By A battalion of US Apache helicopters were slotted to be removed from Korea to make them available for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and now it has been decided that they will be replaced by F-16′s:
The United States plans to deploy later this month an F-16 fleet from Japan to replace a squadron of Apache attack helicopters scheduled to be transferred out of South Korea.
An official at the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) said Monday that the 13th Fighter Squadron from Misawa Air Base in Japan is gearing up for a six-month deployment to South Korea.
The U.S. military newspaper Stars and Stripes also confirmed the report, saying that a dozen F-16 fighters and about 400 airmen from Misawa will temporarily replace an Army attack and reconnaissance helicopter battalion.
The U.S. had originally planned to introduce a dozen A-10 “tank killers” to replace the 24 Apache Longbows that are scheduled to be redeployed to the Middle East. It later decided to replace the Apaches with F-16s citing structural concerns over the A-10 airframe. [KBS Global]
I just have to wonder how a high flying F-16 is supposed to do the same mission that a low flying close air support Apache attack helicopter is supposed to do?
It is the sad reality. No mistake...
9:10 am on February 10th, 2009 1
"I just have to wonder how a high flying F-16 is supposed to do the same mission that a low flying close air support Apache attack helicopter is supposed to do?"
Personnally, I'd rather have more artillery than more aviation assets. It least in foul weather I'll still have a responsive fire support asset that I own. We've all seen how really vulnerable Apaches are to ground fire, and they can't safely be employed beyond the FLOT in high intensity conflict. As for the F16s, their great, but I have to schedule them 72 hours out, and I'm competing with the entire theater for a limited pool of air assets and, to return to my first point, bad weather makes them multi-million dollar paperweights.
4:02 pm on February 10th, 2009 2
Although, the overall abilities of a F-16 compared to that of AH-64D are quite different the aspect of close air support is capabillity that both aircraft share and are very efficient at.the use of information technology to direct and coordinate precision air support makes the f-16 a very effective option for (CAS)
9:54 pm on February 10th, 2009 3
That your professional opinion Capt America?
10:42 pm on February 10th, 2009 4
yes, it is an option, and could be very effective one in combat ops. Is it the best option in terms of alternatives to the Apache?thats debatebable. Yes, its my professional opinion. I stress opionion and not infalable expertise.
10:51 pm on February 10th, 2009 5
The North Korean integrated air defense system provides unique challenges to both aircraft types, but I think after the first couple ITO's, the F-16 would be much safer than the Apaches who would be eaten alive by the AAA densities.
12:16 am on February 11th, 2009 6
I totally agree w/ you Mark.
1:57 am on February 11th, 2009 7
If the Apaches are going to be used in a deep strike capacity into North Korea then yes the F-16's would be better. You would think with the experience of using the Apaches during the Iraq invasion that were badly shot up during deep strike missions that the war plan to use the Apaches in Korea would be adjusted. Maybe that is what bringing the F-16's into Korea is about?
5:59 am on February 11th, 2009 8
I think for the next six months of the deployment, we probably don't have to worry too much about a nK invasion. Furthermore, after they fix the problems with the cracks found on the A-10s, the question of F-16s vs. Apaches will be moot. Finally, as someone who's in Iraq, the Apache's will be much appreciated for their loiter time and relative precision on the targets we're prosecuting over here.