The AF Chief of Staff's statement regarding close air support and his contention that "destroying the mass of an enemy’s air force (the second echelon, known to most as the reserve) saves the most lives on the ground and at sea" begs a question....luckily, one supplied by Paralus.
After you've destroyed the enemy's air forces, what do you plan on doing with that shiny Air Force of yours if the enemy doesn't surrender and continues to engage our forces on the ground?Good question.
My guess.
Have the Air Force equivalent of a LCpl wash and wax it.
NOTE: I used the F-35 as the image for this post to illustrate the obvious. The A-10 is about to be retired early to pay for it, but will you put the F-35 in the weeds? Will you do firepower demonstrations with it to stay within the rules of engagement? Will pilots take a 100 Million Dollar plus plus fighter within anti-aircraft gun range to support troops on the ground? The answer is obvious. Some will. They'll be putting their careers at risk, will damage their airplane, will save lives and will be drummed out of the AF because they did what their leadership refused to do. Those Airmen will keep faith with the ground forces and let it all hang out to help. If leaders select those like them for advancement (which is true) then I would expect those type of Airmen (fly guys) to be fewer and fewer.
Hahaha poorly thought out, condescending question...that begs the obvious response...
ReplyDeleteStrike Command & Control, Logistics, Armor, Motor T and Massed Troops.
;)
Let's assume our enemy is intelligent and doesn't want to see his armor, troops or transport assets destroyed. He hides them, decentralizes them, moves them only during night, low clouds and fog. Or maybe underneath triple canopy forests.
ReplyDeleteLet's assume his logistics are prepositioned or underground.
Let's assume his C&C 'sites' are really bogus antenna farms meant to be JDAM bait.
What then?
300000 Chinese soldiers 'infiltrated' across the Yalu and into superior positions to attack, during Winter, without our forces knowing a thing.
the Vietcong moved hundreds of thousands of soldiers, millions of tons of fuel, ammo and equipment almost
unhindered.for over a decade.
Germans massed Four Army-sized units worth of troops and tanks in preparation for Unternehmung Wacht am Rhein took place when flying conditions were suitable without the Army Air Corps noticing.
Kosovo and watching Yugoslav force withdraw, intact and in good order, after our 'devastating' precision air campaign
We can't always expect our enemies to be incompetent Arab armies.
Armor, Motor transport and Troop formations. Ground targets. The trick is where we target them: en route to the battlefield or on the battlefield. Based on our track record, I'd say ON the battlefield e.g. CAS is the better option because the enemy has to reveal himself to engage with our forces.
Thanks for the unrelated breakdown General Obvious.
DeleteThe question was what would the US Air Force focus on after taking out an enemy air force.
Not what would the challenges be. ;/
Well,Solomon,i hate being that guy,but fast jets have been doing CAS for more than 40 years.
ReplyDeleteIn Vietnam,the A-7 Corsair became famous for providing CAS,and,at least in one ocasion ,the Corsair hit enemy troops at about 75ft(23m) of friendly forces.In todays battlefield fast jets have even more ability to perform CAS than ever(ROVER,targeting pods,PGMs ,etc).
What does the A-10 have that an F-16 an A-7 or an F-35 does not have?
The answer to that is more complicated than most people realise and its a combination of factours:
-The A-10 is cheap to buy,to operate and to repair...its cheap all the way.
-It can operate from rustic airfields
-It can «kill things» in a cheap way(cannon,rockets).Fast jets can also do this ,but as you pointed out,they risk being shoot down.
-It can use the same PGMs that fast jets use.
-The cannon is better than bombs or rockets if the enemy is too close to friendly troops(blast radius and all that)
-It can perform more passings over a target that fast jets(important if target is a convoy of vehicles or a formation of soviet tanks)
The problem with the F-35 is not its performance at the CAS mission.In the future,the JSF will perform this mission much better than the A-7(minus the sortie rate).The elephant in the room is the fact that the USAF and the USN do not need this plane.The USAF should buy more F-22s and continue upgrading and buying advanced F-15s and F-16s.The F-35 does not have the performance,the range or the payload of the Strike Eagle...it costs 2x as much than an advanced F-16(if you are lucky).
In the 1980s the USAF concluded that only a surpercruising,superagile stealth aircraft could perform day one missions against the Flanker,Fulcrum fighters and the SA-10(s-300) family of SAMs.30 years later, whem all those designs mattured and are much more deadly, the USAF says that the JSF will be enough to deal with those systems...when we all know than the only way a strike fighter will survive that without being the F-22 is by flying fast and low and deliver stand-off ordenace.If its to launch JASSMs against China,what better than a Strike Eagle,or a B-52/B-1B?If its to attack Syria,Lybia or some african country what better planes than the F-16/A-10?
The USN also does not need anouther strike fighter.They need a new COD and a new fixed wing ASW aircraft.Bouth missions can be performed by the same airframe.Either new build S-3s or new buids C-2s...
The USMC would be in more trouble if the JSF was canceled.I really liked the F-35B,untill i found out that it cant operate from roads,forests,container ships,perking lots...the usual places for a Harrier to hide during WW3.But if so,the USMC does not need the F-35 B...it needs the SuperHornet,the OV-10X SuperBronco and(lets pretend that the line ,the tooling and the engineers are all available) a Super Harrier,like the proposed ASTOL fighter proposed in late 1980...(basically a supersonic Harrier).
But to end this,the US Army is going down the same road.Its retiring the Kiowas and replacing them with the Apache to save money!!!!!!!
P.S-Interesting reading of a F-16/A-10 pilot on why you do need the A-10: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/ireton.html .
It is a must read article on this debate
"The elephant in the room is the fact that the USAF and the USN do not need this plane.The USAF should buy more F-22s and continue upgrading and buying advanced F-15s and F-16s."
DeleteI completely agree.
Keep in mind, there used to be a lot of planes in the inventory like the A-4, A-6, A-7...and they all flew around 600 knots or slower. They were all great attack planes, but not because they could fly 600 kts, but because they couldn't fly faster than 600 kts.
DeleteAlso when precision was needed AD-1 was the no.1 choice. Jets that are able to go supersonic are by design(high low speed,poor handlng at low speeds) fast for CAS
DeleteIn the mean time other countries with capable airforce generals will be able to hide and deploy from rustic routes cheap and excellent Cas airplanes and helicopters and to attack ground enemy forces with out problems flying fast an low.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=aEeOK1P-0gc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Btw, what about if that enemy airforce is not that incompetent and is able to keep In thr air a lot of of cheap very maneauverable airplanes with IRST sensors and missiles and a great P/T ratio to evade the few missiles the F-35 could carry? How are they going to do CAS to support their troops in a real war evading those cheap airplanes?
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=5847b_VFPCw&sns=em
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the our F-35 fleet will be able to hard point up and destroy tanks by the thousands. I also think that that doing so wont be their main priority in the first 3 days of a war, which is when ground forces need them the most. The A-10 isn't just a cheap aircraft its highly specialized to be really good at CAS. Ive seen dozens of pictures of the damaged A-10s that took what the enemy could dish out and survived. Its a frigging gladiator.
ReplyDeleteIf the Air force is determined to retire the A-10 they should give them to the Army. The attack helicopters are great but they just don't have the speed, altitude, payload versatility or close range damage resilience of the A-10. Its a capability the military shouldn't lose.
This Real CAS rude airplane will still in production doing what the F-35 wont be able to provide to the troops in the ground, a lot of bang very close to the action.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg8qOcIAUQA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
"After you've destroyed the enemy's air forces, what do you plan on doing with that shiny Air Force of yours if the enemy doesn't surrender and continues to engage our forces on the ground?"
ReplyDeleteIts a very big question, couched in a way that forces a narrow answer.
Because you've already decided that the ground forces are going to pile headlong in to the enemy and expect the airforce to save them
Let the enemy continue to engage, when they do, retreat. Let them try and mount an ongoing multi division level assault with stealth logistics.
"After we've destroyed the enemy's air forces, what do we plan on doing?"
Send in the infantry is an answer to that question, but its not the only answer, and asking how the airforce intends to support the PBI doesnt address that reality.
its a very simple question but one the USAF doesn't want to answer.
Deletethey're building an AF that is only capable of fighter sweeps and interdiction. that's it. they can go after enemy air forces. they can strike command and control nodes. they can attack infrastructure. in essence they can do the big dreams of AF planners from WW2 but when it comes to doing close air support they're put up a big ass out of business sign.