Air Force Leaders Show Lack of Commitment to CAS

[Johca]

I think it goes back to the Key West Agreement, the army wanting to have its own CAS.

Actually, the original 1947 National Security Act clearly transferred the functions of the Army Air Forces to the Air Force. This resulted in Air Force TACPs continuing to exist after the Second World War ended and being somewhat available (not enough of them) on the day the Korean War broke out. The actual problem, other than the A-10 and perhaps the F-4, is the Air Force hasn't asked for a jet powered aircraft suitable for preforming the CAS mission.

As the Marines had their own support aircraft, they retained a CAS mission which they performed in Korea, Vietnam and other contingencies/conflicts. This is why the F-4 can be considered a somewhat suitable jet powered CAS capable aircraft.

Scrutiny of documents during period 1947 thru ca. 1955 shows doctrinally CAS was split between support the Army and support guerrilla forces. The CIA was claiming functional control of CAS supporting guerrilla forces under the Special Operations umbrella it inherited from the OSS.

This political infighting regarding CAS to include airlift CIA needed resulted in the demise of the joint service Military Air Transport Service that was initially commanded by an Admiral until the political infighting resulted in the 1948 Key West Agreements, the 1949 National Security Act and other changes. It also resulted in the establishing of what is commonly known as Air America and similar CIA run or funded aircraft organizations supporting their operations.

The summary provided is extremely simplified, but the Air Force has never really vested properly into providing CAS regardless of the Key West Agreements.

 

[amlove21]

Fine, but without F-35 CAS my panzers aren't crossing the Vistula. That's...kaserne-ing.

Ok, now you're on timeout.

 

[DA SWO]

Part of the issue is the Fighter Mafia thinking SDB is the answer to a CAS request.
Sometimes a gun run is the answer.
Next questio

Yep.

Air Force: "A-10s are stupid. We want that money for other fly-y things."

Army: "We'll take them!"

Air Force:

Army can't afford the logistics to support A-10's.
The AF plays a shell game with AGE equipment and past attempts to transfer the planes didn't include AGE, which killed the deals.
Depot space is tight, killing the A-10 would free up space, I doubt CCAD can do airplanes.
So good luck with the "give them to the Army " whine.

 

[Marauder06]

Part of the issue is the Fighter Mafia thinking SDB is the answer to a CAS request.
Sometimes a gun run is the answer.
Next questio

Army can't afford the logistics to support A-10's.
The AF plays a shell game with AGE equipment and past attempts to transfer the planes didn't include AGE, which killed the deals.
Depot space is tight, killing the A-10 would free up space, I doubt CCAD can do airplanes.
So good luck with the "give them to the Army " whine.

It's not a whine, and I resent you characterizing it as such. I don't condescend to your posts like that.

It's a legit option, one that the Air Force has repeatedly torpedoed over money and rice bowls.

The Army could absolutely afford the A-10s if the money for the A-10s came over with the A-10s.

Which is why the Air Force won't let it happen.

 

[Kraut783]

I'm still surprised the USAF highers support the AC-130, or maybe they don't...anyone shed some light on that?

 

[AWP]

It's a legit option, one that the Air Force has repeatedly torpedoed over money and rice bowls.

The Army could absolutely afford the A-10s if the money for the A-10s came over with the A-10s.

Which is why the Air Force won't let it happen.

There's no way funding for the A-10's follows the airframe. The AF will keep the funds to dump more money into -35's. The best the Army could hope for is the AF sending the airframes plus all spares, support equipment, and a certain amount of munitions. It would have to work a deal with the AF to train the pilots and maintainers (unlikely) OR establish its own schoolhouse and training squadrons. It would be a massive undertaking for the Army to take on even half of the A-10 fleet and there are 15 squadrons of A-10's across AD, ANG, and AFRES. That doesn't count training and test squadrons. Pilots would stick arounds, the maintainers...coin flip, but I'd plan on losing 1/3 to 1/2 of your maintainers who would not cross over.

It would be a pyrrhic victory for the Army if it took on A-10's.

 

[Devildoc]

Forget the A10. The army has already been experimenting with propeller driven aircraft for SOF that can loiter, conduct ISR, as well as CAS.

 

[BloodStripe]

Forget the A10. The army has already been experimenting with propeller driven aircraft for SOF that can loiter, conduct ISR, as well as CAS.

The SOF planes lack armor. They were designed to fight the dudes in mud huts and not where contested air space is a thing. We’ll gladly sell them to other countries though.

Building an air to ground fixed wing platform should still be a thing as evidenced by the war in Ukraine. Imagine the Warthog there in that target rich environment ….

 

[DA SWO]

It's not a whine, and I resent you characterizing it as such. I don't condescend to your posts like that.

It's a legit option, one that the Air Force has repeatedly torpedoed over money and rice bowls.

The Army could absolutely afford the A-10s if the money for the A-10s came over with the A-10s.

Which is why the Air Force won't let it happen.

Money won't by AGE that was on the ramp before hand.
You also assume the Pilots and maintainers would transfer.
Pretty steep learning curve when you start from scratch.
I wish they'd transfer the planes.
FWIW the article referenced by the OP is bullshit.
A-10's, F-15's and F-16's are still training for and doing CAS.
Eventually F-35's will do CAS. We don't need them to do CAS at this point.
Does the Fighter Mafia want to do CAS? Nope, but they do it.
Will the F-35 be as good as the A-10? IMO, no. However, the Army has helicopters that can do gun runs just as effectively.

 

[Teufel]

I think the future of CAS is unmanned platforms controlled by the ground combat element, and loitering munitions. Longer loitering times and much more expendable than manned 5th Gen aircraft. CAS is hard to do in contested skies, especially if you have to tanker across a huge AOR because carriers and expeditionary air fields are at huge missile risk. The best ground support honestly may be removing the enemies aerial threat to ground troops. At least initially. Don’t try to put the next war into the same box the last one came in.

 

[Teufel]

Personally I think shelf life for a CAS platform is measured in single digit engagements. 5th gen fighters are incredible but there is no such thing as a stealth missile. That I know of anyway. You launch ordnance and everyone will know that player two has entered the game. That’s a lot of SGLI payments. To me I would look at manned/unmanned teaming using UAS as CAS and sensor platforms, coupled with high end artillery and missile batteries.

 

[amlove21]

I'm still surprised the USAF highers support the AC-130, or maybe they don't...anyone shed some light on that?

They don't. Slife, in his tenure, took the 105mm off of it in the dark of night in a funding red line. Pissed a lot of people off.

 

[Gunz]

I'm still surprised the USAF highers support the AC-130, or maybe they don't...anyone shed some light on that?

They don't. Slife, in his tenure, took the 105mm off of it in the dark of night in a funding red line. Pissed a lot of people off.

...he took off the 105 and he wants to shoot cruise missiles out the back. EDIT...Oh yeah, I forgot...he wants to make it a seaplane and put floats on it.

 

[JedisonsDad]

I'm still surprised the USAF highers support the AC-130, or maybe they don't...anyone shed some light on that?

They don’t. A certain general in AFSOC has big plans for divestment.

 

[Gunz]

.

 

[JedisonsDad]

"By making the MC-130 float, we turn the entire South China Sea into a landing zone." -- Lt Gen Jim Slife

"There is nobody in the entire major command that is further removed from day-to-day operations than me." -- Lt Gen Jim Slife



So...you can load a Rapid Dragon module into the cargo bay and launch a JASSM-ER...but how does that help your teams on the ground when they need CAS, like an airborne 105? With all the various platforms that can launch cruise missiles, why in the fuck do you want to do it from a C-130?
View attachment 41715


Back in the ANG we'd call this Herky-Jerky

I strongly believe that AFSOC needs to transition to small, civilian prop planes to maximize its capabilities. However, there are units behind colored doors that say they own those platforms, and won’t let anyone else branch out to that realm.

 

[Dame]

Strangely enough, this came up on my Linked-In feed this morning.



Blue Air Training Corp.3,644 followers
2d • 2 days ago
This is why you became a fighter pilot. We’re hiring elite CAS pilots in our Las Vegas location. We have served shoulder to shoulder with the very warfighters we now train. Our team is elite, mission-driven, and committed to excellence.

https://lnkd.in/eAVZkpXV
#blueairtraining #cas #ccas #closeairsupport #pilot #pilotlife #JTAC #TACP #military #militaryaviation #aviation #fighterpilot #nowhiring #hiring #careergoals #careergrowth #job #lasvegas #vegas #experiencematters #BringOnTheLiveCAS

 

[ThunderHorse]

I think it goes back to the Key West Agreement, the army wanting to have its own CAS. I understand the army did arm some fixed-wing AC in Vietnam which pissed the air force off mightily.

I've no issue with the army having its own fixed-wing CAS.

Oh, the Key West agreement that left the Army without any type of CAS platform for...like 15 years! Getting rockets and machine guns on helicopters was such a pain...if the Air Force had its way back then there would have been zero helicopters with door gunners in Vietnam.

The summary provided is extremely simplified, but the Air Force has never really vested properly into providing CAS regardless of the Key West Agreements.

That summary is simplifying the fact that the Air Force actively stopped the Army from having fly-fly things with guns. (And is still attempting to prevent the Army from having fixed wing with guns).

 

[DA SWO]

Oh, the Key West agreement that left the Army without any type of CAS platform for...like 15 years! Getting rockets and machine guns on helicopters was such a pain...if the Air Force had its way back then there would have been zero helicopters with door gunners in Vietnam.



That summary is simplifying the fact that the Air Force actively stopped the Army from having fly-fly things with guns. (And is still attempting to prevent the Army from having fixed wing with guns).

Same Key West agreement that prevented the AF from operating Rapier Missile Systems in the UK. Missiles had to be maintained and operated by the RAF Regiment.

That knife cuts both ways.

 

[Johca]

That summary is simplifying the fact that the Air Force actively stopped the Army from having fly-fly things with guns. (And is still attempting to prevent the Army from having fixed wing with guns).

Correct, although fly-fly things with guns might have been driven by the Geneva Convention stipulation of medical aircraft not be armed and must be appropriately marked. As far as door gunners it may have been more attributable to acquisitions of military helicopters to design specification not requiring a door gunner capability which is why even the Air Force lacked mounts for door guns.

If I get the time, I will search for the source document(s), but even as far as helicopters and fixed wing aircraft with guns the Army was limited to (if I recollect correctly) 150-mile radius rather early, which is somewhat humorous as the Army flew the first helicopter non-stop from west coast to east coast using in air refueling. This was pretty much the status quo until ca. 1990/91.