F-15E pilot recommended A-10 for this fight

[leafer]

It's from save the a-10s facebook page. The video you're looking for is the 48 seconds long vid with NVG green glow thumbnail of A-10C pit. Enjoy!

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=vb.452716798160132&type=2

 

This is a radio call between an F-15 E pilot and HQ. The F-15 was asked to provide Close Air Support (CAS) but was unable to do so because he could not distinguish enemy troops from friendly troops. The pilot recommends a “Bone” (B-1) to fly-over as a show of force only to avoid friendly-fire casualties.

 

Understand what your are listening to--there are troops on the ground waiting for CAS and it cannot be immediately provided because the battlefield situation is too complex for a fast-moving jet. If you could hear the TACP on the radio from the ground talking to the planes here I'm sure most of it would have to be bleeped out. This is exactly why the A-10 was designed and retiring it without a replacement means this will happen more and more. Troops involved in a firefight can't wait minutes or hours until things "clear up"--that can be the difference between life and death. Nothing has changed about battlefield situations like this to suddenly make the A-10 "obsolete," only our priorities.

 

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Air/Land. We have gotten word that he is still undecided on this important issue. PLEASE contact his office immediately and help us persuade him to keep this plane and save lives!

[winz]

What makes you think A-10 would not have the same problem? I mean, you have a 2 crew plane where the only job of the WSO is to look through the targeting pod and make sense of the situation.

Why would an A-10, flying above 15000ft (or any deck specified by the ROE) not face the same problem?

[Kenan]

^^Every bit of advantage in a real life war situation is very important. A10 is slower and can loiter around the target area for a very long time AND it can afford to fly at lower altitudes because it can take more damage then your average fast jet (in this case F-15E) and therefore, its pilot can have a better insight into battlefield i.e. determine friends from foes.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Kenan

[PFunk1606688187]

What makes you think A-10 would not have the same problem? I mean, you have a 2 crew plane where the only job of the WSO is to look through the targeting pod and make sense of the situation.

Why would an A-10, flying above 15000ft (or any deck specified by the ROE) not face the same problem?

 

He said "fast moving jet" which is a pretty good clue. Should also check out that 15 minute TED talk video where an A-10 pilot describes his job through the events he participated in in 2002 and 2003. It was really good. It really epitomizes the attitude of the A-10 pilot as I understand it. He describes going below a cloud deck only 1000 feet above the ground in a valley where he has to make high G turns to break off gun runs. He describes doing this over and over and over, then as the forces break contact he says "then we gave support for another 45 minutes".

 

I think loiter time alone allows the A-10 pilot to develop a clear picture of the situation then exploit and constantly refresh his situational awareness while delivering more ordnance than any other aircraft. A fast mover would be going so fast he'd have a hard time seeing stuff sometimes, then he'd be off station tout suite.

 

Going slow isn't all bad.

Edited April 14, 2014 by P*Funk

[ENO]

What makes you think A-10 would not have the same problem? I mean, you have a 2 crew plane where the only job of the WSO is to look through the targeting pod and make sense of the situation.

Why would an A-10, flying above 15000ft (or any deck specified by the ROE) not face the same problem?

 

I think part of the benefits of the A-10 community is that CAS is 90% of what they train to do and has been their bread and butter for decades. While Eagles are a formidable CAS aircraft- from my interpretation of what I've been reading- they are best employed when delegated tasks by trained / experienced AFACs (ie: A-10)... It's not that E pilots / WSOs aren't able to do the task as much as that it isn't their focus and though some may excel at it I think you get my meaning.

 

The A-10 pilot would be fluent in the language coming from the JTAC and would likely be better able to understand what was being requested from the chaos.

 

A Hog can turn a tighter orbit with less G and with more station time has a better opportunity to enhance his (or her I guess) SA...

 

Then again you have a valid point- I imagine at some point the scene gets so confusing that nobody can go in and sort it out...

[Exorcet]

I don't see why the A-10 is the only solution. It might be better than the F-15E in this case, but that doesn't mean a fast fighter with different equipment couldn't do the job.

 

^^Every bit of advantage in a real life war situation is very important. A10 is slower and can loiter around the target area for a very long time AND it can afford to fly at lower altitudes because it can take more damage then your average fast jet (in this case F-15E) and therefore, its pilot can have a better insight into battlefield i.e. determine friends from foes.

 

Even in the A-10, you don't want to fly directly into AAA or something. It may be tougher, but it would be pretty stupid to just hover in enemy sights.

[mvsgas]

I don't see why the A-10 is the only solution. It might be better than the F-15E in this case, but that doesn't mean a fast fighter with different equipment couldn't do the job.

Even in the A-10, you don't want to fly directly into AAA or something. It may be tougher, but it would be pretty stupid to just hover in enemy sights.

 

What equipment? A-10 is not the only solution: AC-130, Attack helicopters, etc. But fast jets (F-15, 16, 18 ) some times are not the best for a CAS situation or a battle assessment, recon and other missions. The problems is we can afford it. Money is the biggest problem.

Edited April 14, 2014 by mvsgas

[Exorcet]

What equipment? A-10 is not the only solution: AC-130, Attack helicopters, etc. But fast jets (F-15, 16, 18 ) some times are not the best for a CAS situation or a battle assessment, recon and other missions. The problems is we can afford it. Money is the biggest problem.

Potentially, many types of equipment. One potential example is the F-35's sensor package. You provided some other examples.

 

The A-10 isn't a bad plane, and there are things it does better than anything else available, but that doesn't make it the best possible solution. The USAF would benefit from keeping the A-10 in service (ignoring budget issues), but at the same time you don't necessarily need an A-10 to get A-10 like capabilities.

 

My point isn't to say that the US should drop the A-10 as soon as possible, but that getting rid of the A-10 doesn't mean there will be a permanent hole in airforce capability.

[mvsgas]

Potentially, many types of equipment. One potential example is the F-35's sensor package. You provided some other examples.

 

The A-10 isn't a bad plane, and there are things it does better than anything else available, but that doesn't make it the best possible solution. The USAF would benefit from keeping the A-10 in service (ignoring budget issues), but at the same time you don't necessarily need an A-10 to get A-10 like capabilities.

 

My point isn't to say that the US should drop the A-10 as soon as possible, but that getting rid of the A-10 doesn't mean there will be a permanent hole in airforce capability.

 

The F-35 sensor package, as I understand it, still would not help in that situation. Is a matter of not only finding the target, but also of delivery the weapons. If the USAF looses the A-10, AFAIK, it does have a hole in missions. The US military other branches can cover it with attack helicopters, but USAF would not have a substituted for the A-10.

 

Does it matter? I have no idea. One of the many questions USAF and other branches of the military have to deal with. Do they prepare for the future war that might never happen? Do they prepare for small conflicts? What do the personnel train for when even training time is limited?

 

Anyway, in relation to the video, yes, any military has some mission that fast jets can not do well.

Other points:

Do we need the A-10? I think so but can we afford it?

Can other aircraft do the same? To a point yes?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It's from save the a-10s facebook page. The video you're looking for is the 48 seconds long vid with NVG green glow thumbnail of A-10C pit. Enjoy!

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=vb.452716798160132&type=2

Who was the enemy here? Taliban? Was this from Afghanistan theater?

[Scrim]

Is the A-10 the magical solution to everything CAS? No, but definitely a big part, and owing to the A-10 being dedicated solely to CAS, which is the most immediate way of helping the ground effort, it can't be replaced by something that is only in part built for CAS, without leaving a large vacuum in the CAS capability.

 

However, the USAF that has virtually no troops on the front line does not benefit from CAS, so it's easy to see why many there DGAF about how many infantry, tankers and other front line personnel that will be killed when an A-10, or just any CAS dedicated plane could have prevented it. It's the same old story of 40-50 year old staff officers who actually are so arrogant that they just think "they're cannon fodder, they would've died anyway" if it doesn't contribute to their careers.

[Kenan]

Shades of grey, what if this, what if that..the bottom line is: right now, A10C is the best all around CAS USAF has. Plain and simple. And this is why getting rid of it would be a bad idea.

 

Fast jets can sure provide CAS but they are not and will never be (even the $$$ F35) Warthog.

[UoFluffer]

What makes you think A-10 would not have the same problem? I mean, you have a 2 crew plane where the only job of the WSO is to look through the targeting pod and make sense of the situation.

Why would an A-10, flying above 15000ft (or any deck specified by the ROE) not face the same problem?

 

 

I feel that I need to address this post directly. Because this is precisely the mentality that Air Force leadership has in regards to the A-10C.

 

To reply, I feel that I also need to establish some credentials of my own.

 

I'm a MQ-1 Operator with over 2000 hours of Combat Support time over Afghanistan and Iraq. I have been in the stack with just about every Fighter/Attack/Bomber/UAV in the inventory. I have deployed to country in direct support of these combat operations and I know many of community operators fairly well. While my plane is notoriously associated with high profile strikes. A good majority of my experience comes from direct Close Air Support.

 

Time and time again, I have been called to support Troops In Contact (TIC) situations. And in those times, too many to count. Various assets are usually dedicated to certain AOR's in the country. Generally this is based off of VUL time or distance from the Airbase in which they operate. Another factor is by country that is in charge of the Regional Command.

 

I can say without a doubt, 100% of the time. The A-10C is by far the most effective combat weapons system in the inventory. This is established by it's loiter time, sensor fusion, weapons payload capacity, advanced data link capability and most importantly it's pilots.

 

When you are in the stack, in a ROZ, in a troops in contact situation. Generally the fighters that check on station, are given the luxury that the JTAC knows exactly where the enemy is, if they don't have a fairly precise location, they have a rough area of effects they can lay munitions on. This is generally done by JDAMs or LGB's. This is what the Air Force regards as Close Air Support in the 21st century.

 

This is not the case as I have experienced it first hand. To be involved in a true troops in contact situation. Where you have to spend upwards of 30 minutes to an hour to find enemy combatants. Patience is key, loiter time is precious and experience is king. While multi-role combat aircraft are great because they are the jack of all trades. They truly are the masters of none. However, a single role, attack oriented, multi capable aircraft like the A-10 is precisely the plane that needs to be in a CAS environment. The tactical patience that they demonstrate, the expert knowledge on having an effect on the ground and most importantly the trust that they instill is what makes the plane so great at what it does.

 

The Air Force wants to throw technology at the problem and give more aircraft more equipment to handle more missions. While this may solve some budgetary concerns, it doesn't solve combat effectiveness. With more capability, you have more vulnerability. Put that into a CAS stack and you get an aircraft that can't do the mission as well. It's safe to say that the reason why the A-10 excels in it's mission is because they don't settle for second best.

 

The reason why an F-15E with a back seater smoking a lucky at 30k looking through the targeting pod is less effective than the single seat A-10 is simple. They spend 3 months before a deployment understanding the ROE's, procedures on how to deliver 3-09.3 JCAS in a multinational campaign. The A-10 spends it's whole career dedicated to that mission. While the Mudhen is back home coming up with new ways how to kill an S-300 with that shiny new JSOW. The A-10 is in the weeds, training specifically to support ground forces and nothing else.

Edited April 14, 2014 by UoFluffer

[ironmarc]

I feel it's not really right to compare the F-35 with the F-15E when doing CAS

The F/A-18 and the F-15E are both used in that role, but they are not better than the A-10, of course, but they are also not better than the AV-8B, for example. So would the F-35 behave more like the F-15E or more like the Harrier in the role of CAS?

 

I also don't know exactly to what extent the A-10 would really change much in that scenario... Downlink and Sniper ATP usage are definetely more important to the success of that type of support to ground units than the specific aircraft that is doing this. I mean, at least, I suppose that's how it is.

 

Because something sounds kinda wrong to me, about the whole idea of the A-10 flying around a crowded area trying to spot hostile ground vehicles. Sounds like a basic strategy mistake when deploying aircraft for a ground attack.

But I'm no expert.

 

The A-10 is better for the role and keeping a specialized, battle tested plane, while not having an actual replacement, supposedly is the best COA.

 

However, the overly biased tone of most of those facebook page videos makes me feel a bit uneasy. Maybe it's right, maybe there is some kind of loyalty to the machine and what it represents.

 

Anyway, from the little I have seen about this, the matter of the A-10 retirement without an actual replacement is an ongoing debate among the people with the knowledge and authority to actually make decisions about the subject.

[Scrim]

People aren't disagreeing with replacing the A-10 per se, but with what it will be replaced with; The F-35, a plane that is not designed, or suited for CAS.

 

And it's hard to that the USAF seriously when they say that the A-10 is getting too old, but at the same time insist that there's no problem what-so-ever keeping the B-52 around until it's almost 100 years old.

[NineLine]

People aren't disagreeing with replacing the A-10 per se, but with what it will be replaced with; The F-35, a plane that is not designed, or suited for CAS.

 

And it's hard to that the USAF seriously when they say that the A-10 is getting too old, but at the same time insist that there's no problem what-so-ever keeping the B-52 around until it's almost 100 years old.

 

I am not sure comparing bombers with fighter/attack aircraft is quite a fair comparison though, based on their roles, their lifespan can vary....

[Scrim]

Not completely fair, but considering how long they insist it will be viable to keep the B-52s around, I think a comparison can be made to a certain degree. I mean, almost a hundred years. We've only had military aviation for a bit longer than that now, so it's quite the statement to make.

[NineLine]

Well I dont want to drag the topic too far off topic, but how many B-52s are in active service compared to other fighters as well, thats is a difference as well... anyways... we are off topic :)

[Snoopy]

Well I dont want to drag the topic too far off topic, but how many B-52s are in active service compared to other fighters as well, thats is a difference as well... anyways... we are off topic :)

 

Approx 76.

[NineLine]

Approx 76.

 

Thanks Paul, and there are close to 400 A-10s in active service right? Something like that?

[Snoopy]

Thanks Paul, and there are close to 400 A-10s in active service right? Something like that?

 

375ish. But you really can't compare cost per flight hour between a bomber and a fighter.

[NineLine]

375ish. But you really can't compare cost per flight hour between a bomber and a fighter.

 

No, I get that, It was more about how long a bomber could stay in service compared to other aircraft, I have no idea the per unit costs of upgrades and all that... comparing the B-52s service life to the A-10 (or other fighter type aircraft) didnt seem like a good comparison, that is what I was getting at.

[Snoopy]

No, I get that, It was more about how long a bomber could stay in service compared to other aircraft, I have no idea the per unit costs of upgrades and all that... comparing the B-52s service life to the A-10 (or other fighter type aircraft) didnt seem like a good comparison, that is what I was getting at.

 

:thumbup:

[TaliG]

UAVs are the key for ALL situations in our days..:music_whistling:

Extreme situational awareness plus LOW COST.

What is better, 20 UAVs or 1 f15e in the air? (the same cost)

Heavy electronic warfare?

Pre programed uav flight plans can deal with it easily.

If they cannot, f15es cannot do it aswell.

 

In my poor opinion, with our current technology, developing a human flown war aircraft is a no go.

The future is in the UAVs and lasers:smilewink:

[Cali]

No, I get that, It was more about how long a bomber could stay in service compared to other aircraft, I have no idea the per unit costs of upgrades and all that... comparing the B-52s service life to the A-10 (or other fighter type aircraft) didnt seem like a good comparison, that is what I was getting at.

 

Bombers/tankers and transport don't pull g's which shorten the lifespan. All like a Cadillac or a old classic that an older couple have and a sports car that a young guy has. The young guy is gonna beat up on that car, while the older couple is driving miss daisy.