Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Infantry vs. Air Support -- Any problems?
Message-ID: <1990Sep18.024017.19308@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Sep 90 02:40:17 GMT
References: <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The Boeing Co., MMST, Seattle, Wa.
Lines: 72
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)

In article <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com>, yamauchi@heron.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
> 
> 
> From: yamauchi@heron.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
> 
> Does the fact that the Army controls the infantry but the Air Force
> controls air support ever result in any problems?

  Of course.  That's one of the major problems - coordination of 
  "Close Air Support".  On Division and Corps Staffs there are a couple
  of folks called "G3 Air" and "G2 Air".  They're Army officers tasked 
  to plan and coordinate Air Support (G3 Air:  Ground Attack.  G2 Air:
  Recce).  Fortunately, the Air Force sees fit to assign some Air Force
  officers to the Division/Corps called;  ALO (Air Liaison Officer) and
  ARLO (Air Recce Liaison Officer).  Dreaded duty for a fighter jock to
  be assigned to the muddy boot Army but 'critical' to their careers.

  ALOs are also assigned to Brigades and Battalions.  In a Mech/Arm unit,
  Air Forces ALOs operate out of Armored Personnel Carriers (cruel joke,
  what?).

  Therefore, the Army guys PLAN for the use of Air and the ALOs actually
  "Frag" the mission and talk to the pilots (sorta like a ground FAC if
  no airborne FAC is present). 

> If an Army commander wants air support, but an Air Force commander
> decides that it's too risky or that his airpower could be better
> utilized other in other ways, are the ground troops just out of luck?  

  It's all based on sortie generation and sortie regeneration - ie availability
  of aircraft and types of missions to be flown.  The main attack/defense
  gets the priority for air support.  Secondary missions get what is left.
  
  For example;  The Air Force Commander says he can generate '100' air
  sorties today for Army support.  Army commander then allocates those
  missions - may give his 'main' division 75 sorties and 25 sorties to
  'secondary' division.  The G3 Air & ALO work together to determine targets
  for "preplanned" missions and what 'air' will be held for "on call"
  missions.  

  Risky?  The Air commander will get a bad report card if he allows his
  fighters into high threat areas and gets them all shot down on their
  first sortie.  He'll be reluctant to enter high AAA/SAM threat areas.
  He also wants 'Air Superiority'.  Meaning he'll allocated his F15/F16s
  in air-to-air role to protect his A10 ground attacks.

  So, yes, if he does not have control of the air, if he can't generate
  ground attack sorties, if someone else has priority - then the ground
  troops are just out of luck (go call for artillery).

> Do Air Force pilots resent being assigned to flying Warthogs on
> peripheral missions such as air support instead of flying Eagles on the
> Air Force's primary mission of air superiority?

  There's no real answer for this.  It's like trying to compare Armor vs
  Infantry, Airborne vs Leg, Destroyers vs Submarines.........

  I've known pilots that don't care what they fly....as long as they can
  fly.  I'd guess F15 pilots don't want to drive a "Hog" - but I've also
  known many a "Hog" driver that wouldn't trade their A10 for anything.

  Whatever turns you on....................


  mts