Skip to comments.
USAF proposes shifting entire Predator fleet to Army
Flight International ^
| 17 Oct 08
| Stephen Trimble
Posted on 10/17/2008 5:04:14 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Transfering the Predators to the Army also conveniently lessens the Air Force's requrements to provide qualified Rated Officers as operators.
1
posted on
10/17/2008 5:04:15 PM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
To: Yo-Yo
Good Idea. And while we’re at it, why not xfer the A-10 fleet to the Army also since the AF has been trying to ditch then ever since they were first deployed.
2
posted on
10/17/2008 5:11:04 PM PDT
by
SeeSharp
To: Yo-Yo
Close Air Support (CAS) has always been the red headed stepchild of the Air Force. When the AF was run by the Bomber Generals, it was the B-47, then the B-52. When the Air Superiority Generals took over, it was the F-15 A/C and then the F-22, the aircraft without a mission. Now, the Special Operations Generals take over and they want the biggest and best UAV. They floated the idea of giving the A-10 to the Army, until someone pointed out the money went with it.
When will the AF get a grip on their mission?
The answer, when they promote warriors and throw out desk clerks.
The real answer is likely never.
3
posted on
10/17/2008 5:13:13 PM PDT
by
Rodentking
(There is no God but Yahweh and Moses is his prophet - http://www.airpower.blogspot.com/)
To: Yo-Yo
The service feuds, and the possessive traits of their resources and operations is fierce, there is more to it than meets the eye.
4
posted on
10/17/2008 5:15:17 PM PDT
by
boomop1
To: Rodentking
Interesting. My son (a KC-135AC) just moved to NV to begin training to fly the Predator.
5
posted on
10/17/2008 5:16:52 PM PDT
by
JaguarXKE
To: Yo-Yo
Translation: Our classy fighter jocks are much too good to handle these gadgets. We need more spiffy manned fighters and these predators are eating our budget.
6
posted on
10/17/2008 5:23:22 PM PDT
by
Ronin
To: Yo-Yo
Isn’t fast. Doesn’t have a pointy nose. Doesn’t have an “F” in the designation.
Of course the USAF doesn’t want it.
7
posted on
10/17/2008 5:30:26 PM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Community Organizer: What liberals do when they run out of college, before they run out of Marxism.)
To: Yo-Yo
Perhaps this makes sense.
The Predator is primarily an tactical reconnaissance aircraft for ground troops, which fits the Army better. The Reaper is more of an armed reconnaissance (what they called reconnaissance-strike in the 1960s) aircraft, which is more suited to the Air Force CAS mission.
8
posted on
10/17/2008 5:38:40 PM PDT
by
magellan
(u)
To: Steel Wolf
ping
9
posted on
10/17/2008 5:43:24 PM PDT
by
MrNatural
("...You want the truth!?...")
To: magellan
The Predator is primarily an tactical reconnaissance aircraft for ground troops, which fits the Army better. The Reaper is more of an armed reconnaissance (what they called reconnaissance-strike in the 1960s) aircraft, which is more suited to the Air Force CAS mission.
IIRC the Predator was a rapid prototype/concept effort that was pressed into service because it had a very unique capability that was required at the time. I understand it isn't an easy UAV to fly (relative to others, including Reaper and Global Hawk), and has a number of issues that you'd expect from a concept vehicle (including wing icing issues, which weren't considered important to look at under the original Predator concept).
To: Yo-Yo
Good idea. Let our pilots fly. Leave the video games to the infantry.
11
posted on
10/17/2008 6:04:27 PM PDT
by
LiberConservative
("Typical" white guy voting for Palin.)
To: Yo-Yo
I don’t know about this. The Army just committed to buying a WHOLE LOT of Sky-Warriors, which are Predators on steroids, although perhaps not to the extent that Reaper is.
Also, Reaper is like 300% more expensive than Predator, twice as fast, and has twice as many ordinance pylons.
I’m not sure if I like this.
12
posted on
10/17/2008 6:05:59 PM PDT
by
gaijin
To: SeeSharp
Good Idea. And while were at it, why not xfer the A-10 fleet to the Army also since the AF has been trying to ditch then ever since they were first deployed.I work with A-10 pilots all the time. We have one in our squadron. They are a special breed and love their airplane. I think the story about the AF wanting to get rid of the Hogs is old now and everything has changed with the A-10 Charlie. Read the June issue of Air Force magazine.
13
posted on
10/17/2008 6:18:46 PM PDT
by
saminfl
(conservative since 1964)
To: SampleMan
Isnt fast. Doesnt have a pointy nose. Doesnt have an F in the designation. Of course the USAF doesnt want it.See my earlier post. You guys are wrong. The main mission the AF has now is CAS.
14
posted on
10/17/2008 6:20:33 PM PDT
by
saminfl
(conservative since 1964)
To: gaijin
To: Rodentking
If you want CAS, you go the the Marine Corps.
16
posted on
10/17/2008 6:30:25 PM PDT
by
quadrant
To: quadrant
Do you think that on average an AV-8B or an F/A-18C is a more effective close air support platform than an A-10C?
17
posted on
10/18/2008 8:26:30 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
To: Yo-Yo
Do you think that on average an AV-8B or an F/A-18C is a more effective close air support platform than an A-10C?
From an airframe perspective, it depends on the combat and threat environment, doesn't it? If you need to work a CAS scenario where only a CVN or LHA/LHD can get aircraft close enough to the battle, then yes ... and AV-8B or F/A-18 IS going to be more effective. Because the A-10C won't be able to get there.
From an aircrew perspective, Marine fixed-wing air lives and breathes CAS. It's a fully integrated part of their organizational culture, to the point where (iirc) EVERY Marine fighter/attack pilot first serves as a Platoon Leader. I have nothing but respect for the A-10 guys, but the Marines make a hell of a good argument that their pilots know the CAS mission better because their pilots are first trained as the folks who will be calling in the CAS mission.
To: saminfl
I have no doubt that A-10 pilots embrace CAS. What I doubt is the USAF commitment to CAS.
What do I base this on? Allotment of assets. What is the replacement for the A-10, which is 30+ years old? There is none. The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, which does CAS, but is not optimized for it.
What new aircraft have been funded in the last 30 years? F-117, B-2, F-35, F-22, F-15E. The F-15E is certainly a F/A aircraft, but it is optimized for strike missions, not CAS in the FEBA.
Fighting a foe without defense's allows any aircraft that can carry a JDAM to perform CAS, but that all changes when the enemy shoots back. In such an environment UAVs are being looked at to take a bigger and bigger role. So where is the USAF’s priority? It appears to be in moving those assets to the Army.
That's why I question the Air Forces commitment to CAS.
19
posted on
10/18/2008 10:43:42 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Community Organizer: What liberals do when they run out of college, before they run out of Marxism.)
To: SampleMan
That's why I question the Air Forces commitment to CAS.The A-10 C is going to give them many times more capability. Read the June issue of AF magazine. It has a story on the A-10C and part of the title is something about "not going away." The "Charlie" is really something. It can carry smart weapons now.
20
posted on
10/18/2008 11:24:10 AM PDT
by
saminfl
(conservative since 1964)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson