Avatar feed
Responses: 5
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
3
3
0
Well, that would be one way to get rid of a mission the Air Force never wanted, give it to the Navy.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Maj Robert Thornton
Maj Robert Thornton
7 mo
The article doesn’t take the mission away from the AF, it brings USN planes for AF pilots to fly in a multi role mission.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Casey O'Mally
3
3
0
This guy is spot on!

If the AF wants to kill the the A-10, they should absolutely be allowed to do so. But only AFTER they identify, field, and train the airframe and air crews which will take over on the current A-10 mission set.

CAS is a mission that is not only mandated, it is absolutely critical for comprehensive victory in full-spectrum war.
(3)
Comment
(0)
MSgt John Taylor
MSgt John Taylor
7 mo
Every USAF fighter & bomber pilot/plane are identified, trained and fielded to perform the CAS mission. All missions are critical for victory. Air superiority is more vital for our ground troops than CAS. Ask our enemies what it's like to fight us without an air force supporting them overhead.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
7 mo
MSgt John Taylor Singly put, MSgt, very few planes can truly perform the CAS mission - at least not like the A10 can. Linger time is IMPORTANT. Sure, an F16 flying by overhead may scare the bejeesus out of the enemy - for the 6 seconds it take to go horizon to horizon. And a B-52 dropping its payload is a truly astounding thing. But that F16 is here and gone. And that B52 can't do danger close bombing.

Most of our recent enemies have had no air force to speak of, so air superiority is a given, just with the Army's drones. No, not all enemies will be this far behind, and yes, we need to be prepared for force on force against a major state actor like Russia or China.

I have been a ground troop. And I can tell you, I never not once asked what their Air Force was doing. I asked MANY TIMES whether we would have TACAir with us, whether we had A10 support, and what our air medieval plan was. I will grant thatbsome of that requires that air superiority be established first. But none of it goes away once air superiority exists.

If you tell me I can get an F16 basically hovering over my movement, engaging targets in a matter of seconds without having to "come around for another pass," then great. But otherwise we need a *true* CAS asset in support of ground troops.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
7 mo
SFC Casey O'Mally I really hate autocorrect (and fat fingers) and I should know better by now....

Singly = Simply
Medieval = MEDEVAC
Thatbsome = that some
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSgt John Taylor
MSgt John Taylor
7 mo
SFC Casey O'Mally - You would be surprised how much time the pilot has to acquire and deploy on a target at altitude. More so than the guy who kicks in the door and rushes into the room and then has decide who not to shoot. In all my deployment working on F-15E's, not once were our aircraft turned away by troops in contact, and not once did our aircraft not succeed. There were times that our aircraft were tasked, in lieu of A-10s, because they could get there faster.

The A-10 wasn't designed to directly support you, it was designed to offset the large number of Soviet tanks in eastern Europe. It is used in direct support, just like all USAF aircraft that can fire a round or drop a bomb. And, if I wanted slow, firepower & time on station I would want an AC-130 or AH-64.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col Charlie Brown
3
3
0
And it does need a replacement. It has a REAL mission. The ability to loiter is part of its strength
(3)
Comment
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
8 mo
I know "low and slow" is anethema to everything AF Brass care about. But in CAS, it is EVERYTHING.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close