Steven H. McLain Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think they should restart the A-10 production line. This is the reason why. I was watching the history channel about a group of special forces being sent to observe and report behind enemy lines. Well they got surrounded and the USAF sent in F-16s to assist them. Not one F-16 flew lower then 30,000 feet, they could not see the good guys or bad guys. And they made no attempt to go lower. You can not conduct CAS from 30,000 feet even with fancy smart bombs. You need an aircraft that can go low and slow to see and do the job. This is not a dig on the F-16 or the pilots involved. You just need different aircraft to do the job correctly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deke Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think they should restart the A-10 production line. I agree they should restart the line and replace every aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Army inventory with the A-10. Deke Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I agree they should restart the line and replace every aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Army inventory with the A-10. Deke Let's replace the Navy's carrier and sub fleets with A-10s while we're at it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think they should restart the A-10 production line. This is the reason why. I was watching the history channel about a group of special forces being sent to observe and report behind enemy lines. Well they got surrounded and the USAF sent in F-16s to assist them. Not one F-16 flew lower then 30,000 feet, they could not see the good guys or bad guys. And they made no attempt to go lower. You can not conduct CAS from 30,000 feet even with fancy smart bombs. You need an aircraft that can go low and slow to see and do the job. This is not a dig on the F-16 or the pilots involved. You just need different aircraft to do the job correctly. I think that was in 1991 if its the same special I'm thinking of. And yes you can conduct CAS from 30,000 feet with fancy smart bombs. Nothing is lower and slower than a helicopter BTW, an A-10 isn't what you want if thats the case. The other aspect to consider is we have electronic optical sensors that can make out details from miles above, even at night. I agree they should restart the line and replace every aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Army inventory with the A-10. Deke Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 You can't conduct CAS with fancy smart bombs?!?! Better tell Teh Navy and Teh Marines! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rustywelder Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 According to the latest issue of Combat Aircraft, the flying branch predicted that, if the A-10s went into action, seven percent of the jets would be lost per 100 sorties. Since each pilot was expected to fly at most four missions per day, each base would in theory generate more than 250 sorties daily. At this pace, a seven-percent loss rate per 100 flights equaled at least 10 A-10s shot down at each FOL every 24 hours — and that’s being conservative.At that rate, in less than two weeks the entire A-10 force at the time — around 700 jets — would have been destroyed and the pilots killed, injured, captured or, at the very least, very shook up. That is at least a wee bit slower than what David Morgan says the RAF Germany's Harrier force was expected to suffer if the balloon ever went up. IIRC in the intro to "Hostile Skies" he had the projected Harrier force losses at something like 30% per day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 That is at least a wee bit slower than what David Morgan says the RAF Germany's Harrier force was expected to suffer if the balloon ever went up. IIRC in the intro to "Hostile Skies" he had the projected Harrier force losses at something like 30% per day. Right, but Ive never heard anyone promote a Harrier as a ZOMG one of a kind invincable and irreplacable grunt survival machine Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rustywelder Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I agree, just something that popped into my head when I read that quote. Maybe the A-10 fanboys can at least point and say, look,!you need us see how quick this other CAS platform would be wiped out! I'm really not in any position to say one way or another about the hog, I'm just an aviation fan. Never was in the military in any capacity, but i do find it strange how personalized this issue has become in the threads that pop up about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 And yes you can conduct CAS from 30,000 feet with fancy smart bombs. How? The other aspect to consider is we have electronic optical sensors that can make out details from miles above, even at night. I hope the weather's clear! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) but i do find it strange how personalized this issue has become in the threads that pop up about it. It was the same deal nine years ago during Tomcat Sunset. One fanboy even went so far as to claim the F-14 was responsible for the fall of the USSR. Edited February 22, 2015 by Trigger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Never was in the military in any capacity, but i do find it strange how personalized this issue has become in the threads that pop up about it. That's alright, most folks who are in the service have little to no idea about the subject either. The roots to this problem run pretty deep and goes beyond platform or service. It's a separation between DC/Pentagon staffers and those in the current fight. Now the historic narrative of the AF not wanting to conduct CAS is pretty well known, but what might not be as well known is their reluctance to support dedicated ISR platforms, and just yesterday this: http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/guard-reserve/2015/02/20/pope-field-440th-airlift-wing-inactivation/23702953/ . Kind of makes one wonder sometimes.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 How? http://www.stripes.com/news/old-warrior-b-52-gets-call-in-afghanistan-1.37749 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) http://www.stripes.com/news/old-warrior-b-52-gets-call-in-afghanistan-1.37749 Nice try, but BAI ain't CAS even though they count it as such. Now the -52 has done CAS pretty high, but that's whole different story and one in which it hasn't done again. Edited February 22, 2015 by fulcrum1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think they should restart the A-10 production line. This is the reason why. I was watching the history channel about a group of special forces being sent to observe and report behind enemy lines. Well they got surrounded and the USAF sent in F-16s to assist them. Not one F-16 flew lower then 30,000 feet, they could not see the good guys or bad guys. And they made no attempt to go lower. You can not conduct CAS from 30,000 feet even with fancy smart bombs. You need an aircraft that can go low and slow to see and do the job. This is not a dig on the F-16 or the pilots involved. You just need different aircraft to do the job correctly. I wouldn't believe everything you see on the history channel. Unless there is a critical situation (US troops about to be overrun), I don't think we go "low and slow" very much anymore. Certainly not going to do it against an adversary that has even a basic air defense capability. After we lose some low and slow aircraft to MANPADS, watch how quickly we would revert to higher altitude tactics. To some extent, we've been "spoiled" by the last two wars in that the bad guys have had next to nothing for air defense and the Hog has prospered. Send the Hog over to the Ukraine to help out, report back on how things work out.... The Su-25 is the Russian equivalent of the A-10, you know - heavily armored, slow, big internal gun. Ukrainian Su-25's took significant losses from rebel (or Russian, pretty much the same) MANPAD's and from what I have read, is pretty much out of the fight these days. Do you really think the A-10 would fare any differently? Lastly, the A-1 could go lower and slower than any A-10. If we are talking about restarting production lines, let's get the SPAD back in the air! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 To some extent, we've been "spoiled" by the last two wars in that the bad guys have had next to nothing for air defense and the Hog has prospered. Send the Hog over to the Ukraine to help out, report back on how things work out.... The Su-25 is the Russian equivalent of the A-10, you know - heavily armored, slow, big internal gun. Ukrainian Su-25's took significant losses from rebel (or Russian, pretty much the same) MANPAD's and from what I have read, is pretty much out of the fight these days. Do you really think the A-10 would fare any differently? Exactly. And if we’re dealing with an enemy in uncontested airspace, then what do we need such a heavily armored aircraft for? For a guy with an AK, an A-10 is expensive overkill in itself. Why not retire the A-10 now and divert those funds to something that’s truly suited for a low-threat COIN environment like the A-29 or OV-10X?* Either of those platforms takes care of the CSAR escort requirement as well. The cost argument goes completely out the window when you start talking about the millions every year it takes to maintain a fleet of aircraft in order to "save money" to kill a guy in a Toyota Hilux with an AK, especially when we have so many other assets to do it with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Nice try, but BAI ain't CAS even though they count it as such. Now the -52 has done CAS pretty high, but that's whole different story and one in which it hasn't done again. But it has been done, and I think even the biggest A-10 fan out there would admit that PGMs, ROVER, pods, improved Comm, and other tech has changed things a tad. not in every single case no, but big picture? hell yes. If they hadn't we wouldn't bother deploying anything but A-10s and even you admitted the MIGHTY F-14 TOMCAT was a great CAS platform. I assume thats not because it was flying at tree top level, picking and discerning targets to kill with Snake Eyes? So what changed? What made a fleet defender become a great CAS platform? the other aspect that I don't really appreciate is the idea that its the "A-10 or nothing," it short changes a lot of folks who have never had a problem helping the people on the ground. Big picture, the A-10 may be the worlds greatest fix winged CAS machine ever ever, but the question of if a fixed wing airplane is the best answer is still important. You can't win wars like the ones the A-10 is being promoted for with airplanes. Its that simple. If that was the case I would say we need to start producing more and send them out there ASAP. send 1,000 A-10s if it means winning the war, or defeating ISIS. If we are going to keep the A-10 as this amazing unparalleled war winner I'm all for it. ISIS was bombed for weeks before the A-10s showed up, and it will be bombed after the whole 12 of them leave. And If you want to explain the key difference they made that justified keeping them longer, I'll be at the bar. Frogfoot and A-10 at Bagram, Afghanistan Edited February 22, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 But it has been done, and I think even the biggest A-10 fan out there would admit that PGMs, ROVER, pods, improved Comm, and other tech has changed things a tad. not in every single case no, but big picture? hell yes. If they hadn't we wouldn't bother deploying anything but A-10s and even you admitted the MIGHTY F-14 TOMCAT was a great CAS platform. The drive behind why the ROVER was developed was because of the Buff conducting missions it was ill suited to do. FWIW, our jfo's called those specific missions arclight. Technology has changed the way we do business, I don't think anyone is arguing that. However, what your definition of "capable" is will be different than mine and what the DC GO's think is "capable" is different than the Combatant GO's. I said the tomcat was good at CAS? I don't remember, but yes, it did a hell of job. For quite a few folks early on in OEF most of their XCAS support came from the tomcats along with ISR, FAC, etc. I'm not sure of the sensor pod used but at the time when missiles were used you often had a tomcat doing the guiding, same thing in OIF. What set the tomcat teams apart from many others at the time was the training being conducted in Kuwait prior. They understood maneuver elements and the JFO's, ALO's, and GFC's understood their capabilities. By now you'd think this would be commonplace, but outside of Hawgs and Gunships this sort of training rarely happens. I assume thats not because it was flying at tree top level, picking and discerning targets to kill with Snake Eyes? Not a tree top level, but below cloud cover and lower than most. the other aspect that I don't really appreciate is the idea that its the "A-10 or nothing," it short changes a lot of folks who have never had a problem helping the people on the ground. I personally don't know that idea. I do know, that the best platform to conduct CAS is the A-10 and within a certain distance it and its gun is the only option. Big picture, the A-10 may be the worlds greatest fix winged CAS machine ever ever, but the question of if a fixed wing airplane is the best answer is still important. You can't win wars like the ones the A-10 is being promoted for with airplanes. Its that simple. If that was the case I would say we need to start producing more and send them out there ASAP. send 1,000 A-10s if it means winning the war, or defeating ISIS. If we are going to keep the A-10 as this amazing unparalleled war winner I'm all for it. ISIS was bombed for weeks before the A-10s showed up, and it will be bombed after the whole 12 of them leave. And If you want to explain the key difference they made that justified keeping them longer, I'll be at the bar. The A-10 is being promoted as a means to win a war? I watch and read the news....never heard of such a thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I said the tomcat was good at CAS? I don't remember, but yes, it did a hell of job. What set the tomcat teams apart from many others at the time was the training being conducted in Kuwait prior. They understood maneuver elements and the JFO's, ALO's, and GFC's understood their capabilities. By now you'd think this would be commonplace, but outside of Hawgs and Gunships this sort of training rarely happens. Based on the above, it sounds like it's the training that makes a platform truly CAS friendly. Do you not think that if F-15E/F-16 pilots had the benefit of the same training, that they would be able to do a hell of a job at CAS? After all, the beloved Tom (God rest her aluminum soul), isn't heavily armored, has the same 20mm gun that the other fast jets have and certainly isn't a particularly low 'n slow platform. All these things considered, you still state that it did a hell of a job at CAS. To me, that is the key. It appears that the Navy didn't need a specialized one-role aircraft to perform CAS. After spending a few hours dropping warheads on foreheads, the beloved Tom (God rest her aluminum soul), could then blaze into the stratosphere and sweep the skies clean of all those pesky Mig's and Flankers. That is truly a wonderful concept. An aircraft that can perform TWO completely different missions, equally well. That is also the primary reason (in my humble opinion), why the Hog will probably end up getting chopped. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 ...the beloved Tom (God rest her aluminum soul)... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Nice video - but I thought we were going to see the part about how the A-10 was just like the "holy hand-grenade" - a truly perfect weapon! Just remember: the number of the counting is three... and five is right out! ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Nice video - but I thought we were going to see the part about how the A-10 was just like the "holy hand-grenade" - a truly perfect weapon! Just remember: the number of the counting is three... and five is right out! ALF Both the Beloved Tom and the Hog are both referenced in the Book of Armaments. The A-10 is spoken of in Chapter 2, verses 9-21. The Beloved Tom is spoken of in Chapter 1, verses 4-16. The Mighty Tweet® is spoken of only in Revelations 6:8 And as I looked, and behold, a pale jet! The pilot who sat within was Death, and Hell followed with him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sound and with vomit Edited February 26, 2015 by Trigger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 The A-10 is being promoted as a means to win a war? I watch and read the news....never heard of such a thing. I am envious of your ability to avoid the kind of internets comments I'm seeing about the greatest warplane ever designed by Zeus and Athena and flown by Hercules, single handedly winning the war on terror if only those stuff shirted careerist peacocks we call "the air force" would let it, proving them fools and exposing their arrogance and pride. Post25 Feb 2015 07:46 But..but.. but the infantry absolutely luv the A-10.... :D http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/0 ... force.html Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force The U.S. Army has no interest in taking over the Air Force's fleet of A-10 attack planes, even if it would save the venerable Cold War-era aircraft from the bone yard. The service's top civilian, Army Secretary John McHugh, rejected the idea of accepting hand-me-down A-10 Warthogs from the Air Force. "No chance," he said during a breakfast meeting with reporters on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. "That's not even been a topic of casual conversation." "With our own aircraft fleet we're taking some pretty dramatic steps to reconfigure and become more affordable, and the A-10 mission is not something we considered. That's an Air Force mission as it should be and I'm sure the Air Force feels the same way," McHugh said. http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html Army clearly hates ground troops/CAS Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 The Mighty :worship:/> Tweet® is spoken of only in Revelations 6:8 And as I looked, and behold, a pale jet! The pilot who sat within was Death, and Hell followed with him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sound and with vomit When I was stationed in San Antonio I lived under the Tweet pattern for Randolph. Not certain how well it could do CAS (in the AT-37 form), but for converting jet fuel to noise it was unsurpassed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 When I was stationed in San Antonio I lived under the Tweet pattern for Randolph. Not certain how well it could do CAS (in the AT-37 form), but for converting jet fuel to noise it was unsurpassed. Dat whistle though... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Edited February 27, 2015 by Trigger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.