AF to cut 5 A-10 squadrons as "tight budgets lead AF to focus on F

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

But that targeting system you mention is probably the same one being used by the A-10. I doubt that many A-10's are flying 100' off the ground in Afghanistan, like they were supposed to do during WW3. To employ all those JDAMs that they typically are seen carrying, you fly at mid-altitude and use your targeting pod or other means to deliver them. What would you have them do, eliminate these items and go back to manually aimed dumb bombs and cluster munitions?

I guess I just don't see how an A-10 is inherently more accurate than all those other systems currently in use. The only thing I see that an A-10 has going for it is the gun. You can argue that is it more survivable if it takes a hit but some would say that it is actually less survivable due to it's much lower speed / maneuverability. The A-10 has been a great asset but at some point, it's going to go away, especially when money becomes such an issue and we no longer have the luxury of a platform that can only accomplish a single mission.

Between say 200-300mph the A-10 is likely going to out turn anything else, especially down low. The point is the A-10 is designed to have CAS as a part of it mission profile. The fast jets while they can do it are not designed for it. When you have trouble finding bad guys from the good guys and civilians a fast jet jockey going 450-600 mph at low level is not likely the best thing nor will it be as clear of a picture for him/her at 25,000+ and 15-20 miles away.

There is a role for planes like A-10 but the USAF and all of its shiny brass can't see it or refuse to want to be a part of that mission profile. One that may still be very important in the type of conflicts we now see.

[Lancer512]

Well... it's official.

There will be no more A-10s based in Europe after next year

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/02/air-force-europe-cuts-a10-021612w/

Two years ago a quarter of the USAFE F-16s went, and now they pull out all A-10s.

I really miss the times when we had six A-10 squadrons and sometimes another one on a deployment in Europe.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Lancer512

[11bee]

I really miss the times when we had six A-10 squadrons and sometimes another one on a deployment in Europe.

I miss the days when we could afford all of that. Last I heard, there isn't much of a chance that Putin is going to send all of his tanks into Germany. I think we'll be fine with that reduction. Could probably stand to send a few more units back home while we are at it.

[RockyController]

Well... it's official.

There will be no more A-10s based in Europe after next year

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/02/air-force-europe-cuts-a10-021612w/

Two years ago a quarter of the USAFE F-16s went, and now they pull out all A-10s.

I really miss the times when we had six A-10 squadrons and sometimes another one on a deployment in Europe.

It also looks like the 603d ACS is on the chopping block as well...one less place for me to PCS to.

[TaiidanTomcat]

It isnt as good at EVERYTHING, but it is just as good for its original design: point defense. 10 F-16A's are just as good as 10 F-16 blk 50s, and so forth. If the F-16 is supposed to be a dogfighter, then it should be a dogfighter. Since the F-15 and the F-22 fit those bills perfectly, then the F-16 should be designated an A-16 instead since it can do SEAD and CAS better than dogfighting. You dont see F-15Cs loaded with bombs, just like you dont see F-15E's dogfighting. Come to think of it, the F-15E should be an F/A-15, just to cheese off those Navy folk.

Wow.

Then why not just load them smart weapons on refurbished 727's?

Are you just upset that a B-52 wiped out a whole column of tanks with a single bomb?

The price of an AH-64D costs somewhere near 35 million dollars. Isnt that what the first generation F-15C's were going for?

Its 20 million. and have you ever heard of inflation?

Hate to say it, but if you cant avoid terrain, then you shouldnt be flying in the first place.

thats funny.

The gun may be useless, but what gun on ANY aircraft isnt useless? If the GAU-8A is useless, then so is every other gun on every other aircraft.

The aircraft cannon is not useless, but an aircraft whose only claim to fame is an aircraft cannon is not as useful Do you see the difference?

Seems safer to me to fly at 400kts through rugged terrain rather than mach 1 at 30'000 feet, where those bothersome SA-9s, S-300's, Tunguskas and what-not can see you. And just because its not your favorite plane doesnt make it ideally suited for its intended role...unlike some other aircraft out there that are too fast and too high to properly identify targets on the ground. Why? Because if you cant take down an aircraft with 30mm, then there is something wrong. Must be why those MiGs and Suhkois have 30mm as well.

LOL that is all ridiculous. we don't do CAS like that. its not safe for anyone and its not standard procedure. We would never tell an A-10 pilot "Hey how about you just get really low, really slow and kind of stick your head out and around and see if you can't see my american flag patch. Do you see me waving?" Pilots are not detectives, they don't fly in take a look and call their own shots with CAS. They rely heavily on FACs to micromanage every detail, right down to the FAC telling the pilots if they hit the target or if they need to correct and try again. So essentially you want to keep a capability that doesn't exist. A-10s have actually had a pretty dodgy record with friendly fire. And Many Marines I know personally were very scared of A-10s especially after the battle of Nasiraiyah were Marines were strafed using that "proper visualization of targets."that results in unneeded danger:

Warning NSFW language. If you notice to the Brits have no Comms with the A-10 so their only hope is to fall back. Visual ID with the naked eye is a last resort in combat, because its far too easy to make a mistake. And they do make mistakes. we try to rely on electronic means these days whether by radio or other electronic ID (think IFF on aircraft).

I love doing it 1940's style as much as the next guy, but as long as we have paid to have targeting pods, radios, range finders, lasers, and satellite guided bombs, and FACs we should probably use them. why do we spend all this money developing this technology so we can get all nostalgic and not trust it? If you can see the same thing from a safe distance that would have once required exposing yourself and others to extreme danger why don't we use the better tools? Do we really not trust it if, its on a screen? or trust what the FAC sees? he is pretty low and slow let me tell you. If one person sees an enemy tank by going low and slow and another sees it thru a targeting pod with IR or some other medium does the targeting pod not count or something? As you read these words on a computer screen does it make it any less valid than if they were printed on paper?

Nothing will ever replace the A-10. Or the Concorde. Or the SR-71. Or the A-6 intruder. or the horse cavalry. Or the battleship... but nothing needs to. Tech evolves. when did you all become such Luddites? its not the 1960's or 70's or even the 80's.

Edited February 17, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[GreyGhost]

<....>

Nothing will ever replace the A-10. Or the Concorde. Or the SR-71. Or the A-6 intruder. or the horse cavalry. Or the battleship... but nothing needs to. Tech evolves. when did you all become such Luddites? its not the 1960's or 70's or even the 80's.

And that's why we shouldn't say things like:

"______ is here to stay." (*)

*(Insert latest, greatest super tech weaponery of your choice in the blank)

Gregg

[utley]

Wow.

Are you just upset that a B-52 wiped out a whole column of tanks with a single bomb?

Yes. Im very upset. 1 B-52 = pure complete pwnage. The Air Force winz all, disband the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, tell em all to go home. The B-52 can do all, see all, and destroy all. Send the boys home, I tell ya! We got the B-52! Itll win the war for us!

lol

Its 20 million. and have you ever heard of inflation?

So what you are saying is that today an F-16 blk 1-10 would cost roughly around 65 million a piece as well? Seriously?

thats funny.

And I find you to be ignorant of the important facts.

The aircraft cannon is not useless, but an aircraft whose only claim to fame is an aircraft cannon is not as useful Do you see the difference?

So what you are saying is that without the gun the A-10 is useless. Not really a valid argument, is it.

LOL that is all ridiculous. we don't do CAS like that. its not safe for anyone and its not standard procedure. We would never tell an A-10 pilot "Hey how about you just get really low, really slow and kind of stick your head out and around and see if you can't see my american flag patch. Do you see me waving?" Pilots are not detectives, they don't fly in take a look and call their own shots with CAS. They rely heavily on FACs to micromanage every detail, right down to the FAC telling the pilots if they hit the target or if they need to correct and try again. So essentially you want to keep a capability that doesn't exist. A-10s have actually had a pretty dodgy record with friendly fire. And Many Marines I know personally were very scared of A-10s especially after the battle of Nasiraiyah were Marines were strafed using that "proper visualization of targets."that results in unneeded danger:

You are absolutely right. Let the B-52 at em! lol

Warning NSFW language. If you notice to the Brits have no Comms with the A-10 so their only hope is to fall back. Visual ID with the naked eye is a last resort in combat, because its far too easy to make a mistake. And they do make mistakes. we try to rely on electronic means these days whether by radio or other electronic ID (think IFF on aircraft).

Heres another invalid argument because this just flat out assumes the opfor doesnt have or cannot get ahold of communications jamming equipment.

I love doing it 1940's style as much as the next guy, but as long as we have paid to have targeting pods, radios, range finders, lasers, and satellite guided bombs, and FACs we should probably use them. why do we spend all this money developing this technology so we can get all nostalgic and not trust it? If you can see the same thing from a safe distance that would have once required exposing yourself and others to extreme danger why don't we use the better tools? Do we really not trust it if, its on a screen? or trust what the FAC sees? he is pretty low and slow let me tell you. If one person sees an enemy tank by going low and slow and another sees it thru a targeting pod with IR or some other medium does the targeting pod not count or something? As you read these words on a computer screen does it make it any less valid than if they were printed on paper?

I agree. Pretty expensive...

I also just got done looking at the F-16 Blk 60 price tag, and Ill give you an idea how pathetically overpriced this thing is.

F-16 Blk 60 - $80 million

A-10A early - $11.5 million

AC-130U - $190 million

New C-130J-30 - $80 mil

HC-130J Harvest Hawk - $155 mil

F-35A - $85 mil at its current build phase

F-22A - $120 mil

B-1B - $220 million

What does the F-35 have that the F-16-60 doesnt have? A somewhat stealthy airframe, a HUDless cockpit with 7.1 stereo surround sound, and a canopy that opens forward. $80 million! You DO understand that that is a huge number, dont you??? Id seriously hate to think of how much it would cost to do a charlie check on them...

Edited February 20, 2012 by utley

[TaiidanTomcat]

Heres another invalid argument because this just flat out assumes the opfor doesnt have or cannot get ahold of communications jamming equipment.

That's not an "invalid argument" its standard procedure. Put in place for obvious safety reasons. Your "invalid argument" is with the US Military, not me. I am simply making you aware of real world procedures.

If you drop without comms you will be Court Martialed:

Type I CAS is the traditional nine-line brief with close control required by the terminal controller. Pilots may not release a weapon until the controller gains visual contact with the aircraft and clears the drop. This is used in clear weather and none of the sophisticated technology discussed above is available, or is not—for whatever reason—being leveraged to its maximum extent.

Type II support is less restrictive and is most useful during poor weather conditions or at night. It assumes the terminal controller may or may not be able to see the target, but can pass accurate coordinates to pilots who have the ability to attack the target without seeing it. The controller coordinates with the attacking aircrew to ensure as best he can that the right target is being struck. He still passes clearance to engage, albeit without seeing the aircraft.

Type III is the least restrictive kind of support, and some would argue it is not really close air at all, but rather a form of battlefield air interdiction. Aircraft are given clearance to engage targets that are not in direct contact with friendly forces and that are beyond certain geographic boundaries, although other parameters or restrictions may apply depending on the situation. The aircrews are left to find the targets on their own while the terminal controller monitors their activity; clearance from the controller is not required for the attacking aircraft to engage.

Only in Type III are you allowed to attack without permission and again, that is not so much CAS, but battlefield interdiction. In type I, and II CAS if the Radio is broken, Jammed, busted, screwed up, or just plain not working. THE AIRCRAFT DO NOT DROP.

So what you are saying is that without the gun the A-10 is useless. Not really a valid argument, is it.

I'm saying because it was a built around a gun, and built to be armored and take hits in a very specialized role, that it doesn't have the versatility that other current and future airframes do, and the USAF seems to agree.

Edited February 19, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

What does the F-35 have that the F-16-60 doesnt have? A somewhat stealthy airframe, a HUDless cockpit with 7.1 stereo surround sound, and a canopy that opens forward. $80 million! You DO understand that that is a huge number, dont you??? Id seriously hate to think of how much it would cost to do a charlie check on them...

Stealth

Most powerful fighter engine in the world

More Advanced AESA Radar

First ejection seat built to take females into account

EOTS

Larger Gun

Longer range

SAIRST

Six additional passive infrared sensors are distributed over the aircraft as part of Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system (DAS), which acts as a missile warning system, reports missile launch locations, detects and tracks approaching aircraft spherically around the F-35, and replaces traditional night vision goggles for night operations and navigation. All DAS functions are performed simultaneously, in every direction, at all times. The F-35's AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) Electronic Warfare systems are designed by BAE Systems and include Northrop Grumman components.[196] The communications, navigation and identification (CNI) suite is designed by Northrop Grumman and includes the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL). The F-35 will be the first jet fighter that has sensor fusion that combines both radio frequency and IR tracking for continuous target detection and identification in all directions which is shared via MADL to other platforms without compromising low observability.

The F-35's electronic warfare systems are intended to detect hostile aircraft first, which can then be scanned with the electro-optical system and action taken to engage or evade the opponent before the F-35 is detected.[197] The CATbird avionics testbed for the F-35 program has proved capable of detecting and jamming F-22 radars.

-From Wiki

The Marine Version can do STOVL

And the USN can land on a ship

F-16 Blk 60 - $80 million

F-35A - $85 mil at its current build phase

I would say all that's worth an extra $5 million but that's just me.

I could go on...

Edited February 20, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Low&Slow]

.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Low&Slow

[utley]

That's not an "invalid argument" its standard procedure. Put in place for obvious safety reasons. Your "invalid argument" is with the US Military, not me. I am simply making you aware of real world procedures.

If you drop without comms you will be Court Martialed:

Type I CAS is the traditional nine-line brief with close control required by the terminal controller. Pilots may not release a weapon until the controller gains visual contact with the aircraft and clears the drop. This is used in clear weather and none of the sophisticated technology discussed above is available, or is notâ€â€for whatever reasonâ€â€being leveraged to its maximum extent.

Type II support is less restrictive and is most useful during poor weather conditions or at night. It assumes the terminal controller may or may not be able to see the target, but can pass accurate coordinates to pilots who have the ability to attack the target without seeing it. The controller coordinates with the attacking aircrew to ensure as best he can that the right target is being struck. He still passes clearance to engage, albeit without seeing the aircraft.

Type III is the least restrictive kind of support, and some would argue it is not really close air at all, but rather a form of battlefield air interdiction. Aircraft are given clearance to engage targets that are not in direct contact with friendly forces and that are beyond certain geographic boundaries, although other parameters or restrictions may apply depending on the situation. The aircrews are left to find the targets on their own while the terminal controller monitors their activity; clearance from the controller is not required for the attacking aircraft to engage.

Only in Type III are you allowed to attack without permission and again, that is not so much CAS, but battlefield interdiction. In type I, and II CAS if the Radio is broken, Jammed, busted, screwed up, or just plain not working. THE AIRCRAFT DO NOT DROP.

I'm saying because it was a built around a gun, and built to be armored and take hits in a very specialized role, that it doesn't have the versatility that other current and future airframes do, and the USAF seems to agree.

Court martialed for dropping out of comms? Transponder code 7600 exists for a reason. IRL stuff happens. You dont get court martialed for just dropping out of comms. An investigation may occur, and electronics failures happen as well as equipment being sabotaged or deliberately taken out of action by other means. IT HAPPENS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. Now if you turned OFF your radio on purpose, thats tantamount to disobeying a direct order. I think it goes without saying that if you are flying and you dont have a radio on, then you deserve to be reprimanded.

[fulcrum1]

I don't know what a pilot will and won't be Court Martialed for, but I do know that in most cases I'm aware of or have been apart of, if you ain't talking....they ain't dropping. Now that the war is moving into the hands of JSOC the TTPs and SOPs are alot different and what they use/have for CAS is a bit different, but still, comms is key. Someone has to "clear hot".

Edited February 20, 2012 by fulcrum1

[utley]

Stealth

Most powerful fighter engine in the world

More Advanced AESA Radar

First ejection seat built to take females into account

EOTS

Larger Gun

Longer range

SAIRST

Six additional passive infrared sensors are distributed over the aircraft as part of Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system (DAS), which acts as a missile warning system, reports missile launch locations, detects and tracks approaching aircraft spherically around the F-35, and replaces traditional night vision goggles for night operations and navigation. All DAS functions are performed simultaneously, in every direction, at all times. The F-35's AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) Electronic Warfare systems are designed by BAE Systems and include Northrop Grumman components.[196] The communications, navigation and identification (CNI) suite is designed by Northrop Grumman and includes the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL). The F-35 will be the first jet fighter that has sensor fusion that combines both radio frequency and IR tracking for continuous target detection and identification in all directions which is shared via MADL to other platforms without compromising low observability.

The F-35's electronic warfare systems are intended to detect hostile aircraft first, which can then be scanned with the electro-optical system and action taken to engage or evade the opponent before the F-35 is detected.[197] The CATbird avionics testbed for the F-35 program has proved capable of detecting and jamming F-22 radars.

-From Wiki

The Marine Version can do STOVL

And the USN can land on a ship

I would say all that's worth an extra $5 million but that's just me.

I could go on...

Exactly! Thats how overpriced the F-16 is! 5 million dollars, and the DoD deems it a significant budget over-run. Ive heard talk at work that in the end, the only difference between the F-35 and the F-16-60 is going to be the shape of the airframe. I have serious doubts as to whether or not it will be as stealthy as the F-117. And to my opinion, the F-16 AND the F-35 are not worth the money except as tech demonstrators. Personally I think they should have just kept the F-22 online, or even gave Northrop the F-23 contract. AS for the most powerful engine in the world, hypothetiaclly you can modify any airframe that takes a low bypass turbofan engine and replace it with that. It aint so special if you can modify any existing compatible airframe to use it.

[Low&Slow]

.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Low&Slow

[Av8fan]

Here is a fantastic start to Monogram A-10 build.

scratch building A-10

[TaiidanTomcat]

Court martialed for dropping out of comms?

Yes. Its turns out the military is full of all kinds of crazy rules and regulations, and they don't like it when people employ deadly force without proper protocol. Same goes for artillery and other Rules of Engagement.

You dont get court martialed for just dropping out of comms. An investigation may occur,

What are you basing this statement on? Do you have source or is this a "gut feeling/hunch" Is the above statement based on fact, maybe a link you can show?

if you ain't talking....they ain't dropping. Now that the war is moving into the hands of JSOC the TTPs and SOPs are alot different and what they use/have for CAS is a bit different, but still, comms is key. Someone has to "clear hot".

Thats all I'm screaming.

Edited February 20, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

By the way, what do you plan to do when we get in a big fight and run out of smart bombs for the boys attacking the enemy ground forces? Pack up and go home because they might have to point their noses at the ground and, oh my god, drop a dumb bomb with a highly accurate delivery system?

Good point, I don't think those F-15E's or F-16 are able to use dumb bombs. I know the Marines certainly don't have that ability anymore either.

I'm now sold. Cut more Eagles (or F-35's for that matter), let's keep those A-10's after all.

BTW, if we really do ever get into a "big" fight, I think we may be facing more than just those SA-24's you mentioned. Then we'll see how important speed (or lack thereof) is to one's ability to survive.

Edited February 20, 2012 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

Good point, I don't think those F-15E's or F-16 are able to use dumb bombs. I know the Marines certainly don't have that ability anymore either.

They can't look out canopies either. Thats an A-10 thing only. Only the A-10 has a bubble canopy and the ability roll and see underneath it.

I'm now sold. Cut more Eagles (or F-35's for that matter), let's keep those A-10's after all.

BTW, if we really do ever get into a "big" fight, I think we may be facing more than just those SA-24's you mentioned. Then we'll see how important speed (or lack thereof) is to one's ability to survive.

we should build all our aircraft like tanks...its so easy to confuse "armored" with "invincible"

Speed doesn't mean **** in a CAS fight. Speed doesn't do much when there's an SA-24 flying at your tailpipe. But a Missile Warning System that detects missile launches and automatically dispenses countermeasures (like the one installed on all A-10's) does.

Wow! the A-10 is the only aircraft with a system that automatically deploys countermeasures!?!?

[utley]

Yes. Its turns out the military is full of all kinds of crazy rules and regulations, and they don't like it when people employ deadly force without proper protocol. Same goes for artillery and other Rules of Engagement.

What are you basing this statement on? Do you have source or is this a "gut feeling/hunch" Is the above statement based on fact, maybe a link you can show?

Because the FAA would do the exact same thing! 14CFR Part 61. TSPR Code 7600 is reserved specifically for radio failure. Every aircraft that flies in restricted airspace (airspaces Alpha through Echo) has to have a transponder. If you are on 7600 TSPR code, then you get priority landing privliges, but it comes with an investigation. What you are alleviating to is that equipment failure is not an option, and god forbid you have an electonics malfunction or a fuse pops, and your radio quit working, which wouldnt happen at all because if its due to your aircraft crashing into a hill, that ELT transmitter would radio in for you. But if it doesnt, you better damn well be dead or we'll courts martial you.

Edited February 20, 2012 by utley

[utley]

Good point, I don't think those F-15E's or F-16 are able to use dumb bombs. I know the Marines certainly don't have that ability anymore either.

I'm now sold. Cut more Eagles (or F-35's for that matter), let's keep those A-10's after all.

BTW, if we really do ever get into a "big" fight, I think we may be facing more than just those SA-24's you mentioned. Then we'll see how important speed (or lack thereof) is to one's ability to survive.

IIRC, theres only 1 aircraft that can outrun a missile, and it was retired a few years ago. You want to know how B-52 and B-1 pilots avoid SAMS? They fly NOE.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Because the FAA would do the exact same thing! 14CFR Part 61. TSPR Code 7600 is reserved specifically for radio failure. Every aircraft has to have a transponder. If you are on 7600 TSPR code, then you get priority landing privliges, but it comes with an investigation. What you are alleviating to is that equipment failure is not an option, and god forbid you have an electonics malfunction or a fuse pops, and your radio quit working, which wouldnt happen at all because if its due to your aircraft crashing into a hill, that ELT transmitter would radio in for you. But you better damn well be dead or we'll courts martial you.

Ok dude Im trying to break this down very simple. Its not the FAA. Dropping without comms is against military regulations.

When I say dropping WITHOUT COMMS I mean WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY AN FAC OR OTHER SOURCE THAT HAS CLEARED YOU TO DROP ORDNANCE. If A Ground unit gets into contact and their Radio doesn't work, the Aircraft CAN NOT DROP. They must have PRIOR PERMISSION. If An Aircraft drops ordnance without Authorization from a source that makes the "cleared hot" decision they will be in severe trouble. And even worse if they drop without authorization and kill the wrong people. It has nothing to do with Transponders or the the aircraft's comm system It has everything to do with a man on a Radio talking to the A-10s and basically saying "we are here, they are here, fire away"

Basically a pilot can not just fly in an shoot at whatever he "thinks" is "probably" enemy. And even if he can discern between friend and foe perfectly (which never happens) He still must get permission form someone else.

You want to know how B-52 and B-1 pilots avoid SAMS? They fly NOE.

They don't. at least not since 1991. Kosovo was not flown NOE And neither was Iraq or Afghanistan. That went out of favor after the cold war. Kosovo had an altitude restriction of 10000' so I don't know what books you are reading but they need to be unpdated. B-1s relied on Towed Jammers in 1999.

Edited February 20, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Low&Slow]

.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Low&Slow

[TaiidanTomcat]

Didn't take long to be reminded of why I stopped posting over here.

And you're wrong about employing without radio comm. Apparently, the one thing in the world you don't know everything about is Emergency Close Air Support.

I'm done.

we'll miss you

[utley]

Ok dude Im trying to break this down very simple. Its not the FAA. Dropping without comms is against military regulations.

When I say dropping WITHOUT COMMS I mean WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY AN FAC OR OTHER SOURCE THAT HAS CLEARED YOU TO DROP ORDNANCE. If A Ground unit gets into contact and their Radio doesn't work, the Aircraft CAN NOT DROP. They must have PRIOR PERMISSION. If An Aircraft drops ordnance without Authorization from a source that makes the "cleared hot" decision they will be in severe trouble. And even worse if they drop without authorization and kill the wrong people. It has nothing to do with Transponders or the the aircraft's comm system It has everything to do with a man on a Radio talking to the A-10s and basically saying "we are here, they are here, fire away"

Basically a pilot can not just fly in an shoot at whatever he "thinks" is "probably" enemy. And even if he can discern between friend and foe perfectly (which never happens) He still must get permission form someone else.

They don't. at least not since 1991. Kosovo was not flown NOE And neither was Iraq or Afghanistan. That went out of favor after the cold war. Kosovo had an altitude restriction of 10000' so I don't know what books you are reading but they need to be unpdated. B-1s relied on Towed Jammers in 1999.

"Dropping out of comms" means turning the radio off. Which is EXACTLY what you said.

As for bombers NOT flying NOE, just because they didnt do it in Kosovo, doesnt mean they dont teach and preach those tactics! There wasnt really a big problem with SAMs in Kosovo, was there? I know there have been a few planes shot down, so dont. Another question was WERE there B-52's in Kosovo? And if there were, was there really such a huge SAM threat? Guarantee you those B-52s werent even flying. And Afghanistan. Lets just say hypothetically speaking, the taliban just "miraculously" got a hold of an S-400. You know how well that towed array decoy would work? The missile that launches off of THAT rail can take down a few planes flying in formation, so you better hope that tow rope is long enough. Think they will still fly high and fast? Regardless, they DO fly NOE in its regular strike missions. You find me a bomber pilot who says they would rather be flying high and fast in an environment full of SAMs, and Ill show you someone who has a death wish.

Edited February 20, 2012 by utley

[TaiidanTomcat]

"Dropping out of comms" means turning the radio off. Which is EXACTLY what you said.

I Mean bombs. Dropping bombs. apparently there is one way of saying two different things.

Another question was WERE there B-52's in Kosovo? And if there were, was there really such a huge SAM threat? Guarantee you those B-52s werent even flying.

There was a SAM Threat and B-52s Deployed CALCMs, thats still not nap of the earth and yes, b-52s were there:

"Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Yugoslav troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties."

-Wiki

"

NATO Bombs Blast Kosovo Targets

By John Ward Anderson

Washington Post Foreign Service

Tuesday, June 8, 1999; Page A14

MORINA, Albania, June 7 – With talks on the NATO-Belgrade peace deal at an impasse, U.S. B-52s bombed Yugoslav army positions in Kosovo just opposite this border town today as the alliance stepped up its air campaign against Serb-led government forces trying to blunt an offensive by separatist Kosovo Albanian guerrillas.

Thunderous explosions rumbled across the mountainous frontier terrain, and plumes of thick black smoke billowed over the horizon this afternoon shortly after two B-52s dropped their deadly loads in an area south of Mt. Pastrik, the 6,523-foot peak where government security forces and the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army have been locked in a dogged artillery duel since May 26. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/kukes060899.htm

You know how well that towed array decoy would work? The missile that launches off of THAT rail can take down a few planes flying in formation, so you better hope that tow rope is long enough. Think they will still fly high and fast?

They also don't to fly "in formation" anymore. Here is more info on the Towed decoy carried by the B-1 and other aircraft as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALE-50_Towed_Decoy_System

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ale50/

Aviation Week and Space Technology (31 May 1999), citing Air Force officials, reported that 30 surface-to-air missiles had been fired at B-1 bombers over Yugoslavia. Of these, 10 actually locked on to the B-1s, and then were diverted.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-ale-50.htm

Please note where it says it has been used successfully in combat. OK now after this you have to do your own homework, ok? TT isn't going to keep googleing all the answers for you.

Edited February 20, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat