Slight clarification: "Airmen" in the context here isn't necessary referring to pilots, but Air Force personnel in general. No one should be surprised that the Air Force is seeking to put this program in a positive light, but the headline makes it seem as though pilots are being forced to talk it up about it.
What they're describing is more of a policy statement. Public Affairs Office documents put in writing the message so that various components will speak with a single voice and avoid inconsistencies. Just like PR departments in companies do.
As to whether or not you think the message is valid, I leave to the reader. But I thought I'd give my two cents on what seemed like a slanted headline.
> "Airmen" in the context here isn't necessary referring to pilots, but Air Force personnel in general.
That's what "airmen" always means: the generic name for service members in each service are, as follows: Army => soldiers, Navy => sailors, Marine Corps => marines, Air Force => airmen.
If one wants to talk about pilots specifically, the word used is "pilots", not "airmen".
Related article [0]: The U.S. Air Force Has Always Loathed Close Air Support
Essentially the A-10 is being scrapped to keep the F-35 program afloat. But that article argues that the Air Force always had ideological issues with the CAS role and never wanted the A-10.
People argue in support of the A-10 largely because of its ability to travel at a slower speed for better ground engagement (and having great weapons for when it does).
So my question is: Aren't helicopters better yet still? An A-10 can travel slow and low supporting troops, but a helicopter (e.g. Apache) can literally hover above and lay down extremely precise fire.
So instead of arguing F-35 Vs. A-10, shouldn't we just accept that maybe jet aircraft aren't the ideal platform for CAS, and look at helicopters or maybe even prop aircraft?
Attack helicopters can't fly as fast, as high, or carry as much weight. They also don't have weapons like the A-10 does, nothing else in the world short of warships does. That gun is absolutely berserk.
So if you're in a situation where you need constant cover, you want either an AC-130, which is usually limited to night missions since it's a gigantic slow moving target, or an A-10 which can get in and out while having a very clear sense of the battlefield by being in so close.
Helicopters are better suited to anti-tank warfare, they can sneak up on them and pick them off at crazy ranges, but the last time we've seen that at scale was 1991 Iraq.
The other problem with helicopters is how long they can stay airborne. Since any helicopter pilot always has one eye on the fuel gauge, where "time to bingo" is a constant concern as those things chew through gas like crazy, they're not as versatile. Some joke that the A-10's loiter time is only limited by how much food the pilot brought along, it's got massive fuel tanks and efficient engines.
Related article [0]: The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money (link bait-title)
You might be interested in this article about the A-29B program. The Super Tucano can provide superior ground support, it is very cheap to produce and maintain, and the US military could have gotten a lot of them out in the field quickly. They're being built now and will be used in the Afghan and Iraqi militaries, but the Pentagon preferred to put all of their money in the F-35.
This is related in that it is published by the same blog, which has made something of a cottage industry out of saying bad things about the F-35.
Here's a link from yesterday's discussion of the A-29, which shed some light on statistics that show that the F-16 is in some ways more successful in CAS missions than the A-10.
I don't think flying low and slow are good attributes these days with advanced avionics and targeting systems. With the advances in drones and computer software I am pretty sure we will get accuracy to the point we can get the guy next to you if necessary. It won't be today, but it will happen.
currently the A-10s armor isn't sufficient for modern weapon systems it will meet. any helicopter is just a big target
[+] [-] ckozlowski|10 years ago|reply
What they're describing is more of a policy statement. Public Affairs Office documents put in writing the message so that various components will speak with a single voice and avoid inconsistencies. Just like PR departments in companies do.
As to whether or not you think the message is valid, I leave to the reader. But I thought I'd give my two cents on what seemed like a slanted headline.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
That's what "airmen" always means: the generic name for service members in each service are, as follows: Army => soldiers, Navy => sailors, Marine Corps => marines, Air Force => airmen.
If one wants to talk about pilots specifically, the word used is "pilots", not "airmen".
[+] [-] Someone1234|10 years ago|reply
Essentially the A-10 is being scrapped to keep the F-35 program afloat. But that article argues that the Air Force always had ideological issues with the CAS role and never wanted the A-10.
People argue in support of the A-10 largely because of its ability to travel at a slower speed for better ground engagement (and having great weapons for when it does).
So my question is: Aren't helicopters better yet still? An A-10 can travel slow and low supporting troops, but a helicopter (e.g. Apache) can literally hover above and lay down extremely precise fire.
So instead of arguing F-35 Vs. A-10, shouldn't we just accept that maybe jet aircraft aren't the ideal platform for CAS, and look at helicopters or maybe even prop aircraft?
[0] http://warisboring.com/articles/the-u-s-air-force-has-loathe...
[+] [-] astrodust|10 years ago|reply
So if you're in a situation where you need constant cover, you want either an AC-130, which is usually limited to night missions since it's a gigantic slow moving target, or an A-10 which can get in and out while having a very clear sense of the battlefield by being in so close.
Helicopters are better suited to anti-tank warfare, they can sneak up on them and pick them off at crazy ranges, but the last time we've seen that at scale was 1991 Iraq.
The other problem with helicopters is how long they can stay airborne. Since any helicopter pilot always has one eye on the fuel gauge, where "time to bingo" is a constant concern as those things chew through gas like crazy, they're not as versatile. Some joke that the A-10's loiter time is only limited by how much food the pilot brought along, it's got massive fuel tanks and efficient engines.
Consider this commentary on ground support planes: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
[+] [-] Tad_Ghostly|10 years ago|reply
Related article [0]: The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money (link bait-title)
You might be interested in this article about the A-29B program. The Super Tucano can provide superior ground support, it is very cheap to produce and maintain, and the US military could have gotten a lot of them out in the field quickly. They're being built now and will be used in the Afghan and Iraqi militaries, but the Pentagon preferred to put all of their money in the F-35.
[0] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
[+] [-] snowwrestler|10 years ago|reply
Here's a link from yesterday's discussion of the A-29, which shed some light on statistics that show that the F-16 is in some ways more successful in CAS missions than the A-10.
http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-ai...
[+] [-] dimitar|10 years ago|reply
The only downside is the loss of prestige for the AF.
[+] [-] Shivetya|10 years ago|reply
currently the A-10s armor isn't sufficient for modern weapon systems it will meet. any helicopter is just a big target