View Full Version : A-10 "WARTHOG"
BMT (RIP)
11-13-2006, 06:08
Looks like the A-10 might be around for atleast another 18 years. AF probably ain't too happy.
I remember when the OV-10 was being tested in Thailand. Glowing reports were written about what a great COIN aircraft.
The minute it got to RVN, AF stripped off the guns and bomb racks and it became a FAC bird.
:munchin
BMT
incommin
11-13-2006, 06:23
Yes they did......but it was a good one!
Jim
Monsoon65
11-15-2006, 15:57
Hey, it's the AF. Unless it can go a million miles an hour or drop tons of bombs, they don't like it.
The A-10 is a great CAS platform and Sandy. Everyone loves it except senior leadership for some reason.
incommin
11-15-2006, 17:34
"The A-10 is a great CAS platform and Sandy. Everyone loves it except senior leadership for some reason."
Because it is tough to do an Arc Light mission with it!
Jim
Goggles Pizano
11-16-2006, 07:14
"The A-10 is a great CAS platform and Sandy. Everyone loves it except senior leadership for some reason."
Because it is tough to do an Arc Light mission with it!
Jim
...and it's ugly which makes for bad "wow look at our cool new machine" photo ops Sir. :D
Karl.Masters
11-16-2006, 18:18
...and it's ugly which makes for bad "wow look at our cool new machine" photo ops Sir. :D
Hmmm...that GAU-8 sticking out of the shark teeth always made it look pretty good to me....
Karl
brownapple
11-17-2006, 05:51
By and large, the Air Force is run by fighter pilots. The A-10 ain't a fighter.
The A-10 is a great support aircraft to have available. It can perform at lower altitudes and at far lower speeds than any of the air force aircraft, bar the UAV's but they lack the speed and agility and firepower of the A-10.
And it can take a major beating and still limp back to base...
One of the great aircraft's of our time...
BMT (RIP)
11-17-2006, 06:34
The same can be said about the A1-E of the VN era. :lifter
I listen to alot of AF CSAR training exercise's on my recievers. The A-10 is the primary support A/C. Anything faster take's care of target's outside of the pickup area.
BMT
x SF med
11-17-2006, 08:21
Powerful, accurate, not too expensive and able to take a beating while supporting troops on the ground - gee no wonder the AF hates it.
incommin
11-17-2006, 09:08
Ages ago I was told the AF did not like ground support roles and thought the Army should do more of their own like the USMC does. However they did not want to lose the funding.
Maybe the A-10's should become Army property with Army pilots funded by $$$ taken from he AF's budget?
Jim
The Air Force never did like anything that flew and had guns in the Army's possession. They use to tell us that CAS is OUR mission to our brothers in the Army, not there own. Anybody remember the stink that was given towards the Army by the AF when they started arming helicopters?
QP's that were in Vietnam. Is it true that if you were flying in the Air Force's O-1's and O-2's that there was a AF regulation against it being "armed" with anything other than WP's?
BMT (RIP)
11-17-2006, 10:41
More or less!! :D
Alot depended on your FAC.
CCS our O-1E "BIRDDOG'S" carried nails. These were our radio relay birds. One plane nailed some bike's on a trail one day. That evening in the shower his bud ask if anything happened that day. Told about nailing the bike's. Trouble was Co. Cmdr was taking a dump and heard the story. :D
BMT
I use to have around a pound or two of those nails laying around here somewhere. Nasty little things.
Skyraider, now that was the last of the great attack aircraft IMHO.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II, aka the "Warthog", is my favorite plane in the USAF inventory.
I loved seeing those Big, Beautiful planes everyday, flying over our site, flying in from Sembach Air Base in Germany. They loved coming over our site and "playing" in the trees (and sometimes grass it seemed).
Here's a neat article I found on just this subject.
http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht11warthog.htm
The A-10, like it's father the A-1 Skyraider, and it's Grandfather P-47 before it, are some of the best A/Cs that ever flown.
If the AF doesn't want to A-10 any more, I'll pitch in to help the Army buy those babies. :D
I am with Sdiver on the A 10. Well if the USAF does not want it, I would think of two other services that would probably take it and would very much enjoy having the A 10 in their inventory.
I'd like to see us pick up 6 or so but it would never happen.
Interesting thing about the A10 is that no other country other than the US operates them- most others have multi-role AC like the F16 or -18 to do it (with the exception of AUS and the UK, who seems to have dedicated-ish assests).
Huey14,
you guys use a variation of the Tornado don't you?
I wish! We've got nothing at all. In 2001 the government scrapped the stike wing. We lost the Aermacchis, the Skyhawks (which were pretty modern as it was, just old/rewinged airframe) and most/all of the pilots/skills to the RAF and RAAF.
At the same time the government cancelled an order for new-ish F16s also.
A short sighted decision in my books. Perhaps we need need as many as we had but with all that ocean out there...it can take an Orion a looooong time to get anywhere.
IIRC only Saudi and the UK operate the GR1 Tornado. Not sure if Saudi have the ADV (in my opinon the prettier of the two :D ).
As an interesting aside, when the monument to the New Zealand soldiers who lost their lives was opened recently in Hyde Park in London, the pilots of the Typhoons who escorted the RNZAF 757 for the flyover were all ex-RNZAF themselves. The RAF said it was right for Kiwis to be there, which I thought was pretty awesome of them.
Monsoon65
11-23-2006, 21:54
most others have multi-role AC like the F16 or -18 to do it
I know the AF really was pushing to use the F-16 for CAS. An F-16 pilot told me that trying to do that is like driving your car at 65 over a highway overpass and trying to drop a golfball into a teacup.
Warrior-Mentor
11-24-2006, 08:05
Exactly. It sounds great...probably briefs well on powerpoint...
do the words LOITER TIME mean anythin to the USAF?
No fighter can compete with the A-10 for hanging around through a long fight.
By the time an F-16 shows up,gets oriented, he's got enough gas for 2 maybe 3 runs and he's BINGO.
I know the AF really was pushing to use the F-16 for CAS. An F-16 pilot told me that trying to do that is like driving your car at 65 over a highway overpass and trying to drop a golfball into a teacup.
Are ex Viper driving Generals behind it?
Well if the USAF does not want it, I would think of two other services that would probably take it and would very much enjoy having the A 10 in their inventory.well, the Army loves the capabilities of the A10...but the AF wouldn't be real keen on giving up the pilots, mechanics, bomb bunnies and other folks that it takes to make the airframe valuable...it would take quite awhile for the Army to develop the infrastructure necessary to deploy the A10...
The Reaper
11-25-2006, 10:37
The AF already offered to give the Army the A-10 as an observer aircraft and call it the OA-10.
Of course, it would come without the hard points, the main gun, the pilots, maintenance crews, or budget slice. IIRC, they did offer free floormats and pinstriping though.
Surprisingly, the Army rejected it.
The AF does not like the CAS mission, slow ground attack aircraft, or inexpensive ones. Neither does Congress, apparently. Hence the latest CAS aircraft, the F-15E Strike Eagle. A Mach 3 fighter with ten minutes of loiter time, but fully capable of air to air combat, should an enemy AF arise from the grave.
TR
All this has been changing rapidly over the last few years. With deliberate targeting new JTAC to aircraft interface projects coming on-line, soon most aircraft outfitted with an updated pod will be able to gain SA en-route to the objective. Coupled with longer loitering UAVs that will be controlled in the AO, hopefully capabilities will meet demand. This is a work in progress. The Army or AF need to get the ball rolling on more survivable rotary-wing attack aviation as well. AC-130s need to be increased as well. That is the most capable aircraft in my opinion for a variety of ground assistance role, though survivability is an issue.
Another major issue with CAS is that Commanders are trying to use it as a method of indirect without really giving the platform its proper level of fore-thought. All aircraft are subject to windows of operation...they simply can not pull over and refuel or do routine maintenance. They have to get on deck and generally a well prepared and established one if they want to get back in the fight. Couple this with operational windows and the uncertainties of ground combat..all you are going to get generally a re-active asset without a solid target passed up several hours (often 24 or more) before it is needed.
Helos have the benefit of being able to put down behind a terrain feature and meet face to face with the user if need be. This just doesn't happen with fixed wing and it never will with the fuel expenditure of a vertical take-off platform.
Ground commanders need to be trained properly to think through deliberate targeting inside the ATO cycle if they want to see the effects of fixed wing (fight/bomber) CAS become a combat multiplier instead of a "get my ass out of this situation" asset.
The Reaper
11-25-2006, 13:09
Joe:
I understand the difference between CAS and INT.
It is difficult to preplan CAS 24 hours or more out, other than letting the writers of the ATO know that we are going to be conducting ground combat ops at a certain time and place. This sort of planning assumes that we are the initiators of combat, rather than reactors as is more the norm in a counter-insurgent campaign. If you can predict 24 hours or more in advance where and when CAS is going to be required in Iraq or Afghanistan, I think you should be the CENTCOM CG. Most of the CAS requirements are going to continue to be the "Oh Shit!" variety for the foreseeable future.
Having previously worked with the AOC in preparing the ATO, IMHO, the AF has historically viewed CAS apportionment as wasted resources, preferring to rededicate other tasked aircraft if an emerging CAS requirement appeared. This can be a big problem if the aircraft are not launched with the proper ordnance payload for CAS. A load of Durandals or AMRAAMs is not going to help me a lot down in the mud where the fighting is occurring. Since there is currently no need in the Box for OCA, DCA, or INT, I fail to see why this reluctance persists.
Given that CAS is a viable combat mission comprising virtually 100% of the current air support requirement, the AF appears to me to be woefully unprepared for this mission with the current doctrine, training, leadership, organization, materiel, personnel, and policy. The Navy and the Marines in particular, have historically been much more open-minded in embracing this mission.
The paucity of dedicated CAS platforms, to the point where we are using strategic assets, like B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, or SOF aircraft to provide CAS for conventional forces in a counter-insurgency campaign (while virtually the entire AF future procurement is wrapped around air superiority platforms like the F-22), speaks volumes about the lack of interest in CAS by the AF leadership.
The guy flying the attack plane or calling him in from the ground (whatever color suit he wears) is no less glamorous or relevant than the fighter jock looking for an enemy aircraft to engage in empty skies.
If the AF does not want to do CAS, they should turn the requirements, platforms, and personnel over to the Army, with the proportionate portion of the budget.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Trip_Wire (RIP)
11-25-2006, 14:20
Maybe we need to bring back or remake the Douglas A-1H Skyradier (Spad) of Korean, Vietnam war fame! Here's a good video on this aircraft! :rolleyes:
http://lfeldhaus.tripod.com/cmdrjackfeldhaususn/id14.html
Monsoon65
11-25-2006, 15:15
The AF does not like the CAS mission, slow ground attack aircraft, or inexpensive ones.
Of course not. Unless it goes a thousand miles an hour, or drops a ton of bombs, the AF isn't interested.
My father was in the AF in Rescue for 24 years. He watched it start out in Korea, then die on the vine afterwards until Vietnam. After VN, it was outstanding, then allowed to die again.
Why? Well, hey, we don't need this capability anymore!! Not like our guys will ever get shot down again!
I remember the AF "offering" the Army the OA-10. Most of the A-10 pilots were scratching their heads over that one. It's a great aircraft, but no one understands why the AF spent the money to design it, then try to dump it every chance they get.
TR:
I whole heartedly agree with much of your assement...the Air Force needs to shit or get off the pot when it comes to CAS. However, I can tell you that CAS is becoming a priority for the BIG AF in a fast way. With the A-10 upgrades and all legacy fighter upgrades geared toward CAS. A-10 and fighter squadrons are beating down the doors of ST units right now for training. With ROVER and other interface systems coming online, the flyers are getting better and better at coming into a situation blind. The bomber community is embracing CAS as well in a big way.
The E-CAS policies are always going to be a mess with the sheer cost of flying. You know the deal, you could park an artillery battery for a week for the cost of one flight hour.
For on going operations air is never going to be a focus whether the Army owned it or not...simply costs to much. With my time in the Army I rarely saw rotary-wing used effectively unless ground units had time to work it into the plan and it rarely fell beneath Brigade Level for taskings.
Since CAS is the only game in town most of the jocks want to do it and are training frequently to get good at it. The Marines are an exception since that is the primary mission of the the AV-8, though it is not meant for CAS in my opinion as DAS. They might have the ground guy in mind but they are hamstrung just like the other fighters for loiter time...a subject that they fail to address. Remember too that their focus is much narrower in a CAS role as well, being that the MC uses the AV-8 as an indirect system inlew of alot of Arty in a MAGTF. Since the Marines doctrinally do not work long distances away from the float and are generally condensed, this makes sense.
So in an attempt to not be hardheaded, I got to say the Army needs to rethink its use for CAS. This includes internal rotary-wing assets.
As well, the Air Force needs to realize that INT is not a focus right now and to reflect the current operational environment with its training and employment. Software upgrades for PODS and interface systems need to be uniformally upgraded in capabilities. Warthogs, Spookies, and Aphaches give me a warm and fuzzy like none other.
In closing I want to say that the operational AF sees the need you are describing and are jumping through hoops to refocus on us. Though admittedly, they are late to the party.
Intel_Airman
11-26-2006, 16:55
It's the typical Air Force mentality of, "If it doesn't look good, get rid of it." The same thing goes on with our performance reports, functional equipment at work, and uniforms. It's all about image on this side of the house. After seeing what an A-10 can do, there's only one reason why senior leadership doesn't like it. It's becuase it helps the Army and that is something that the AF loves to gripe about all the time. Like, I heard in a CC Call a few months back, "The Army is broke, and now we have to augment them. It isn't our fault that they haven't re-shaped their force like the Air Force has been for the last 10 years. We'll help them for now, but it won't last forever; it isn't our job."
I'm fortunate enough to see A-10's fly here every day at DM and know a few crew chiefs. If the other planes in our inventory were as tough as the A-10, we would be a better Air Force than we are now. But screw it, we need new F-22's. We need faster fighters than can shoot down the enemy without even seeing them. Oh, wait... there is no enemy in the air.:confused:
brownapple
11-26-2006, 19:00
With my time in the Army I rarely saw rotary-wing used effectively unless ground units had time to work it into the plan and it rarely fell beneath Brigade Level for taskings.
I'd be curious as to what you consider effectively? My time in the 101st Airborne Division included using rotary wing assets effectively (meaning to support the troop mission) an awful lot. In my time in SF, we also managed to use rotary assets effectively, CH-47s, UH-1s, UH-60s and even MH-53s.
So in an attempt to not be hardheaded, I got to say the Army needs to rethink its use for CAS. This includes internal rotary-wing assets.
The point to CAS (and the Air Force as a whole with the singular exception of the strategic nuclear strike forces) is to support ground operations. What is effective is what supports the troops. What is ineffective is what doesn't support the troops. The USAF (and USAAF before it) has spent a huge amount of money and effort on what is ineffective since 1942. They continue to do so. And you think the Army needs to be the one rethinking?
The point to CAS (and the Air Force as a whole with the singular exception of the strategic nuclear strike forces) is to support ground operations. What is effective is what supports the troops. What is ineffective is what doesn't support the troops. The USAF (and USAAF before it) has spent a huge amount of money and effort on what is ineffective since 1942. They continue to do so. And you think the Army needs to be the one rethinking?
I believe it is a command issue. If the commander is a tanker, and got his way, everything would probably be tank orientated. The USAF is not a CAS minded group. While it may take time, the A10 would probably be best in the inventory of the Marines and/or the Army. I am not saying the USAF could not do a good job, it does not their focus.
Green Hat,
Are you telling me that Company Commanders and Battalion Commanders (line) routinely use attack aircraft (Helos) in support of their mission succesfully or were they employed through Brigade and Division. I think you get what I mean. The MC uses the Cobra in that manner where lower line units can grab it and employ it.
While you were SF the helos you list would at best help in a CFF mode unless employed purposely in a CAS role like aTF160 role, which would have had detailed integration as well more that generally familiar relationship with the end user. I don't know of much firepower that a non-gunship helo brings to the fight unless it is to suppress in order to allow manuever. You want something that is to deliver firepower from a helo you need a gunship. SOF needs that gap filled.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
11-26-2006, 20:00
In a letter to his wife, Chesty said.:
"The mail service has been excellent out here, and in my opinion this is all that the
Air Force has accomplished during the war."
- Chesty Puller in a letter to his wife while in Korea
In a letter to his wife, Chesty said.:
"The mail service has been excellent out here, and in my opinion this is all that the
Air Force has accomplished during the war."
- Chesty Puller in a letter to his wife while in Korea
Thank you, That made my day, You just gotta love Chesty Puller.
Good night Chesty where ever you are.
Semper Fi.
H.
brownapple
11-27-2006, 18:29
Green Hat,
Are you telling me that Company Commanders and Battalion Commanders (line) routinely use attack aircraft (Helos) in support of their mission succesfully or were they employed through Brigade and Division. I think you get what I mean. The MC uses the Cobra in that manner where lower line units can grab it and employ it.
Company and Battalion. Brigade and Division had nothing to do with how we used helos. The assets were attached to the Battalion, and usually by Battalion to Company and we used them as we saw fit to accomplish the mission (with input from the helo drivers at AMBs). This included UH-60s and CH-47s in troop carrying mode, AH-1Ss and AH-64s in attack mode (ever hear of a Pink team? We often had a pink team working with us) and OH-58s in observation mode.
While you were SF the helos you list would at best help in a CFF mode unless employed purposely in a CAS role like aTF160 role, which would have had detailed integration as well more that generally familiar relationship with the end user. I don't know of much firepower that a non-gunship helo brings to the fight unless it is to suppress in order to allow manuever. You want something that is to deliver firepower from a helo you need a gunship. SOF needs that gap filled.
Most helos are NOT CAS assets. The claim was that helos aren't used effectively. Using an UH-60 effectively means using it as a mode of transportation. We did that very effectively.
As for a helo gunship within SOF... I suggest you find out what a DAP is.
brownapple
11-27-2006, 18:34
I believe it is a command issue. If the commander is a tanker, and got his way, everything would probably be tank orientated. The USAF is not a CAS minded group. While it may take time, the A10 would probably be best in the inventory of the Marines and/or the Army. I am not saying the USAF could not do a good job, it does not their focus.
It doesn't make any difference who the Commander is (or shouldn't). The mission of all of the Army is to support the troops in contact with the enemy, the Combat Arms. The Marines have a similar mission (with their own Combat Arms). The Air Force's mission, with the exception already mentioned, is to support the troops in contact, as is the Navy's mission when we don't have a rival Navy to fight (again, the exception being strategic nuclear strike forces).
The problem with that reality is that it is not conducive to mini-empires and egos.
Greenhat,
Fair enough with the helo work...not usual for most of the line companies throughout the Army due to lack of helos. In your case at the 101st I should not begin to question your experience, you were in a farely unique position. However, unlike the Marines, Army Company Commanders unfortunately do not attend a school or formal practical training on how to integrate those peices and are not given the reigns to do so without oversight. As well the Army does not generally send Attack Aviation down to the Company level in a CAS role...it simply does not exist. Generally, it belongs to higher headquarters and that is where it recieves its Task and Purpose. The Marines on the other hand use their helos and A/V-8s more like Arty. Much of that having to do with the range of their Arty and what is left of Naval Gun Fire.
As for the utility helos, we were talking about CAS, I will be more specific next time. I though it was a given based on the fixed-wing aircraft in the discussion.
I am well aware of the DAP, but as you know it is not readily available for most SOF operations. You want to talk about a few more squadrons of them and their counter-parts, that would be a start.
I am not trying to argue that the Air Force has some misplaced focus. Fighters at Angels 15 don't do much for me either when it takes 15 mins. talk them on. My issue with this discussion is that the Army does not take CAS seriously either with Rotary Wing which could help fill the gap of capabilities. The Air Force's only mission is not to support the Ground Forces.
"The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace."
Though I see your point with "support of the Ground Troops". Until Congress tells them (us) different...there is a lot of INTENT to be met with those few words. Though it might be implied in your view, it is not clearly stated, support the Army as the, or a, primary mission.
We can banter away about it, but I am on your side. It effects us (ST) just as much, whether with you guys or other units. However, as a guy who has been on both sides of the fence...there is a lot going on here with a lot of good people doing their best to meet those mission requirements. I am telling you from recent experience and exposer that the Air Force is doing what it can to fill the gap between the Air and Ground...more so than the Army is. The Army has not figured out how to keep the few JTACs it produces current and believe it or not, it is not the Air Force's fault. The other 3 services broke the joint code, but the Army is just throwing money and training away at this point as JTAC after JTAC turns into a pumkin after 18 months, apparently from stuborness. Army bubbas have to go through a lot less to get that title than we do as well. Back handed comments about another Service's commitment to the fight are cute, but not accurate.
Looks like we lost one in the last two days who was in the fight helping the Ground Troops. I sure hope the ground guys were doing all they could to support his gun run. Those fighter pilots are doing some insane multi-tasking and don't have the benefit of a battle-buddy/squad/team to make-up for their mistakes. IF they lose SA, they can seriously mess something up or kill themselves. I have a lot of respect for those guys and all that I have met have a lot of respect for us (Ground/SOF).
brownapple
11-28-2006, 05:35
The Air Force's only mission is not to support the Ground Forces.
With the already noted exception of Strategic Nuclear Forces (and air defense of American airspace), it is. Any other interpretation is BULLSHIT. Invented by the USAF (and USAAF before it) to support spending mass amounts of money (and lives) in ways that do not have a strong effect on winning wars. From the 8th Air Force in Europe during WWII to the current B2 bomber, the Air Force has a demonstrated ability to waste money without improving the ability to fight and win wars.
Oh, and just so you don't think this is just a groundpounder talking? The opinion was shared by General Jimmy Doolittle and my father (an F86 fighter jock in Korea).
And if the Air Force is doing so much? Why was it that just a year or so ago, they issued a requirement that only Air Force personnel would be allowed to call air support (fortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld blew that one out of the water)?
BMT (RIP)
11-28-2006, 06:01
I agree with most of what GH has posted.
I can recall one incident in VN. Our FAC's were flying from daylight to dark and we still had targets to hit.
I got the Night FAC squadron to hit a list of targets one night. Pilot was an ole O-3. He bitched about have to walk back to the CP to be briefed. I told him I would meet him at 0800 for coffee and talk about what happened
The first target was something like a dozer,roller and dump trucks.
He couldn't believe how accurate my info was and the next target was just as good.
His comment was" I wonder why the AF doesn't have intel this good". ;-))
The young O-3 OPS O's in the TACC couldn't believe the Army would let an E-8 have so much power controlling TAC Air. I told him it took me 72 hours toget an ARC LIGHT like it did most people.
Army wanted the MOHAWK and knew the AF would cry foul. Army funded the project and the USMC get the plane into production and in the air.
Army got the MOHAK!! ;-))
BMT
From Green Hat:
"With the already noted exception of Strategic Nuclear Forces (and air defense of American airspace), it is. Any other interpretation is BULLSHIT. Invented by the USAF (and USAAF before it) to support spending mass amounts of money (and lives) in ways that do not have a strong effect on winning wars. From the 8th Air Force in Europe during WWII to the current B2 bomber, the Air Force has a demonstrated ability to waste money without improving the ability to fight and win wars."
Regardless what you call it, the DOD disagrees with you as well as the Congress. I get what you are saying that "everyone supports the infantry" thinking, but that is not true all the time. We exist to meet commander's intent. Often that does not mean play a support role to the ground guy...often it is reversed. You want to complain about what goes on in theater you can stare blankly at the who apportions the missions. You will see shades of green. You got a problem with air craft procured look at capitol hill.
Not improved the ability to fight and win wars??? Are you kidding?? You can credit a large decrease in ground casualities to the air guys.
Green Hat wrote:
"And if the Air Force is doing so much? Why was it that just a year or so ago, they issued a requirement that only Air Force personnel would be allowed to call air support (fortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld blew that one out of the water)?"
That is because the Army planned to field JTACs with little to no training. Why? Because SF types out of the fight wrote papers and articles about Soldiers taking over the TAC role because "Airmen" don't have what it takes or the training do the job as well as a "Soldier". What you saw was a defense mechanism by the TACP community, based of of SF arrogance (by some) that they were the only ones trained to fight in austere environments. Evidently some SF leaders tried to convince DOD that we did not have what it took to hang with you. Luckily, most of the guys that worked with us (CCT) felt differently. Even if USASOC did its best to neglect to mention CCT in thier AARs and written hisrories of events in OEF and OIF.
So what does the Army do....starts a school that graduates 60 guys a year (now 90 and it is a good school, I like that it is ground/operator centric). Who are these guys who attend the school??? Some SF (hopefully 18Es since they carry the big radio, but others as well), a Ranger or two, and FOs from both of those. None of these guys are to be JTACs primarily. Add that other services sent a couple of guys here and there. Then top it off with the Army has no system in place to keep their guys current and a hand full of evaluators. Perhaps the TACP guys could help...NOPE, the Army won't let Soldiers be evaluated by Air Force personnel....brilliant...you know why? Because the green machine won't follow the Joint Doctrine that the other services have to use. The Army continues to do more to hurt itself more than anyone else can do.
Tell me, why would a 18D go to SOTACC? Is he going to hump the radio? This last class had 2 of them. With at best 45 guys getting back to the SF Groups a year, how are they supposed to bail out of team training and resposibilies to go get currency calls? The guys I know (SF JTACs) have no idea how they are supposed to. The school house itself does not yet have any active Army evaluators. Retired guys from other services are filling that role (well I might add).
Now half those slots to SOTACC belong to AFSOC. I wonder why.
BMT: read up about the now declassified "Butterfly" missions in SEA and see who were the FACs. Way less rank than E-8 and not in the Army. Look a little further at who was placed into those SF firebases to help when the shit hit the fan.
Ambush Master
11-29-2006, 23:24
Greenhat,
Fair enough with the helo work...not usual for most of the line companies throughout the Army due to lack of helos. In your case at the 101st I should not begin to question your experience, you were in a farely unique position. However, unlike the Marines, Army Company Commanders unfortunately do not attend a school or formal practical training on how to integrate those peices and are not given the reigns to do so without oversight. As well the Army does not generally send Attack Aviation down to the Company level in a CAS role...it simply does not exist. Generally, it belongs to higher headquarters and that is where it recieves its Task and Purpose. The Marines on the other hand use their helos and A/V-8s more like Arty. Much of that having to do with the range of their Arty and what is left of Naval Gun Fire.
(Ground/SOF).
Joe,
I highly suggest that you have a personal moment with your SA and realize exactly where you are!!!
This is a SPECIAL FORCES Forum, and most of the QPs here have called in more aerial artillary than you could ever begin to imagine!!!
I have called in ARC-LIGHTS!!! NO BATALLION LEVEL clearance required, etc!!!
SPORT, you are out of your league in here. I very highly suggest that you "check-up" and withdraw from this encounter.
Do try to take care.
Martin
CoLawman
11-30-2006, 00:25
That is because the Army planned to field JTACs with little to no training. Why? Because SF types out of the fight wrote papers and articles about Soldiers taking over the TAC role because "Airmen" don't have what it takes or the training do the job as well as a "Soldier". What you saw was a defense mechanism by the TACP community, based of of SF arrogance (by some) that they were the only ones trained to fight in austere environments. Evidently some SF leaders tried to convince DOD that we did not have what it took to hang with you. Luckily, most of the guys that worked with us (CCT) felt differently. Even if USASOC did its best to neglect to mention CCT in thier AARs and written hisrories of events in OEF and OIF.
So what does the Army do....starts a school that graduates 60 guys a year (now 90 and it is a good school, I like that it is ground/operator centric). Who are these guys who attend the school??? Some SF (hopefully 18Es since they carry the big radio, but others as well), a Ranger or two, and FOs from both of those. None of these guys are to be JTACs primarily. Add that other services sent a couple of guys here and there. Then top it off with the Army has no system in place to keep their guys current and a hand full of evaluators. Perhaps the TACP guys could help...NOPE, the Army won't let Soldiers be evaluated by Air Force personnel....brilliant...you know why? Because the green machine won't follow the Joint Doctrine that the other services have to use. The Army continues to do more to hurt itself more than anyone else can do.
Tell me, why would a 18D go to SOTACC? Is he going to hump the radio? This last class had 2 of them. With at best 45 guys getting back to the SF Groups a year, how are they supposed to bail out of team training and resposibilies to go get currency calls? The guys I know (SF JTACs) have no idea how they are supposed to. The school house itself does not yet have any active Army evaluators. Retired guys from other services are filling that role (well I might add).
Now half those slots to SOTACC belong to AFSOC. I wonder why.
BMT: read up about the now declassified "Butterfly" missions in SEA and see who were the FACs. Way less rank than E-8 and not in the Army. Look a little further at who was placed into those SF firebases to help when the shit hit the fan.
:mad:
BMT (RIP)
11-30-2006, 05:09
Joe-Boo,
I knew about these program's when they were still classified!!!
When the first Time you heard or knew anything about the RAVEN FAC's, '66 for me.
BMT
brownapple
11-30-2006, 06:30
That is because the Army planned to field JTACs with little to no training. Why? Because SF types out of the fight wrote papers and articles about Soldiers taking over the TAC role because "Airmen" don't have what it takes or the training do the job as well as a "Soldier". What you saw was a defense mechanism by the TACP community, based of of SF arrogance (by some) that they were the only ones trained to fight in austere environments. Evidently some SF leaders tried to convince DOD that we did not have what it took to hang with you. Luckily, most of the guys that worked with us (CCT) felt differently. Even if USASOC did its best to neglect to mention CCT in thier AARs and written hisrories of events in OEF and OIF.
.
The more you post, the more you demonstrate that you have neither a historical or practical view of the subject. Calling CAS is not difficult. Somehow, the Air Force continues to try to make it so. Let's be honest. There aren't enough CCTs and TACPs in the entire Air Force to support a fraction of the ground forces. The Air Force thinks it is so important that they don't provide significant slots or funding for the career field. Any competent FIST can call air. Most (hell, close to all) SF team member can call air. Any Infantry Platoon Leader or Platoon Sergeant can call air.
This isn't anything new. In WWII, the Air Force tried the same shit. It was bullshit then and it is bullshit now (btw, neither the folks in the puzzle palace or Congress actually are the ones that have to fight wars, so their opinion or the malarky they sometimes spout doesn't mean a whole lot to me). It's empire building. The Air Force has a long history of it. Want to convince me otherwise? Show me where the Air Force has ever court-martialed a General Officer. Show me where they actually have enforced UCMJ against GOs(let's look at the multiple Commanders of the Fifth Air Force that were retired for sleeping with their secretaries, shall we?).
Btw, in WWII, the USAAC/USAAF said they would have pilots on the ground and those pilots would be the only ones that could call air support. In the meantime, the Marines were developing a basic system in the Pacific that allowed anyone, right down to a private, to call air support. The USAAF's system proved to be a total flop (although it gets good press in the official USAF history). There simply weren't enough pilots to put on the ground to cover all the units that needed CAS and the pilots may have known how to talk to the pilots but they didn't know shit about ground operations. On the other hand, the Marine system was easily adapted, especially since almost every Army vehicle in Europe had a radio in it that could talk to the Jugs and other CAS aircraft. Pretty quickly, the panels and compass direction/arrow system that the Marines were using so effectively in the Pacific was in use in Europe. And what do you know... Lieutenants, Sergeants and Privates were calling air right smack on top of the enemy. Of course, they didn't get CAS from aircraft actually designed for it (except some from the RAF), they got support mostly from fighters. Light/dive bombers were close to non-existent in the USAAF, medium bombers were mostly used in interdiction and the majority of the USAAFs manpower, budget and effort was wasted in the "strategic bombing" campaign.
Maybe you think your job is tough. I'm sure you are good at it. But don't make the assumption that it can't be done by others without having to go through the training you go through.
Btw, I have a retired AF Chief Master Sergeant as a neighbor. A PJ. He has dealt with a lot of your community, including those people in SE Asia you are so proud of. He wasn't real impressed.
Oh, one more thing, regarding following joint doctrine? When did the Air Force start making their riggers jump? You do know that the Army is the lead agency on airborne operations, don't you? And that part of that doctrine is that riggers will be jump qualified, be on jump status and will jump random chutes they have packed? Who's the lead service for fire support? I'll bet it isn't the Air Force.
Opinions vary...yours is lacking context. I don't claim that CAS should be an AF thing. It does require training...something the green machine is learning the hard way. This isn't Korea or VN... Like it or not you are on the wrong side of this one and the losing side as well. Bitterness is not a admirable attribute.
VN era PJs do not concern me. They were bitter for several reasons. Some valid, most not. Ask a modern PJ, particularly one in a STS what he thinks...get some perspective not assumptions.
As for riggers i will not argue that fact, but it bares no reflection on CCT...CCT up until the 80's were all JMs and riggers coming out of tech. school. Since we often pack our own chutes with rigger oversight...I fail to see your point....I doubt you really had one any way.
As for CCT...you can do your own homework since it is obvious you have never operated with us. Find out who jumped in to OEF and why.
Here is some of what we can talk about... www.specialtactics.com/ccthistory.shtml
that site is run by a PJ...I wounder what he thinks of CCT?
You want to argue on merit, educate yourself on modern CAS. Call down to SOTACC and ask them if the average SF soldier should be calling in CAS with out training...then ask them what they think of CCT.
Opinions vary...yours is lacking context.
I see TR is here.
Pete
The Reaper
11-30-2006, 09:00
I know almost all of the participants in this dogfight, have been to several AF schools, including AGOS, and have spent over six years in joint headquarters, working for and with AF personnel on a daily basis.
This conversation is going to get civil real quick, or I am going to lock it down.
FWIW, I recently observed Joe-Boo in a training course, he is CCT but was a former infantryman. His performance in the course leads me to believe that he was a good grunt. He is a not a bad guy, but has pride in what he does. Consider that when framing your responses and avoid broad negative statements about other services and ad hominem attacks.
Joe, the guys you are arguing with and making assumptions about have served their country honorably and bravely since before you were born, some before your parents were born. They have probably called in more air individually than your unit has collectively. That includes Ambush Master, who has already directed you to tread lightly here. You are a new guest here, people do not know you or your background, and I would remind you that this is an SF owned and operated board. I highly recommend that you follow his advice, keep it civil and be respectful if you want to continue posting here.
This thread was a discussion of the A-10 platform. It has devolved to a commentary on air support and who can call for fire. IMHO, requesting air delivered ordnance is not that much different than calling for indirect fire, except for a requirement to be aware of the effects of the ordnance that you are asking for. That is just my opinion. Continue with the discussion if you wish, but everyone needs to remember to keep it civil.
"Lighten up, Francis."
TR
brownapple
11-30-2006, 11:59
Opinions vary...yours is lacking context. I don't claim that CAS should be an AF thing. It does require training...something the green machine is learning the hard way. This isn't Korea or VN... Like it or not you are on the wrong side of this one and the losing side as well. Bitterness is not a admirable attribute.
VN era PJs do not concern me. They were bitter for several reasons. Some valid, most not. Ask a modern PJ, particularly one in a STS what he thinks...get some perspective not assumptions.
As for riggers i will not argue that fact, but it bares no reflection on CCT...CCT up until the 80's were all JMs and riggers coming out of tech. school. Since we often pack our own chutes with rigger oversight...I fail to see your point....I doubt you really had one any way.
As for CCT...you can do your own homework since it is obvious you have never operated with us. Find out who jumped in to OEF and why.
Here is some of what we can talk about... www.specialtactics.com/ccthistory.shtml
that site is run by a PJ...I wounder what he thinks of CCT?
You want to argue on merit, educate yourself on modern CAS. Call down to SOTACC and ask them if the average SF soldier should be calling in CAS with out training...then ask them what they think of CCT.
I know who runs that site. He's a very good friend of the PJ I mentioned.
The point to the rigger comment was to demonstrate that the Air Force does not follow joint doctrine when it doesn't suit them.
When it comes right down to it, you are just demonstrating exactly what I have been saying. The USAF has taken what is a very simple thing, CAS, and tried to make it as complicated as possible, in order to continue to maintain another area they can have control over.
I agree with TR. Calling air is not anymore difficult than calling fire. In my experience (A-10s, AC-130s, F-105s, F-16s) it is simpler most of the time. Yes, you have to be aware of the capabilities of the ordnance, but that is true of artillary, mortars and naval gunfire as well. Oh, and my entire training for calling air was exactly the same as it was for calling fire. IOBC and SQT.
I disagree...however, it is your forum I will stand down so that the discussion will not be side-tracked any further. I am grateful that I was allowed to offer a different point of view.
Monsoon65
11-30-2006, 20:17
When the first Time you heard or knew anything about the RAVEN FAC's, '66 for me.
For anyone that might be reading this thread still, if you're interested in a great book on The Ravens, here's one:
http://www.amazon.com/Ravens-Flew-Americas-Secret-Laos/dp/0517566125/sr=8-1/qid=1164939508/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7370644-7812967?ie=UTF8&s=books
My last Ops commander while I was stationed in Germany was a Raven. He was the living example of "you don't judge a book by it's cover." Short, bald, unassuming gentleman that had a set of brass ones that clanked in the night. Great CO!