Cessna builds a tactical jet
12-30-2013, 10:16 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
12-30-2013, 11:15 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
I was a Viper Guy in a previous life and flew the Viper over and in Iraq numerous times in my career.
You need an airplane with endurance. This was the biggest problem with the F-16 in this role. You had 1-1.5 on station and then you had to hit the tanker. It made keeping an eye on a slowly developing ground situation difficult.
Ordnance. Although didn't seem to deliver ordnance very often, if we did, we frequently cleared off the rails and wished we had more (and the gas to make more passes).
Avionics: One great advantage of the F-16 was the ability to orbit at altitudes where the bad guys couldn't hear or see us, YET because of the amazing targeting pods we have now, we could see most everything from 15000 ft or even higher DAY OR NIGHT. Made us valuable in the day because of the quiet factor. Also nice because you could drop and JDAM or LGB in from that altitude and no one knew it was coming. Compare that to the way we saw the bad guys scatter every time a helicopter came with a mile.
Training: Because of the "all role" nature of the F-16, I don't think we had a great relationship with the ground forces in theater. However, at least we had boots in theater and could liaison face to face with some of the guys we were working with. The USAF needs to have a specialized air to mud aircraft with dudes who can look the ground commander in the eye between missions and be ultra credible in that role. Otherwise we're just wasting our time.
Drones with dudes in the Springs flying them with no dirt on their boots and no DFAC food in their stomachs do not liaison well with the ground commander. Therefor, they go to the end of the line when the ground CC is looking at options for "fires", or they operate in their own frequently black world and make great videotapes compilations to show us how they're winning the war.
Yet they frequently remain inconsequential to the vast majority of the battlefield fires.
I personally think a manned a/c with great endurance, modern avionics including up to date night capability, fwd operating capability, and a specialized A-G CAS mission is vital and way over due in the USAF. In fact it's an embarrasment that we're just now thinking about it...like 15 years over due for an airplane that could by now be nearing the END of it's service life.
Why the A-10 or a derivative thereof, doesn't fit this role, I'll never know. The USAF has been trying to kill this a/c my entire career and now I'm retired and it's still flying. Wake up dudes! We shoulda bought more and kept them up to date (instead we have a handful of F-22's...brilliant).
You need an airplane with endurance. This was the biggest problem with the F-16 in this role. You had 1-1.5 on station and then you had to hit the tanker. It made keeping an eye on a slowly developing ground situation difficult.
Ordnance. Although didn't seem to deliver ordnance very often, if we did, we frequently cleared off the rails and wished we had more (and the gas to make more passes).
Avionics: One great advantage of the F-16 was the ability to orbit at altitudes where the bad guys couldn't hear or see us, YET because of the amazing targeting pods we have now, we could see most everything from 15000 ft or even higher DAY OR NIGHT. Made us valuable in the day because of the quiet factor. Also nice because you could drop and JDAM or LGB in from that altitude and no one knew it was coming. Compare that to the way we saw the bad guys scatter every time a helicopter came with a mile.
Training: Because of the "all role" nature of the F-16, I don't think we had a great relationship with the ground forces in theater. However, at least we had boots in theater and could liaison face to face with some of the guys we were working with. The USAF needs to have a specialized air to mud aircraft with dudes who can look the ground commander in the eye between missions and be ultra credible in that role. Otherwise we're just wasting our time.
Drones with dudes in the Springs flying them with no dirt on their boots and no DFAC food in their stomachs do not liaison well with the ground commander. Therefor, they go to the end of the line when the ground CC is looking at options for "fires", or they operate in their own frequently black world and make great videotapes compilations to show us how they're winning the war.
Yet they frequently remain inconsequential to the vast majority of the battlefield fires.
I personally think a manned a/c with great endurance, modern avionics including up to date night capability, fwd operating capability, and a specialized A-G CAS mission is vital and way over due in the USAF. In fact it's an embarrasment that we're just now thinking about it...like 15 years over due for an airplane that could by now be nearing the END of it's service life.
Why the A-10 or a derivative thereof, doesn't fit this role, I'll never know. The USAF has been trying to kill this a/c my entire career and now I'm retired and it's still flying. Wake up dudes! We shoulda bought more and kept them up to date (instead we have a handful of F-22's...brilliant).
12-30-2013, 11:37 AM
#54
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,992
I was a Viper Guy in a previous life and flew the Viper over and in Iraq numerous times in my career.
You need an airplane with endurance. This was the biggest problem with the F-16 in this role. You had 1-1.5 on station and then you had to hit the tanker. It made keeping an eye on a slowly developing ground situation difficult.
Ordnance. Although didn't seem to deliver ordnance very often, if we did, we frequently cleared off the rails and wished we had more (and the gas to make more passes).
Avionics: One great advantage of the F-16 was the ability to orbit at altitudes where the bad guys couldn't hear or see us, YET because of the amazing targeting pods we have now, we could see most everything from 15000 ft or even higher DAY OR NIGHT. Made us valuable in the day because of the quiet factor. Also nice because you could drop and JDAM or LGB in from that altitude and no one knew it was coming. Compare that to the way we saw the bad guys scatter every time a helicopter came with a mile.
Training: Because of the "all role" nature of the F-16, I don't think we had a great relationship with the ground forces in theater. However, at least we had boots in theater and could liaison face to face with some of the guys we were working with. The USAF needs to have a specialized air to mud aircraft with dudes who can look the ground commander in the eye between missions and be ultra credible in that role. Otherwise we're just wasting our time.
Drones with dudes in the Springs flying them with no dirt on their boots and no DFAC food in their stomachs do not liaison well with the ground commander. Therefor, they go to the end of the line when the ground CC is looking at options for "fires", or they operate in their own frequently black world and make great videotapes compilations to show us how they're winning the war.
Yet they frequently remain inconsequential to the vast majority of the battlefield fires.
I personally think a manned a/c with great endurance, modern avionics including up to date night capability, fwd operating capability, and a specialized A-G CAS mission is vital and way over due in the USAF. In fact it's an embarrasment that we're just now thinking about it...like 15 years over due for an airplane that could by now be nearing the END of it's service life.
Why the A-10 or a derivative thereof, doesn't fit this role, I'll never know. The USAF has been trying to kill this a/c my entire career and now I'm retired and it's still flying. Wake up dudes! We shoulda bought more and kept them up to date (instead we have a handful of F-22's...brilliant).
You need an airplane with endurance. This was the biggest problem with the F-16 in this role. You had 1-1.5 on station and then you had to hit the tanker. It made keeping an eye on a slowly developing ground situation difficult.
Ordnance. Although didn't seem to deliver ordnance very often, if we did, we frequently cleared off the rails and wished we had more (and the gas to make more passes).
Avionics: One great advantage of the F-16 was the ability to orbit at altitudes where the bad guys couldn't hear or see us, YET because of the amazing targeting pods we have now, we could see most everything from 15000 ft or even higher DAY OR NIGHT. Made us valuable in the day because of the quiet factor. Also nice because you could drop and JDAM or LGB in from that altitude and no one knew it was coming. Compare that to the way we saw the bad guys scatter every time a helicopter came with a mile.
Training: Because of the "all role" nature of the F-16, I don't think we had a great relationship with the ground forces in theater. However, at least we had boots in theater and could liaison face to face with some of the guys we were working with. The USAF needs to have a specialized air to mud aircraft with dudes who can look the ground commander in the eye between missions and be ultra credible in that role. Otherwise we're just wasting our time.
Drones with dudes in the Springs flying them with no dirt on their boots and no DFAC food in their stomachs do not liaison well with the ground commander. Therefor, they go to the end of the line when the ground CC is looking at options for "fires", or they operate in their own frequently black world and make great videotapes compilations to show us how they're winning the war.
Yet they frequently remain inconsequential to the vast majority of the battlefield fires.
I personally think a manned a/c with great endurance, modern avionics including up to date night capability, fwd operating capability, and a specialized A-G CAS mission is vital and way over due in the USAF. In fact it's an embarrasment that we're just now thinking about it...like 15 years over due for an airplane that could by now be nearing the END of it's service life.
Why the A-10 or a derivative thereof, doesn't fit this role, I'll never know. The USAF has been trying to kill this a/c my entire career and now I'm retired and it's still flying. Wake up dudes! We shoulda bought more and kept them up to date (instead we have a handful of F-22's...brilliant).
For some reason A2G is very low on the list of what's "cool" to senior AF leadership. I guess they're clinging to the A2A glory days in hopes that China will make it relevant again?
Maybe the Low in High-Low should be more ground and less air-centric?
The AF has a doctrinal responsibility to support ground forces and for some reason big DOD lets them shirk on that.
12-30-2013, 12:36 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 255
1 Seat 1 Engine,
You nailed it. CAS is more than a mission or platform, it's a culture. Your post speaks to the intangibles lost when a dedicated platform and cadre of experience leaves the force.
Thanks from a Hog guy.
You nailed it. CAS is more than a mission or platform, it's a culture. Your post speaks to the intangibles lost when a dedicated platform and cadre of experience leaves the force.
Thanks from a Hog guy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
turk
Flight Schools and Training
29
01-13-2012 05:58 AM
