-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
A-10's For The Marine Corps
- Thread starter Birdog8585
- Start date
Yes, well....bad things are "here" on the SA front. At least in terms of schwacking an A-10. But you have to remember something about all SA systems, they only work if you can't blow them up.
(I am all too aware of some issues in doing that that sure as shit can't be discussed here, but my point is that low observable isn't the only solution and at least in the forseable future won't be our only tactic.)
Right, forgot about Hacker...he around for thoughts? I've heard this nugget about the Mud Hens not being preferred for CAS, they don't seem to want to train for the mission, etc, and I wonder what they think on the other side of the fence.
Don't you mean Osama?
I would hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but he is a sitting US Senator. Not quite semantics.
You are getting a little ahead of yourself, there are people working the probelm. The solutions might not be elegant, but hopefully they will work.
One of the driving factors behind this whole thing has been the Marine Corps need for AF AC-130 support during the day. The AF doesn't do that ... so now we are going to ... in broad daylight ... should be fun
And therein lies the question, do the Marines really know what they are getting into with this? The USAF has operated AC gunships for over 40 years and they know a little about what works and what doesn't work. And unlike others I have met that wear light blue, the AC-130 I have met from AFSOC are a little more 'tuned in' to what the guys on the ground need too, like the A-10 types. On top of all of that, some of the AC-130's have the latest and greatest when it comes to defensive systems.
I know that the Marines, especially the KC-130 community, are really 'gung-ho' about the A/KC-130. But from what very little I have seen, I wonder if they have really thought everything through?
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
What they have that we don't:
1) More gas/on-station time.
2) Bigger gun and more rounds.
3) More ordnance
4) Link
What we have that they don't have (or have as good):
1) Integrated precision strike with relative targeting.
2) Altitude/speed
3) More expendables (which we need
)4) Basing flexibility
5) Radar
This isn't a "numbers game" in terms of better/worse. For instance, our #4 and #5 don't really mean all that much, but I'd trade all of their #'s (except maybe #1) fot our #1.
Make sense?
Actually, I can personally vouch for Hacker, as I've shared the same airspace with him. That said, it's must be a training issue. You never know what individual units are going to be like, even though they fly the same airframes.
The F-15E is an awesome bird. However, in a real crunch when you need CAS, most of the guys are worthless. When a target goes bad and you immediately clear the Es inbound for guns, I got "We just use those for air-to-air". Really, that's not what your 100 slide capabilities brief said. Been much 1 V 1 around these parts the last 6 years?Would've been nice to know before hand.
Anyway, the A-10s have been able to re-attack for us in about 2 minutes or so. A particular batch of F-15E were taking 10 minutes or so for a turn around. Might as well have been an hour to a ground force taking heavies.
But what they hell do I know, I'm in the Army..which we know isn't "cool" anyway.
-2 Engines vs 1
-Precision strike does indeed exist on the A-10C (LITENING AT and SNIPER XR)
-Up armor and more survivable flight control system
-Uglier
Let the hazing commence
What they have that we don't:
1) More gas/on-station time.
2) Bigger gun and more rounds.
3) More ordnance
4) Link
What we have that they don't have (or have as good):
1) Integrated precision strike with relative targeting.
2) Altitude/speed
3) More expendables (which we need
4) Basing flexibility
5) Radar
This isn't a "numbers game" in terms of better/worse. For instance, our #4 and #5 don't really mean all that much, but I'd trade all of their #'s (except maybe #1) fot our #1.
Make sense?
o.k. I guessed all but the Link...(11 or 16??) My only point was or is how much more would the Warthog bring to the USMC CAS that the Harrier, (or the AH-1Z) doesn't already deliver.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
How, exactly, does having two engines matter to the guy on the ground? That only matters if you get hit. The key is not to get hit.
It's not integrated into their system, but does work like ours did 7 years ago. Much mo' better integrated. Still not relative targeting capable.
See above.
Debatable.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Because somewhere in the acquisitions chain - SOMEONE (not pointing any fingers, but I'd bet a KC-130 guy) didn't ensure it was a requirement. So what do we end up with? A bunch of AN-UYQ-3A's sitting around and no way to plug them into our new whiz-bang KC-130.
It goes beyond just DASC(A). I'm sure you guys can do it, but being able to plug the AN-UYQ-3A into a KC-130 enhanced our capabilities in other ways. The reason I found out that J's can't do DASC(A) is when I was planning a Battalion level insert and I was slated to be the AMC. When asked what I wanted as an AMC platform - I didn't even hesitate. KC-130 set up for DASC(A). Why? On station time and no line of sight issues. Is the Hawkeye going to come - land, and pick up a Marine Capt to be the AMC? I doubt it.
Where were the Hawkeyes during the opening days of OIF? Controlling the BILLIONS of assets doing DAS. And a bunch of KC-130's set up for DASC(A) were running the show in the Marine AOR with all the helos. Not saying Hawkeyes can't, just saying that flushing a capability down the toilet because someone didn't like it, and another platform is willing to pick it up as a secondary mission isn't the right answer.
Bad idea genes with no DASC(A) in the J.
Can you fit more people in the E-2?
No. But we are quite capable as is.