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

medicchick said:
I wasn't aware this thread was about a kick ass pilot who managed to safety land a plane that had major malfunctions....
Click to expand...

It's not. It's my nearly debilitating OCD of needing to have everything in my life organized and orderly. I wish that were a joke!
 
Ooh-Rah said:
Negative Ghost Rider!

It's not my fault if "some people" cannot post similar-subject material into one thread to keep the forum nice-and-tidy... :mad:...:wall:...:D
Click to expand...


medicchick said:
I wasn't aware this thread was about a kick ass pilot who managed to safety land a plane that had major malfunctions. I though this was about planes being dc'd.
Click to expand...


She wins.

th-8.jpeg
 
Yep, that F-35 program is beautifully managed. Wharton should teach its MBAs how to run a program like the F-35's...

108 U.S F-35s Won’t Be Combat-Capable

The new F-35 program executive officer, U.S. Navy vice admiral Mat Winter, said his office is exploring the option of leaving 108 aircraft in their current state because the funds to upgrade them to the fully combat-capable configuration would threaten the Air Force’s plans to ramp up production in the coming years.
Click to expand...

It actually gets worse if you read the article. Trigger alert.
 
An article from The Mitchell Institute. I disagree with pretty much everything here. To start, it amazes me that people still don't know what JTAC stands for. When that gets messed up, it already makes me question how much experience the author has. Secondly, it seems as though he is advocating letting the "combat cloud" do the job of the JTAC and just trusting rote data collection to figure everything out and get the bomb where it needs to go. I very much disagree with that. There needs to be someone on the ground where the action is who can figure out what exactly is going on, and cross check everything.

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_5da6ef63b45a4a8097aa35c0063ebccd.pdf
 
CDG said:
An article from The Mitchell Institute. I disagree with pretty much everything here. To start, it amazes me that people still don't know what JTAC stands for. When that gets messed up, it already makes me question how much experience the author has. Secondly, it seems as though he is advocating letting the "combat cloud" do the job of the JTAC and just trusting rote data collection to figure everything out and get the bomb where it needs to go. I very much disagree with that. There needs to be someone on the ground where the action is who can figure out what exactly is going on, and cross check everything.

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_5da6ef63b45a4a8097aa35c0063ebccd.pdf
Click to expand...

I've just read the abstract....HOLY SHIT! I work with the largest Link 16 network on the planet and the author's faith in tactical datalinks is...excessively optimistic. Additionally I've watched the CAOC/ CRC/ JTAC relationship and even at my observer's level I can see the need for a JTAC instead of a "cloud" for airspace deconfliction. That paper will play well with someone who doesn't see the process at work.
 
The first time some halfwit puts their JRE in a data loop* while the "cloud" manages the battlefield...oh, boy.

* - this happens a couple of times a day that I'm aware of, so probably more often.
 
AWP said:
I've just read the abstract....HOLY SHIT! I work with the largest Link 16 network on the planet and the author's faith in tactical datalinks is...excessively optimistic. Additionally I've watched the CAOC/ CRC/ JTAC relationship and even at my observer's level I can see the need for a JTAC instead of a "cloud" for airspace deconfliction. That paper will play well with someone who doesn't see the process at work.
Click to expand...
Read the authors bio,
F-16/15 driver whose skillset is primarily Air Defence.
It's possible he never did a CAS mission.
 
I just hope the position paper doesn't gain traction.

Thinking about it: duplicate tracks, fat-fingered data, jumping PPLI, missing 28.2's (and other messages), poorly formatted ATO (which the system won't load), ATO with bad/ old data, improperly trained datalink personnel (all ranks), untrained datalink personnel (all ranks), loss of comm, broken hardware (without a spare because we try to do things on the cheap and that $100k device wasn't purchased), bad or missing firewall exemptions, joint and/or coalition interoperability issues, data releaseability constraints, operators who "know better" so they change the connection matrix, improperly designed network, improperly configured filters...and the list goes on.

ETA: I just read the whole paper. From a pure link and C2 angle, he is dead wrong. He has conceptualized a technical utopia with little to no understanding of the underlying technology (and at least one key manned component of the kill chain). His basic premise is pure garbage because the tech he envisions won't be around for decades.
 
Last edited:
CDG said:
An article from The Mitchell Institute. I disagree with pretty much everything here. To start, it amazes me that people still don't know what JTAC stands for. When that gets messed up, it already makes me question how much experience the author has. Secondly, it seems as though he is advocating letting the "combat cloud" do the job of the JTAC and just trusting rote data collection to figure everything out and get the bomb where it needs to go. I very much disagree with that. There needs to be someone on the ground where the action is who can figure out what exactly is going on, and cross check everything.

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_5da6ef63b45a4a8097aa35c0063ebccd.pdf
Click to expand...
I thought the author raised several good points. I don’t think the author advocates getting rid of JTACs but rather how to rapidly provide CAS in a high threat environment with multiple surface and air threats. Link 16 isn’t perfect but it is pretty good. We already use link 16 to fuse multiple sensor platforms into a common operational picture. It would be great to integrate ground maneuver forces into that C2 tool. I know the Chinese wish they had it and are developing a knock off.
 
I do love Apachies and Cobras, but out of all the United States' arsenal that has the capability of raining down pain from the sky, the A10 is my absolute favorite. That plane is a "Warrior."
 
Topkick said:
Cool video. I guess if you fly an A-10, you can still rock a porn mustache too.;-)
Click to expand...

That's a deployed Air Force thing. It started with pilots and aircrew and has filtered down to the unwashed masses. It is kind of a big deal with competitions and some units will designate a specific day to shave them off.
 
If the image of a B-1B gunship doesn't cause a freedom boner, then there is simply no hope for the future of mankind.
 
AWP said:
While I can't see this ever being used, it is a neat concept. The B-1B Gunship. Imagine "Bone" loitering around the battlefield at low level.

Boeing's Been Granted A Patent For Turning The B-1B Into A Gunship Bristling With Cannons
Click to expand...
It's possible that with Lockheed Martin getting closer to finishing their compact fusion reactor, designs like the B-1B may be feasible ground attack platforms due to the hypothetical increase in range and loiter times that this new tech is supposed to bring. Given that the latest prototype fusion reactor being developed is supposed to fit inside a connex, it might be a bit before Skunkworks can miniaturize this tech ever further (for fighter type aircraft, not seeing how it wouldn't fit into a B-1B or B-2).

Maybe Boeing is trying to jump the gun and establish themselves before a rival companies technology starts to bear fruit in the next few years.
 
Last edited:

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