A-10 Retirement?

[Sierra99]

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/16/flake-drops-a-10-bomb-on-constituents/

 

I am posting this with little comment other than I had to laugh at the discussion of the F-35 vs. A-10...

 

" Unlike the F-35, the 30 millimeter GE GAU-8 Avenger cannon used by A-10s can have a devastating effect on the enemy. The 25 millimeter cartridge used by the F-35 is only marginally better than a 20 millimeter and does little damage. So little in fact that a few years back when a F-16 pilot inadvertently shot at a school in New Jersey, witnesses reported only hearing the “…sound of someone running across the roof of the building.” No damage was reported at all.

 

Bottom line for pilots: the 30 millimeter is far superior.":thumbup:

 

Sierra

[GGTharos]

That's like saying that the 30mm cartridge of the GAU-8 is only marginally better than the 25mm ...

[Snoopy]

That and the 35 can only carry 180 rounds. The sad fact is the retirement of the A-10C fleet, the ENTIRE fleet is a real possibility. We were told this last March and we all just blew it off until about a month ago when it came up again. We were told we'd have a flying mission at Moody if they did retire the A-10 but who knows. With the current financial situation in the DoD as a whole I don't underestimate anything. And the USAF will do WHATEVER it has to so it can keep the funding for the F-35, at the cost of many other things I'm afraid.

 

Here is a perfect example why the A-10 is the best suited for it's current mission, not only would the F-35 not have been able to continue to strafe because of limited gun rounds they wouldn't have been able to stay on station and in the battle for the same amount of time.

 

http://www.moody.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123358853

 

"The engagement lasted two hours that day, and in that time, the A-10s completed 15 gun passes, fired nearly all their 2,300, 30-mm rounds, and dropped three 500-pound bombs on the enemy force."

[VincentLaw]

With the current financial situation...

 

Now compare operating costs and get back to me on how this makes sense. If anything, keeping the A-10 in service should allow more money to be spent on the F-35.

[Sierra99]

Now compare operating costs and get back to me on how this makes sense. If anything, keeping the A-10 in service should allow more money to be spent on the F-35.

 

Operating costs should be secondary to mission accomplishment...within reason of course when looking at existing weapon systems. If the mission hasn't gone away and there isn't a BETTER replacement... We need to keep using what we have. If you can develop a replacement that is better AND cheaper to operate...by all means... But mission accomplishment should never be sacrificed over operating costs.Thats not fair to the people putting their asses on the line.

 

Sierra

[Vekkinho]

I'm sure there's few good reasons causing Warthog retirement. One of them must be the F-35...

 

:music_whistling:

[Kaktus29]

its quite hillarious that F-35 is supposed to replace A-10.. the missions that A-10 take are dangerous and demand gun strafing more or less, ..how is F-35 going to strafe his little gun when 1 AK-47 bullet might ignite the whole expensive drama queen and explode it in mid air?..

 

F-35 when it works and works like intended will still not be suited for close air support unless we get magic new weapons that will perform much more precisely and more quickly than A-10 delivering punishment on the ground did.. the idea of F-35 is that it would have to be flying at 40.000 feet and drop "butterfly" ammo (bombs that would make it to the target in fast way and in non-linear way to adjust for ever changing battle formations on the ground between blue and red forces). So far there is no such ammo to do CAS at 40.000 feet.. you can do ground attack at fixed positions, attack in the rear etc.. CAS is dirty job and gets you shot with small caliber weapons no matter how good you are..

 

F-35 being "armored as it is" is far from being suited for this job, its like saying F-22 will do CAS.. its stupid..

[Cedaway]

If the A-10(whatever-version) is retired, I feel really sorry for the ground troops who actually need Close Air Support. They will be the first victims of that financial decision.

[leafer]

Man, two hours of strafing, three 500 pounders, and they only killed 18 dudes? I'm not deriding the pilots, but perhaps those Afghan police ran out of fingers to count?

[countto10]

Square peg... round hole. If the F-35 could do the job of an A-10, the F-16 would already be doing it.

[Bushmanni]

Man, two hours of strafing, three 500 pounders, and they only killed 18 dudes? I'm not deriding the pilots, but perhaps those Afghan police ran out of fingers to count?

 

Enemy doesn't run in the open in real life but hides if getting engaged by superior enemy. Also most gun battles last hours and end up with only few dead bodies for the same reason. People tend to do their best to stay alive and be smart about sticking their head out. Unless you drop a JDAM on a house full of unaware Taliban it won't be easy to rack up such a toll as after first shot the enemy (if smart or not unlucky) is usually nowhere to be found.

[PFunk1606688187]

Lets be honest. The USAF has always had a troubled relationship with CAS. Going all the way back to SAC the bomber mentality had a somewhat similar ring to it to the Luftwaffe's assumed superiority over all other forces in their drive to be the sole creditor for the victory in Britain while they deliberately sabotaged any attempts to secure a dedicated support system for the Kriegsmarine's Ubootswaffe (I mean planes to spot ships seemed pretty obvious, so much so that in later years the use of Carriers to hunt U-boats was the only sensible tactic). Ironically the Luftwaffe pioneered the concept of CAS during Poland and most impressively the 1940 invasion of France where ground controllers were embedded with ground forces able to call in dedicated air units who were on stand by to respond within an hour.

 

Obviously today its more about the fighter, or the multi-role fighter to be specific as budgets shrink. Unfortunately if you combine a chilly attitude towards CAS with the generals with the utter lack of understanding for how the military functions with most elected officials, you get an environment where its easy to let something go that you'll regret. Just look at SR-71 and the first Gulf War.

 

So the cold war ends in 91, the same year the A-10 proves itself possibly the most flexible and relevant combat aircraft in the US arsenal for the current expected threats. Ironically then it will die for another cold war aircraft that will serve a mediocre role in any asymmetrical conflict, the one most likely to see American forces tied up in in this current world environment. Hopefully the F-35's advanced avionics will allow to see in 5th gen detail the enemies that will soon overrun the friendly forces it didn't have the gas or stores to protect as it moves to rejoin the tanker, yuk yuk.

 

Man, two hours of strafing, three 500 pounders, and they only killed 18 dudes? I'm not deriding the pilots, but perhaps those Afghan police ran out of fingers to count?

 

The Taliban have been given far too little credit by those who've never been in the shit with them. You think after this many years of NATO fighting them that they're still alive because the pilots suck? Tech doesn't win you wars against smart enemies. I would have thought this concept would be burned deeply into the American psyche by Vietnam.

Edited August 20, 2013 by P*Funk

[Kaktus29]

i think A-10 retirement is coming together with outlook of how wars are to be fought in the future..

 

US analysis points to hi-tech wars that would hardly involve troops on the ground, so mostly its stealth, lobbing cruise missiles, dropping hundred thousands of glide-bombs and hitting important infrastructure, putting embargoes, sanctions, and just wait it out until surrender of the opponent .. if the enemy tries to counter by moving the army forward it gets obliterated by destroying supplies in the rear, without it the big army formations can't move anywhere.. and this is the outlook of US military at this point.. will it work, is the right strategy? it all depends..

 

technology really did advance allot, so change is needed to go with the time, but will combat on the ground really loose any meaning in the future? maybe, maybe not, ..its a risky move to make such an assumption, but if you are right you save lots of money for adjusting yourself for such a scenario and retiring A-10s, if not you made a terrible mistake that ends up with many divisions destroyed on the ground in potential war..

 

i personally think that yes wars are changing fast.. its mostly political and economical aspects that will determine the war.. i think total war scenarios where you employ 90% of your population in the war effort are impossible today, so you have to do with what you have-5 percent of population giving it all they got while maintaining economic situation at home during the war..

 

if a nation cannot do that they will simply have to surrender as they can't prosecute the war in any meaningful way in their benefit..

[leafer]

Sorry. My mind went to all those Apache videos I've watched where they kill a bunch of these criminals with impunity.

[dumgrunt]

Yeah, they thought "total" war was impossible along the whole "to much to loose economically" argument at the turn of the last century. Then global diplomacy failure 1.0 happened. To think that another high intensity symmetrical conflict is impossible of even unlikely in the future is wishful thinking.

 

Oh and you can't seize and hold ground with a JDAM either.

 

But don't worry, never let common sense get in the way of politics. The a10 program through its lifetime seems to have had more lives than a cat. The USAF heirarchy seem quite frankly to just not like it.

[PFunk1606688187]

Sorry. My mind went to all those Apache videos I've watched where they kill a bunch of these criminals with impunity.

 

You do know that if we had videos of it, you could watch a bunch of your own countrymen get chewed up too.

 

But no, you're right, the only explanation is that killing those lame Taliban was so much fun that we've artificially lengthened Enduring Freedom so that our service members have more opportunities to blow them away, as compensation for their shrinking benefit packages.

[GGTharos]

In RL it's not as easy to hit targets. It also takes time to ensure you're hitting at least the right spot, and not your dudes.

 

It's not like DCS where you say 'ah, screw it, if there's a MANPAD down there, ah well' or 'Well I hope these are friendlies' or 'they're close, hope I don't hit my dudes', etc.

 

Man, two hours of strafing, three 500 pounders, and they only killed 18 dudes? I'm not deriding the pilots, but perhaps those Afghan police ran out of fingers to count?

[GGTharos]

You can expect AH-64's and drones to do the really close up work. F-35's will probably be more quick-reaction forces dropping CBUs and iron bombs.

 

As for the AK-47 ... silly comment. I don't recall any A-10's coming back having taken small arms fire. It doesn't matter one bit.

 

What matters is that the F-35 can't stay there for 2 hours. Even the ammo in the gun may not matter that much, except that it forces the F-35 to use more expensive ammunition instead.

 

But like I said, apaches and drones seems to be where CAS will go.

 

its quite hillarious that F-35 is supposed to replace A-10.. the missions that A-10 take are dangerous and demand gun strafing more or less, ..how is F-35 going to strafe his little gun when 1 AK-47 bullet might ignite the whole expensive drama queen and explode it in mid air?..

 

F-35 when it works and works like intended will still not be suited for close air support unless we get magic new weapons that will perform much more precisely and more quickly than A-10 delivering punishment on the ground did.. the idea of F-35 is that it would have to be flying at 40.000 feet and drop "butterfly" ammo (bombs that would make it to the target in fast way and in non-linear way to adjust for ever changing battle formations on the ground between blue and red forces). So far there is no such ammo to do CAS at 40.000 feet.. you can do ground attack at fixed positions, attack in the rear etc.. CAS is dirty job and gets you shot with small caliber weapons no matter how good you are..

 

F-35 being "armored as it is" is far from being suited for this job, its like saying F-22 will do CAS.. its stupid..

[Kaktus29]

lol.. choppers and drones replacing planes as CAS.. yeah i don't think so, one is too slow, the other is too clumsy for the job ..

 

droping iron bombs and CBU's is not what is needed when you have a platoon of soldiers in a building being surrounded by 3 enemy platoons right near by.. you need a rocket or cannon attack.. anything else WILL kill your troops as well..

 

Drone cannot do that, and choppers are too slow .. we are talking CAS that is deployed across great distance and in urgent manner.. so far A-10 will outspeed AH-64 by a long shot..

 

A-10 not having small caliber fire? really? you checked all A-10's that came from battle? i watched a little amount of video's from Iraq desert storm in '91 and A-10 came back with multiple damage from multiple calibers, from small, medium, and big..

 

Again, how is F-35 capable of taking damage is really news to me, the thing is designed not to take ANY fire whatsoever.. its not armored, it can't take small arms fire yet alone big caliber fire.. as such its not CAS plane.. dropping LGB's is not CAS, its ground attack.. those two missions differ greatly.. and result can be a platoon saved or platoon annihilated..

[PFunk1606688187]

I don't recall any A-10's coming back having taken small arms fire.

 

I did see a video on youtube of a news story about some A-10 pilot who got some award or at least recognition I think for staying on station and providing close support to troops while squeezing every drop out of his dwindling fuel while sending his wingman to go tank up and he said he took some small arms fire and pointed out the clearly repaired battle damage on what looked like one of his elevators. They were dinky and wouldn't have made a difference to handling most likely, but I dunno if A-10 pilots would be lying to news agencies.

 

EDIT.

Here it is.

 

Nice little propaganda piece, but unsure if they'd fake battle damage to make it look even cooler.

Edited August 21, 2013 by P*Funk

[RIFLE_JTAC_TRAINING]

I can not accept that the A-10 pilot would lie or that they would apply the repair tape for the hell of it.

 

63

[leafer]

You do know that if we had videos of it, you could watch a bunch of your own countrymen get chewed up too.

 

But no, you're right, the only explanation is that killing those lame Taliban was so much fun that we've artificially lengthened Enduring Freedom so that our service members have more opportunities to blow them away, as compensation for their shrinking benefit packages.

 

There is a first time for everything. I've always wanted to say that. :D

 

I've been listening to KPFK Pacifica well before the first Golf War and while living in the U.S. I went out and protested King George's reelection. I listened to countless U.S. soldier on KPFK talking about the lack of proper medical care by VA. Trust me, I know what is happening.

 

But I do hate terrorists as we have them here in the 3 most southern provinces of Thailand as well, so this isn't just a case of me being in trend. Yes, I have seen my countrymen maimed and killed and having their dead bodies desecrated on my friend's phone and youtube by Muslim terrorists. A friend of mine came back from serving in Yala some month ago, and he told me some blatant crap they do. For example, two of his friends left the base to get food around the corner, and on the way back they were waved over by a guy sitting in front of a house. When they got close enough couple of dudes came out from around the corner and killed them both.

[PFunk1606688187]

But I do hate terrorists....

 

Which doesn't have much to do with evaluating the tactical realities of the battlefield. Emotion has little to do with why a bomb or a gun run kills X or Y Taliban. It just has something to do with how you talk about it once its over.

[Kenan]

 

As for the AK-47 ... silly comment. I don't recall any A-10's coming back having taken small arms fire.

 

Nothing silly about his comment. A10s did most likely receive small arms fire during all these years of war and in theory, 1 7,62mm bullet can cause a damage, especially if hitting a fighter jet, which is not as armoed as the CAS-type aircrafts such as A10 or SU25 etc..

[tomcatter]

Sorry. My mind went to all those Apache videos I've watched where they kill a bunch of these criminals with impunity.

 

 

Is that the videos from wikileaks?

 

Where those criminal are in reality a unarmed camera man and a journalist, and a ambulance trying to recover wounded people....