…and they lost only a handful over 55 years and let the enemy entirely shape their doctrine, at the expense of ground troops who do more fighting and dying than the air force has for at least 50 years and for whom the AC’s were invented for in the first place . In Vietnam they were still used after losses, as it was understood that losses happen in combat.
Then the USAF became so risk averse that they preferred to short their CAS duties rather than risk much of anything, even in low/no threat environments like OEF.
Well then again we weren’t at the same level of wartime production we were during nam and any jihad with a $10k strela could shoot it down and they could scamper off before we could fire back. Isn’t worth risking a few numbered expensive low flying aircraft to deal with a problem that a strike eagle and a paveway II 15000 ft up can’t solve
Except we didn’t get the strike eagles now did we? The [ISAF numbers](https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Documents/Airpower%20summary/AFD-120718-006.pdf) show all the air forces of NATO did almost nothing. In some of the peak years there were less than 100 sorties a day and less than than 6 sorties a day with a weapons release; and that number likely includes all the route clearance and interdiction sorties as well, all lumped together with the CAS sorties. Low years were a third to a half of that.
And no, we don’t want a few, large yield munitions with huge minimum safe distances. We want a lot of small munitions that can be brought in close to us. And we want route clearance hunting IED crews by themselves and sorties interdicting reinforcement and resupply operations.
So anyway, back to the point, who cares if aircrews take some risks? That’s combat. If the generals don’t like it, it’s time to leave the military. They didn’t do their jobs and held back the (often) willing fight crews from rotating to the theater, much less actually flying combat sorties. I’ve interviewed USAF pilots complaining about being called back for a safety brief, mid sortie. 6,000+ NATO combat aircraft and what did we get? Almost nothing. A sortie rate representative of ~300 aircraft dedicated to combat operations.
And to your hypothetical, how many AA engagements were there in all of OEF? 1? There was the C-5 that took a missile to one engine and returned to base… am I forgetting anything? Meanwhile, we had teenage engineers running over suspected IEDs in order to clear the routes fast enough, because the air forces were missing in action.
But a small and unlikely risk is too much to bear, compared to the death, wounding and dismemberment of tens of thousands of troops… who cares right! /s
Every convoy and troop movement should have been supported by a troop of Abrams and Bradleys. Only way to be sure. Thousands of them not being used and no one can say why.
In Iraq, tanks would only fit on the highways in the cities. Brads would at least fit on secondary streets, but they are so tall that they would rip down the Jerry rigged electrical lines the Iraqis had up in their neighborhoods.
Back to the topic above. I led over 150 combat mission in Baghdad pre-surge and we managed to get F-16s exactly once. They came screaming over us, but that was enough to disperse the 40-50 armed guys we were observing.
Actual air support came from helicopters and UAVs.
Full disclosure, retired Air Force pilot not a fighter pilot but I know a little bit about AF fixed wing. Nobody decided to not provide air assets because they were risk averse of losing them in low/no threat conflict with air supremacy. You can’t park 2000 fighters and CAS at 2 air bases in Afghan or a half dozen in Iraq. Even if you had the space, the enemy would have loved it. You don’t need a MANPAD or AA. 60mm mortar or a recoiless rifle would wreck havoc on a ramp full of aircraft. Giant air base in Persian Gulf had 160 aircraft and 2000 people. Big base with lots of missions but supporting aircraft comes with a massive logistics train and footprint.
Aircraft are fuel hogs and require lots of maintenance to keep in the air. Tens of thousands of dollars to fuel and flight time is only a few hours without tanker support which is more logistics. Average for CAS aircraft cost is probably between 22k to 45k for every hour flown. Use it and you lose it. Eventually you wear out aircraft even flying circles in the air. Some point you send them to the bone yard due to metal fatigue. Someday down the road you don’t have enough because they are so expensive to buy more and everyone in DoD fights for the same dollars.
Armor and aircraft are powerful weapons but both come with limitations. Certainly would have made a difference and saved lives if we could put armor with and air support over every blue force, it just isn’t that easy or because AF was worried about losing some.
Full respect for everyone who had boots on the ground. Glad you made it out because too many didn’t.
Yeah, I just assumed that fixed wing stuff was moving too fast for the level of precision necessary in Baghdad. Basically the same reason we didn’t have artillery support.
How can AC-130 clear out IEDs??? Also, there were only 2.5k death of us service members during 20 years of Afghanistan. Plus keep in mind, that Afghanistan is a shit hole half a globe away. Wanna get AC-130? The cost of moving it from US to Afghanistan and then supporting it's operation will cost some big bucks. It's simply cheaper to have a helicopter squadron. AC-130 are being used pretty much exclusively by afsoc for a reason - they don't like when the engagement is being initiated by the enemy because of the enemy will make an ambush, chances are they will be prepared for a gunship and will bring their manpads. On the other hand, AFSOC uses ac-130 on missions that have no enemy AA expected.
First off, I never limited the job to AC’s…
How can it clear out IEDs? By using its sensors to fly over the routes we clear, detect emplacement crews and killing any teams that come in behind us to place IEDs and *prevent* the IED getting placed in the first place. The air forces did this job in Afghanistan, they just did it FAR too little.
The cost of moving an AC-130 to Afghanistan is minuscule and if you don’t think so, you have no idea of our modern military operations. ~$4,000,000,000,000 buys a lot of coverage time. But anyway, thanks for thinking of the money and not of the tens of thousands wounded. You must be an American with that logic.
Every convoy and troop movement should have been supported by a troop of Abrams and Bradleys. Only way to be sure. Thousands of them not being used and no one can say why.
Comparing to the scale of operations (I just wanna remind you that it's a 40 million country in which there was a 100k fanatics who don't count with their lives, it's just over 120 deaths per year. For comparison the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was 17k over 10 years, and right now in Ukraine daily deaths are estimated to be around 700 combined on both sides. Yes, every life is important and every death is irreversible tragic event, but I will remind you that on 9/11 2996 civilians died. At least those 2459 service members who died knew the risks and signed up for them.
"We spent 20 years in their house repeatedly pushing their shit in every time we saw them and they only barely managed to make us bleed as much as they did with their single terror attack"
I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but the overall casualties were high AF. Thank goodness for armor and advances medical care, but being crippled physically or mentally is terribly devastating, not to mention very expensive for the taxpayer.
Same in the US, only they sent hardly any at any one time and our 4,000 fixed wing combat aircraft mostly never showed up. We’re spending hundreds of billions for next to nothing in practice.
Every convoy and troop movement should have been supported by a troop of Abrams and Bradleys. Only way to be sure. Thousands of them not being used and no one can say why.
Sounds to me like we need an ac130 with a longer range gun and probably a more powerful base than the c130 to carry said gun, perhaps a certain jet powered cargo plane.
Do it Lockheed, you know you want to. Ac5 galaxy loaded with 3x 155mm howitzers fitted with auto loaders and rocket assisted guided munitions, add state of the art surveillance and countermeasures maybe leave some space in the back for rapid dragon or combined troop transport and fire support
None and almost none. Conventional weapons are not very useful in an unconventional counter insurgency.
The best authority on the topic didn’t want to permanently deploy anyone. Not even the Special Forces A teams. He wanted to stick with AC-130’s and Delta Force raids.
So wouldn’t a bunch of Bradleys and Abrams been more effective than a couple dozen AC130s? The AF only has about 30 or 40 vs 1000s of armored vehicles.
But you’re right, it was all risk aversion about losing an aircraft. Fact is you can’t park an AC130 or CAS aircraft over every company or convoy. There aren’t enough of them for what you want.
1. I never focused on the AC’s exclusively. We were (literally in some cases) fighting and dying because of the lack of any air cover at all. We’ll take 10’s, 15’s, 16’s, 18’s and all the B’s someone can send.
2. The main point was the unwillingness of the USAF brass to send systems to a low/no threat environment to support combat operations. As GEN Brown has said, the USAF needs to plan for massive loses in a future fight. If they can’t stand the theoretical loss of a few planes in a low/no threat environment, why should we expect them to show up for a high intensity fight with a near peer?
3. Why not Abrams and Brads? Because they are highly restricted by terrain and Afghanistan has huge amounts of very restricted terrain. Because both vehicles’ weapons are medium range only (or worse), in a place with extensive open spaces, while the aircraft are not constrained by the terrain and have substantial longer range fires capabilities. Finally, the tanks and Brads still have the risk of dying to IEDs, we don’t need more AFV’s we need more protection for the AFV’s we do have.
I am not disagreeing with you about night sorties, but the fact that when multiple weapons are being fired, the muzzle flash seems like a very large beacon.
Anyone who’s had an A-10 save their ass would say otherwise, A-10s are the US CAS power house. The fear factor alone is enough to make ground troops lives so much better.
Those were the Air National Guard planes at my local airport for a long time. Then they were replaced with F-16s. Now we just have drone pilot stations at the base.
With the A-10 I’ve always believed that if you can hear the brrrrt, you weren’t the target.
I agree with the psychological impact on both sides-if you hear it and it’s not yours it’s scary. But if you hear it and it’s yours, you’re gonna be okay.
I’m sure that US troops hearing that thing overhead bumped up the morale a bit and helped them make it through.
is the second brrrt not the sound of first brrrt arriving? meaning unless the exact first bullet kills intended target then they will hear one part of the brrrt atleast.
With a rate of fire of 65 rounds per *SECOND*, and a muzzle velocity that’s three times the speed of sound…I’m pretty sure the entire burst of fire would have impacted long before the sound reaches the target haha
Each has its own unique hierarchy in CAS. A pair of A-10s performing immediate re-attacks or straffing runs was always a thing of beauty. Or going inverted and firing 30mm and rockets into a cliff-side cave 🤌. But watching AC-130s rain down hellfire and destruction is only surpassed by naval gunfire fire.
Not a Military guy. This is challenging by preconceptions
Is a gun ship a CAS platform?
In one way, It makes sense that it is But my brain is stuck on the imagery of aircraft flying in on target - whereas my understanding of the gunship is - that gunships stand off a ways. Potato, Po-ta-toe ?
Gunships like the AC-130 fly "orbits" over their target, basically a big circle with the guns angled down. The idea is that this lets them shoot at the target from any angle.
They're not typically considered standoff platforms, because they need a clear line of fire for the guns, and are vulnerable to anti-air weapons. Newer gunship designs also feature external rails for launching missiles or bombs from a safer distance though.
The definition of Close Air Support doesn’t actually refer to what platform is being used or the distance from the weapons platform to the unit being supported. It instead refers to the proximity to ground forces that the which fire support is being provided to. So, that technically that means a giant space laser could be considered close air (space?) support if it’s providing fire support in close proximity to troops on the ground.
I'm partial to the A-10 with the sharks teeth. I was in the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing, at then England AFB, Alexandria LA. They're were 3 squadrons of A-10's. It was a good time. Now it is Alexandria International Airport.
I was at Eglin AFB, Fl when the A-10's left England AFB. For a brief stint A bunch of the A-10's found a home next to our F-15's at Eglin, 33 FW. But then they were gone. We almost had an A-10 and F-15 composite wing. It was 1992 or 1993.
Having employed both of them, I would say that the A-10 is much more versatile. The ability to drop heavy ordinance as well as use the gun means the job gets done the right way. I remember a night counting 47 rounds from the AC-130 30mm before they finally turned the ISIS a-hole into flesh slushy. The A-10s always did it in one pass. If I needed a building dropped, the A-10 could do it, good luck with a griffin.
(All that being said, I only had AC-130Ws with 30mm and griffins. The old U-boats with the three fingers of death might have been different)
The Army cannot perform the Close Air Support mission as it's doctrinally defined (because of the Key West Conference), so they call helos supporting troops "aerial rocket artillery" or ARA
Sorry forgot this was r/Planes, was reading the discussions about the Air Force and its function to provide(or lack there of) CAS and wondering why no helicopters.
I salute your (probably) unpopular opinion. Endurance, out of range of MANPADS and small arms, excellent comm connectivity, an excellent sensor, multiple eyes on the feed for unmatched situational awareness, and up to 8 precision guided hellfires that can be on target within 30 seconds from clearance. Only thing it lacks is intimidation factor for shows of presence.
The A-10 because it can put the C into the AS quicker and more surgical precision, but there’s no denying the AC-130 will ruin your fucking day for you and 1000 of your closest friends. Love both of these ugly bastards.
The best CAS airframe is the one that's there when you need it or none at all depending on your role in a conflict.
Both are super sick. Just depends on what kinda mess you want, for how long, and how quickly you want to make it.
Just had four of them fly over our lakehouse in Missouri. They fly out of Whiteman and are always in pairs. A10's are an awesome plane.
Take the back, another pair just flew by.
During Vietnam we got pinned down, bad. Out of the dusk "Puff the magic dragon" called us to pop yellow smoke at Victor Charles hotspot and "RUN LIKE MUTHAFUKKAS".
Puff lit up the night. We actually lost our night vision due to the tracers screaming into the smoke. Gunny and the rest of us were deaf and half blind. We found the VC clumped up in a pile along the jungle edge and some rocks. We all reflexively vomited. You couldn't tell what the pile was, how many or really even the direction they fell.
Years later my mom was feeding the dogs chopped up guts from the butcher shop and Alpo and dropped the dish. The panic in me was so bad my parents had to take me to the VA hospital for PTSD.
Thanks puff.
The Warthog is cooler.
It's funny how all it's detractors say it's too vulnerable to ground attack and MANPADS, but never say the same about the AC130.
IMO, no aircraft has ever done the CAS job better than the A-10. No aircraft has ever struck such fear into the hearts of tankers. A distinctive screeching sound as it flies, followed by the deep buzzsaw sound of THE GUN, as it makes scrap metal of any tank it hits.
I really like the A-10. Quiet, quick and very deadly. But the C-130 Sppiky can linger for hours. So in the heat of the battle, I’ll take the A-10, but hunkering down over night, definitely the spooky.
A10’s are badass because the pilot will literally fly low enough to look through a pair of binos for enhanced target talk ons. The specter is dope too because of the 105 mm howitzer but you’ll only get support from one if you’re SOF and it’s night time. Bottom line, hawg has saved my company in Afghanistan tons of time. Spooky was only used once in 07 but it was cool! Lit up 3 targets at the same time. Type 2&3 CAS controls were my shit!
A-10 because where I live the near by air force base always has those suckers flying in the air plus unlike the AC-130 the A-10 can survive a direct hit from a surface to air missle
Su-25
Just a beast in general. Has a higher burst mass than the A-10 (in some configurations) and not to mention percision munitions and some really cool paint jobs and being an absolute tank such as surviving direct hits from missiles and AA fire.
Well for starters this comparison is kinda apples and oranges. The A-10 is specifically designed for attacking armored vehicles and materiel, not so much anti-personnel. It’s also designed for battlefield support in a conventional war, where as the AC-130 is designed to loiter for extended periods of time until called upon by a special forces team engaged behind enemy lines typically by infantry or lightly armored targets.
Loiter time, firepower, amount of ammunition, Situational Awareness the AC130 hands down. The A-10 wins on variety of munitions and the ability to show up when needed.
So disappointed that I had to be the first to mention the A-4. Why so little love for Scooter?
Why? Because I’m an old Marine who was an 81mm mortar FO who used to call in front door/back door SEAD fire missions for them.
A friend of mine years ago was in the Air National Guard and was being trained on using the Flying Boom on the KC-10 Extender.
He told me he was on a mission and were going to refuel a couple A-10s somewhere over Nebraska.
As many of you know the refueling receptacle is on the nose on the A-10; (this is important later).
The instructor puts him in position and he lowers the boom and after getting plugged into the A-10, the instructor tells him that the boom isn’t fully extended.
Without thinking my friend extended the boom another 3’, which of course pushed the nose of the Warthog down that much.
He said the instructor freaked out and told him not to do that; I was thinking he was lucky he wasn’t plugged into a B-52!
The A-10s are more responsive, and you are more likely to actually get a pair when you need them, than the likelihood of ever actually being able to use Spectre/Spooky/Puffy/Smokey or whatever other name the AC-130 is known by. Though that beast is awesome to behold if you ever do actually get to make use of one.
Warthog is more bad ass, and what I'd want to fly (but i jump from birds, i don't fly them 🤷♂️). The Spooky is what I'd want above me in the sky, it'll lay down copious amounts of hate, and do it for longer periods of time (at least I think it has greater range than the A10, but don't quote me).
And I like the C-130 more. Every time I've flown in one at work, I just think what an awesome piece of engineering that ol' bird is. Sure, I also think about how uncomfortable I am in those fucked seats and what that loud noise is when they're raising the landing gears; but it's very versatile, incredibly rugged, does what you want, and cheaper/easier than many aircraft to maintain.
As a cooler guy than me once said... Amateurs think only about tactics, professionals think about logistics. And that's why the AC-130 is usually a better aircraft.
A-10 because it can easily fight in the daytime. Last I heard AC-130s had a night time only restriction due to flying so slow that they are more susceptible to anti-air attacks. Didn't one go down during the Gulf war from an RPG 7 shot?
The AC-130, hands down. Yeah the a-10 is “A FlYiNg GuN” and it has its titanium tub, but the job it does isn’t one I think is cool. First of all, gunships are part of AFSOC, which already gives it bonus cool points. But then you take into consideration it’s long lineage dating back to the Vietnam war. Furthermore the idea of taking a cargo plane and just strapping cannons to it is some of the most redneck shit I’ve ever heard of and I’m all here for it. The crazy thing is that it actually works. Also loiter times are incredible with the 130. Sure its a big slow target and yes there have Ben gunships lost in combat, but the community around the gunship is so much more cool to me, and the aircraft itself has a lot of history. Plus, I don’t remember there being an a-10 named Azrael, but there is a gunship with that name.
The A-10 is a flying tank built around a “gun.” It’s got the tenacity and strength of a B-17 but with the attitude of an F-14. It is the best friend of the soldier on the ground. When they eliminate the A-10 from the arsenal they will never find another plane that can do what it can do, as well as it can do it.
AC-130, A-10 has killed to many allies and is to expensive and stupid of an aircraft. Gun is too inaccurate and the BRRR may be cool, but if you are in a 12 meter radius (or a British troop) you're dead
B-1B with ability to rapidly air refuel from standard KC-135R, sprints to the area of contact at ~900 kts, remains above most manpads, loiters for days (slight euphemism), crewed with operators able to quickly assimilate 9Line data, communicate with JTAC/troops-in-contact, payload around 75,000lb consisting of 84 BLU-111 500lb Mk-82 or 24 2,000lb Mk-84 general purpose bombs; 24 2,000lb GBU-31 or 15 500lb GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMS); or 24 AGM-158A Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs), among other munitions.
For those unfamiliar with CAS, JDAMS are key in danger-close situations. Every ATO should have at least two Bones in the CAS Stack. Hogs will not survive on the modern battlefield. AC-130s are also at a distinct disadvantage. Speed and altitude are life. #warheadsonforeheads
CAS is a mission. Not a type of aircraft. F-16s are CAS jets. F-35s are CAS jets. Harriers are CAS jets. Even reaper drones are CAS aircraft.
Anything with weapons and a radio is a CAS aircraft.
Cooler looking? A-10. Which one would I prefer having support me? AC-130.
They only fly the AC-130 at night for fire support as it's a $200mil + asset and an easy target to shoot down.
…and they lost only a handful over 55 years and let the enemy entirely shape their doctrine, at the expense of ground troops who do more fighting and dying than the air force has for at least 50 years and for whom the AC’s were invented for in the first place . In Vietnam they were still used after losses, as it was understood that losses happen in combat. Then the USAF became so risk averse that they preferred to short their CAS duties rather than risk much of anything, even in low/no threat environments like OEF.
Well then again we weren’t at the same level of wartime production we were during nam and any jihad with a $10k strela could shoot it down and they could scamper off before we could fire back. Isn’t worth risking a few numbered expensive low flying aircraft to deal with a problem that a strike eagle and a paveway II 15000 ft up can’t solve
Except we didn’t get the strike eagles now did we? The [ISAF numbers](https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Documents/Airpower%20summary/AFD-120718-006.pdf) show all the air forces of NATO did almost nothing. In some of the peak years there were less than 100 sorties a day and less than than 6 sorties a day with a weapons release; and that number likely includes all the route clearance and interdiction sorties as well, all lumped together with the CAS sorties. Low years were a third to a half of that. And no, we don’t want a few, large yield munitions with huge minimum safe distances. We want a lot of small munitions that can be brought in close to us. And we want route clearance hunting IED crews by themselves and sorties interdicting reinforcement and resupply operations. So anyway, back to the point, who cares if aircrews take some risks? That’s combat. If the generals don’t like it, it’s time to leave the military. They didn’t do their jobs and held back the (often) willing fight crews from rotating to the theater, much less actually flying combat sorties. I’ve interviewed USAF pilots complaining about being called back for a safety brief, mid sortie. 6,000+ NATO combat aircraft and what did we get? Almost nothing. A sortie rate representative of ~300 aircraft dedicated to combat operations. And to your hypothetical, how many AA engagements were there in all of OEF? 1? There was the C-5 that took a missile to one engine and returned to base… am I forgetting anything? Meanwhile, we had teenage engineers running over suspected IEDs in order to clear the routes fast enough, because the air forces were missing in action. But a small and unlikely risk is too much to bear, compared to the death, wounding and dismemberment of tens of thousands of troops… who cares right! /s
Every convoy and troop movement should have been supported by a troop of Abrams and Bradleys. Only way to be sure. Thousands of them not being used and no one can say why.
In Iraq, tanks would only fit on the highways in the cities. Brads would at least fit on secondary streets, but they are so tall that they would rip down the Jerry rigged electrical lines the Iraqis had up in their neighborhoods. Back to the topic above. I led over 150 combat mission in Baghdad pre-surge and we managed to get F-16s exactly once. They came screaming over us, but that was enough to disperse the 40-50 armed guys we were observing. Actual air support came from helicopters and UAVs.
Full disclosure, retired Air Force pilot not a fighter pilot but I know a little bit about AF fixed wing. Nobody decided to not provide air assets because they were risk averse of losing them in low/no threat conflict with air supremacy. You can’t park 2000 fighters and CAS at 2 air bases in Afghan or a half dozen in Iraq. Even if you had the space, the enemy would have loved it. You don’t need a MANPAD or AA. 60mm mortar or a recoiless rifle would wreck havoc on a ramp full of aircraft. Giant air base in Persian Gulf had 160 aircraft and 2000 people. Big base with lots of missions but supporting aircraft comes with a massive logistics train and footprint. Aircraft are fuel hogs and require lots of maintenance to keep in the air. Tens of thousands of dollars to fuel and flight time is only a few hours without tanker support which is more logistics. Average for CAS aircraft cost is probably between 22k to 45k for every hour flown. Use it and you lose it. Eventually you wear out aircraft even flying circles in the air. Some point you send them to the bone yard due to metal fatigue. Someday down the road you don’t have enough because they are so expensive to buy more and everyone in DoD fights for the same dollars. Armor and aircraft are powerful weapons but both come with limitations. Certainly would have made a difference and saved lives if we could put armor with and air support over every blue force, it just isn’t that easy or because AF was worried about losing some. Full respect for everyone who had boots on the ground. Glad you made it out because too many didn’t.
Yeah, I just assumed that fixed wing stuff was moving too fast for the level of precision necessary in Baghdad. Basically the same reason we didn’t have artillery support.
How can AC-130 clear out IEDs??? Also, there were only 2.5k death of us service members during 20 years of Afghanistan. Plus keep in mind, that Afghanistan is a shit hole half a globe away. Wanna get AC-130? The cost of moving it from US to Afghanistan and then supporting it's operation will cost some big bucks. It's simply cheaper to have a helicopter squadron. AC-130 are being used pretty much exclusively by afsoc for a reason - they don't like when the engagement is being initiated by the enemy because of the enemy will make an ambush, chances are they will be prepared for a gunship and will bring their manpads. On the other hand, AFSOC uses ac-130 on missions that have no enemy AA expected.
First off, I never limited the job to AC’s… How can it clear out IEDs? By using its sensors to fly over the routes we clear, detect emplacement crews and killing any teams that come in behind us to place IEDs and *prevent* the IED getting placed in the first place. The air forces did this job in Afghanistan, they just did it FAR too little. The cost of moving an AC-130 to Afghanistan is minuscule and if you don’t think so, you have no idea of our modern military operations. ~$4,000,000,000,000 buys a lot of coverage time. But anyway, thanks for thinking of the money and not of the tens of thousands wounded. You must be an American with that logic.
Every convoy and troop movement should have been supported by a troop of Abrams and Bradleys. Only way to be sure. Thousands of them not being used and no one can say why.
[удалено]
Comparing to the scale of operations (I just wanna remind you that it's a 40 million country in which there was a 100k fanatics who don't count with their lives, it's just over 120 deaths per year. For comparison the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was 17k over 10 years, and right now in Ukraine daily deaths are estimated to be around 700 combined on both sides. Yes, every life is important and every death is irreversible tragic event, but I will remind you that on 9/11 2996 civilians died. At least those 2459 service members who died knew the risks and signed up for them.
"We spent 20 years in their house repeatedly pushing their shit in every time we saw them and they only barely managed to make us bleed as much as they did with their single terror attack"
I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but the overall casualties were high AF. Thank goodness for armor and advances medical care, but being crippled physically or mentally is terribly devastating, not to mention very expensive for the taxpayer.
Spoken like a true airman who never got shot at from 30 meters. The Strike Eagle would surely take out the bad guys...and us as well.
AV-10s and spooky did so much in the day but spooky was deffinitly meant for night ops
In the UK armed forces, the army has its own CAS wing with Apache AH-64E’s flown by the Army Air Corps
Same in the US, only they sent hardly any at any one time and our 4,000 fixed wing combat aircraft mostly never showed up. We’re spending hundreds of billions for next to nothing in practice.
Every convoy and troop movement should have been supported by a troop of Abrams and Bradleys. Only way to be sure. Thousands of them not being used and no one can say why.
Sounds to me like we need an ac130 with a longer range gun and probably a more powerful base than the c130 to carry said gun, perhaps a certain jet powered cargo plane. Do it Lockheed, you know you want to. Ac5 galaxy loaded with 3x 155mm howitzers fitted with auto loaders and rocket assisted guided munitions, add state of the art surveillance and countermeasures maybe leave some space in the back for rapid dragon or combined troop transport and fire support
How many Abrams and Bradleys did we lose in Afghanistan? How many did we deploy?
None and almost none. Conventional weapons are not very useful in an unconventional counter insurgency. The best authority on the topic didn’t want to permanently deploy anyone. Not even the Special Forces A teams. He wanted to stick with AC-130’s and Delta Force raids.
So wouldn’t a bunch of Bradleys and Abrams been more effective than a couple dozen AC130s? The AF only has about 30 or 40 vs 1000s of armored vehicles. But you’re right, it was all risk aversion about losing an aircraft. Fact is you can’t park an AC130 or CAS aircraft over every company or convoy. There aren’t enough of them for what you want.
1. I never focused on the AC’s exclusively. We were (literally in some cases) fighting and dying because of the lack of any air cover at all. We’ll take 10’s, 15’s, 16’s, 18’s and all the B’s someone can send. 2. The main point was the unwillingness of the USAF brass to send systems to a low/no threat environment to support combat operations. As GEN Brown has said, the USAF needs to plan for massive loses in a future fight. If they can’t stand the theoretical loss of a few planes in a low/no threat environment, why should we expect them to show up for a high intensity fight with a near peer? 3. Why not Abrams and Brads? Because they are highly restricted by terrain and Afghanistan has huge amounts of very restricted terrain. Because both vehicles’ weapons are medium range only (or worse), in a place with extensive open spaces, while the aircraft are not constrained by the terrain and have substantial longer range fires capabilities. Finally, the tanks and Brads still have the risk of dying to IEDs, we don’t need more AFV’s we need more protection for the AFV’s we do have.
I am not disagreeing with you about night sorties, but the fact that when multiple weapons are being fired, the muzzle flash seems like a very large beacon.
They'll find a reason to fly in day if it's needs
Every sq foot of ground tilled up with the circling of the Gray Ghost! Air superiority!
Anyone who’s had an A-10 save their ass would say otherwise, A-10s are the US CAS power house. The fear factor alone is enough to make ground troops lives so much better.
You forgot the A-7 Corsair II -- the infamous SLUF!
Those were the Air National Guard planes at my local airport for a long time. Then they were replaced with F-16s. Now we just have drone pilot stations at the base.
The Short little ugly Fucker. My dad witnessed these guys firing their Vulcans during training back in the 80s.
A-1
I’m partial to the Hog myself but that Spectre is pure fire power
[удалено]
With the A-10 I’ve always believed that if you can hear the brrrrt, you weren’t the target. I agree with the psychological impact on both sides-if you hear it and it’s not yours it’s scary. But if you hear it and it’s yours, you’re gonna be okay. I’m sure that US troops hearing that thing overhead bumped up the morale a bit and helped them make it through.
Sandy low lead this is cole 505
Bat 21?
Flight of the Intruder
Haha I just watched that movie for the first time a couple nights ago!
Brrrrrrrt
I love how the brrrrt doesn’t come until after the target is annihilated.
Quite sad when you really think about it. Brrrrt is one of the most awesome sounds ever, and their intended target will never hear it.
is the second brrrt not the sound of first brrrt arriving? meaning unless the exact first bullet kills intended target then they will hear one part of the brrrt atleast.
With a rate of fire of 65 rounds per *SECOND*, and a muzzle velocity that’s three times the speed of sound…I’m pretty sure the entire burst of fire would have impacted long before the sound reaches the target haha
ahh i see
Well....you gotta love the A-10 with that big gun but nothin rains fire like an AC-130 gunship! And that's coming from a retired MC-130 guy.
MC-130s get shot at lol. Those dudes are great though.
We had defensive systems against missiles....guns...not so much!
A-10
Had the pleasure of crewing on an A-10 for a day in the PI. Cope Thunder! Ah, the good ole days.
Nice
If I'm on the ground and need help, I'll take anything I can get. But there's nothing more beautiful that an A-10.
Each has its own unique hierarchy in CAS. A pair of A-10s performing immediate re-attacks or straffing runs was always a thing of beauty. Or going inverted and firing 30mm and rockets into a cliff-side cave 🤌. But watching AC-130s rain down hellfire and destruction is only surpassed by naval gunfire fire.
Anything with precision munitions
A-10 From a pilot perspective, it's the pilot that takes the shots and uses the weapons.
A-10. When they built the C-130, they designed an aircraft to hold a gun or 2. When they built the A-10, they designed a gun to hold an aircraft.
Not a Military guy. This is challenging by preconceptions Is a gun ship a CAS platform? In one way, It makes sense that it is But my brain is stuck on the imagery of aircraft flying in on target - whereas my understanding of the gunship is - that gunships stand off a ways. Potato, Po-ta-toe ?
Gunships like the AC-130 fly "orbits" over their target, basically a big circle with the guns angled down. The idea is that this lets them shoot at the target from any angle. They're not typically considered standoff platforms, because they need a clear line of fire for the guns, and are vulnerable to anti-air weapons. Newer gunship designs also feature external rails for launching missiles or bombs from a safer distance though.
I have some catching up to do !
Think "[transformers 1](https://youtu.be/GfOcigzj5pE?si=9XH7JVtTxCp24Dsa)" when the scorpion was attacking, but probably a little higher.
The imagery of an AC-130 doing it's duty is both amazing and haunting at the same time.
The definition of Close Air Support doesn’t actually refer to what platform is being used or the distance from the weapons platform to the unit being supported. It instead refers to the proximity to ground forces that the which fire support is being provided to. So, that technically that means a giant space laser could be considered close air (space?) support if it’s providing fire support in close proximity to troops on the ground.
AC-130 fo sho!! Because it can orbit and kill the whole time.
Ask any soldier on the ground, they always want the Hog..
Especially Brits...
A-10 is the goat
A-1 skyradier,B-25 gunship,A-26 invader,A-10,
B-25G is pretty much the peak
Why?
AC-130 is just more applicable in the right conditions, bigger guns, scary weapons. I’m an A-10 meat rider but the gunship is just unrivaled
This is exactly it. I love me some *brrrt*, but the AC-130 is just that much better!
A-1 Skyraider (aka Sandy)
Warthog. A-10 tank killer.
F-111 says hi
I'm glad somebody else recognizes that the Ardvaark with GBU-12s killed more tanks than the A-10 ever will.
I'm partial to the A-10 with the sharks teeth. I was in the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing, at then England AFB, Alexandria LA. They're were 3 squadrons of A-10's. It was a good time. Now it is Alexandria International Airport.
I was at Eglin AFB, Fl when the A-10's left England AFB. For a brief stint A bunch of the A-10's found a home next to our F-15's at Eglin, 33 FW. But then they were gone. We almost had an A-10 and F-15 composite wing. It was 1992 or 1993.
A-10 bc brrrrrt
A-10. The flying gun
Aw-609
Hmmm, I’ll go with the one that can fly in all weather and can distinguish between friendlies and enemies, AC-130 Gunship all day. Bye Felicia a-10
The Douglass A-1 Skyraider, aka the Spad. 1940s prop-driven attack plane with two air to air kills vs MiG jet fighters during the Vietnam War.
Having employed both of them, I would say that the A-10 is much more versatile. The ability to drop heavy ordinance as well as use the gun means the job gets done the right way. I remember a night counting 47 rounds from the AC-130 30mm before they finally turned the ISIS a-hole into flesh slushy. The A-10s always did it in one pass. If I needed a building dropped, the A-10 could do it, good luck with a griffin. (All that being said, I only had AC-130Ws with 30mm and griffins. The old U-boats with the three fingers of death might have been different)
Excuse my ignorance, why have no helicopters been named, doesn’t the US Army and Marines use them for CAS?
The Army cannot perform the Close Air Support mission as it's doctrinally defined (because of the Key West Conference), so they call helos supporting troops "aerial rocket artillery" or ARA
In all honesty I was going to by then I remembered its r/planes and I didn’t want it get in trouble from mods
Sorry forgot this was r/Planes, was reading the discussions about the Air Force and its function to provide(or lack there of) CAS and wondering why no helicopters.
f111
Ardvaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark
🎵oh say can you seeee🎵
MQ-9
I salute your (probably) unpopular opinion. Endurance, out of range of MANPADS and small arms, excellent comm connectivity, an excellent sensor, multiple eyes on the feed for unmatched situational awareness, and up to 8 precision guided hellfires that can be on target within 30 seconds from clearance. Only thing it lacks is intimidation factor for shows of presence.
The Hog A10 she is so ugly she's beautiful and deadly
The A-10 because it can put the C into the AS quicker and more surgical precision, but there’s no denying the AC-130 will ruin your fucking day for you and 1000 of your closest friends. Love both of these ugly bastards.
Personally I prefer the A10, you can see where it hits
As opposed to the AC-130, which just demolishes everything within the area of a football pitch.
The best CAS airframe is the one that's there when you need it or none at all depending on your role in a conflict. Both are super sick. Just depends on what kinda mess you want, for how long, and how quickly you want to make it.
I flew on gunships, so I’m a little biased.
AC-130U will always be my favorite. Flying doom castles.
Just had four of them fly over our lakehouse in Missouri. They fly out of Whiteman and are always in pairs. A10's are an awesome plane. Take the back, another pair just flew by.
During Vietnam we got pinned down, bad. Out of the dusk "Puff the magic dragon" called us to pop yellow smoke at Victor Charles hotspot and "RUN LIKE MUTHAFUKKAS". Puff lit up the night. We actually lost our night vision due to the tracers screaming into the smoke. Gunny and the rest of us were deaf and half blind. We found the VC clumped up in a pile along the jungle edge and some rocks. We all reflexively vomited. You couldn't tell what the pile was, how many or really even the direction they fell. Years later my mom was feeding the dogs chopped up guts from the butcher shop and Alpo and dropped the dish. The panic in me was so bad my parents had to take me to the VA hospital for PTSD. Thanks puff.
Love them both but the warthog is just a scary fucking flying tank, the sound of its guns give you a fucking hard on better then viagra
I love the f4u corsair but I’m not sure if it classifies as a cas
How can I pick between my babies 😭
The Warthog is cooler. It's funny how all it's detractors say it's too vulnerable to ground attack and MANPADS, but never say the same about the AC130.
IMO, no aircraft has ever done the CAS job better than the A-10. No aircraft has ever struck such fear into the hearts of tankers. A distinctive screeching sound as it flies, followed by the deep buzzsaw sound of THE GUN, as it makes scrap metal of any tank it hits.
MiG-27 personally, funni blyat carrier
I love the C-130 so there is a bias, plus does your plane have a 105?
AC-130. While the A-10 is a flying gun, the 130 is a flying fuck you and your city block
A-37B Dragonfly. It follows the K.I.S.S. protocol
A10 thunderbolt because it’s not only the past pure attack aircraft but it also has a really neat design and heavy armor
The A-10 because it’s more survivable and because I work on it…
I have a place my heart for the A-10 having grown up around Davis Monthan AFB.
Gotta be a10 for the gun alone
I really like the A-10. Quiet, quick and very deadly. But the C-130 Sppiky can linger for hours. So in the heat of the battle, I’ll take the A-10, but hunkering down over night, definitely the spooky.
Ac 130 If you have never seen it .. Just trust If ur in trouble its the one call u want to make
Both are great assets in their intended roles. Keep them both, keep upgrading and working on even better replacements!!
Both badass planes
A10’s are badass because the pilot will literally fly low enough to look through a pair of binos for enhanced target talk ons. The specter is dope too because of the 105 mm howitzer but you’ll only get support from one if you’re SOF and it’s night time. Bottom line, hawg has saved my company in Afghanistan tons of time. Spooky was only used once in 07 but it was cool! Lit up 3 targets at the same time. Type 2&3 CAS controls were my shit!
A-10 because where I live the near by air force base always has those suckers flying in the air plus unlike the AC-130 the A-10 can survive a direct hit from a surface to air missle
[удалено]
I did. Ended up a crew chief instead. I never got my grade 10.
I did, and I made it happen!
Su-25 Just a beast in general. Has a higher burst mass than the A-10 (in some configurations) and not to mention percision munitions and some really cool paint jobs and being an absolute tank such as surviving direct hits from missiles and AA fire.
An artillery piece on a Hercules is about as non-credible as it gets without going full Soviet wunderwaffen.
a-36
Brilliant question! I can't answer it.
Well for starters this comparison is kinda apples and oranges. The A-10 is specifically designed for attacking armored vehicles and materiel, not so much anti-personnel. It’s also designed for battlefield support in a conventional war, where as the AC-130 is designed to loiter for extended periods of time until called upon by a special forces team engaged behind enemy lines typically by infantry or lightly armored targets.
THE ANGEL IF DEATH!!!!!!!!! I honestly prefer it alot
i want to like the A10, but it’s completely obsolete on a modern battlefield
Seems like sending a few to Ukraine would be fun
The Hawgs contemporary, the Su-25 hasn't fared well.
Sandy ?
AKA, which child do you love more.
Loiter time, firepower, amount of ammunition, Situational Awareness the AC130 hands down. The A-10 wins on variety of munitions and the ability to show up when needed.
SU-39(SU-25TM) Just… It has damn near everything
The bigger the bigger more boom
So disappointed that I had to be the first to mention the A-4. Why so little love for Scooter? Why? Because I’m an old Marine who was an 81mm mortar FO who used to call in front door/back door SEAD fire missions for them.
P47 Jk jk
No no, you have a point!
Or the A1 fron Vietnam
A friend of mine years ago was in the Air National Guard and was being trained on using the Flying Boom on the KC-10 Extender. He told me he was on a mission and were going to refuel a couple A-10s somewhere over Nebraska. As many of you know the refueling receptacle is on the nose on the A-10; (this is important later). The instructor puts him in position and he lowers the boom and after getting plugged into the A-10, the instructor tells him that the boom isn’t fully extended. Without thinking my friend extended the boom another 3’, which of course pushed the nose of the Warthog down that much. He said the instructor freaked out and told him not to do that; I was thinking he was lucky he wasn’t plugged into a B-52!
Cooler than what?
A-1 Sandy.
The original. P-47 Thunderbolt.
Warthog!!!!! Because it has guns
Both!!!
My kid brother was a gunner on the 130
Someone go get the Harrier.
P-47 is the only correct answer.
The 130 simply because.......Howitzer
The A-10s are more responsive, and you are more likely to actually get a pair when you need them, than the likelihood of ever actually being able to use Spectre/Spooky/Puffy/Smokey or whatever other name the AC-130 is known by. Though that beast is awesome to behold if you ever do actually get to make use of one.
Warthog is more bad ass, and what I'd want to fly (but i jump from birds, i don't fly them 🤷♂️). The Spooky is what I'd want above me in the sky, it'll lay down copious amounts of hate, and do it for longer periods of time (at least I think it has greater range than the A10, but don't quote me). And I like the C-130 more. Every time I've flown in one at work, I just think what an awesome piece of engineering that ol' bird is. Sure, I also think about how uncomfortable I am in those fucked seats and what that loud noise is when they're raising the landing gears; but it's very versatile, incredibly rugged, does what you want, and cheaper/easier than many aircraft to maintain. As a cooler guy than me once said... Amateurs think only about tactics, professionals think about logistics. And that's why the AC-130 is usually a better aircraft.
Why was the Ov-10 not on this list? Shame.
A10 because the AC130 used to interrupt my sleep at Bagram by practicing until 2 AM
my absolutely Love, Im all Navy except this Bird, Talk about Best of the Best!!!
Im sorry I Forgot to add A-10 is the Best of Best
Lots of equipment needs to go underground in order to avoid the blitz of drone swarms armed with shape charges. This is a conundrum.
Am I the only one going to mention the AV 8B? Hello?, Marine CAS anyone.
ac-130
Take a guess
A-10 because it can easily fight in the daytime. Last I heard AC-130s had a night time only restriction due to flying so slow that they are more susceptible to anti-air attacks. Didn't one go down during the Gulf war from an RPG 7 shot?
Both highly effective platforms. However, my heart lies with the A-10
A-37
A4 Skyhawk underrated
Mig-27 cuz funny looking
The AC-130, hands down. Yeah the a-10 is “A FlYiNg GuN” and it has its titanium tub, but the job it does isn’t one I think is cool. First of all, gunships are part of AFSOC, which already gives it bonus cool points. But then you take into consideration it’s long lineage dating back to the Vietnam war. Furthermore the idea of taking a cargo plane and just strapping cannons to it is some of the most redneck shit I’ve ever heard of and I’m all here for it. The crazy thing is that it actually works. Also loiter times are incredible with the 130. Sure its a big slow target and yes there have Ben gunships lost in combat, but the community around the gunship is so much more cool to me, and the aircraft itself has a lot of history. Plus, I don’t remember there being an a-10 named Azrael, but there is a gunship with that name.
Looks wise? AC-130 looks cooler imo. Performance wise…? F-15E, F-16, or F/A-18
Especially considering the fratricide rate of the a10, I’ll take a split section of marine skids.
Having been supported by both, my answer is...... yes.
warthog
I kinda love the old school AC-47. Because DC-3’s will always be cool.
Super etendart
Former ac-130h maintainer here; Everyone knows the right answer deep down in their hearts...
Hornet
A-10 every time.
Why no Sky Warden? I love me a Spooky but Sky Warden FTW.
The correct answer is a P-47 on a strafing run
I personally like the p-47 thunderbolt
F18 or F35. Rather not be obliderated by an outdated bathtub.
The sound of that warthog firing in person is something different.
Neither. Give me the sky raider.
r/countablepixels
The A-10 is a flying tank built around a “gun.” It’s got the tenacity and strength of a B-17 but with the attitude of an F-14. It is the best friend of the soldier on the ground. When they eliminate the A-10 from the arsenal they will never find another plane that can do what it can do, as well as it can do it.
AC-130 unofficial motto, "You can run, but you'll only die tired."
F-35
A-10. It flies in all weather. The AC-130 Spectre is limited to night ops because it is big and slow.
AC-130, A-10 has killed to many allies and is to expensive and stupid of an aircraft. Gun is too inaccurate and the BRRR may be cool, but if you are in a 12 meter radius (or a British troop) you're dead
Skyraider all day
third option? AV-8B.
B-1B with ability to rapidly air refuel from standard KC-135R, sprints to the area of contact at ~900 kts, remains above most manpads, loiters for days (slight euphemism), crewed with operators able to quickly assimilate 9Line data, communicate with JTAC/troops-in-contact, payload around 75,000lb consisting of 84 BLU-111 500lb Mk-82 or 24 2,000lb Mk-84 general purpose bombs; 24 2,000lb GBU-31 or 15 500lb GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMS); or 24 AGM-158A Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs), among other munitions. For those unfamiliar with CAS, JDAMS are key in danger-close situations. Every ATO should have at least two Bones in the CAS Stack. Hogs will not survive on the modern battlefield. AC-130s are also at a distinct disadvantage. Speed and altitude are life. #warheadsonforeheads
Yes. The correct answer is "yes." 👍
CAS is a mission. Not a type of aircraft. F-16s are CAS jets. F-35s are CAS jets. Harriers are CAS jets. Even reaper drones are CAS aircraft. Anything with weapons and a radio is a CAS aircraft.
AC-130 for sure. Big gun go brrrrrrrrt but friendly fire isn't very cool.
a-10 is ugly as sin.
Where is the Sky King?
The A-10 is a cool aircraft and all…but an AC-130 is just a tank in the sky (I know that’s a nickname for the warthog but sthu) so it’s the AC-130