![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10 Feb 2006 18:10:41 -0800, "Reed Judd-Dyer"
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: snip Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the better choice. With modern technology it isn't necessary to go nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. The bombs are more accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a much larger area. It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary. Ed, have you seen some of the MC testing concepts on aircraft as manuever elements instead of simply fire support elements? One need only look at Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom to see the application of aircraft (multi-service) as maneuver elements. In DS we saw approximately 100 days of operations preceding a 100 hour ground war. In OIF it was "Shock and Awe" leading to the roll down the highway to Basra and Baghdad. In both cases you could easily apply a metaphor of aircraft as modern, precise and very fast cavalry. Which doesn't even touch the "tank plinking" and "Scud hunting" aspects. CAS from 30,000ft may be better CAS in it's traditional role of flying artillery, but what about interdiction, observation and utilizing fixed wings aircrafts improved reaction time, multiple terrain reach and improved sensor and firepower capabilities to free it from "fire mission on grid WXYZ, troops in the open"? Here again, you point out the flexibility of modern tac air. As much as folks love to point at specifically roled aircraft, the reality is that every commander needs the flex to be able to reallocate his weapons to other missions as the needs of the war evolve. While you might really enjoy a fleet of air dominance fighters on day one, by day three you would rather have a bunch of deep interdiction and recce assets and if you get bogged down on day fifteen you'd like something with endurance and precision to supply the CAS. Seems like there is still a role for low and (relativly) slow. Just a thought, would love your feedback. Low and slow allows for a lot of things that high and fast does not. But, it adds a lot of vulnerability. Army aviation assets are ideal for these tasks and they have developed tactics to carry them out effectively. Integration of artillery, aviation and fixed wing assets for fire support is what the fire support coordination team does in the ops center. And, of course, we've now added the Predator. SPC Reed Dyer, 41st BCT OARNG P.S. I am one of those groundpounder and an OIF vet. If you ever find yourself near Portland OR or Olympia WA, I'll be more then happy to cover that next drink. Actually, it should be me buying for you. Thanks for your service. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
"New helicopters join fleet of airborne Border Patrol" | Mike | Rotorcraft | 1 | August 16th 04 09:37 PM |
Carrier strike groups test new Fleet Response Plan | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 18th 04 10:25 PM |
Fleet Air Arm | Tonka Dude | Military Aviation | 0 | November 22nd 03 09:28 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |