Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seriously LOLing here.

The "F-35 can't do CAS!!"

f-35-33.jpg

Marines: Hey we are going to use this thing for CAS. Is that cool? We are switching the whole wing to the F-35 too.

Public/Congress: Marines fly airplanes? Yeah hey whatever, I don't care. Use it to support Marines.

f35_af7firstflightt_20110307.jpg

USAF: hey we are going to use this thing for CAS

Public/Congress: Thats not an A-10!! It can't do CAS unless its an A-10!! If it can do CAS, It can't do it as gooder!! But But the Army!! Ground Troopz!!

FTFA:

While that may sound like a fiscally responsible decision to some pressed-uniform, high ranking POG desk-jockey that wouldn’t know combat if it shot him in the fool… but, in fact, it is actually a wholly irresponsible action to shelf the A-10, because the F-35 is not a close air support aircraft, and it could never fully fill the role of one, especially in the brunt manner the Warthog does.

Hi I'm not a POG, and even I think this statement is messed up, I'm saying that as an 03. The Author needs to lay off the cheap shots.

We do we realize that General Welsh is a former A-10 Flyer, and his Son is a Marine Infantry Officer? The A-10 hatred runs so deep he will forsake his own son?

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh has heard one too many times that his service doesn't care about close-air support missions.

"Really? I'm kind of tired of hearing that," he said Sept. 15 at the Air Force Association conference.

The Air Force has averaged about 20,000 CAS sorties per year for the last seven years. "At what point do we get a little bit of acknowledgement for that?" Noting that airmen who require protection serve on the ground, as well as his own son who is a Marine Corps infantry officer, Welsh characterized the notion that the Air Force puts a low priority on close-air support as "silly."

He has answered those who have told him to his face that the Air Force doesn't care about CAS by taking out his phone and showing them a picture of his son.

His comments come during a public debate over the retirement of the A-10 Warthog, a Cold War era aircraft that the service wants to retire to make way for the F-35 joint striker fighter. Congress so far is not allowing that to happen. While he did not wade into the specifics of the arguments, he ran a short video of a former A-10 pilot who is now putting the F-35 through close-air support test and evaluation.

Welsh said: "CAS is our mission. And we will continue to excel at it and we will continue to provide it wherever and whenever it is needed and with whatever we have available to us."

Another statement he disputed is "the F16 is better than the F-35."

"Really? Does someone want to debate this with facts?" He followed that up with another video of an F-35 pilot attesting to the new capabilities of the aircraft. "We have to make sure we don't get distracted by silly discussions here. This airplane is going to be a great airplane," he added, noting that it is not fully operational yet and is not expected to be until 2021.

Welsh only mentioned in passing the Air Force's top three acquisition priorities -- the F-35, the long-range strike bomber and the KC-46 tanker -- and instead highlighted some of the lesser known aircraft that he said must be modernized.

The first mentioned was the combat rescue helicopter, which he said is "tied to the fabric of our force. If we are going to send airmen across the line into harm's way, we have people, great people, who are willing to go get them if something goes wrong. And they need to be equipped in a way that allows them to get home, or maximizes their chances to get home. We have got to keep this program on track."

The next is the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, which has been a workhorse, he said. The Air Force can't meet combatant commanders' needs for the aircraft because they are old, and it takes a lot of money to operate. "It has been a phenomenal aircraft for us, but it is time to recapitalize this airplane."

The JSTARS recapitalization program is in the budget this year and "we are going to push hard to keep it on track and get this thing done," he said.

The EC-130 Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft, like JSTARS, has been a "silent hero" over the years, he said. It has been a workhorse in the counterterrorism mission, "but we need the capabilities it carries on a different platform, or on several different platforms. And we have to figure out how to do that," he said. If they have to be grounded for age reasons, "we're out of luck. That can't be the choice."

Also on his list is the E-3 Sentry AWACS. "We have to start thinking about recapitalizing this airplane as well. Airborne command and control is is a requirement that is not going anywhere." The Air Force is going to start work on a plan to replace it or recapitalize it this year, he said. The question will be where it fits into the funding flow, he added. "This is not a 'this year' problem but it is coming sooner than you think."

The last aircraft on his modernization list is the T-X training aircraft. "All these things need crews to fly them. We're not going to a 100 percent unmanned force anytime soon."

The T-X is in the budget and "we're going to push hard" for a 2024 initial operational capability, he said.

The overarching problem is funding. The demand for Air Force capabilities is going up, but the budget is not, he said. "And the flexibility we need to make the very hard decisions required is getting harder to come by. Holding onto the things that made us great in the past is not the best way to make us great in the future," he added, making another subtle dig at the A-10 supporters.

"For years we have enjoyed a capability advantage over every other air force on the planet. That capability gap is closing and it's closing fast. I'm not crying wolf. I'm just telling you the truth," Welsh said.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1953

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no expert on anything, but how can a plane that has less loiter time, fewer rounds and a smaller cannon, take the place of a plane that can loiter, repeat attack runs because it has more ammo, take more punishment and based on simple physics see more and maneuver better at low speed? Can the experts tell me why we shouldnt support the A-10? and if its due to battlefield integration and sensors Im sure you can add them to the A-10, Maybe Im wrong but i suspect on 23mm hit on an F-35 will render it combat ineffective,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no expert on anything, but how can a plane that has less loiter time, fewer rounds and a smaller cannon, take the place of a plane that can loiter, repeat attack runs because it has more ammo, take more punishment and based on simple physics see more and maneuver better at low speed? Can the experts tell me why we shouldnt support the A-10? and if its due to battlefield integration and sensors Im sure you can add them to the A-10, Maybe Im wrong but i suspect on 23mm hit on an F-35 will render it combat ineffective,

Short answer: It diverts funds from the F-35.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no expert on anything, but how can a plane that has less loiter time, fewer rounds and a smaller cannon, take the place of a plane that can loiter, repeat attack runs because it has more ammo, take more punishment and based on simple physics see more and maneuver better at low speed? Can the experts tell me why we shouldnt support the A-10? and if its due to battlefield integration and sensors Im sure you can add them to the A-10, Maybe Im wrong but i suspect on 23mm hit on an F-35 will render it combat ineffective,

How do other aircraft that are not the A-10 do CAS currently??

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no expert on anything, but how can a plane that has less loiter time, fewer rounds and a smaller cannon, take the place of a plane that can loiter, repeat attack runs because it has more ammo, take more punishment and based on simple physics see more and maneuver better at low speed?

Thought you were talking about what plane could take the place of an AC-130. Or an Apache... or a Zulu model Cobra...

Now I get it, you were talking about the A-10.

Nah.... nothing could replace an A-10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no expert on anything, but how can a plane that has less loiter time, fewer rounds and a smaller cannon, take the place of a plane that can loiter, repeat attack runs because it has more ammo, take more punishment and based on simple physics see more and maneuver better at low speed? Can the experts tell me why we shouldnt support the A-10? and if its due to battlefield integration and sensors Im sure you can add them to the A-10, Maybe Im wrong but i suspect on 23mm hit on an F-35 will render it combat ineffective,

Because weapons and sensors have changed quite a bit since 1970's. You don't need to visually aquire a target to destroy it, you don't need to be low and slow to accurately bomb, being low and slow is deadly (radar guided AAA and hand held SAM'S) and a cannon is no longer the primary weapon for ground pounding. A-10 was great in its day but it's time has passed.

Edited by graves_09
Link to post
Share on other sites

If A-10 is as important as Congress is making it, its important enough to increase funding overall instead of keeping the cap where it is and forcing the hard choices.

jack-nicholson-colonel-nathan-r-jessep-A-Few-Good-Men.jpg

"I run my unit how I run my unit... ...

I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way"

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

If A-10 is as important as Congress is making it, its important enough to increase funding overall instead of keeping the cap where it is and forcing the hard choices.

this is exactly what I believe, more A-10s and no more free cell phones

Edited by DarkKnight
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just adding this to the thread and that's it. From my experience, as a Scout and an Infantryman on 2 separate deployments to Iraq, that the A-10 is perfectly matched in the asymmetrical battlefield that we have been fighting in for the last 14 years. And from all of my peers, subordinates, and higher ups that have experienced combat in the 'Stan, they do nothing but swear on the Bible in the A-10's favor. Now, I have also spent 2 years stationed up at Camp Hovey, South Korea with 2ID. Our motto is "Fight Tonight," and lemme tell ya that with the threat of the massive armored hoard that may or may not ever cross the DMZ, an A-10 is the most heavenly sight to see. Last but not least I recently came back from a rotation at NTC where we practiced fighting a "hybrid" enemy force much like that of one that we could possibly go up against in the future and the A-10, surprisingly, is most welcome. So please, unless there are others with actual experience with these situations, don't stir the pot anymore than it already is boiling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Welsh said: "CAS is our mission. And we will continue to excel at it and we will continue to provide it wherever and whenever it is needed and with whatever we have available to us."

In other words, if they only give us C-17 cargo planes to do CAS with, we will push bombs out the back door. Its a total non sequitur as to what the best platform is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because weapons and sensors have changed quite a bit since 1970's. You don't need to visually aquire a target to destroy it, you don't need to be low and slow to accurately bomb, being low and slow is deadly (radar guided AAA and hand held SAM'S) and a cannon is no longer the primary weapon for ground pounding. A-10 was great in its day but it's time has passed.

I've just finished to read the second Osprey's book dedicated to the OEF A-10 units and I think that many U.S. ground forces will disagree.

Sure even a Viper or a Mudhen can put a GBU-12 or -38 in a CAS mission ( like an A-10C anyway) but the principal weapon used for CAS/DAS especially during the more low intensity part of the deployments was the 30mm.

And I don't see in the future a conflict that required the F-35 capability at least not until the ISIS realize is best wish and gain complete SAM networks,a dangerous air force and bla,bla,bla.

And about the SA of a A-10 pilot,with the integration of the Scorpion helmet,it can even put a mark both in the helmet visor and the HUD with the last position of his last gun/bombing run,reacquire in no time at all a missed target and re-engage it.

And new sensors can be added,but the money now are for the F-35...

Just my non -US opinion!

Gianni

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just adding this to the thread and that's it. From my experience, as a Scout and an Infantryman on 2 separate deployments to Iraq, that the A-10 is perfectly matched in the asymmetrical battlefield that we have been fighting in for the last 14 years. And from all of my peers, subordinates, and higher ups that have experienced combat in the 'Stan, they do nothing but swear on the Bible in the A-10's favor. Now, I have also spent 2 years stationed up at Camp Hovey, South Korea with 2ID. Our motto is "Fight Tonight," and lemme tell ya that with the threat of the massive armored hoard that may or may not ever cross the DMZ, an A-10 is the most heavenly sight to see. Last but not least I recently came back from a rotation at NTC where we practiced fighting a "hybrid" enemy force much like that of one that we could possibly go up against in the future and the A-10, surprisingly, is most welcome. So please, unless there are others with actual experience with these situations, don't stir the pot anymore than it already is boiling.

You are probably going to run into more people with experience that are against the A-10 than for here. Just saying.

The next big question is why the Army isn't angling for A-10s. They have emphatically stated they won't take them, which isn't a surprise given their fiscal situation as well.

It's just easier for everyone to play like it's the 1980s and blame the air force for "not liking" the A-10.

The Marines were against the retirement of the iowa's. Beyond the navy hating the Marines, I am amazed the public isn't StI'll upset. But then again I wonder why the public isn't still upset over the retirement of the A-1 and A-37 and OV-10 Somehow they got over it

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Marines were against the retirement of the iowa's. Beyond the navy hating the Marines, I am amazed the public isn't StI'll upset. But then again I wonder why the public isn't still upset over the retirement of the A-1 and A-37 and OV-10 Somehow they got over it

I believe the Iowa class Battleships should still be in service, no reason for them to be museums, they should return at least 2 to service

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...