A-10 article

[Duc'-guy25]

That proves only that an armed helicopter in a target area is a danger to a fighter unaware of his presence, not that a helo with a couple heaters is even remotely capable of performing a DCA.

People may knock the Harrier dudes for carrying AMRAAM and Cobra dudes for carrying AIM-9s trying to execute DATF, but what's the alternative?

I don't have a dog in this fight (note no wings) and I'm just trying to improve my overall knowledge of your warfare, but from reading whats been around it seems, and as originally stated when it was brought up, its not so much as Cobras and Harriers are being intended for air to air or really even relied on for it in the scenarios mentioned, but its more to give the ARG or the CAS assets themselves more of a fighting chance if a couple of attack or fighter aircraft did show up to play. Its not like either attack A/C would be able to evade a fighter A/C effectively, so doesn't it make more sense to stand the ground and put up a fight (or some resemblance of that)? Ultimately I would think the best scenario is early warning is effective and that a true air to air asset could get on station in time (unlikely but ideal), but as Treetop mentioned, if your going to go into it with the mindset of what's the point if its unlikely, well then what's the point of performing any mission? Even so wouldn't it be better to have AV-8B's performing CAP over an ARG than having no CAP at all? Why do I have to carry around 9mm if the threats in the area are equipped with RPK's, PKM's and things that go boom and its me against 30 of them? At least I'll be able to put up some sort of fight long enough that a reaction team might get to the show and take a couple of the lunatics with me. Just my uninformed line of thought, so bear with me.

 

[Swanee]

The A-10 rating around doesn't have much to do with shooting an AMRAAM. What kind of shot range you think they would have screaming along at 15k at .5 IMN?

I know what DCA is. If you think doing it in a section each with two AMRAAM, two AIM-9M's, and a gun sounds bad, how does it sound without the AMRAAM?

I guess what I'm saying is that while you guys can try to do it (because when has the Marine Corps ever turned down a mission set)- do you really want to? Is it really worth it? What happens when you have to throw your balls over your shoulder and VID the bogey? That was a scary enough thought in a Hornet- where at least I had a chance of developing a BFM gameplan- that sounds like a death sentence for you guys. Knowing the tactics that we train to (or at least used to until I left that world) I don't see how you guys are being set up for success.

It's just like F-22's doing CAS. Sure, they can throw a grid or lat/long into a jdam and pickle it off but wouldn't a Harrier be so much more capable and successful?

I'm not knocking you or any other Harrier dude, you guys are good at what you do in an airplane that is constantly trying to kill you.

 

[Swanee]

I don't have a dog in this fight (note no wings) and I'm just trying to improve my overall knowledge of your warfare, but from reading whats been around it seems, and as originally stated when it was brought up, its not so much as Cobras and Harriers are being intended for air to air or really even relied on for it in the scenarios mentioned, but its more to give the ARG or the CAS assets themselves more of a fighting chance if a couple of attack or fighter aircraft did show up to play. Its not like either attack A/C would be able to evade a fighter A/C effectively, so doesn't it make more sense to stand the ground and put up a fight (or some resemblance of that)? Ultimately I would think the best scenario is early warning is effective and that a true air to air asset could get on station in time (unlikely but ideal), but as Treetop mentioned, if your going to go into it with the mindset of what's the point if its unlikely, well then what's the point of performing any mission? Even so wouldn't it be better to have AV-8B's performing CAP over an ARG than having no CAP at all? Why do I have to carry around 9mm if the threats in the area are equipped with RPK's, PKM's and things that go boom and its me against 30 of them? At least I'll be able to put up some sort of fight long enough that a reaction team might get to the show and take a couple of the lunatics with me. Just my uninformed line of thought, so bear with me.

Are you really going to plan on entering a threat wez in which you would have to use your M9 against an RPK?



Hell no you aren't. That would be absolutely stupid and a good way to get yourself killed. Making Harriers do CAP just gives Generals more ammo for buying more F-35Bs. (See, look at this requirement we have now! Give me more money for this overpriced, over timeline piece of equipment that may or may not still be relevant to the Marine Corps mission! We have to be a mini DoD for God's sake. Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Inchon, Chosin, rabble rabble rabble. Harrumph!

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I guess what I'm saying is that while you guys can try to do it (because when has the Marine Corps ever turned down a mission set)- do you really want to? Is it really worth it? What happens when you have to throw your balls over your shoulder and VID the bogey? That was a scary enough thought in a Hornet- where at least I had a chance of developing a BFM gameplan- that sounds like a death sentence for you guys. Knowing the tactics that we train to (or at least used to until I left that world) I don't see how you guys are being set up for success.

It's just like F-22's doing CAS. Sure, they can throw a grid or lat/long into a jdam and pickle it off but wouldn't a Harrier be so much more capable and successful?

I'm not knocking you or any other Harrier dude, you guys are good at what you do in an airplane that is constantly trying to kill you.

Again you are viewing this like I am advocating sending Harriers as sweepers on day one to strike Russia. I'm not. The choice is having the capability or not. The bad guys may not play along with our plans, and it makes sense to have options. If I needed CAS, I'd rather have an A-10 or a Harrier than a hornet. That doesn't mean I would tell the hornet to go away if that's what's closest.

 

[armada1651]

in the absence of anything else, I've seen the DoN waste money on more dumb stuff than that. It's a bit melodramatic to think there is not a benefit to having a couple radar capable Harriers and Cobras for a deterrent.

Obviously I'm being facetious, and obviously you're going to defend your ship if you're the last line. My point is just that there's a difference between tasking an aircraft with something it was not designed for but is (arguably) capable of and the charge of the fucking light brigade. And the Harrier DCA leans towards the latter. Obviously that is significantly dependent on what exactly the threat is, but in most cases, it's just kind of a silly idea. And I'm not bashing the Harrier here - honestly, in most cases, the FA-18 DCA is kind of a silly idea. If the threat is anything more than moderately capable, I'm hoping someone's going to send some F-22s our way. And if they're not, I'm going down to WR3 to make that sandwich and then scoping out lifeboats, or if I happen to be in the light brigade that night, asking the PR's to stick it in a waterproof bag in my seatpan.

As for having spent money on dumber things...well, yeah. But that's not saying much.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I guess what I'm saying is that while you guys can try to do it (because when has the Marine Corps ever turned down a mission set)- do you really want to? Is it really worth it? What happens when you have to throw your balls over your shoulder and VID the bogey? That was a scary enough thought in a Hornet- where at least I had a chance of developing a BFM gameplan- that sounds like a death sentence for you guys. Knowing the tactics that we train to (or at least used to until I left that world) I don't see how you guys are being set up for success.

It's just like F-22's doing CAS. Sure, they can throw a grid or lat/long into a jdam and pickle it off but wouldn't a Harrier be so much more capable and successful?

I'm not knocking you or any other Harrier dude, you guys are good at what you do in an airplane that is constantly trying to kill you.

Also... I'm not trying to be a dick I promise, but...

Considering that your "been there done that" story so far was a 4vX from the RAG, maybe you aren't the tactical wizard to say what is or isn't a death sentence for a Harrier. I don't pretend to know what missions the hornet should or shouldn't participate in for air to air.

 

[armada1651]

Again you are viewing this like I am advocating sending Harriers as sweepers on day one to strike Russia. I'm not. The choice is having the capability or not. The bad guys may not play along with our plans, and it makes sense to have options. If I needed CAS, I'd rather have an A-10 or a Harrier than a hornet. That doesn't mean I would tell the hornet to go away if that's what's closest.

I understand what you're saying and agree to a point. My problem with it is that I think big DoD tends to think, "Oh, X aircraft can carry X weapon which is generally used for X mission? Let's have them do that too then, and we'll be really good at everything" when in reality it ends up making us mediocre at everything. In my opinion, the communities in military aviation that are really fucking good are the ones that specialize in narrow mission sets - F-22's and F-15C's in DCA/OCA, A-10's at FW CAS and RMC, AH-1's and 64's at RW CAS, PJ 60's at CSAR RV, FA-18E/F's at recovery tanking, etc. (there's a joke in there, see if you can find it). I get the need for multipurpose platforms and my opinion doesn't count for anything anyways, but I just get frustrated with the amount of time and resources we spend training to be jacks of all missions that we will never perform - because our platform isn't that good for it or another service owns that mission set or whatever - at the expense of becoming legitimate masters of one.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

Are you really going to plan on entering a threat wez in which you would have to use your M9 against an RPK?

Sir, do you really want to see what my FP Plan looks like... Not too much I can do about it if they have "overpowered" my "security" watch. Would I want to or plan on it? Hell no. If it makes the difference between them getting into a giant mag full of stuff that goes boom? I think any of us would, and I usually consider myself the voice of reason in the group of guys that are about to order "fix bayonets" followed by "charge." Not much of a kool-aide drinker myself.

I see what you're saying on the funding front (and its typical DoD logic), but it still seems that its directed more for if a CAS asset encounters trouble while performing CAS. It's more practical to engage with a Sidewinder or AMRAAM for self defense than to try to evade an air to air aggressor isn't it? Granted having the Harriers flying CAP may be silly, but when it comes down to the wire wouldn't you rather them have the capability? You guys are the experts though, these are just my thoughts looking up.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I understand what you're saying and agree to a point. My problem with it is that I think big DoD tends to think, "Oh, X aircraft can carry X weapon which is generally used for X mission? Let's have them do that too then, and we'll be really good at everything" when in reality it ends up making us mediocre at everything. In my opinion, the communities in military aviation that are really fucking good are the ones that specialize in narrow mission sets - F-22's and F-15C's in DCA/OCA, A-10's at FW CAS and RMC, AH-1's and 64's at RW CAS, PJ 60's at CSAR RV, FA-18E/F's at recovery tanking, etc. (there's a joke in there, see if you can find it). I get the need for multipurpose platforms and my opinion doesn't count for anything anyways, but I just get frustrated with the amount of time and resources we spend training to be jacks of all missions that we will never perform - because our platform isn't that good for it or another service owns that mission set or whatever - at the expense of becoming legitimate masters of one.

I agree, and I don't want to see the Harrier community try to turn into VMFA. It is good to spend a little bit of of time to be better for certain contingencies, though. I would also agree there is something to the thought that the marine corps wants harrier and hornet pilots to be interchangeable F-35 widgets.

I'd rather have the ability to shoot amraam than not.

 

[Swanee]

Also... I'm not trying to be a dick I promise, but...

Considering that your "been there done that" story so far was a 4vX from the RAG, maybe you aren't the tactical wizard to say what is or isn't a death sentence for a Harrier. I don't pretend to know what missions the hornet should or shouldn't participate in for air to air.

Yeah, I get it. You don't have to remind me of my lane, I'm well aware of where I do and don't fit in these days (seems like we're show ponies for every random General Officer who wants a FITREP bullet- look at these great tricks our UAS guys do- look how awesome they are- deploy? Oh no, we won't actually deploy them, it's cheaper to contract it out. But they'll support every WTI and ITX we have as well as any other CONUS tasking you want them to do. We know we should buy Group 5 assets, but those don't fly off of boats and even though that's an antiquated requirement that doesn't apply to UAS that have 40+ hours TOS and can be anywhere around the world in 5 hours we're the Marine Corps and we have to do everything from the LHD/LPD because buzzwords like Amphibious and Expeditionary).

But I am willing to bet that in my Hornet RAG syllabus I got more air to air radar intercept and ACM/BFM instruction/experience than you did in your Harrier section lead syllabus. I'd be really upset if I didn't. You guys doing air to air is just like my new community (which sucks btw- but we're getting better) doing air to air. I can strap an AIM-120 on a (bigger AF sized) UAS and run a missile timeline, the difference is that I don't die when I get shot down. We can do it in a pinch, but a better question is why the hell are we in this pinch to begin with? And if we're going that way why the hell aren't the F-15C's and F-22's (who do this shit day in and day out and are fucking great at it) doing it?



Alright, back to my whipping boy hole. At least I have bourbon down there.

 

[STOVLer]

Yeah, fuck those poor saps lifting weights on the LHA, they deserve to get smoked by a YJ-91 because it offends our delicate sensibility that jump-jets have AMRAAM.

Does the Harrier having an AMRAAM take a mission set away from you? No. What’s the issue then, you don’t want the ARG protected? Or at least attempted to be protected? No one is disputing the F/A-18 is a better air to air platform. That doesn’t give you a monopoly on the USMC’s AIM-120 inventory. I doubt you’d miss any of the versions the AV-8Bs are shooting anyway.

Since you clearly have MEU experience and know how the MEU commander wants to protect his assets, I’ll let you tell me how Hornets will accomplish that while they are land based and the MEU is blue-water. Right now AV-8Bs are doing division DARG in a JEZ for a continuous VUL against SAR-1 and IR-2 capable strikers. Yeah, we do 4 v X. But you know all about our A/A T&R. Sounds just like putting an AIM-120 on an RPA, totally.

The AV-8B does not have Link-16 or MADL. It does not have JHMCS. It does not have AIM-9X. As of last year the gun squadrons didn't have Gen4 TPOD. In the new DCAs latest AVPLAN it is getting phased out earlier than originally forecast with the purchase from the Brits, and prior to most Hornet squadrons. Don’t worry, they aren’t investing much in it, so get over the victim mentality OH MY GOD THEY PUT AMRAAM ON HARRIERS LULZ THAT MAKES ME ANGRY AND SAD AT SAME TIME ROFL.

Something you learn about the MEU and in the Harrier community is you do what the GCE wants. They are nervous about having F-35s on board, because talking to infantry counterparts, the BLT is afraid it will get pulled by the theater commander for high-level tasking (like the Prowler) and leave the ARG without a fixed wing asset to defend itself. They have told me they’d rather just have the Harrier in that case, because at least it wouldn’t get snatched away. In OEF we flew with a new pod, which hornets don’t carry, because what we were doing with it gave the assault supports and the GCE peace of mind. We weren’t the perfect aircraft to accomplish that task, but it got the job done. We fucked with eachother and wore an EW patch of shame, but we were proud to accomplish their intent and protect the guys on the ground. Look past your ego- that’s all the AMRAAM on the AV-8B is doing.

 

[squeeze]

I can't even begin to count how many times I've had the AMRAAM discussion with other communities. It's really quite simple.

Is the Harrier/AMRAAM combo the best fit for an DCA/OCA mission? Absolutely not. Is it the only option for a blue water, over-the-horizon, BVR defensive capability for the MEU/ARG? Yes. Because of our role on the MEU, we have (and have to) become the jack-of-all-trades so long as the Command Element deem an emerging capability a requirement. Enter Intrepid Tiger, Intrepid Tiger II, AMRAAM, etc...

There's a laundry list of tech upgrades a lot of the fleet would rather have had before ITII and AMRAAM, but it didn't work out that way. AMRAAM was basically a no-to-low-cost upgrade to fill a mission gap. We had the APG-65s from Hornets, we had the software, the racks were in the inventory. Now that we have it, and have that mission, it actually gives us more ammo to get some of the other systems we desperately want/need - LINK16, helmet/JHMCS, AESA radar, etc...

The fact of the matter is, a Harrier with an APG-65, an AIM-120B (currently... C testing in progress last I checked), and decent GCI control is still a whole lot more capable than what most banana republic or rogue nation air forces can bring to bare with outdated tech MiG-1x/2x. That's the threat the MEU is primarily concerned about; look at where we operate. The brown water Navy doesn't want to take a Silkworm broadside because some Hornet pilot was offended that his jack of all/master of none crown was threatened. No one is talking about going 4vX against China, Russia, or India in Flankers on day one of WWIII here. Just stop it with that comparison. Stop thinking every A/A threat is a peer nation in a Gen4/5 fighter. It's ridiculous and disingenuous. Nevermind the fact that the Brits, Italians, and Spanish all have, or currently do, operate the Harrier with AMRAAM in an OCA/DCA role and have done so rather effectively against capable adversaries in training.

Just because you're surrounded by top tier US equipment, well-maintained aircraft and weapon systems, and frequent realistic training, does not mean the rest (or much at all) of the world is the same. It's easy to lose some perspective on threats when you view it from a worst-case scenario. This is one thing that has certainly been driven home while on an exchange tour.

Now back to your RAG student vs Fleet guy entertainment.


/still considers himself an Attack Pilot first and foremost

 

[ryan1234]

Any significant knowledge points would really need to take place in the vault, particularly from platforms currently training to and executing DCA... otherwise it's a pointless discussion to have on an internet forum.

 

[pourts]

Yeah you're right. Fuck it. They shouldn't even leave port.

My point is, at the end of the day someone with some KNOWLEDGE and some BALLS needs to tell the Generals/ Admirals NO. Enough already with the can-do attitude.

"No sir, that doesn't make any sense. Planning to protect this ship with 2 Harriers with 2 AMRAAMS apeice is just as stupid as sending a platoon ashore with only K-Bars. The idea is so stupid, we shouldn't even entertain it. We have a significant vulnerability here, and I won't let someone make the issue disappear by pretending to address it with equipment that doesn't actually solve the issue."

 

[Treetop Flyer]

My point is, at the end of the day someone with some KNOWLEDGE and some BALLS needs to tell the Generals/ Admirals NO. Enough already with the can-do attitude.

"No sir, that doesn't make any sense. Planning to protect this ship with 2 Harriers with 2 AMRAAMS apeice is just as stupid as sending a platoon ashore with only K-Bars. The idea is so stupid, we shouldn't even entertain it. We have a significant vulnerability here, and I won't let someone make the issue disappear by pretending to address it with equipment that doesn't actually solve the issue."

I think that's pretty much how the conversation went:

"We absolutely can provide an air defense capability, but we refuse to because we don't want to hurt the feelings of hornet dudes. In the event of a scenario where we would need to counter an air threat, we will just shelter in place without compromising our integrity because harriers absolutely cannot do more than one thing. Only hornets do that."

It didn't work out well, and now harriers took all your amraams.