User Panel
Quoted:
Kiowas were shot down? Have you ever considered only flying at night? Might be safer that way. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Kiowas were shot down in Iraq and AFG fairly regularly. All that did was get the rest of the pilots more focused on the job, and there was never a shortage of dudes wanting to fly them. Kiowas were shot down? Have you ever considered only flying at night? Might be safer that way. Its easier to get a DFC flying day missions. |
|
Air Force talks about buying LAARs (again)-Ridiculous thread follows.
well, yeah. The entire thread was started by a ridiculous lie in the first place. |
|
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't call a Cesena clone a fast mover, more like a slow easy target. A-10s have done the job fantastically and proven to take a beating and still get the job done. Stick with what works best. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I gotta say, from my perspective as an outsider looking in, Rooster seems to have a good point here. 1) How did we fill so many fighter slots in WWI and WWII, when it was more dangerous? Was the difference due to draft? 2) If we can get all those volunteers to walk around on the street with possible enemy poking out from every corner, or bombs planted in the dirt all around you in random locations, why can't we get dudes to pilot planes to blow shit up? 3) If the standard is too high, can we separate the standards? We have a super high standard for the "next-generation" aircraft or whatever, the F35 type pilots who are there to defend us against theoretical super power enemies, and then we have a secondary lower standard for the rest of us retards who want to fly in low and blow things up View Quote It cost very little to train pilots back in WWI. Teach them how to fly and land with about 40 flying hours or less and let Darwin take over. WWII was barely an improvement in comparison to today's pilots. Today it can cost millions to get a pilot ready for combat. After spending that kind of money and the time/expense it takes to replace one it is just darn smart to keep them alive and fighting. Even A-10 pilots aren't cheap to train. I've met quite a few A-10 pilots and have immense respect for them. They are the best, most courageous, ground attack pilots in the world bar none. Even with that you don't waste them. You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot. |
|
Quoted:
It cost very little to train pilots back in WWI. Teach them how to fly and land with about 40 flying hours or less and let Darwin take over. WWII was barely an improvement in comparison to today's pilots. Today it can cost millions to get a pilot ready for combat. After spending that kind of money and the time/expense it takes to replace one it is just darn smart to keep them alive and fighting. Even A-10 pilots aren't cheap to train. I've met quite a few A-10 pilots and have immense respect for them. They are the best, most courageous, ground attack pilots in the world bar none. Even with that you don't waste them. You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot. View Quote Whoomp There It Is - Tag Team |
|
Quoted:
Thank you, now we are getting somwhere. I agree 100% with this. Im not sure the AF would say no, but if they did it wouldnt surprise me. On the initial push there were some meager joint ops, but on the whole they dont happen. They need to happen stateside, this shit doesnt just come together in combat for the first time. For instance, I had a "talkon" from a guy who was getting frustrated with me because I cant find the house with the red roof, with no grid/coordinates etc...at night, with no other helpful information. Clearly, he had no training whatsoever in calling in air, or even in determining the coordinates of a target. What does it say that one hundred years after the invention of the aircraft that the Air Force has to have a enlisted career field to imbed guys with CAS training with army units because they apparently have little desire to train their own men? It isnt rocket science. The Marines do it, the Army can too. However, thats not the point, lack of proficiency on their end or ours isnt the main issue. Despite that abortion of an org chart, I can tell you that everyday we ended up over some unit, that many of those days something came up we could help with, targets were ID despite the lack previous joint training (this always went much smoother with Marines, many of whom clearly had experience calling in air effectively) and yet, the entire operation, from that org chart on down to even the most painful talk on, was rendered moot because nine times out of ten, literally, the poor guy could not get his boss to clear us hot. Im not saying there arent acquisition problems, training problems, structural org problems or whatever. Im saying is that despite that, despite big army and big af bureaucracy throwing wrenches in the works, we were still there, together we made it work, all previous obstacles and hurdles surmounted, except for the main one...two words, cleared hot. We can and should fix the charts, do the joint training, streamline the process, and employ the best weapons, but none of that will mean a thing until ground commanders feel more free to use the assets available to them. I just cannot stress this enough, and I dont know what the official reports say or what the discussions were at the staff and dont really care. What I can say, as someone who did this day in day out, the vast majority of non effective CAS is not from a failure of the guy on the radio or a pilot like me...it is the roe ground commanders are using. Me and the guy on the radio have our end doped out, and then he gets denied. Look, I get fired up about this because I have literally seen men die with my own eyes (maybe you have too) in attacks from enemy positions on which I have eyes on, not even danger close, and yet because it is too close to a freakin highway or some other BS they deny the guy and I get watch this crap unfold over and over as a high speed cheerleader. Sometimes they let me do a flyby at least. A "show of force" they call it, thats anything but. Yeah thatll show em, but I do what im asked. Until the national command authority decides to let the Army FIGHT, the Army's commanders are not going to allow much CAS. It is what it is. I doubt it will ever happen unless we take a truly catastrophic hit to the homeland or face in open combat some entity senior leadership perceives is a true existential threat to the nation. Instead, like we do in many other areas of national policy, we will "fix" this problem by throwing money at it or buying something instead of simply letting our people do their jobs. Im tired of these threads really. I keep telling myself not to mess with it but those events are still very real to me. In the end, it just evolves into an heated argument with people in which I probably share 99% common values with. View Quote You are correct. I usually avoid the synthetic testosterone threads. That is all they ever are. Thanks for reminding me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It cost very little to train pilots back in WWI. Teach them how to fly and land with about 40 flying hours or less and let Darwin take over. WWII was barely an improvement in comparison to today's pilots. Today it can cost millions to get a pilot ready for combat. After spending that kind of money and the time/expense it takes to replace one it is just darn smart to keep them alive and fighting. Even A-10 pilots aren't cheap to train. I've met quite a few A-10 pilots and have immense respect for them. They are the best, most courageous, ground attack pilots in the world bar none. Even with that you don't waste them. You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FPimCmbX8 Damn. The inter-service iteration of "go be poor somewhere else!". No wonder so many people want to replace pilots with drones. |
|
|
Quoted:
Damn. The inter-service iteration of "go be poor somewhere else!". No wonder so many people want to replace pilots with drones. View Quote There is no place for infantry in wars that are existential in nature, and there is no reason other then romantacism for us NOT to make any war (no matter how small) an existential threat for our enemies. |
|
Quoted:
AF don't want to replace pilots with drones, AF wants to replace infantry with Pilots. There is no place for infantry in wars that are existential in nature, and there is no reason other then romantacism for us NOT to make any war (no matter how small) an existential threat for our enemies. View Quote Ah... the graduate from the John Wesley Hardin School of Foreign Relations, class of 1948 is heard from. |
|
Quoted:
AF don't want to replace pilots with drones, AF wants to replace infantry with Pilots. There is no place for infantry in wars that are existential in nature, and there is no reason other then romantacism for us NOT to make any war (no matter how small) an existential threat for our enemies. View Quote There is no place for pilots in wars that are existential in nature. |
|
Quoted:
AF don't want to replace pilots with drones, AF wants to replace infantry with Pilots. There is no place for infantry in wars that are existential in nature, and there is no reason other then romantacism for us NOT to make any war (no matter how small) an existential threat for our enemies. View Quote and, by that argument, there is no need for pilots, either. In the words of Hap Arnold, "I foresee a manless AF" I will be kind and not suggest we might already be there. |
|
Quoted:
and, by that argument, there is no need for pilots, either. In the words of Hap Arnold, "I foresee a manless AF" I will be kind and not suggest we might already be there. View Quote Wasn't it your idea to give ICBMs, space stuff, and cyber warfare to the USAF? All the "technical" shit. We could call it TechCom, like from the Terminator movies. They'd fucking love it. Then take everything else the USAF is tasked with doing and fold it back into the Army from whence it came? |
|
Quoted:
Wasn't it your idea to give ICBMs, space stuff, and cyber warfare to the USAF? All the "technical" shit. We could call it TechCom, like from the Terminator movies. They'd fucking love it. Then take everything else the USAF is tasked with doing and fold it back into the Army from whence it came? View Quote It wasn't my idea, it was Hap Arnold's. I was just refreshing everyone's memory. |
|
Quoted:
and, by that argument, there is no need for pilots, either. In the words of Hap Arnold, "I foresee a manless AF" I will be kind and not suggest we might already be there. View Quote I'd posit that we are eminently capable of waging an existential conflict with conventional Air Forces. Heck, we could do it with ground forces if we really wanted to, but what do you see us as a society being more able to stomach emulating... Dresden or Nanking. |
|
Quoted:
That is a fair point, but that method has baggage. I'd posit that we are eminently capable of waging an existential conflict with conventional Air Forces. Heck, we could do it with ground forces if we really wanted to, but what do you see us as a society being more able to stomach emulating... Dresden or Nanking. View Quote At this point we are debating the most cost effective means of existential warfare, are we not? If we are going to go down the rabbit hole of graduated response, infantry is on that list as much as tactical air. |
|
Quoted:
Would be great if we got Super Tucnos and opened piloting back up to Enlisted Ranks. https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/a-29_super_tucano_thru_flickr1.jpg https://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/lr-Super-Tucano.jpg View Quote I have always liked the Super Taco |
|
|
Quoted:
And people say I'm the asshole. Hell of a service motto, isn't it? "My personal safety is my primary mission" View Quote One of these is not like the other.. “No Mission Too Difficult, No Sacrifice Too Great—Duty First!” 1st Infantry Division United States Army "Damn the Torpedos" United States Navy Battle of Mobile "Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?" USMC Battle of Bella Woods "You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot." USAF |
|
Quoted:
At this point we are debating the most cost effective means of existential warfare, are we not? If we are going to go down the rabbit hole of graduated response, infantry is on that list as much as tactical air. View Quote Like I said, there is baggage for the MOST cost effective means of doing it. So we can settle on the second most cost effective and far more palatable to international relations. Trust me, if big Army were willing and able to implement Nishapur 2.0 then by all means but I don't think your going to win the cost argument of doing that. Especially when you add in the PTSD nut and VA psychological expenses. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Wasn't it your idea to give ICBMs, space stuff, and cyber warfare to the USAF? All the "technical" shit. We could call it TechCom, like from the Terminator movies. They'd fucking love it. Then take everything else the USAF is tasked with doing and fold it back into the Army from whence it came? View Quote You mean to the Navy? I'd give almost everything the USAF does to the Navy, and just move some light tactical aircraft and the transports to the Army. |
|
|
Quoted:
Like I said, there is baggage for the MOST cost effective means of doing it. So we can settle on the second most cost effective and far more palatable to international relations. Trust me, if big Army were willing and able to implement Nishapur 2.0 then by all means but I don't think your going to win the cost argument of doing that. Especially when you add in the PTSD nut and VA psychological expenses. View Quote I'll bet whatever you want that the % of PTSD and VA psych expenses are equally distributed by services size. 90% of those are bullshit lies for free money. Something that no service is exempt from or holds a monopoly on. The most cost effective are sea and land based cruise missiles launched by the thousands. The joint fight is the only thing keeping a real justification for manned aircraft at this point. |
|
Quoted:
One of these is not like the other.. “No Mission Too Difficult, No Sacrifice Too Great—Duty First!” 1st Infantry Division United States Army "Damn the Torpedos" United States Navy Battle of Mobile "Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?" USMC Battle of Bella Woods "You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot." USAF View Quote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ? Upton Sinclair That qoute isn't arguing for using the Army in attrition warfare. It is arguing against attrition warfare. |
|
Quoted:
The most valuable conventional munition dropped from an aircraft in the Pacific Theater was a naval mine. View Quote a COA that was vehemently fought by the AAF for the better part of 2 years. Of course, its tough to get through when all missions in the pacific were planned and approved from Arnold in DC. |
|
Quoted:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ? Upton Sinclair That qoute isn't arguing for using the Army in attrition warfare. It is arguing against attrition warfare. View Quote And, if you go more than brainwashing deep, arguing against manned aircraft. |
|
|
Quoted:
At this point we are debating the most cost effective means of existential warfare, are we not? If we are going to go down the rabbit hole of graduated response, infantry is on that list as much as tactical air. View Quote Infantry is far higher on that list than tac air. Tripwire responses and all that. Its a stupid and outdated concept, but whatevs. |
|
Quoted:
Blockade is a legitimate application of Airpower, and this still isn't an argument for infantry. View Quote "Airpower" you keep using that word.... The Air Force does for Airpower. Therefore Airpower is what the Air Force does is a tautology. why blockaide when you can just kill the people you are starving to death from the outset? |
|
|
The gentleman from the AF is being honest at least.
"American strategy should be narrowly focused and consist solely on what the USAF is willing to provide." |
|
|
Quoted:
"Airpower" you keep using that word.... The Air Force does for Airpower. Therefore Airpower is what the Air Force does is a tautology. why blockaide when you can just kill the people you are starving to death from the outset? View Quote Blockade is a pretty efficient means to that end if we are being honest with ourselves. To be blunt, its better then strategic nuclear weapons once the population density of an area drops beneath a certain threshold. |
|
Quoted:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ? Upton Sinclair That qoute isn't arguing for using the Army in attrition warfare. It is arguing against attrition warfare. View Quote Some times you don't get the luxury of choosing the fight and the job must get done. In this thread, mutiple people have dismissed LAAR because it might increase the risk to the Golden gods that fly a plane. War is a risky endeavor, why not take risks and experiment a bit. Jusr maybe try winning the damn thing. This charge can be leveled at many leaders in all branches. |
|
Quoted:
Humans are tenacious creatures, you need more then one tool in the toolbox. Blockade is a pretty efficient means to that end if we are being honest with ourselves. To be blunt, its better then strategic nuclear weapons once the population density of an area drops beneath a certain threshold. View Quote But that is not airpower. Blockade is seapower. by definition (unless we are talking about airlifting of supplies which, at this point, naval tacair could handle it and can't lift enough to supply a nation anyway) Just because airplanes can do it, does not make it airpower. don't make me start quoting douhet, mitchell and arnold like in years past. |
|
Quoted:
Kiowas were shot down in Iraq and AFG fairly regularly. All that did was get the rest of the pilots more focused on the job, and there was never a shortage of dudes wanting to fly them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get your argument. Did all of the Kiowas get shot down? Kiowas were shot down in Iraq and AFG fairly regularly. All that did was get the rest of the pilots more focused on the job, and there was never a shortage of dudes wanting to fly them. As a civvie witnessing the response of troops to getting shot at and blown up stateside (family too) I assumed this would be the case, so I don't understand why AF would assume if they got put under fire regularly that less people would join... sounds like bad assumptions |
|
Quoted:
The most valuable conventional munition dropped from an aircraft in the Pacific Theater was a naval mine. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
It cost very little to train pilots back in WWI. Teach them how to fly and land with about 40 flying hours or less and let Darwin take over. WWII was barely an improvement in comparison to today's pilots. Today it can cost millions to get a pilot ready for combat. After spending that kind of money and the time/expense it takes to replace one it is just darn smart to keep them alive and fighting. Even A-10 pilots aren't cheap to train. I've met quite a few A-10 pilots and have immense respect for them. They are the best, most courageous, ground attack pilots in the world bar none. Even with that you don't waste them. You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I gotta say, from my perspective as an outsider looking in, Rooster seems to have a good point here. 1) How did we fill so many fighter slots in WWI and WWII, when it was more dangerous? Was the difference due to draft? 2) If we can get all those volunteers to walk around on the street with possible enemy poking out from every corner, or bombs planted in the dirt all around you in random locations, why can't we get dudes to pilot planes to blow shit up? 3) If the standard is too high, can we separate the standards? We have a super high standard for the "next-generation" aircraft or whatever, the F35 type pilots who are there to defend us against theoretical super power enemies, and then we have a secondary lower standard for the rest of us retards who want to fly in low and blow things up It cost very little to train pilots back in WWI. Teach them how to fly and land with about 40 flying hours or less and let Darwin take over. WWII was barely an improvement in comparison to today's pilots. Today it can cost millions to get a pilot ready for combat. After spending that kind of money and the time/expense it takes to replace one it is just darn smart to keep them alive and fighting. Even A-10 pilots aren't cheap to train. I've met quite a few A-10 pilots and have immense respect for them. They are the best, most courageous, ground attack pilots in the world bar none. Even with that you don't waste them. You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot. Seems like a dick response, but ok. So my question stands, why not have two standards of training and let the cheaper pilots and airframes conduct cas? There's no shortage of red blooded rednecks wanting to blow shit up |
|
Quoted:
why not have two standards of training and let the cheaper pilots and airframes conduct cas? There's no shortage of red blooded rednecks wanting to blow shit up View Quote Because the airlines and freight companies have high fucking standards for their taxpayer-trained new hires. |
|
Quoted:
Because the airlines and freight companies have high fucking standards for their taxpayer-trained new hires. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
why not have two standards of training and let the cheaper pilots and airframes conduct cas? There's no shortage of red blooded rednecks wanting to blow shit up Because the airlines and freight companies have high fucking standards for their taxpayer-trained new hires. lol interesting |
|
Quoted:
Seems like a dick response, but ok. So my question stands, why not have two standards of training and let the cheaper pilots and airframes conduct cas? There's no shortage of red blooded rednecks wanting to blow shit up View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I gotta say, from my perspective as an outsider looking in, Rooster seems to have a good point here. 1) How did we fill so many fighter slots in WWI and WWII, when it was more dangerous? Was the difference due to draft? 2) If we can get all those volunteers to walk around on the street with possible enemy poking out from every corner, or bombs planted in the dirt all around you in random locations, why can't we get dudes to pilot planes to blow shit up? 3) If the standard is too high, can we separate the standards? We have a super high standard for the "next-generation" aircraft or whatever, the F35 type pilots who are there to defend us against theoretical super power enemies, and then we have a secondary lower standard for the rest of us retards who want to fly in low and blow things up It cost very little to train pilots back in WWI. Teach them how to fly and land with about 40 flying hours or less and let Darwin take over. WWII was barely an improvement in comparison to today's pilots. Today it can cost millions to get a pilot ready for combat. After spending that kind of money and the time/expense it takes to replace one it is just darn smart to keep them alive and fighting. Even A-10 pilots aren't cheap to train. I've met quite a few A-10 pilots and have immense respect for them. They are the best, most courageous, ground attack pilots in the world bar none. Even with that you don't waste them. You want to fight a war of attrition then the Army and Marine ground pounders are your go to sacrificial lambs. You can train a whole infantry company for far less than it cost for one fighter pilot. Seems like a dick response, but ok. So my question stands, why not have two standards of training and let the cheaper pilots and airframes conduct cas? There's no shortage of red blooded rednecks wanting to blow shit up How cheap of training should we have for pilots that are dropping bombs in the vicinity of friendly troops? FYI the actual stick work on a Super Tucano is easy and could be handled by a private pilot with a turbine endorsement. Employing an aircraft safely and successfully is a different story. |
|
|
Quoted:
So we should be spending a few million dollars each turning every mortar operator or artillery officer into demigods as well? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Right? Privates can smash a grid just fine...According to some posters you can get a whole company for the cost of a properly inflated nomex zipper suit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So we should be spending a few million dollars each turning every mortar operator or artillery officer into demigods as well? Those privates on the tube have a much less elevated view of the battlefield. |
|
|
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.