The Air Force has hated the close air support mission from the start, and compared to the Marines, they’ve pretty much sucked at it. My father was a WWII Pacific Theater Army combat veteran, and he said the Army Air Forces (and the Navy) provided lousy CAS to his division. The Marines did it right, and they loved them for it. I’m former Navy Air, and admit we’ve not done it well, either.
Sorry to ask this, but how do the Marines do it?
My father-in-law was in the 1st Marine Division in Korea and he said they loved to see the Corsairs coming, they always clobbered the Chinese and Norks. He never mentioned what branch, but I assumed they would be Navy.
I’m an Air Force veteran, and the USAF rules above 10,000 feet. Between 5,000 feet and 10,000 feet the USAF is very, very good. From 2,500 feet to 5,000 feet the USAF is still pretty good. But from the deck to 2,500 feet the USMC jockeys are hard to beat.
“The Air Force has hated the close air support mission from the start, and compared to the Marines, they’ve pretty much sucked at it. “
Not really, and reaching back to WWII to make your point is a bit of a stretch. Things have changed a lot since then.
The reason for the Air Force trying to kill the Hog is because of the JSF — need funding, and the Hog is a single-mission jet, and the bean-counters in SAF/AQ are looking at the JSF (multi-mission) versus the Hog (single-mission). To those bean-counters you get more bang for your buck going with a multi-mission jet not a single-mission jet. They are wrong on that one.
CAS is a USAF mission that is second to the USAF air superiority mission. You need air superiority before you can focus on protecting the guys on the ground through CAS. You can fly CAS absent air superiority but that scenario makes CAS all that more difficult.
CAS in the Hog - a terrific and capable platform, very accurate, versatile and has an ability to loiter in the target area for multiple passes (unlike the Marine Harrier that could only hang around for a single pass, maybe two).
Marines have their “own” CAS because the Marines were not expected to “go deep” and would remain with specific units. That works for the Marines but does not work theater-wide.
Attaching a jet to a specific unit limits it effectiveness, as we found out back in WWII. Back then specific AAF jets were attached to specific Army units, and if not needed the Army units kept them for “what if. . .” missions, thereby depriving other Army units of important CAS support.
The Air Component Commander follows the lead of the Joint Forces Combatant Commander (Army). The commander apportions CAS assets based upon the needs of the Army, not the Air Force.
And most any jet can perform CAS. This is a concept most people have a hard time getting their mind around. A lot of people think a jet needs to fly low, very low, and the lower the better. That is fundamentally wrong. You only fly low when the A/A environment makes you fly low. Many a Hog-driver has been shot-up and killed giving it all for the guys on the ground (lost a student of mine in the first Gulf War: https://airforce.togetherweserved.com/usaf/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=Person&ID=89212).
It is weapons effects that define CAS, meaning you can fly at 50,000 feet and if you have accurate targeting/weapons you can deliver ordnance in close proximity to friendly forces. Today’s JDAMS, SDB, etc, basically makes every bomb-dropper a CAS platform. The A-10 gun is unmatched by any other gun; accurate, powerful, multiple trigger-pulls. It truly is the ‘fist of gawd.’
To say again: the Air Force is to control the skies, first, then CAS platforms (too include Marine CAS) can then be flown under a protective cover.
Last time US troops on the ground came under enemy fire from enemy aircraft - Korea.
CAS is a challenging mission that requires skills completely different than A/A or deep strike. And the Air Force is darned good at it. . .ask any grunt on the ground.
(I’ve called in live CAS and flown CAS in my A-10. Impressive accuracy and surviveability.)