Philosophical Question/ Discussion

[Coota0]

I'd like to throw out a question I've heard discussed by arm-chair generals and a few professionals, just to get the opinions here:
Should the Army look into more fixed wing aircraft including armed fixed wing aircraft?

[Garrett]

F-22 Raptor...Thats all they need, i think every branch should have 'em.

[Grimmy]

If every branch is going to do everything then why have seperate branches at all?

[Coota0]

Garrett: F-22s don't really function to well for close air support, it's too fast, lacks the ability for a sizable loiter time over the troops, the F-22 also lacks the ability to employ the proper weapons in large amounts, as well as being stealthy...there's no need for stealth when it comes to CAS.

Grimmy: The movement towards unified commands has led many to question this, but I don't believe the nation will ever go to one service, the ability to have specific groups (services) that can focus on different jobs leads to specialties and better training, as well as having groups with similar (but not exactly) the same abuilities leads to competition which can lead to better servicemen. As for a need for fixed wing aviation within the Army is thet the USAF is beginning to focus less and less on the CAS mission for the Army and I personally don't believe for one moment that the F-35 will be as capbale of perfoming the mission as the aircraft that the F-35 would replace.

P.S. Next time instead of being a smart ass, either bypass the thread or make a serious comment please and you can both kindly kiss my ass.

[Curt]

Upgrade the A-10 if the air force wants to dump it.

[Grimmy]

CootaO:

My comment was in no way intended as smartassed. I really do have concerns about all the "we gotta do it too"isms that are growing up thru our various military commands. The Air Command was removed from the US Army in the then days. Was that a mistake? I dont know. Is that something needingto be fixed and addressed during this updating/modernizing go round? I dont know.
Does the US Navy also need to go to the expense and effort to create yet another organization within its own CoC for the purpose of amphibious assualt? That is being talked about also. Seems there's already a few divisions trained and equipped for that misson.

About the only thing we havnt heard yet is the USAF wanting to put together an inhouse ground assualt force. Is that gonna be on the horizon?

Again I ask. If each branch wants to do everything why have seperate branches? If we are going to have seperate branches then maybe those at various command levels that are politicing and agitating for the "we gotta have that too" or "we dont wanna do that any more" need to be told to go find other employment.

And as far as kindly kissing any part of your anatomy..no prob, after it's hacked off washed, skinned and cooked to a nice state of well doneness.

[Coota0]

Originally Posted by Grimmy

CootaO:

My comment was in no way intended as smartassed.

In that case I apologize.
I agree that not everyone should have all of the same capabilities, but i do think if one service is required to rely on another service for support and that service seems to fail to be looking toward that mission on the near future.
In my opinion I could see the Army looking to a fixed wing solution to CAS. I think the USAF is getting to a point much like the one in the 1950's that led to Attack Helicopters. In the 50's the USAF was more concerned about high-speed fighters and nuclear capable bombers, the Army couldn't get the CAS it required. Today the USAF is moving to more high-tech fighters that are not built for CAS but are supposed to replace the current CAS aircraft. With the F-35 and the F-16 you can't get the same type of low-level high loiter time that an A-10 or a propellor driven craft can provide, while the Apaches and Kiowas are great at CAS a fixed wing aircraft can carrier a heavier load and fly higher during the ingress and egress to the target area meaning that the SAMs, especially IR SAMs, that are dangerous to rotary wing aircraft can be avoided except for in the target area. The Army could use either a new type of low-level CAS aircraft are use the A-10B or another upgrade or possibly work with the USMC to develop a follow on for the AV-8 (the last reports on the F-35 didn't sound much like what the USMC wanted) A major negative to the A-10 is the need for larger fixed runways, a Helicopter can land anywhere, a jet engine is very relaible unless you pick up a rock in your intake (not a prblem really with the high mounting on the A-10) as well as a need for the new equipment and personel to keep the aircraft maintained. I believe rather than taking hand-me-downs from the USAF, a joint project with the Marines for a S/VTOL aircraft would better fit the Army's requirements as well as makeing the Army more autonmous from the USAF and other services for fixed-wing CAS, while making the Army more flexible in it's deployment ability.

[Grimmy]

CootaO:

First off, no need to be apologizing to me.

Second, For the US Army to have to re invent inhouse CAS capabilities would be a MASSIVE logistical nightmare. It's not just planes and pilots. Where will they be based? what air fields? Where will the suddenly manditory extra warehouses for spare parts be located? how will the parts be shipped to where-ever they end up being needed? Who'd we buy to get the start up expertize? Who's gonna set up the SOP for training the ground crews? maintenance crews? flight crews? support personell? Where will the schools be located? Who's gonna staff the schools? and on and on and on.

To be blunt. The US of A has organizations already developed to provide all the CAS that cant be wanted or needed. The US Army will alwase have what it needs. The different branches are not the same as different nations. (well, almost but not quite)

As as far as the USAF not wanting to provide CAS anymore, tough beans. No branch is an independant operation Period. The head cheezes in the USAF have absolutly ZERO power to decide what it is that the USAF will do or not do. That is decided by Defense Dept and as directed by Congress and the White House, unless the Supreme Court decides that defending ourselves is no longer Constitutional.

The USMC organization is uniquely self contained but even they are not fully non-dependant. The USMC organizaton was created back in the old agey times when it took just short of forever to get anyone, let alone anything anywhere. The USMC was very much and Expeditionary Force and was designed (during the 1920's and '30s) along that line. That's why the USMC has built in CAS and logistics enhancements. There wasnt anyone else near enough to be able to provide any form of support when and/or if it became needed. Therefore it was all built into the program.

In regards to flexibility, the more logistical over head the less flex. Again, the US Army will never ever ever go anywhere where theres not already CAS capable units within range, either land or sea based.

Let me see if I can put this into context.

If the USN has to have another amphibious assualt organiztion...and
The US Army has to have it's own CAS...then
The USAF should get it's own ground assualt organization ...and
The USMC should get its own ships.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by Coota0

Garrett: F-22s don't really function to well for close air support, it's too fast, lacks the ability for a sizable loiter time over the troops, the F-22 also lacks the ability to employ the proper weapons in large amounts, as well as being stealthy...there's no need for stealth when it comes to CAS.

OIC :-)

[Coota0]

Ok, Grimmy I thought about what you siad and here are my solutions:

Second, For the US Army to have to re invent inhouse CAS capabilities would be a MASSIVE logistical nightmare. It's not just planes and pilots. Where will they be based? what air fields? Where will the suddenly manditory extra warehouses for spare parts be located? how will the parts be shipped to where-ever they end up being needed? Who'd we buy to get the start up expertize? Who's gonna set up the SOP for training the ground crews? maintenance crews? flight crews? support personell? Where will the schools be located? Who's gonna staff the schools? and on and on and on.

1) The Army wouldn't have to completly reinvent CAS, it would just expand on what it's already doing with Kiowas and Apaches. The Army already has the raidos and procedures to deal with CAS form both Army aircraft and Fixed wing aircraft from other services.
2) All pilot training is already done at Rucker this could continue in one of two forms, all Army aviators would first learn to fly the TH-57 (Form what I understand it's easier to transition from rotary wing to fixed rather than the other way around) then they would either:
Plan A) Transition to fixed wing in a highspeed course (they alrady know the rules of flight they just need to be cheecked out and given some time in fixed wing, probably the T-6) then they could move onto the primary aircraft (A-10, AV-8 or new Aircraft) at Haunchey (it was once the largest field in the country and the Army used to teach fixed wing flight there too)
Plan B) The Army aviators could transition to fixed wing in the highspeed course in the T-6 and then in the case of the A-10 learn the A-10 with and ANG class or in the case of the AV-8 with a USMC class, or in the case of a new aircraft with the service that helped develop the new aircraft.

3)As far as basing the aircraft Army bases already have airfields and hanger facilities these could be expanded or reorganized.
The Army already has a system for spare parts for their rotary wing aircraft, incorparating fixed wing parts can't be that hard, in the case of the A-10 Davis-Monthom can provide spare parts until the Army gets their own system up and running completly.

3)Two ways to get the expertise in the new aircraft: A) from the branch that was already using the aircraft or B) in the case of a new aircraft the same as any other service would from the designer. The Army already recruits WO's from the other services, why not offer some of their senior enlisted men Warrants and use them to train either expereinced rotary wing techs or new recruits. The Army already has avionics techs, fuelers, ordnacemen etc. that could be eisly trained in a new aircraft (it's no different than if the Commanche had come online and they had to learn a new rotary wing aircraft) there would be some cases in which the simple fact that the aircraft was fixed wing would mean ther would be no Army personell that were already familiar with the technology (like bomb handlers)

4)The SOP for the ground crews would be up by the OIC of the transtion program most likley with a liason from whichever service the Army is getting the aircraft from or with a possible USAF liason in the case of a new aircraft. The senior enlisted men the Army would recruit form other services and make WOs would be involved in the SOP to train groundcrews.

5) Schools for the techs and groundcrew would be located at Rucker alongside the rotary-wing schools.

As as far as the USAF not wanting to provide CAS anymore, tough beans. No branch is an independant operation Period. The head cheezes in the USAF have absolutly ZERO power to decide what it is that the USAF will do or not do. That is decided by Defense Dept and as directed by Congress and the White House, unless the Supreme Court decides that defending ourselves is no longer Constitutional.

The DOD may decide what missions the USAF has, but the USAF decides what aircraft to buy and that means that while the F-16 may be capable of CAS, it is not nearly as good at the mission as an A-10 or AV-8, or as tough when it comes down to getting in the weeds to support the troops.

The USMC organization is uniquely self contained but even they are not fully non-dependant. The USMC organizaton was created back in the old agey times when it took just short of forever to get anyone, let alone anything anywhere. The USMC was very much and Expeditionary Force and was designed (during the 1920's and '30s) along that line. That's why the USMC has built in CAS and logistics enhancements. There wasnt anyone else near enough to be able to provide any form of support when and/or if it became needed. Therefore it was all built into the program.

You're absolutley right, but with the Army trying to get leaner with the strike brigades it means that the USAF will not always have it's logistical tail in gear to get the attack jets where they need to be to support the Stryker Brigades, but organic CAS will be there, this is why I favor the AV-8 over the A-10, or whatever the USMC goes to when the F-35 can't do the job for them (perhaps the solution would be a more joint approach to Marine and Naval Aviation rather than the USAF?)

Ok, Grimmy poke some holes.

[Grimmy]

Actually Coota0:

With the current modernization/realignment of all branches of the US Military and the general mandate of planning today for what's comming 5 or 10 years later, there's no telling what changes are going to be made.

The only thing certain is that everyone in every branch with a "star" on his/her shoulder and everyone in any even vaguely applicable "oversite committee" is gonna be running their mouths non stop on what must be done..and most of that jabber will be rather silly.

I think we're all in a waite and see mode for a while.

Btw, Branch commands and staff have input in the procurment process but they dont have the final say on ...well..much of anything actually. The folk that write the contracts and cut the checks have the actual final say.

[Rusty24]

Well I have held off a little to see what types of points come up and some big ones are being missed.

Coota0 you say …..

“F-22s don't really function to well for close air support, it's too fast, lacks the ability for a sizable loiter time over the troops, the F-22 also lacks the ability to employ the proper weapons in large amounts, as well as being stealthy...there's no need for stealth when it comes to CAS. “

That is so wrong. Don’t think the A-10 is the only CAS platform out there. As a matter of fact, there aren’t even any in Iraq as we speak. They use F-16’s and FA-18’s. With the evolution of precision guided munitions, the force is transitioning from “4 or 5 bombs on target, to 1 precision guided munition (PGM). Actually when you look at it, an F-22 will carry more than a fully loaded A-10 as far as PGM’s are concerned, so I would venture to say it is on the better end of the power curve. Now an A-10 can carry more than a F-22 as far as standard weapons ….. aka “Dumb Bombs”. Plus the A-10 has a fucking cool ass GAU-8 in the front of that sucker! Technology is the key word. The A-10 was designed in 1974. You can only do so many upgrades, but the F-16’s were able to circumvent this by having blocks of the aircraft made. As newer systems come out, the AF would develop a new block of fighters. I am not only talking weapons, I’m talking avionics, and engines as well.

You also say ….

“As for a need for fixed wing aviation within the Army is thet the USAF is beginning to focus less and less on the CAS mission for the Army………..”

Once again way off. OEF and OIF proved that the CAS role is more prevelant than most think. As a matter of fact the Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC’s) proved that you can do CAS with bombers. Oh yes the good ol B-52’s and B-1’s. And I am not talking carpet bombing either. I'm talking about targets that are spread out and in one pass taking them ALL out. So now you are not limited A-10’s, F-16’s, F-15’s (another really fast plane that does CAS)and FA-18’s. So no, the AF is not focusing less on the CAS role. As a matter of fact they are expanding and performing it daily. TRUST ME ON THIS ONE.

OK next thing on the chopping block. Coota0 you say ……

“but i do think if one service is required to rely on another service for support and that service seems to fail to be looking toward that mission on the near future.”

Yeah whatever. That’s why JTAC’s are deploying in record numbers to keep up with the demand part. Basically the source of that info is a bunch of crap.

This one kinda made me think that you had a point until I read the last part

……”In my opinion I could see the Army looking to a fixed wing solution to CAS. I think the USAF is getting to a point much like the one in the 1950's that led to Attack Helicopters. In the 50's the USAF was more concerned about high-speed fighters and nuclear capable bombers, the Army couldn't get the CAS it required. Today the USAF is moving to more high-tech fighters that are not built for CAS but are supposed to replace the current CAS aircraft. With the F-35 and the F-16 you can't get the same type of low-level high loiter time that an A-10 or a propellor driven craft can provide, while the Apaches and Kiowas are great at CAS a fixed wing aircraft can carrier a heavier load and fly higher during the ingress and egress to the target area meaning that the SAMs, especially IR SAMs, that are dangerous to rotary wing aircraft can be avoided except for in the target area”

The reason why they went towards the bombers and fighters …. You guessed it. It was known as the COLD WAR ERA. What were we going to rely on at that time? 16 inch guns from the Navy to shoot down a Nuke? How about some attack aviation? You are right that pretty much no aircraft can compete with the A-10 when it comes to loiter time …… as far as Fighter, Attack Aviation and bombers are concerned. However look at the AC-130. 6+ hours of loiter time and a 105mm howitzer that can get as close as 100m to the friendlies. Which by the way is a lot more accurate than field artillery 105’s (sorry arty guys). But you were way off when you talked about ingress and egress. Army aviation flies no higher than 500ft, and that’s in bad weather. You should see these guys when the shit hits the fan ……. they get low enough to make you pecker rock hard as the rotor wash knocks you on you ass. So how is an aircraft at 500ft better suited against an aircraft at 10k-15k feet? Ingress or egress? Its not, especially in a desert enviorment. By the time most SAMs get towards the fixed wing guys, they are pretty much out of steam and the fighters are already doing evasive maneuvers.

Grimmy made a good point here …….

“ For the US Army to have to re invent inhouse CAS capabilities would be a MASSIVE logistical nightmare. It's not just planes and pilots. Where will they be based? what air fields? Where will the suddenly manditory extra warehouses for spare parts be located? how will the parts be shipped to where-ever they end up being needed? Who'd we buy to get the start up expertize? Who's gonna set up the SOP for training the ground crews? maintenance crews? flight crews? support personell? Where will the schools be located? Who's gonna staff the schools? and on and on and on.”

There is already doctrine in place that labels who does what for who, why, when and where. When it comes to CAS, Marines do it best. But why? Look at all Marine Air FAC’s. All will serve at one time or another in a TACP. AF guys may. Plus when the Marines do operations, everything is OPCON and TACON to the MAGTF commander (sometimes MEU). On the flip side, the Corps level will have control of the 155’s, the CAS aircraft will be provided by the AF …. Along with JTAC’s, the helos will come from an aviation unit blah, blah, blah. On one side everything is OPCON and TACON. On the other side it’s only OPCON for that specific event. Even as complicated as it may seem for the Army to get CAS …… its not. They get it a lot more than you think. TRUST ME ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

If you want to do comparisons of aircraft, and tactics, and weapons ……….. that’s fine. I’m here. Every weapon system has its pros and cons. It being able to take those pros and smoke the shit out of some stupid fucker that likes to take pop shots at patrols and making his ass a spot in the dirt.

Next Question!


P.S. Hello everybody

[Grimmy]

how long to you think it'd take just for the required new FMs to be written. 5 years?

[Rusty24]

how long to you think it'd take just for the required new FM's to be written

.... well here is the problem. There is already a Joint Pub on this (3-09.3). However each branch can write their own "Instructions/Manuals". The AF broke thiers down into 3 volumes. Each covers certian aspets of the CAS realm.

The Navy has one. However the Army has "0". Plus the Army wants rotary wing to count as CAS currency. The AF mandates 12 FIXED wing controls a year. Bombers and AC-130 do not count. They only count for proficiency. Out of those 12 missions 2 must be done at night, 2 must involve the release of live ordanance and 1 must involve a PRF coded laser. It will be interesting to see what the Army comes up with.

BTW. AC-130 falls into the gray area of CAS. The textbook definition of CAS is " ... air action by fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft against hostile targets hat are in close proximity to friendly forces and which require detailed intergration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces."

By that definition, putting 2 x 105 rounds with 125 meters of some troops is CAS. However, since the AC-130 uses a "AC-130 Call For Fire" format, you do not have to be a current and qualified JTAC to controll them. Hence, this is why the RANGERS love the thing. Plus its really cool to se at night.

[Av8tor152d]

Just my two cents...When the Army started using helicopters back in the day the Air Force was none to excited...an agreement was made at some point that (and this is something I read a long time ago I will research it to get exact dates and details.) the Army was allowed to have rotorary wing armed aircraft but as for fixed wing the Air Force would cover that dept....So the Army does have some fixed wing...Sherpas...C-12s and a small fleet of Leers...mostly for tansport purposes...Although they do use a C-12 configuration for EW missions...But none of the Armys' Fixed wing are armed a/c

As I said it was many years ago that I read this and have to do some digging to find the refrence.. SHould take me a couple days at the most...Now If I can just stay put for that long.

[RR691983]

Good discussion, I read some interestings points that have started me thinking on the topic a bit more than I did in the past. To be honest though I think things are getting a bit stupid in the Defense Department. I've read all the articles about the Navy's plan for an amphibious assault force... All I can say to that is, "NUTS!" they are pissed off b/c they don't feel they're getting their piece of pie in the budget. The fact is, besides the Navy EOD guys and SEALS they really aren't doing enough to warrant more money than they're getting in the defense budget.

They need to suck it up and move on. The DOD also needs to reign in the Army on their spending. Put some kind of commitee in a position to overwatch programs, I mean it's rediculous that the Army is blowing BILLIONS of dollars a year on messing with uniform changes that aren't necessary when that money could be used to give us the equipment we need to save lives seriously now.

And another thing.

Originally Posted by Coota0

P.S. Next time instead of being a smart ass, either bypass the thread or make a serious comment please and you can both kindly kiss my ass.

Coota,
For starters you need to grow a thicker skin if either of the posts you were referring to offended you that much. That said, show a little more tact when posting on the forum. Regardless of your personal feelings you need to respect all members of the forum especially those that have served/are serving their time and may know a just a little bit more than you do when it comes to certain things.

Originally Posted by Rusty24

By that definition, putting 2 x 105 rounds with 125 meters of some troops is CAS. However, since the AC-130 uses a "AC-130 Call For Fire" format, you do not have to be a current and qualified JTAC to controll them. Hence, this is why the RANGERS love the thing. Plus its really cool to se at night.

Rusty, ever heard of a line platoon FO calling in a spectre for a gunrun? I've seen it first hand bro, and I do have to say I fell in love my damned self.


Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.