Replies

You are reaching. . .reaching way back.

Korea?

Okay, here goes (from a Gulf War I combat experienced ground FAC):

". . .which essentially eliminated the type of close-air support that only Marine pilots attempt, diving below tree-top level to deliver munitions just over the heads of the infantry. "

Nonsense.

Vietnam ring a bell? .

Back in the 80's I flew the A-10 and low level CAS was the plan of the day. Just ask ANY grunt on the ground in Germany that took part in the exercises.

Flying LOW is not a measure of "close." Not at all, and it's time people understood that fact.

Close has to do do with how close we deliver the munition. Altitude has nothing to do with it. CAS is basically the delivery of weapons while under positive control while in close proximity to friendly troops.

If you can deliver munitions accurately from outside the bad guy envelope, best do it that way. You increase your chances of surviving and being able to fly more missions. Flying low and into the teeth of the bad guys just because it looks neat in an air show is foolish. If you can deliver accurately from altitude or stand-off, do it. We USAF do fly into the teeth when the situation warrants and we pay the price (Steve Phillis, GWI).

Amateurs that watch too many movies and never studied the science of CAS always seem to make that same mistake. . .only believing CAS somehow means flying close to the ground.

Rubbish.

Your observation was astute, but that is exactly why I referred to Korea. The lessons learned in Korea brought about the necessary changes. It didn't seem as if a response to a post about the Marines and the Air Force required a complete dissertation on the advance of forward observers and the advance in technology. Rather, it was a remark about how the Marines through the years have worked closely and in most instance on a timely basis. And it seems that back in Korea, the Fifth Air Force did not prefer low level close-air supports.

It would seem that if the Air Force becomes the only service with aviation, it could revert back to the days of Korea, whereby Marines could not rely on Marine close-air support at any altitude.

And with regard to Vietnam, it doesn't ring a bell; however, I am quite familiar with the conflict and remember it well as the war in which the U.S. troops won every major battle on the field and for their tremendous sacrifices, they got abandoned by Congress.

Oh, by the way, John Kerry served in Vietnam.

On your last point, I am not familiar with any amateurs who watch too, many movies, so I'll pass on that.

In closing thanks for serving.

To build on your point about CAS, the B-52s did a great job with JDAM at CAS from 30,000 feet.

I would say though that the attempt to move away from low altitude was premature, and only recently (last 10 years) has it really been possible. I'm not saying your point is wrong, just that weaponry didn't fully support the move until recently. The price has come down substantially, and JDAM allows area coverage (hit a ridge line with a stick of bombs) that just wasn't feasible before from those altitudes. Partly too, I think that the US Army's move into traditional CAS in the FEBA with their attack helicopters, alleviated part of the burden on the USAF.