|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2014 11:10:59 GMT -6
www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/
NOTICE TO ALL INSURGENTS: The scourge of Iraqi artillery, tanks and missile defenses is now headed your way. It's ugly, noisy but with a GAU-8 Avenger 30 mm cannon and miscellaneous bombs and rockets, it will definitely ruin your day. Ya' all have fun now.
It's about time the Pentagon got smart and sent the best ground attack bird in the world to the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 5, 2014 16:10:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2014 17:47:57 GMT -6
The A-10 is a good counter-insurgency aircraft like the A-1 Spad's in Vietnam. You don't need 300 of them, but two squadrons with a few left in storage as replacements and parts would be a good idea. At least until there are sufficient F-35's in the system to replace them. Two squadrons and necessary support would not impact the F-35 budget that much. I do believe that the A-10 is obsolete and needs to be sent to the bone yard. Possibly more attack helo's could add to the mix. The current situation may be temporary, so we probably won't need the A-10's for a long deployment. You can do both; retire and save money for the F-35 and use a few for counter-insurgency. Strategic situations sometimes change quickly and you must use the tools at hand, this is one of those times. In counter-insurgencies, you are not facing heavy AA fire or sophisticated surface to air missiles, you are facing light to medium AA fire such as 7.92 mm machine guns up to and including 23mm cannons. Missiles are heat seeking shoulder fired in almost all cases. The A-10 was designed to handle these types of weapons. We have air supremacy over the projected battlefield, we don't need to achieve it. It makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 6, 2014 17:46:54 GMT -6
Hmm, wonder if the A-10s (or the COIN strike mission at least) could be lumped into AFSOC. Lump them in with the AC-130s and CV-22s - it would keep them out of the regular USAF's braids.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 6, 2014 19:11:53 GMT -6
Hmm, wonder if the A-10s (or the COIN strike mission at least) could be lumped into AFSOC. Lump them in with the AC-130s and CV-22s - it would keep them out of the regular USAF's braids. Nice thought, but probably not going to happen. I suspect one or two squadrons will be maintained for a two to four years, then that will be the end. With a new Defense Secretary that knows what the heck he is doing, he might reverse all this and keep the birds until the F-35's are available. Only time will tell.
Anyway, here is a good article that says just what I said, only more completely. fightersweep.com/728/an-alternative-to-retiring-the-a-10-warthog/
I saw this article this evening, long after my post. Just wanted you to know.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Dec 7, 2014 10:10:43 GMT -6
Any chance that the A-10 is going to get an actual successor? I mean, an aircraft living in the same "tough, hard-hitting ground support aircraft" niche, rather than a multi-role or other strike aircraft press-ganged into the role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 7, 2014 12:46:44 GMT -6
Any chance that the A-10 is going to get an actual successor? I mean, an aircraft living in the same "tough, hard-hitting ground support aircraft" niche, rather than a multi-role or other strike aircraft press-ganged into the role. Ah, no. There is no direct replacement with the characteristics of the A-10. the F-35 is designed to use its modest stealth to avoid missiles and won't be diving low enough for light to medium AA guns to have an effect. We went through this during Vietnam and afterward. You see, the USAF and its forerunner, the Army Air Corp never liked the close air support mission. They focused on interdiction, armed reconnaissance and strategic bombing, not close air support. The USAF has just adapted one or two of its aircraft in times of war to that purpose. The A-10 were originally built as a low altitude tank buster against the masses of Russian tanks expected to come racing across through the Fulda Gap. That war never occurred, so the A-10 is a left over weapon of bygone era. The Army is expect provide its own close air support using the Apache helicopters, but there do have limitations of range and they are not real stealthy.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 7, 2014 14:13:38 GMT -6
Not to mention that compared to the A-10, the Apache can't take as much punishment or carry a comparable payload and is much slower. Granted the A-10 squadrons were expected to take horrendous losses over the Fulda Gap in WWIII scenarios, but if that's not a "high-threat" environment I don't know what is. The USAF is not going to call $100+ million F-35As in for CAS - that bird is not coming within visual range of the ground, lest someone get lucky with an AA gun.
Overall, I think that the USAF has gotten a bit too much into a "protect F-35 procurement at all costs" mentality. There's been talk of retiring the KC-10 fleet to meet budget caps, which is just insane.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Dec 8, 2014 10:45:32 GMT -6
Any chance that the A-10 is going to get an actual successor? I mean, an aircraft living in the same "tough, hard-hitting ground support aircraft" niche, rather than a multi-role or other strike aircraft press-ganged into the role. Ah, no. There is no direct replacement with the characteristics of the A-10. the F-35 is designed to use its modest stealth to avoid missiles and won't be diving low enough for light to medium AA guns to have an effect. We went through this during Vietnam and afterward. You see, the USAF and its forerunner, the Army Air Corp never liked the close air support mission. They focused on interdiction, armed reconnaissance and strategic bombing, not close air support. The USAF has just adapted one or two of its aircraft in times of war to that purpose. The A-10 were originally built as a low altitude tank buster against the masses of Russian tanks expected to come racing across through the Fulda Gap. That war never occurred, so the A-10 is a left over weapon of bygone era. The Army is expect provide its own close air support using the Apache helicopters, but there do have limitations of range and they are not real stealthy. In my observations as a layman, it seems the Air Force is fixated on attaining air superiority over the enemy country, then sending the enemy back to the Stone Age via strategic bombing. The problem is, while this might eventually work, it is not always the easiest or fastest solution. And I doubt that the Army would be very happy having to provide its own close air support - in fact I am reasonably sure that the words "Whatever do we have an Air Force for, anyway?" would be spoken on occasion. Military history has shown that, in any war that is also fought on the ground, it is the ground forces who win the war - air forces are a very potent force multiplier, but aircraft cannot take and occupy territory, they cannot patrol cities against insurgents... I´m sure you know what I mean. And against an enemy that has no air force of their own and no strategic industries to bombard and no significant supply lines to interdict, close air support is the only thing the Air Force is good for - well, other than recon and transport and other "uncool" support functions.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 8, 2014 12:06:38 GMT -6
Ah, no. There is no direct replacement with the characteristics of the A-10. the F-35 is designed to use its modest stealth to avoid missiles and won't be diving low enough for light to medium AA guns to have an effect. We went through this during Vietnam and afterward. You see, the USAF and its forerunner, the Army Air Corp never liked the close air support mission. They focused on interdiction, armed reconnaissance and strategic bombing, not close air support. The USAF has just adapted one or two of its aircraft in times of war to that purpose. The A-10 were originally built as a low altitude tank buster against the masses of Russian tanks expected to come racing across through the Fulda Gap. That war never occurred, so the A-10 is a left over weapon of bygone era. The Army is expect provide its own close air support using the Apache helicopters, but there do have limitations of range and they are not real stealthy. In my observations as a layman, it seems the Air Force is fixated on attaining air superiority over the enemy country, then sending the enemy back to the Stone Age via strategic bombing. The problem is, while this might eventually work, it is not always the easiest or fastest solution. And I doubt that the Army would be very happy having to provide its own close air support - in fact I am reasonably sure that the words "Whatever do we have an Air Force for, anyway?" would be spoken on occasion. Military history has shown that, in any war that is also fought on the ground, it is the ground forces who win the war - air forces are a very potent force multiplier, but aircraft cannot take and occupy territory, they cannot patrol cities against insurgents... I´m sure you know what I mean. And against an enemy that has no air force of their own and no strategic industries to bombard and no significant supply lines to interdict, close air support is the only thing the Air Force is good for - well, other than recon and transport and other "uncool" support functions. Your assessment is spot on, the USAF is a bombing force with fighters to gain air supremacy. They dislike close air support. As I said in a previous post, they like interdiction and strategic air support.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528 -"It would seem that the supersonic, pointy nosed fighter jet culture that has always prevailed in the USAF's top echelon only praises the A-10 when they desperately need it, then when such a time passes, it returns to being their budgetary sacrificial lamb" There is the core of the problem, stated nicely. Fighter pilots hate to go low and drop bombs, they want to engage enemy fighters, dogfight and rack up a nice score. Dropping bombs is boring. Also with smart bombs, the theory is that you don't need close air support.
www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/critics-accuse-air-force-manipulating-data-support-10-retirement/
Just so you all understand, I am ex-USAF and so is my daughter. I went through the whole Vietnam experience and what you are seeing with the A-10 is exactly what happened in Vietnam. The USAF had F-100's, F-105's, B-52's at the start of the conflict. They had to rig the F-105's for interdiction because they were configured for low altitude tactical nuke missions. The A-1's were mostly Navy but the USAF had some A1E's and they were at the end of their career. Many were moved to the South Vietnamese AF for use in counter-insurgency missions against the VC. The USAF used it's Thud's, B-52's, F4C and F-4D and later, F-4E's from Thailand and Guam to attack North Vietnam. These were interdiction and strategic bombing missions. USAF AC-47, AC-119, and AC-130's along with A7D's were the USAF's primary CAS birds. It was Navy aircraft on carriers at Yankee and Dixie Station and Marine F4's at Da Nang and Chu Lai that provided the bulk of the close air support missions.
www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110323-037.pdf This is a long piece on Vietnam and the USAF but I thought I would throw it in. Some of you might want to use this as a comparison and verify that I know what I am talking about. It gives you more details.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Dec 8, 2014 13:32:57 GMT -6
It seems the problem with the Air Force is something I also see in the corporate world, and to a lesser degree in the human rights work I used to do: the people in charge are blinded by the flashy and spectacular and publicity-creating things, in the process losing sight of their actual "core business" - which for the Air Force is, unfortunately (for some Air Force people´s ego), supporting the Army, with "pure" air wars being the exception rather than the rule. It´s rather sad, really.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 8, 2014 18:01:41 GMT -6
It seems the problem with the Air Force is something I also see in the corporate world, and to a lesser degree in the human rights work I used to do: the people in charge are blinded by the flashy and spectacular and publicity-creating things, in the process losing sight of their actual "core business" - which for the Air Force is, unfortunately (for some Air Force people´s ego), supporting the Army, with "pure" air wars being the exception rather than the rule. It´s rather sad, really. The military is conservative by its very nature. It's has the nation and people to protect and that makes you just a little reluctant to venture into new technology and tactics. It tends to stay with what has worked in the past. Budget cuts affect all aspects of the missions. You have to balance maintenance of existing systems with R&D, infrastructure and procurement of new technologies. The answers are never clearly defined and working with Congress is maddening, to say the least. The Air Force is trying to shoehorn the F-35 into air supremacy and interdiction mission profiles, and it may only do both, in a mediocre way. it would have preferred to have more F-22's for air supremacy and F-35's for interdiction along with B-2's for long range strategic bombing. But you can't have everything, so its got to make the F-35 do both; that has never worked. They tried it with the F-4 and as good as that bird was, it was not a dogfighter, hence the F-15 and the F-16.
I understand this reasoning and the budget problems but I also know, as they do that we are in changed geostrategic environment. This is an environment of insurgencies in the Middle East and around the world. This requires a different set of priorities and missions. These sophisticated aircraft are great in large scale land operations but in environments like Afghanistan, Syria and Kurdistan, to mention a few, they are not the best package. They need to start focusing on these environments, not the Fulda Gap issues. The Navy has adapted to the new environment of narrow and enclosed seas, and littoral zones, hence the LCS. The USAF, I am sorry to say is still fighting Desert Storm.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2014 8:35:23 GMT -6
You might find this information incredulous, but it is valid.
"For the record, the Air Force has flown CAS missions with the B-1 in Afghanistan for several years, and increasing the use of platforms such as the B-1 has been a key component of the service’s plan to fill any mission gap caused by the A-10 divestiture since it was announced.
Air Force figures show that the A-10 has performed 19 percent of CAS operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start of 2006 to October 2013. In contrast, the B-1B has performed 8 percent, the F-15E 12 percent and the F-16 33 percent. The remaining 28 percent has been performed by “other US fixed wing” platforms."
No one defines "other fixed wing". I have to assume its F-18E/F's from the Navy.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Dec 9, 2014 13:57:17 GMT -6
The B-1B, used for CAS missions? Geez... talk about square pegs and round holes.
(which only shows that square pegs CAN fit into round holes, if you have a big enough hammer)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2014 17:12:10 GMT -6
The B-1B, used for CAS missions? Geez... talk about square pegs and round holes. (which only shows that square pegs CAN fit into round holes, if you have a big enough hammer) Or you just enlarge the whole so the peg fits, you know, enlarge the mission parameters so the B-1B can perform it.
|
|