Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: pyrdc!eagle!tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Infantry vs. Air Support -- Any problems?
Message-ID: <1990Sep14.042545.1148@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Sep 90 04:25:45 GMT
References: <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep12.014534.28254@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Calspan Corporation ATC  Buffalo, NY
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: pyrdc!eagle!tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin)

The real problem with the AF doing the CAS for the Army is not so much
in the execution of the mission but in the development and aquisition of
the weapons to perform the mission.

The A-10 pilots who fly the missions are as gungho as any fighter jocks
I've ever seen, so are the guys who fly dual role aircraft.

Once the decision is made that an aircraft or unit is assigned the CAS
role they work for the Army.  All their tasking come from the Army.  The
job is handled by AF personnel assigned to each Army echelon.  CAS support
requests are handled just about like arty fire support requests.  The
difference is that the resouces come from an AF fighter squadron instead
of an Army arty unit.  The AF guys at the bottom of the request chain live 
in the boonies with "their" Army unit and their survival is tied to it.

The problems occur before the aircraft and the people to support them
get assigned the mission.  Every $ and person that does CAS won't be
available to do the "real" AF missions, so in the give and take of
budget process the AF tries harder when it comes to buying and
developing aircraft for air superiority and interdiction.

The Army will have trouble getting the AF to develope and procure a CAS
aircraft.  They'll have trouble getting the AF commanders to assign dual
role aircraft to the CAS mission.  But once the assets are assigned, the
AF troops are going to try as hard as anybody to get the job done.