But keep the B-52!
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/fede...-1-b-2-fleets/
The B-52 pilots better carry 1911s to stay in the retro mode!
But keep the B-52!
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/fede...-1-b-2-fleets/
The B-52 pilots better carry 1911s to stay in the retro mode!
If they only had more foresight...
There's nothing civil about this war.
From the Article - "The budget request also seeks to move forward with a new light-attack aircraft, likely either the Embraer-Sierra Nevada Corp. A-29 Super Tucano or the Textron AT-6, to provide a low-end capability. "
As a infantryman this capability being added excites me more, even though in a peer or near peer type conflict I'm pretty resigned to getting little to no air support, no matter what platform is attempting to fly above me.
Regarding potential high-threat conflicts, how many F-22s do we have again? We can't really build any more right? Do we even have enough parts for the ones we do have?
"I find your lack of A-10's disturbing."Originally Posted by rcbusmc24
From Older Offspring after a discussion of coffee:
"If it doesn't come from the Kaffa province of Ethiopia, it's just hot roasted-bean juice."
https://fightersweep.com/2038/the-a-...se-than-death/
"What are the main points of CAS? It’s about getting the right ordnance on the right target at the right time. While there may be a certain amount of intimidation and fear evoked by the high-bypass turbofan engines of the A-10 and the unmistakable sound of its gun, where the rubber meets the road is in the kinetic effects. I can pretty much guarantee that if you’re taking direct fire from an enemy position and air assets are available to handle that threat, you’re really not going to care if it’s an A-10 or F-16 or B-1 that deals with that threat. As long as the shooting stops and you’re able to either break contact and escape or continue your mission, the platform delivering that ordnance is immaterial."
This is a map of most of the anti aircraft search radars present in the Ukraine in 2010, in order for CAS to actually happen we have to establish air superiority, during a peer or near peer fight that is going to be hard to do and pretty much no aircraft designed for CAS is going to be anywhere near the front line for a useful amount of a fight until the Anti Air and Manpad threat is reduced significantly. No platform has enough survivability to stay overhead in that environment.
From the linked article-
"Part of the reason the A-10 has enjoyed the amount of success and notoriety it has is because there has been unopposed use of the airspace over Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. It is not a contested environment. It is not a degraded environment. It’s not an operationally-limited environment–save for bad weather and some really big, nasty mountains in Afghanistan. All of that means our air assets have an ability to fly and operate unmolested in those AORs.
Tomorrow’s fight will NOT be that.
I’m talking about those near-peer and peer-level threats. Integrated Air Defense Systems featuring AESA radars and advanced capability “double-digit” SAMs. Russia, in addition to fielding those systems itself, has been very happily providing them to nations that pose a potential threat to the United States and her interests. I am also talking about advanced Sukhoi and MiG fighters with capabilities and weapons exceeding those of our own legacy aircraft. Peer and near-peer threats require a baseline of technological advantage with respect to mass. If you don’t have it, your mass is useless. A perfect example? The development of artillery against fielded infantry units on battlefields during World War I.
The proliferation of those threats and their capabilities are quickly eclipsing the problem of mass. You can rarely guarantee you’ve killed all of the MANPADS and Triple-A, let alone all of the tactical-level SAMs, such as SA-11s and SA-15s. Unfortunately, talk of proliferation of those threats is not an argument easily won with the Army, Marine Corps, SOF units, and the Air Force JTACs embedded with them. It starts to question force makeup and doctrinal emphasis."
I love the A-10, one of them saved us in Iraq in 2004 out on the Syrian Border, but if we fight some of the fights being predicted right now then I expect to call for fire, not air support. If we find ourselves fighting in a Iraq or Afghanistan style fight again the that A-29 prop plane looks mighty nice with good loiter time and a nice slow flight speed plus operating it in that environment won't be racking up hours on the high end aircraft.
Last edited by rcbusmc24; 02-12-2018 at 03:26 PM. Reason: see if picture works...
We haven’t lost a single American solider to an enemy aircraft since 15 April 1953. If we fight a peer or near peer war then this record will come screeching to a halt and it is not something that most of my peers even give any thought to. They just assume that we will always have air superiority and be able to have CAS overhead on demand..... It leads into other issues that I see, like EMCON laxity and logistical laziness enabled by the FOB mentality..... different discussion though.
I'd like to know what happened to the B-3s through the B-20s.
And I'll believe that the Zoomies will really buy and use a combat airplane with a propeller when I see it happen.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
@rcbusmc24 I meant my post in jest, and I agree that any CAS aircraft is better than none
...as long as they all have shark mouths painted on. It should be a law.
From Older Offspring after a discussion of coffee:
"If it doesn't come from the Kaffa province of Ethiopia, it's just hot roasted-bean juice."
186
Reply With Quote