Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
All good points

Let me add that you can field a hell of a lot of artillery for the price of an F22

And as for immediacy and the continuing need for arty look at earlier rotations on OEF and how soon units began taking arty with them.

Don't forget either the pricesion revolution is also giving indirect fires with a truly remarkable capability to deliver pinpoint fires.

If I had to pick between CAS and indirect fire from organic redlegs, I will take the indirect. Happily we do not need to make such a choice. We need to make sure that we do not allow such a choice to be framed and crammed down our collective throats.

Tom
Gah, CavGuy and Tom beat me to the punch.

They're right.
For a conventional war, the numbers aren't favorable for a CAS-only (no arty) force package. If we have X number of troops (say 100,000+) engaging the enemy, and they all need fire support, the USAF just doesn't have the numbers necessary to do it - not even close (especially given the spiralling cost of a modern fighter-bomber).

As I have said in other threads, artillery is dirt-cheap compared to fighter-bombers, considering not only how much an F-22 or F-35 costs, but also how much initial pilot training costs, how much annual training costs... and the support costs: it works out to be a dozen or so ground crew for each plane, maintenance and parts are expensive... There is just no comparison between arty and CAS in terms of cost vs. effectiveness (especially now with precision munitions for the artillery).

I also seem to recall a comment about how arty would be more vulnerable to ground attack by insurgents... that depends on the scenario envisioned.
Artillery units often turn out to be surprisingly hard targets for insurgents or enemy units behind the lines, especially when compared to a sprawling airbase (I'm thinking of examples from Vietnam).