MQ-1C Sky Warrior
MQ-9 Reaper
The U.S. Army Aviation should also use manned CAS aircraft, like the:
Air Tractor AT-802U
Boeing OV-10X Bronco
Hawker Beechcraft / Raytheon AT-6 Texan II
Posted on 04/04/2010 9:30:34 PM PDT by myknowledge
MQ-1C Sky Warrior
MQ-9 Reaper
The U.S. Army Aviation should also use manned CAS aircraft, like the:
Air Tractor AT-802U
Boeing OV-10X Bronco
Hawker Beechcraft / Raytheon AT-6 Texan II
There is an element in the USAF that has always resented the A-10 “Warthog” because it’s not fast and sexy. I will advocate turning the A-10s over to the Army, training Army pilots for close-in air support to be at the call of Army ground commanders and for the benefit of the grunts on the ground, as the USMC does.
I’m an Army guy...but I am a little perplexed about the Army controlling these aircraft. It seems that the Air Force controllers have a much better command of airspace issues than Army folks. However, I can also see the merit of having these things controlled by the Army, to be more responsive to unit needs.
If I were a USAF general, I wouldn’t give a stuff if the A-10 is a slow and ugly beast, it can stir a helluva lot of fear on enemy tank crews, because when its GAU-8/A 30mm cannon whirrs, they’re toast.
These squabblings will end when the UAVs can fly themselves. Someday very soon there will be 500lb(and smaller) autonomous UAVs that do what the army grunt tells it to do. No airforce or army air corps will have anything to do with it.
The Air Tractor (a modified spray plane) might work out better. Besides which it just looks more like an attack aircraft. :)
The air force should be under the operational control of the army.
I wonder whether the rules of war really can apply to someone who is operating the guns of some UAV from several time zones away. If that’s the case, does that person even need to be military? Just wondering what other folks think.
That question has already been raised and discussed since some Predator "pilots" are CIA civilians...do they qualify as non-uniformed combatants? The general legal consensus is that the UAV itself is the instrument of war, and as long as it's clearly marked as a U.S. aircraft it's in compliance with international treaties and conventions.
Fit it with a turbo-prop, and it would be good to go. Oh wait.
Already been done, meet the A2D Skyshark.
Put a modern turbo prop in there (they had problems with the reduction gears) and it woudl be hard to beat.
Why? The USAF has always been separate since July 26, 1947.
Because (essentially) the sole purpose of the AF is to support the Army.
The French tried that, and so did we until after the early part of the North African campaigns of WW-II. It didn't work out so well. Violates the "Concentration of force" principal, as scarce assets are put out in penny lots all over the battlespace.
But like artillery, you can put smaller aircraft, like helicopters or very light fixed wing birds, at lower levels, because you can have more of them. And you often must, just because they have relatively short legs. You don't have Pallidans at company or battalion level, and you wouldn't have these drones at that level either.
And what would you do with the BUFFs, the Bones, and the B-2s, not to mention the KCs, AWACS, C-17s and C-5s.
The Air Force does a lot more than shoot at stuff on the ground.
US troops have not had to face hostile air power since the creation of the US Air Force. There's a reason for that. :)
How long till obama turns these against American citizens?I am only half kidding.
“US troops have not had to face hostile air power since the creation of the US Air Force. There’s a reason for that. :)”
Yup. USAF should be — and mostly wants to be — concerned with control of the air space. They seriously kick @ss in that arena.
Ground support should be a Marine and/or Army matter. Let’s be honest, the USAF really doesn’t care about the warthogs, they’re just stuck with them because they are such an effective platform, and even our dumbed-down populace knows it.
The division should be on mission lines: Air superiority? Give the USAF their toys and training, and they’ll own the air. Ground support? That’s a ground-pounder job once the USAF does theirs.
I suspect ignorance, but please let us in on your plans.
Wrong.
The sole purpose of the Army is go in and clean up after the Air Force. ;)
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.