Do you have a link? I ran a Google search for "story behind the creation of Battlefield Airmen" and came up dry.
A sad day for the soldier/seaman/airman on the ground.... (A-10/CAS Discussion)
- Thread starter Kraut783
- Start date
Do you have a link? I ran a Google search for "story behind the creation of Battlefield Airmen" and came up dry.
http://www.aircommando.org/sites/journal/Vol 3 Issue 4 web.pdf
Page 44. Is that the article you mentioned?
Yep, some inaccuracies; but a good overall look at how GO's can fuck up the staffing process.
Which concept?
Was sitting next to an A-10 Pilot in ortho today. LtCol getting ready to hit 20 and retire.
Probably hasn't met the Col Board, but he's punching out.
Later I was reminiscing. The A-1 was the best CAS bird in Vietnam. Large load, loiter and a good strafing ability.
Replaced by the OA-37, then A-7. Relatively slow aircraft, but the OA-37 bomb load wasn't near the SPAD (flew slow though). The A-7 was better (accuracy wise), but faster. A-7 had a vulcan with a decent bomb load (and self defense using the cannon or sidewinders).
The A-10 replaced those aircraft.
Yet management thinks CAS can come from a modified F-16.
Sorry, the JFACC OPCON ground team hunting targets concept.
History moment: F-100s were FACs at one point. Wasn't CAS per se, but they did find targets with the ole mk1 eyeball and flew really stinking fast doing it!
As for modifying an F-16? Ain't gonna happen. The concept is to change the tasking statement for some units to prioritize CAS.
I sat and watched two f22s take off and fly around some today. It's such a sexy bird.
F-100's were working in North Vietnam, heavy AAA/SAM.
How many TIC's did they work?
How much ResCap did they do?
F-100s were before my time. F-4s, A-7s and occasional F-105 are my Red Flag and other exercise recollection from 1977 to mid 1980s. I've not come across any documents of F-100s doing RESCAP for Air Force helicopters although it is possible. I was too young to be serving in the military or to be in Vietnam, so I would have to ask around.
It was a good thing to be able to see the A/C, comm with the pilot and direct him onto the target, whatever he was driving. If he's low, slow, full of bullets and talking to you he's an extension of your tactical reach and not some guy in an air-conditioned office at 20,000 feet thinking about beer-call. Sometimes it make sense to stick to the old, proven ways. Rifles and frags are still the essentials of ground combat. Air combat is a different dimension and dynamic. For air and ground combat to fuse into a workable partnership there has to be a compromise. Since the ground element can't enter the dimension of the air element, the air element has to get slower, get lower and kill the fuck out of the guys who are shooting at the ground element. Air Force generals don't get it. Marine generals do.
Then explain the F-18.
I softened, however slight, my hate for the F-16 as a CAS platform after talking to a Viper driver. The plane is sold as a cheap, do-everything solution to all of aviation's problems and I always thought it was employed in that manner. The AF actually has F-16 units which focus on CAS vs. air-to-air and while there are still ways to skew training from "ugly" to glamorous it at least tells me that someone put some thought into using the F-16 in a CAS role.
It can't, it won't, replace the A-10 but a system is in place for that to happen should anyone with balls execute that plan. The loss of the A-10 can be mitigated. It rises and falls on leadership...
It can't, it won't, replace the A-10 but a system is in place for that to happen should anyone with balls execute that plan. The loss of the A-10 can be mitigated. It rises and falls on leadership...
And the AV-8.
When discussing options like F-16s, it ALWAYS comes down to that cannon. In MCO, ULO, whatever, the 20mm rounds from an F-16 are simply too small and underpowered to affect heavy armor. People would be a lot more on board with replacing the A-10 if this fact was being looked at and addressed. I can live with giving up some of the other benefits of the A-10. That 30mm cannon is one of those deal-breakers for pretty much every JTAC I've talked to when it comes to getting on board with retiring the Warthog though.
I think most F-16/35 Pilots know what they do well, and what they don't do well.
I think part of the issue is we haven't gone nose to nose armor wise for awhile.
So big blue thinks they can SDB tanks from altitude/distance and the 30MM isn't that big a requirement.
20MM will do a number on most targets, and the ability for repeated strafing runs is important (eliminating the F-35), so will we really see A-10's as the prime tank destroyer again?
They want them in case they need them. There's a time and place for Marine fast-mover capability; like one that can fly off a carrier as part of the MEU. If you need them, they're there. IMV there's Danger Close, Close and Not So Close and proper platforms for each application. 20 insurgents within easy rifle range for low, slow and full of firepower or an enemy regiment on a hillside a klick away that I wan't to bring the whole world down on. The Marine Corps doesn't need it's own air force but a fast-mover with the time-tested air/ground coordination unique to the Corps can come in handy. In Vietnam Marine F-4s delivered our nape and came in so low you could clearly see the flight helmets, but nobody wants nape right in their back pocket.
Last edited:
