The Harrier: the best CAS aircraft, ever...

Flashpoint said:
In the Vietnam war they used relatively slow prop based planes (OV-!0 Broncos etc.) to identify targets and mark them with smoke for the fast movers. I don't have faith in the Harrier, F35, or any fast mover to have the ability to spot and identify targets anywhere near as capably as a plane flying half their speed, and IMO that's a big part of the CAS role. Sure a fast mover can drop a GPS guided or LGB if the target is lazed by the guys on the ground without even knowing exactly where it is, but that's not always going to be possible. Also slower flying planes give you much more time for targeting your Mavericks so you can turn away before overflying them and also for lining up your guns on that tiny tank down there.

Having said all that, it may be that the G2A threat is so much greater these days that slow is just not survivable anymore, even if you are in a titanium bathtub and can fly home without an engine and most of a wing.
Click to expand...

My neighbor was a USMC Bronco-driver, they used them until the mid 90's. COOL airplane.

As far as the 30mm vs. other ordnance; I've never been on the receiving end of air support, but I might take my chances with a 30mm gun run as opposed a 250 or 500lb guided bomb dropped on me! :D
 
When the (last?) Marine Reserve unit in Atlanta flying the OV-10 was getting rid of their planes in the mid-90s they came down to Benning and did a couple days of jumps. I think I got three but, maybe only two jumps.

It would fit four Hollywood jumpers in the back (three with equipment). They remove the tailcone and the jumpers just slide in backwards. Surprisingly roomy.

The Bronco drove right to the release point and pulled straight up. Jumpers just slid out the back. Fun times on Fryar : )

Internet pic:

6332427E-2D06-4448-BEEF-265D8BE614C7.jpeg
 
When I was growing up on Camp Lejeune I remember the OV-10s, fondly. My dad, who had three tours in Vietnam, had said he appreciated when they, the Bird Dogs, and the A-1s were around.

The AV-8B was designed for CAS. In fact, Marine Corps doctrine and policy stipulates that every fixed wing aircraft in its inventory have CAS component. While the VSTOL capability was designed for small deck carriers and improvised fields, it's also been quite handy when we needed aircraft to be able to slow down enough to use its technology to scan for bad guys.
 
Flashpoint said:
In the Vietnam war they used relatively slow prop based planes (OV-!0 Broncos etc.) to identify targets and mark them with smoke for the fast movers. I don't have faith in the Harrier, F35, or any fast mover to have the ability to spot and identify targets anywhere near as capably as a plane flying half their speed, and IMO that's a big part of the CAS role. Sure a fast mover can drop a GPS guided or LGB if the target is lazed by the guys on the ground without even knowing exactly where it is, but that's not always going to be possible. Also slower flying planes give you much more time for locking your Mavericks on ground targets (It's not instantaneous like in arcade games, it's a bit of a process) so that you can turn away before overflying them and also for lining up your guns on that tiny tank down there.

Having said all that, it may be that the G2A threat is so much greater these days that slow is just not survivable anymore, even if you are in a titanium bathtub and can fly home without an engine and most of a wing.
Click to expand...
I've been saying for ages we need a Super Tucano type plane absolutely loaded with all the good tech that buzzes in, lays waste with the good stuff and buzzes off.
 

Flashpoint said:
As long as it's survivable, slower is better for visual target acquisition & identification and weapons employment, especially the cannon. I would think the A-10 would be a more stable gun platform too with that big straight wing. The Harrier may can carry more external ordnance but wouldn't the superior cannon on the A-10 make up for some of that? Even if the A-10s cannon is overkill for infantry, the psychological effect on the enemy is probably worth something.
Click to expand...
Harrirer can not carry more then the A-10. Harrier II has 6 wing hard points and one center for 9200 lbs of ord. A-10 has 8 wing hard points and 3 center for 16000 lbs of ord.
 
NCLivingBrit said:
I've been saying for ages we need a Super Tucano type plane absolutely loaded with all the good tech that buzzes in, lays waste with the good stuff and buzzes off.
Click to expand...

You asked for it:

www.defensenews.com

How L3Harris created US special operators’ new plane to hunt and strike terrorists

“We were trying to look at our own past experiences and understand what made it work,” L3Harris' Luke Savoie said of the design process for the AT-802U Sky Warden, U.S. Special Operations Command's new Armed Overwatch plane.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
I will be curious to see how the F-35 competes in the CAS role since there are only two AV-8B squadrons left, VMA-223 and VMA-231 (both at Cherry Point). Both are scheduled to transition to the F-35.

I think the argument between the A-10 and AV-8B is largely academic (death by shooing or death by hanging?), but a fun thought exercise. Having been the recipient of help from both I appreciate them both.
 
Chuckman said:
I will be curious to see how the F-35 competes in the CAS role since there are only two AV-8B squadrons left, VMA-223 and VMA-231 (both at Cherry Point). Both are scheduled to transition to the F-35.

I think the argument between the A-10 and AV-8B is largely academic (death by shooing or death by hanging?), but a fun thought exercise. Having been the recipient of help from both I appreciate them both.
Click to expand...

But at the end of the day, after the A10, AV8, AND F35 are rusting away in the boneyard, a JTAC will be calling in an airstrike from a BUFF
 
Diablos said:
But at the end of the day, after the A10, AV8, AND F35 are rusting away in the boneyard, a JTAC will be calling in an airstrike from a BUFF
Click to expand...

True that. Although it was always weird to have "CAS" from an AC we never heard or saw.

GymB said:
This an interesting debate, but obviously the A-10 wins, it has the best memes.
Click to expand...

And we all know who wins the meme wars wins all....
 
Chuckman said:
True that. Although it was always weird to have "CAS" from an AC we never heard or saw.
Click to expand...

I loved ‘em all but, for certain applications, the B-1 was my favorite. For fixed, or very slow moving targets, it was ideal.

From 20 miles away the Bone tilts its belly at the target area and takes a picture with its high-resolution radar.

Talk the bomb/navs eyes on to the target from the picture in front of him. Confirm multiple times/way and…put your head down.

Depending on altitude, you may not even know an airplane was anywhere near.

All of my experience was with dumb bombs (Mk82s) and LGBs but, JDAMs and whatever else they have now make the Bone very versatile.
 
Chuckman said:
@steelciocc , have you seen this?

www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org

US Air Force is considering plan to reduce number of TACP airmen

Tactical Air Control Party airmen are an elite cadre who specialize in calling in airstrikes, and the US Air Force is looking to shrink their ranks.
www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Click to expand...

More short sighted bs, just like the elimination of sniper schools.

We think we're going to steamroll the chinese the same way russia thought ukraine would be a cakewalk. Difference is the world isn't going to bail us out when tshtf.
 
Diablos said:
More short sighted bs, just like the elimination of sniper schools.

We think we're going to steamroll the chinese the same way russia thought ukraine would be a cakewalk. Difference is the world isn't going to bail us out when tshtf.
Click to expand...

We had our own in-house JTACs, but without a doubt the best were the TACPs. Those dudes could hang, too, just like their CCT and PJ brethren. Sad to see this capability being eliminated.
 
Chuckman said:
We had our own in-house JTACs, but without a doubt the best were the TACPs. Those dudes could hang, too, just like their CCT and PJ brethren. Sad to see this capability being eliminated.
Click to expand...

Bigger issue (imo), is that once eliminated, these skills take years to rebuild. Not something to undertake when engaged in combat operations.
 
Chuckman said:
@steelciocc , have you seen this?

www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org

US Air Force is considering plan to reduce number of TACP airmen

Tactical Air Control Party airmen are an elite cadre who specialize in calling in airstrikes, and the US Air Force is looking to shrink their ranks.
www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Click to expand...

Yeah, I’ve heard a little bit about this. At this point I think it sounds worse that it will be, initially at least.

As I understand it from VERY limited communication on the subject it looks like the first step it to just eliminate positions that are unfilled (and may have been for some time, or have never been filled).

The numbers in the article will take the TACP force structure back to roughly where it was 20-years ago. Down to ~3 guys at Battalion level, a few at Brigade and a headquarters element at Division level for conventional units.

Light, Airborne and Special Operations units will get priority and, will hopefully retain some of the gains they’ve seen over the past couple decades.

When I retired, there was one JTAC per Ranger Company and an element at Regiment. For SF, we only had one JTAC per Battalion and one or two at Group.

During GWOT those numbers got pumped up significantly! Multiple guys at Ranger Companies/RRD and JTACs aplenty at ODA level. I hope they don’t cut too deeply because those are real force multipliers!

82d & 101st should retain at least some of their gains.

As @Diablos mentioned, these aren’t assets that can be spun up quickly. It takes a long time to understand how airpower works, AF command and control nodes, ATO generation and management, aircraft and weapons capabilities, and a host of other stuffs that it takes just to get a fighter to show up. Understanding the “system” is something that a non-Air Force guy really has a hard time getting experience with.

Training smart individuals how to talk to the airplane and ultimately clear them to release their weapons is, somewhat, the easy part.

I have no doubt the AF “Fighter Mafia” discounts the value of current TACP assets. If there is any silver lining, it has to be that the current 0-6 to 4-Star leadership structure participated in a CAS / Directed Employment conflict for their entire career to date. But, (AF) fighter pilots want to “dogfight”, not drop bombs.

^^ That’s a lot of off-the-top-of-my-head thinking. I probably got something wrong. I hate to see things go backward but, it’s a destructive cycle that the military has repeated time and again. Fingers crossed that smart people with real experience are able to minimize the cuts.
 
Last edited:
steelciocc said:
Yeah, I’ve heard a little bit about this. At this point I think it sounds worse that it will be, initially at least.

As I understand it from VERY limited communication on the subject it looks like the first step it to just eliminate positions that are unfilled (and may have been for some time, or have never been filled).

The numbers in the article will take the TACP force structure back to roughly where it was 20-years ago. Down to ~3 guys at Battalion level, a few at Brigade and a headquarters element at Division level for conventional units.

Light, Airborne and Special Operations units will get priority and, will hopefully retain some of the gains they’ve seen over the past couple decades.

When I retired, there was one JTAC per Ranger Company and an element at Regiment. For SF, we only had one JTAC per Battalion and one or two at Group.

During GWOT those numbers got pumped up significantly! Multiple guys at Ranger Companies/RRD and JTACs aplenty at ODA level. I hope they don’t cut too deeply because those are real force multipliers!

82d & 101st should retain at least some of their gains.

As @Diablos mentioned, these aren’t assets that can be spun up quickly. It takes a long time to understand how airpower works, AF command and control nodes, ATO generation and management, aircraft and weapons capabilities, and a host of other stuffs that it takes just to get a fighter to show up. Understanding the “system” is something that a non-Air Force guy really has a hard time getting experience with.

Training smart individuals how to talk to the airplane and ultimately clear them to release their weapons is, somewhat, the easy part.

I have no doubt the AF “Fighter Mafia” discounts the value of current TACP assets. If there is any silver lining, it has to be that the current 0-6 to 4-Star leadership structure participated in a CAS / Directed Employment conflict for their entire career to date. But, (AF) fighter pilots want to “dogfight”, not drop bombs.

^^ That’s a lot of off-the-top-of-my-head thinking. I probably got something wrong. I hate to see things go backward but, it’s a destructive cycle that the military has repeated time and again. Fingers crossed that smart people with real experience are able to minimize the cuts.
Click to expand...
In my experience (af brat and 20 years AF myself) there are always a percentage of officers who think anything done by enlisted folks can't be TOO difficult; if it was all that hard it would be done by officers.

Those folks won't see anything wrong with cutting TACP positions; if we need more we will just retrain some folks to do the job; shouldn't take that long if they are already (fill in the blank with whatever afsc they are familiar with that is in any way related).
 
Car0linab0y said:
In my experience (af brat and 20 years AF myself) there are always a percentage of officers who think anything done by enlisted folks can't be TOO difficult; if it was all that hard it would be done by officers.

Those folks won't see anything wrong with cutting TACP positions; if we need more we will just retrain some folks to do the job; shouldn't take that long if they are already (fill in the blank with whatever afsc they are familiar with that is in any way related).
Click to expand...

Sad but, so true : (
 
steelciocc said:
Yeah, I’ve heard a little bit about this. At this point I think it sounds worse that it will be, initially at least.

As I understand it from VERY limited communication on the subject it looks like the first step it to just eliminate positions that are unfilled (and may have been for some time, or have never been filled).

The numbers in the article will take the TACP force structure back to roughly where it was 20-years ago. Down to ~3 guys at Battalion level, a few at Brigade and a headquarters element at Division level for conventional units.

Light, Airborne and Special Operations units will get priority and, will hopefully retain some of the gains they’ve seen over the past couple decades.

When I retired, there was one JTAC per Ranger Company and an element at Regiment. For SF, we only had one JTAC per Battalion and one or two at Group.

During GWOT those numbers got pumped up significantly! Multiple guys at Ranger Companies/RRD and JTACs aplenty at ODA level. I hope they don’t cut too deeply because those are real force multipliers!

82d & 101st should retain at least some of their gains.

As @Diablos mentioned, these aren’t assets that can be spun up quickly. It takes a long time to understand how airpower works, AF command and control nodes, ATO generation and management, aircraft and weapons capabilities, and a host of other stuffs that it takes just to get a fighter to show up. Understanding the “system” is something that a non-Air Force guy really has a hard time getting experience with.

Training smart individuals how to talk to the airplane and ultimately clear them to release their weapons is, somewhat, the easy part.

I have no doubt the AF “Fighter Mafia” discounts the value of current TACP assets. If there is any silver lining, it has to be that the current 0-6 to 4-Star leadership structure participated in a CAS / Directed Employment conflict for their entire career to date. But, (AF) fighter pilots want to “dogfight”, not drop bombs.

^^ That’s a lot of off-the-top-of-my-head thinking. I probably got something wrong. I hate to see things go backward but, it’s a destructive cycle that the military has repeated time and again. Fingers crossed that smart people with real experience are able to minimize the cuts.
Click to expand...

I know we always had more open billets than could be filled, but neither the Navy nor the Marines would do away with them. We never not needed SARC/SOIDC.

I get what you're saying about the mechanics of calling CAS, but I found that TACP was always much better than "just" the JTACs, probably because they understood the overall picture better, and understood the AF culture, for the reasons you mentioned.

I loved what I did, I thought the next best thing would have been a JTAC/TACP/CCT. Something about the ability to "rain pain."
 
I am biased. Never had CAS from a Harrier, only the Apache and Hog. The Brrrrrt is what makes it so special. The glorious sound means the enemy is shitting in his pants. They know the sound too. But they fear it as much as we find comfort in it. If you’ve ever walked into their ordinance area after they gave a helping hand, you can truly appreciate the hate and discontent they have sown.
 
Chuckman said:
Article on why the A-10 would not be a good CAS AC against a peer/near peer:

theaviationgeekclub.com

USAF Aircraft Armament System Specialist explains why the A-10 Warthog can’t effectively provide CAS in a near-peer war

USAF Aircraft Armament System Specialist explains why the A-10 Warthog can’t effectively provide CAS in a near-peer war
theaviationgeekclub.com theaviationgeekclub.com
Click to expand...

any aircraft flying in a true cas role is vulnerable to the capabilities that that "expert" points out, its part of the mission. unlike those billion dollar fighter mafia "replacements", the a-10 was built to take the punch and get the pilot home.
 
Diablos said:
any aircraft flying in a true cas role is vulnerable to the capabilities that that "expert" points out, its part of the mission. unlike those billion dollar fighter mafia "replacements", the a-10 was built to take the punch and get the pilot home.
Click to expand...

To some extent, maybe. The F-35 is a whole 'nother beast that can mitigate many of the peer/near-peer threat tech.

I think the A-10 could have a vital role in an armed overwatch capacity, along with a slower, prop-driven armed overwatch ISR aircraft. But the writing is on the wall, the A-10's days are numbered.
 
Chuckman said:
To some extent, maybe. The F-35 is a whole 'nother beast that can mitigate many of the peer/near-peer threat tech.

I think the A-10 could have a vital role in an armed overwatch capacity, along with a slower, prop-driven armed overwatch ISR aircraft. But the writing is on the wall, the A-10's days are numbered.
Click to expand...

all aircraft are retired eventually, but shortsightedness bite us before when morons thought aircraft gun systems were obsolete....
 
Diablos said:
all aircraft are retired eventually, but shortsightedness bite us before when morons thought aircraft gun systems were obsolete....
Click to expand...

A number of years ago I read a book about the Key West Agreement of 1948 when the DoD restructured, basically giving all army CAS capability to the Air Force (the Navy and Marines retained the capability). Which was fine, until the Army wanted to arm helicopters and certain small fixed-wing and the AF went ballistic (no pun intended). There was a lot of contention during Vietnam about what the army could and could not do respective to CAS. So that was one part.

On the more higher-end AC, in the late 50s the conventional wisdom was that missiles made the gun obsolete; we found out in VN that certainly was not the case. I think we know now. I also think that any CAS-specific AC needs to have guns.
 
I read somewhere about a harrier in a practice dogfight with an F16. The pilot was newish and accidentally Viffed (Vectored in forward flight). Basically uses his nozzles to turn on a dime and was headed back toward the f16. Scared that pilot so bad he forgot to shoot and the harrier did.

Don’t know if that’s the true story behind it or not but I know it was researched and added to their manual.
 
Chdamn said:
I read somewhere about a harrier in a practice dogfight with an F16. The pilot was newish and accidentally Viffed (Vectored in forward flight). Basically uses his nozzles to turn on a dime and was headed back toward the f16. Scared that pilot so bad he forgot to shoot and the harrier did.

Don’t know if that’s the true story behind it or not but I know it was researched and added to their manual.
Click to expand...

that was mav before they transferred him to tomcats
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom