Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Skwabie

Is the A-10 still viable for modern CAS?

Recommended Posts

The marines are limited in scope and projection and still rely on the Navy for air superiority. That is the difference. CAS is not a true core AF mission..

 

So? Since CAS is not a core AF mission, the tools to accomplish it should be given to the Army. Then let the AF get on with what it feels are its true callings.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Since CAS is not a core AF mission, the tools to accomplish it should be given to the Army. Then let the AF get on with what it feels are its true callings.

 

Michael

They already do...its called helocopters.  Fast movers and artillery are a very bad mix and cannot be called in close quarters to each other.  You can't separate a fastmover CAS from interdiction because of the area needed for proper tactics, which is why the kill boxes are so damn big. 

 

The AF learned in WW2 that interdiction of logistics is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the limited support given to the front line...where the Luftwaffle did not turning themselves into limited flying artillery tied to ground formations.  If I can reduce a fighting force by 15% or more and hamper logistic movement in addition I have given the Army a larger envelope to use their operations in. 

 

AF core missions are:

1.  Air Superiority---this is job one and why GW1 needed a month to allow full superiority against set IADS.

2.  Deep Strike

3.  Logistics support

4.  Interdiction

5.  AWACS/ABCCC/Recon

6.  CAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already do...its called helocopters.  Fast movers and artillery are a very bad mix and cannot be called in close quarters to each other.  You can't separate a fastmover CAS from interdiction because of the area needed for proper tactics, which is why the kill boxes are so damn big. 

 

The AF learned in WW2 that interdiction of logistics is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the limited support given to the front line...where the Luftwaffle did not turning themselves into limited flying artillery tied to ground formations.  If I can reduce a fighting force by 15% or more and hamper logistic movement in addition I have given the Army a larger envelope to use their operations in. 

 

AF core missions are:

1.  Air Superiority---this is job one and why GW1 needed a month to allow full superiority against set IADS.

2.  Deep Strike

3.  Logistics support

4.  Interdiction

5.  AWACS/ABCCC/Recon

6.  CAS

This is why I think fixed wing support should be almost nonexistent in game.  If they have aircraft available after checking all of the above boxes you have already won the war.  The other side is going be flat out of fuel and every other consumable for starters, supply convoys just make better targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to air power in the game you can always argue different scenarios. Maybe there is a political decision to localize the conflict and not target the Russian supply convoys before they cross the border? Or not to target Russian airbases, similar to Vietnam? All sorts of strange things happen even in the real world.

As for air power's true and best calling, there is a problem in most conflicts where the enemy doesn't have an elaborate supply train. In COIN wars you get a lot of close support, observation etc missions where fast jets are extremely expensive overkill compared to Super Tucanos or somesuch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a classic case of conflicting priorities and missions. The A-10 is great for colonial policing and third world show of force, i.e. the main missions for the US (and most other militaries) both historically and today. But against first or even second world opponents it is probably quite vulnerable. 

 

Agreed 100%. It's a great platform for low-intensity conflicts with limited SAM and AAA threat (which are mostly the kind of wars that we are fighting now); but it is very doutfull that it will be able to operate in a conflict where the enemy fields advanced AD systems and associated C3 network (which is a scenario that CMBS presents to us). Exactly the same can be said about SU-25, btw...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...