Let's have a real talk about the USAF in Afghanistan.
1. The logistics effort that they're pumping forward is second to none. I highly doubt that any other air force in the world could come close to even matching half the effort.
2. The high tech medical evacuation effort is second to none. Again, I doubt that any other air force could match it.
3. The USAF Security Forces, EOD teams and Medical Staffs are doing outstanding work.
That's the good. But where are the A-10's? Why isn't the USAF filling the skies with these airplanes? This question is asked with acknowledgement of the desires of the ground forces...they want persistence. They want accuracy. They want long loiter periods.
That would seem to be covered with the A-10C. If Wikipedia is to believed then the USAF has 13 squadrons of these magnificent airplanes with about half of those in the Guard and Reserve.
But numbers and squadrons aren't the real question. The real question is this. If the A-10 isn't useful for the war in Afghanistan then it will never be useful.
Just like 1st Tanks in the US Marines, its time to get these squadrons FULLY into the fight.
I've read in multiple places about how much the AF Command has always hated the A-10 and sought to marginalize it and its very critical role so this development doesnt surprise me at all.
ReplyDeleteThe AirForce hates dedicated ground attack aircraft. They want fighters and attack/fighters... not aircraft like the A10. Its just frustrating that regardless of there desire not to use these aircraft used they insist on disallowing the Army from using them either. The last two times that the AirForce tried retiring them the Army offered to take them over, supply the pilots, and maintain the logistic support. The AirForce has killed so many Army attempts to further close air support options, while they themselves run away from that mission role.
ReplyDeleteHates dedicated ground attack aircraft?! B-1? B-2? B-52? F-15E is nearly dedicated.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF wanted to get rid of the A-10 because they felt it was a flying target for Soviet IADS during the Cold War and to save money as part of the drawdown afterwards.
We ARE using A-10s in Afghanistan. However there are only so many aircraft we can support in theater. They require a large logistics tail.
"This question is asked with acknowledgement of the desires of the ground forces...they want persistence. They want accuracy. They want long loiter periods."
ReplyDeleteWith the exception of accuracy, how will the F-35 fit the other two requirements? This is not an attempt to start a flame war, it is just something that doesn't make much sense. The A-10 has been proven a success over and over and it fills a different niche than the F-16 in the ground support role and yet the F-35 is expected to fill both roles.
@B.Smitty The "A" in A-10 stands for something, "attack", as in as much as the F22 is focuse on air superiority an attack fighter should be focused on close air support. Your first 3 examples are bombers... not ground attack fighters... they can't readily provide close air support. The F-15, is the old air supperiority fighter if its doing close air support its only because its no longer suited for true air supperiority, but that doesn't make it the most suitable for close air support. Close air support demands low speed maneuverability not mach 2.7.
ReplyDelete@Privateer454 The close air support role of an attack fighter is the one role I have serious doubts about the F-35 being able to fullfill. For this mission role the plan is just simply to equip F35 with a large quantity of smaller munitions, similar to those caried on UAVs. That only begs the question if larger volumes of dedicated and persistant support from UAVs would be supperior to F35s in this role?
ReplyDeleteJeffrey,
ReplyDeleteEvery strike aircraft in the USAF inventory, with the exception of the B-2, has provided CAS regularly for many years now.
The F-15E is a strike fighter with primarily an A2G mission set. It only carries AAMs for self defense. Aircraft don't need an "A" in their designation to perform CAS. It is a mission, not an aircraft type.
It does NOT demand low speed maneuverability.
@B.Smitty While its true that fighters not solely dedicated to the CAS mission role can conduct such missions it is at a significantly higher cost, the cheapest such munition $300K. A-10s and AC-130s are dependent on the higher cost per mission. The difference between a dedicated ground attack craft and a bomber or other fighter just equipped secondarily for the role is that it operates in a truely tactical scope... not operational, not strategic... as the military defines them. A B-1, a B-2, and a F-15's notion of CAS it to fire guided munitions where some one points and leave. A-10s and aircraft completely dedicated to that role are expected to have a higher persistent presence. The lack of CAS and attack aircraft, on the part of the Air Force is why the Army uses Apaches and armed helicopters.
ReplyDeleteWithout low speed maneuverability CAS is dependent on guided munitions, which is in turn dependent on specialized teams with target designation equipement. Also this sort of target designation struggles to target moving and fleeing targets. Even then the Air Force has a poor time to delivery record, only emphasizing the lack of necessary CAS.
It is a fact that the Army wants more of the A10, its a fact that they want more gunships... and its a fact to get the type of CAS they want they rely on helicopters and are looking more and more to drones to fulfill that need. If the Air Force truely and completely met its obligations to provide fixed wing CAS, the Army wouldn't need to go through so many backwards ways of achieving it. There have been too many instances of the Army waiting 30+min for CAS. Having CAS capabilities on aircraft is not the same as having the quantity and capabilities necessary for adequete CAS.
I believe there is a place for the F35, which is what this article is about. I think it gives flexibility and utility. I just don't believe it is as good in this specific role as legacy aircraft.