Always interesting to read your stories. 🙂 If you have more on F-15s doing bomb runs please share.
What’s a Nickle if I may ask?

Sorry!!

The “Nickel” was a nickname for the F-15 training squadron at Luke in the late 70s…the 555 Tactical Fighter Training Squadron (TFTS). The three 5s resulted in the name “Triple Nickel” (a nickle being a US 5 cent coin)…and that was then shortened to “Nickel”.

I don’t recall anything else on the Israeli experience with ground attack training at Luke. I do remember stories about their air to air proficiency, about how they sometimes taught their instructors a thing or two! They were a very self-assured bunch of guys, and they had the creds to back it up.

Well, the F-15 was initially never intended to carry bombs either 😉

Remember “Not a pound for the ground” 🙂

I remember a 1974 Fighter Weapons Review that had as its cover an illustration of what at the time we all thought was a look at the future.

It was a flight of F-15s and F-16s…the F-15s were loaded with bombs and the F-16s had only Sidewinders on the wingtips.

Funny how things turned out.

I also recall some more information about Stuka’s being employed within various armored formations rather than as a separate air force on certain occasions.

That would be interesting reading. I haven’t seen any info on that. No doubt that one of the criticisms of the Luftwaffe in WW2 was that it was used more as a tactical force rather than strategic.

I personally am of the opinion…that a higher form of employment is possible. Something I’d call “Air Cavalry” or “Combined Arms Air Component (CA-AC)”. What I mean by this are aircraft that are employed organic to a division, regiment or brigade to achieve the objectives of the formation through assault and defense from the air…

…By organic I mean that they will be based within and contiguous to the military unit, will fall under their integrated chain of command and will thus be part of a single service as opposed to being an asset outside the service.

It may be possible, but might not be practical. In the US, it’s a political hot potato that so far nobody has wanted to seriously consider. It seems to be an idea that sounds attractive on the surface but falls victim to reality when it comes to actually trying to implement it.

But what about another country such as Pakistan, as you suggested? Perhaps more likely since air forces of smaller countries seem to be oriented towards tactical employment and therefore might be more open to this idea.

1. Why do you think helicopters are more survivable than an equivalent aircraft shooting those same missiles?

Because a helo can hover behind cover before and after firing and thereby be far less exposed to enemy fire.

You might have read articles where the writer refers to CAS aircraft flying below tree level in their attacks. For the most part, that is just so much baloney!! Either that or they are thinking about some really tall trees!! I’ve flown at these altitudes just enough to scare the crap out of me and make me realize that such flying leaves no time for any thought other than not hitting the ground.

How much of a difference do you see in a Striker or a Bradley from an M-117? How much of a difference do you see in its mobility compared to an MBT?

First…I was a USAF pilot, not an army guy! M-117? Do you mean the small 4 wheel vehicle used by military police? If so, it seems that the M-117 is designed for something quite different than battlefield use.

I can’t offer an opinion on the mobility of vehicles such as the Stryker or Bradley as compared to a MBT. In Iraq, I know that Bradleys were used along side M1s. They have similar range capabilities.

Are IFVs a complement to your MBTs or a different paradigm?

You need to ask an army guy about that! My limited view is that the US uses IFVs to supplement the MBT on a typical battlefield of today.

How survivable do you think a platform as I have proposed in my article in modern conditions? Imagine within a Pak-India scenario.

I assume you are referring to the aircraft in the article. Reasonably survivable as long as it it armed with stand off weapons. It needs to stay outside the range of light AAA…roughly 9000′.

Can such a platforms generally stay out of the air force battles (generally) or at least perform effectively without the said air force having air dominance (imagine an even a2a battle on top)

Perhaps. Depends on what altitudes it is operated at. Low and slow movers are not immune to attack from fighters or other attack aircraft. As long as friendly air keeps the enemy fighter force engaged, the aircraft that you describe should be reasonably safe.

On that note, someone suggested a 20 mm cannon may be a superior choice instead.

I agree with that person. I would consider 20mm to be the bare minimum. It has the extra range and explosive effect that 50cal lacks.

Beyond the scope of this discussion but you may find some of my thoughts here:

http://www.grandestrategy.com/2007/06/21st-century-combined-arms-operations.html

I would really appreciate some reference to the question I originally posed:

that CAS was more organic in the beginning of WWII… would seriously appreciate some book recommendation. I read it / watched it a long time back and can’t remember the reference.

You can’t expect to have a discussion if you can’t explain what it is that you want to discuss.

Are you looking for someone to tell you the name of some article or book that you think you read in the past?

Or are you trying to discuss close air support in a historical context?

Or are you trying to discuss close air support in the context of today’s current battlefield?

You can begin by defining what you mean by CAS. I’ve actually flown CAS in combat in SEA. I’ve flown it in a peacetime European environment in both fast and slow movers. CAS as a concept is a slippery subject to get one’s hands around. Once your objective is defined, then we can move on to what may be the best way to achieve it. To give you an example…when I first started flying the A-10 in the early 1980s in Germany, the idea was that we would be employed to attack Warsaw Pact armor as it crossed into friendly territory…that was how CAS was defined then for the A-10…kill T-72s before they engaged NATO ground forces.

Neat idea…but not very survivable. The WP forces had a lot more T-72s than we had A-10s…trading one for one wasn’t a good idea. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the best way to kill a T-72 was with another tank…or maybe a helicopter launched missile. By 1984, we had moved the A-10 employment area back a ways from the front lines.

I offer this perspective from my own experience…technology is nice but it often fails to survive first contact. Given the level of technology available today, engineers and engineering can come up with what seem to be really spiffy ideas. Unfortunately, they aren’t the folks who actually have to use these ideas when the s%$# hits the fan. Whenever some engineer tells me that his gizmo can do such and such, I’ll ask him if he is willing to bet his life on that…because he’s asking me to bet mine.

One comment on that article you posted…regarding “light cavalry” in a historical context. We have such a thing today, and it does the same things that the concept did back in the day when folks rode horses. Today we call it Stryker or Bradley, etc.

Once you define CAS, then define “organic”. Are you talking about the uniforms people wear (i.e., branch of service) or the chain of command for CAS assets or where these assets are based? If you think WW2 forces had “organic CAS” elements, what nation/service did you have in mind?

There’s a lot of fancy acronyms and terms being tossed around…maybe some folks are finding that their understanding of this discussion is hampered by their unfamiliarity with some of what is being said.

“Kinetic CAS”, for example. Would someone please define that?

I’ve seen impressive stuff about it (posted Guy Acula’s story about cruising at Mach 2 and 73,000 ft.) but still, Mach 2.7. . .pretty fast for an aluminum aircraft. 😮

Must have been a strong tailwind!

http://jinnette.blogspot.com/2010/06/delivering-fixed-wing-airpower-effects.html

What was the top speed in level flight for some of the more common loadouts?

2 AIM-9 on the wingtips?

2 tip tanks and 2 AIM-9?

4 tanks and 2 AIM-9?

Other?

2 AIM-9 on the wingtips? 750KEAS/2.0M (no reduction from max limits)

2 tip tanks and 2 AIM-9? 750KEAS/2.0M (no reduction from max limits)

4 tanks and 2 AIM-9? 750KEAS/1.5M