Comments on: Hey AF! Where’s the Air Support?

By: jamez

jamez — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:57:47 +0000

The problem with the flying military is a total lack of effective communication,
Generals are afraid to make immediate decisions for fear of not getting the next promotion.
In the interim, soldiers die for nothing.
Civilian politics stifles military effectiveness.

By: TJRedneck

TJRedneck — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:52:05 +0000

Look, we have always learned the hard way that in every war we have been in, we NEED an aircraft that can hang around for long periods of time or that can be stationed close, so that if the grunts need help, it’s there quickly. I’m sorry but the F-35 can not do that, with the exception that the model the Marines will use can be stationed close, but it can not hang around for long periods of time. The A-10 is perfect for this role. Maybe the F-35 can replace the AV8B, F-16, F-18, but not the A-10, no way. When I hear how the F-35 is a jack of all trades, I am reminded of the F-111 debacle. I gaurantee you that we will learn the hard way when we mothball all of these aircraft and go soley with the F-35. Just for the record, I don’t believe that it can stand up to the SU-35 either. I am not against having the F-35, I am just against being totally dependant on it for CAS. I would like to see a new attack aircraft with the firepower of the A-10 and the ability to hang around for long periods of time.

By: CB

CB — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:58:59 +0000

Any reference to F22’s in this debate is pointless…F22’s are for air dominance, which we had on day one in OEF. Just because they haven’t been used doesn’t mean they don’t serve a purpose. How many Abrams tanks are being used in OEF? If the answer is “none” does that mean we should get rid of them? No…
Providing 24/7 CAS for every unit in a country the size of Afghanistan is not physically possible regardless of budget or what service the a/c belong to or numbers of a/c.

By: TSGT AIRMAN

TSGT AIRMAN — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:31:40 +0000

Hang on, I’ll get you the CAS, as soon as I get done with my CBT training, then get put on the Cert roster, and don’t forget to get guidance from Training and QA.

By: David Ostling

David Ostling — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:50:09 +0000

The United States has the ability, resources, knowledge, skill, manpower, and means to locate and neutralize terrorism. The war against terrorism needs to be high priority a multinational effort. Are we doing enough to protect our troops?

By: Clyde

Clyde — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:50:09 +0000

Just for arguement's sake: Suppose, for every $200 million aircraft, we had an equivalent buy in crop dusters? Could we deploy enough crop dusters to give every division it's own "air force"? Every Brigade? Maybe, even every battalion or company? Sure, they don't fly fast, but they'd be close enough to compensate and under local command. Plus, a barnyard mechanic can fix a piston-cylender engine, which are the only parts the desert dust would wear out, vs a turbine engine, which desert dust fouls, often irrepairably, and requires a well trained maintainance crew. As for the actual fighting, close coordination with ground troops can suppress RPG gunners and the like, to some extent, and coordination is what it's all about. We're fighting an enemy that doesn't have an air force. If it flies, it's got air superiority. The ticket is numbers, vs high tech "fire brigade" air squadrons that are just going to run up huge maintainance bills pounding the air traffic lanes and never be on site, soon enough. Once we establish local control, ground convoys can take the burden off the CH-47 supply: piston engines. Counter-insurgent warfare is a close, dirty, personal sort of thing, and the new doctrine says "be everywhere at once". Cheap, robust aircraft is the only way to support that, because high tech expenses just makes attrition work against us, all the faster, and attrition is Osama's whole strategy. Additionally, "winning hearts and minds" is essentail,but just avoiding collateral damage isn't even half of it. A Russian LT. in the 1980's developed a good relationship with the locals, provided protection from "bandits", food, fuel and sat in on local disputes. He got good intelligence and played a winning hand at ambush-counter ambush with the local mujihideen. Because he was there,and established himself as the local authority, who wasn't going away, and who could win the local game of bushwacking. As collateral damage, he got good enough intelligence from his trustees to know where to hit. He wasn't the typical Soviet commander. But, he was a good one. He didn't have any air craft. HE also didn't have a Halibourton, Civil Affairs burocracy building schools with no teachers-he just listened to the local gripes and improvised out of company stores. His own burocracy couldn't have cared less for his strategy. So, OK, we're not going to get Snoopy's Sopwith Camel out of mothballs, but I hope I've made a point. I figure that our time to prove ourselves to Afgahnistan is long gone, but, giving notice that any terrorist group can bomb NYC and get away with it, if they are persistant enough, isn't good, either. Also, it's not Afgahnistan that we're at war with, it's the Taliban. The 140,000 man Russian 40th Army wound up at war with Afgahnsitan, after they'd killed, maimed or dislocated about half the population, and they lost. Spread out, hold and choke is a good idea, sort of like the Boer War, but nobody can afford enough expensive hardware to do that. I don't know. A couple Huey Cobras to beat up a 20 man insurgent team at the company level would make me feel better than an F-16, 100 miles away. Just my thoughts, which I'm sure won't go anywhere.

By: Ken Lonewolf

Ken Lonewolf — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:24:05 +0000

Time to roll out the old AD Skyraider aircraft. Good for loiter and they can be called in for fights. They have already been paid for. They are rugged and can survive a lot of battle damage. Put mini-guns under the wings.

Also, someone made a very good suggestion on the the use of mothballed F-5 light-weight fighters. They are cheap and they are fast. They can carry mini-guns as well as other guns. You don’t need sophistication in a down and dirty brawl!

Another suggestion is to train Air Force NCOs and Army NCOs and Warrant Officers to fly these fighters. Marine NCOs as well! It doesn’t take a college grad to fly an airplane.
British NCO pilots were very instrumental in holding off the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian in WW2.
If we had relied on college grads to fly American planes in World War Two, we would have lost the war. Plus many of today’s Army chopper pilots are Warrant Officers. The Air Force hasn’t had Warrant Officers for decades. At least the Army pilots and Marine pilots would be familiar with talking to the grunts on the ground.

In war, you have got to do what is necessary to win. Screw military bureaucratic BS! Do what you have to do in order to get the job done. Quit wasting the taxpayers money! As well as the lives of our people on the ground!

This suggestion would provide a whole lot more pilots in a hurry, and save money, as well, since these NCOs and Warrant Officers have already been through basic training and a lot more.

I know that I will get a lot of “establishment” flak on this one!

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:29:13 +0000

Gordon, you think the navy/marines should just absorb the air force then? talk about a low down power grab in the midst of a tragedy. i assume you think the navy/marine cas is perfect then by nature of having marine/navy on the side of the bird. i can put together a list of stuff they fed up also if you want. im curious you haven’t served have you?

By: mike j

mike j — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:04:36 +0000

Okay, Cole,

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here…

Just a few thoughts as they cross my mind:

What Afghan Army?

Seems the traditional way the Afghans fight already works well enough for them.

Why let the enemy have any advantage? We’ve got the stuff, so let’s use it (when it makes sense), and, keep finding ways to use it better.

Assuming there will be an Afghan Army for our troops to hand off to, yes, if they call air support, we should trust them. Seems like a very hypothetical case at this point, though.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:03:54 +0000

The situation the Marines faced in that ambush is exactly why the Air Force mission needs to be changed. All close air support should be provide by Navy/Marine Corps air assets…CAS is part of the training every pilot in both branches trains for. All decisions to render CAS should be made by the Navy/Marine Corps command structure…a much smaller vertical command structure than now exists.

S/F Gordon

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:36:27 +0000

chris, I hear you, but realistically, when we bail will the Afghan Army have access to 15 minute or much of ANY air support? Would we trust for calls for air support the same way we would a JTAC?

If we are trying to train the Afghan Army how to fight without us, is teaching them dependence on airpower or even artillery such a great idea?

By: chris

chris — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:20:50 +0000

Gents, the AF has done great things for the force (no i’m not in the AF, army all the way)but no doubt there are some serious problems right now and all starts from the head shed. Guys on the ground are being hamstringed as the jerks in the “chair” are making decisions for guys on the ground. In addition, its obvious maybe we dont have enough platforms in theater to service the request. But keep in mind it is impossible to provide air to every patrol all the time, that is unrealistic so please use some common sense. One thing that I want to point out that many will not agree. We are becoming dangerously to dependent on airpower in this fight. trust me i enjoy calling in air but we act like we cannot fight UW without it. ALCON are unhappy with 10–15 min response time, and I understand why. consider the platforms involved and then the restraints from higher, and the nature of the conflict. Bottom-line there will never be a definitive answer.

We are making huge mistakes with procurment and development of a bonified ground support aircraft. the A-10 perfect for this role but like many have said its not sexy. I also like the idea of using a B-52/B-1 with 250lbs ordance, it would seem like an endless store up top. remember the AF budget might be bigger or perceived to take a large portion of the budget because it is expensive to build, maintain and deploy aircraft. This problem is not difficult to solve just takes someone with common sense, with a pair of “sacks” to make the right decision. However, one thing needs to change is the guys on the ground need to have a say in this fight to often the GO’s muff this up.

By: Tony Conner

Tony Conner — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:58:42 +0000

Sounds like it’s time to roll the USAF back into the USA. The US Army developed air power for CAS and it was expanded to strategic bombing. Now there is no strategic bombing being used and there isn’t enough CAS. The troops since WWII rely on CAS, not 10 or 15 minutes away, but orbiting in their box. Drones armed with missiles can go a long way to help in this situation.

By: Thedarknte

Thedarknte — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:12:22 +0000

Like an oldie but goodie, USAF wants the whole sand box for themselves.…the take…take…and take. I say give the Army back its planes it knows what it needs! USMC does not really have this problem as our job is CAS! But the USAF wants all the glory so they take all the funds from other services for new toys they dont even use in a war! A Marine air winger knows what a grunt needs. The simple solution is to have CAS cover for all operations going on! If you want to win this war…take the muzzle off the dog and let him really attack!!!

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:14:48 +0000

for robertro2 et al;
That would be the ideal, but
1. Murphy’s version of reality says that the F16 on station will get called to support someone else just before it gets hot on your patrol.
2. with patrols going out in everything down to the squad level, you just don’t have enough aircraft…not just a hit on the USAF, but all mil aircraft, but especially helicopters…
again check out http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:08:52 +0000

As an addendum to the below I’d recommend folks to check out Michael Yon’s site and read up on what he has to say…

There is a “conflict of opinion” as to what commanders on the ground want, available force levels in Afghanistan and the global demands on the force. Army flag officers have told him that they want two F-16s for every battalion out there. The Air Force cannot produce that, he said. There are just not enough people.

By: Berzer 6

Berzer 6 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:16:18 +0000

VNCcc

Good Post.

Great thread, except for the dumbasses who seem to keep trying to move off topic.

Support the troops.

By: Boliche

Boliche — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:56:04 +0000

Since there is a large concern for collateral damage, why not smarten up 100 and 250 lbs bombs. Why put a 2000 lbs bomb on an individual or a small grouping?

For that matter, if it is loiter you want, use a B-52 to with such a load. With the proper hanging system in the bomb bay, it would seem like there was a bomb factory up there.

By: robertro2

robertro2 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:29:24 +0000

I agree 100% with (cabgx2),you have troops out on a mission,there should be close air support..no lag time to commit A/C …if these “generals“have a better plan for air support lets hear a good one…my plan is to put a “general” with all missions,then you will see the air support…

By: El Coqui

El Coqui — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:24:33 +0000

10 to 15 minutes is a joke.

David:

How to said this nicely. You are the poster boy of why a little knowledge is dangerous. You understand that the Buffaloes and the Swordfish fell to then modern fighter support and that a COIN scenario presumes that we own everything that flies, right? During the same world war, P-47 and F4U Corsairs did a sterling job in CAS with the A1E Skyraider emerging as the premiere propeller driven CAS aircraft.

Any new prop driven aircraft would be at the A1E level, no aircraft’s that were obsolete before the start of WWII.

So going back to our main discussion, we need air support that can be managed at the lowest command levels. When the AF maintains such out of touch metrics, they are at risk of writing themselves into irrelevance.