Jump to content

Any decision on the A-10 retirement yet?


Recommended Posts

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

Little place called Afghanistan, ever heard of it? Were you talking about Iraq? I don't recall cuttin and runnin from there either.

Edited by fulcrum1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Little place called Afghanistan, ever heard of it? Were you talking about Iraq? I don't recall cuttin and runnin from there either.

Yes, of course I was.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/al-qaeda-drives-iraq-toward-chaos/?page=all

And the same mistake is being made in Afghanistan. Victory isn't defined by withdrawal by a date on a calender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Yes. You got. Much more cost effective to use a few rounds of 30mm to accomplish the same job of a million dollar missile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

There's probably more than a few things you haven't seen yet.

There is plenty of money available. Enough to spend $800 billion already on one particular boondoggle. Plus another trillion on Obamacare. There is plenty of money to go around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

It's a squanderous waste of money to make a high end do the low end.

'Lost the narrative?' What is this? The Taiidan Tomcat Talk Show?

Yes, those same Lic's that we had A-10s, F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, and B-1s all supporting. None of these stupendous weapons will change anything as long as this country doesn't have the political will to fight and fight to win.

LICs are the only conflicts this country's leaders are willing to fight. So yes, we better have weapons that can do that without costing $800billion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said we cut and ran though! Please explain.

How so?

Sure. You don't withdraw your forces from a conflict without having defeated your enemy. And just because a date on a calender has arrived does not mean an enemy is defeated. That is why the withdrawal from Iraq was a cut and run. America withdrew based on a calender date, not on the defeat of the enemy. That is why it was a cut and run. The job was not finished. That country is still under threat from those we fought. Those who fought and died there did so in vain because of Obama's campaign promises.

And he is doing the same thing in Afghanistan. The changing of the calender from 2014 to 2015 will not mean the defeat of the Taliban. Any further American casualties from the day Obama decided he was going to withdraw all troops by 2015 are a meaningless and wasteful discarding of human life because it will have been purposeless. The only purpose of our troops in Afghanistan from the day he made that decision is to mark time and draw fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. You got. Much more cost effective to use a few rounds of 30mm to accomplish the same job of a million dollar missile.

and its even more cost effective to use a 20MM, A-10 rounds being the most expensive. Once again most anything an A-10 can do, other aircraft can do. What other aircraft do an A-10 can not.

But the A-10 isn't using its 30MM that often remember?

Is it because it's weapons are irrlevant? Well, the recently upgraded C models carry the same guided weapons as does all the other aircraft do, plus a better gun, and plus it carries more of the droppable guided ordnance than the other aircraft it is compared to except for the heavy bombers. So the argument put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it just uses unguided weapons is invalid as well.

Is it because it only flies 'low and slow'? Well for the layperson, that is most likely their vision of what the A-10 does. However, the C model uses targetting pods just like any other aircraft and can conduct all its strikes, including gun strafes, from high altitude, if that is the better place to be. So that makes that argument invalid as well. Even if it was a relevant aspect.

the A-10s biggest virtues are:

Armor (That really doesn't matter in LICs, and won't help it in other conflicts, including LICs where SA-24s exist.)

Gun (that is hardly used except for troops in contact, and isn't the preferred weapon to engage armor, all other aircrat have guns as well)

Actual virtues:

Long loiter time for its class

Morale

There's probably more than a few things you haven't seen yet.

Because you made it up? That not an actual tactic and it would fail miserably

There is plenty of money available.

laughable.

It's a squanderous waste of money to make a high end do the low end.

don't understand how budgets and funding work I see.

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/July2013/007_funding_for_OCO.png

LICs themselves are a squanderous waste of money. What type of airplane you use is a drop in the bucket, and if you want to "save money" the winning move is not to play. Especially as you try to point out they are all lost causes anyway. So what difference does the A-10 make?

'Lost the narrative?' What is this? The Taiidan Tomcat Talk Show?

You keep contradicting yourself. The story you are trying to weave makes no sense and its getting increasingly desperate, and fictional as well. Making up facts doesn't make them truth

Yes, those same Lic's that we had A-10s, F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, and B-1s all supporting. None of these stupendous weapons will change anything as long as this country doesn't have the political will to fight and fight to win.

so again A-10s make no difference, unless its running for office.

LICs are the only conflicts this country's leaders are willing to fight. So yes, we better have weapons that can do that without costing $800billion.

ignorant of recent history as well. You should research airpower in war the last 20 years, you might be surprised.

You are aware that libya was an LIC that the A-10 couldn't participate in fully right? And other aircraft had to pick up the slack?

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. You don't withdraw your forces from a conflict without having defeated your enemy. And just because a date on a calender has arrived does not mean an enemy is defeated. That is why the withdrawal from Iraq was a cut and run. America withdrew based on a calender date, not on the defeat of the enemy. That is why it was a cut and run. The job was not finished. That country is still under threat from those we fought. Those who fought and died there did so in vain because of Obama's campaign promises.

Status Of Forces Agreement:

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008

History is fun.

Dear Mods,

Not trying to be political, just trying to demonstrate a basic historical fact, please don't lock the thread

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably more than a few things you haven't seen yet.

Like those top secret wind-powered sirens mounted to the landing gear of the A-10? It worked against the French in WW2, sure to terrify the Taliban as the invincible Hog comes whistling down from high altitude in a vertical strafing run.

Or the soon to be revealed black program to graft a rear gunner's position on the A-10, thus providing full protection against any / all airborne threats.

You seem to be privy to a lot of things that no one has seen. Are you a major player in the USAF or a defense contractor? Please clue us in on some of the A-10's new tricks.

Any keep your insightful political comments coming as well. Very informative and useful. You are equally well versed in both modern weapons systems and military / political strategy.

Impressive.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

and its even more cost effective to use a 20MM, A-10 rounds being the most expensive. Once again most anything an A-10 can do, other aircraft can do. What other aircraft do an A-10 can not.

But the A-10 isn't using its 30MM that often remember?

the A-10s biggest virtues are:

Armor (That really doesn't matter in LICs, and won't help it in other conflicts, including LICs where SA-24s exist.)

Gun (that is hardly used except for troops in contact, and isn't the preferred weapon to engage armor, all other aircrat have guns as well)

Because you made it up.

laughable.

don't understand how FY budgets work I see.

You keep contradicting yourself. The story you are trying to weave makes no sense and its getting increasingly desperate, and fictional as well. Making up facts doesn't make them truth

so again A-10s make no difference, unless its running for office.

ignorant of recent history as well. You should research airpower in war the last 20 years, you might be surprised.

You are aware that libya was an LIC that the A-10 couldn't participate in fully right? And other aircraft had to pick up the slack?

Where were our troops in contact in Libya? The A-10 is for CAS, not deep strike or BAI.

Actually, not using a Ferrari to go pick up groceries is the kind of monetary commonsense sadly lacking from the 'FY budgets'. Ironically, I once was an accountant at a defense contractor. This is exactly the kind of 'FY budgets' nonsense that made up the job. Woe to you if your program came in under cost targets. You will have to make up charges to the job in order to avoid incurring penalties. So understanding 'FY Budgets' or rather governmental accounting means nothing, and is rather a detriment if common sense and sensible spending is the goal.

What's laughable? $800 billion for a few planes that carry a pair of bombs, and are too expensive to put at risk of performing CAS is laughable. A trillion dollars for Obamacare is laughable. So what's a measly 3 billion?

No, I don't remember. It seemed to me the high angle strafe was actually the preferred method in the CAS situations in Afghanistan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have been holding off on commenting here in order to see where this is going, but since some of the "experts" (ones with the loudest voices and cleverest animations who seem to have a lot of extra time on their hands to ponder such things and sarcastically proselytize to everyone else) seem to be carrying the argument with the spin of supposedly "informed" opinion, it is now time to weigh in.

Let's keep it simple, because it really is.

Ask yourself this question: If the US Army and/or Marine Corps were offered the A-10 and the budget to operate them, would they take them?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the aircraft is clearly useful and valued by the folks with boots on the ground, and should either be retained by the USAF, or in fact offered to the USA/USMC.

If, on the other hand, you think the answer would be something like, "No, that aircraft is entirely too dangerous to fly as it is not survivable in any typical combat environment we are likely to face. We don't want them." Then retire it.

Also, ask yourself this question: If the USAF was the USAAC, as in WWII, with equal emphasis on helping the ground troops advance and destroy the enemy as other missions, would they still want to decom the A-10?

Here is my take....

I would like to remind folks that the US Army operates hundreds of helicopters in and around this medium threat (but supposedly lethal, according to the anti-A-10 folks) AAA and portable missile environment, because it is necessary to do so. In battle, they take hits, and they lose aircraft and personnel, just like they lose tanks, APCs, and troops. It is part of the cost of doing business. I would think that the A-10 would at least be as survivable as a helicopter in a infantry dominated environment, while at the same time bringing some speed, mobility, and additional firepower to the table. Also, as has been pointed out, the troops REALLY like the A-10. They can relate to it. It can get down in the weeds with them if it needs to and get right into the fight alongside the Apaches and UH-60's. It is like an Army asset. It carries a BFG. Its revisit time is way better than some F-16 who drops a bomb, then flies 10 miles away, or drops an LGB from 10,000 feet. Also, the A-10 absolutely strikes fear into the heart of the enemy when they know one is around, because they know what it can do....unlike some fast mover flying at 10-15,000 feet.

No, you would not use it to attack a heavily defended high value target or go "downtown" as they say, but if you argue that it is not survivable enough to be useful, then you must also dismiss the Army and Marine Corps helos that would operate in that very same environment.

The problem here is the budget, combined with the USAF mentality....

Let's talk budget first: The USAF is scraping for every dollar it can to bring the JSF into service in large numbers. I get that, but 1 JSF probably costs as much as 10 A-10s, but aside from that, we already have the A-10s! We don't have to buy any more. It is not like A-10 procurement is competing with JSF dollars. But the USAF is so enamored with the JSF that it is willing to eliminate the entire A-10 program just to get a few more bucks for the F-35.

USAF mentality: They quite frankly, are a very "people oriented" service. What I mean by that is they want to do everything in their power to minimize their losses of aircraft and personnel. They took it in the shorts in Vietnam, more than any other service operating TACAIR, when they attempted to utilize tactical aircraft in a high threat SAM environment. Decades of research since have gone into developing aircraft, weapons, tactics and doctrine to support SEAD and minimize risk. Although they will not admit it, institutionally, they are risk averse as a result of that experience. They are just not at all comfortable and exposing aircraft and crews to the same level of threat that the ground forces take for granted. Flying an aircraft down in the weeds with the helos and grunts is not something they want to do, which is why they have developed all of these high altitude tactics, then dismiss the A-10 by saying, "Well, an F-16 can do this just as well, Why do we need A-10s?"

NAVAIR may have a similar mentality, but just not to nearly the same degree of pusillanimity, which is why the USMC has its own tactical aviation with crews trained in USMC mission mentality. The Army does not have that luxury. The Army is people oriented too, but in a different way. They realize the nature of their mission will result in losses, so direct support in the field is critical.

So I say properly fund and fly the A-10. If the USAF is too scared to fly them, then give them to the Army, along with the money to operate them. The Army would take them in a heartbeat. Just ask them. If the Army does not want them, then maybe it is time to look at retirement of the airframe.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where were our troops in contact in Libya? The A-10 is for CAS, not deep strike or BAI.

A-10s aren't good for BAI?

Do you know what special forces are? or TRAP missions?

Why did they send A-10s at all if we didn't have troops there and they were only good for CAS?

Actually, not using a Ferrari to go pick up groceries is the kind of monetary commonsense sadly lacking from the 'FY budgets'.

You see this is problem-- Troops will need support in contested environments. places where SAMs and Fighters exist, and A-10s wouldn't be able to help them. The fact that you think CAS is "groceries" demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. CAS may be just as contested as a highly valued strategic target. Your solution to this was to send the A-10s anyway, even if it meant they didn't come back and the mission wasn't accomplished, because you perceived them as cheaper than risking something more valuable.

Do you need a ferrari to get groceries? If a ferrari is the only way to feasibly do it, then the answer is yes.

Again if expense is the concern an AT-6 is far more practical than an A-10 anyway. An A-10 being the "least expensive" option doesn't mean there aren't cheaper alternatives. So if money saving is the goal, retire the A-10.

Ironically, I once was an accountant at a defense contractor. This is exactly the kind of 'FY budgets' nonsense that made up the job. Woe to you if your program came in under cost targets. You will have to make up charges to the job in order to avoid incurring penalties. So understanding 'FY Budgets' or rather governmental accounting means nothing, and is rather a detriment if common sense and sensible spending is the goal.

I would love to see an overall cost breakdown of Afghanistan with A-10s vs Without. The difference would be so small as to be unrecognizable. but you can keep trying to say that its worth spending billions to save fractions of millions.

Speaking of common sense, you understand that JSFs are procured at the start of the FY and whether they are used or not, they have been paid for, so you don't "save" money by not using them. People used to make the same argument about the B-2. That it would be "too expensive to risk" Well guess what, its dropped weapons in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq.

What's laughable? $800 billion for a few planes that carry a pair of bombs, and are too expensive to put at risk of performing CAS is laughable.

800 billion for 50 years of 2400 planes you mean? planes that can carry more than 2 bombs in the conflicts you speak of?

And the Marines are going to use them for CAS. as will the USAF and Navy along with many other valuable missions that an A-10 pilot could never dream of doing.

So what's a measly 3 billion?

Because spending 3 billion on an aircraft that can't survive and is outdated and of very limited utility is wasteful? when faced with this you started to ignore reality and invented tactics from your imagination, and were easily caught lying.

No, I don't remember. It seemed to me the high angle strafe was actually the preferred method in the CAS situations in Afghanistan.

no, not at all. And if it was I wouldn't want to be anywhere near one of these attacks. and certainly would not work in any mountainous areas with MANPADs. but its a nice try on your part, a fine imagination you have.

A-10s deserve better advocates than you, your flailing attempts at history, budgets, costs, politics, and tactics have been entertaining though.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I have been holding off on commenting here in order to see where this is going, but since some of the "experts" (ones with the loudest voices and cleverest animations who seem to have a lot of extra time on their hands to ponder such things and sarcastically proselytize to everyone else) seem to be carrying the argument with the spin of supposedly "informed" opinion, it is now time to weigh in.

It just so happens these are the fellows who have the experience but go on. I know this will be good.

Let's keep it simple, because it really is.

LOL

Ask yourself this question: If the US Army and/or Marine Corps were offered the A-10 and the budget to operate them, would they take them?

The Marine Corps has been offered the A-10 and they turned it down. can the A-10 be used on a ship? No. Why would the Navy want to pay for it so the Marines could use it? Why would the Marines want it when they prefer the Harrier? how many A-10s can a ship carry since it doesn't fold up in any convenient way? Why would the Marines want a 37 year old airplane that is inferior to what they already have and what they plan to get in the future?

Can the USMC's outright rejection of the A-10 be used against it? Just to keep things fair if the Kings of CAS don't want it, what does that tell you?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the aircraft is clearly useful and valued by the folks with boots on the ground, and should either be retained by the USAF, or in fact offered to the USA/USMC.

The a-10 isn;t the only thing that supports the troops. The Marines wanted to keep the Iowa-class battleships didn't make any difference. This whole "anything for the boots" white knighting can grow tiresome, especially when those boots have a myriad of aircraft from Helicopters to strategic bombers, to ships, to Artillery to look after them. Infantry work is always going to be dangerous, no amount of spending can change that.

For the record boots on the ground don't like to be hit with arty or attacked by air, nor shelled from the sea, or run out of ammo and other gear which is good reason to keep those other systems that are not A-10s.

Moreover supporting strategic bombing (remember the USAAC?) has also shortened conflicts and helped wars by ending them quicker. Even the Army believes in "deep battle" its not as deep as what the USAF can do, but there has always been the need to strike deep in the heart.

Atomic bombs can't be used in CAS, yet they saved millions by ending WWII. the ground war in 1991 lasted 100 hours.

If, on the other hand, you think the answer would be something like, "No, that aircraft is entirely too dangerous to fly as it is not survivable in any typical combat environment we are likely to face. We don't want them." Then retire it.

If the Army is being honest, as in if you talked to army aviation people about it and the threats that are facing it, then the answer would be no.

plus the Army would have to free up funds for them as well at a time that they are cutting to the bone. So the Army would have to decide how many rotors (or troops or tanks) they would want to lose to get the A-10s

So I think they would reject it for financial reasons. plus they would have to buy weapons and support infrastructure for it that aren't in the army inventory, which is even more money, and must be take from other areas.

not one service thinks the A-10s juice is worth the cost of the squeeze.

Also, ask yourself this question: If the USAF was the USAAC, as in WWII, with equal emphasis on helping the ground troops advance and destroy the enemy as other missions, would they still want to decom the A-10?

LOL

Wasn't Curtiss Lemay from USAAC?

Wouldn;t this require a lot of historical research about tactical support in WWII? didn't the newly formed USAF use the same tactics and aircraft in Korea?

I would like to remind folks that the US Army operates hundreds of helicopters in and around this medium threat (but supposedly lethal, according to the anti-A-10 folks) AAA and portable missile environment, because it is necessary to do so. In battle, they take hits, and they lose aircraft and personnel, just like they lose tanks, APCs, and troops. It is part of the cost of doing business. I would think that the A-10 would at least be as survivable as a helicopter in a infantry dominated environment,

No one is worried about "infantry dominated enviroments" save for MANPADS, which are a huge threat and if you listen to Rank11, its more economical for helicopters to be shot down than A-10s anyway.

while at the same time bringing some speed,

HAHAHAHA!!!

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

mobility, and additional firepower to the table. Also, as has been pointed out, the troops REALLY like the A-10. They can relate to it. It can get down in the weeds with them if it needs to and get right into the fight alongside the Apaches and UH-60's. It is like an Army asset. It carries a BFG. Its revisit time is way better than some F-16 who drops a bomb, then flies 10 miles away, or drops an LGB from 10,000 feet.

F-16s can strafe, as can harriers, and hornets. The only that doesn't get into the weeds are the bombers and even they do show of fource

No, you would not use it to attack a heavily defended high value target or go "downtown" as they say, but if you argue that it is not survivable enough to be useful, then you must also dismiss the thousands of Army and Marine Corps helos that would operate in that very same environment.

Helicopters are plenty nervous about this, and have been employing countermeasures and tactics to deal with it for a long time along with new types (like V-22s) that can cruise at altitudes and speeds that bring more safety than a blackhawk.

The problem here is the budget, combined with the USAF mentality....

Sigh. by USAF mentality you mean the USAF's other commitments, that they are also required to maintain from nuclear warfare to cargo transport?

Let's talk budget first: The USAF is scraping for every dollar it can to bring the JSF into service in large numbers. I get that, but 1 JSF probably costs as much as 10 A-10s, but aside from that, we already have the A-10s! We don't have to buy any more. It is not like A-10 procurement is competing with JSAF dollars. But the USAF is so enamored with the JSF that it is willing to eliminate the entire A-10 program just to get a few more bucks for the F-35.

If you think that the F-35 is the only mouth the USAF has to feed I have some bad news for you.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget/

enjoy.

USAF mentality: They quite frankly, are a very "people oriented" service. What I mean by that is they want to do everything in their power to minimize their losses of aircraft and personnel.

Shocking

They took it in the shorts in Vietnam, more than any other service operating TACAIR, when they attempted to utilize tactical aircraft in a high threat SAM environment. Decades of research since have gone into developing aircraft, weapons, tactics and doctrine to support SEAD and minimize risk. Although they will not admit it, institutionally, they are risk averse as a result of that experience.

Yeah all the Nam guys that are still serving :rolleyes:/>/>

whats happened is the realization that SAMs have to be respected and are serious tactical obstacles, and that not just a USAF thing, Israel took a helluva licking in 1973.

They are just not at all comfortable and exposing aircraft and crews to the same level of threat that the ground forces take for granted. Flying an aircraft down in the weeds with the helos and grunts is not something they want to do.

I'm sorry to say it, And I know this is going to sound harsh. But the army won't risk its helicopters either. There was big controversy a few years back when the Army refused to send a MEDEVAC helo to get a troop out because there was no escort and they didn't want to risk 5 men and helicopter to save one, so he bleed out and died. The same thing happened in blackhawk down which was an almost entirely all army operation.

All combat leaders have to weigh the risks in all services its not more unique with one than the other.

One could say something similar for NAVAIR, which is why the USMC has its own tactical aviation with crews trained in USMC mission mentality. The Army does not have that luxury. The Army is people oriented too, but in a different way. They realize the nature of their mission will result in losses, so direct support in the field is critical.

huh?

So I say properly fund and fly the A-10. If the USAF is too scared to, then give them to the Army, along with the money to operate them. The Army would take them in a heartbeat. Just ask them. If the Army does not want them, then maybe it is time to look at retirement of the airframe.

The USAF is cowardly? you know before the A-10 they were doing it in A-37s and SPADs. Guts is not the problem, never has been. thats like saying the the Army is risk averse because it prefers an Abrams tank, and not a AT humvee for tank battles.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I say properly fund and fly the A-10. If the USAF is too scared to fly them, then give them to the Army, along with the money to operate them. The Army would take them in a heartbeat. Just ask them. If the Army does not want them, then maybe it is time to look at retirement of the airframe.

So the Army would gladly take on the care and feeding of a fast (actually, slow) tactical jet? That doesn't mean just training some Warrant Officers to fly the thing, the means adding probably a hundred new MOS's to the service. Everything from ejection seat techs to avionics & engine mechanics. After that you have to build up the infrastructure to operate these things at Army installations, unless the USAF would be so kind as to sign over a few of their bases to their Army brothers.

I don't think the Army has any interest in taking on the A-10. And just out of curiosity, where would "the money to operate them" come from? The USAF's budget? Or the Army's? Everyone is keen to keep this plane in service, however I've yet to hear anyone explain in detail where the $ is supposed to come from (aside from a few wacko political rants).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a squanderous waste of money to make a high end do the low end.

As opposed to the enormous savings that would be the result of throwing 40 year old legacy platforms into the wood chipper that is a modern/post-modern IADS knowing that they're not survivable. Because yeah, that's a GOOD investment.

The A-10 is for CAS, not deep strike or BAI.

dr-cox-wrong-gif.gif

The A-10 was made to kill 1970s era Soviet tanks. That's the AI in BAI. It just happened to work extremely well in an old-school visual targeting scenario It was NOT designed to kill personnel in a TIC CAS situation. A 30mm depleted uranium round is NOT an anti-personnel weapon. It's not even optimal for it. An HEI round works much better and suer, a 30mm HEI round will throw around more frag than a 20mm one, but the plane and the gun was designed to do one thing - kill 70s era Soviet tanks by throwing 30mm DU rounds at the tops of them where their armor was the thinnest. It loses range and accuracy when it uses HEI rounds.

It seemed to me the high angle strafe was actually the preferred method in the CAS situations in Afghanistan.

You DO realize that "high angle" is anything over 20 degrees. So a 30 degree dive angle is "high angle." It's NOT doing a Stuka impression.

Your solution to this was to send the A-10s anyway, even if it meant they didn't come back and the mission wasn't accomplished, because you perceived them as cheaper than risking something more valuable.

The problem with that is, in that scenario, not only was the mission not accomplished because the Hogs were killed, you've throw away your "cheap" A-10s and have to resort to a more survivable option. So, you've effectively spent MORE money on the same mission. Nothing it more expensive than playing it cheap.

If the US Army and/or Marine Corps were offered the A-10 and the budget to operate them, would they take them?

((SIGH))

The answer is "no." The Marines can't use them because they can't fly from the boat and the US Army requested a high-speed, more survivable CAS/BAI platform out of the Air Force as far back as the late 80s because the A-10 was susceptible to ground fire and too slow to get to the fight. The USAF asked, "what about the F-16?" to which the Army replied "We don't care, as long as you can get support to the fight." The Air Force responded with the A-16 and YA-7F.

Also, as has been pointed out, the troops REALLY like the A-10. They can relate to it.

If 'CAS' means flying low and slow and making gun passes so the grunts on the ground can see/hear the noise, get a warm feeling in their gut, and a tingle between their legs, then we've truly lost the war. Especially when we can kill bad guys silently, accurately, and effectively without them ever knowing it's coming.

"Liking" something ≠ it being the best platform for the job. I like schwarma, but that doesn't mean it's good for CAS. I brought that up to point out that it was an attachment that is based more out of emotion than out of logic. Even IF the budget sequester hadn't happened, and the plane was re-winged to last until 2028, it would STILL be retired then due to age and metal fatigue. And at that time, people would STILL be b****ing and moaning and blaming the Air Force for it.

Also, ask yourself this question: If the USAF was the USAAC, as in WWII, with equal emphasis on helping the ground troops advance and destroy the enemy as other missions, would they still want to decom the A-10?

The problem here is the budget, combined with the USAF mentality.

Let's talk budget first: The USAF is scraping for every dollar it can to bring the JSF into service in large numbers. I get that, but 1 JSF probably costs as much as 10 A-10s, but aside from that, we already have the A-10s! We don't have to buy any more. It is not like A-10 procurement is competing with JSF dollars. But the USAF is so enamored with the JSF that it is willing to eliminate the entire A-10 program just to get a few more bucks for the F-35.

USAF mentality: They quite frankly, are a very "people oriented" service. What I mean by that is they want to do everything in their power to minimize their losses of aircraft and personnel. They took it in the shorts in Vietnam, more than any other service operating TACAIR, when they attempted to utilize tactical aircraft in a high threat SAM environment. Decades of research since have gone into developing aircraft, weapons, tactics and doctrine to support SEAD and minimize risk. Although they will not admit it, institutionally, they are risk averse as a result of that experience. They are just not at all comfortable and exposing aircraft and crews to the same level of threat that the ground forces take for granted. Flying an aircraft down in the weeds with the helos and grunts is not something they want to do, which is why they have developed all of these high altitude tactics, then dismiss the A-10 by saying, "Well, an F-16 can do this just as well, Why do we need A-10s?"

NAVAIR may have a similar mentality, but just not to nearly the same degree of pusillanimity, which is why the USMC has its own tactical aviation with crews trained in USMC mission mentality. The Army does not have that luxury. The Army is people oriented too, but in a different way. They realize the nature of their mission will result in losses, so direct support in the field is critical.

So I say properly fund and fly the A-10. If the USAF is too scared to fly them, then give them to the Army, along with the money to operate them. The Army would take them in a heartbeat. Just ask them. If the Army does not want them, then maybe it is time to look at retirement of the airframe.

I was going to say something here, but then I remembered that you thought the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII was a good thing too. So instead, I think that this is the best reply:

tumblr_m9jvp5wPi91rf7kk4o1_400.gif

I'm sorry to say it, And I know this is going to sound harsh. But the army won't risk its helicopters either. There was big controversy a few years back when the Army refused to send a MEDEVAC helo to get a troop out because there was no escort and they didn't want to risk 5 men and helicopter to save one, so he bleed out and died. The same thing happened in blackhawk down which was an almost entirely all army operation....

The USAF is cowardly? you know before the A-10 they were doing it in A-37s and SPADs. Guts is not the problem, never has been. thats like saying the the Army is risk averse because it prefers an Abrams tank, and not a AT humvee for tank battles.

Which is ironic considering that the Army bought C-23s with money provided by Congress to increase troop levels (i.e. "boots on the ground") because they convinced themselves the USAF C-130 crews were too cowardly to fly into hot spots. Khe Sanh ring bells for anyone?

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...