US Secty. of defence

[Rodger Herbst]

Gates tells the US Air Force to get off it's ass and get in the war, what do you think? I always thought our AF always wanted to fight thier own little war on the side.

[Waleed Y. Majeed]

Which war(s)...?

Hasn't that been the attitude of most AF's through time? We're up here in the sun - You're down there in the mud!
Flying in to battle from OK accommodations, women, booze etc. etc. etc. and returning to the same within
hours of fighting. Unless shot down or hurt if Flak or flying counterpart get you.
Hasn't it always been the idea too, to be used as a fast and sudden blitzy weapon... Drop your load and get the hell out of there!
Otherwise you might as well only use slow balloons.

With US Air superiority of today and not least the technology what few enemies do the USAF have besides
an occasional gun or two shot at you. Why take unnecessary risks. Remember what your training and equipment
cost compared to the ordinary muddy grunt with just ONE gun. No disrespect intended - A war can not be entirely
fought without the grunts, unless nuclear! If rebuilding is the idea then the last solution is lousy...

And what about the navies?

Just my thoughts


waleed

[phylo_roadking]

Depends on which war he means AFAIK, the USAF was firmly embedded in the Afghanistan war...but using them in the ongoing...um..."police action" in Iraq might be a bit of overkill - literally. Tho' at least up in the blue they'd be safe from roadside IEDs

[Rodger Herbst]

I'm thinking of my experience in WW2 and Korea. On "D" Day our tactical air was first rate but bomber command wanted to fight thier own war and the hell with the landings, but the air force was the Army Air Force then and Ike could call the shots, but they took it bad grace.When they were asked to lay a bomb carpet for the 36th Divsion to jump off from, even given instructions as to where the troops were and were to approch the target, they got it wrong and unloaded on the 36th causing casualties and the attack had to be called off. On another occasion when they were to help the 36th they did the same thing, the 36th was the must unluckyist division or the air corps had it in for them, they fought the rest of the war without air support, they refused it and you sure as hell couldn't blame them.
In Korea we were getting our asses handed to us and we were in the Pusan perimeter, we needed tacticle air, but our Air Force was now a seperate arm of the service,the were into big bombers and fast fighters, to hell with ground support. What saved our ass was the Marine pilots off the carriers, they knew what ground support meant to ground troops and they gave it, thank God. In Korea the chopper started to come into it's own, and in Viet nam it realy came a life saver, the army trained it's own pilots and formed it's own units, when the Air Force seen what a good thing the chopper was they started that old "BS" "everything that flys belongs to us" but the army said no and stood thier ground, so we have gunships,evac. and supply choppers,all maned by army personal. I suppose other countries have chopper units and i hope to hell thier army units have contol of them.






'

[John W. Howard]

Hello Gents:
What Professor Gates asked the USAF for was the use of some of their Predator Drones and UFV's. These were to be used to patrol transportation routes, the most common target of IED's. What frustrates me is why we need to cajole the USAF into doing this; the President is the C-in-C and Gates works for the President. The President should cut orders ordering the USAF to turn over the drones, case closed. I think threatening them with the loss of a few of their precious F-22's during appropriations might quicken their response. Best wishes.

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Just look at how many times the Air Force has tried to "retire" the A-10, despite its proven performance against ground targets. 2008 and still nothing to replace it.

~David

[Rodger Herbst]

Well guys, I think it's the old WW2 hangover. they thought they could win the war all by themselves with thier bombing and were proved wrong, so they pout like little kids. I think it's navy air support from carriers that doing a lot of or most of the air support the ground troops are getting, we must remember the marines are part of the navy and the marine medical support comes from the sailers from the fleet. I like the braid on air force officers hats, used to call it "farts and darts".
Rodger

[Commissar D, the Evil]

No excuse though to try to sabotage the A-10, one of the few dedicated ground support weapons, aside from helicopters, flown by the USAF. No excuse either to not plan on a replacement for the A-10. We're not at war with the Russkies, so what is the rationale behind the USAF continually trying to retire the A-10?

The USAF likes "fast movers", not A-10s or drones. That, at this point and in the Iraqi War, is a failure of the leadership of the USAF in my humble opinion. Planning for the last war has been the failure of many, many armies and air forces, according to history. We won't see an F-16 or F-18 perform as well in this type of war as an A-10.

Anyone looking for an historical comparison may well wonder why the Stuka and Hs-129 were never replaced by the fighter-bomber version of the ME-262. For ground attack, an air force needs a slow flying, fixed-wing bomber with a long loitering time over its target and a heavy bomb load to eliminate the enemy. That's a simple fact of life, proven by WWII.

Bestens,
David

[phylo_roadking]

an air force needs a slow flying, fixed-wing bomber with a long loitering time over its target and a heavy bomb load to eliminate the enemy

David, you're not thinking outside the envelope It needs a long loitering time "in-theatre" like the WWII "cab rank" system, waiting to be tasked to targets...but NOT over the target - ALL you need over the target is ENOUGH time to acquire the target, release your ordnance (and guide if necessary)...for every other wasted second is making YOU a target for AAA or radar-painting for SAMs. And ground-attack aircraft are for vehicle/AFV and fixed-point targets...big bombs are for higher-level tactical bombing for bigger targets. Large area ordnance - napalm/aerosol, AT bomblets, AP mine clusters etc. - CAN be dropped by ground-attack aircraft, but that's a waste of them; better for tactical fighter-bombers at low level.

Don't forget too - that "slow pass" is just a property of its subsonic speeds - as it doesn't NEED transonic for its primary function, it needs WEIGHTLIFTING ability for the armour and ordnance; the F-22, with it's VTOL functions like the Harrier and the USMC's version of it, and it's full flexibility at subsonic, will fill the gap the A10 will leave....or rather, split the gap with UAVs.

[John W. Howard]

What is never factored into the equation is cost per plane, and the higher the cost per plane, with the inevitable cost overruns per plane, translates into fewer planes to do the job; the money runs out before anyway near the needed number of aircraft is ever reached. This is the situation with the latest tanker deal: the Airbus has capabilities the Boeing does not, it carries more fuel, and is capable of airlifting the whole refueling crew with their equpment to a new base without needing the allocation of additional airlift other than the refueling aircraft itself. But it is more expensive. The Boeing has less capability, but is cheaper, and what is needed are more refueling aircraft out there doing the job, regardless of their fuel capacity. So a cheaper airplane means less cost overrun which means more aircraft for money spent, at least in this case. I am afraid that no matter how good the Airbus is, the cost is going to limit the number built, which means fewer planes to do the job. The difference will be made up by keeping in service older refueling aircraft that should be retired that have even less capability.

[phylo_roadking]

...and of corse the attrition problem; loose one, and it puts a bigger hole in yor capabilities than if the same duty was spread over more aircraft

[Rodger Herbst]

See were Gates tied the can on two more air force big shots, one the top General the other a high ranking civilian .