Jump to content

Any decision on the A-10 retirement yet?


Recommended Posts

The ground war in GW1 was so short partly due to the A-10.

Just sayin' ...

-Gregg

The A-10 contributed no more or less than many other platforms used (and suffered higher than average losses against a pretty primitive foe in the first part of the war). Also, once the Iraqi's torched the oil wells, the A-10 contribution lessened further due to poor visibility.

One could make a better argument that (in this one particular conflict), the ground war was so short due to massive numbers of Army M1's and Bradleys, with equally large numbers of artillery/MLRS and Apaches providing supporting fires / overwatch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ground war in GW1 was so short partly due to the A-10.

Just sayin' ...

-Gregg

For your sake, I hope you're just trying to be funny.

Because if you were being serious, I'd have to point out that the Ground War was so short because the air campaign of 37 days HAMMERED the Iraqi army, their infrastructure, their command and control, and effectively eliminated the ability of the Iraqi military to fight a synchronized, coordinated defense. There were pockets of strong resistance, but nothing close to the unified defense which would've occurred if the air campaign hadn't happened. The A-10 had a role...but not big enough to claim the ground was was so short solely due to the A-10. That's ludicrous. Among other things, it was the B-52 flying high-level runs that sent the Republican Guard infantry and armored units into the next world.

Unlike Hydra, once the head was cut off of the Iraqi army, 2 more did not take its place. Those units that were not outright destroyed by the air campaign were severely depleted, cut off from logistics chains and higher headquarters, and severely demoralized (by things like B-52 carpet bombing, for example). Again, there were a few minor exceptions where tough, holed up units were smashed by overwhelming M1/Bradley attacks, but most of the major resistance had withered under the sustained air campaign offensive.

That's what made it so easy for Coalition Ground Forces to roll across the desert like they were participating in the Dakar Rally.

AFPGetty-516561567-760x487.jpg

Imagine this, but with a 120mm fear-cannon.

Hell, the A-10s most famous anecdote from GW1 was the "highway of death" which had nothing to do with the ground campaign....that was Iraqis trying to flee who got caught with their pants down by the A-10s, B-52s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados and everyone else carrying a bomb under their wing within range who piled onto that. It was like clubbing baby seals.

seal-clubbing-image-2-224556181.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony really needs to learn reading comprehension ...

Note I never said it was the single reason, please note the word "partly", can you say partly?

I knew you could, now pat yourself on the back, you're good at that ...

All I said was the A-10 played a role in the reason the ground war was short, no more, no less ...

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I said was the A-10 played a role in the reason the ground war was short, no more, no less ...

-Gregg

So the A-10 played somesort of role in the war. So did the Fightin' 5035th Mess Kit Repair Battalion (Airborne) and the pastry chefs at the AF bases the B-52's flew out of.

Point being?

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the A-10 played somesort of role in the war. So did the Fightin' 5035th Mess Kit Repair Battalion (Airborne) and the pastry chefs at the AF bases the B-52's flew out of.

Point being?

God bless those pastry chefs. Their sacrifice brings a tear to my eye every time I think of them.

Child-saluting-American-flag.jpg

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

It's obvious you keep confusing CAS with BAI. BAI stands for Battlefield Air Interdiction. It is performed past the frontlines where troops are in contact and where CAS is performed. BAI is a mission that any aircraft that performs it stands a good chance of bring shot down because it is actually performed within the envelope of an enemy's rear air defenses.

Trap? What's that. I'm guessing Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Meow Personnel? Boy Tomcat you sure know a lot of acronyms. I'm so impressed by you.

You mean 1900 aircraft, not 2400. And they do only carry 2 bombs. Both meow of which are of a type that is usually considered unuseable for CAS. And if it is going to carry more than 2 by using the wing pylons, you are going lose all $800 billion dollars worth of that magical stealth and it will be just as vulnerable as an A-10 in your contested airspace.

Yes, the Marines are going to have to because this project is the Goldmam Sachs of all weapons programs...just too darn big to fail. Everybody's backed themselves into a corner with this great white hope. Yeah it better work for them because it's the only plane in the budget since it has sucked up all of everybody's monies. And it better not develop a crack anywhere because that is going ground the entire air forces of the free world.

All it shows to the rest of us by your reaction to me throwing out a small tidbit of inside info that you won't find on the internet is that you have absolutely no real life experience in anything aviation.

Yes there are some people well placed in Congress who are much better equipped than me for that. Haha.

Edited by Rank11
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious you keep confusing CAS with BAI. BAI stands for Battlefield Air Interdiction. It is performed past the frontlines where troops are in contact and where CAS is performed. BAI is a mission that any aircraft that performs it stands a good chance of bring shot down because it is actually performed within the envelope of an enemy's rear air defenses.

I wasn't aware the A-10 couldn't perform BAI, thats pretty amazing. You see you also said this:

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

Google CAS definition:

first thing that comes up--

close air support

In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.

CAS by definition is Air Support delivered close to friendly forces on the ground. If there are no troops, there can't be CAS. So why did we send A-10s at all if there were no troops and the A-10 can't do strike or BAI? very curious.

You mean 1900 aircraft, not 2400. And they do only carry 2 bombs.

f-35-lightning-ii-weapons-stations.jpg

Both meow of which are of a type that is usually considered unuseable for CAS.

LOL what? you mean the same PGMs that the A-10C employs?

And if it is going to carry more than 2 by using the wing pylons, you are going lose all $800 billion dollars worth of that magical stealth and it will be just as vulnerable as an A-10 in your contested airspace.

I thought we were talking about LIC?

Anyway The F-35 also can exceed 500 knots, is more mobile, has better sensors and avionics to detect threats, and the ability jam along with vastly improved targeting and fire-finding sensors. Its almost like the JSF is decades ahead of an aircraft that was never meant to be very technological in the first place.

Yes, the Marines are going to have to because this project is the Goldmam Sachs of all weapons programs...just too darn big to fail.

The Marines have been the JSFs biggest advocates so please don't try and paint it like they are being "forced" into it.

And they rejected the A-10 well before the JSF concept even existed

Everybody's backed themselves into a corner with this great white hope. Yeah it better work for them because it's the only plane in the budget since it has sucked up all of everybody's monies. And it better not develop a crack anywhere because that is going ground the entire air forces of the free world.

Very logical. You continue to show your vast knowledge. nevermind that the A-10 is being retired because an F-16 can do its job. F-35 or not the A-10 is getting the axe. If you want to keep pursueing the F-35 red herring, you are welcome to, but the entire USAF budget is not an "either or" proposition no matter how much you try to make it so.

All it shows to the rest of us by your reaction to me throwing out a small tidbit of inside info that you won't find on the internet is that you have

I think you are showing people plenty here with every post.

If you are talking about the Vertical dive thing you made up, several people have already shown you that you are full of it. You can't shoot anywhere near accurately using that garbage you made up even in ideal conditions, let alone with MANPADs around.

Inside info? thats priceless thanks for the laugh

absolutely no real life experience in anything aviation.

LOL I'm waiting for you to whip out your DD214. I'm sure whoever is "guiding mr Stark" has plenty of experience as well as Waco and Murph and I know Fulcrum has CAS experience even though hes a Doggie.

So good luck convincing folks. I notice that we tend to fall back on the knowledge we acquired in service and from those we served with, but you guessing and inventing things is probably just as good.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the A-10 played somesort of role in the war. So did the Fightin' 5035th Mess Kit Repair Battalion (Airborne) and the pastry chefs at the AF bases the B-52's flew out of.

Point being?

CSB one of my recruiters was a cook and fought at Al Burquon Oil field when the Iraqis countered and made a run in on the logistics units in 1991.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

^This^

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware the A-10 couldn't perform BAI, thats pretty amazing. You see you also said this:

Google CAS definition:

first thing that comes up--

CAS by definition is Air Support delivered close to friendly forces on the ground. If there are no troops, there can't be CAS. So why did we send A-10s at all if there were no troops and the A-10 can't do strike or BAI? very curious.

f-35-lightning-ii-weapons-stations.jpg

LOL what? you mean the same PGMs that the A-10C employs?

I thought we were talking about LIC?

Anyway The F-35 also can exceed 500 knots, is more mobile, has better sensors and avionics to detect threats, and the ability jam along with vastly improved targeting and fire-finding sensors. Its almost like the JSF is decades ahead of an aircraft that was never meant to be very technological in the first place.

The Marines have been the JSFs biggest advocates so please don't try and paint it like they are being "forced" into it.

Very logical. You continue to show your vast knowledge. nevermind that the A-10 is being retired because an F-16 can do its job. F-35 or not the A-10 is getting the axe. If you want to keep pursueing the F-35 red herring, you are welcome to, but the entire USAF budget is not an "either or" proposition no matter how much you try to make it so.

I think you are showing people plenty here with every post.

If you are talking about the Vertical dive thing you made up, several people have already shown you that you are full of it. You can't shoot anywhere near accurately using that garbage you made up even in ideal conditions, let alone with MANPADs around.

Inside info? thats priceless thanks for the laugh

LOL I'm waiting for you to whip out your DD214. I'm sure whoever is "guiding mr Stark" has plenty of experience as well as Waco and Murph and I know Fulcrum has CAS experience even though hes a Doggie.

So good luck convincing folks. I notice that we tend to fall back on the knowledge we acquired in service and from those we served with, but you guessing and inventing things is probably just as good.

Ok now you're just contradicting yourself. You are the one who first said the A-10 could not be used in Libya. I merely explained why if it wasn't used there, the reason for that.

I thought we were talking about about a lic too. But each time I explain to you why the A-10 is better suited for that, you seem to want to move the focus to the high intensity conflict. Which one would you like to debate? i'll let you decide.

No. In fact, I don't even think the 1000lb jdam is even cleared for the A-10. The one weapon that the F-35 has for CAS is too big to use in that mission. The risk to the troops in contact is too great with that weapon, and if the plane is not carrying an appropriate weapon for the collateral damage assessment, then it is not going to get to drop it. And neither is the SDB viewed as an appropriate weapon for CAS either. So your F-35, which you say is going to replace the A-10, doesn't actually carries any ordnance that is appropriate for CAS.

Yes, the Marines want the F-35 because of the rotating nozzle. They need something, anything, with a rotating nozzle, to replace the AV-8B.

Yeah...you call yourself Tomcat on a model airplane internet forum. And your partner is some guy in love with Robert Downey Jr. You're the only person here taking any of this seriously, thinking there is anything that matters in whether you convince anybody or not. I mean, who the heck in their right minds or has anything productive in life to do, has the time to look up these so called 'fact' after 'fact' and pictures to throw at an internet debate about an airplane. Life is too short to take yourself so seriously.

Edited by Rank11
Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

It'll cost just under $400M to keep the A-10 fleet in the air for the next three years for the USAF. That number will go up if the Army "takes" them because of all the points raised here.

And neither is the SDB viewed as an appropriate weapon for CAS either.

Says who????

Poor weather and battlefield obscurants continue to endanger warfighters as adversaries exploit these conditions to move, safe from coalition air power. This has established the need for an all-weather solution that enhances warfighters’ capabilities when visibility is limited.

Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), a Raytheon Company program for the U.S. Air Force, will provide this capability to the warfighter.

The company’s tri-mode seeker fuses millimeter-wave radar, uncooled IIR and digital semi-active laser sensors on a single gimbal. The result is a powerful, integrated seeker that seamlessly shares targeting information between all three modes, enabling weapons to engage fixed, relocatable or moving targets at any time of day and in adverse weather conditions.

SDB II’s tri-mode seeker can peer through storm clouds or battlefield dust and debris to engage fixed or moving targets, giving the warfighter a capability that’s unaffected by conditions on the ground or in the air.

The warfighter also gains enhanced security with SDB II as it can fly more than 45 miles to strike a mobile target. And, because of SDB II’s small size, fewer aircraft can take out the same number of targets that used to require many jets,each carrying a handful of large weapons. SDB II’s size has broader implications for both the warfighter and taxpayers as it means fewer sorties — and less time spent flying dangerous missions.

Key Attributes

  • Keeps aviators away from many surface-to-air missiles by flying 45 miles to its target
  • Aircrews spend less time in harm’s way because fewer aircraft are required to take out large numbers of targets

Raytheon Company and the U.S. Air Force concluded a series of test flights with the Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) culminating in direct hits on targets moving at operationally representative speeds. SDB II can hit targets from a range of more than 40 nautical miles. It has a powerful warhead capable of destroying armored targets, yet keeps collateral damage to a minimum through a small explosive footprint. It is highly accurate and offers warfighters the flexibility to change targets through a datalink that passes inflight updates to the weapon.

“These successes are the latest in a series of test flights demonstrating Raytheon’s readiness to progress the SDB II program to the System Verification Review and Milestone C,” said John O’Brien, SDB II program director for Raytheon Missile Systems. “These tests showcase the game-changing capability of Raytheon’s tri-mode seeker to detect, track and engage moving targets in adverse weather.”

According to Raytheon, earlier supporting tests were performed in a multitude of different environments and scenarios, key to maturing seeker algorithms and validating the weapon’s aerodynamic performance. “All test flights helped reinforce the system’s capability to satisfy a critical warfighter need.” the announcement said. The Department of Defense has invested more than $700 million in the SDB II program.

And your partner is some guy in love with Robert Downey Jr.

You know what the best part of this whole Disney deal is?

fDI1Seg.jpg

Thinking there is anything that matters in whether you convince anybody or not. I mean, who the heck in their right minds or has anything productive in life to do, has the time to look up these so called 'fact' after 'fact' and pictures to throw at an internet debate about an airplane. Life is too short to take yourself so seriously.

How's that working out for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll cost just under $400M to keep the A-10 fleet in the air for the next three years for the USAF. That number will go up if the Army "takes" them because of all the points raised here.

Says who????

You know what the best part of this whole Disney deal is?

fDI1Seg.jpg

How's that working out for you?

Yeah they only used the SDB once, twice, maybe three times in combat , then no more, for a few reasons that became evident. I thought you two knew everything about CAS.

What, the drawings of those girls? Talk about living in a fantasy world.

I'm amusing myself here. My job leaves me plenty of free time sitting around hotels on the overnights. A pilot, a pool bar, an ipad, and a wifi connection is a dangerous thing i guess.

Edited by Rank11
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amusing myself here. My job leaves me plenty of free time sitting around hotels on the overnights. A pilot, a pool bar, an ipad, and a wifi connection is a dangerous thing i guess.

Are you a stewardess (sorry, flight attendant)? That must be a cool gig.... what airline do you work for?

Hey Don, can you pass the popcorn please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a stewardess (sorry, flight attendant)? That must be a cool gig.... what airline do you work for?

Hey Don, can you pass the popcorn please?

Nope, just a pilot. I could never do what my people in the back do. Way too hard a job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm amusing myself here. My job leaves me plenty of free time sitting around hotels on the overnights. A pilot, a pool bar, an ipad, and a wifi connection is a dangerous thing i guess.

Well, ain't you just cooler than the other side of the pillow? What do you fly? Is it fast? Does it go high? Does it get you chicks?

Hang on, hang on, hang on....let me get my wife in here to read this, so you can drop her panties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ain't you just cooler than the other side of the pillow? What do you fly? Is it fast? Does it go high? Does it get you chicks?

Hang on, hang on, hang on....let me get my wife in here to read this, so you can drop her panties.

No, please don't do that. My wife would kill me if I accepted such an offer. God knows she's suspicious enough of what goes on at the overnights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, since you've basically admitted you're trolling, for the sheer heck of entertaining myself, allow me to refute a few of your statements. (if it's good enough for a bus driver at the bar with an Apple Toy, I figure, what the heck?)

The A-10 can't/doesn't do BAI? Well, crap, I guess somebody better tell them that, so they can take those pages out of their tactics manual. A good half of their "Employment" chapter of AFTTP 3-1.A-10 is dedicated to "Air Interdiction," which they define as occurring in an increased risk environment (air superiority not achieved, dense surface-to-air threats, etc., etc.), where losses are expected, and where the risk level could potentially be high. It goes on to state that the A-10 will require increasingly greater levels of support in executing, and that acceptable loss ratios will need to be determined in accordance with the JTF commander's intent and acceptance of risk. However, it most certainly is a mission for which the A-10 was originally intended, and which the A-10 can execute. CAS is not what the A-10 was originally designed for, it was designed to kill armored vehicles. The entire darn airplane is constructed around a purpose built anti-armor cannon. Yeah, the airplane has attributes that make it well suited to permissive environment CAS. However, given the range-of-military operations and the spectrum of conflict possibilities facing US military planners worldwide, permissive environments are becoming increasingly scarce. Hence the Libya example cited earlier. There was no CAS flown, because we were not supporting any troops on the ground. However, there was plenty of BAI flown in said operation, and the A-10 was kept out of that fight due to it being a less than fully permissive environment. Now I gotta tell ya, if Libya was considered too much of a high risk environment for the A-10, then you're certainly going to see Warthogs on the sidelines for something along the lines of a Syrian or Iranian campaign, let alone a scenario where the Ukraine were to devolve into some kind of full blown NATO combat operations. Is the platform capable of executing BAI? Yes. Do they train for it? Most definitely, in many a RED FLAG, Weapons School ME, RED FLAG-AK, or a slew of other Large Force Employment (LFE) exercises worldwide. In most cases, is the JFACC going to accept the predicted loss rates of tasking A-10s for BAI in those environments? Nope, because fragging them for those missions likely means 1) the mission has got a less than good probability of being completed, and 2) loss rates will simply be too high for sustained operations. So those taskings are going to go to other platforms.

Now let's shift the discussion over to CAS. You've stated that CAS will only be accomplished in a permissive environment, after air superiority has been accomplished. Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of options along the range of military operations where that might not be the case, especially in some "new models" of warfare. For example, sending in small teams of US special operators to assist indigenous forces in their attacks or defense. What if those troops then come under attack which requires air support, but we're in the early phases of conflict, and we don't have battlespace superiority? What then? It's still CAS, even if it's supporting other nations, and we certainly provide CAS to the special operators. Not going to send an A-10 for that job. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, the A-10 is not the only platform flying CAS. CAS is a mission, not a platform. We have plenty of other aircraft that already fly CAS, using a wide range of weapons, in a wide range of scenarios. A-10 CAS missions account for somewhere between 15-20% of the total in two most recent conflicts, and that's for actual taskings. The percentage of ordnance employed is way, way, WAY below that, mostly due to the fact that bomber CAS has employed so much ordnance, and those guys have such a long duration on-station time.

As has been pointed out by others, the "near vertical strafing" is flat out ridiculous. High angle strafe is anything above 20 degrees, with the typical attack profile falling somewhere between 30 and 45 degrees. After all, if you're performing high angle strafe against armored vehicles, you still want the rounds to impact the top of the vehicle where the armor is thinnest to maximize weapons effects. You do, however, need sufficient altitude to recover from the dive angle. And even in high-angle strafe, the slant range achieved is not sufficient to wholly keep you outside of a low altitude SAM/AAA/MANPADS envelope. Certainly not when you account for dive recovery and safe escape maneuvers. I think, feasibly, you could maybe pull off a 60 degree high angle strafe, in the right terrain, with the right cueing, and with the right pilot. It is not something that is routinely practiced...not even close. "Near vertical" is right out.

Yeah they only used the SDB once, twice, maybe three times in combat , then no more, for a few reasons that became evident.

Not accurate, but even so, let's address the SDB. The SDB has not been used very much for CAS in the current scenario, because frankly they haven't needed it. The SDB was primarily designed for standoff range, in a non-permissive environment. It is very well suited to a CAS scenario due to its small size, very high accuracy, and very low CDE. However, since operations in Afghanistan have not required standoff, why use them? Additionally, the weapon is still quite new, and there are not very many of them in the WRM stockpiles, so it's not something you're going to hang on the jets if you aren't using it much. That's it. That's the ONLY reason we haven't used many SDBs. Everything else is purely anecdotal.

It's already been spelled out for you, but I'll repeat it here and see if maybe this makes more sense.

-- The A-10 cannot be employed in a high-threat, non-permissive environment presented by hostile actors employing an A2/AD strategy with high end equipment to back it up. It won't accomplish its mission, and the aircraft would be lost.

-- The A-10 can be employed in a medium-threat, semi-permissive environment where a mix of low-to-medium and limited high tech SAMs, aircraft, or AAA is present. It usually is not, because the JTF Commander is unwilling to accept losses.

-- The A-10 can be employed in a low-threat, permissive environment. In fact, it excels where there is no air threat, limited lower tech MANPADS, and no SAMs or AAA. However, even in this environment, new technology means the A-10 is typically employed not in its "traditional" employment scheme, but using the same medium altitude tactics to deliver precision guided munitions from higher altitudes and standoff ranges. Ergo, the A-10C, which brought the A-10 up to the same capabilities as the rest of the fighter force (from any service).

Given the above, and the fact that the USAF cannot currently afford to keep aircraft fleets tailored for both high-threat and permissive environments, the USAF has made the difficult budgetary decision to retire the A-10. The CAS mission will still be a core competency for the USAF, and those missions will be completed by other aircraft. Those other aircraft will remain capable of accomplishing the remainder of their missions across the full spectrum of conflict and in support of the full range of military operations.

Edited by Waco
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps there's a middle way... Boneyard most of the fleet in flyable storage, but maintain a small group for "core competency maintenance" and a cadre so that in case it becomes necessary to reconstitute the capability it can still be done. And I have all kinds of ideas about paying for it...

1. Defund the 89th Airlift Wing, cut the VC-25s up for scrap. Congress, the President/VP and the other Very Important P***ks either pay their own freight on commercial, or fly AMC Trash Hauler through Scott like any A1C.

2. Do we really need NINE HUNDRED generals and admirals? The AF alone has been seeing noticeable growth in its flag-officer ranks over the past decade.

3. How many cases do we have where we've got an officer of much higher rank doing work more suitable to an officer of lower rank? Seems to me we could virtually do away with the four-star rank entirely, make it for service chiefs (5, including USCG), major theater commands (6) and the key niche functions of Strategic Command, SOCOM and Transportation Command (3) only. Cutting from 39 (13 Army, 4 USMC, 10 USN, 11 USAF, 1 USCG) to 14 (Commandant of USMC, CNO, AF and Army Chiefs of Staff, head of USCG, six major theaters, STRATCOM, SOCOM and USTC) is almost a TWO-THIRDS cut. I'm not talking summary cashiering, I'd let those on finish their postings and retire, but just move those offices down to three-star billets when current holder's tenure expires. Keeping a level playing field, I'd have the heads of those nine major commands only get 4-star rank and bennies for the duration of their assignment, at end of which they'd have a choice of retire at 4 or go back to 3 and continue in service--thus we wouldn't give them an unfair advantage in competing for those cushy REMF Joint Chiefs positions... From there, how many three-stars do we need? How many of those jobs can be devolved to two-stars, and so on and so forth? I mean, yes, we're going to hit a limit on how much responsibility can be devolved, but if we can collapse some of the Upper and Middle Management that'll be a BIG help. And for every flyer in USAF having to be an officer... we had a LOT of NCO's flying Mustangs and Thunderbolts in WWII--has flying really changed THAT much, or is this more status-symboling?

How many DoD Civilian positions do we have that could be transferred to soldiers no longer fit for combat? Rather than cut them loose and dump them to VA, it seems to me that using Civil Service as an adjunct to fill in any shortfalls and delegating those clerk, IT, etc positions to those who can no longer operate in the field but still want to serve could both help with budget AND give those disabled vets not only a new career but at the same time the dignity of knowing they still serve alongside their brother and sister warfighters, just in a new role...

And then we get to the BIG cut by downsizing four-stars: not their salaries, but the maintenance/ops costs of their assigned individual jets. For 2014, a 4-star MINIMUM is $192864/year, while a 3-star minimums at $168,684, both at 20 years of service. The max, at 38 years, is $237,156 and $209,244 respectively. Let's call an average 4-star 30 years of service... which brings our typical salary to $215,100. A 3-star at same time-in-service is making $189,792, a difference of $25,308. Chump change on a governmental scale; only about my aunt's entire annual salary as a paraeducator with 30 years experience. Or, for each two four-stars we downsize to threes, we can afford the salaries of THREE new E-1 enlistees...

BUT... when we multiply that by 25 former four-star offices reduced to three-star offices, we save the taxpayers $632,700. Still not "Real Money" by government standards... When you add it to the downsizing of twenty-five executive jets on round-the-clock alert, each of which cost $37 million to buy and an amount I'm not sure of to operate per year. If we can downsize 25 Gulfstreams, we trim not just that annual operating cost, but we can also sell them onto the civilian sector--G-IIIs and G-IVs hold their value extremely well even well-preowned so each of those planes could be an easy recovery of 20-30 mil. We're talking potentially three-quarters of a BILLION (yes, with a B!) dollars in recovery on aircraft sales alone, and now THAT's talking real money I'd say!

4. Surplus aircraft policies could use rework. How many aircraft in the Boneyard are types also on the civilian market that could be reconditioned and sold flyaway? But Pentagon policy is generally "once it checks in, it only checks out as razor blades unless transferred to a .GOV customer," so... our tax dollars up in smoke YET AGAIN!

Sorry, this a tangent, but trying to look for fat to cut while keeping teeth is one of those things I do as a sometime policy wonk... and the PRC ain't gonna keep buying our debt forever. Someday, the party's gonna be over and SOMEONE's getting stuck with the check unless we start doing SOMETHING soon... and not the DC Standard "Faux Cutting" of going from a 3% growth to a 2% growth.

Edited by Diamondback Six
Link to post
Share on other sites

For your sake, I hope you're just trying to be funny.

Because if you were being serious, I'd have to point out that the Ground War was so short because the air campaign of 37 days HAMMERED the Iraqi army, their infrastructure, their command and control, and effectively eliminated the ability of the Iraqi military to fight a synchronized, coordinated defense. There were pockets of strong resistance, but nothing close to the unified defense which would've occurred if the air campaign hadn't happened. The A-10 had a role...but not big enough to claim the ground was was so short solely due to the A-10. That's ludicrous. Among other things, it was the B-52 flying high-level runs that sent the Republican Guard infantry and armored units into the next world.

Unlike Hydra, once the head was cut off of the Iraqi army, 2 more did not take its place. Those units that were not outright destroyed by the air campaign were severely depleted, cut off from logistics chains and higher headquarters, and severely demoralized (by things like B-52 carpet bombing, for example). Again, there were a few minor exceptions where tough, holed up units were smashed by overwhelming M1/Bradley attacks, but most of the major resistance had withered under the sustained air campaign offensive.

That's what made it so easy for Coalition Ground Forces to roll across the desert like they were participating in the Dakar Rally.

AFPGetty-516561567-760x487.jpg

Imagine this, but with a 120mm fear-cannon.

Hell, the A-10s most famous anecdote from GW1 was the "highway of death" which had nothing to do with the ground campaign....that was Iraqis trying to flee who got caught with their pants down by the A-10s, B-52s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados and everyone else carrying a bomb under their wing within range who piled onto that. It was like clubbing baby seals.

Hey, hey, hey mad.gif ! !

You didn't mention the super awesomeness of the F-111's and their bunker-busting devastation!

Most of the 'famous' film footage of precision-guided bombings from GWI was courtesy of the Laser 'Varks.

This makes me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

:WhitetextLOL!!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-10 contributed no more or less than many other platforms used (and suffered higher than average losses against a pretty primitive foe in the first part of the war). Also, once the Iraqi's torched the oil wells, the A-10 contribution lessened further due to poor visibility.

One could make a better argument that (in this one particular conflict), the ground war was so short due to massive numbers of Army M1's and Bradleys, with equally large numbers of artillery/MLRS and Apaches providing supporting fires / overwatch.

I have a different take on GWI in regards to the time it actually took.

With history of said GWI being more available years later, I'm of the opinion that the ground war took longer due to ground commanders deliberately pacing the armored divisions that took on the Iraqi Republican Guards; for example.

From what I understand, tanks crews making the push North could have arrived as much as 10+HRS sooner had they been able to push at the speeds they were capable of.

Now; I say this both in sarcasm and in seriousness. We rave that it took just 100HRS to complete while I say it took 'too long'<--sarcasm.

I always wondered if the ground commanders were to simply totally unleash our dogs of war, could it have been completed in less than 90HRS? Maybe even 80HRS.

But I'm sure said ground commanders had strategic reasons for pacing them.

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...