A-10C Discussion

[hansangb]

And I'll state once again..when you're danger close...A10's and Apache's make the difference. That's all I'm saying. And here's the article from Basher's link:

 

This is important to point out because people seem to think that only A-10s can do CAS. This is patently false. While the A-10 may be damned good at CAS, it’s not the only aircraft capable of doing so. In fact, it accounts for only a small number of CAS sorties in theater today.

 

 

So riddle me this. If it's your life that's in balance, do you want a capable aircraft supporting you or the one that's "dammed good at CAS" supporting you?

 

And as far as the number of sorties, I'm not sure which phase this is referring to. If it's the recent deployment, they just got there, and there aren't a lot of them in the first place.

 

Again, no one is arguing F16's can't drop 500 lb bombs. I've called it in myself during training. But when things are danger close, you need the aircraft that can move slow, aircraft that can differentiate ground TRPs. Pilots that can see my tracers, pilots that can see my smoke, pilots that are oriented to my AO, pilots that can loiter etc. All things that A10s excel at.

 

Pilots I'm sure feel great about helping out us ground pounders. That's never been questioned. It's the fact that AF thinks "good enough is good enough" hence the A10s can be retired. I just happen to disagree.

 

I'm just thankful that DCS has the A10C module. I enjoy the hell out of it, I want to become better at it, and one day, I'll finally be able to use it to its maximum potential.

 

I just saw the new DLC for Red Flag missions for A10s. I suppose one day, I'll create a mission - like i have the time for that! LOL - and give the ability to fly the same missions with A10s and F15s. See what comes out on top. That would be interesting.

 

PS: just saw the trailer for the RF mission for A10. *DAMN* it looks GREAT!!! Well done DCS/ED.

Edited February 5, 2016 by hansangb

[Bullfrog_]

And I'll state once again..when you're danger close...A10's and Apache's make the difference. That's all I'm saying.

 

Let's have an Apache vs A-10 debate.

 

Yeah?

[hansangb]

Or just rotary vs fixed wing? :)

[Enduro14]

Edit figured it out.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Enduro14

[TAC-1]

I've been an F-15C Virtual pilot for many years now and never liked the Hog, but man....

What a beauty!!!!

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5_bcb08o0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5_bcb08o0[/ame]

[ame=

]

[/ame] Edited February 6, 2016 by TAC-1

[Sierra99]

its been confirmed for several weeks now.

 

How many airframes have 6 years of life left in them?

 

I believe most have far more than Six years left...depends on who ya want to believe.

[Snoopy]

I believe most have far more than Six years left...depends on who ya want to believe.

 

They'll last. Just the new wings alone added a lot to the lifespan.

[Basher54321]

 

So riddle me this. If it's your life that's in balance, do you want a capable aircraft supporting you or the one that's "dammed good at CAS" supporting you?

 

And as far as the number of sorties, I'm not sure which phase this is referring to. If it's the recent deployment, they just got there, and there aren't a lot of them in the first place.

 

Again, no one is arguing F16's can't drop 500 lb bombs. I've called it in myself during training. But when things are danger close, you need the aircraft that can move slow, aircraft that can differentiate ground TRPs. Pilots that can see my tracers, pilots that can see my smoke, pilots that are oriented to my AO, pilots that can loiter etc. All things that A10s excel at.

 

Pilots I'm sure feel great about helping out us ground pounders. That's never been questioned. It's the fact that AF thinks "good enough is good enough" hence the A10s can be retired. I just happen to disagree.

 

 

The AF sees things differently because they see things you are not party to and have to consider other things (like how do we get to the troops past the line of S-400s), that is why like it or not they are best placed to decide on the best overall platform for the AF and the most effective to support the troops (it is not some conspiracy against the Army).

 

If the Air Force dictated to the Army what Tanks or Guns to buy (In the same way Army troop think they know what is best for the AF) then you might have some cause for concern.

If there are problems between the services then only better communication or working closer could help this.

 

 

A lot of the effectiveness of the A-10 comes from the fact that certain communities like the A-10 community specialise in things like CAS, however when they move onto other platforms they should still be able to do the job just as effectively using different tactics, platforms and technology (Similar to the A-10C over the 1970s A-10A) - humans are terrible at dealing with change - but things move on.

[hansangb]

Basher, you're making non sequitur arguments. Why would AF design tanks? Tanks don't support fighters. Supporting Infantry is one of the missions that AF is *supposed* to carry out. We are the *customers* of CAS. We are the beneficiary of CAS. We have a vested interested becasue if they get it wrong, Infantryman die.

 

Also, I never said there is a conspiracy. I'm saying that the AF brass is OK with 'good enough' F35 isn't as good, but it's good enough. F16 isn't as good, but it's good enough. F15 isn't as good, but it's good enough.

 

I'll state it here. Before 2022, they will try to kill of A10s again.

 

It is interesting that the AF will not even test A10s against other fighters.

 

I am not some nut job who things A10's are the end all and be all forever and ever. I just want the best aircraft to support my fellow Infantryman. And not just a "good enough" aircraft.

[RoflSeal]

They will be a flyoff with the F-35 against the A-10 in the CAS role in 2018, but I guess its gonna go like the 1974 flyoff with the A-7D vs the YA-10, which ended up being not which was better overall at CAS, but which was better at being an A-10.

[Basher54321]

 

I am not some nut job who things A10's are the end all and be all forever and ever. I just want the best aircraft to support my fellow Infantryman. And not just a "good enough" aircraft.

 

 

I can go only go by your previous posts and I'm not suggesting you are off your rocker. (You might want to check Horners biog though)

However it is very clear that your opinions and feelings do not include everything you need to be an authority on what the best CAS platform for the AF.

 

Yes you want the best platform for the troops (I'm sure most do) but you need to consider that doing things a different way might be a lot better for the troops not just good enough.

[Basher54321]

They will be a flyoff with the F-35 against the A-10 in the CAS role in 2018, but I guess its gonna go like the 1974 flyoff with the A-7D vs the YA-10, which ended up being not which was better overall at CAS, but which was better at being an A-10.

 

 

Ha yes seems back then the A-7D guys were up in arms :)

 

 

I take offense at the statement that the Hog was lots better than the SLUF in the rigged flyoff.

 

""After the A-10 was selected by the Air Force, Congress directed the service to fly it against the A-7. The Warthog dominated the A-7 during the 1974 fly-off.""

 

Reason Congress wanted the flyoff was that the Hog was also gonna replace the F-100 and A-7 for BAI and some interdiction work. The Double Ugly was gonna be phased out as the Eagle came online. Funny, but we were gonna have a big gap in the mudbeater world until the Viper arrived, and that plane was not a factor in the A-10 design or ops requirements. All we had was the A-7, and USAF had to kill it in order to get the Hog. See my AvWeek editor letter in fall of 1974 if you can find it.

 

Only thing the Hog dominated was strafe effectiveness and its ability to get the nose around quickly for another run or a nape pass. Its bomb accuracy was a joke, and the thing did not even have a real HUD or decent nav system, much less a computer-assisted bombing system that the A-7 had since 1968!!!!!!. It was a WW2 plane with jet motors and a big cannon - a jet-powered A-1 that would have worked wonders in 'nam and be slaughtered over the Fulda Gap or the Sinai in 1973.

 

My immediate boss was TDY for the flyoff and he came back and told us all that the thing was rigged and we were flying planes that would soon go to the Guard. Sure enough, our A-7's went to one Guard outfit after another and the 356th TFS became the first operational Hog squadron after handing their SLUF's off to a Guard unit.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=299954#p299954

[snafup]

US Air Force to keep the ugly, deadly, and uniquely capable A-10 in the air

 

US Air Force to keep the ugly, deadly, and uniquely capable A-10 in the air through 2022

 

 

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222536-us-air-force-to-keep-the-ugly-deadly-and-uniquely-capable-a-10-in-the-air-through-2022?mailing_id=1564284&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=DF3D2B23AE4089CC36C1EA625934BA55

 

 

 

 

Still keeps on going.:thumbup:

[lobo]

Sweet!

[Flogger23m]

Politics and nostalgia. Doesn't belong in this forum though.

[tflash]

Victory!

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/13/air-force-to-congress-you-win-well-keep-a10-wartho.aspx

[hansangb]

Rep. Martha McSally from Arizona, a retired Air Force A-10 pilot, praised the Air Force's decision: "With A-10s deployed in the Middle East to fight ISIS, in Europe to deter Russian aggression, and along the Korean peninsula, administration officials can no longer deny how invaluable these planes are to our arsenal and military capabilities."

 

LOL. That's got to be so annoying for the AF officials. A lowly captain now a Congresswoman pushing them around. Of course, as a AZ rep, she has a vested interest in keeping A10's alive (Davis Monthan, AFB). Not that that's her only motive.

[NineLine]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/airman-magazine/struck-by-the-thunderbolt/10154103347098735

[tflash]

^^nice story!

[Jowen G. Bruère-Dawson]

Victory!

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/13/air-force-to-congress-you-win-well-keep-a10-wartho.aspx

 

 

Victory indeed :thumbup:

[jazzinman]

More interesting news.....

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a43904/a-10-replacement-plane-air-force-a-x/

[Sierra99]

Politics and nostalgia.

 

Nostalgia? How do you figure?

 

 

Doesn't belong in this forum though.

 

Wait...A story about events impacting the very aircraft being discussed in a thread titled "ED Forums » English » Reality » Military and Aviation » A-10C Discussion" Where do you believe it belongs?

[Sierra99]

More interesting news.....

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a43904/a-10-replacement-plane-air-force-a-x/

 

Beware of any article which starts out:

 

"The A-10 Warthog was originally developed to destroy tanks and armored vehicles in the event of an invasion of Western Europe by the Warsaw Pact."

 

That was not what the A-10 was designed for. The A-10 was specifically designed as a Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft...Not specifically a "Tank Killer". The "Tank Killer" mission was how the Air Force leadership of the 80's chose to utilize the Aircraft...not what it was designed for.

 

It came into its own during the 90s and continues to grow today. Simply dismissing it is short sighted.

[Sierra99]

The AF sees things differently because they see things you are not party to and have to consider other things (like how do we get to the troops past the line of S-400s), that is why like it or not they are best placed to decide on the best overall platform for the AF and the most effective to support the troops (it is not some conspiracy against the Army).

 

The best way to defeat a Line of S-400s will be with a string of Tomahawks or CALCMs...We've already proven this in previous conflicts. What makes you think we'd do anything different?

 

If the Air Force dictated to the Army what Tanks or Guns to buy (In the same way Army troop think they know what is best for the AF) then you might have some cause for concern. If there are problems between the services then only better communication or working closer could help this.

 

Army troops and CAS pilots DO know whats better for the job when it comes to Close Air Support. Why? Because for the most part the vast majority of Air Force Leadership is made up of "Zoomies" and "Fast Burners". They're not interested in anything that doesn't get the promoted or a job after the military. The simple fact is, The Air Force chief of staff admitted this is about 1 thing, Funding for the F-35. This about Politics, Lobbyists and what airplane parts get made in what states. Not about whats best for the kids on the ground.

 

A lot of the effectiveness of the A-10 comes from the fact that certain communities like the A-10 community specialize in things like CAS, however when they move onto other platforms they should still be able to do the job just as effectively using different tactics, platforms and technology (Similar to the A-10C over the 1970s A-10A) - humans are terrible at dealing with change - but things move on.

 

No sir, you are wrong. Humans are only as good as the tools they are provided. You can't take the CAS "Community" and put them in an aircraft was was barely designed to FLY let alone do CAS and expect them to "adapt" and accomplish the same mission as well.

 

If that were true I could watch "New Yankee Workshop" all weekend and make furniture. I guarantee come Monday morning, the furniture in my garage built with a Hand tools, a Hammer and a Circular saw isn't gonna look anything like what Norm built. Why? Because I don't have the specialized tools HE does at my disposal. Same thing goes for the CAS mission.

[Sierra99]

LOL. That's got to be so annoying for the AF officials. A lowly captain now a Congresswoman pushing them around. Of course, as a AZ rep, she has a vested interest in keeping A10's alive (Davis Monthan, AFB). Not that that's her only motive.

 

Rep. Martha McSally Retired as Full Colonel...