Your new fighter...F-35

[MFAFF]

jv,

I think the sotry of the F-15/ 16 is soemwhat different to your recollection..

The F-15 was the result of the AFX programme.. in itself a result of the F-4 short comings as revealed by ops over N. Vietnam...

The bottom line was a tiwn engined monster, about 25% heavier thna the 15 with less powerful engines...

Boyd, at the time probably the only 'intellectual' in the Pentagon who was actually getting his head around STRATEGIC issues to do with air combat (ie what type of air war are we going to need to fight) rather than TACTICS..how do we fight and what with....got stuck into the AFX programme....

He managed to par it down and remove large amount of largely usless kit...all the A2G stuff they wanted.. but lost the battle to lose the massive radar, BVR missiles and twin engines..but the engines were upgraded to the monsters that allowed such a good thrust to weight ratio....

However the Lightweight fighter mafia were still on the case... Boyd was their guru, but not their leader....he was too remote for that, however he did seed the idea of the TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION programme that was the YF-16 and YF-17. These were NOT prototpye fighters, merely test beds for a new generation of fighter aircraft concepts... twin engined versus single, single fin, twin fine...and so on..

However as the price of the F-15 grew the notion of using the outcome of the Technology demonstration was the basis for a low end LWT fighter to complement the F-15 was born....(in time terms this was just at the end of the testing phase of the programme..and added a competitive aspect to the flight test...).

The YF-16 was the 'winner' of this..mainly because it was a more mature design....and it was selected as the basis of the new fighter..It was during this process of evolution from technology demonstrator to service fighter that both size and weight increased.. disproportionately from the engine power and the area of both the main wing and the horizontal stabs...

Boyd was livid and fought tooth and nail to get them to increase the wing area and that of the horzontal stabs and th eengine power in order to retain the agility that the YF demonstrated...

He managed to get them toagree to an increase in the horizontal stab size and engine power....so some agility was retain as well as a reserve for the inevitable weight increases...

So waht does that say aobut the F-16...it was compromised during serivce adoption and yet retained some agility, andmore importantly its range...better evne than the mighty 15...which the USAF were never happy about...as a result the 16 was asked to carry out more and more A2G roles whilst the C version of the 15 was reserved for A2A..until they got a dedicated Strike Eagle........optimised for the role..and probably the best strike a/c there is...(almost).

21..

Interesting point about the GR1s...but again look at teh context.. designed to do nap of the earth in N Europe....but the same approach used over 'fairly' flat desert terrain...all the cover gone.. all the ability to follow the ground useless...

ODS (Granby.....) showed that the strategy was too focussed and inflexible and restrictive...(shades of ROute PAck 6 ops!??!?!)

I think the seriousness of the programme is illustrated by the engine upgrade issue... not funded.. hmm.. The wings are an expensive and difficult programme.. lots of potential there.. but engines are cheap and quick, especially on the A-10....and should be done first to carry all the additional equipment and additional capability....doing it bass ackwards.....oh humm..

[nostatic]

Originally posted by URY914
Believe it or not I got a reply from the Penagon. I asked if I could get one painted red (my favorite color). They said, no.
Oh well...

you realize you're on a list now

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by nostatic
you realize you're on a list now

That you acknowledge the list is troublesome...I'll check it twice.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by MFAFF
Interesting point about the GR1s...but again look at teh context.. designed to do nap of the earth in N Europe....but the same approach used over 'fairly' flat desert terrain...all the cover gone.. all the ability to follow the ground useless...

The main problem for the Tornado's was their primary mission of airfield attack, which is highly dangerous(and critically important). Their special anti-runway munitions (MW1 for German birds and JP233 for UK and Italian birds) require a straight and level attack at low altitude the length of the strip, which requires extensive target prep by other Tornado's to suppress the local air defenses. It was on those preparatory missions that most of the Tornado's were lost IIRC.

Those (and other) losses were the main impetus behind CENTCOM placing minimum altitude restrictions on Coalition ACFT a few days into the air phase of ODS.

[holtjv]

Originally posted by MFAFF
jv,

I think the sotry of the F-15/ 16 is soemwhat different to your recollection..

MFAFF: Thanks for the good clarification. While I actually think Boyd as the modern day innovator of Warfighting (which was just becoming adopted when I was in the USMC) was exaggerated, he was no doubt an inspirational figure in the Air Force.

Yes, I'm one of those arrogant Marines who has seen the benefits of having same-service CAS. And the disadvantages--my company, 3d LAI had some blue-on-blue.

Jack

[MFAFF]

Jack,

I think Boyd is actually more accurately known for his Energy Management Theory (or Strategy) of Air to Air Combat...certainly it was that treatise that bought him into the realm of genuine strategic thinking...

It was a root of the F-15 design and the F-16/F-18...which has lead to the F-22 and F-35 as a result..

From that the USAF was forced to rethink much of its Cold War aims..and it moved the AF away from SAC, slowly but surely.

It agree that there is a very good case to be made for native and organic CAS....but its suited to a single command armed force... such as the Marines rather than as part of a multi focus force...such as the US Army.. where heavy armour will call for high value hi tech investment and which traditionally has first call on cash (regardless of how outdated that may be)...

Perhaps perish the thought that a real co-ordinated approach could be used...

[m21sniper]

I dont think heavy armor is outdated at all.

In fact i would say OIF was a re-affirmation of the dominance of the US Army heavy bde.

[FOG]

Actually I think the original concept for the A-10 was a turbo prop airplane but the USAF wouldn’t accept another prop. The good news from than is the twin engines, the bad is reducing the low speed acceleration, and thermal signature.

From those who have flown both -16s and -18s the Viper is the one to fly for fun but the Hornet is preferred for war (if you have the fuel). Redundancy, better low speed performance, and probably tougher airframe.

Gotta agree that the concept of combined arms extends to the air, and it doesn’t necessarily start with the air superiority fighters.

Never having flown the Viper, though Lockheed has their demonstrator on the other side of the runway that I ant too fly (A model w/two seats and a -132 engine!), those who do state the later models do not have the raw performance of the early models due to the weight increases.

BGen. Boyd was a Douhetist. While Douhet was known more for his bomber concepts he also had a large impact on pre- WWII fighter design and tactics. Basically his argument was that the angles at all costs beat the energy fighter. This has not necessarily been proven true.

BGen. Boyd, then Maj. Boyd came up with the OODA loop concept that the USMC uses in it’s war fighting concept. I also believe that while not directly involved in the -16 acquisition process those that were did a lot of unofficial consulting.

How many Hornet or Viper drivers would consider them a superior acft to either the Tomcat or Eagle in the air superiority role? Not many that I’ve met outside of nuggets or others I wouldn’t trust with the lives of my fellow servicemen.

I’m another arrogant Marine who thinks the way we do CAS is the best way to provide. The sentiment is echoed by more than a few of our USA brethren who received USMC CAS. We still have problems with USAF support and coordination, from An Nasiriyah where the A-10 ignored the FACs and dropped on the call from the Marine LNO in the TAC (who was passing information), couldn’t ID Amtracs nor the correct waterway, nor get on the correct frequency.

I think both the USA and USMC would be much better off is the USAF would change it’s Mantra of air dominance and learn CAS vice battlefield interdiction.

S/F, FOG

[fastpat]

Originally posted by FOG
I think both the USA and USMC would be much better off is the USAF would change it’s Mantra of air dominance and learn CAS vice battlefield interdiction.

S/F, FOG

I think the best of Marine CAS is the fact that they "own" their own CAS units, like the Army owns it's Apache assets. Fixed wing CAS assets in the USAF need to be transfered to the Army, and integrated ala Marine Corps into Army doctrine in a much more organic fashion. Otherwise, the problems you mention, which are decades old, will never be solved.

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by FOG
I’m another arrogant Marine who thinks the way we do CAS is the best way to provide. The sentiment is echoed by more than a few of our USA brethren who received USMC CAS. We still have problems with USAF support and coordination, from An Nasiriyah where the A-10 ignored the FACs and dropped on the call from the Marine LNO in the TAC (who was passing information), couldn’t ID Amtracs nor the correct waterway, nor get on the correct frequency.

Could you translate?
"dropped on the call"
FACs
LNO
TAC
Amtracs

thanks,
-Chris

[FOG]

Chris,

The CAS request was relayed through the Marine liason officer in the command center. The FACs are forward air controllers, all USMC pilots (one of which currently works for me). Amtracs are amphibious assault vehicles that look like nothing else on the battlefield.

Basically the CAS call was for help North of the city as marked by Saddam Canal. Not North of the city. Charlie Company (of TF Tarawa)) was up to the Southern end of the bridge on the Canal. All of the FACs from TF Tarawa were up the proper frequencies and they were working as evidenced by the rotary wing, both USMC and USA assets, having clear comms.

The Amtracs were destroyed South of the canal w/o comms w/ the FACs. The A-10s made two passes. The USAF still tries to assert that the A-10s were cleared by the FACs when the only USMC request was from the Marine liaison officer, which is not clearance to drop. USMC had request to the USAF for an investigation before the A-10s landed. The USAF says all of their comm. records were accidentally destroyed and they didn’t accept the USMC records of the proper frequencies that others were using.

This was the largest USMC casualty producer of the war.

S/F, FOG

[fastpat]

The AF pilots could be charged in federal court in DC for manslaughter if someone chose to prosecute them, no matter if the military fails to act, or not.

[FOG]

Lots of evidence had been destroyed w/in the 1st 24 hrs. USAF was able to conduct the official investigation and disregard USMC input. The pilots would walk.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by FOG
Lots of evidence had been destroyed w/in the 1st 24 hrs. USAF was able to conduct the official investigation and disregard USMC input. The pilots would walk.

It seems to me similar things happened when that EA-6B hit the tram cables in Italy killing quite a few people. One of the four crewmembers had video'd the whole event, then burned the tape before anyone saw it.

[FOG]

Pat,

Re. the Aviano incident. ECMO 1 had the personnel camera, which was allowed per USMC regulations but not NavPac where the USN Queers were allocated.

They tried to turn in the tape for approximately one week but with Clinton ordering non-standard investigations, etc. no one was allowed to take possession nor do anything about any evidence until the Clinton approved investigation was in place.

No maneuvers not taught for LAT were ever in evidence. My opinion is that ECMO 1 burned the tape as it was a det. tape.

The travesties of the Aviano incident are extensive. Going after the pilot vice the CO, etc. on a mission the neither the pilot nor the DSS officer (Stan/Eval) thought he should have been flying, etc.

S/F, FOG

[m21sniper]

The official investigation of that blue-blue stated that the USMC called that CAS on their own POS. I seem to recall that they also did not have their thermal reflectors in place on their vehicles(though i may be mistaken, going from memory)

FOG, bro, ever seen what an AMTRAK looks like rolling in from 10,000 feet?

Here: .

Yep, a little-incy bitsy dot. Just like every other dot on the battlefield. This is why it is so critical to make sure that the target is properly ID'd, because in many cases the pilot is dropping on a grid(JDAM), firing at a thermal blob(FLIR), shooting at a Willy Pete spotting rd/rocket, or relying on the Mk1 Eyeball.

Almost every single Blue-blue that happens is a result of procedural violations or FAC error. It's rarely the pilots fault. The two F-16s that violated REPEATED orders not to engage and still attacked, wiping out a Canadian platoon, THAT was a case of pilot error. So was the Bde Apache CO during ODS that had been ordered to direct only, not attack but still did and whacked a couple UK Warriors(IIRC).

But the case in Iraq, the Marines cleared those hogs in hot.

And whatever vices it may have(and i maintain that they are few if used properly), the A-10 has a much smaller thermal signiture then either the F-16 or the F-18. No afterburners, and about 1/3 the thrust output at military thrust(not to mention a design that specificially shrouds the exhaust) dictates that must be so.

[FOG]

M21,

Actually I have seen what an Amtrac looks like from the teens, over Iraq. And higher and lower altitudes. It is discernible from other AFVs. I have also seen what An Nasariyah looks like and one can easily discern both the river and canal. The second pass by guns was from 10K?

The A-10s still never contacted the FACs, Forward Air Controllers. They were supposed to go after targets North of the canal and not South. They are the only ones who after the fact tried to cry MIJI. Not responding to calls on guard (UHF) by the FACs and helos was MIJI or not selecting guard as required? The USAF investigation did not speak to the helo pilots and ignored other ground FACs.

The Marines did not have thermal reflectors. In this case it would have made no difference.

How can one call in CAS on own Pos if no comms ever took place? Didn’t happen. The Marine liaison called for help North of Saddam canal. The A-10s attacked a discernible target inside defined friendly lines twice.

This illustrates the problem w/USAF CAS. They do not try and contact the folks on the ground and are not trained in ground combat and don’t have a realistic idea of what is going on. Either fault cause problems. Both invites more An Nasariyah, the PPL, a few close calls over Anbar, etc.

As far as thermal signature it is not just the size but what the seeker is looking for. I know a couple that are in use in Iraq with confirmed hits that have a preference for an A-10 or Herk over straight jets or lower bypass fans. That is fact.

FOG

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by FOG
M21,

Actually I have seen what an Amtrac looks like from the teens, over Iraq. And higher and lower altitudes. It is discernible from other AFVs. I have also seen what An Nasariyah looks like and one can easily discern both the river and canal. The second pass by guns was from 10K?

The A-10s still never contacted the FACs, Forward Air Controllers. They were supposed to go after targets North of the canal and not South. They are the only ones who after the fact tried to cry MIJI. Not responding to calls on guard (UHF) by the FACs and helos was MIJI or not selecting guard as required? The USAF investigation did not speak to the helo pilots and ignored other ground FACs.

The Marines did not have thermal reflectors. In this case it would have made no difference.

How can one call in CAS on own Pos if no comms ever took place? Didn’t happen. The Marine liaison called for help North of Saddam canal. The A-10s attacked a discernible target inside defined friendly lines twice.

This illustrates the problem w/USAF CAS. They do not try and contact the folks on the ground and are not trained in ground combat and don’t have a realistic idea of what is going on. Either fault cause problems. Both invites more An Nasariyah, the PPL, a few close calls over Anbar, etc.

As far as thermal signature it is not just the size but what the seeker is looking for. I know a couple that are in use in Iraq with confirmed hits that have a preference for an A-10 or Herk over straight jets or lower bypass fans. That is fact.

FOG

I'd direct you to my site www.a-10.org if you want to discuss details with some A-10 pilots, but a few points:

An O/A-10A does not have the avionics of a Hornet or whatever. So at 10,000 feet unless it's got a Sniper or LANTIRN pod(and most dont), an A-10 driver is using a Mk1 Eyeball. Now i have seen many Military vehicles at 2 miles distance from an elevated position with the unaided eye, and even sitting still, determining much beyond "tank", "APC", "Truck" is not easy without optics.

Also, the A-10 engages with the gun at a slant range of about 7,000-8,500 feet.(about 1 1/2 miles is ideal). At that range, at 350 knots in a dive, with only the human eye, and a dust obscured battlefield, i dont think it's realistic for a pilot to VID a specific type of vehicle. And the pilots on my site have said as much. I took a lecture from one of them and was told "I should know better because of your old MOS", and in reflection, i should've known better IMO.

As far as an AMTRAK being totally unique, it does look similar to an M88 ARV(or probably most ARVs) from a distance, as just one example.

PS: When i use the term FAC it was just an 'umbrella' term, and was lumping in A-FAC, G-FAC, ALO, BALO, into one generic term. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

[tcar]

What is a 'Thermal Reflector' ? What does it do?

[m21sniper]

A thermal reflector is a flat panel that is lain on top of friendly vehicles that reflects IR light back like gangbusters so our pilots do not mistake it for an enemy vehicle.

Its intended to reduce fratricide.