B-29... good investment or waste of money?

[pmelheck1]

deleted

[pmelheck1]

Only thing that I'm aware that could drop this.

[jackyo123]

Absolutely was necessary - when the spec was drawn up, the Brass thought that it was possible Brtain would be defeated and the us would need to bomb germany from north american bases.

[usersatch]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

F-18 and F-15's are really too fast to perform close air support very well.  By the time the pilot has found and identified the target, he's already on top of it.  The LGB packages these planes now carry helps, but those are secondary missions for what are basically air superiority fighters (except for the F-15E's, they're specialized ground attack planes).

The ideal CAS plane would be something like the A-10 or A1 Skyraider, carries a lot of ordinance, good range and loiter time, survivable and not too fast to be able to find the target.  The USAF didn't want to subordinate its mission to that of the ground forces, so they never had any interest in planes like the A-10.  Fighters are a lot sexier, after all.

Amen! The fast movers can come in slower and lower, but you so much as look at them wrong and they crash, so they normally stay higher and faster (GPS is a godsend to the chair force as now they don't have to come in slow and low). There are few notable exceptions, like Robert's Ridge in Afghanistan, however. I have personally called in CAS using A-10s, F-16s, Apaches, and Spectre and hands down the A-10 is the most accurate and reliable platform. They can take a real beatin from AAA and still carry out the mission flying 50ft off the ground, deathly quiet.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Boeing built the first prototype in 1939, according to their web site. This tells me the US Army was looking ahead at several things, (1) A replacement bomber for the B-17 and B-24, (2) IF England fell, a way to strike Europe from North America.

Sorry that cant be right, in 39 no one had an inkling France would fall yet alone the Uk. France had the greatest army on earth pre 1940 according to most army experts.

True, what I mean is as a program rocks along and the costs go up, then the justifications start and with the situation in Europe getting worse, then (2) became the reason to continue.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

F-18 and F-15's are really too fast to perform close air support very well.  By the time the pilot has found and identified the target, he's already on top of it.  The LGB packages these planes now carry helps, but those are secondary missions for what are basically air superiority fighters (except for the F-15E's, they're specialized ground attack planes).

The ideal CAS plane would be something like the A-10 or A1 Skyraider, carries a lot of ordinance, good range and loiter time, survivable and not too fast to be able to find the target.  The USAF didn't want to subordinate its mission to that of the ground forces, so they never had any interest in planes like the A-10.  Fighters are a lot sexier, after all.

Those planes can and do provide CAS support and valuable service. GPS technology has changed the face of close air. BUT trust me, the USAF is not really that interested in doing that mission, and have never been interested in doing that mission as an institution, not to say there is not some really great A-10/AC-130 pilots and crew out there who love nothing more that saving my ass, and God Bless them, but the USAF as an institution is NOT inclined to make CAS it's number one priority. So, I say take all the pilots who like to get down and dirty and move them to the US Army and make the US Army responsible for it's own CAS like the Corps. Joint sounds nice, but much of the time it is only a buzz word.

Last, God help us when the satellite come down and the is no more GPS, the US military would crap the bed and be in huge trouble. Because if I were going to fight the US, killing the satellites would be one of my first moves to "level the playing field" so to speak.

[Nikademus]

while on the subject.......why was the F-14 retired? cost? F-18 can do it all now?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

while on the subject.......why was the F-14 retired? cost? F-18 can do it all now?

My understanding is operating/ongoing maintenance cost versus the F18 (what is the newer variant? E-model +?).

[usersatch]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

while on the subject.......why was the F-14 retired? cost? F-18 can do it all now?

My understanding is operating/ongoing maintenance cost versus the F18 (what is the newer variant? E-model +?).

F-18F Super Hornet. Seems pretty badass.

The only issue I had with retiring the Tomcat was the elimination of a platform for the Phoenix and AMRAAM missiles. Not sure if the F18 can carry the Phoenix, but I know it carries the AMRAAM. Contrary to "Top Gun" the F14 was not a good dogfighter and wouldnt stand a chance of close A2A against the Flanker or the Fulcrum. The retirement of the F14 seemed to coincide with the emasculation of the Soviet fleet, specifically their Backfire bombers and the billions of AS4 and AS6 cruise missiles they could launch from long range at USN ships. That and the Navy wanted a new toy.

[usersatch]

[/quote]

Those planes can and do provide CAS support and valuable service. GPS technology has changed the face of close air. BUT trust me, the USAF is not really that interested in doing that mission, and have never been interested in doing that mission as an institution, not to say there is not some really great A-10/AC-130 pilots and crew out there who love nothing more that saving my ass, and God Bless them, but the USAF as an institution is NOT inclined to make CAS it's number one priority. So, I say take all the pilots who like to get down and dirty and move them to the US Army and make the US Army responsible for it's own CAS like the Corps. Joint sounds nice, but much of the time it is only a buzz word.

Last, God help us when the satellite come down and the is no more GPS, the US military would crap the bed and be in huge trouble. Because if I were going to fight the US, killing the satellites would be one of my first moves to "level the playing field" so to speak.
[/quote]

If the satellites come down, the NCOs will have to square away the O's once again.

[sfbaytf]

While on the topic, there were numerous reports the Air Force didn't embrace the UAV concept and a year or so ago Secretary Gates was quoted as saying "getting them to deploy more drones to Afghanstan was like pulling teeth". Things probably have changed-with a little gentle prooding from Secretary of Defense Gates.

Personally I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to send the A-10's to the Army and let them work in close coordination with the Apaches and other rotary wing assets, same with UAV assets and let the Air Force concentrate on what it wants to do-mainly air superiority, interdiction as well as strategic and operational level bombing.

That's just my .02 cents. I'm sure there are other with more knowledge and experience who know more than me and have other ideas.

[usersatch]

My dad was a USMC F4 pilot in Vietnam. He was required to serve some time as a ground FAC so he could get better CAS skills as a pilot. He wholeheartedly embraced the idea of organic support. He saw many times the lack of effective communication between Army and Air Force. A lot of times we (Ranger Rgt) got support from TF160, but they don't have the fixed wing assets that the Air Force has. But, I did notice a big difference in communication and trust between them and the zoomies.

Even though the Air Force hates CAS, I could see them seriously groaning about having to give it up to the Army. If I recall, there was a big push back in the 80s to have the Apaches attached to the Air Force instead of the Army. Is that true?

I would love to see the A-10 and a large UAV fleet assigned to the Army, but if it was going to happen, it probably would have happened by now. Unfortunately. I think TF 160 could serve as the model for integrating fixed wing Army aviation.

[sfbaytf]

Only an act of congress would force the Air Force to give up its ground support role to the Army. That would probably be a fierce political battle. Its all about the budgets and defense dollars. Don't see that happening anytime soon.

In the past some have proposed getting rid of the duplication and have all services do common basic training and things like flight training at one or 2 facilities to get rid of the ingrained institutionalism and instill a greater sense of working together. i don't see that happening either.

The law enacted by Congress back in 1947 is an interesting one. Had the Air Force realized what rotary wing aviation would eventually become, they probably would have lobbied to ban the Army from having rotary wing assets from the get go. Back then helicopters were a curiosity. Who knows the newly formed Air Force probably believed they would just be used as a taxi service for generals.

Mabye the Army needs to look at the Osprey. They could argue its a rotary wing asset. They could then load it up with weapons.

I never heard of push to have the Air Force acquire the Apaches in the 80's, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.