Posted on 01/23/2015 1:19:39 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one," Napoleon said about the elements of military strength. Two signs that would make Napoleon worry.
First, the background. Two military airplanes are getting a lot of attention: the A-10 "Warthog"—"Honey Badger" would be a better name—a kind of flying tank that has been crucial in "close air support" missions from the first Gulf War onwards; and the F-35 "Lightning II," a still-in-development multi-purpose airplane that has been plagued by technical problems, production delays, and cost overruns.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
James Fallows
“...once worked as President Carter’s chief speechwriter.”
Here’s my dilemma if you will...
With the advent of the internet era, there is no shortage of people trying to make a name for themselves.
In previous aircraft programs, it was impossible to know what was happening during DT and OT unless one had connections.
The significant problems that complicated aircraft face while in development are common throughout. The F35 is subject to extreme scrutiny because not only is it a gray program, the leftists are salivating at getting it killed because then National Defense is compromised once again for social programs...and they have the media on their side.
I’m disappointed that so many swallow what leftists like the author print without exercising due diligence and asking why and how. Why would a leftist write such a negative article and how does “he” benefit? Recall that he was Carter’s Chief speechwriter.
Does the program have problems? Yes.
Has there ever been a program that didn’t?
It is the same tired “roles and missions” battle that has been going on since 1947. The Air Force has never been excited about the Close Air Support (CAS) mission, but they also would never let the Army keep the fixed wing means to do that mission for itself, like the Marines do. For example, early in RVN, the Army was hanging all kinds of ordnance for CAS off the OV-1 Mohawks, so the AF whined until DOD took that aircraft away. Therefore, the Army spent gazillions of dollars to come up with rotary wing aircraft to do that job. Even the argument over the C7-A Caribou for log support was a roles and missions argument. Practical aircraft for forward operations. USAF couldn’t tolerate that, so the USAF got them all and put them in reserve units. Close air support is just not sexy enough. But when it is your buttons are in the mud, it is your lifesaver.
“An F-35 recently did 17 sorties in one day”
Wow.
Thats a lot of VERY short flights that basically did nothing, no mission.
And I wonder if that many flights is even possible at all.
Pre-flight, start, taxi, EOR checks, launch, quick circuit and land, de-arm, taxi back, shut-down, post-flight inspection. . .repeat. . .is it even possible 17 sorties (i.e., flights) were done in 24hrs.
I don’t think it’s treason...but circumeventing the chain of command and discussing operational readiness and other OPSEC related issues to those without a clear need to know are punishable.
I think the General engaged in hyperbole in trying to convey a message...something that someone of his rank should know better than to do.
A simple order to the people in the Command to not discuss any operational information and to refer any and all inquiries to Public Affairs is typically sufficient...and normally the case.
The “average” airman is not to take it upon themselves to be sources of information. There’s a lot they don’t know and can cause harm by discussing things they’re not supposed to.
Actually, the Jeep was simpler to maintain, went pretty well anywhere you wanted it to, had a very useful trailer and best of all, fit inside helicopters, transport aircraft and amphibious shipping.
Hummers, on the other hand are trash with plastic gas tanks, steering pumps and alternators that are built in the prison system and they don't have any room inside at all for anything but also can't fit inside anything.
Junk.
The Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 since before it was even built. Let the Army have it!
If you really honest to God precision CAS, get the Marines sorties if you can.
“sorties”
Is it possible VTOLs (simply up and down) are being counted as “sorties”?
It’s not outside the realm of possibilities to perform 17 VTOLs in a day...
A sortie is quite a lot different than performing VTOLs...it’d be an interesting exercise in stretching the definition of a sortie if they actually counted them as such.
However, the “mission” may have been testing the STOVL system and landing gear...there’s not enough information there to indicate if it was test or operational.
may I: The US Military, at the highest levels, needs a nuclear, A#1, top shelf, industrial strength enema.
“Old fasioned” is a cheap shot and is irrelevant.
The A-10 is a remarkably capable CAS platform that no other jet can match when it comes to ordinance load, the gun and (most importantly) loiter time. The JSF, touted as LO, is not if it is kitted out for the CAS role. And it does not have loiter time like the A-10.
A 30MM from an A-10 is far superior to any gun theu put on the JSF. . .30MM on the JSF is NOT the same round and can't do the gun mission very well. . .must close with the tgt in order to be effective and the guns mil dispersion is in excess of the A-10, meaning less bullets on tgt.
A-10 30MM can penetrate an inch and a half of armor at 8,000’. . .can the JSF?
Strap a CAS load on the JSF and it is no longer LO. .so why pay for a capability you don't need?
“Speed is Life” is the mantra of fighter pilots that fly A/A. Speed in not necessarily life for fighter pilots that fly dedicated CAS. You have to find the tgt, aim, get clearance from the JTAC, and then fire on the tgt and be ready for a re-attack (adjusting the fire to the next tgt or to refine your aim); the speed of the A-10 makes that doable, whereas JSF engagement speeds this capability is degraded. . .no matter how much magic connectivity you have. Pickling a JDAM or SDB on GPS coordinates is great, but to stay around for immediate reattacks (where you truly are effective) and do those re-attacks with the gun, connectivity and GPS is not gonna help you.
So, what is your considered opinion based upon flying the CAS mission? What about calling in CAS? Let's see if they match mine.
OOOOOHHHHHHHHH. . . I missed the sarcasm. . . . .hah. . .you got me.
;-)
Very clever.
Good job.
Me thinks/IMHO: As a (now)old Infantryman; it seems the Air Force always wants to get rid of the A-10 — until someone from the Army says “we’ll take them!” Then, the A-10 is suddenly a critical Air Force asset again. It could not possibly have anything to do with funding and pilot slots could it?
A sortie is a flight, a mission.
Unless the JSF program is trying to re-define the word.
Interesting comment considering the vast majority of F16 and for all intents and purposes, ALL F15E sorties are CAS...
I was being facetious to someone who failed to understand a light-hearted post I made in reference to old airplanes.
Oh I agree, was simply trying to understand the poster’s comment and see if they would offer up some more information.
The JSF program’s flight test “success” criteria as explained to Congress is sortie and test point count. So there may be some merit to the “re-define” statement...
Absurd by any definition...operational capability should define success, not sorties flown and test points.
Although burning down test points should eventually lead to capability, unless you’re picking all of the low hanging fruit and are focused on metrics vs. capability.
Same thing the government did with employment data.
Same thing the GW crowd did with climate data.
Same thing this administration did with economic data.
Exactly!
Air Superiority and Close Air Support are two entirely different missions. The Air Force tolerates the CAS mission to keep the Army & Marines off their backs.
Thankfully, the Marines have our own CAS, plus the Navy doesn’t do too bad a job of providing CAS either.
The Air Force needs to turn the A-10s and their CAS role over to the Army and Marines. Then the Air Force can go play in their “wild, blue yonder” with their Mach-Gazillion fighters. Let them ensure Air Superiority over the battlefield.
Considering both, broken down, 50 miles from the pavement, experience would dictate that the old jeep is indeed the better choice.
From the article:
From Napoleon onward, and actually long before,
commanders and historians of battle have emphasized that
moral traits — commitment, cohesion, belief in the rightness
of a cause—matter more in combat than simple material
strength. Napoleon’s famous way of putting this was, “the
moral is to the physical as three to one.”
So ‘moral’ appears to be correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.