Best guest commentary ever.

is a "Former" Harrier pilot, not an "Ex-". ...Jeesh.

Loved calling in our Crusaders back in the '50s. Didn't know then, as a Devildog corporal, that ground attack was 10 times as hairy as air to air. It takes a large pair to get down on the deck. It's not one on one down there; everyone is shooting at you or throwing rocks, etc.

"Fighter pilots who wish they were heroic attack pilots."

I sense a moment or two's smirk at the keyboard as this sentence was tapped out.

...sorting out the good guys from the bad guys. You could use an F-22 to drop JDAMs, (GPS guided bombs), but I've been told that is as much fun as being a UPS driver, but without the spiffy uniform. You can do that with almost any of our planes, but that is kind of what the Joint Strike Fighter was designed for.

The easy part of the no-fly zone is not letting anything fly. Shooting down planes and controling air space is fairly straightforward. Knocking out ground based air defenses is more difficult, since radars and launchers are mobile and not always in the same place.

Straffing implies that we are using guns (not bombs) to shoot targets on the ground. That is a lot of fun for the guys in planes and guys on the ground directing those planes (says former ground dude). A-10s are great at straffing and F-22s are not, for all the reasons the Colonel pointed out.

If we are using A-10s to straff, it implies that we are either taking out air defense (probably not) or armored vehicles. The rebels don't have armor, so figuring out the good guys from the bad guys is fairly simple in that case.

Without people on the ground to tell the guys in the air who the good guys and bad guys are, the best we can do is take away Qadaffi's air force, some tanks, and some armored vehicles. This turns the war into a fight between guys with pickups and AKs. Unfortunately, trucks full of food for orphans going into cities and trucks full of ammo look quite similar from 10,000 feet.

In other words, without exercising Tom's Jawbreaker Option (SOF guys on the ground, telling planes which Toyoda Hilux to blow up), the fight will still be decided on the ground. And even if we had F-22s, Joint Strike Fighters, and every UAV in the US military enforcing the NFZ, the rebels can still lose.

A perfect air campaign is like a perfect communications plan or perfect intelligence report or perfect logisitics: you can have it and still lose.

...sorting out the good guys from the bad guys. You could use an F-22 to drop JDAMs, (GPS guided bombs), but I've been told that is as much fun as being a UPS driver, but without the spiffy uniform. You can do that with almost any of our planes, but that is kind of what the Joint Strike Fighter was designed for.

The easy part of the no-fly zone is not letting anything fly. Shooting down planes and controling air space is fairly straightforward. Knocking out ground based air defenses is more difficult, since radars and launchers are mobile and not always in the same place.

Straffing implies that we are using guns (not bombs) to shoot targets on the ground. That is a lot of fun for the guys in planes and guys on the ground directing those planes (says former ground dude). A-10s are great at straffing and F-22s are not, for all the reasons the Colonel pointed out.

If we are using A-10s to straff, it implies that we are either taking out air defense (probably not) or armored vehicles. The rebels don't have armor, so figuring out the good guys from the bad guys is fairly simple in that case.

Without people on the ground to tell the guys in the air who the good guys and bad guys are, the best we can do is take away Qadaffi's air force, some tanks, and some armored vehicles. This turns the war into a fight between guys with pickups and AKs. Unfortunately, trucks full of food for orphans going into cities and trucks full of ammo look quite similar from 10,000 feet.

In other words, without exercising Tom's Jawbreaker Option (SOF guys on the ground, telling planes which Toyoda Hilux to blow up), the fight will still be decided on the ground. And even if we had F-22s, Joint Strike Fighters, and every UAV in the US military enforcing the NFZ, the rebels can still lose.

A perfect air campaign is like a perfect communications plan or perfect intelligence report or perfect logisitics: you can have it and still lose.

That B-17 in the title photo is a 91st BG aircraft named "Wee Willie". "Willie" flew128 missions but her luck ran ou on April 8, 1945, when, depending on the source, she was shot to pieces by ME-262 or by flak.

Now for the good colonel's comments.

There was a LOT of WWII strafing done by aircraft with guns mounted on the longitudinal axis.

The first Vulcan pod mounted on F4-C's and F4-D's in Viet Nam were pressed into service in an air to air role because those aircraft had no internal cannon. But they also fired down the longitudinal axis. And they were -intended- for ground attack.

And the venerable A-10, also specifically designed for ground attack - that aircraft has a very large cannon that - fires down the longitudinal axis.

Yeah, there are a lot of reason not to use F-22's to strafe ground targets but the fact that the guns fire down the longitudinal axis is surely the least of them.

Walt

....that I didn't like.

Indeed at a state ball not too many years ago I met a whole passel of them - and their wives. The airedale ladies were so taken by our Stetsons and Spurs I thought things were going to get down right freaky.

But in my earnest honesty to Mrs Hunter and my need to not follow in the infamous footsteps (pre-emptively as it was) of COL James Johnson III I and my staff retired quietly into the night instead. - wink -

But seriously, we groundpounders do love to have CAS on standby.

In the 80s in Europe they would run practice missions on us working on bridge missions. They flew up the rivers at tree top level it seemed. Everytime one went over my only thought was, "Thank God they're on our side." Replacing them with highflyers always seemed kinda nuts to me

Dear Mr Ricks,

This is a very nice guest post indeed. However, it makes no sense with regards to F-22 in Libya.

No-one in their sane mind would suggest attacking ground targets with a gun. The only aircraft that are designed to do that in a hostile environment are A-10s. (And they do indeed, as shown yesterday in Misrata port.) Everything else, from F-15s to Rafales will (and did) attack ground targets from a safe altitude with guided bombs and missiles. No-one will unnecessarily risk taking a random bullet from an AK-47. Or to take the argument to the extreme - the B-2 has no gun whatsoever, and yet it was used exclusively for air-to-ground.

The reasons why F-22s didn't participate are the following:

1) Libyan air defences were pretty ancient and could be taken out with old-school stuff, like TLAM. (Raptor a2g is planned against state-of-the art Russian & Chinese radars and air defences, like S-400.)

2) F-22 have a very limited overall a2g capability. (Basically, just JDAMs and SDBs.)

3) Flying F-22 in full combat stealth could reveal their characteristics to other forces operating in the region. (When F-22 flies for air shows, it always carries a device that magnifies its radar cross section to keep real specs secret.)

4) The cost of relocating F-22s to Europe. Other USAF planes were based in Europe, had all their ground support there. (And B-2s flew round mission from US.) You would have to move a lot of stuff to Italy to make it work.

But guns is not one of the reasons... ;)

and this post lives up to the benchmark.

question: I read somewhere that the A10 was no longer being produced, largely because it was out of favor in the air force, without massive congressional $ to dole out, too devoted to stupid un-sexy, un Air Force jobs like supporting infantry, etc.

Is this true?

If it is true, wtf?

I had the chance to ask then CMC Gen Krulack that very question; specifically, why didn't at least the 4th Marine Air Wing (USMCR) have 3-4 squadrons of A-10s as it was easier to fly and maintain than the Harrier and therefore, the Reserve A-10 guys would be able to spend more time traning in the air-to-ground role with the rifleman. I was in turn passed to a card carrying Harrier driver who assured me 17 ways from Sunday, and very politelty of course, that they didn't need no Air Force designed/produced piece of junk. Wonder what the response would have been from an rifle-carrying infantry battalion commander? Bottom line from my perspective is the Harrier mafia had (or perhaps has) too much control/influence in the Marine Aviation world; just my opinion

WTF, it's true. The Air Farce wanted no part of the A-10. It ran counter to the image of the supersonic fighter-jock dueling with the enemy in the clear blue skies. So the AF tried to (and did) kill A-10 production and hand off the remaining inventory to the Reserves. BTW, this AF attitude toward close air support is a major reason why the Army developed its own fleet of attack helicopters, and the Marine Corps has its own air wings.

Of course the good Colonel failed to mention to attrition rate in the Gulf War was among the highest. I believe they lost 1.5 Harriers for every 1000 sorties. 5 were lost. Every Harrier hit by a SAM was shot down. They are kind of like heat seeking missile sponges.

Good chalk talk on the differences between air to air and air to ground gun systems. But I know a couple of Hornet pilots who popped the tops off T-72s during the Gulf War, strafing from F/A-18 which has longer legs and more payload. But I guess I am talking like a heretic.

S/F Mac!

I responded to the Colonel's post by criticizing the F-22 and F-35 as replacements to Harriers and most importantly, the A-10. Let me try it this way. Twenty years from now what airplanes will own the ground support/tank killing mission for the US armed forces? How will they compare to the present planes tasked with these missions in terms of firepower, cost, and most importantly expertise. Will their commanders be willing to committ them to missions that expose them to the perils noted above? Any thoughts?

I responded to the Colonel's post by criticizing the F-22 and F-35 as replacements to Harriers and most importantly, the A-10. Let me try it this way. Twenty years from now what airplanes will own the ground support/tank killing mission for the US armed forces? How will they compare to the present planes tasked with these missions in terms of firepower, cost, and most importantly expertise. Will their commanders be willing to committ them to missions that expose them to the perils noted above? Any thoughts?

Can't say within 20 years, but beyond that, I believe you will have UAVs providing air support.

My prediction will be the JSF will be the last manned fighter bought.

We had some debates in our university about whether the US and Nato should focus more on airstrikes or sanctions in order to smoke Gaddafi out. This article explains quite well why the Air Force still has to make some improvements in order to be more efficient with their strikes. I also read in recent military parfum article that the French already had lost some airplanes in the war on Gaddafi. So far it seems like as if the war itself is not ending yet.