A sad day for the soldier/seaman/airman on the ground.... (A-10/CAS Discussion)

ThunderHorse said:
The Skyraider was built to have the ability to loiter and drop a lot of ordinance, they were able to absorb tons of damage on Ground Support missions. They knew they would take a lot of hits, OV-10 and A29 are not built as attack aircraft in contested air space.
Click to expand...


No. The Skyraider was designed as a dive/ torpedo bomber for the US Navy; CAS was secondary (and a function of its first war in Korea). The USAF adopted it much later.
 
Freefalling said:
No. The Skyraider was designed as a dive/ torpedo bomber for the US Navy; CAS was secondary (and a function of its first war in Korea). The USAF adopted it much later.
Click to expand...

That's very true... but it adapted to the CAS role very well. I look at the Skyraider (and I'm prejudiced since VNAF A-1s did CAS for us) as a classic aircraft, designed for one purpose but able to serve in a number of roles equally well, maybe not as versatile as our beloved C-130 and our AH-1s, but a faithful warhorse nonetheless.
 
ThunderHorse said:
The Skyraider was built to have the ability to loiter and drop a lot of ordinance, they were able to absorb tons of damage on Ground Support missions. They knew they would take a lot of hits, OV-10 and A29 are not built as attack aircraft in contested air space.
Click to expand...

Define contested airspace. Because navy/AF OV-10 saw a lot of shit during the late 60's.

Ocoka One said:
Yes sir, you're probably right about speed. Not to belabor the point because it's not central to the thread, but those 191 A-1s were lost over an 8 year period (64-72). To put A-1 losses in perspective, during that same time frame the Navy and Marine Corps lost 363 A-4 Skyhawks...and most of the Marine Scooters were doing CAS.
Click to expand...

I'd wager most of the AF loses were CAS or RESCAP. You also have to look at losses vs sorties to get a better idea of loss rates.
 
The surface to air threat in Vietnam vastly outweighed the current SAM threat in the Middle East. The NVA had all kinds of Soviet systems for both point and area defense, and ranging from the tactical to strategic level.
 
CDG said:
The surface to air threat in Vietnam vastly outweighed the current SAM threat in the Middle East. The NVA had all kinds of Soviet systems for both point and area defense, and ranging from the tactical to strategic level.
Click to expand...

IIRC correctly the had SA-2's and a metric shit-ton of radar and manually guided AAA; I think MANPADS showed up in the early 70's, but can't remember. I vaguely recall something about the Soviets' unwillingness to share newer systems. Kind of a moot point given their layered defenses.
 
No, this is all about "Shark Week" guys. Get it together. :rolleyes:

Air Force Football Team Will Wear Shark Week-Themed Uniforms on Saturday

In the immortal words of Tracy Jordan, "Live every week like it's Shark Week." The Air Force Falcons will honor those wishes on Saturday by donning shark-themed uniforms against the Georgia State Panthers.
Click to expand...

For a plane it is determined to cut, the AF goes out of its way to use, publicize, and mimic its role.
 
The F-35's ready to go and by that I mean "go sometime past 2020." Don't forget, the Air Force says they are ready for combat. There are a lot of money shots in the article, but to quote a few:

Last month the Air Force declared its variant “ready for combat,” and most press reports lauded this as a signal that the program had turned a corner. But a memo issued from the Pentagon’s top testing official, based largely upon the Air Force’s own test data, showed that the declaration was wildly premature.

Michael Gilmore’s latest memorandum is damning. The F-35 program has derailed to the point where it “is actually not on a path toward success, but instead on a path toward failing to deliver the full Block 3F capabilities for which the Department is paying almost $400 billion.”
Click to expand...

As it stands now, the F-35 would need to run away from combat and have other planes come to its rescue, since it “will need support to locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles).”

In several instances, the memo rated the F-35A less capable than the aircraft we already have.
Click to expand...

A bit of a read, but good if you're interested in this dumpster fire.

The F-35 Stealth Fighter May Never Be Ready for Combat
 
The DOT&E memo reports that these door-induced aiming errors “exceed accuracy specifications” which will make it quite difficult for pilots to hit targets. And since the Air Force’s F-35 only holds 181 rounds — as opposed to 511 for the F-16 and 1,100 for the A-10 — every bullet will count.


In light of the accuracy problems for CAS, it sure is a good thing that our people on the ground at least have sturdy and reliable battle helmets. Oh, wait...:rolleyes::-"




 
Last edited:
Freefalling said:
The F-35's ready to go and by that I mean "go sometime past 2020." Don't forget, the Air Force says they are ready for combat. There are a lot of money shots in the article, but to quote a few:





A bit of a read, but good if you're interested in this dumpster fire.

The F-35 Stealth Fighter May Never Be Ready for Combat
Click to expand...

Cannons are the most effective weapon in far more CAS situations than rockets (which the F-35A currently does not carry) or a couple of guided bombs (which it does). This is true especially when the plane needs to engage a target in a “danger close” situation, with the enemy in very close proximity to friendly troops.

Cannons are useful when they're useful, and they're not when they're not. Just like every other weapon. Danger close is not a fixed distance, it's based on the weapon.

As mentioned earlier, the F-35A, now declared “Initially Operationally Capable,” can only carry two bombs, both of which are too big to be safely used near friendly troops.

What? I'm not sure what the author is trying to say here. The ordnance that the F-35 can carry is not some new superbomb that no one has ever dropped during CAS.

At 250 meters (820 feet), a 500-pound bomb has a 10 percent chance of incapacitating a friendly soldier based on the military’s risk-estimate table.

I have no idea what risk-estimate table they looked at, but this is not even close to the truth. There is a 0.1% chance of incapacitation at 275 meters for a standing target. For the mathematically challenged, that equates to a 1 in 1000 chance.
 
Freefalling said:
The F-35's ready to go and by that I mean "go sometime past 2020." Don't forget, the Air Force says they are ready for combat. There are a lot of money shots in the article, but to quote a few:





A bit of a read, but good if you're interested in this dumpster fire.

The F-35 Stealth Fighter May Never Be Ready for Combat
Click to expand...
F-35 has external hard points that the author is ignorant about, or chose to ignore.
F-18 was on the chopping block with wing and main landing gear problems.
I'd challenge anyone to name a fighter fielded in the last 50 years that didn't get a re-design of some sort after being fielded.
I don't see the F-35 as an A-10 replacement, but do see it replacing ( 1 for 1) the F-16.
 
DA SWO said:
I'd challenge anyone to name a fighter fielded in the last 50 years that didn't get a re-design of some sort after being fielded.
Click to expand...

But how much and at what cost? At some point we have diminishing returns. Maybe the F-35 turns out to be the greatest thing ever, but right now it looks like we should take Old Yeller out back and drop him. I am 100% on board with your view listed above, but at what point do we call it for what it is and figure out a Plan B? Right now our Plan B is to spend more money and trust in the process.

I was against the F-22 until I started seeing what it brings to the table. I want to believe the -35 will do the same, but I'm skeptical and think our money's better served by:
A) Reduce the numbers purchased
B) buy other proven airframes, even updates variants
C) We as a nation need to revisit our acquisitions process. This isn't an F-35 problem.

I think the AF is putting all of its eggs into a fragile basket. We need to back off F-35 purchases even if the cost per airframe increases.
 
Freefalling said:
But how much and at what cost? At some point we have diminishing returns. Maybe the F-35 turns out to be the greatest thing ever, but right now it looks like we should take Old Yeller out back and drop him. I am 100% on board with your view listed above, but at what point do we call it for what it is and figure out a Plan B? Right now our Plan B is to spend more money and trust in the process.

I was against the F-22 until I started seeing what it brings to the table. I want to believe the -35 will do the same, but I'm skeptical and think our money's better served by:
A) Reduce the numbers purchased
B) buy other proven airframes, even updates variants
C) We as a nation need to revisit our acquisitions process. This isn't an F-35 problem.

I think the AF is putting all of its eggs into a fragile basket. We need to back off F-35 purchases even if the cost per airframe increases.
Click to expand...
Remember gates drove the F-35 and the AF is living with a (crappy) SecDef/POTUS decision.
 

Similar threads

pardus
New Army Rules for Tattoos, Grooming On the Way
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
18K
Brill
Brill
Ravage
NIGHT STALKER LEAD: From the Air, Delivering, Protecting and Extracting SOF Warriors
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ravage
Ravage
Back
Top