|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 12, 2019 15:48:47 GMT -6
I do remember that tete-a-tete well. The USAF has never.... I emphasize NEVER liked close air support. It did not like it in WW2, Korea, Vietnam ever. I served in the USAF and so did my daughter. They are going to do what ever they can do to get rid of slow, ground support aircraft. They like heavy bombers dropping loads of bombs or smart bombs on cities and select targets. That's why the A-10 needs to be given to the Army. I believe that the US Marines would get more use out of it than the Army. The Army can use its helo's for ground support. But personally, someone should take the USAF to task and tell them that their job is not only strategic bombing, which is not as useful anymore, but ground support of the troops. To project power using not only bombers, but ground support operations. WWII and Korea and Vietnam were not won by bombers, but by pilots flying ground support operations to allow the ground troops to move ahead. War's are won on the ground, not by flying expensive bombers. |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 12, 2019 18:41:06 GMT -6
That's why the A-10 needs to be given to the Army. I believe that the US Marines would get more use out of it than the Army. The Army can use its helo's for ground support. But personally, someone should take the USAF to task and tell them that their job is not only strategic bombing, which is not as useful anymore, but ground support of the troops. To project power using not only bombers, but ground support operations. WWII and Korea and Vietnam were not won by bombers, but by pilots flying ground support operations to allow the ground troops to move ahead. War's are won on the ground, not by flying expensive bombers. Vietnam and Korea weren't won, Vietnam was a clear loss and Korea is tied at the longest half-time ever. I mostly agree with the Crux of your argument though. Strategic bombing has never been the war winning tool the USAF wishes it were. The only conflict in which it would be is the one nobody wants to fight. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 12, 2019 19:39:27 GMT -6
I believe that the US Marines would get more use out of it than the Army. The Army can use its helo's for ground support. But personally, someone should take the USAF to task and tell them that their job is not only strategic bombing, which is not as useful anymore, but ground support of the troops. To project power using not only bombers, but ground support operations. WWII and Korea and Vietnam were not won by bombers, but by pilots flying ground support operations to allow the ground troops to move ahead. War's are won on the ground, not by flying expensive bombers. Vietnam and Korea weren't won, Vietnam was a clear loss and Korea is tied at the longest half-time ever. I mostly agree with the Crux of your argument though. Strategic bombing has never been the war winning tool the USAF wishes it were. The only conflict in which it would be is the one nobody wants to fight. General Omar Bradley stated in 1951 as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Korea was "the WRONG WAR, at the WRONG PLACE, at the WRONG TIME, and with the WRONG enemy" I think that says it all, IMHO. I believe that his statement seems to apply for almost all the wars in the post-WW2 timeframe. You are correct about the only conflict in which strategic bombing would be used but even then, it was missiles that would have fought the war, not the bombers. They would never have had a chance trying to get through Russian defenses. Don't misunderstand me, heavy bombers have a contribution to make and have made it to modern warfare. However, its land forces with ground support that will gain the territory and end the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Sept 12, 2019 22:54:44 GMT -6
Interesting discussion, but we are getting off topic a bit.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 12, 2019 23:26:12 GMT -6
Interesting discussion, but we are getting off topic a bit. Thanks. What!! Off Topic..... yup, we are. Actually we are all a little off.... But it is interesting. Anybody want to continue this on the General History Forum. I am up for it. II have the Project Checo documents, Linebacker 1 and 2 plus Project Red Baron.  |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2019 9:09:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Sept 13, 2019 15:45:35 GMT -6
Except for McCain. He lived a full life after boldly going where no pilot should on a regular basis. I'll never forget McCain during a Senate intelligence meeting with Air Force officials on the kinds of missions they were doing in Afghanistan after being told the B1 bomber was doing over fights for close air support instead of the A-10. "Please don't insult my intelligence!" www.youtube.com/watch?v=_up7IHd3LDsThat was very entertaining. I could watch stuff like that for hours. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Sept 13, 2019 18:01:16 GMT -6
I'll never forget McCain during a Senate intelligence meeting with Air Force officials on the kinds of missions they were doing in Afghanistan after being told the B1 bomber was doing over fights for close air support instead of the A-10. "Please don't insult my intelligence!" www.youtube.com/watch?v=_up7IHd3LDsThat was very entertaining. I could watch stuff like that for hours. I know. My first impression was just like John McCain. I thought it was ridiculous the B1 was doing close air support. It's not the right platform. But then the Air Force indeed was correct as well in saying they'd been using it effectively. But the truth lies somewhere else. While the loiter time was great... and the B1 could be counted on to have a bomb waiting for when the troops on the ground needed it, but at what cost? This type of mission was running the clock out on the airframe of this strategic asset while at the same time being exponentially more expensive than other ground attack planes. It was just a fascinating exchange between these opposing sides that were worlds apart in their views, and then there was the Obama era military suffering from sequestration and maligned in their efforts to make it all work in the field. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2019 18:51:22 GMT -6
All aircraft require periodic maintenance. I am sure you know that. The easy stuff can be accomplished at the squadron level. However, after a certain number of hours, then the plane has to go to the depot for an extended overhaul and upgrade. According to the USAF, the B-1B is the most manpower-intensive aircraft in the inventory. They estimate that it is three to four times more than any other plane. For the plane, USAF says that there are short-term and long-term maintenance. Generally 12 hours is the limit or after that the plane will not be available for the next mission. The estimate is 18 ground crews will work on the plane in a 12 hour period. Remember that combat operations will push an aircraft to its end-of-service life much faster. Before that point, you have to decide at the depot, if the plane can be maintained and overhauled, or if it has reached the end. I've enclosed a link, a little aged, but still good information for you to read. www.military.com/defensetech/2014/02/21/air-force-begins-massive-b-1b-overhaul |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Sept 13, 2019 19:07:39 GMT -6
oldpop2000 “This was originally a nuclear-bomber plane and they have had to do a lot to make it capable as a conventional plane." Think the Air Force will ever learn and break the political shackles that keep their hopes and dreams grounded? That was a good read. I'm pretty familiar with that plane. 
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2019 21:33:33 GMT -6
oldpop2000 “This was originally a nuclear-bomber plane and they have had to do a lot to make it capable as a conventional plane." Think the Air Force will ever learn and break the political shackles that keep their hopes and dreams grounded? That was a good read. I'm pretty familiar with that plane. Well, we should understand that the USAF has two missions: To provide a nuclear response and to provide tactical air support. An aircraft designed for the first mission generally is not configured or designed for the second mission. It is difficult to build one bird and perform both missions. Unfortunately the USAF is going to have to understand that conundrum and come to grips with it. I think that modern geopolitics has shown us that of the two missions, the second is the most important. I think they have learned that lesson and will try to emphasize it in their future designs and mission planning. |
|
|
|
Post by sayang on Sept 14, 2019 20:22:04 GMT -6
Vietnam was won - just by the North. And without air superiority
I do have sympathy with USAF view. CAS is not cost effective vs operational use of air power (hitting C3, supply chains, airfields etc). And for that, F15/ 16 are better suited than A10
However, CAS has a strong morale impact, so the current compromise of fixed wing/ rotary seems reasonable. Giving A10 to the army as ‘flying arty’ would also make sense, as long as agreed that there will be no replacement aircraft designed.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 14, 2019 20:57:29 GMT -6
Vietnam was won - just by the North. And without air superiority I do have sympathy with USAF view. CAS is not cost effective vs operational use of air power (hitting C3, supply chains, airfields etc). And for that, F15/ 16 are better suited than A10 However, CAS has a strong morale impact, so the current compromise of fixed wing/ rotary seems reasonable. Giving A10 to the army as ‘flying arty’ would also make sense, as long as agreed that there will be no replacement aircraft designed. Well, you could see it that way. But North Vietnam suffered 1.1 million military deaths and South Vietnam suffered 230,000 with an estimated 2 million Vietnamese civilian deaths on both sides. We did fail to stop the domino effect in SE Asia although we did protect Thailand and Singapore. They stayed free. So, we did achieve the initial goals of preventing the spread of communism. However, looking at it objectively, they did win the war and achieved their goals of uniting all of Vietnam. Just an aside, while technically a communist country, they did introduce economic and political reforms in 1986. They now have rapid growth in agriculture, construction to exports and investments. Two US Navy ships have visited Cam Ranh Bay in 2016 and in 2018, the Carl Vinson did also. So, did they really win?
I would disagree about giving the bird to the Army. The infrastructure necessary to support the plane would be monumental for the US Army although they could arrange for the birds to be overhauled at Hill AFB Depot to save time and money. The US Marines would be a much better choice, IMHO. I am certain the Marines might disagree.
Reminder: I did create a thread on the General History Discussion forum. We should move this to that forum. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by stairmaster on Sept 14, 2019 22:44:04 GMT -6
"Domino effect". okay, boomer.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 14, 2019 23:57:11 GMT -6
"Domino effect". okay, boomer. You can thank President Eisenhower for that Cold War phase. He used that phrase in a speech in a press conference on April 7,1954. |
|
