rickair7777

UAS certainly have their niche in ISR and specialized strike/CAS missions in UNCONTESTED airspace. But it's going to take a very long time for them to supplant manned aircraft in other critical roles. The human mind just provides too much flexibility and adaptability. While airline managers probably think those are bad traits in a pilot, military operations are all about adaptability.

Even when/if the technical capability exists, integration will be slow and measured due to uncertainty as to exactly how the enemy might exploit weaknesses in comms links and on-board AI.

And just like airlines, the cost of the technology to actually replace human military pilots with an equivalent level of safety and effectiveness far outweighs the cost of human pilots. By "safety" in the military context I mean acceptable RTF/RTM. If all your drones get hacked and nose-dive into the desert on the first wave you may not have lost any human pilots, but I'll bet the commander would consider that unacceptable RTM and RTF.

Fluglehrer

...and if you make no attempt to understand that mind, the kinetic responses will frequently be ineffective -- manned or unmanned.

Our enemies have had great success implanting an ideology into the minds and hearts of their fighters. Meanwhile, we in the U.S. are tripping over the detrious of Western Civilization as PC/MC is dissolving over two thousand years of accumulated cultural knowledge.

badflaps

In other words...They're better at B.S.ing

T45Heinous

Yes and no, USMC deploys land based F/A-18Ds and EA-6Bs. While they have a tailhook and are obviously carrier capable, they deploy with no intent or currency in shipboard operations.

Which brings up a whole other issue with why USMC must have only have carrier capable fixed wing aviation, when they haven't assaulted amphibiously in 50+ years! The wars of the past 20 years have all been land based with large supply bases and airfields...(but anyway I digress....)[/QUOTE]

Ummm...I think I remarked that the Deltas and Prowlers were carrier capable, just not current in shipboard ops (CQ'd)!
Plus I don't think any CAG that would prefer kick out one of his squadrons from the airwing in order to get deckspace for another Marine squadron and the time and logisitics and training to get it integrated into the Airwing...(plus you would have to have that squadron attend all the Airwing certs....and all of that mess)

The argument about the matting and arresting gear is good hypothetically, but as you know, the logistics and lift required to get that matting in place is ENORMOUS...those mats weigh a metric ass-ton, and its never proven to be a tactical advantage when you factor in all logistics involved! And when we tried it in Afghanistan, I think the Harriers were ordered back to the airbase within days due to operational limitations and FOD incidents. Those Pegasus engines don't like FOD, which is kind of ironic considering their intended use....

T45Heinous

Speaking of validating the A-10....I was talking with the spouse of a AF A-10 driver and she was telling me about this party they went to that had a lot of SEAL team folks in attendance. In addition, there was a few Viper guys and a Raptor bubba, and all the SEAL guys wanted to do was talk shop with the A-10 guy. I just don't see how any other platform in our inventory is going to give the boots on the ground the "warm fuzzy" that a low slow whistling s'can of death can give...they have the history to back up their claim of being the pre-eminant CAS platform. Being able to see with you own eyes that there is a pilot in that plane putting his/her ass on the line to help is an invaluable force multiplier. Just my .02!

USMCFLYR

Ummmm.....I know you said they had tailhooks and I'm not debating that or the fact that they are not currently qual'ed. I believe you took my NOT expeditionary in the eyes of the MAGTF comment as only concerning carrier operations and I said that you had forgotten expeditionary field operations.
I'd like to think that the USN wouldn't want those Marines in their Air Wings either , but for my entire career there have been Marine Hornet and Prowler squadrons attached to the East and West Coast Air Wings

My unit installed Field Arresting Gear at Al Asad during OIF II. Nice long runway - but they still wanted the *expeditionary* arresting gear there for contingency operations. It is trained and practiced at every large scale training event involving MWSSs. AM-2 matting is another matter though uses for it are still in the plans T45 - notably Korea.

The fact that an A-10 can not operate the carrier or from a very short expeditionary field makes it NOT expeditionary in the eyes of the MAGTF. That is a big problem with the 'expeditionary mindset of the USMC'. That is all I said.

Different aircraft for different missions. As you say, that "low slow whistling s'can of death" is awesome in the area AOR under the right threat conditions. Don't get lulled into fighting the past wars - isn't that always one of the lessons learned of history? There are other environments where that region is not going to be permissible. According the the book 'Warthogs in the Gulf', after some initial losses in the both the A-10 and OV-10 platforms they were forced up high with the many of the other communities and at the time didn't have the targeting capabilities that exist today.

I'm not fan of the F-35 - and certainly NOT the F-35B - but the A-10 will be replaced eventually. Hopefully by something better. I'm sure the P-47 pilots of WWII didn't think there was any aircraft that could come close in performing ground attack and then we came along with the A-1 Skyraider (one of my personal favorites), then comes the A-10!

T45Heinous

Ummm...I'm done saying ummmm...!
Alphas and Chucks yes, Delta's no...and Marine Prowlers?? Never heard of them in an Airwing...once they CQ, they won't see the back of the ship again...(unless its some sort of extraordinary circumstance).

[/QUOTE]
My unit installed Field Arresting Gear at Al Asad during OIF II. Nice long runway - but they still wanted the *expeditionary* arresting gear there for contingency operations. It is trained and practiced at every large scale training event involving MWSSs. AM-2 matting is another matter though uses for it are still in the plans T45 - notably Korea.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, not debating the arresting gear, its great to have with a blown mainmount, no doubt!

[/QUOTE]
The fact that an A-10 can not operate the carrier or from a very short expeditionary field makes it NOT expeditionary in the eyes of the MAGTF. That is a big problem with the 'expeditionary mindset of the USMC'. That is all I said.
[/QUOTE]

The A-10 is just as expeditionary as the F/A-18D and EA-6B save the tailhook.

Different aircraft for different missions. As you say, that "low slow whistling s'can of death" is awesome in the area AOR under the right threat conditions. Don't get lulled into fighting the past wars - isn't that always one of the lessons learned of history? There are other environments where that region is not going to be permissible. According the the book 'Warthogs in the Gulf', after some initial losses in the both the A-10 and OV-10 platforms they were forced up high with the many of the other communities and at the time didn't have the targeting capabilities that exist today.

Sure, everyone was forced high, but eventually the A-10 came down, and did its thing. We have seen in all modern conflicts over the past 20 years that after the first days, sometimes a week, all fixed SAM sites will be nuetralized leaving mobile double digits SAs and MANPADS. In the conflicts that we have seen, those inventories are quickly depleted and/or neutralized as well, through tactics and targeting, again allowing us to operate in the low environment. Of course future conflicts will be different, I'm not arguing that at all...but I believe that an A-10 or similar type aircraft will have a steady job wherever/however we choose to employ it.

I'm not fan of the F-35 - and certainly NOT the F-35B - but the A-10 will be replaced eventually. Hopefully by something better. I'm sure the P-47 pilots of WWII didn't think there was any aircraft that could come close in performing ground attack and then we came along with the A-1 Skyraider (one of my personal favorites), then comes the A-10! [/QUOTE]

+1!

jungle

“Quantity has a quality all its own.”


― Joseph Stalin

John Carr

USMCFLYR brings up a good point. For right here, and right now in Afghanistan, the A-10 is it. But it's not exactly like the Taliban (or anybody else there) have much of a ground to air weapons platform causing a serious threat to them. Sure, all the smalls arms stuff. But not near the numbers or the discipline/training/organization to force them higher or create a "floor" when providing CAS.

And YES, we've ALL seen the show about the A-10 in Iraq 1 and brought the guy home, but the airplane was done for IIRC. But it's not like that would be feasible on a larger scale.

USMCFLYR

Being able to take off in less than 3,000' and stop in less than a 1,000' is field expeditionary. That is what we are talking about isn't it?

I'd have to read the book again; but I think it was opposite. They started low and ended high. They never came down again.

We were having a similar debate recently at work. The A-10 is a wonderful Type I control CAS platform. There are many others in a Type II/III scenario where - AGHAST - a bomb truck with SDBs might be a better weapon delivery platform. CAS, especially with the advent of newer targeting capabilities and obviously GPS weaponry, is an ever evolving form of OAS.

I'm not sure I am familiar with this particular show, but do you remember the life expectancy of the A-10 (and crew) in the Cold War Fulda Gap scenario. Thanks goodness that never played out. I'd much rather watch it wreak havoc on the Taliban!

I missed my time. I should have been an A-1 pilot in Korea.