A-10 vs B1

Hacker15e said:
Grunts know about as much about airpower as I know about ground scheme of maneuver. This is specifically why we have airpower subject matter experts whose job it is to take those ASRs and JTARs and assign available CAS assets based on needed effects compared to asset availability.
Click to expand...
The grunts might be surprised to see what aircraft did what as far as CAS in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
MikeD said:
once the mission and aircraft are given to the Army, who cares what they do with it, when it's being operated in their part of the sandbox. It's like if you sold a used car to someone, would you then care what they do with it once they've paid you for it? Nope. If they take great care of it, cool. If they screw it away and break it, fine. If they're treating an A-10 and CAS as ops short of the FSCL....much like arty.....and keeping it Army controlled, what do I care what they do with it or how they integrate? Give them a place to be and to operate.....much like helos on ATO.....and leave them to succeed in CAS, or to screw it away. Our hands are washed of it either way. If the Army operates it like an M-1 tank that happens to be at 100AGL, that's on them.

And in the areas they need to integrate, TRAIN them. Unless the Army Aviator really is a Neanderthal half-ass military pilot who is incapable of doing anything apart from VFR flight from A to B.
Click to expand...

Oh, I definitely don't think there's something functionally wrong with Army Aviators where they couldn't figure out what to do with the Hogs -- yes, of course they could be trained to do it and I'm certain they'd kick ass at their FLOT-to-FSCL piece of the pie.

But that FLOT-to-FSCL piece of the battlespace doesn't just exist at 100AGL -- it has vertical development that extends well into the Flight Levels. Army Hogs and Preds and whatever else they buy for airborne fires would also be operating up at altitude where the rest of the services with combat airplanes would be trying to execute their air battle not directly related to CAS.

I'm more concerned with that whole Army CAS show integrating into the rest of that air battlespace and all of the contracts, TTPs, and what-not that go along with it. That's where there's no Army corporate knowledge and where such inexperience could lead to things like fratricide as well as upset the execution of the larger air scheme of maneuver.

If the argument from the Army is that USAF CAS support is weak, and it is because the AF somehow "doesn't understand" what is happening on the ground or how to support it, then how is it solving anything if we flip it around and put Army CAS assets into an air picture that they "don't understand" how to fit into? Are we to think that an Army CAS leadership is going to be so magically gifted that he won't have the same type of service- and experience-biases toward integrating into the air picture that USAF CAF leadership has toward supporting CAS and ISR? Same battlefield-sized problems...just inserted into a different sandbox that doesn't happen to impact the 11Bs or 19Ks.

Since it would be a significant change to how we all operate, but the net disadvantages are the same and we are merely shifting the burden around, is the juice really worth the squeeze?
 
Last edited:
I always love when people yell and scream the Air Force doesnt want to do CAS or drop bombs.

The majority of Air Force pilots Ive dealt with would be over joyed at the idea of dropping warheads on anything be it stationary command buildings or tanks in an assembly area. Look at the Viper community... A plane that is arguably one of the better air to air platforms and they are all over themselves to strap bombs on the thing and be part of the fight that is actually going on.

Outside the light grey Eagle community and the Raptor community most of the Tactical AF seems thrilled at the idea of putting steel on metal and bone.
 
MikeD said:
The F designation for the 117 was merely a throw-off to cover its real purpose.
Click to expand...

Bring back the YF-12!

Just kidding. My point to all these "Bring back . . . " posts (besides my inane sense of humor) is that these type discussions predate even WWII.
 
Lawman said:
We are a service run by bullet heads, that is Tankers and Infantry guys. The pinnacle division between good leaders and bad for vetting process is Ranger School... not a War College, not some joint billet, this is viewed as the ultimate in leadership when it is myopically focused on small unit tactics.
Click to expand...

Then you should definitely go. It's just a two month course for bullet heads plagued by a myopia induced infatuation with small unit tactics. No sweat. Right?
 
pressclick said:
You're a grunt who has really stepped in it big time and the chips are way down. What do you want on station first -F16, F15, F18, B1, B52, Luke Skywalker's X-Wing, or an A10?

I promise you that almost 100% of the ground pounders are going to consider the Warthog their best chance to see their wives and children again.

The B1 is an incredibly expensive aircraft to operate and is performing a role for which it was never designed as a CAS platform. Can it drop GPS bombs? Yes. Can almost everything else? Yes. I'm surprised C17s haven't had this capability added by now.

The A10 stands alone and is the only aircraft in the inventory designed from the tires to the strobes to do what the AFs primary, real world mission has been since 9/11/01.

On a side note, a big part of this issue is the lack of a dependable, multi-role medium bomber. I'm sure there is a reason why we sent F111s to Libya and not any of the afore mentioned aircraft.
Click to expand...

Obviously, these statements reflect some misinformation. The "ground pounders" that believe the A-10 is their best hope to see their wives and children again need to consider the absolute lethality and constant evolution of the very proliferated IADS around the world.

Additionally, the all knowing-intelligensia like to hate on multi-role aircraft following the diatribe of Pierre Sprey and others. From an airpower perspective, being able to even provide CAS requires air supremacy (which technically includes SEAD and DEAD). We sometimes take for granted our successes of maintaining that air supremacy.

Consider troops on the ground without air supremacy, the mobility of all assets in the area (including tanker and EW support) etc. That dreaded "multirole" aircraft has the capability to push into and hold air supremacy and dynamically target and destroy enemy ground positions - and do it fast. So while the "ground pounder" believes an A-10 will be the best chance to save his life from the enemy, he needs to realize the "enemy" may come in the form of SU-34s, SU-25s, SRBMs, etc
 
ryan1234 said:
Obviously, these statements reflect some misinformation. The "ground pounders" that believe the A-10 is their best hope to see their wives and children again need to consider the absolute lethality and constant evolution of the very proliferated IADS around the world.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. It was a fun rant though.

To all of the previous posts about contested air space, frontline support without air supremacy, etc., I do frequently consider and opine about that and typically make statements to the effect that Americans might be severely disappointed by the capabilities of their army in such a scenario.
 
pressclick said:
Then you should definitely go. It's just a two month course for bullet heads plagued by a myopia induced infatuation with small unit tactics. No sweat. Right?
Click to expand...

They dont send Warrants (I asked once). And Ive worked for/with more dumb guys with tabs that only demonstrated they can muscle through that school than leaders who seemed to gain anything out of it. Leadership is not a tab on your shoulder, but like anything else in the Army it becomes a measuring stick like which Divisions combat patch you wear or how big your chesticles are.

I hope you are not going going to try to argue that the Army doesnt have a ground centric mindset that is in direct conflict to the Aviation requirements. That was the reason for the formation of the Air Force in the first place. I find it funny you have an 82nd patch on your Avatar too, probably the most Aviation intensive unit in the Army and they do stupid crap with their aviators because they are stuck on Hooah. Another great example of not thinking of your aviation as anything but over paid Sgts who fly helicopters instead of drive tanks, the Air Assault standard ruck march or better yet when we used to send every swinging D through Airborne School. Show me any benefit to taking something as highly invested in as a pilot and throwing them out of an aircraft where career ending injuries are planned for. The Light CAB model doesnt exist anymore. They are not going to jump out to hold an assembly area while they 130s land and off load Kiowas. So whats the benefit of putting them through the course other than Hooah its the Army.

We do not as a service give a damn about aviation other than when our stuff doesnt get somewhere or we need a ride. We as a population decry the loss of the A-10 without understanding anything about what mission it does other than "its got that big damn gun!" We repeatedly hear people whine and scream that the Air Force doesnt care about CAS or AI when thats what they spend 90% of their efforts doing after day 2-3 of a war. We see those high end fighters like Raptor and Eagle and think its proof that they dont support us but fail to realize asking them to operate without Air Superiority is like asking a ground commander to assemble his troops while being ranged by enemy Arty.
 
None of the points I make is to give any discredit to the A-10 or unfairly criticize it; I spent 5 years in that jet doing the mission. It does great work, outstanding work. Unfortunately, there are multiple factors that are outside of its control that work against it, and continue to as it gets older and older. I wish we could have new ones with some serious updates. And if this were still the Reagan-era military, I'm sure we would be able to have it. Very capable aircraft, and was an honor to have been able to operate.

the F-117 was extremely capable too, excellent aircraft and I hated to see it go. But it suffered similar problems of factors that worked against it.
 
Imma be honest, the A-10 is my favorite jet of all time, and though I'll be sad to see it go, if it's outlived it's usefulness, well, that's just the way things go.
 
MikeD said:
A regular deployment, shifted to Iraq it seems.

To support boots on the ground that aren't really there. :)

In all seriousness, until the A-10 is gone, it's going to rotate into and out of places on deployments just like any other combat plane in the inventory.
Click to expand...
I think it's just bitchin that we used one cruise missile at the cost of over a million dollars, to blow up one small truck last night. :confused:
 
MikeD said:
A regular deployment, shifted to Iraq it seems.

To support boots on the ground that aren't really there. :)

In all seriousness, until the A-10 is gone, it's going to rotate into and out of places on deployments just like any other combat plane in the inventory.
Click to expand...
They're just there to "train" the Iraqi Military. Advisors only. They simply "advise" the bullet which way to go when they pull the trigger. It's up to the bullet to heed said advice. Simple really. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top