Posted on 12/14/2004 6:45:20 PM PST by iso
AL ASAD AIRFIELD, Iraq, Dec. 14, 2004 – Aviation is continuing to play a part in mopping up insurgents in Fallujah, the commander of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing said here today.
Marine Maj. Gen. Keith J. Stalder commands about 9,000 Marine and Army troops based at this airfield between Baghdad and the Syrian border. He said aviation helped Marines and soldiers in the city with the combat they faced in retaking Fallujah and aviation continues to target the small pockets of insurgents that remain.
"The wing is still flying missions -- mostly fixed-wing, but some rotary-wing missions as well," Stalder said during an interview with reporters traveling with Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers.
Airfield officials said the number of missions has dropped, but Marine, Air Force and Navy aviators stand ready when called on.
The general said small groups of insurgents -- no more than five to 10 in a group – are still active in Fallujah. "They don't own whole city blocks," he said. "They will occupy a building here and a building there."
As coalition forces sweep through an area, the insurgents flee. Later they will attempt to reoccupy a building, and the coalition forces engage them, officials here said.
Battling the insurgency from the air requires fire support when needed. Stalder said the need for aviation support has been relatively consistent since his arrival in Iraq in May. "I think it will remain so through the end of the election," he said. The Iraqis will elect a national assembly Jan. 30 to write their new constitution.
Stalder said reports of damage to Fallujah were unfair. He said the coalition exclusively used precision weapons against the insurgents. He said all involved in planning and executing the operations worried about collateral damage and went to great lengths to avoid it.
All missions in support of operations against Fallujah went through the Combined Forces Air Component Command. It "could be a Marine providing the support, could be Air Force, could be Navy off a carrier. They are all one and the same," Stalder said.
He said that weather was the most significant challenge during the operation. The ceiling for aircraft was low, and that forced fixed-wing aircraft to fly lower than normal or the use of helicopters to provide aviation support. The insurgents fired surface-to-air missiles at the aircraft, as well as anti- aircraft artillery, small arms, and -- against the helicopters -- rocket- propelled grenades. He said no aircraft were lost and mechanics at the base were able to repair the damaged craft.
Question for those that know - When the Harrier is used as close air support does it fly as a conventional fighter and strafe and drop bombs? Or does it ever use the hover mode?
"The wing is still flying missions -- mostly fixed-wing, but some rotary-wing missions as well," Stalder said during an interview with reporters traveling with Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers.
Calpernia,Bump.
Thanks for the ping!
Off topic note to the General . . .
Why the hell do we have 3 services with CAS if they "are all one and the same?"
Because all three services use their aircraft for more roles than CAS. It just happens that right now, CAS is the mission with the highest requirement. But it is important that all the services employ CAS using the same procedures because the guys on the ground don't have time to translate from one service to the next. They just need bombs on target.
Rokke's correct. You hover you're a target, this is never a good thing.
There's and old saying
"Speed is life".
Besides the fact it would be an easy target, I don't believe the harrier has the capability of hovering for any length of time. IIRC, it has to operate at near full power when in hover mode, so it expends a lot of fuel, and heats up the engine pretty quickly.
Thanks, I kinda figured that. The only reason I asked was that they are planning on using the JSF as a replacement for the A-10. And since the JSF can hover there might be some connection. In retrospect it was rather convoluted reasoning.
One of the things I don't like about how we build fighter aircraft is, we build them to do everything from ground attack to high/low air combat. We can see this in the F-16, it was originally designed to be a small fast lightweight fighter interceptor (the best fighter interceptor) and it was (from what little I understand) then the AF brass at the pentagon started adding things bigger radar, hard points..etc until we have the aircraft we see today. Don't get me wrong it's a great fighter, just not what it was supposed to be. The AF brass never wanted it or the A-10. They've been trying to dump the A-10 since the day it rolled out, why it doesn't fly fast, it doesn't fly high, and it only does one thing ground support, and why would the AF want to have an aircraft that supports the Army or Marines?
It's this attitude that Rumsfeld is fighting against. I think with some success.
Note: I'm ex-Air Force, just in case someone thinks this is just another grut whining and complaining
For more on this I'd recomend
"Boyd"
The fighter pilot who changed the art of war
by Robert Coram
or Google "John Boyd"
AIR FORCE! We're the smart ones...send the officers out to fight.
That's the reason I'd like to see the AF hand off the A-10 to the Army.
I recall reading that at one point the AF was about to kill the A-10 project, the Army said they'd take it. Well a bunch of the AF Brass got their panties in a bunch over the thought of a fixed wing Army plane so they grudgingly accepted the plane.
You'd probably really like that book. Boyd was an amazing man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.