military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/13/90)
From: uunet!mcgp1!flak (Dan Flak) In article <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com> yamauchi@heron.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > > >From: yamauchi@heron.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) > >Does the fact that the Army controls the infantry but the Air Force >controls air support ever result in any problems? > >If an Army commander wants air support, but an Air Force commander >decides that it's too risky or that his airpower could be better >utilized other in other ways, are the ground troops just out of luck? The Air Force "gives" the theater commander, so many ground support sorties each day. Then, the subordinate Army commanders "divvy" up the pie, ususally as far down as Corps and sometimes, Division level. >From there, it is apportioned more on an "as needed" basis. Army G/S-3 (operations) at each level of command (usually as far down as battalion) work with Air Force Air Liaison Officers (ALOs) to determine the air support they need for the next day's operations. They then submit these "preplanned" requests up Army channels to the Direct Air Support Center (DASC), a joint Army AF section in the Corps headquarters. Higher headquarters monitor the request at every step and can "nix" the air support in favor of using Army Aviation Assetts (Attack Helos) or Artillery. Silence at the intermediate eschelons implies consent. For "immediate" air support, the S-3 consults with the ALO/FAC who sends the request to the DASC via Air Force communications. The decison for the sortie request is made at the DASC (Corps) level. The use of pre-authorized air support is a joint Army-AF decision. Where the problems lie are in how much air the Air Theater Commander gives the Ground Theater Commander. >Do Air Force pilots resent being assigned to flying Warthogs on >peripheral missions such as air support instead of flying Eagles on the >Air Force's primary mission of air superiority? Speaking from strictly personal point of view, I find ground attack to be a very satisfying mission. Putting the bombs on target and saving some "grunt's" neck (or other part of his anatomy) is very rewarding. Philosophically, I belive that the Air Force's ultimate customer is some 19 year-old PFC with an M-16 on "point". -- United Federation of Anarchists - Seattle Chapter
yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) (09/14/90)
From: yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) Does anybody know how the Soviets partition their air assets? I seem to recall areas such as "Frontal Aviation" (tactical air), "Long-range Aviation" (i.e. their SAC), "Naval Aviation" (mostly long-range anti-shipping) and [some term I cannot recall] for Air defense of the SU (against strategic strikes, presumably). Is this "Frontal aviation" subordinated to the army at any level (Division, Army or Front), thus giving ground commanders more control of air support? As a side note: here in Sweden, my understanding is that the entire military defense is divided into several self-contained Military Districts (in a war situation, that is). These all have integral ground, air and naval assets at their disposal. If this _really_ gives better coordination between ground and air is anybodys guess, I suppose. -- Yngve Larsson UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla Dept of CIS Internet: yla@ida.liu.se Linkoping University, Sweden Phone: +46-13-281949
yamauchi@lime.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (09/14/90)
From: yamauchi@lime.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) In article <1990Sep12.014534.28254@cbnews.att.com>, ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: > > Since the USAF is planning to junk the A-10 in favor of a modified F-16, > the A-16, it's clear that they don't take the CAS mission very seriously. Well, the A-10 does have that impressive cannon, but I would assume that the A-16 would be much faster and much more maneuverable -- of course, that may be less important for an attack aircraft than for a fighter. The F-16 also seems like a much "sexier" aircraft from the Air Force's POV (supersonic, highly maneuverable, fly-by-wire, etc.) while the A-10 seems decidedly low-tech (albeit effective). Perhaps, that had something to do with it. What are the other advantages/disadvantages of the A-16 relative to the A-10? _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
wyvern@agora.hf.intel.com (Scott Sanford) (09/14/90)
From: wyvern@agora.hf.intel.com (Scott Sanford) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Since the USAF is planning to junk the A-10 in favor of a modified F-16, >the A-16, it's clear that they don't take the CAS mission very seriously. Can this be true? The A-10 gets more favorable comments on this newsgroup than any other piece of military hardware; who in their right mind would take it out of service? (Please, no comments about the Unimaginably Stupid Air Farce.) (Humorous quote deleted for security reasons) wyvern@agora.hf.intel.com
tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin) (09/14/90)
From: pyrdc!eagle!tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin) The real problem with the AF doing the CAS for the Army is not so much in the execution of the mission but in the development and aquisition of the weapons to perform the mission. The A-10 pilots who fly the missions are as gungho as any fighter jocks I've ever seen, so are the guys who fly dual role aircraft. Once the decision is made that an aircraft or unit is assigned the CAS role they work for the Army. All their tasking come from the Army. The job is handled by AF personnel assigned to each Army echelon. CAS support requests are handled just about like arty fire support requests. The difference is that the resouces come from an AF fighter squadron instead of an Army arty unit. The AF guys at the bottom of the request chain live in the boonies with "their" Army unit and their survival is tied to it. The problems occur before the aircraft and the people to support them get assigned the mission. Every $ and person that does CAS won't be available to do the "real" AF missions, so in the give and take of budget process the AF tries harder when it comes to buying and developing aircraft for air superiority and interdiction. The Army will have trouble getting the AF to develope and procure a CAS aircraft. They'll have trouble getting the AF commanders to assign dual role aircraft to the CAS mission. But once the assets are assigned, the AF troops are going to try as hard as anybody to get the job done.
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (09/18/90)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) In article <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com>, yamauchi@heron.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > > > From: yamauchi@heron.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) > > Does the fact that the Army controls the infantry but the Air Force > controls air support ever result in any problems? Of course. That's one of the major problems - coordination of "Close Air Support". On Division and Corps Staffs there are a couple of folks called "G3 Air" and "G2 Air". They're Army officers tasked to plan and coordinate Air Support (G3 Air: Ground Attack. G2 Air: Recce). Fortunately, the Air Force sees fit to assign some Air Force officers to the Division/Corps called; ALO (Air Liaison Officer) and ARLO (Air Recce Liaison Officer). Dreaded duty for a fighter jock to be assigned to the muddy boot Army but 'critical' to their careers. ALOs are also assigned to Brigades and Battalions. In a Mech/Arm unit, Air Forces ALOs operate out of Armored Personnel Carriers (cruel joke, what?). Therefore, the Army guys PLAN for the use of Air and the ALOs actually "Frag" the mission and talk to the pilots (sorta like a ground FAC if no airborne FAC is present). > If an Army commander wants air support, but an Air Force commander > decides that it's too risky or that his airpower could be better > utilized other in other ways, are the ground troops just out of luck? It's all based on sortie generation and sortie regeneration - ie availability of aircraft and types of missions to be flown. The main attack/defense gets the priority for air support. Secondary missions get what is left. For example; The Air Force Commander says he can generate '100' air sorties today for Army support. Army commander then allocates those missions - may give his 'main' division 75 sorties and 25 sorties to 'secondary' division. The G3 Air & ALO work together to determine targets for "preplanned" missions and what 'air' will be held for "on call" missions. Risky? The Air commander will get a bad report card if he allows his fighters into high threat areas and gets them all shot down on their first sortie. He'll be reluctant to enter high AAA/SAM threat areas. He also wants 'Air Superiority'. Meaning he'll allocated his F15/F16s in air-to-air role to protect his A10 ground attacks. So, yes, if he does not have control of the air, if he can't generate ground attack sorties, if someone else has priority - then the ground troops are just out of luck (go call for artillery). > Do Air Force pilots resent being assigned to flying Warthogs on > peripheral missions such as air support instead of flying Eagles on the > Air Force's primary mission of air superiority? There's no real answer for this. It's like trying to compare Armor vs Infantry, Airborne vs Leg, Destroyers vs Submarines......... I've known pilots that don't care what they fly....as long as they can fly. I'd guess F15 pilots don't want to drive a "Hog" - but I've also known many a "Hog" driver that wouldn't trade their A10 for anything. Whatever turns you on.................... mts
adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (09/24/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1990Sep14.042521.1038@cbnews.att.com> yamauchi@lime.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > > >Well, the A-10 does have that impressive cannon, but I would assume that >the A-16 would be much faster and much more maneuverable -- of course, >that may be less important for an attack aircraft than for a fighter. >The F-16 also seems like a much "sexier" aircraft from the Air Force's >POV (supersonic, highly maneuverable, fly-by-wire, etc.) while the A-10 >seems decidedly low-tech (albeit effective). Perhaps, that had >something to do with it. > >What are the other advantages/disadvantages of the A-16 relative to the A-10? The main advantage of the A-10 is that it can get hit hard and survive. All this speed and manoeuvrability doesn't help much when you're making your attack run and someone fires a 23mm cannon at you, especially as you probably have to slow down during the attack anyway. Having lots of armour, and being able to fly home with half your control surfaces missing, does help. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (09/24/90)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) In article <1990Sep14.042342.630@cbnews.att.com>, yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) writes: > > > From: yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) > Does anybody know how the Soviets partition their air assets? I seem > to recall areas such as "Frontal Aviation" (tactical air), "Long-range > Aviation" (i.e. their SAC), "Naval Aviation" (mostly long-range > anti-shipping) and [some term I cannot recall] for Air defense of the > SU (against strategic strikes, presumably). The Soviet Air Force (VVS - Voenno Vozdushnye Sily) has three primary arms: Frontal Aviation (Frontovaya Aviatsiya) Long-Range Aviation (Dal'naya Aviatsiya) Air Transport (Voenno-Transportnaya Aviatsiya) and two secondary arms: Fighter Aviation/Air Defense Command Naval Aviation > Is this "Frontal aviation" subordinated to the army at any level (Division, > Army or Front), thus giving ground commanders more control of air support? Normally, only at 'Front' Level will a 'ground commander' also command the air forces. For instance, the CINC GSFG's forces include not only the ground Armies but also the 16th Tactical Air Army. Frontal Aviation is divided into sixteen Tactical Air Armies. An Air Army is divided into divisions - each with a specific role (bomber, fighter, recce, etc). Each Air Division is comprises three regiments, each regiment operating a single type aircraft. Each regiment has three squadrons - 12 aircraft make up a squadron. I suspect that, even though recent Soviet military publications expound on close cooperation between air and ground forces ("all arms coordination") that it's not very successful and/or too unwieldy to ever be very successful. mike schmitt
34X3TAN%CMUVM.BITNET@VM1.gatech.edu (10/01/90)
From: <34X3TAN%CMUVM.BITNET@VM1.gatech.edu> Amen to that brother, the old thud is probably one of the most effective attack aircraft in exhistance for trashing tanks. It is one of my favorites...