U.S.Army Is Starting Its Own Air Unit

cwo_ghwebb

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
Good article. This argument has been going on for years. Air Force thinks it holds the cards (especially after Bosnia), bombing from 35k feet. Army/Marine Corps knows you have to have boots on the ground with close in air support. The Air Force isn't willing to fly those missions. I think it's a good thing the Army FINALLY decided to get the mission done. If the Air Force had done their job, this wouldn't have been necessary.

Good to see the Army evolving forward.
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
Nonno said:
Guess the ole Airfarce can't support the troops very well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22military.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Click to expand...



Good they can give the all the A10's the zoomies dont wanna fly, cause it is not a Mach Speed Turn and Burn .....

I heard the about the #####ing when I was in the Army in 84 the Air Farce was :blahblah::blahblah: about how they could support ground troops @ Mach 2 screaming in dropping a load and blasting back out .... hoping not to get their a$$es shot off by a ZSU 23-4 :jet:

and how most Flyboys did not see the A10's as macho enough to get girls panties all wet ....... :razz: when talking about what they Fly ... seems everyone wanted to be Tom Cruise ... and go fast ......

Personally I love the A10's and the whole concept ... something done right but as a former ground pounder :shrug: why wouldn't I

:whistle:


Army and Marine Corps officers in Afghanistan have complained that Air Force pilots flying attack missions in support of ground operations do not come in as low as their Navy and Marine counterparts. Instances of civilian casualties from bombing and missile attacks have increased tensions among local populations, which have to be eased by ground commanders, adding to their burden of winning hearts and minds in the counterinsurgency efforts.
Click to expand...


Pussies .........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cwo_ghwebb

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
RadioPatrol said:
Good they can give the all the A10's the zoomies dont wanna fly, cause it is not a Mach Speed Turn and Burn .....

I heard the about the #####ing when I was in the Army in 84 the Air Farce was :blahblah::blahblah: about how they could support ground troops @ Mach 2 screaming in dropping a load and blasting back out .... hoping not to get their a$$es shot off by a ZSU 23-4 :jet:

and how most Flyboys did not see the A10's as macho enough to get girls panties all wet ....... :razz: when talking about what they Fly ... seems everyone wanted to be Tom Cruise ... and go fast ......

Personally I love the A10's and the whole concept ... something done right but as a former ground pounder :shrug: why wouldn't I

:whistle:
Click to expand...

The A-10s are about the best thing on the battlefield our troops can see (other than dead folks who were trying to kill them seconds earlier). I don't care if it's glamorous or not, it gets the darn job done! Air Force should concentrate on the mission at hand, not their 'image'. Having a brother (now retired) and a nephew in that service, I know full well about AF pilots.
 
BOP

BOP

Well-Known Member
RadioPatrol said:
Good they can give the all the A10's the zoomies dont wanna fly, cause it is not a Mach Speed Turn and Burn .....

I heard the about the #####ing when I was in the Army in 84 the Air Farce was :blahblah::blahblah: about how they could support ground troops @ Mach 2 screaming in dropping a load and blasting back out .... hoping not to get their a$$es shot off by a ZSU 23-4 :jet:

and how most Flyboys did not see the A10's as macho enough to get girls panties all wet ....... :razz: when talking about what they Fly ... seems everyone wanted to be Tom Cruise ... and go fast ......

Personally I love the A10's and the whole concept ... something done right but as a former ground pounder :shrug: why wouldn't I

:whistle:





Pussies .........
Click to expand...

I've been saying for years that I'd like to see the Marine Corps take over the A10. The 30mm has to go though. I'd like to see them go to a twin 50 or a 20mm.
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
BOP said:
I've been saying for years that I'd like to see the Marine Corps take over the A10. The 30mm has to go though. I'd like to see them go to a twin 50 or a 20mm.
Click to expand...

I love the 30, I have a projectile on my desk ... can you really call a 30mm a bullet ..... :jet: a 20mm Round ... and a .50 Round



what is wrong with the 30mm? you realize the A10 was designed "Around" the 30mm Gat .... don't you ? it would be hard to replace that ...




You never Forget this sound ....


 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
Air Force pilots flying attack missions in support of ground operations do not come in as low as their Navy and Marine counterparts.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear the Navy get the nod:) One thing the Marines did right was keep their organic air support. Like most things in life, nobody cares about you and yours like you do.

And contrary to outsiders opinions, Navy folks do consider Marines their own.


I have always wondered WTH the AF had that bird, given its role. If there was ever an aircraft that begged to be flown by Marines, it the A-10.
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
BOP said:
I've been saying for years that I'd like to see the Marine Corps take over the A10. The 30mm has to go though. I'd like to see them go to a twin 50 or a 20mm.
Click to expand...

Neither the 50 nor the 20mm can take out a tank.. the 30mm can.

There's always a reason.. and this is it. Fortified fighting positions, and tanks, .50 Cal and 20 mm are faily usless.

Even the 25mm on the Bradley couldn't go up against a tank, only other personell carriers and Infantry Fighting Vehicles.. (BMD, BMP, ACRV etc.. )
 
BOP

BOP

Well-Known Member
itsbob said:
Neither the 50 nor the 20mm can take out a tank.. the 30mm can.

There's always a reason.. and this is it. Fortified fighting positions, and tanks, .50 Cal and 20 mm are faily usless.

Even the 25mm on the Bradley couldn't go up against a tank, only other personell carriers and Infantry Fighting Vehicles.. (BMD, BMP, ACRV etc.. )
Click to expand...

I realize that full well. We haven't exactly gone up against a lot of tanks and APC's lately.
 
M

Mateo

New Member
Larry Gude said:
Forward? How about back to the future? My grandfather flew...for the army...in WWII!
Click to expand...

Larry is correct...it used to be the Army Air Force until the 50's. In reading about campaigns in Europe, particularly Normandy and the Ardennes, certain air units were sometimes referred to as the "American Luftwaffe" for their propensity in bombing friendlies.
Warthog is an excellent aircraft for ground support...just like the Skyraider was.And as the jet jockeys found out in Nam, you still have to slow down to drop a bomb,,which makes you a prime target for a hidden Zisu or even as some pilots found out, a lucky shot from a ground weapon.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
We can laugh...

Mateo said:
Larry is correct...it used to be the Army Air Force until the 50's. In reading about campaigns in Europe, particularly Normandy and the Ardennes, certain air units were sometimes referred to as the "American Luftwaffe" for their propensity in bombing friendlies.
Warthog is an excellent aircraft for ground support...just like the Skyraider was.And as the jet jockeys found out in Nam, you still have to slow down to drop a bomb,,which makes you a prime target for a hidden Zisu or even as some pilots found out, a lucky shot from a ground weapon.
Click to expand...

...now, but, you raise a perfect point; Why, exactly, would some grunt want ground support back in the hands of the army with THAT track record!!!

:lol:

:jameo:
 
cwo_ghwebb

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
Larry Gude said:
Forward? How about back to the future? My grandfather flew...for the army...in WWII!
Click to expand...

Well aware of history. The Army lost that bureaucratic fight to the Air Force. The army is evolving forward after stepping backwards. Or do you prefer the AF providing close-in ground support?

Kerad, each service has its role to play. And the Air Force doesn't win wars alone, contrary to some who actually believed that b.s. about Bosnia. All the services have to coordinate well to get the objective accomplished. Sounds like in this case the Air Force isn't coordinating well (most pc thing I've said all year).


Your ignorance is just astounding.
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
INHO, the AF should provide Strategic long range bombing, theater AD, but the Army, like the Marines, should have their own ground attack support Aircraft, ala A10 Warthogs ... which are under going a 3rd Revision ...


A-10s were initially an unwelcome addition to the arsenal in the eyes of Air Force brass. The Air Force prized the high-flying, high-performance F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon air-superiority jets, and were determined to leave the dirty work of close air support to Army helicopters (the development of the AGM-114 Hellfire anti-armor missile and AH-64 Apache attack helicopter having since provided the Army with a viable anti-tank aircraft). Attempts to transfer the A-10 to the Army and the Marines were at first prevented by the 1948 Key West Agreement, and then by the A-10's impressive combat record during the Gulf War in 1991. Shortly after the war, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.[9]
Click to expand...

In 2005, the entire A-10 fleet began receiving upgrades to the "C" model that will include improved fire control system (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), and the ability to carry smart bombs. The A-10 will be part of a service life extension program (SLEP) with many receiving new wings.[10] A contract to build 242 new A-10 wing sets was awarded to Boeing on 29 June 2007.[11] Modifications to provide precision weapons capability are well underway. Hill AFB has completed work on its 100th A-10 precision engagement upgrade in January 2008.[12] The C model upgrades are to be completed in 2011.[13]
Click to expand...


A10 Damage over Baghdad
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
cwo_ghwebb said:
Cool! Will the Army and Marines get these A-10s or are they going to stay in the hands of the Air Force?
Click to expand...




I do not know, I was offering my Arm Chair General Opinion .... apparently the attempt to make the move was made ( that does not read right ) but that 1948 agreement prohibited it .......

Key West Agreement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Key West Agreement is the colloquial name for a policy paper entitled Function of the Armed Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted by James V. Forrestal, the first United States Secretary of Defense. Its most prominent feature was an outline for the division of air assets between the Army, Navy and the newly created Air Force which, with modifications, continues to provide the basis for the division of these assets in the US military today.

The basic outline for the document was agreed to at a meeting of United States service chiefs that took place from March 11 to March 14, 1948 in Key West, and was finalized after subsequent meetings. It was revised in 1954 by the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration.

[edit] Key points

* The Navy would be allowed to retain its own combat air arm "...to conduct air operations as necessary for the accomplishment of objectives in a naval campaign..."
* The Army would be allowed to retain aviation assets for reconnaissance and medical evacuation purposes.
* The Air Force would have control of all strategic air assets, and most tactical and logistic functions as well.
Click to expand...



so if all it is, is a "POLICY" paper, there is no real reason for the change not to have already taken place .... IMHO - except the AF would lose personal and budget ..... but I would just directly transfer the Wing's to Army Aviation Brigades and be done with it :gossip:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top