Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
fulcrum1

Phasing out the A-10

Recommended Posts

This would really stink. Even after upgrading so many to the C standard they still want to retire them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where to begin?

The Air Force will argue that the A-10 is a single purpose aircraft and as a result, is expendable.

What would the Air Force know about anything!?!?

Unlike the F-35, the 30 millimeter GE GAU-8 Avenger cannon used by A-10s can have a devastating effect on the enemy. The 25 millimeter cartridge used by the F-35 is only marginally better than a 20 millimeter and does little damage.

LOL

So little in fact that a few years back when a F-16 pilot inadvertently shot at a school in New Jersey, witnesses reported only hearing the “…sound of someone running across the roof of the building.” No damage was reported at all.

What?! Damn, we should have 20MM strafing runs done against schools more often. So many logical fallacies...

Bottom line for pilots: the 30 millimeter is far superior.

Bad news for every aircraft that doesn't use that then... which is all of them.

In the case of the A-10, any decision would also determine which soldier lives and dies as A-10s provide ground cover for the boots on the ground.

Wow, dramatic.

Just recently, officials report a low flying A-10 near Ajo surprised a cartel convoy that was being confronted by a lone border agent. The curious A-10 made numerous low passes over the confrontation. The result, the cartel fled south. A border patrol source says there is no doubt the arrival of the A-10 saved the border agent’s life.

clearly a show of force with the Border Patrol(!?) against cartel convoys is not something other aircraft can do, especially not border patrol aircraft. At least we aren't reaching or anything. It can work for the border patrol after its military service, like so many veterans.

Well A-10s are the only aircraft in the world that can support troops on the ground... :rolleyes: We all know you have to kill foot troops with 30MM DU rounds, nothing else will do.

I like the A-10 but my god.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Marines will take them ...

-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AF never liked the A-10, from day 1. The aircraft is getting old and since the US military has determined that we will never again face a conventional force (hence the downsizing of the Army's mech units), it no longer service a critical purpose.

Just a taste of things to come laddies....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AF never liked the A-10, from day 1. The aircraft is getting old and since the US military has determined that we will never again face a conventional force (hence the downsizing of the Army's mech units), it no longer service a critical purpose.

Just a taste of things to come laddies....

Its not facing a conventional force, its the A-10 being optimized for fighting tanks over the Fulda Gap before we had things like Sat. guided bombs, Targetting pods, etc. We don't even fly A-10s like A-10s anymore. the idea that its a guns first everything else second at tree top height P-47 style strafer is ludicrous. the A-10 pilots I have talked to prefer not to get in with the guns unless its troops in contact and there is no other way of doing it. Other than that, they prefer the bomb from a safe distance and altitude route that so many other aircraft do.

Naturally it doesn't get any credit but F-15Es have done some damn good jobs in support of troops up to and including the strafing CAS, And have ventured into zones A-10s have been barred from entering.

A-10s are battleships. Right down to the "But Guns! Armor!" arguments. And even if you don't believe in missiles, the bad guys do. And that more than anything has the A-10 in trouble. the restriction of A-10s in Libya (along with Harriers and AC-130s) after the rumors of SA-18s surfaced in 2011 was a big red flag. You can't strafe anything if you can't go.

If you flip the argument, And start talking about things that an F-35A can do that an A-10 can't that's fun too.

Saving money already:

http://www.argusleader.com/viewart/20130819/UPDATES/130819012/Ellsworth-B-1B-bomber-crashes-Montana-all-crew-members-survive

freed up cash for 24 A-10s in an afternoon.

There are good reasons to keep A-10s around, I don't think the author of the first article mentioned a single one.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well A-10s are the only aircraft in the world that can support troops on the ground... :rolleyes:/>/> We all know you have to kill foot troops with 30MM DU rounds, nothing else will do.

I like the A-10 but my god.

Most of the piece is blah, the tidbits to extract are the plans the AF is putting in place to secure funding in the future and how it will impact the Long Range Strike Bomber, which may be a casualty of the JSF. The political blackmail going on is always of interest to me with procurement projects.

30MM rounds are the cat's meow, combine that with multiple runs and on station time longer than two mikes and you got a winner with boots on ground.

Edited by fulcrum1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the piece is blah, the tidbits to extract are the plans the AF is putting in place to secure funding in the future and how it will impact the Long Range Strike Bomber, which may be a casualty of the JSF. The political blackmail going on is always of interest to me with procurement projects.

Although its interesting, the lack of facts or even common sense has me looking for a more reputable source, like a Men's room wall, or Play station ace combat forum :D

He seems to have an agenda, so much so that I don't even trust the broad strokes.

30MM rounds are the cat's meow, combine that with multiple runs and on station time longer than two mikes and you got a winner with boots on ground.

The on station time is the bigger factor for me. 25MM will do a helluva job, as will 20MM. we are fighting rifleman right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally it doesn't get any credit but F-15Es have done some damn good jobs in support of troops up to and including the strafing CAS, And have ventured into zones A-10s have been barred from entering.

Yes, they have, but it has more to do with them being available and in the area than anything else. They even started doing night runs awhile back which means they've been training on it. Strafing CAS is dangerous business, but affective. Harriers have even done it.

Anything you read about certain airframes being "barred from entering" take with a grain of salt. It usually refers to helicopters, and even then I've seen that lifted by the battlespace CO when troops are in contact.

the restriction of A-10s in Libya (along with Harriers and AC-130s) after the rumors of SA-18s surfaced in 2011 was a big red flag. You can't strafe anything if you can't go.

Most of the air action in Libya is still classified. However, the rumor was an SA-24 with the right gripstocks, which can be used as a manpad. But all of this was taken into account. Why certain aircraft were taken out usually has more to do with them being needed elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the A-10 and think that there are some very valid reasons for keeping it around, but that first article was just over the top. It makes it sound like if it weren't for A-10s, the U.S. would have lost every battle (and every soldier) in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although its interesting, the lack of facts or even common sense has me looking for a more reputable source, like a Men's room wall, or Play station ace combat forum :D/>

He seems to have an agenda, so much so that I don't even trust the broad strokes.

Of course the author has an agenda, it's his hometown, but that isn't the point. On the top of the webpage is a link to an audio interview with the Senator. Trying to find a reputable source isn't going to happen because what basically was said in the interview was someone at the base got ahold of the POM/BES which feeds into the OSD/DMAG which is then passed to the SECDEF. Essentially, the budget for the A-10 is getting the axe according to the documents the folks over there got ahold of. This will make news in the early fall, but you have to know the lingo in order to search for it. I can send you a horrible powerpoint on it all, but it's painful, very painful.

The on station time is the bigger factor for me. 25MM will do a helluva job, as will 20MM. we are fighting rifleman right?

Ahem to that! Putting up my comfy staff job for one last go next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AF never liked the A-10, from day 1. The aircraft is getting old and since the US military has determined that we will never again face a conventional force (hence the downsizing of the Army's mech units), it no longer service a critical purpose.

Just a taste of things to come laddies....

Once A-10s are outlawed..

only outlaws will fly A-10s.... eh, something like that :wasntme:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can send you a horrible powerpoint on it all, but it's painful, very painful.

No don't! I thought we were friends!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Tucson and there are A-10s based nearby; I often seen them flying overhead in pairs. They'll be missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Tucson and there are A-10s based nearby; I often seen them flying overhead in pairs. They'll be missed.

The original plan was to hang onto them into the 2020s. We will have to see how things shake out. If they do get withdrawn early they will go to AMARC. We aren't going to get rid of them, just mothball them until we need them.

I understand its a great COIN and support/CAS aircraft. The thing is, the US Military is going to try and develop amnesia about the last 12 years, and focus on big wars from now on. With any luck, the politicians don't develop amnesia and do their level best not to get us stuck in Iraqistan II, IED Boogaloo again anytime soon.

The Marines are going to get back to MEUs and Maneuver warfare with F-35s and V-22s and hopefully stomp out small problems before they turn into long small or short big wars, the Army is going to get back to the tanks and artillery style big wars, the air Force is going to modernize and continue to live in wonderfully posh bases, and the navy will keep steaming around in circles like they do. :P Everyone is thinking China. Which whether it happens or not, everyone is happy to prepare for. Hell preparing for the big bad after a long traumatic war is what got us the A-10 :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they're phasing out the A-10. The A-10, designed in the wake of the hard lessons learned in Vietnam, is a machine designed for serious combat by the serious military of a serious nation facing a serious enemy. Increasingly our military exists for show instead of combat, we are ever-more an unserious nation full of unserious people with unserious leaders, and where we have real enemies to speak of, they are largely creations of our own incomprehensible and self-defeating foreign policies. This has been the trend under the leadership of both parties for at least twenty years now. It's not the fault of the average man in uniform, but it is what it is nonetheless.

Also in the article is the news that the KC-10s will be getting the ax, leaving the half-century-old KC-135s as our sole big tanker - aircraft for which there is no replacement in sight despite a decade or so of trying to make that happen. What could possibly go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taiidan Tomcat is right. I also think that the A-10 still has some life in it but the people that hold the money on the Hill are the ones to decide the fate of the aircraft and not some looney writer that can't even support his cause without resorting to over the top warnongs of dire circimstances. If what that guy said was true the Air Force would still be flying P-47's and A-26's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they're phasing out the A-10. The A-10, designed in the wake of the hard lessons learned in Vietnam, is a machine designed for serious combat by the serious military of a serious nation facing a serious enemy. Increasingly our military exists for show instead of combat, we are ever-more an unserious nation full of unserious people with unserious leaders, and where we have real enemies to speak of, they are largely creations of our own incomprehensible and self-defeating foreign policies. This has been the trend under the leadership of both parties for at least twenty years now. It's not the fault of the average man in uniform, but it is what it is nonetheless.

Also in the article is the news that the KC-10s will be getting the ax, leaving the half-century-old KC-135s as our sole big tanker - aircraft for which there is no replacement in sight despite a decade or so of trying to make that happen. What could possibly go wrong?

GREAT POST!!!

Oh BTW they will privatize most to all tanking. This will be sold as a cost savings (in reality it won't save any money) and good luck sustaining such private tanking in any future real combat zones vs nations who have assets to defend their skies. But of course odds of going to real war against such nations are going to be minimal at best. If such happens the military will scramble and at high cost to do something to alleviate the problems of combat zone tanking. Private corps are gonna want lots of extra cash to put their money making tankers within range of anti-tanking anti-awacs missiles and of course getting civilians to be flight crews in combat zones will cost way more than some Captains and Lieutenants in the USAF etc.

Look at my looney nation with our soon likely to be F-35. We don't have tankers designed for "A" model refueling and as such instead of budgeting to have RCAF tankers (bought or converted) our brainiac govt. will likely as they have noted and kicked around contract out civilian tankers ( who fly for profit) or pay at probably premium USAF tankers in our air space. Great logic and sovereignty eh? USAF person says, "Um Canada you need a some tanking?" "It's gonna be tough for us to get you some but if you pay us an extra 20-25% premium maybe we can send you one or two to refuel your bright new F-35's over the arctic." :rolleyes:

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they're phasing out the A-10. The A-10, designed in the wake of the hard lessons learned in Vietnam, is a machine designed for serious combat by the serious military of a serious nation facing a serious enemy. Increasingly our military exists for show instead of combat, we are ever-more an unserious nation full of unserious people with unserious leaders, and where we have real enemies to speak of, they are largely creations of our own incomprehensible and self-defeating foreign policies.

It's very interesting that you would paint the A-10 as a result of a battle hardened veterans applying smart lessons after a long tramautic war like Vietnam, and yet think that post Global War on Terror veteran military has no combat experience and is more for show, and takes nothing seriously, and learned no lessons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh BTW they will privatize most to all tanking. This will be sold as a cost savings (in reality it won't save any money) and good luck sustaining such private tanking in any future real combat zones vs nations who have assets to defend their skies. But of course odds of going to real war against such nations are going to be minimal at best. If such happens the military will scramble and at high cost to do something to alleviate the problems of combat zone tanking. Private corps are gonna want lots of extra cash to put their money making tankers within range of anti-tanking anti-awacs missiles and of course getting civilians to be flight crews in combat zones will cost way more than some Captains and Lieutenants in the USAF etc.

I have not seen this proposed in the US.

Look at my looney nation with our soon likely to be F-35. We don't have tankers designed for "A" model refueling and as such instead of budgeting to have RCAF tankers (bought or converted) our brainiac govt. will likely as they have noted and kicked around contract out civilian tankers ( who fly for profit) or pay at probably premium USAF tankers in our air space. Great logic and sovereignty eh?

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/issues-analysis-aerial-refueling-northern-defence-and-the-f-35

read and learn.

USAF person says, "Um Canada you need a some tanking?" "It's gonna be tough for us to get you some but if you pay us an extra 20-25% premium maybe we can send you one or two to refuel your bright new F-35's over the arctic."

Yes it will be just like that. The USAF will wait for the Canadians to take off and then jack up the price of refueling as the tanks continue to get lower. The Canadian pilot will tank up and flash his Gas credit card to the boom operator who will jot down the numbers and bill the pilot. then the pilot will take out the difference in petty cash when he gets back to base. Because this is how governments work.

I'm also very confused because you tried to say that contract tankers will over charge and rip canada off, and now you are saying that government tankers will over charge and rip canada off. believe me the USAF isn't trying to "turn a profit" off anything. In fact I don't think the USAF has ever "made money" in its history, just spent more or less.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taiidan Tomcat is right.

Whoomp- there it is! :sunrevolves:/>

The million-dollar question (which has already been somewhat discussed here) is what is the next war we need to prepare for?

Edited by toadwbg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very interesting that you would paint the A-10 as a result of a battle hardened veterans applying smart lessons after a long tramautic war like Vietnam, and yet think that post Global War on Terror veteran military has no combat experience and is more for show, and takes nothing seriously, and learned no lessons...

Oh no, they have learned lessons, better to how to continue to corporatize war and better yet the fear of war and of a war that is undefeatable as its really been a war against a weapon not against persons or groups, but can be sold as a credible fight indefinitely for ones' own and nation's survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...