around this with you as a casual advocate of airpower and it really does come through that you are remarkably well informed, which makes your posts very interesting.

Unfortunately for as much as you have read about Air Power, and as much as you can articulate the finer points you've never been able to grasp the "Ultima Ratio Potentiam Caeli".

You grasp it in the deterrence set, and you can figure how this plays into a policy end in broad strokes against peers. However you've never put 2 and 2 together to understand how this fundamentally invalidates earlier warfighting doctrines, land warfare, and infantry in nearly total.

All power is moral in nature, military efforts ultimately rely on the willingness to implement them. We are losing these wars because we are incapable of using nuclear weapons to commit genocide against people who are perfectly willing to commit genocide with IED's, and box cutters. We will continue to lose until we recognize that half measures will not suffice, and the application of ground forces is fundamentally a moral "half-measure". The misguided belief that if we send out some of our precious youth, armed with discriminating weapons, they will be able to use their judgment to kill some and leave others and our delicate sensibilities will be sated.

Unfortunately this moral doctrine has no relation to the conduct of an actual goddamn war, something our enemies understand and we do not.

I'll believe you "Understand Air Power" when you finally realize that it can be an active instrument. Not only the threat of a swatting a Peer in retaliation, but the active capability and willingness to exercise the same of swatting backwater primitives in a fashion which they have absolutely no ability to counter. The goal is not to scare them into compliance, or to maintain a delicate lose-lose scenario that deters rational actors. The Goal is to kill our enemies and fall back on the other benefits passively until we can kill our enemies.

The deterrence set, and MAD are just extensions of the fundamental offensive paradigm. When your not on offense, you need to constantly improve your position until you can resume offensive operations. This applies with Nuclear weapons just as much as with armored columns.

How awesome do you see the F-35 being at CAS?

True, but he's OUR asshole.

And we like his style.

TRG