US Air Force planners want irreguar warfare wing

[ChernayaAkula]

So... we need 200 million dollar air superiority fighters like the F-22... to do convoy escort and close air support (which were the missions you described)?

Didn't we do those missions pretty good with Skyraiders, AC-47s, and A-37s in Vietnam?

Yes, pretty good... IN THE 1970s! And they still got a bloody nose ever so often!

<...>

So we need F-22s to protect our Predators from Mi-8s that are protected by Su-30s?

Exactly! F-22 to protect the assets that protect the grunts! Simple as that! F-16s could do that as well. However, when faced with Su-30s those rectangular holes at Arlington you talked about might be needed in larger numbers than when the F-22 is used!

<...> Nor, I'm sure, was providing CAP for Predators high on the list of the jobs that the Pentagon had in mind when they ordered the F-22.

Well, gaining air dominace is just that: Protecting your own assets from enemy fighters. The UAV is such an asset. So, yes, in a way, F-22s are also to provide cover for the UAVs.

Besides, Predators seem to have done okay without fighter cover (to protect them from what, again?) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, it's the other way round. Because of the fighter cover (which was always there) the Serbs didn't dare use their fast-jets against coalition assets (of whatever kind).

And just because the UAVs have done well until now that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so.

I'm saying that there's more of a mission for 24 Predators in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Pakistan, or Columbia, or the Mexican border) than there is for one F-22.

And you're 100% sure that all the next wars in the next 50 years will be fought in the places you mentioned? Because 100% is what you need when making such suggestions. States can't depend on what what may be the case in ten years from now. They have to cater for ALL possibilities.

[Nergol]

There isn't much I can add that hasn't been addressed by Trigger, but Nergol, you're missing the basic point. You are addressing the issues of a conflict between the US and a small, relatively primative force, and neglecting the issues of a conflict between the US and a more advanced military, especially ones with the size and technological might of China, or Russia.

And once again, it hardly matters. Just like people who like to wargame what would have happened in the Fulda Gap in 1962 or 1986 if things had gone a little differently, it's no more than a theoretical exercise to wonder how we'd do against the "Flanker Mafia" or the PLAAF. Step off on China, and Los Angeles turns into radioactive slag. As for Russia, two things. First, what conflict do we possibly see with them? They're no longer Communist, they have expressed very little interest in antagonizing us, and where we have rubbed up against each other, it's been us who have been the aggressor - building NATO right up to their doorstep and trying to feed them the clear BS that in order to protect Israel from Iran, we have to put ABMs in Poland. Secondly, what was true in 1962 is true today - a war against Russia would turn into a nukefest virtually instantly.

Basing future military acquisitions needs on the conflicts from recent memory, and neglecting the realities of great potential enemies, is a tragic mistake.

And basing furture military acquisitions on the idea that we're going to fight another World War II anytime soon is foolish. Nuclear weapons made conflicts like that - industrial wars between great powers - obsolete. Proxy wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan in the 80s? Sure. But Red Storm Rising is no more realistic than Star Trek.

Name two nuclear powers that have ever gone to full-scale conventional war with each other. Even when India and Pakistan tried to throw down on each other a few years ago, every diplomat from every power everywhere tried everything they could think of - bribes, threats, and crying fits included - to stop it from happening. Why did they do that in 2001, when they didn't bother in 1965 or 1971? Because they knew that it'd be mushroom clouds within a week, which is good for nobody.

I find this statement simply astounding. I'm just glad for the sake of the country people with your lack of foresight aren't calling the shots.

So instead you want people who spend 200 million dollars on a supersonic fighter plane to fight a guy in a basement with an RPG?

BTW, color me unimpressed with the "foresight" shown by the Pentagon and DOD in the past few years.

Nergol, it's obvious you should apply for a post under the SECDEF. You obviously have insights that the rest of is (even those in the military, who have been on the scene) do not.

I'm sure the SECDEF would love to hear how things should be going... since he and everyone else involved in the decision making process evidently have no clue what they're doing.

Assuming you're being sarcastic (and sorry if you're not): If the SECDEF and everyone else involved in the decision making process had a clue what they were doing, we wouldn't be in the situation we're currently in in Iraq.

If we were fighting the war we fought in 1944 our tanks would be sorely outmatched and our bombers would have to be escorted to their targets, where 1000 of them MIGHT be able to take out the targeted building. ONE F-22 can do that, undetected, with a single SDB with minimal collateral damage. So how are we fighting the war we fought in 1944?.

By preparing for another big, industrial, European-style land war, of the type we haven't fought since 1945 and are unlikely ever to again.

Exactly! F-22 to protect the assets that protect the grunts! Simple as that! F-16s could do that as well. However, when faced with Su-30s those rectangular holes at Arlington you talked about might be needed in larger numbers than when the F-22 is used!

But again, this is World War II thinking. F-22s won't do squat in Iraq or Afghanistan. They would have done squat over South Vietnam. Over North Vietnam, maybe - but it was never our plan to send ground pounders there anyway.

Look, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any air superiority fighters. What I am saying is that there's a fixation in the USAF with the fast and sexy that doesn't reflect the realities of modern warfare. Low, slow, and accurate is where it's at in COIN warfare, which has been the reality of every major engagement our ground pounders have fought since 1953. The nut of the matter is that the focus of our Air Force should be to support our army. Yes, having air superiority is necessary to do that. But overemphasis on it means that we end up with ten thousand spoons and no knives.

And you're 100% sure that all the next wars in the next 50 years will be fought in the places you mentioned? Because 100% is what you need when making such suggestions. States can't depend on what what may be the case in ten years from now. They have to cater for ALL possibilities.

Yes, absolutely. But no state, not even America, has unlimited money to spend on defense appropriations. Therefore, decisions have to be made, and emphasis has to be placed on this or that. The US military very frequently makes the wrong decisions - such as the Navy and its supercarriers, which would have lasted about two days against the Soviet Navy's sub fleet.

But the US military's real wrong decision is in its model of what a war will be. The World War II model is indelible in their consciousness, and with good reason - it was the US military's most glorious victory. But in having a mindset that always anticipates that wars will be replays of that model, it stumbles into wars that don't fit that mold utterly unprepared - as it did in Vietnam, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. Not just its weapons, but its strategies, its training, and its mindset are utterly ill-suited to the task at hand. Why would not having a far more diverse set of weapons, strategies, training, and mindsets be a better plan?

Excuse me while I inject just a little sanity into this....

I more or less agree. Iraq and Afghanistan are not really "air power" wars, and to the degree that they are (which ain't very much), they're close air support and recon wars.

Now will someone please tell the USAF Generals that?

Edited July 5, 2007 by Nergol

[Rapier01]

I had typed out a response but... You know what? It's not worth arguing with people like you who fancy themselves miltary geniuses.

Edited July 5, 2007 by Rapier01

[Keith Diamond]

Alright, so I don't have to waste more time than I have to on this, and since there at least a half dozen or so other ARCers willing to take a little time an educate you a little, I'll only address the statements directed towards me.

And once again, it hardly matters. Just like people who like to wargame what would have happened in the Fulda Gap in 1962 or 1986 if things had gone a little differently, it's no more than a theoretical exercise to wonder how we'd do against the "Flanker Mafia" or the PLAAF.

Are you seriously arguing that training to fight a very likely scenario is utterly pointless? How old are you? I'm not even 24, and even I remember living during the cold war.

The US military is no longer training to fight the cold war, but they are training to fight a whole wide variety of scenarios. And to suit that wide variety of scenarios, the US military has a wide variety of weaponry. Focusing your acquisitions on fighting a low level war, leaves you completely open when anything but a low level war comes into play. Basically, if it happens, you're SOL. And if you seriously think that only low level wars are possible in the future, I have two suggestions for you. Either pick up a newspaper and read the news on Iran, or travel to the DMZ in Korea. See, and you don't even have to look up information on the tension between China and Tawain to see some good examples.

Preparing to fight only todays war, and not todays and tomorrows is too absurd to even consider.

Step off on China, and Los Angeles turns into radioactive slag.

Not necessarily. There is no guarantee that nuclear weapons would be used in a war. All countries that hold nuclear weapons currently, only do so to act as 1. a deterrent and 2. a last resort. Even if nuclear weapons were used during an opening assault, would you seriously argue that it is pointless to prepare for a post nuclear engagement. After the nuclear assault, do you honestly believe that there is nothing left to fight for?

As for Russia, two things. First, what conflict do we possibly see with them? They're no longer Communist, they have expressed very little interest in antagonizing us,

Even if you ignore the examples I listed above with Iran and the DPRK, and choose to ignore any possiblilty with China, you have to admit, that despite the cooling of tensions following the Cold War, relations with Russia are not as friendly as we would like. With the cultural and political differences that exist between Russia and the US, it is not unreasonable to believe that a major event could shake ties between the two. And do you think the US could train it's entire military in a short period of time. Basically, be prepared for all possibilities.

and where we have rubbed up against each other, it's been us who have been the aggressor - building NATO right up to their doorstep and trying to feed them the clear BS that in order to protect Israel from Iran, we have to put ABMs in Poland.

Careful, you're getting in to politically loaded statements/BS territory.

Secondly, what was true in 1962 is true today - a war against Russia would turn into a nukefest virtually instantly.

It's is clear that you've heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it's clear that you did not learn the after effects of it. The short version, both countries took the fingers off the triggers, and decided to turn on the safety. Neither side wanted to go through that again, and did not want to risk itchy fingers setting off a nuclear holocaust.

Alright, well I decided to address this little small issue since you keep bringing it up.

So instead you want people who spend 200 million dollars on a supersonic fighter plane to fight a guy in a basement with an RPG?

First off, the 200 million figure is greatly exaggerated. Financial numbers (and statistics) can be massaged to reflect anything, and let me say, that number has spent all day in the spa!

Also, no, nobody is arguing that F-22 should fight a guy with an RPG. Everyone is saying that, the F-22 needs to clear the skies, blow **** up, let the other aircraft do their jobs, and then when the conflict gets low level enough, then a smaller aircraft, such as an AT-6 can come in and take him out. But if necessary, and SBD from a F-22 or F-15E would do.

[Keith Diamond]

Somehow missed this

And basing furture military acquisitions on the idea that we're going to fight another World War II anytime soon is foolish. Nuclear weapons made conflicts like that - industrial wars between great powers - obsolete. Proxy wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan in the 80s? Sure. But Red Storm Rising is no more realistic than Star Trek.

No one is saying that we should prepare only to fight a large scale war. It is you that is saying that we should pretty much focus exclusively on low level wars.

Name two nuclear powers that have ever gone to full-scale conventional war with each other. Even when India and Pakistan tried to throw down on each other a few years ago, every diplomat from every power everywhere tried everything they could think of - bribes, threats, and crying fits included - to stop it from happening. Why did they do that in 2001, when they didn't bother in 1965 or 1971? Because they knew that it'd be mushroom clouds within a week, which is good for nobody.

So wait, you argue earlier that if war erupts with China or Russia (which I'm surprised you'd even deny that even a slight possibility exists) nuclear war is certain, but here you argue it's not???

Also, of all the nations that have nuclear weapons, how long have they had them? The less amount of time, the less time they have had to use them. And as mentioned earlier, they are primarily a detterant, and a last resort. And a full scale war, does not have to be nuclear. Just like a full scale war, does not have to be a total war.

[Jay Chladek]

I won't add anything to the current military force structure arguement as some great points have already been raised to counter Nergol's arguements. But I will say the first two examples cited of the aircraft in the first post make no sense at all.

B-58: Lets see, first of all it has no tactical capability whatsoever since it was designed for one thing, to drop nukes on the USSR in the event WW3 happened. Lets see, the Soviets, remember those guys? It was built for SAC for just that reason and even though it never was used in anger, it did get the Soviets to devote more effort into areas of their anti aircraft assets (missiles and interceptors) to counter the threat of a supersonic bomber penetrating where a subsonic B-52 probably would not. It was a wild card more then anything and it worked out pretty well for the short time it was utilized. Granted the cold war didn't end for another two decades, but the Reagan administration had the right idea when it pretty much decided to open up the weapon development floodgates and bankrupt the Soviets in the process as they had to try and come up with counters for them. But regardless of that, comparing the B-58 to a tactical asset isn't even like comparing apples to oranges. Its more like comparing grapes to potatos!

F-104: I don't know why you mentioned this one as the USAF never really bought it anyway except for some early C models which weren't used for long at all. But even then, this jet does have some tactical capability. It does meet more with a cheap fighter alternative as Kelly Johnson intended it to be a great air to air asset that was capable of high performance without high cost. For the time, it meant a stripped down single engine airframe with a decent radar, a gun and supersonic capability. With NATO's need for a supersonic fighterplane with air to air, intercept and to ground capability, the design was adapted reasonably well and worked out quite nicely for the time as it outfitted most of the 2nd world's western air forces. The Italians even tweaked it a bit more to give it a bit more interceptor capabilities well into the 1990s. Again it made an excellent counter to Soviet designs like the MiG-21, MiG-23 and to a lesser extent the MiG-27 if it were loaded up for air to ground missions. Doesn't seem like a pie in the sky jet to me.

[Cobrahistorian]

Nergol,

Dude, seriously. You're outclassed, outgunned and out of arguments here. You're trying to argue that "low and slow is where its at". That's what the Army does. All day. The Air Force provides the operational environment with aircraft like the F-22 so we CAN do the down and dirty work. We work together to make it possible.

Just let it go....

Jon

Edited July 5, 2007 by Cobrahistorian

[phantom]

You are all no doubt wondering where Phantoms words to live by are?

Wondering when sanity will be brought back to this thread?

Wondering WHO can save the day for the little guy?

Welll.......

the time has come.

without further ado......

"I like pointy planes".

You may now continue with the sillyness.....No.......No need to thank me. :(

[Rapier01]

Keith its probably not worth it... nothing, you, I, Jon, Waco or anyone else is going to change his mind. I don't even think he realizes Waco and Jon do this for a living.

Jon- You back here in PA right now?

Edited July 5, 2007 by Rapier01

[Trigger]

The conversation I had with the river otter today was much better than this one has turned out.

"What are you?"

"I'm an otter."

"And what do you do?"

"I swim around on my back all day and do cute little human things with my hands!"

"You're free to go."

People who are actually in the air combat business pointed out the flaws in his thinking, and yet he still somehow knows more than everyone else because of something he read in USA Today? And the contradictions and oversights in his arguments, especially those from this evening?

[pavelow44]

wow.....

[Cobrahistorian]

Rapier,

Two weeks bro. Actually moving to MD due to civilian concerns, but I'll be back drilling at the Gap in no time.

Jon

[Rapier01]

Trigger- I was going to say the same thing...

[William G]

I keep wondering what basis Negrol you have for this as an analyst?

Also I keep asking what woud Moai Vincent do in this case ...

William G

[Keith Diamond]

Keith its probably not worth it... nothing, you, I, Jon, Waco or anyone else is going to change his mind. I don't even think he realizes Waco and Jon do this for a living.

Probably does realize what they do, but you know how his type is.

I keep wondering what basis Negrol you have for this as an analyst?

His old friend

(just for ***** and giggles)

[William G]

Probably does realize what they do, but you know how his type is.

His old friend

(just for ***** and giggles)

Keith ya had me laugh so hard I almost shot chili out my nose!!!

just listening to Garbage 2.0 too wow what a small world

William G

[siesta3]

Interesting article for those who really want to broaden their horizons...

Insurgents push fighter pilots to new tactics

By Eric Talmadge - The Associated Press

Posted : Wednesday Jul 4, 2007 15:44:15 EDT

MISAWA AIR BASE, Japan — Controlling the air is what F-16 pilot Maj. Paul Miller does for a living. He’s now learning how to fight a ground war.

Four years into the war in Iraq, the challenges of fighting insurgents are changing the way U.S. fighter pilots approach their missions. The training has shifted from traditional tactics of air dominance to emphasize more specialized roles as eyes in the sky — such as locating buried bombs or honing in on small, highly mobile targets.

“This is a lot more on the go,†Miller said from this base on Japan’s northern frontier. “It’s a pickup game.â€

With fighting insurgents, that can mean following up on intelligence and getting into areas ahead of troops to act as supersonic scouts looking for potential ambush points or bomb-rigged roads.

“We may not be able to read a license plate, but we can tell you if the guy behind the bush is smoking, and whether he’s smoking with his right or left hand,†Miller said. “It’s that exact.â€

The demands in Iraq have also meant bringing in fighters from farther away.

Two squadrons of F-16s that normally are stationed here to keep watch on North Korea and bolster a mutual security pact with Japan have been assigned to rotate in and out of Iraq since the beginning of the year.

Miller, the training officer for the 14th Fighter Squadron, which just returned from a four-month deployment, said air superiority “is basically guaranteed†since the Iraqi insurgents have no air power to speak of — although factions this year have targeted lower-flying helicopters with more accuracy.

In the first 4 months of this year, U.S. aircraft used 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, compared with 229 in all of 2006. The 14th accounted for about 50 of them.

But Miller said the demands of Iraq have pushed fighter pilots to learn new ways to fight a very different kind of opponent.

“In this mission, we are protecting the guys on the ground,†Miller said. “We’re not directly involved in kicking down the doors, but we are watching the rooftops. We support raids and convoys. We provide intelligence, recon.â€

Pilots are increasingly being sent on missions over urban settings and getting intelligence that seeks to prevent deaths on the ground from hidden explosives. They do this by flying over highways or roads that will be used by military convoys and by using surveillance equipment to locate any suspicious vehicles, people or changes in terrain.

Miller declined to comment on the specifics of the technology, much of which is classified, but said the sensitivity of the equipment allows fighters to keep their distance and then stealthily zoom in for the attack.

“They know if they are being followed by a Humvee, but they don’t know if we are on their trail,†he said. “We can get the bad guys after they leave areas that would involve a lot of collateral damage.â€

The F-16’s ability to shift from tracking to attack was demonstrated one year ago, when two fighters searching for bombs along a highway were diverted to a target near Baqubah, where they dropped two 500-pound precision bombs on a safe house where al-Qaida in Iraq’s leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was attending a secret meeting. He died the next day.

Miller said the F-16 pilots are still working on their ability to find bombs.

“We’re not 100 percent, but we can tell if the sand has been moved,†he said. “Any little bit that we can help makes a difference.â€

Crashes are rare, but an Ohio National Guard pilot was killed this month when his F-16 went down shortly after takeoff from Balad Air Base in central Iraq for a ground support mission. Another F-16 crashed last Nov. 27 in the western province of Anbar, killing the pilot.

“We are at much more danger when we are on the ground,†Miller said. “In four months, we have had only one minor injury. That was a maintenance guy hurt in a mortar attack.â€

Miller, who is in daily contact with the squadron in Iraq, said the dozen or so F-16s deployed from this base are flying an average of four sorties a week, putting in from six to nine hours per sortie. Altogether, the 14th flew more than 1,400 sorties, with 5,800 hours in the air before returning to Japan.

Along with about half the fighters in the 13th and 14th squadrons, nearly 900 personnel from this base are involved in the rotation in and out of Iraq.

“Of course, when we’ve got a third of our base gone, you feel the pressure,†said Maj. John Redfield, the base spokesman.

“We have an important mission here, to watch North Korea and all,†he said. “But we have to make up the slack

[William G]

Good old Misawa

The Point on the Tip of the Spear!!!

William G

[Archangel]

I'll second that! A COIN Corsair is an awesome idea (and isn't it faster than the A-10?) :blink:

If I remeber correctly the AU-1 Corsair was just the right model of that plane to do that job. If here was a way to bring them back they couldn't do any worse then a Predator and the AK shooting fanatics would have alot of fun ducking 4x20mm guns and cluster bombs. Then again its all wishfull thinking. Negrol needs to read something besides old newspaper articles and thinking saving money on jets means tha tthe Air Forces troubles would be solved. Sorry but those ideas tha the is spouting may have worked back when WWI was going on but the Air Force has learned a few things since the days of Eddie Rickenbacher and some of them are that you don't have two or three aircraft to do one job.

[David Walker]

Fun thread. I was entertained.

[GreyGhost]

I just wish the war planners and Military Personnel that develop doctrine at War Colleges would just read USA Today too !

Say, Waco or Jon, when was the last time you picked up a copy ?

Gregg

Edited July 5, 2007 by GreyGhost

[General Grievous]

Speaking seriously, these would look good in USAF or Iraqui paint scheme:

Edited July 5, 2007 by General Grievous

[Keith Diamond]

Rusty, that was a very interesting and insightful post.

just listening to Garbage 2.0 too wow what a small world

Check their new video. Shirley Manson as a high class hooker in lingerie! B)

Yeah, I watched it again....

and again...

and again...

Speaking seriously, these would look good in USAF or Iraqui paint scheme:

Speaking seriously, I prefer this Tucano pic you posted earlier

[Ro-Gar Hobbies]

wow.....

Agree! Problably the best posts I have read in awhile! Very informative.

Regards,

Robert

[ReccePhreak]

This "see how the Air Force is trying to kill the A-10" crap has got to be the biggest urban legend on the internet. Yeah, we're trying to get rid of it in spades. That's why its being fitted with the Precision Engagement upgrade, modified to the A-10C standard across the fleet, re-winged across the fleet, and possibly re-engined in great numbers. Sounds exactly like what you do when you're trying to remove an airframe from service. I'm not sure of much, but one thing I AM sure of is that the Air Force is most definitely NOT trying to get rid of its A-10s.

The Air Force may not be trying to "kill" the A-10 NOW, but they sure didn't give a hoot about it when I was working on it, just before the FIRST Gulf War. That's when they had a VERY rude awakening.

Just my 2¢, based on my 24 years maintaining aircraft in the USAF.

Larry