Combat crop duster

[cawest]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I had this same fight with idiots on Youtube who think that all CAS is done with JADAMS from 20K feet. When I pointed out that I didn't like the idea of dropping a 1000lb bomb on a target 500m away, they tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. After all, those JADAMS will hit a 3m CEP. I guess that 1000lber's blast radius has an IFF function too...huh? When I point out that sometimes you need a good old fashioned "MK1 Eyeball" to look "over yonder" they talk about "survivability." The same a****les that don't want a jet flying low have NO PROBLEM killing a company of soldiers by sending them unsupported into a "meat grinder."

They need to repeal that ridiculous restriction on the Army flying CAS. The Army should then take the A10 and pay the Air Force for them so the flyboys can go buy more F35s. CAS is like sex or money... YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH OF IT!

The us army cannot have the A10's. the Key West agreement bares it. now back in 1988/89. they did work out a work around, that i don't think they will try again. From what i understand of the agreement. The army would pay for and man the units in peace time, but in time of war they would fall under the USAF for command. Now with the problems of finding parts for an air-frame that last came off the lines in 1984. I don't see them risking that much money on a 30 year old air frame (at best).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by cawest

The us army cannot have the A10's. the Key West agreement bares it. .

I know that; I just think they should throw out the Key West Agreement out and the laws attached to it. If the Air Force doesn't want to fly a credible CAS platform, let the Army have it (regardless of whatever aircraft we eventually end up going with).

[mpipes]

My guess is that things will muddle forward with F-35s and drones increasingly doing the CAS mission. At some point, things will come to a head and Congress will strip the CAS mission from the USAF. I think it has been heading that way for 50 years now. After all, that is where attack helicopters came from was the army's need for something. I think it is a matter of time now.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by cawest

The us army cannot have the A10's. the Key West agreement bares it. now back in 1988/89. they did work out a work around, that i don't think they will try again. From what i understand of the agreement. The army would pay for and man the units in peace time, but in time of war they would fall under the USAF for command. Now with the problems of finding parts for an air-frame that last came off the lines in 1984. I don't see them risking that much money on a 30 year old air frame (at best).

That's why the Key West agreement NEEDS TO GO! Whatever you do, don't say that a 30-year-old plane is too old to rehab around any B52 pilots. The B52s have been flying for 60 years and are expected to serve for about 10 more years after their recent update. The average B52 airframe age is like 42 years old. I just flew in a newly "Zeroed" 1974 Cessna 172 that was nicer to fly than the 1982 one I took my first lesson in. There's no reason the 300 A10 airframes cannot fly for another 30 years with a proper rebuild.

[swaghauler]

I see no reason why the Army or Air Force shouldn't adopt a new turboprop aircraft. The Broncos supposedly cost the Air Force $1,000 per flight hour to operate. The A10 is supposed to cost around $10K per flight hour of operation. I have heard that an F15 costs around $30K per flight hour in fuel and maintenance costs but I don't know if this is accurate. I know it costs between $100 and $200 per flight hour to operate a Cessna (based on age, condition, and the region you fly in), so the numbers SEEM accurate based on fuel and inspection costs.

[Raellus]

This article demonstrates the importance of genuine, down-and-dirty, CLOSE air support, and the value of the A-10. If FA-18s couldn't hack it, neither could the F-35. Drones weren't even mentioned as an option.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how...e-c-1806510162

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by mpipes

Any grunt will tell you that effective CAS is from a plane under 2,000 ft and 400 kts.

No any grunt will tell that effective CAS is putting ordnance on target, don’t care how slow or fast.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

That's why the Key West agreement NEEDS TO GO! Whatever you do, don't say that a 30-year-old plane is too old to rehab around any B52 pilots. The B52s have been flying for 60 years and are expected to serve for about 10 more years after their recent update.

The Key West agreement is not a bad as it seem to be all it did was to allow they Navy to retain its own combat air arm. The Army would be allowed to retain aviation assets for reconnaissance and medical evacuation purposes and the Air Force would have control of all strategic air assets, and most tactical and logistic functions as well. At this time air force was less than a year old and was fighting for it share of money.

The real damage was cause by Pace-Finletter MOU 1952 which removed the weight restrictions on helicopters that the U.S. Army could use and widened the range of tasks the Army's helicopters could be used for. However, it also created an arbitrary 5,000 pound weight restriction that limits the Army's ability to fly fixed-wing aircraft.

However it is the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966 that effective kills any hopes that the army might have had a CAS aircraft. In the agreement The U.S. Army agreed to give up its fixed-wing tactical airlift aircraft, while the U.S. Air Force relinquished its claim to most forms of rotary wing aircraft.

While you are correct about the B52, the 93 B52H that Airforce flies have been updated regularly due it consent need for the airframe. The 600+ A-10 have maintained not so much as it need for CAS has shrunk. The Afghanistan war was the best for the aircraft as it showed the need for a CAS aircraft. Also in 2006 the Airforce launched it service life extension program for the A-10 which put in 2040 before another need the B52H is 2045.

I’d also like to point out On June 7 2017, Air Force R&D Chief Lt. General Arnold Bunch testified that the service “is committed to maintaining a minimum of six A-10 combat squadrons flying and contributing to the fight through 2030 with additional A-10 force structure is contingent on future budget levels and force structure requirements.

[Sith]

DoD has been looking at prop aircraft for the CAS role off and on for a little over a decade now. The Super Tacano was one of the first they were looking at, I think FOX news did a story on it about eight or nine years ago. Think about it like light and heavy CAS (my words). They want something that is one step up from a drone; has high loitering time and good weapons payload. However, this would have an "on site" pilot who is not looking at the battlefield through a "soda straw" (camera) and has the situational awareness to make snap decisions. Additionally, it is cheap to purchase, maintain, and operate. It is not meant to replace the A10, but augment The CAS capabilities of a force in a COIN environment, of which the A10 is a part of. These were never meant to be used outside of COIN.