Jump to content

Any decision on the A-10 retirement yet?


Recommended Posts

The A-10s immediate problem is the F-16, because an F-16 can already do almost everything an A-10 can.

Say the Viper can do 90% of the A-10's mission. It's that extra 10% of what the A-10 can do that the Viper can't that is the sticking point. The physiological impact the hog brings to the battlefield is unmatched and unique. That burping sound after the rounds impacted might as well be choirs of Angels during a bad day, that feeling knowing that there is an infantry loving pilot doing things outside of his SOP to ensure our safety is a comfort in the middle of a storm, and on the flip side the enemy does funny things with it overhead. In order to fund the F-35 and other programs in numbers we need some things gotta give, I don't like it, but we'll just change our doctrine and tactics and keep fighting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there will always be these types of local threats remaining. Which is one of the reasons why it would be foolish to retire the A-10 and draft newer and more ecpensive assets for the CAS mission. Purely on an accounting level, a manpad or ZU-23 hit on a F-35 would be a huge win for the adversary.

"What's the threat environment?"

"Well, they've got Su-27s flying top cover, a few batteries of S-300s and Tors, some Tunguskas and ZSU-23s and a butt-load of SA-16s, SA-18s and SA-24s"

"Wow, that's a lot. We may not even get through all that."

"I know, that could get real expensive."

"Better send the A-10s."

"Can they make it through?"

"F*** no! But it's cheaper to send them in to get the s*** kicked out of them than it is to send a flight that actually has a chance to get through."

Said no planner, ever.

As an American taxpayer, I would hope that we at least get a few years of use out of the C upgrade that I just helped pay for. If my child threw away a new toy the way our government spends on things like aircraft upgrades only to immediately throw it away, I would never buy the kid a new toy again. Yes they indeed spent a whole bunch of money on this upgrade just now. If anything, the amount spent on the A-10 should be deducted out of the funding of other programs as savings.

Well, we were. 2028 at least. You can thank Washington's inability to come to a budget agreement. Be sure to thank your Representative and Senators. Besides, the A-10's been in service for 37 years. That's longer than the A-7D, F-4, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-111 and F-117 were in USAF service. I think we got our money's worth out of them.

If the money spent on the C-model upgrade should be taken from another program, then let's start with the US Army. After all, the AT-6 COIN aircraft for AFSOC was canned so the Army could pay for vehicles that wouldn't get blown up by IEDs as easily as their Humvees were. Besides, how much has the Army wasted on their OH-58D replacement over the past 23 years? First there was the RAH-66 program that ran $6.9B. Cancelled. Then there was the ARH-70 program. Cancelled. Then there was the EADS AAS-72X concept. Canceled. OH-48F? Canceled. Now they're going with AH-64E.

Also, there are ways of using the gun that does not put you well within the range of manpads.

The maximum range of the GAU-8 is 12,000 feet. That far off, you're less likely to hit what you want and if the enemy is danger close to your friendlies, you're just as much of a threat to them as they are. The GAU-8's effective range (80% of rounds landing in a 40' diameter circle) is only about 4,000 feet. For knocking out armor, it's even shorter and the thicker the armor, the closer it has to get.

The older SA-14 is good to around 7,100 feet. It probably won't outright kill a Warthog, but a hit will put it out of the fight, which is what an anti-aircraft system is supposed to do. The SA-16 and SA-18s are improvements on the -14. But the SA-24 is the big boy on the block, and it's range is around 19,000 feet. Hell, even the 1960-era ZU-23 has an effective range that's twice greater than the GAU-8.

In the late 70s when they were evaluating A-10 tactics for the European theater, pilots quickly grew to favor the Maverick missile as it allowed them to stay out of range from ground fire.

You'll have to ask them. But I could have sworn the Marines did try to turn their KC-130s into big gun gunships.

They did. The Marines wanted AC-130s, but the bad news was that the Corps could field about 45 KC-130J aerial tankers for the price of a 12-plane AC-130J squadron. The solution was a modular weapon package that would let them arm their existing tankers as needed. KC-130J Harvest HAWK Capability II involves mounting an M299 missile rack for 4 AGM-114P Hellfires and/or up to 16 DAGR laser-guided 70mm rockets to the left wing, in place of the left-hand outboard aerial refueling pod. This leaves the left wing carrying the weapons and some fuel, while the right wing retains full aerial refueling capabilities. Harvest HAWK Capability III involves a modular M230 30mm cannon linked to the fire control, which is expected to be rolled in and mounted in the troop door.

The USAF's next gunship will be the AC-130W Stinger II. The primary mission of the AC-130W Stinger II is armed overwatch. While similar to the AC-130’s missions, Stinger II is primarily focused on performing reconnaissance over friendly positions and may directly deliver ordnance to precise targets to support ground forces. It's armed with a 30mm GAU-23/A Bushmaster cannon and SOPGM (Standoff Precision Guided Munitions) ie.GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb and the AGM-176 Griffin missile.

So as I said before, "that capability to put down a lot of lead in an uncontested environment will still be around."

What the Marines never did though, was invest in their own purpose-built A-10-class aircraft. Their Harriers carry only a very limited amount of weapons, is armed with a 25mm gun pod with a limited ammunition capacity, has to lose a weapon station to carry a targeting pod and is extremely vulnerable to ground fire on account of having the single engine. And this is an air arm that's sole mission is supporting ground forces.

Like I said before, only heavy bombers carry more. And ironically, the B-1 is also another platform they would like to retire. Compared to other fighters, the A-10 is more economical since it carries more of the same ordnance and therefore requires fewer sorties to hit the same number of targets. Additionally, the Marines have also fielded the F/A-18 in this role as well and no one whines about their use of fast movers or their replacing Harriers with F-35 in that role. Hell, it was the US Army that requested a faster, more survivable CAS platform in the late 1980s that led to the A-7F/A-16 prototypes.

Pretty sure the F-15E can carry more. You can load out an A-10 by putting a Monogram payload under its wings, but you're going to lose range, agility and endurance. And the B-1 is more likely to be more efficient since it requires far fewer trips to the tanker than any fighter or Warthog, carries far more weapons and can stay aloft a lot longer. You can do more damage with a single B-1 than you can a four ship of A-10s, and the B-1 can hang out overhead for hours.

Ok so we are now back to 'falling behind the threat.' We've already established that in order to perform CAS you need to have established and maintained air superiority, therefore the modern threat is a non-issue for the mission. What you face in the mission are the lesser threats as you pointed out at the beginning of your post.

No, you established that air superiority means there are zero ground threats. Operations Desert Storm, Deliberate Force and Allied Force proves that wrong.

You seem to assume that we will never fight a low intensity conflict in the future scenarios again.

You seem to assume that we only fight low intensity conflicts in the future. It is far easier to adapt a high-threat capable aircraft to a low-threat environment than it is to adapt a low threat capable aircraft to a high-threat environment.

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

-The Army has UH-60 DAPs.

No, the Army has DAP kits for the MH-60Ls of the 160th SOAR. They never have fielded that kit in large numbers for the overall UH-60 fleet.

-Problem with helicopter gunships is the 7.62 round.

oh-rly.jpg

mh-60lside.jpg

M230 30mm cannon as used on the AH-64

Still need more firepower?

ah-60_battlehawk.jpg

mh60gdapjt3.jpg

Didn't they say that in the late 80's and again in the 90's?

Talk to Congress. They're the ones who questioned the A-10 in the late 70s and early 80s.

Talk to Big Army. They're the ones who requested a faster, more survivable CAS/BAI platform in the late 80s. Hello A-7F and A-16.

The physiological impact the hog brings to the battlefield is unmatched and unique. That burping sound after the rounds impacted might as well be choirs of Angels during a bad day, that feeling knowing that there is an infantry loving pilot doing things outside of his SOP to ensure our safety is a comfort in the middle of a storm, and on the flip side the enemy does funny things with it overhead. In order to fund the F-35 and other programs in numbers we need some things gotta give, I don't like it, but we'll just change our doctrine and tactics and keep fighting.

Right, because of all those non-A-10 pilots who turn their noses up and say "**** those guys." Pilots like Maj. Troy L. Gilbert who in November 2006 died strafing the enemy in Iraq, trying to protect coalition forces taking fire on the ground. Or the aircrews of the F-15E community who responded to a call in Anaconda that called for guns. And who later on, were thinking about how they could execute night strafing (which some thought to be impossible) so they programmed simulators at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., where they could, through practice, work a night strafe from “hard” to “easy.” Actually, it is now called "easy" and it was being done in daily ops in the fight. And all those pilots for whom strafing is part of their training curriculum; which these days, is all F-16 and F-15E crews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wberKPnrWzg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the money spent on the C-model upgrade should be taken from another program, then let's start with the US Army. After all, the AT-6 COIN aircraft for AFSOC was canned so the Army could pay for vehicles that wouldn't get blown up by IEDs as easily as their Humvees were. Besides, how much has the Army wasted on their OH-58D replacement over the past 23 years? First there was the RAH-66 program that ran $6.9B. Cancelled. Then there was the ARH-70 program. Cancelled. Then there was the EADS AAS-72X concept. Canceled. OH-48F? Canceled. Now they're going with AH-64E.

Those vehicles were paid for through oco funds, was that how the AF was paying for the AT-6? I thought other reasons shot that program out of the sky. If I were a betting man I'd say north of $20 billion.

The Aerial Scout program is an absoulte abomination. Billions of taxpayer's money have been wasted with no accountability and should have sent signals to both the LCS and JSF program what the future looks like when you give no constraints, restraints, wish list technology, nice to have instead of need to have, and by all means if it ain't on time or budget somone pays. I have no doubt that when my 2 year old graduates West Point in 20 years he'll be going to Rucker to train on a European trainer and will either fly a AH-64W or UH-60Z.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the Army has DAP kits for the MH-60Ls of the 160th SOAR. They never have fielded that kit in large numbers for the overall UH-60 fleet.

They wouldn't, 60's haul people and equipment. It's the same reason why you won't see an AC-130 or any variation of that aircraft raining down lead for conventional forces. Different applications. CCA is done by the Kiowa and Apache, air support is done by fighters and every once in awhile a bomber.

Still need more firepower?

You can have all the firepower in the world but when a 7.62 round can bring down dusty its not such a viable option.

Talk to Congress. They're the ones who questioned the A-10 in the late 70s and early 80s.

Talk to Big Army. They're the ones who requested a faster, more survivable CAS/BAI platform in the late 80s. Hello A-7F and A-16.

Yet, this little thing called war came about and all of sudden slow and boring became real useful.

Right, because of all those non-A-10 pilots who turn their noses up and say "**** those guys." Pilots like Maj. Troy L. Gilbert who in November 2006 died strafing the enemy in Iraq, trying to protect coalition forces taking fire on the ground. Or the aircrews of the F-15E community who responded to a call in Anaconda that called for guns. And who later on, were thinking about how they could execute night strafing (which some thought to be impossible) so they programmed simulators at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., where they could, through practice, work a night strafe from “hard” to “easy.” Actually, it is now called "easy" and it was being done in daily ops in the fight. And all those pilots for whom strafing is part of their training curriculum; which these days, is all F-16 and F-15E crews.

Got it, they kicked all kind of butt. A lot of us did it then and do it now and those who died protecting our own should be cherished above all else. Now how does that translate to a 19 year old kid on patrol in a grape field in RC East when they take contact and call up a tic? They are not thinking about the battle captain or battle maj synching enablers or coordinating support, they are not thinking about the extensive ISR capability we have, they are not thinking about the all the efforts by everyone to ensure they survive. Rather, they’re thinking about that little branch in front of them that provides cover, they’re thinking about their squad leader running over to check their status, they’re thinking about what their immediate threat is and eliminating it. What gives them comfort is what they can see, hear, and feel. I don’t know what it will take to change the perception of the AF not caring about the Marines/Soldiers on the ground, maybe it will never be fixed, I don’t know, but I do know what they feel when they see a jet do a strafing run. The last gun run I was saw from a Viper, pretty awesome, but those days are done. War’s coming to a close and I’m ready to come home.

Edited by fulcrum1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Say the Viper can do 90% of the A-10's mission. It's that extra 10% of what the A-10 can do that the Viper can't that is the sticking point. The physiological impact the hog brings to the battlefield is unmatched and unique. That burping sound after the rounds impacted might as well be choirs of Angels during a bad day, that feeling knowing that there is an infantry loving pilot doing things outside of his SOP to ensure our safety is a comfort in the middle of a storm, and on the flip side the enemy does funny things with it overhead. In order to fund the F-35 and other programs in numbers we need some things gotta give, I don't like it, but we'll just change our doctrine and tactics and keep fighting.

The A-10 is not being used as an A-10 anymore.

In a matter of speaking; The A-10 has been gone (From it's original design platform use) for about 5 years or so. So the A-10 is in name only.

I guess after the AF lost 16 A-10s since we started fighting over in the sandbox they adjusted the A-10's mission of one that is remarkably similar to how the F-15 and F-16, and F-18 operate: Stand-off.

Furthermore; Part of the A-10C upgrades were avionics/electronics to bring it closer to par with the F-15, F-16, and F-18 (When was the last time you saw an A-10A with Sniper pod?).

In essence; The A-10 is now a slow F-16.

The AF is trying to do with the A-10 what the Navy succeeded in doing with the F-14 in eliminating a/c redundancy due to budget constraints. Despite the fact that the Bombcat was very successful in CAS, the Navy wanted funding for their future a/c: The F-18E/F.

When I read the article of how a B-1B spent the day providing CAS, that convinced me that B-1Bs are way more efficient and affective than an A-10, F-15, F-16, or F-18 in providing sustained CAS 377.gif !

Said B-1B (One B-1B) started their CAS mission with approx. 50,000+lbs of ordnance and they stayed on-station for over 6 hours laying down some serious hurt on the bad guys without leaving to refuel. Can an F-15E Strike Eagle fully loaded stay on-station 3 hours to provide CAS without having to leave in order to refuel? Maybe 2 hours? One hour?

Since the name of the game is 'stand-off'; IMHO, one B-1B offers a very, very heavy punch with an exceptionally long loitering time.

My fellow Avenger summarized best the current A-10 appeal in congress with just seven words: "Yes, the Hog is a social program."

Link to post
Share on other sites

My fellow Avenger summarized best the current A-10 appeal in congress with just seven words: "Yes, the Hog is a social program."

Bingo... This especially applies to ANG A-10's. Reps from states that stand to lose Guard A-10's will put up a fierce fight. They'll use all the catchwords that I see posted in this thread about how the A-10 is critical to supporting PFC Billy when the shat hits the fan and how the nation can't survive without it. However, make no mistake - those politicians don't particularly care about PFC Billy or the military in general, the only thing they care about are the local jobs that will be lost and what that would do to their chances of re-election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo... This especially applies to ANG A-10's. Reps from states that stand to lose Guard A-10's will put up a fierce fight. They'll use all the catchwords that I see posted in this thread about how the A-10 is critical to supporting PFC Billy when the shat hits the fan and how the nation can't survive without it. However, make no mistake - those politicians don't particularly care about PFC Billy or the military in general, the only thing they care about are the local jobs that will be lost and what that would do to their chances of re-election.

Yep; Absolutely correct.

My dumba$$ senator, Senator Risch, is big-time on that bandwagon trying to stop the A-10 retirement due to the ANG A-10s here at Gowen Field ANG Base.

Politics over substance. And it's so blatantly obvious too mad.gifBANGHEAD2.jpg .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo... This especially applies to ANG A-10's. Reps from states that stand to lose Guard A-10's will put up a fierce fight. They'll use all the catchwords that I see posted in this thread about how the A-10 is critical to supporting PFC Billy when the shat hits the fan and how the nation can't survive without it. However, make no mistake - those politicians don't particularly care about PFC Billy or the military in general, the only thing they care about are the local jobs that will be lost and what that would do to their chances of re-election.

This.

"We need to keep the A-10 to support PCF Billy!" "We need to cut veterans benefits."

Two_Face_(Nolanverse).jpg

- Senator Harvey Dent

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to touch the rest of this with a ten foot pole but....

The insurgents' ied's only cost a few dollars and cents. The American response to that threat was billions of dollars. That is how the insurgents forced us to cut and run from from out recent wars. They had smarter accountants than we did.

That's if you made a straight comparison of the numbers, which is in a word, useless and misleading. Proportionally, our opponents spend vastly more than we did. Our defence budgets are around 3~5% of GDP... of which maybe 2% is indirectly to directly related to warfighting, when you add in CRs. The Taliban frequently levies an tax (zakat) of over 20% on people in their territory, and an Ushr 40%~60% on opium and other trafficked goods (which is basically their primary economic activity in a lot of places). That doesn't include the potential loss of economic activity incurred by their activities, or the human costs of the war for them or the people willing or unwillingly under their control. It wouldn't be stretch to suggest that our opponents are spending ten to twenty times of their economic wealth on the war, and a hundred times the human cost.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's the threat environment?"

"Well, they've got Su-27s flying top cover, a few batteries of S-300s and Tors, some Tunguskas and ZSU-23s and a butt-load of SA-16s, SA-18s and SA-24s"

"Wow, that's a lot. We may not even get through all that."

"I know, that could get real expensive."

"Better send the A-10s."

"Can they make it through?"

"F*** no! But it's cheaper to send them in to get the s*** kicked out of them than it is to send a flight that actually has a chance to get through."

Said no planner, ever.

This^^

And less we forget A-10 pilots aren't morons: "Good plan sir, I recognize that I fly a 'cheap' aircraft, making this sacrifice intelligent and worthwhile, the minimal damage we do to the enemy is a brilliant use of limited resources, please have the ordies load it to the gunnels, so I can't maneuver and take the maximal loadout down with me, I look forward to being tortured for the duration of hostilities"

Well, we were. 2028 at least. You can thank Washington's inability to come to a budget agreement. Be sure to thank your Representative and Senators. Besides, the A-10's been in service for 37 years. That's longer than the A-7D, F-4, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-111 and F-117 were in USAF service. I think we got our money's worth out of them.

I don’t know what it will take to change the perception of the AF not caring about the Marines/Soldiers on the ground, maybe it will never be fixed, I don’t know,

I am a Marine, I don't have a massive loyalty to the USAF, but I wouldn't mind seeing the stereotype that the USAF "hates CAS"

"hates the A-10"

"Hates/doesn't care about ground troops"

going away forever. The USAF doesn't deserve that reputation. I think its a hangover from the 1980s. The USAF tried to rid themselves of the A-10 before GW1991, it made sense seeing as the cold war was winding down and a lot of stuff got the axe for that reason as well. The A-10 did well overall in the first gulf war, and the USAF planned to keep it until 2028 eventually. You could say they learned, you know like they changed. The A-10 outlasted Strategic Air Command, Look at the aircraft that were retired throughout the 1990s from all the services, The A-10 was kept and upgraded. The USAF with the GWoT has bent over backwards to do CAS with as many men and platforms as capable. they honed and refined the doctrine and tactics, introduced new tools, And its rare now to find a platform that Doesn't do CAS. They have ground people who help call in the strikes, and I think the USAF "hating grunts" and all the other stereotypes at this point is pretty much garbage regurgitated by people who forget the berlin wall came down 25 years ago and think 1986 was "a few years back".

Services are a helluva lot more joint now too. An FAC/JTAC/FO will call in a strike with whatever service can help, and everyone does it the same way (though of course the Marines do it better :sunrevolves:/>/> )

The thing that really bugs me is people are still doing the I love the 80's meme during a time of war when its simply not true. a Basic google (or even youtube) search will show the USAF has been working hard the last nearly 13 years. Its one thing to rant about the hypothetical "WArbargabrl retiring the Tomcat means our carriers are vulnerable!!" when we havn't had a naval battle in well over 60 years, and another to be completely ignorant of what is actually happening currently in reality in actual combat and say "Retiring the A-10 means the Air Force hates the troops and now can't do CAS!! wehhhhhh"

General Welsh is an A-10 guy for crying outloud you can't even yell "fighter jock institutional inertia!!" anymore. Things change, and they really obviously changed. But it makes people feel smart to say these things because its a neat little fact they learned once, they have "inside info" on "how it really all works" with the interservice rivalry.

Its far more fun to repeat old tropes and feel smart, then learn something new and feel old and outdated.

Got it, they kicked all kind of butt. A lot of us did it then and do it now and those who died protecting our own should be cherished above all else. Now how does that translate to a 19 year old kid on patrol in a grape field in RC East when they take contact and call up a tic? They are not thinking about the battle captain or battle maj synching enablers or coordinating support, they are not thinking about the extensive ISR capability we have, they are not thinking about the all the efforts by everyone to ensure they survive. Rather, they’re thinking about that little branch in front of them that provides cover, they’re thinking about their squad leader running over to check their status, they’re thinking about what their immediate threat is and eliminating it. What gives them comfort is what they can see, hear, and feel. I don’t know what it will take to change the perception of the AF not caring about the Marines/Soldiers on the ground, maybe it will never be fixed, I don’t know, but I do know what they feel when they see a jet do a strafing run. The last gun run I was saw from a Viper, pretty awesome, but those days are done. War’s coming to a close and I’m ready to come home.

I'm not trying to take away from you, And I understand that not a lot of things can replace the visceral thrill of a gun run that goes all the way back to WWII, especially as the guns have gotten bigger, fire faster, and the planes are louder.

However, its the just simple fact about the question marks of A-10 survivablity in the future. Those strafing runs may not happen in a contested environment at all, and seeing, hearing, and feeling an aircraft getting shot down and crashing is the opposite of warm fuzzies. Or if it just never shows up because they can't get through and have to turn back or make a brief appearance before bingo fuel, and yes even the A-10s loiter ability may be wasted turning burning and dodging.

"you can't help anyone if you're dead" said my Drill Instructor very early on, I learned that as a recruit. same goes for the A-10.

lastly the USAF has deal with many moving parts, it doesn't just look at Aircraft A cost vs aircraft B cost on wiki. It has to balance ops, logistics, personnel, BRAC, and a host of other hard questions with no great answers along with the politics. I don't envy anyone that has to make these decisions its far more complicated than you would imagine in your worst nightmares, and that is before you get the politicians involved.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut and run? Damn, I didn't get the memo! Someone come and get me, and bring some beer....lots of it.

Yeah dude you missed the memo. Either that or someone's playing a joke on you.

Your Commander in Chief declared it was over a few years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/

And the last troops rolled out in 2011!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/world/meast/iraq-anbar-violence-holmes/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum range of the GAU-8 is 12,000 feet. That far off, you're less likely to hit what you want and if the enemy is danger close to your friendlies, you're just as much of a threat to them as they are. The GAU-8's effective range (80% of rounds landing in a 40' diameter circle) is only about 4,000 feet. For knocking out armor, it's even shorter and the thicker the armor, the closer it has to get.

The older SA-14 is good to around 7,100 feet. It probably won't outright kill a Warthog, but a hit will put it out of the fight, which is what an anti-aircraft system is supposed to do. The SA-16 and SA-18s are improvements on the -14. But the SA-24 is the big boy on the block, and it's range is around 19,000 feet. Hell, even the 1960-era ZU-23 ha an effective range that's twice greater than the GAU-8.

You seem to assume that we only fight low intensity conflicts in the future. It is far easier to adapt a high-threat capable aircraft to a low-threat environment than it is to adapt a low threat capable aircraft to a high-threat environment.

The A-10 has been making strafe attacks from high altitude in a near vertical dive on the target. Targets have no idea they are under attack until the rounds have landed. The profile minimizes their exposure to threats, minimizes jet noise since the engines are at idle, minimizes dispersion of rounds, maintains effectiveness of the rounds at long range due to the vertical path, and minimizes risk of collateral damage due to the small dispersal from the vertical path.

I don't assume any particular type of war in the future, that us why the A-10 is necessary, because there is just as much of a chance of another low intensity conflict as there is of WWIII. It's you who assume that there will not be another low intensity conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-10 has been making strafe attacks from high altitude in a near vertical dive on the target. Targets have no idea they are under attack until the rounds have landed. The profile minimizes their exposure to threats, minimizes jet noise since the engines are at idle, minimizes dispersion of rounds, maintains effectiveness of the rounds at long range due to the vertical path, and minimizes risk of collateral damage due to the small dispersal from the vertical path.

I don't assume any particular type of war in the future, that us why the A-10 is necessary, because there is just as much of a chance of another low intensity conflict as there is of WWIII. It's you who assume that there will not be another low intensity conflict.

So if you don't have money to gear up for every type of conflict, would you not want to keep the systems that can handle the worse case scenario?

I mentioned this in another thread on the subject but again - Since we don't have the money, if the A-10 just has to stay, which other major AF weapons system would you kill to pay for it? The F-16? F-15? B-1? JSF? Something has to go, what's it gonna be?

BTW, I've never seen an A-10 perform high level, near vertical strafing runs, with engines at idle. Most (all?) of the pics I've seen seem to show the aircraft in a ~ 30 degree dive.

Are you confusing the A-10 with a Stuka dive bomber (another 1-trick pony that worked well for a few years and then not so well when it went up against competent opponents)? Good analogy though.. think of the A-10 as a modern day Stuka.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

"you can't help anyone if you're dead" said my Drill Instructor very early on, I learned that as a recruit. same goes for the A-10.

lastly the USAF has deal with many moving parts, it doesn't just look at Aircraft A cost vs aircraft B cost on wiki. It has to balance ops, logistics, personnel, BRAC, and a host of other hard questions with no great answers along with the politics. I don't envy anyone that has to make these decisions its far more complicated than you would imagine in your worst nightmares, and that is before you get the politicians involved.

Does that apply to the "leave no man behind" philosophy too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-10 has been making strafe attacks from high altitude in a near vertical dive on the target. Targets have no idea they are under attack until the rounds have landed. The profile minimizes their exposure to threats, minimizes jet noise since the engines are at idle, minimizes dispersion of rounds, maintains effectiveness of the rounds at long range due to the vertical path, and minimizes risk of collateral damage due to the small dispersal from the vertical path.

Correct me if I'm wrong; but wouldn't the A-10 have to virtually overfly the target to be in position to get shoot in the near vertical? That doesn't sound like a smart thing to do to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Marine, I don't have a massive loyalty to the USAF, but I wouldn't mind seeing the stereotype that the USAF "hates CAS" / "hates the A-10" / "Hates/doesn't care about ground troops" going away forever. The USAF doesn't deserve that reputation. I think its a hangover from the 1980s.

Some of it I think comes from the A-10 being all of what they know of the Air Force. It's the one airplane that was designed for a single job that affects them. They don't give a **** about the F-22 because most of these guys have spent some time in the past 13 years running around some desert or some mountain getting shot at by some a*****e with an AK or RPG. The A-10 was the only plane acquired by a service within the past 40 years that was designed to specifically support another service's mission. The Air Force doesn't have sub hunters. The Marines don't have an air dominance fighter. The Navy doesn't have C-5s to haul supplies around with.

The problem with the A-10 is that it was over-specialized, which breeds in weakness. The F-117 was overspecialized. The F-14 was too, but fortunately for that community, a secondary role was found for it (although the ravages of time and budget caught up with it as well). The B-1B was at one time overspecialized being a nuclear-only bomber, but they've found new ways to use it and new ways to exploit it's capabilities to perform missions it was never intended for, giving it a new lease on life. Unfortunately, the A-10 has reached the limits of it's design and capabilities, so now that the budget axe is looming, it's days are numbered. It's mission has been taken over by several types of multi-role fighters, advanced sensors and PGMs. Pilots can and are being trained to support CAS.

So, the A-10 is an endangered species. Now, PFC Billy feels betrayed. He doesn't understand the threat environment out there outside of Afghanistan because he doesn't get briefings on the performance envelope of the SA-24 or the S-300. No, he's too busy spending his days training to sweep rooms and hunt down Taliban without getting killed himself. All he cares about is when the Shatner hits the fan, he wants something over his shoulder to cover his a**. And now the man's taking away the one plane that was meant for him. THOSE B******S! Who cares that there are a half dozen other types that can - and have - been doing the job (85% of the workload compared to the A-10s 15%). Who cares that the A-10 has been flying for 42 out of the 67 years the Air Force has been it's own branch! THEY OBVIOUSLY HATE CAS!

The A-10 has been making strafe attacks from high altitude in a near vertical dive on the target. Targets have no idea they are under attack until the rounds have landed. The profile minimizes their exposure to threats, minimizes jet noise since the engines are at idle, minimizes dispersion of rounds, maintains effectiveness of the rounds at long range due to the vertical path, and minimizes risk of collateral damage due to the small dispersal from the vertical path.

I'll ignore the ridiculousness of that geometry for a moment to focus on one thing. Targets had no idea they were under attack until the rounds landed? PGMs have been killing bad guys from far away without them even knowing they were under attack for a long time now. So you just claimed that the best way to use an A-10 and it's gun is to use them in such a way so that it is undetectable and killing from a standoff distance from the baddies on the ground, just like how other platforms have been doing it for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the A-10 is that it was over-specialized, which breeds in weakness. The F-117 was overspecialized. The F-14 was too, but fortunately for that community, a secondary role was found for it (although the ravages of time and budget caught up with it as well). The B-1B was at one time overspecialized being a nuclear-only bomber, but they've found new ways to use it and new ways to exploit it's capabilities to perform missions it was never intended for, giving it a new lease on life. Unfortunately, the A-10 has reached the limits of it's design and capabilities, so now that the budget axe is looming, it's days are numbered. It's mission has been taken over by several types of multi-role fighters, advanced sensors and PGMs. Pilots can and are being trained to support CAS.

For some reason, while reading this paragraph an idea popped into my head involving new platform in which the A-10 would be unparalleled, completely dominate.

That platform would be.....................crop-dusting. Yes, crop-dusting.

Here in Southern Idaho lives some of the worlds best Reno Air Race pilots that are crop-dusters. Driving East or West on I84 you can see those crop-dusters pilots in action. Talk about flying just like an A-10!

If said crop-dusting pilots leased or bought an A-10, they could probably reduce their time flying by fourfold yet still be able to dust any size field needed.

And how many farms, nationwide, could benefit?

The sad part is I don't think there's enough A-10s available, both operational as well as retired/in storage, to meet the needs of crop-dusting on a national level though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-10 has been making strafe attacks from high altitude in a near vertical dive on the target. Targets have no idea they are under attack until the rounds have landed. The profile minimizes their exposure to threats, minimizes jet noise since the engines are at idle, minimizes dispersion of rounds, maintains effectiveness of the rounds at long range due to the vertical path, and minimizes risk of collateral damage due to the small dispersal from the vertical path.

1403.gif

Making it up as we go along I see, at least we aren't reaching to find a niche or anything. LOL wow. BTW you forgot to make up the part about it deploying all its flaps too. So we need to keep the A-10 for the future Low intensity conflicts so it can do vertical gun attacks before we cut and run anyway?

I don't assume any particular type of war in the future, that us why the A-10 is necessary, because there is just as much of a chance of another low intensity conflict as there is of WWIII.

you mean those same low intensity conflicts we "ran from" despite having the A-10 in the first place? how does having the A-10 change the results in these conflicts again?

I think you have lost the narrative.

The cost of losing a world war is much higher than an LIC as well. If an LIC happens again, we would probably unretire the OV-10s before the A-10s seeing as LICs last for years, it would take what, less than 6 months to pull the A-10s out of the boneyard and put them back into operation? Shouldn't be hard with all its rugged simplicity an all.

It's you who assume that there will not be another low intensity conflict.

An A-10 isn't even ideal for a low intensity conflict, its overkill and as we have said 3 times its easier to make a high end do the low end stuff than it is for the low end to do high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of losing a world war is much higher than an LIC as well. If an LIC happens again, we would probably unretire the OV-10s before the A-10s seeing as LICs last for years, it would take what, less than 6 months to pull the A-10s out of the boneyard and put them back into operation? Shouldn't be hard with all its rugged simplicity an all.

Now that would be awesome for a possible future Bronco variant kit release 271.gif !

Call it the OVA-10C Hog-Bronco?

What do you think?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...