A-10 replacement for Airborne as artillery

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Shaka of Carthage RE:A-10 replacement for Airborne as artillery 6/16/2003 8:17:48 AM

As a supplement to artillery yes. Not a replacement.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:A-10 replacement for Airborne as artillery 6/17/2003 3:43:50 AM

Ok then, what kind of artillery does 101 and 82 tote? 105mm heliborne?

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:A-10 replacement for Airborne as artillery 6/17/2003 3:47:51 AM

Yep. 101st, 82nd have the same DIVARTY that the other divisions do, except the battalions are 105mm. I've heard of "lightweight" 155mm, but I don't think those every panned out. The 105mm, by the way, are themselves "lightweight", versus a 105mm from 20 or so years ago.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:A-10 replacement for Airborne as artillery 6/17/2003 4:02:14 AM

This is where the thing about the Air Force not providing Close Air Support for the Army comes in. The Marines have always promoted the concept of a Ground/Air integration. Forget the amphib assaults for the moment. The major thing is that your supply is coming from the sea. There is a limited amount of supplies that can be sent that way. So while the Marines have used CAS in place of artillery, it works just as well if the artillery is lacking ammo, or as additional "arty". To avoid the resource not being available, the Marines have always insisted those Air assets be flown by Marine pilots. In other ways, its one of the reasons the LPD assault ships are as large as WWII carriers. The Army, because it couldn't rely on the Air Force to always provide CAS when its ground units where in the same situation, solved the problem by adapting helicopters to the role. Still doesn't solve the problem, because in the case of the 82nd, if its on the ground and there is no artillery, chances are there is no helio support also. And helios are much more maintenance intensive (which is why they don't do a good job at CAS), so even if they are on ground, they may not be ready. Hence, same old problem. The only reasons the Army doesn't have the A-10 is because back in the 50's, some sort of agreement was reached that stated that any fixed wing aircraft was only allowed to the Air Force, not the Army. Hence, the Army developed helicopters.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:A-10 replacement for Airborne as artillery 6/17/2003 4:10:38 AM

I might as well beat this dead horse... And the redundancy of weapon systems is the same reasoning behind Naval Gunfire support. With arty, NGF and CAS, the Marines have just as much firepower on call that a Army brigade or division does with its artillery assets at division and corp. In other words, a Army unit can call on 2 to 10 units of artillery if needed. The Marines get the same effect, without that many units of artillery. And while artillery is cheaper than NGF and CAS, it doesn't matter how much it costs if its not there. Hence, redunancy aspect of those systems actually making them more cost effective. And that, is why the Marines have a problem with the lack of NGF, because the Navy is ignoring the mission just like the Air Force does the CAS... hence, my reference to them as Dumb and Dumbmer.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:A-10 replacement for Airborne as artillery 6/17/2003 4:26:04 AM

That "agreement" or "truce" between Army and Air Force reminds of Herman Göring demanding the FW 200 patrol/bombers under him instead of under the Navy - because it had wings. Are we not in reasonably the same situation with the Army as with the Marine CAS? As to job security: Maintaining Air supremacy and knocking bad guys before the pussy-footed army can lay their hands on them - that is hard and at times dangerous work - and plenty of it. Questions: When was the last pilot promoted to Leutenant General rank in the Gyrenes? Same with Army?

Quote Reply

Sam The reason the Army doesn't have A-10s 6/17/2003 10:25:50 PM

In 1998 the GAO made recommendations to lower the cost of the military. As they do every year. One recommendation for the AF was to give the CAS mission to the Army. AF originally said Army can have all 152 A-10s and we can turn the 12 F-16C attack squadrons into fighter squadrons. GAO said no you will have to decommission the F-16s and cut your JSF buy since none will be needed for CAS. AF says no. GAO goes to Army with the same proposal. We will give you all A-10s and you can do your own CAS. But have to cancel RAH-66 no need for both. . Army says No. Maybe someday the old joke about the difference between boy scouts and the military won't be so truthful

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:The reason the Army doesn't have A-10s 6/18/2003 2:25:39 AM

It is typical for a solution that comes the wrong way around. The right (and rare) way of doing it is the for the armed services to make a paradigm-shift. It cannot be the task of the GAO to make plans for the future tactics, that is armed services territory. The problem is that developments tend to be in addition to existing structures - which make cost explode, and as the armed services (or any service for that matter) cannot control themselves, somebody else will!

Quote Reply

macawman RE:The reason the Army doesn't have A-10s 6/19/2003 1:27:58 AM

The Army does not WANT A-10s. I think it is because of the Army's down in the dirt mindset. They just do not maintain complex hardware like the AF does with dedicated people just doing that job and not 15 others. An Army A-10 would require hard strip airfields and they got out of that mission in 1949. I think the Army wants the follow-on to the A-10 which will be a UAV that is down in the dirt tactical.