Jump to content

Why Not the B-1 Instead of the A-10?


Recommended Posts

I didn't get that impression.

I did. The A-10 wasn't fielded just to kill some attack helicopter program as he claims. The gun was made to kill armor because in a real war dismounted troops aren't the bigger threat in CAS. And just because we haven't lost aircraft to enemy fire doesn't mean we won't given a near-peer adversary, and if that's his argument the AC-130 is hardly a better CAS choice. That guy doesn't know shit.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140609/NEWS04/306090036/Opinion-10-needs-go

Article by an Army Infantry officer, just re-enforces the fact that the Army guys view CAS as flying artillery. Also a an example of not understanding the air piece which is pretty common amongst Army Infantry from what I've experienced.

I did. The A-10 wasn't fielded just to kill some attack helicopter program as he claims. The gun was made to kill armor because in a real war dismounted troops aren't the bigger threat in CAS. And just because we haven't lost aircraft to enemy fire doesn't mean we won't given a near-peer adversary, and if that's his argument the AC-130 is hardly a better CAS choice. That guy doesn't know shit.

What a ######ing idiot.

I'm not sure if I'm more pissed about his opinions, or the fact that AFCrimes thought this was worthy of publishing.

Come on now, this guys credentials are impressive. As an Army infantryman assigned to the Alaska ANG, he ranks right up there with my D/L instructors from ACSC. Myopic viewpoint? Check. Quasi-relavent background with no real world experience cited? Check. Condescending tone and overly emotional arguments compensating for a lack of substance and reason? Check.

Edit: Just to show how well researched this article is (he claims no FW A/C have been lost since 2001), check out this story. I'd like to see anything else land when shot up this badly. Plane landed but was a loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)

Edited by FBomb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't get that impression.

He said something to the effect that if the Infantry dude knows where the target is.... But what if they don't, I know for a fact you guys do a shit load more than kill whatever the Army dude tells you to kill.

That smells like shit to me. He views CAS as an alternative to artillery. Combined arms is a foreign concept to him. He has some points with respect to availability of CAS in an MCO fight, when air power is better suited to killing the exposed second echelon forces, but push CAS in Desert Storm proved we could do both.

"Overlord" is a great read and instructive. It's not nearly as simplistic as the good LtCol implies.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Just to show how well researched this article is (he claims no FW A/C have been lost since 2001), check out this story. I'd like to see anything else land when shot up this badly. Plane landed but was a loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)

Or this...

http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-warthog-down-in-iraq.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to be a long post but I really need to do some venting after reading that beautifully written and well-articulated piece of some of the finest ignorance I've ever come across in my entire career. I normally keep my personal and emotional opinions out of this forum since its a relatively professional place and is highly public, which can actually turn around and affect ones career, but this guy is way out of line. He is a perfect example of why the Air Force had to split from the Army in 1947.

I'm really glad busdriver posted this since it helps to express what its like to be in Army Aviation and be commanded by people like him. Army aviation assets are assigned to the ground force commander and used at his disposal. The only way Army Aviation is a successful organization at all is that it was made into its own branch in 1983, and we can slightly ignore a lot of the specifics giving us enough flex to actually accomplish the mission. There's nothing more frustrating than hearing a ground force commander talking about how well he planned the aviation piece in an operation when in reality, the aviation assets had to basically reinvent it to make it work. In infantry speak, Its like an LT taking credit for a successful plan when his platoon sergeant had to polish the turd that it was in order to make it work.

Let me clarify, these men are not idiots nor are new LTs. They are intelligent professionals who do their job well and lead the greatest infantry in the world, but they don't understand aviation any more than they understand the satellites that their GPS devices use.

Im not even referring to his end point. If you have the opinion that there are better ways to use the money then fine, but don't be ignorant like that in an official public news article, making all-encompassing statements about various airframes that could not possibly be derived from your perspective. I absolutely agree with HOSS in that I cant believe the Air Force Times published this, at least they stated at the bottom that these are his opinions alone. I guess the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 so bad that they don't care where the opinions come from.

The AC-130 is a hell of a machine and I'm sure the AF would be wise to convert some C-130s like the Marine Corps did, but suggesting that the AC-130 is the king of CAS is quite a bit of an exaggeration, are you basing this opinion on Call of Duty?

You might prefer the Kiowa, but that is literally the first time I've ever heard an infantryman say that. Maybe the people Ive talked to were just trying to be nice to me since I fly Apaches, but there's a reason why that airframe is going away, and if you want loiter time and precision weapons with a lot of ammo and firepower, why are you even defending the Kiowa or any similar program at all? Given that hes also the first infantryman I've heard of who wants to get rid of the A-10, Id say his opinions are rather unique in the infantry in general. As far as bombers are concerned, its great that they can cover down on CAS gaps with JDAMs. I've seen some Bones do some good work but saying that capability justifies cutting the A-10 is very misguided.

His statements toward the end about how the Air Force should divest JTACs and how he would take artillery over CAS any day if there was an enemy artillery threat present pretty much ended what was left of my consideration for any of his opinions.

Having said all of that I really hope no one gets the idea that I'm some sort of rebellious, insubordinate, disrespectful dickhead who has no respect for leadership or infantry. This guy just doesn't know what hes talking about and makes the Army look bad. For example, while this forum isn't as official as a news article, I still didn't title it something all-encompassing like "The Air Force Needs To Get Rid of the B-1" because despite my experience I can't alone know something like that for sure.

Edited by xcraftllc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents, I typed - and deleted - about 10 responses to this thread. My lesson learned here?

OPSEC. Be very careful about what we tell the interwebs about our capes and weaknesses. Might be good to stop this train before it gets rolling too fast to stop, because nearly every asset we mention is currently conducting combat ops . . . and you know the Russians/Chinese/etc are watching.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents, I typed - and deleted - about 10 responses to this thread. My lesson learned here?

OPSEC. Be very careful about what we tell the interwebs about our capes and weaknesses. Might be good to stop this train before it gets rolling too fast to stop, because nearly every asset we mention is currently conducting combat ops . . . and you know the Russians/Chinese/etc are watching

I hear ya man, I went back through and edit my posts a bit. I doubt that any of it was info that someone couldn't get off of liveleak or wikipedia though. Still a good idea to keep that in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did. The A-10 wasn't fielded just to kill some attack helicopter program as he claims.

The AH-56 was killed from being too complex and too expensive. A prototype crashed as well, and with the A-10 being developed, the Cheyenne was canceled. The A-10 was not developed to kill off the AH-56.

This guy is a tard. Chastising the Hog for not being survivable enough and then crowning the AC-130 as King of CAS. Ironic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAS is not defined by the level of anti air threats in the area. Survivability is great but so are loiter time, accuracy and keeping eyes on target for the duration.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Edited by Winchester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAS is not defined by the level of anti air threats in the area. Survivability is great but so are loiter time, accuracy and keeping eyes on target for the duration.

No, but awesome loiter only works if you're around to use it. Really at issue is his lack of sound logic and wildly inaccurate claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the article mentions, quite the leap indeed. The irony being, that the A-10 has the most numbers of killed and wounded of friendly personnel of any allied CAS aircraft, in the most number of incidents.....nearly 20 troops KIA since Desert Storm and an equal number wounded. What does that mean? That frat can and does happen with any platform at any time. This isn't the first, isn't the deadliest incident, and won't be the last. Heck, it's not even known (or at least revealed yet) where the fault lies on this one.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AH-56 was killed from being too complex and too expensive. A prototype crashed as well, and with the A-10 being developed, the Cheyenne was canceled. The A-10 was not developed to kill off the AH-56.

This guy is a tard. Chastising the Hog for not being survivable enough and then crowning the AC-130 as King of CAS. Ironic.

Absolutely. Some very good points there. The AH-56 was a terrible attempt from Lockheed to get into the new and lucrative helicopter business and it failed miserably. It was the first and last helicopter they ever tried to develop and its failure has nothing to do with the A-10.

I had heard of that but didn't make mention of it on this thread. I'm not harping on you for posting it, it's good to talk about these events and learn from them (not in great detail on a public thread for OpSec purposes of course). No one can be sure what the circumstances were and any such event is beyond tragic. I'm sure the pilots were mature professionals.

Also, stats on which airframe killed what number of friendlies are a rather complex measure to gauge an airframes worth. Especially when the number of airframes, number of missions, and types of CAS missions are considered. That is to say, if less aircraft are used less often in less severe conditions, the number will inherently be less. Just as a C-17 has never been shot down in a dogfight but that's not because it's more survivable than an F-16 in air to air combat, and no F-22s have ever shot down an enemy but that's not because they are less capable than an F-16.

Let me stop myself before I go any further because I think we should probably just give this case a few weeks before we start any serious debates on how the airframe factored in.

Edited by xcraftllc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I smoking crack? I thought Arghandab district was in Kandahar province?

Nevermind, bet they're actually talking about where the Arghandab river "flows" through Zabul by Day Chopan.


Absolutely. Some very good points there. The AH-56 was a terrible attempt from Lockheed to get into the new and lucrative helicopter business and it failed miserably. It was the first and last helicopter they ever tried to develop and its failure has nothing to do with the A-10.

In many ways the story of the AH-X vs F/A-X is more about two services that just don't talk to one another very well. The Army wanted to develop air-mobile, they saw the need for fire support, so they developed it on their own. When the Air Force reaches out the Army says you're good, so the Air Force keeps doing what it's been doing. Air Force decides it needs a CAS airplane, develops the A-10. The AH-56 fails due to technical problems, the Air Force now has the A-10, the Army presses with what would become the AH-64.

I'm not trying to argue one platform over another, just that those two services in particular don't have a good history of communicating and deciding on a unified front of how to press forward with requirements.

Edited by busdriver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention. For any of you that cruise the ar15.com forums, the author is a regular in the General Discussion forum (as a rule, I generally stay away from the GD forum...ridiculous shit). It will take all of about 69 seconds to figure out who he is if you find any thread about CAS/COIN/etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think this article is also a good show of how flawed the gun pod concept is. Much like the early F-4s, it's just no replacement for an internal gun. I'd say if they want to make the F-16 more useful as a CAS asset, a GAU-22 upgrade would be nice.

As a side note, I believe only the A model F-35 will have an internal gun. Not such a big deal for the Marines since they've had to make the external GAU-12 work on the Harrier, but I'm sure the Navy won't like dealing with pods on their C models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this article is also a good show of how flawed the gun pod concept is. Much like the early F-4s, it's just no replacement for an internal gun. I'd say if they want to make the F-16 more useful as a CAS asset, a GAU-22 upgrade would be nice.

As a side note, I believe only the A model F-35 will have an internal gun. Not such a big deal for the Marines since they've had to make the external GAU-12 work on the Harrier, but I'm sure the Navy won't like dealing with pods on their C models.

It's also interesting to see how thoughts on the gun have changed. 45 years ago, we needed a gun to counter a highly maneuverable BFM adversary. These days, it's the danger-close weapon of choice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention. For any of you that cruise the ar15.com forums, the author is a regular in the General Discussion forum (as a rule, I generally stay away from the GD forum...ridiculous shit). It will take all of about 69 seconds to figure out who he is if you find any thread about CAS/COIN/etc...

I think that Sylvan character on that website has a secret love for the AF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...