User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 3:52:15 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hope this thread isn't indicative of a similar disfunction at a much broader level. Kinda scary if it is and certainly interesting to other countries. Look at how fucked up and inept our legislative branch is. Or our procurement process. It's really hard to not feel gloomy about the whole situation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 3:57:43 PM EST
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 3:57:46 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F16 pilot augered in on a gun run. KIA and DFC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have any fast movers done gun runs on ground targets at all? 'Cause that would give me blood flow. Just off the top of my head. I know for a fact F-15E's have done gun runs in AFG. F16 pilot augered in on a gun run. KIA and DFC. That was in Iraq, but yeah. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:01:25 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
shit. Can't argue that. I have no idea how I missed that. That it was an A-10 is ironic, however. Quote HistoryQuoted:
shit. Can't argue that. I have no idea how I missed that. That it was an A-10 is ironic, however. Ha true. Also, I don't know of any AC-130s that have 1x105, 2x40mm and 1x25mm (that carry them all at the same time). Small details that are wrong caused a loss of credibility, thus many probably stopped reading or didn't take the article seriously. I actually agree with a few of the points but think some points are way off mark. Quoted:
Quoted:
Have any fast movers done gun runs on ground targets at all? 'Cause that would give me blood flow. Just off the top of my head. I know for a fact F-15E's have done gun runs in AFG. Hogs/Strikes and Vipers have all done countless strafe passes in the AOR. Quoted:
F16 pilot augered in on a gun run. KIA and DFC. That's a pretty tasteless and simplistic answer to his question. I'm guessing this is how every return to tartget looks like for a 64? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:13:16 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Really.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:19:20 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Really.... Flying the wings off our strategic bombers is a lot cheaper. Especially since we'll have to replace them with the next jobs program called Bomber 2020. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:21:23 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:33:18 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a TACP: How do I beef up my 1972s to not get a section 2 read back? How can I spin it to get the aircraft I want? Can I ever justify a GBU-43/B or other weapon system like a CBU-97? For a standard DD1972, it comes down to priorities- so basically it comes down to the mission, and how critical air support would be for success. If it's high risk/ high reward, setting CAS as a go/no go criterion will be taken into consideration. I didn't always agree with Fires nor understand their process. As far as getting a particular type of aircraft, if there is a specific capability (whether a type of ordnance/cannons/pods etc) or mission constraint (I won't go into details, but suggest you research the SPINS), then that will be taken into consideration. Remember, these sorties are mostly fragged out by the MAAP Cell. If it's same-day, then Fires and the ASOC will work it. They do their best to meet the requirements of the mission, with the assets flying during the requested times... If the priorities will allow. And it's not always straight priorities- there's more to it but I can't really get into it. Sometimes it's a little like Tetris. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:33:42 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:38:46 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. I understand that. I also understand that those obstacles are entirely surmountable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:43:14 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:43:40 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Small world, and thanks for clarifying that. That jogs the memory some, as I now recall the story was relayed to me about her as you describe, riding the rear seat of an F-14 acting as the FAC Air. Is it correct that she was vectoring them onto target from the target side? I only got more of the story just last year from a SF retired SGM who was there at the time with 3rd Group. It's been about 12 or 13 years, but the other 18D buddy of mine who was one of the first on scene said something about the gun to target line with the laser designator, and the GBU's couldn't discern target from source due to the angle of the approach. Every CAS mission I've called in, I vectored the pilot off a known and clearly identifiable terrain feature either to our rear right or left, and preferably they would approach from that angle. That way we could bias them so they would see us off one shoulder for sure, not come right over us when making their friendly forces ID and initial run when getting SA of the TGT area. We used certain control measures to indicate our position. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The crazy thing is I know several very good dudes who were lost to bad CAS. The first one happened right before 9/11 to a buddy of mine from SWC/SOMTB. He had been injured in the trauma lanes by a piece of rebar, and when they did the surgery on him, Womack Army Medical Center left some gauze in his knee that caused the tissue to go necrotic, and he had to have it operated on again. This was in the Special Forces Medical Sergeant Course, which he eventually graduated from...an uphill battle in and of itself, let alone sustaining life-threatening post operative injuries. Westberg was a hard soldier, in excellent shape, with a strong resolve and zero tolerance for BS getting in his way. He got assigned to 3rd Group, then deployed to Kuwait, and was killed in that incident. I learned last year that there was a female USAF FAC who was coordinating the USN F/A-18's into the Udairi impact area, and there was some attempt to place blame on the USAF enlisted JTAC on the ground to divert attention from the incompetence of the female FAC in the air. One of my other buddies who was also an 18D was one of the first responders to the scene, coming from another ODA in 3rd Group. He knew Westberg personally from the course, and provided care and evac to survivors. http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2007/364/23189908_119915320154.jpg http://www.iupui.edu/~j21099/forms/newspapers/kuwaitbomb.jpe USA Today Article Troy James Westberg, 1971-2001 http://www.iupui.edu/~j21099/forms/newspapers/belowheadline.html The thing that is even more personal in this is that JD was one of our instructors at SOMTB, only to be killed late that year in Afghanistan by the same method.....namely bad CAS: http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/shadowwarriors/jd_harley.jpg I was in CDC on the CVN that launched the F/A-18 when those bombs were dropped at Al Udairi. I pulled the tapes for the investigation. The female FAC(A) -- actually the RIO of the FAC(A) aircraft, was a USN LT, not USAF. Both the FAC(A) and the incident plane were part of CVW-3 onboard Truman, the FAC(A) was an F-14 and the incident plane was an F/A-18. The investigation report clearly puts the blame on the incident pilot, with contributing factors by both the FAC(A) and the GFAC. There's nothing in the report to try put blame on one over the other. Small world, and thanks for clarifying that. That jogs the memory some, as I now recall the story was relayed to me about her as you describe, riding the rear seat of an F-14 acting as the FAC Air. Is it correct that she was vectoring them onto target from the target side? I only got more of the story just last year from a SF retired SGM who was there at the time with 3rd Group. It's been about 12 or 13 years, but the other 18D buddy of mine who was one of the first on scene said something about the gun to target line with the laser designator, and the GBU's couldn't discern target from source due to the angle of the approach. Every CAS mission I've called in, I vectored the pilot off a known and clearly identifiable terrain feature either to our rear right or left, and preferably they would approach from that angle. That way we could bias them so they would see us off one shoulder for sure, not come right over us when making their friendly forces ID and initial run when getting SA of the TGT area. We used certain control measures to indicate our position. If she vectored them in from the target side, it wasn't called out in the report. It appears from the report that they flew what they were supposed to fly, they simply failed to discriminate the target from the OP. The key phrase in the report: "1044. That the identification of OP 10 as the target could have been a combination of several factors; non-standard communication between the incident Pilot, GFAC and FAC (A); other light sources in the area to include a Bedouin camp 2-4 kilometers west to southwest of the OP; no simultaneous identification of the target and OP; and misidentification of the IR illumination source on OP 10 as the target. (Facts 1003-1005, 1021-1026, 1032)" http://www.romad.com/romad.com/finaljumper/ud_range_compiled.pdf The report mainly faults the incident pilot and says the FAC(A) used non-standard communications which contributed to the incident, and the GFAC lost situational awareness for a couple of seconds during which time the incident pilot dropped the bombs. There's nothing that indicates malfunction of any equipment including the bombs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:45:35 PM EST
[#13]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:46:46 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? Can't buy NGB until the current bomber is used up. "How can I be new King if old King is still alive." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:50:15 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? Show me another platform that has the loiter of a B-1. That bad grid could have just as easily been smushed by an F/A-18, F-15E, or any other Jdam delivery platform. Blaming the aircraft is a little silly. Don't you think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:54:41 PM EST
[#16]
We can't afford to make war in this way. Stop pretending. Find another way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 4:57:37 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? First off, as terrible as I might be- frat happens. Getting greased by friendly bombs is as bad as getting it from bullets, or 2.75" rockets. Secondly, it's not "my" service we're talking about. We're talking about America's Air Force- and the tone you're directing at me sucks. This isn't personal. I offered to answer any questions I was able to, and I think I'm handling the spears fairly well- all things considered. That said, I frequently tasked bones to TIC when I was still in- for a variety of reasons. They have incredible playtime, great targeting capabilities, and were fortuitously positioned near some places that were otherwise inaccessible when I held the hammer. My main reservation was their lack of a cannon. They we're uses to great effect. So leveling a barb at me about the loss of 5 precious American lives is a little misplaced. There are families in mourning and lives shattered-and I'm not just talking about the slain. I can't imagine the personal hell everyone involved in this is going through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:00:56 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We can't afford to make war in this way. Stop pretending. Find another way. The only winning move is not to play...bs whac-a-mole wars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:07:46 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show me another platform that has the loiter of a B-1. That bad grid could have just as easily been smushed by an F/A-18, F-15E, or any other Jdam delivery platform. Blaming the aircraft is a little silly. Don't you think? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? Show me another platform that has the loiter of a B-1. That bad grid could have just as easily been smushed by an F/A-18, F-15E, or any other Jdam delivery platform. Blaming the aircraft is a little silly. Don't you think? Predator. Reaper. Longer loiter time, infinitely better SA of what is happening on the ground, and ability to provide support with lethal and accurate fires. What kind of organization chooses a national level strategic asset to smash dirt farmers when drones can do it better, cheaper, and safer? One that is run by and for the guys who fly the planes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:09:02 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? That would require the Army caring enough to want to do that. If you have any evidence that is the case, please share it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:11:13 PM EST
[#21]
I’m one of those you’ve mentioned in the first post regarding not knowing much about close air support. But I wanted to take a second to thank you for starting this thread. Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:13:17 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Predator. Reaper. Longer loiter time, infinitely better SA of what is happening on the ground, and ability to provide support with lethal and accurate fires. What kind of organization chooses a national level strategic asset to smash dirt farmers when drones can do it better, cheaper, and safer? One that is run by and for the guys who fly the planes.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Your branch of service employed a B-1, a strategic level asset, to provide CAS (a tactical level mission) last week - at the cost of five ground pounder lives and over one million dollars in operating costs to do a job that a small turboprop could have done better and cheaper. Wrap your head around that. Then answer me this: Why are we risking a strategic level asset to bomb dirt farmers in Afghanistan? Show me another platform that has the loiter of a B-1. That bad grid could have just as easily been smushed by an F/A-18, F-15E, or any other Jdam delivery platform. Blaming the aircraft is a little silly. Don't you think? Predator. Reaper. Longer loiter time, infinitely better SA of what is happening on the ground, and ability to provide support with lethal and accurate fires. What kind of organization chooses a national level strategic asset to smash dirt farmers when drones can do it better, cheaper, and safer? One that is run by and for the guys who fly the planes.
See? NOW we're talking. I'm totally for expanding the armed RPV fleet. They're cheap, long loiter time, good targeting, multi role, no life support needed. If they make one with even better endurance- crews could just swap out mid-mission- no more duty day. Hell, the crew could swap out for Taco Bell runs. Problems are COMM and speed and deconfliction. Speed can be mitigated by populated the entire sky, but at the cost of increased risk of tin on tin. Another issue is security/jamming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:14:28 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m one of those you’ve mentioned in the first postregarding not knowing much about close air support. But I wanted to take a second to thank youfor starting this thread. Thanks You are very welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:22:27 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See? NOW we're talking. I'm totally for expanding the armed RPV fleet. They're cheap, long loiter time, good targeting, multi role, no life support needed. If they make one with even better endurance- crews could just swap out mid-mission- no more duty day. Hell, the crew could swap out for Taco Bell runs. Problems are COMM and speed and deconfliction. Speed can be mitigated by populated the entire sky, but at the cost of increased risk of tin on tin. Another issue is security/jamming. So why are we spending a million dollars to put a B-1 in the air over Afghanistan when we could be spending it on drones? There is a demand for CAS. The USAF is the supplier of CAS. There is relatively affordable technology out there that provides outstanding affect on target, yet the USAF is out there flying $1,000,000 CAS missions with a strategic level bomber. You tell Combat_Jack he doesn't understand the logistics required to support CAS. If you ask me, the USAF doesn't understand logistics - otherwise they would not be sending a B-1 to do a drone's job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:26:45 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:27:00 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
shit. Can't argue that. I have no idea how I missed that. That it was an A-10 is ironic, however. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I don't know what I am talking about, prove it. A-10 needs to go. Since 2001, no fixed-wing combat aircraft have been lost to enemy fire A-10 shot down by Roland in 2003. shit. Can't argue that. I have no idea how I missed that. That it was an A-10 is ironic, however. Rescued by the Engineers! :D |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:30:07 PM EST
[#27]
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. That's assuming that the number and type of bombers we have now are a baseline and that they aren't being flown harder in the war than they would be in peacetime. The first is arguable. The second is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:30:08 PM EST
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:33:23 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:snip
Sounds to me like the Army can't even count on their own air assets. Maybe they should start there before solving everyone else's problems for them. I know in an infantryman's perfect world every company Bn commander would have a squadron of super tucos Harriers, a squadron of apaches Cobras, and a squadron of AC-130 s Harvest Hawk at their 24/7 beck and call. Spring another few trillion billion from the treasury and we can make the dream a reality. Who is going to keep those aircraft in the sky? Aircrew duty day being what it is. What maintenance is going to happen on those aircraft? Things break at terrible times. Keeping all of them in the skies continually puts a damper on MX. Where is all that gas going to come from? For pretty much all of those ideas, the gas has to be forward deployed where it is unbelievably vulnerable. Except Harvest Hawk, but then you're running into delays for time to target. Most of those platforms are significantly vulnerable to ground fire, and unbelievably vulnerable to the point of complete uselessness if bad guys have even early model SAMs. Harvest Hawks are nifty, but without LAIRCM. See aircrew duty day and MX issues for HH too. A Turcano is a clay pigeon for just about any MANPAD I can think of. And please don't say, "Durrrr... Flares!" By the time you're popping flares, you're already getting a four pound shaped charge enema. Aircraft are, unless I am sorely mistaken, not equipped with warp drive. Getting a 130 where you need it at 250kts is going to take time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:35:05 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So why are we spending a million dollars to put a B-1 in the air over Afghanistan when we could be spending it on drones? There is a demand for CAS. The USAF is the supplier of CAS. There is relatively affordable technology out there that provides outstanding affect on target, yet the USAF is out there flying $1,000,000 CAS missions with a strategic level bomber. You tell Combat_Jack he doesn't understand the logistics required to support CAS. If you ask me, the USAF doesn't understand logistics - otherwise they would not be sending a B-1 to do a drone's job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
See? NOW we're talking. I'm totally for expanding the armed RPV fleet. They're cheap, long loiter time, good targeting, multi role, no life support needed. If they make one with even better endurance- crews could just swap out mid-mission- no more duty day. Hell, the crew could swap out for Taco Bell runs. Problems are COMM and speed and deconfliction. Speed can be mitigated by populated the entire sky, but at the cost of increased risk of tin on tin. Another issue is security/jamming. So why are we spending a million dollars to put a B-1 in the air over Afghanistan when we could be spending it on drones? There is a demand for CAS. The USAF is the supplier of CAS. There is relatively affordable technology out there that provides outstanding affect on target, yet the USAF is out there flying $1,000,000 CAS missions with a strategic level bomber. You tell Combat_Jack he doesn't understand the logistics required to support CAS. If you ask me, the USAF doesn't understand logistics - otherwise they would not be sending a B-1 to do a drone's job. The plane is going to be flown no matter what...crews have to train. You can have them dropping bombs on the range, or dropping bombs on the Taliban...which one do you prefer? Think we should wait until a better war for our forces to work out coordination errors? Not concerned that the Russians will laugh at us if we replace all those bombers with crop dusters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:37:35 PM EST
[#31]
Does USAF have more than two B-1s airborne at all times on training missions?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:37:45 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:... Sometimes it's a little like Tetris. OK now I know you're trolling. Considering the subject matter, not well played. And if you are an Officer, you're certainly not a Gentlemen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:39:50 PM EST
[#33]
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? He's just trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:41:19 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The plane is going to be flown no matter what...crews have to train. You can have them dropping bombs on the range, or dropping bombs on the Taliban...which one do you prefer? Think we should wait until a better war for our forces to work out coordination errors? Not concerned that the Russians will laugh at us if we replace all those bombers with crop dusters? If the USAF cannot afford to maintain proficiency with strategic level bombers and provide CAS with separate aircraft in a non-contested airspace, then that's pitiful and criminally negligent considering the funds the USAF receives. ANd I don't believe that is the case. Two things prevent the USAF from providing exactly the type of CAS that ground forces have been asking for - pilots and pride. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:44:55 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who is going to keep those aircraft in the sky? Aircrew duty day being what it is. What maintenance is going to happen on those aircraft? Things break at terrible times. Keeping all of them in the skies continually puts a damper on MX. Where is all that gas going to come from? For pretty much all of those ideas, the gas has to be forward deployed where it is unbelievably vulnerable. Except Harvest Hawk, but then you're running into delays for time to target. Most of those platforms are significantly vulnerable to ground fire, and unbelievably vulnerable to the point of complete uselessness if bad guys have even early model SAMs. Harvest Hawks are nifty, but without LAIRCM. See aircrew duty day and MX issues for HH too. A Turcano is a clay pigeon for just about any MANPAD I can think of. And please don't say, "Durrrr... Flares!" By the time you're popping flares, you're already getting a four pound shaped charge enema. Aircraft are, unless I am sorely mistaken, not equipped with warp drive. Getting a 130 where you need it at 250kts is going to take time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:snip Sounds to me like the Army can't even count on their own air assets. Maybe they should start there before solving everyone else's problems for them. I know in an infantryman's perfect world every company Bn commander would have a squadron of super tucos Harriers, a squadron of apaches Cobras, and a squadron of AC-130 s Harvest Hawk at their 24/7 beck and call. Spring another few trillion billion from the treasury and we can make the dream a reality. Who is going to keep those aircraft in the sky? Aircrew duty day being what it is. What maintenance is going to happen on those aircraft? Things break at terrible times. Keeping all of them in the skies continually puts a damper on MX. Where is all that gas going to come from? For pretty much all of those ideas, the gas has to be forward deployed where it is unbelievably vulnerable. Except Harvest Hawk, but then you're running into delays for time to target. Most of those platforms are significantly vulnerable to ground fire, and unbelievably vulnerable to the point of complete uselessness if bad guys have even early model SAMs. Harvest Hawks are nifty, but without LAIRCM. See aircrew duty day and MX issues for HH too. A Turcano is a clay pigeon for just about any MANPAD I can think of. And please don't say, "Durrrr... Flares!" By the time you're popping flares, you're already getting a four pound shaped charge enema. Aircraft are, unless I am sorely mistaken, not equipped with warp drive. Getting a 130 where you need it at 250kts is going to take time. 2 it was more or less exactly how my Bn led the Marine invasion into Bagdad and then started conduction SASO post invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:52:32 PM EST
[#36]
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. Well put, to which I would add that logistics isn't only about money. Also, the case to be made for organic army CAS that would have resulted in usable assets in today's fight would had to have been made and won in the 1980's. Like I said, I think the army used helos to great effect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:54:56 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK now I know you're trolling. Considering the subject matter, not well played. And if you are an Officer, you're certainly not a Gentlemen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:... Sometimes it's a little like Tetris. OK now I know you're trolling. Considering the subject matter, not well played. And if you are an Officer, you're certainly not a Gentlemen. Well, I'm glad you cleared that up for me... Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:58:06 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You ever read the threads about missile security and readiness? THOSE are scary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope this thread isn't indicative of a similar disfunction at a much broader level. Kinda scary if it is and certainly interesting to other countries. You ever read the threads about missile security and readiness? THOSE are scary. Yep. If we ever get a good president, bringing unquestionable nuke and missile supremacy should be day one, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:59:11 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the USAF cannot afford to maintain proficiency with strategic level bombers and provide CAS with separate aircraft in a non-contested airspace, then that's pitiful and criminally negligent considering the funds the USAF receives. ANd I don't believe that is the case. Two things prevent the USAF from providing exactly the type of CAS that ground forces have been asking for - pilots and pride. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The plane is going to be flown no matter what...crews have to train. You can have them dropping bombs on the range, or dropping bombs on the Taliban...which one do you prefer? Think we should wait until a better war for our forces to work out coordination errors? Not concerned that the Russians will laugh at us if we replace all those bombers with crop dusters? If the USAF cannot afford to maintain proficiency with strategic level bombers and provide CAS with separate aircraft in a non-contested airspace, then that's pitiful and criminally negligent considering the funds the USAF receives. ANd I don't believe that is the case. Two things prevent the USAF from providing exactly the type of CAS that ground forces have been asking for - pilots and pride. Where are those extra pilots going to come from? Start losing experienced pilots and we start to understand why the Japanese lost the fuck out of the WWII air war. I mean, sticking guys in prop jobbers to whip around sounds nifty, but then some other asshole is going to bring a missile to the party and you just lost another pilot. How many maintenance guys are you going to bring? Sure we need more pilots, but then we also need upwards of ten to twenty times as many maintenance guys to keep them in the air. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of deploying yet another airframe. All with unique parts, and we have no clue which are high fail. Maintenance time on airframe is IMPORTANT. C130's pretty much have all the quirks figured out. Even the J models had some teething problems, and quirks that needed to be overcome. Throwing a new airframe on pilotsand saying, "Go shoot hajjis when the Army asks you to" would be a nightmare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:08:29 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are those extra pilots going to come from? Start losing experienced pilots and we start to understand why the Japanese lost the fuck out of the WWII air war. I mean, sticking guys in prop jobbers to whip around sounds nifty, but then some other asshole is going to bring a missile to the party and you just lost another pilot. How many maintenance guys are you going to bring? Sure we need more pilots, but then we also need upwards of ten to twenty times as many maintenance guys to keep them in the air. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of deploying yet another airframe. All with unique parts, and we have no clue which are high fail. Maintenance time on airframe is IMPORTANT. C130's pretty much have all the quirks figured out. Even the J models had some teething problems, and quirks that needed to be overcome. Throwing a new airframe on pilotsand saying, "Go shoot hajjis when the Army asks you to" would be a nightmare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane is going to be flown no matter what...crews have to train. You can have them dropping bombs on the range, or dropping bombs on the Taliban...which one do you prefer? Think we should wait until a better war for our forces to work out coordination errors? Not concerned that the Russians will laugh at us if we replace all those bombers with crop dusters? If the USAF cannot afford to maintain proficiency with strategic level bombers and provide CAS with separate aircraft in a non-contested airspace, then that's pitiful and criminally negligent considering the funds the USAF receives. ANd I don't believe that is the case. Two things prevent the USAF from providing exactly the type of CAS that ground forces have been asking for - pilots and pride. Where are those extra pilots going to come from? Start losing experienced pilots and we start to understand why the Japanese lost the fuck out of the WWII air war. I mean, sticking guys in prop jobbers to whip around sounds nifty, but then some other asshole is going to bring a missile to the party and you just lost another pilot. How many maintenance guys are you going to bring? Sure we need more pilots, but then we also need upwards of ten to twenty times as many maintenance guys to keep them in the air. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of deploying yet another airframe. All with unique parts, and we have no clue which are high fail. Maintenance time on airframe is IMPORTANT. C130's pretty much have all the quirks figured out. Even the J models had some teething problems, and quirks that needed to be overcome. Throwing a new airframe on pilotsand saying, "Go shoot hajjis when the Army asks you to" would be a nightmare. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:08:49 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are those extra pilots going to come from? Start losing experienced pilots and we start to understand why the Japanese lost the fuck out of the WWII air war. I mean, sticking guys in prop jobbers to whip around sounds nifty, but then some other asshole is going to bring a missile to the party and you just lost another pilot. How many maintenance guys are you going to bring? Sure we need more pilots, but then we also need upwards of ten to twenty times as many maintenance guys to keep them in the air. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of deploying yet another airframe. All with unique parts, and we have no clue which are high fail. Maintenance time on airframe is IMPORTANT. C130's pretty much have all the quirks figured out. Even the J models had some teething problems, and quirks that needed to be overcome. Throwing a new airframe on pilotsand saying, "Go shoot hajjis when the Army asks you to" would be a nightmare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane is going to be flown no matter what...crews have to train. You can have them dropping bombs on the range, or dropping bombs on the Taliban...which one do you prefer? Think we should wait until a better war for our forces to work out coordination errors? Not concerned that the Russians will laugh at us if we replace all those bombers with crop dusters? If the USAF cannot afford to maintain proficiency with strategic level bombers and provide CAS with separate aircraft in a non-contested airspace, then that's pitiful and criminally negligent considering the funds the USAF receives. ANd I don't believe that is the case. Two things prevent the USAF from providing exactly the type of CAS that ground forces have been asking for - pilots and pride. Where are those extra pilots going to come from? Start losing experienced pilots and we start to understand why the Japanese lost the fuck out of the WWII air war. I mean, sticking guys in prop jobbers to whip around sounds nifty, but then some other asshole is going to bring a missile to the party and you just lost another pilot. How many maintenance guys are you going to bring? Sure we need more pilots, but then we also need upwards of ten to twenty times as many maintenance guys to keep them in the air. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of deploying yet another airframe. All with unique parts, and we have no clue which are high fail. Maintenance time on airframe is IMPORTANT. C130's pretty much have all the quirks figured out. Even the J models had some teething problems, and quirks that needed to be overcome. Throwing a new airframe on pilotsand saying, "Go shoot hajjis when the Army asks you to" would be a nightmare. B-b-but air SUPPORT?!? Anyways, I'm out for the night. I appreciate the respectful inquisitiveness of most... Other d-bags, not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:17:32 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are those extra pilots going to come from? Start losing experienced pilots and we start to understand why the Japanese lost the fuck out of the WWII air war. I mean, sticking guys in prop jobbers to whip around sounds nifty, but then some other asshole is going to bring a missile to the party and you just lost another pilot. How many maintenance guys are you going to bring? Sure we need more pilots, but then we also need upwards of ten to twenty times as many maintenance guys to keep them in the air. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of deploying yet another airframe. All with unique parts, and we have no clue which are high fail. Maintenance time on airframe is IMPORTANT. C130's pretty much have all the quirks figured out. Even the J models had some teething problems, and quirks that needed to be overcome. Throwing a new airframe on pilotsand saying, "Go shoot hajjis when the Army asks you to" would be a nightmare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane is going to be flown no matter what...crews have to train. You can have them dropping bombs on the range, or dropping bombs on the Taliban...which one do you prefer? Think we should wait until a better war for our forces to work out coordination errors? Not concerned that the Russians will laugh at us if we replace all those bombers with crop dusters? If the USAF cannot afford to maintain proficiency with strategic level bombers and provide CAS with separate aircraft in a non-contested airspace, then that's pitiful and criminally negligent considering the funds the USAF receives. ANd I don't believe that is the case. Two things prevent the USAF from providing exactly the type of CAS that ground forces have been asking for - pilots and pride. Where are those extra pilots going to come from? Start losing experienced pilots and we start to understand why the Japanese lost the fuck out of the WWII air war. I mean, sticking guys in prop jobbers to whip around sounds nifty, but then some other asshole is going to bring a missile to the party and you just lost another pilot. How many maintenance guys are you going to bring? Sure we need more pilots, but then we also need upwards of ten to twenty times as many maintenance guys to keep them in the air. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of deploying yet another airframe. All with unique parts, and we have no clue which are high fail. Maintenance time on airframe is IMPORTANT. C130's pretty much have all the quirks figured out. Even the J models had some teething problems, and quirks that needed to be overcome. Throwing a new airframe on pilotsand saying, "Go shoot hajjis when the Army asks you to" would be a nightmare. If a turboprop CAS platform (or simply more drones, which are already well integrated into our logistical footprint) is a nightmare, then what are the F-22 and F-35? Giant clusterfucks. Trillion dollar clusterfucks. The USAF's refusal (inability?) to balance its deterrence / strategic mission and fulfill the close air support requests of ground forces over the last decade plus is mind boggling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:17:48 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who is going to keep those aircraft in the sky? Aircrew duty day being what it is. What maintenance is going to happen on those aircraft? Things break at terrible times. Keeping all of them in the skies continually puts a damper on MX. Where is all that gas going to come from? For pretty much all of those ideas, the gas has to be forward deployed where it is unbelievably vulnerable. Except Harvest Hawk, but then you're running into delays for time to target. Most of those platforms are significantly vulnerable to ground fire, and unbelievably vulnerable to the point of complete uselessness if bad guys have even early model SAMs. Harvest Hawks are nifty, but without LAIRCM. See aircrew duty day and MX issues for HH too. A Turcano is a clay pigeon for just about any MANPAD I can think of. And please don't say, "Durrrr... Flares!" By the time you're popping flares, you're already getting a four pound shaped charge enema. Aircraft are, unless I am sorely mistaken, not equipped with warp drive. Getting a 130 where you need it at 250kts is going to take time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:snip
Sounds to me like the Army can't even count on their own air assets. Maybe they should start there before solving everyone else's problems for them. I know in an infantryman's perfect world every company Bn commander would have a squadron of super tucos Harriers, a squadron of apaches Cobras, and a squadron of AC-130 s Harvest Hawk at their 24/7 beck and call. Spring another few trillion billion from the treasury and we can make the dream a reality. Who is going to keep those aircraft in the sky? Aircrew duty day being what it is. What maintenance is going to happen on those aircraft? Things break at terrible times. Keeping all of them in the skies continually puts a damper on MX. Where is all that gas going to come from? For pretty much all of those ideas, the gas has to be forward deployed where it is unbelievably vulnerable. Except Harvest Hawk, but then you're running into delays for time to target. Most of those platforms are significantly vulnerable to ground fire, and unbelievably vulnerable to the point of complete uselessness if bad guys have even early model SAMs. Harvest Hawks are nifty, but without LAIRCM. See aircrew duty day and MX issues for HH too. A Turcano is a clay pigeon for just about any MANPAD I can think of. And please don't say, "Durrrr... Flares!" By the time you're popping flares, you're already getting a four pound shaped charge enema. Aircraft are, unless I am sorely mistaken, not equipped with warp drive. Getting a 130 where you need it at 250kts is going to take time. Serious question, if security allows. How often do we encounter MANPADs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:17:54 PM EST
[#44]
It's almost like the Army doesn't have helicopters and hasn't lost people to MANPADS.
When you make the argument that there are no marginal costs to overseas operations you are telling me that you aren't flying any more in support of the Army than you would for your own sustainment training. You can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:22:17 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's almost like the Army doesn't have helicopters and hasn't lost people to MANPADS. When you make the argument that their are no marginal costs to overseas operations you are telling me that you aren't flying any more in support of the Army than you would for your own sustainment training. You can't have it both ways. What's the op tempo of an infantry or artillery unit stateside vs the rockpile? Is it the same? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:32:29 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the op tempo of an infantry or artillery unit stateside vs the rockpile? Is it the same? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's almost like the Army doesn't have helicopters and hasn't lost people to MANPADS. When you make the argument that their are no marginal costs to overseas operations you are telling me that you aren't flying any more in support of the Army than you would for your own sustainment training. You can't have it both ways. What's the op tempo of an infantry or artillery unit stateside vs the rockpile? Is it the same? I averaged 120 days a year in the field, TDY or at NTC. Deployments are obviously nine months at a stretch, not including work up and demob. I figure that there was an 18 month period during which I spent six months training or in recovery for the six months I spent in Kuwait. Not sure about IN units. They spend more time in the field than I have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:38:37 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who needs an ALO? If the same pilots work with the same maneuver elements and communicate directly that reduces the friction. Now, on the details of the maneuver element, how much the ODA was changing position is questionable. However, considering they were with Karzai, they weren't moving much. A crew that had worked regularly with that ODA would have recognized the bad grid. But when its whatever pilot is on the roster flying where ever, these mistakes are much more likely to happen. Showing up after the fight has started is the first problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An error that wouldn't have occured: 1. If the pilot had been integrated with that team from the start of the mission, or, better yet, from the start of the operation. Who needs an ALO? If the same pilots work with the same maneuver elements and communicate directly that reduces the friction. Now, on the details of the maneuver element, how much the ODA was changing position is questionable. However, considering they were with Karzai, they weren't moving much. A crew that had worked regularly with that ODA would have recognized the bad grid. But when its whatever pilot is on the roster flying where ever, these mistakes are much more likely to happen. Showing up after the fight has started is the first problem. Sylvan, That isn't a valid argument against AF support especially when we do BHO with ARMY aviation all the time. So I (as a Kiowa guy) am just as likely to show up to a TIC in progress as a Marine Cobra or an AF F-16. Do habitual relationships increase SA, safety and timeliness of effective support? Clearly they do. Is that always possible? Nope. Do I hope the Army gets control of a FW CAS platform? YES! I'd love to do that job for the men on the ground since my KW is being shitcanned. The tragedy of ODA 574 has nothing to do with the topic of the AF providing CAS. I personally know two of the AF guys who were on site and visited them in Germany at the hospital right after the incident. The error didn't happen because of the branch of service providing the munitions. Don't mix that situation with the bigger problem of the Big AF commitment to CAS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 6:43:28 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or both. Just a better balance of the two. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No denying that. However, I was just a lowly AF cop so anything more is way outside my lane and anything I say will come off as callous, cold and piss a shit ton of people off. In my totally uninformed opinion, there may be enough planes and pilots for your suggestion to work. I really doubt it though. Short term, possibly. Long term you will probably be putting every plane in depot very quickly. The AF is stuck with idiots at the top, idiots in Congress and vast differences in how entire Commands look at the AF. Because of that, the wrong people are in charge of making service wide decisions. In my 6 year run, my impression of AF leadership development is it is rather myopic. Very much not my department talk to so and so. I'm not saying other services or even communities with the AF are better or worse. I think there are assets that could be moved back to the Army and I think, while we would still have asset/doctrine conflicts, if procurement didn't take 20+years; assets, capabilities and doctrine would align far more closely. stop buying as many F35s and buy some shit that is cheaper. at this point, the savings from 100 F35s could buy 500 LAAR type aircraft AND crews. Planes have gotten to the point where the cost of the pilot is simply budget dust. Or stop buying AH-64E and buy LAAR type aircraft... Or both. Just a better balance of the two. I'll "one-up" you. How about make the OH-58D community fly the LAAR if they are intent on getting rid of the OH helicopters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 7:00:46 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is why the Army killed the Kiowa to buy AH-64Es - Apaches are cheaper. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those airplanes you'd like every ground unit to have? Yeah... they don't exist. Neither does the gas to keep them all aloft. Same goes for the maintainers who make them go vrrroooom! Not enough of those guys. Tankers to bring in the gas? They're preciously rare as well. Airfields? Nope... not enough of them... and they've got a nasty habit of taking a lot of time and resources to build if they don't happen to be conveniently located where you want them. Bombs? Expensive, have to be transported from point A to point B... something something fuses and oh yeah... limited resource as well. Air power is HDLD- High Demand, Low Density. It has to be rationed out... . Pretty much everything you are saying here boils down to money. I wonder how we could do CAS cheaper so we could get more of it? Which is why the Army killed the Kiowa to buy AH-64Es - Apaches are cheaper. LOLOLOLOLOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 7:09:20 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You aren't talking to Joe in this thread. You've got IN Field Grade CDRs, JTACs, FOs, FSOs, PLs and pilots, and they pretty much all disagree with you. Doctrinal CAS may work in MCO but you clearly don't understand COIN/LIC or the other considerations involved. I absolutely do understand COIN, but for some reason you're only looking at effects, not logistics or C2. No gas, no ammo, no airfield= no CAS. Limited resources = limited CAS. After 13 years of war do you view that as an organizational failure? |
|
|
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.
