# A sad day for the soldier/seaman/airman on the ground.... (A-10/CAS Discussion)



## Kraut783 (Sep 19, 2013)

A-10 program is on the chopping block again.....and might not survive this one.

Hell of a CAS platform.....I hope the f'tards come to their senses and keep the program.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/18/a...ng-of-a-10-warthog/?comp=1198882887570&rank=4


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 19, 2013)

What else comes even close to filling the void that will be left?


----------



## TheSiatonist (Sep 19, 2013)

Dear United States Air Force,

Can you please donate some ALL of 'em badass A-10s to our armed forces down here?  We promise to let you take them out for a spin if you ever find yourselves in these parts.

Signed,
The Philippines.  

*I imagine the logistics would be a pain but what the hell...


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> What else comes even close to filling the void that will be left?


Nothing, they think the wonder jet can do it all.
CSAR-X, MC-12 and KC-10's are also being considered for elimination.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 19, 2013)

NO, NO, NO!!!  Not the Hog...  I love the Hog...  I've loved that plane since forever...  it is the baddest CAS platform out there.


----------



## LibraryLady (Sep 19, 2013)

We, oh, so enjoyed watching them practice bombing runs on our little ol' campout in Germany.  It's a noise that brought great comfort to us - knowing the US figgered we'd get overrun quickly and they wanted to make sure they had practice obliterating our locale, being of course, the furthest thing from a garden in Paradise... 

LL


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2013)

This day was coming anyway and people who want to "wake up" and realize that the F-35 can't perform CAS as well as the -10 are too late. The last SLEP/ upgrade for the A-10 to become an A-10C meant the airframe was supposed to go away by 2020. Now that it is sooner people want to protest? If the AF is chopping "single mission" aircraft then all of the heavy bombers should go away using that logic.

Once again, our leaders have demonstrated a stunning lack of intelligence when it comes to modern war. Killing the A-10 wihtout anything close to its capabilities is almost criminal. If they did it for a turboprop CAS platform, I understand. A newer, lost cost jet CAS platform, I understand. To say the F-35 will do the "same" job as an A-10 is dumb, dumb, dumb.

But the demise of the A-10 isn't news and efforts to save it are probably too late.

But hey, JDAMs are JUST as good, right? With those, any platform can perform CAS.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> This day was coming anyway and people who want to "wake up" and realize that the F-35 can't perform CAS as well as the -10 are too late. The last SLEP/ upgrade for the A-10 to become an A-10C meant the airframe was supposed to go away by 2020. Now that it is sooner people want to protest? If the AF is chopping "single mission" aircraft then all of the heavy bombers should go away using that logic.
> 
> Once again, our leaders have demonstrated a stunning lack of intelligence when it comes to modern war. Killing the A-10 wihtout anything close to its capabilities is almost criminal. If they did it for a turboprop CAS platform, I understand. A newer, lost cost jet CAS platform, I understand. To say the F-35 will do the "same" job as an A-10 is dumb, dumb, dumb.
> 
> ...


That's the philosophy (BTW- the B-series aircraft are considered multi-mission)


----------



## x SF med (Sep 19, 2013)

the 35 will never eat tanks and buildings and fortified positions with the accuracy of the A-10.... just my opinion....  and it does not sound nearly as inviting as the low hum, to light roar, to BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, whoosh, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM to light roar to low hum that is the hallmark of the Hog...  and it slows down enough that you can actually see the pilot with a huge shit eating grin on his face, waving hi and unleashing the fires of Hell on the bad guy.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 19, 2013)

I've never heard anything come close to the 'burp' that the A10 makes. F35 filling the role of CAS at the level of the A10 is pipe dream.

I see our military is still fixing what ain't broke...


----------



## CDG (Sep 19, 2013)

The MQ-9 is being talked about as a platform able to replace the A-10 as well. How that makes any sense escapes me. I'm no field grade though, so WTF do I know?


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2013)

CDG said:


> The MQ-9 is being talked about as a platform able to replace the A-10 as well. How that makes any sense escapes me. I'm no field grade though, so WTF do I know?


 
I think we're victims of our own success and technology. If you can hang a JDAM from it, then it becomes a CAS platform.

Philisophically, I wonder if fighter pilots will be victims of their own thinking in a generation or two. The more you remove the man from the battle the less you need the man in the battle.
"Here's your new sixth generation aircraft."
"This is a stick and a keyboard."
"Airpower! Oh, we're also taking away your flight pay."


----------



## CDG (Sep 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I think we're victims of our own success and technology. If you can hang a JDAM from it, then it becomes a CAS platform.
> 
> Philisophically, I wonder if fighter pilots will be victims of their own thinking in a generation or two. The more you remove the man from the battle the less you need the man in the battle.
> "Here's your new sixth generation aircraft."
> ...



There's a new CAS simulator in the works right now that is being talked about as a replacement for all live controls.  JTAC currency would be maintained through nothing but sim controls.  It's all part of exactly what you talked about with being victims of success and technology.  We are going to spend our way into more and more debt trying to develop all these cool new toys that are never going to be able to replace what a guy on the ground, or in the air, gives you.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 19, 2013)

give me Cpt Killjoy in the cockpit of an A-10 bouncing DU shells at 3,000 rounds per minute and a few hellfires with a bunker buster chaser over a drone with a single JDAM driven by a videogame failure...   but that's just me... I'll buy Cpt Killjoy a beer just because his plane is so cool.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 19, 2013)

I thought I was "CPT Killjoy."


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 19, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I thought I was "CPT Killjoy."


No, you are a LTC (CPT's wear two silver bars)


----------



## x SF med (Sep 20, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I thought I was "CPT Killjoy."


 
No you are Cpt Faith...  an Army Intel Officer, loathed by the men on the ground for never finishing case studies.... Cpt Killjoy is an AF A-10 pilot and beloved by the men on the ground for destroying targets through the use of laserlike CAS...  really no comparison, at all.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Sep 20, 2013)

CDG said:


> We are going to spend our way into more and more debt trying to develop all these cool new toys that are *never going to be able to replace what a guy on the ground, or in the air, gives you*.



...........and most of us here, we're the guys on the ground. 

x sf hit it on the head. There is no other platform that can provide the type of cover the troop on the ground needs, (at least fixed wing). That "smile" is not a fallacy. The "danger close" aspect of CAS is lost on the check-writers. I do not see the A-10 "Warthog" going away, upgrades, more bang for the buck possibly, but not going away. The V-22, definitely.

IMHO. Now waiting for the "update" on dodbuzz.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 20, 2013)

RB said:


> ...........and most of us here, we're the guys on the ground.
> 
> x sf hit it on the head. There is no other platform that can provide the type of cover the troop on the ground needs, (at least fixed wing). That "smile" is not a fallacy. The "danger close" aspect of CAS is lost on the check-writers. I do not see the A-10 "Warthog" going away, upgrades, more bang for the buck possibly, but not going away. The V-22, definitely.
> 
> IMHO. Now waiting for the "update" on dodbuzz.



Had to disagree, I see additional CV-22's as it becomes CSAR-X.
A-10, KC-10, and MC-12 are on the chopping block for some reason (I suspect the B-1 is up their too).  They are also talking about retiring another 40 C-130's (shudder).

They are going to claim that the high dollar air frames can do the permissive/semi-permissive environment mission, but the low end frames can not do the non-permissive mission, and congress will buy it for many reason (fund raising potential being #1).  What really sucks is these frames are great Guard/Reserve Missions, and could go to units fly RPV's.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 27, 2013)

@RB  Here you go....



http://www.stripes.com/news/us/gop-senator-blocks-air-force-nominee-over-aircraft-1.243510



> A congressional aide said Thursday that Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire has placed a hold on the nomination of Deborah Lee James. Ayotte was responding to recent signals from senior Air Force officials that the service could cut its A-10 fleet due to budget cuts.
> 
> The aide said Ayotte wants to ensure that the Air Force doesn't prematurely end the aircraft, pointing out that it helped save 60 lives in Afghanistan this past summer.


----------



## Johca (Sep 27, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I think we're victims of our own success and technology. If you can hang a JDAM from it, then it becomes a CAS platform.


There is an accompanying nativity of risk aversion stemming from WWII contributing to this problem.  There is also a contributing factor of technology that has put a demise to operating a large number of airplane formations in a hostile enemy environment. that has technology based ground to air weapons or rather the ability to put an high explosive detonation in close proximity of an aircraft where  the indirect  shrapnel and shock wave hit from the explosion takes out the aircraft.  The need to do a direct hit to take out a combat aircraft went away towards the ending days of WWII.  The two option of high and fast or low and fast is now risk avoidance pushed to stand-off capability and unfortunately the political preference to use stand-off no boots on the grounds military solutions is contributing to the existence of a significantly vulnerable Achilles Heel should boots on the ground need CAS.   It also seems to me the Army seems to be pushing CAS towards being provided by helicopter capability owned and controlled by the Army.    A solution of convenience if combat operations are in a small area of operations or a low number of battalions and regiments conducting combat operations against small groups of enemy forces.   The A-10 or something similar remains a needed CAS capability.


----------



## AWP (Sep 27, 2013)

Johca said:


> It also seems to me the Army seems to be pushing CAS towards being provided by helicopter capability owned and controlled by the Army.    A solution of convenience if combat operations are in a small area of operations or a low number of battalions and regiments conducting combat operations against small groups of enemy forces.   The A-10 or something similar remains a needed CAS capability.


 
I agree with the above, but to highlight it:

There are multiple instances in Afghanistan of:

Multiple flights of CAS going Winchester while supporting a TIC
Running out of airframes* to support a TIC.
At least one that I'm aware of where an AC-130 and multiple flights of CAS went Winchester while prosecuting a TIC.

I have nothing but love for the Army's CCA community, but anyone who thinks that CCA can replace CAS is living in fantasyland. Think of what it takes to make an AC-130 run out of ammo...

* - By this I mean airborne assets are used up, alert assets are used up, and nothing's ready to fly. The AF had to tell the Army "We cannot provide CAS for x more hours, you're on your own until then."


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

Johca said:


> political preference to use stand-off no boots on the grounds military solutions is contributing to the existence of a significantly vulnerable Achilles Heel should boots on the ground need CAS.   It also seems to me the Army seems to be pushing CAS towards being provided by helicopter capability owned and controlled by the Army.



The Army does not consider its rotary wing assets as CAS platforms.  The USMC does, but not the Army.  So it's a different ballgame.  The majority of the Army doesn't seem to fully understand what JTACs are, what they bring to the fight, what goes into prosecuting targets with CAS, and how different weapons and platforms work together.  It ain't just throwing out a 9-line and calling "Cleared Hot".  We aren't Air Traffic Controllers either, a title that constantly gets thrown out when you try and explain airspace deconfliction.  Part of it is our problem, as we need to be more proactive in getting the word out on who we are and what we do.  The new JFIRE was written by the USMC, with minimal input from USAF JTACs and the result is that it falls well short in some areas.  That's our own damn fault.  We sent a couple senior enlisted guys down to battle it out with USMC field grades, and now bitch about how the JFIRE isn't well-written enough.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 27, 2013)

One issue IMO is that you need a JTAC to use fast air, but only need a radio and and a ground commanders authority to call in an Apache.

TACP/JTACs are normally a brigade level asset for the Infantry, and can be a pain in the ass getting attached for a basic patrol. Its one thing to know you are going to raid or assault an objective, you can tack on all the support you would ever want or need.  Its another thing to get caught up in a complex ambush after doing a day long patrol, and having to work the situation with whatever support assets you have available. 

I would like to see TACP as a company or even platoon level asset and JTACs at the brigade or even better battalion level.

But I think USAF TACPs would have to grow a whole hell of a lot or the Army would have to start sending soldiers through the TACP course.


----------



## pardus (Sep 27, 2013)

JAB said:


> One issue IMO is that you need a JTAC to use fast air, but only need a radio and and a ground commanders authority to call in an Apache.
> 
> TACP/JTACs are normally a brigade level asset for the Infantry, and can be a pain in the ass getting attached for a basic patrol. Its one thing to know you are going to raid or assault an objective, you can tack on all the support you would ever want or need.  Its another thing to get caught up in a complex ambush after doing a day long patrol, and having to work the situation with whatever support assets you have available.
> 
> ...



Or just have 13F's learn it and do it.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 27, 2013)

pardus said:


> Or just have 13F's learn it and do it.


Maintaining currency would be a bitch.


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

pardus said:


> Or just have 13F's learn it and do it.



It's a long way from a 13F to a JTAC.  That's not a knock on 13Fs, but there is a whole hell of a lot that goes into JTACery.  The easy part is calling up the 9-line and talking the pilot onto the target.  All the shit that comes before that is where the distinction comes in.


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

JAB said:


> One issue IMO is that you need a JTAC to use fast air, but only need a radio and and a ground commanders authority to call in an Apache.
> 
> TACP/JTACs are normally a brigade level asset for the Infantry, and can be a pain in the ass getting attached for a basic patrol. Its one thing to know you are going to raid or assault an objective, you can tack on all the support you would ever want or need.  Its another thing to get caught up in a complex ambush after doing a day long patrol, and having to work the situation with whatever support assets you have available.
> 
> ...



JTACs are assigned from BN up to Corps level.  There are definitely not enough of us, but in a lot of cases the Army doesn't use JTACs to their full potential either.  I've heard plenty of stories of ground commanders not trusting a USAF guy to come out on patrols and so they get left in the TOC.  Now, we as a community need better quality control starting at the TACP Schoolhouse, but that is not the only issue.


----------



## AWP (Sep 27, 2013)

CDG said:


> JTACs are assigned from BN up to Corps level.  There are definitely not enough of us, but in a lot of cases the Army doesn't use JTACs to their full potential either.  I've heard plenty of stories of ground commanders not trusting a USAF guy to come out on patrols and so they get left in the TOC.  Now, we as a community need better quality control starting at the TACP Schoolhouse, but that is not the only issue.


 
A small piece of that is managing your customer's expectations. Outside looking in, I wonder how many Army commanders from the company to BDE know what the AF can do, how fast, and what JTAC's can do and how they integrate into the plan. I'm not staying you guys aren't trying to educate the Green side, but it is something every ALO/ JTAC/ TACP should work on.

Some commanders simply won't care or won't take the time to learn and you can't help them, but their subordinates are a different angle to work. I think the move towards your own officer careerfield will pay dividends down the line, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference right now.

I'm sure it's an uphill fight for you.

Historically speaking, I don't know that I've ever really worked with an organization, SOF or CF, that understood how their support slices fit into the puzzle. I've also seen many instances where the support slices didn't know how they fit in the picture. I liken unit cooperation to a piece of tile that was mislaid and protrudes just about the tiles around it. It looks great, the color matches, it fits, and there aren't any issues...until you stub your toe. That's when you realize your tile's jacked up and fixing it will be problematic.


----------



## pardus (Sep 27, 2013)

CDG said:


> It's a long way from a 13F to a JTAC.  That's not a knock on 13Fs, but there is a whole hell of a lot that goes into JTACery.  The easy part is calling up the 9-line and talking the pilot onto the target.  All the shit that comes before that is where the distinction comes in.



Understood, hence the "learn" part. This could be a skill identifier for 13Fs once they hit X rank e.g. E6-E7. Ship them of for 6mths (or whatever) and get them up to speed.


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

pardus said:


> Understood, hence the "learn" part. This could be a skill identifier for 13Fs once they hit X rank e.g. E6-E7. Ship them of for 6mths (or whatever) and get them up to speed.



As Freefalling already said, maintaining currency would be pretty difficult.  Being a proficient JTAC is a full-time job, so you would also have to convince the Army that it's worth it for them to let their dudes spend time learning a lot of USAF knowledge.  I haven't been a TACP very long, but I don't think turning the job over to the Army is the answer.


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> A small piece of that is managing your customer's expectations. Outside looking in, I wonder how many Army commanders from the company to BDE know what the AF can do, how fast, and what JTAC's can do and how they integrate into the plan. I'm not staying you guys aren't trying to educate the Green side, but it is something every ALO/ JTAC/ TACP should work on.
> 
> Some commanders simply won't care or won't take the time to learn and you can't help them, but their subordinates are a different angle to work. I think the move towards your own officer careerfield will pay dividends down the line, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference right now.
> 
> ...



Having our own O's is a big step in the right direction, but it is going to take time for those Os to get into positions where they can really affect change.  Not only that, but we constantly suffer from the stigma that is applied to being in the "Chair Force".  Everyone knows about PJs and Controllers, but they don't think there are any other jobs that put USAF personnel in harm's way as a primary mission.  It can be tough to educate the Army, because a lot of Army dudes seem to have the idea ingrained that being a good JTAC is no big deal.  They think their JFOs are JTACs, when the reality is much different.  Drop a JFO into a TIC with multiple assets checking on at once, multiple targets, SA threats, CDE concerns, friendlies all over the place, and a GC calling you every 2:00 for a SITREP and see what happens.  And that's just a training scenario where you don't have real bullets flying.  I'm not trying to sound cocky, or like other people couldn't do it, but it's just not as easy as a lot of people seem to think.  It's taken the TACP community years to get to where it's at, and it currently has a lot of institutional knowledge from the last 12 years of combat. I really think we should be giving Army dudes a chance to step into our shoes, from FRAGO to mission execution, and let them see just how hectic things can get.  It would give them a better appreciation for what a good JTAC really does, and can do, if utilized properly.  The fault lies with us too though, because too often we get caught up in talking shit about how the Army has no idea how much we do, when we should be showing them and teaching them how to use us.


----------



## pardus (Sep 27, 2013)

CDG said:


> As Freefalling already said, maintaining currency would be pretty difficult.  Being a proficient JTAC is a full-time job, so you would also have to convince the Army that it's worth it for them to let their dudes spend time learning a lot of USAF knowledge.  I haven't been a TACP very long, but I don't think turning the job over to the Army is the answer.



I'm not saying turn it over, I'm saying train more people, people in the branch that use it. Other countries do it without any problem.


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

pardus said:


> I'm not saying turn it over, I'm saying train more people, people in the branch that use it. Other countries do it without any problem.



Tracking.  Do other countries have the same inter-service squabbling that we do?  The problem is getting the Air Force to sign off on non-SOF Army guys controlling their assets, and convincing the Army to allot the proper amount of training time for their guys to maintain proficiency with a non-Army asset.


----------



## AWP (Sep 27, 2013)

Musing aloud, but we exchange pilots with foreign nations, it would be nice if the Army would give up 25, 40, whatever 13F's to the various local ASOS' for a year. 4-5 per base, something like that. No PCS involved, even chop over 13A's or 11A's in a liasion capacity for a year. Hell, we deploy to combat for a year at a time, a year's"deployment" for a Captain to their friendly neighborhood ASOS shouldn't be horrible...



CDG said:


> it's just not as easy as a lot of people seem to think.


 
What? You don't just read off a 9-line and call it a day?

:-"


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Musing aloud, but we exchange pilots with foreign nations, it would be nice if the Army would give up 25, 40, whatever 13F's to the various local ASOS' for a year. 4-5 per base, something like that. No PCS involved, even chop over 13A's or 11A's in a liasion capacity for a year. Hell, we deploy to combat for a year at a time, a year's"deployment" for a Captain to their friendly neighborhood ASOS shouldn't be horrible...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not a bad idea at all.  The issue again comes in with maintaining that knowledge base that they would gain.  And we would have to do a better job of really showing them the job instead of just throwing a few sims up and calling it good.  

LMAO.  Ask a lot of people, it is that easy! :wall:


----------



## pardus (Sep 27, 2013)

CDG said:


> Tracking.  Do other countries have the same inter-service squabbling that we do?  The problem is getting the Air Force to sign off on non-SOF Army guys controlling their assets, and convincing the Army to allot the proper amount of training time for their guys to maintain proficiency with a non-Army asset.



The US seems to have taken inter service childishness to stellar levels I do concede. Which in practice would make my idea virtually unworkable. Frankly I think it's obscene but WTF would I know? 
_IF _something like this were to be done, I wouldn't think they'd ever be as well trained and proficient as JTAC, just an additional asset.


----------



## CDG (Sep 27, 2013)

pardus said:


> The US seems to have taken *inter service childishness to stellar levels* I do concede. Which in practice would make my idea virtually unworkable. Frankly I think it's obscene but WTF would I know?
> _IF _something like this were to be done, I wouldn't think they'd ever be as well trained and proficient as JTAC, just an additional asset.



Agree with the bolded text 100% and then some.  

Having more JTACs would be fantastic.  We're doing away with the ROMAD role and pushing the force towards 100% JTAC.  That brings both goods and bads though.  We've seen standards change in other places to push more guys into a role, and that's happening with us.  We don't have enough JTACs, and the Schoolhouse is pushing guys through that have no business in this careerfield.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 27, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Musing aloud, but we exchange pilots with foreign nations, it would be nice if the Army would give up 25, 40, whatever 13F's to the various local ASOS' for a year. 4-5 per base, something like that. No PCS involved, even chop over 13A's or 11A's in a liasion capacity for a year. Hell, we deploy to combat for a year at a time, a year's"deployment" for a Captain to their friendly neighborhood ASOS shouldn't be horrible...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which 11A's and 13A's is the Army going to chop?  Future GO's, or Cpt Braindead?


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 27, 2013)

CDG said:


> Agree with the bolded text 100% and then some.
> 
> Having more JTACs would be fantastic.  We're doing away with the ROMAD role and pushing the force towards 100% JTAC.  That brings both goods and bads though.  We've seen standards change in other places to push more guys into a role, and that's happening with us.  We don't have enough JTACs, and the Schoolhouse is pushing guys through that have no business in this careerfield.


You really don't need a dedicated maintainer anymore.  I think the 100% JTAC is a good goal, don't know if it is realistic and don't be surprised when it gets watered down.


----------



## AWP (Sep 27, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Which 11A's and 13A's is the Army going to chop?  Future GO's, or Cpt Braindead?


 
If we can discuss solutions for a common uniform and the decline and rebirth of the NCO corps, then my idea is just as far-fetched possible as those.


----------



## Johca (Sep 28, 2013)

CDG said:


> The Army does not consider its rotary wing assets as CAS platforms.


Ouch, perhaps not in terms you are familiar with, but you ought to ask Army aviation about the term close combat attacks.

Army helicopter aviation is typically organic to the units whereas Air Force CAS assets are more combined operations and diverted from other theater priorities.  Thus the need for liaisons to prioritizing getting the support from the Air Force.  CCA is Close Combat Attack.

From several current Army doctrine policy publications and it has been and around for some time in one form or another.

1-1. The aviation brigade is organized to synchronize operations of multiple aviation battalions simultaneously. Because the brigade is modular and tailorable, it can task organize as required for reconnaissance, security, close combat attack (CCA), interdiction attack, air assault, and air movement operations in support of ground forces.

3-24. The ARB and ARS of the aviation brigade provide the commander with the capability to support ground forces that are engaged. CCA is carried out with direct fire weapons supported by indirect fire and CAS. The range between combatants may vary from several thousand meters to hand-to-hand combat.  During CCA, attack reconnaissance aircraft engage targets near friendly forces, thereby requiring detailed integration of fire and maneuver of ground and aviation forces. To achieve desired effects and reduce risk of fratricide, air-ground integration must take place down to team levels. Refer to FM 3-04.126 for additional information on CCA operations.

3-22. A CCA is a coordinated hasty or deliberate attack by attack reconnaissance aviation aircraft against enemy forces that are in close proximity to friendly forces engaged in close combat. In most instances, the attack aviation may already occupy holding areas, battle or support-by-fire positions or are in overwatch of the ground unit as it begins its assault. The AATF employs CCA procedures to ensure that these aviation fires destroy the enemy with minimal risk to friendly forces (See FM 3-04.126).

3-34. Close air support is air action by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces (JP 3-0). Like CCA, close air support can be conducted at any place and time friendly forces are in close proximity to enemy forces based on availability. All leaders in the AATF should understand how to employ close air support to destroy, disrupt, suppress, fix, harass, neutralize, or delay.

3-37. The ALO and JTAC personnel in the tactical air control party are the primary means for requesting and controlling close air support. However, reconnaissance units conducting shaping operations, such as reconnaissance and surveillance missions that have joint fires observer certified personnel, may observe and request CAS through the JTAC. (See FM 3-09.32 or JP 3-09.3 for examples.)

Just so you know, I was From 1989 to 1993 I was attached to the Army Reserve’s 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment, Scott AFB.  During this period I flew typically as a crew chief, scanner and gunner on the units UH-1 and CH-47s and subsequently the H-60s when the unit converted to H-60s to sustain my aircrew mission ready certifications.   I also flew several SAR/MAST missions as the medic on this units helicopters.   This unit was known as the Lancers and deployed during DESERT STORM to location at the King Khalid Military City and in a forward capacity at the Kuwait International Airport. I didn’t however, deploy with them.  I began flying on Army helicopters as an attached or augmenting mission crewmember in 1977.

It should be noted the PJ CFETP identifies as core skill requirement "Fixed-wing immediate close air support (ICAS) call for fire procedures" and "Rotary-wing immediate close air support (ICAS) call for fire procedures"  A requirement that was around long before I enlisted in 1973.  If you actually look at source documents for Detachment 6, 1st Commando Wing to Udorn (Waterpump, Project 404, PALACE DOG) you will find eight PJs were involved with those operations and specific mention of "And on several occasions TSgt Stan Monnie-our para-rescue man who also had FAG training—would control strikes".  The bottom-line is I'm pretty certain Army uses helicopters  to do CCA/CAS if the unit has organic helicopters supporting the ground forces engaging or being engaged by the enemy.


----------



## CDG (Sep 28, 2013)

I'm not saying the Army doesn't use their helos in for CCA/CAS.  I am familiar with the CCA.  The difference is that they don't consider them a CAS platform, like the USMC does so the restrictions on them engaging targets is not the same.  The very definition of CAS is "in close proximity to friendly forces and requiring detailed integration with the fire and movement of those forces".  The difference between CAS/CCA comes in with the role the helo pilot plays in airspace deconfliction. It takes a lot more SA when dealing with Army helos because transmission of the CCA 5-line is giving them clearance to roll in and prosecute targets, unless you specify an "At My Command" mission.  Even then, they have a reputation for just rolling in anyways and doing what they want.  So they can really present a problem if you already have fast movers on station and you're about to prosecute a target and you just want to hold the Army helos until the attack run is over. USMC helos have a CAS 5-line that is transmitted and they will hold where you put them until you clear them to engage.  So it may seem like arguing semantics, but on this end it is a big difference.  Not too mention the fact that all it takes is one PL or PSG to decide CAS is taking too long and he calls in a CCA right in the middle of your engagement.  From what I have been told, that is not a rare occurrence.


----------



## Johca (Sep 28, 2013)

CDG said:


> The difference between CAS/CCA comes in with the role the helo pilot plays in airspace deconfliction.


Which is one of the reasons for TACP and ALO specialties exist. These specialties are part of the interface between Army and air support agencies of other Services in the planning, preparation, execution, and assessment of airspace use.  Unfortunately the perspective of Army Helo pilot role offered is somewhat disturbing as it indicates a lack of understanding of the Army’s perspective of who controls tactical airspace around its ground maneuver operations.

Air space conflicts especially in the altitudes from ground level to 5000 feet ( I might be off on the upper airspace level) between Army operations and Air Force operations has been a problem since the Korean War.  The Army’s perspective of Air Space incorporates artillery, mortar, and area defensive operational capabilities.  Even within the combat air rescue realm many Air Force pilots and Air Force Intel personal lacked an understanding of who owns the airspace around Army maneuver elements during the 1980s and 1990s when I began to get involved in battlestaff level mission planning.  During this period is when concepts of Low Intensity Conflict and asymmetric battlefields began to be taken seriously.  During this same period the orientation shifted from combat rescue shifted focus from recovery of downed aircrew on the forward air interdiction airspace back to isolated personnel recovery which was the bread and butter before the SEA conflicts emphasized have helicopter, have hoist, have guns, no other capability is needed.

It should also be noted the topic was diverted from CAS and need for A-10 or similar type aircraft to JTACs, which I also agree there is a need for.  However, within this focus of conversation it was TACP/JTACs are normally a brigade level asset for the Infantry, and can be a pain in the ass getting attached for a basic patrol.  Its one thing to know you are going to raid or assault an objective, you can tack on all the support you would ever want or need. Its another thing to get caught up in a complex ambush after doing a day long patrol, and having to work the situation with whatever support assets you have available.”  There is a lack of awareness  TACP as a specialty was never envisioned by main stream Air Force or the US Army to be supporting the typical combat patrol.

Part of the original radio maintenance purpose of the ROMAD stems from the fact that prior to Grenada, command and control had been intentional kept specialized.  Army radio equipment and radio nets seldom had the UHF, VHF. and HF frequency capability compatible with the radios put into Air Force aircraft. Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) lessons learned did much to move back to combined arms operations and joint operations.   Another issue was the radio communications was of such bulk and weight it needed to be hauled around on a vehicle.  JTAC duties is something TACP is trying to gain proprietary ownership for many reasons, some good and some not in the best interests of effective and efficient war fighting.  Regardless this will eventually get resolved as it is unlikely TACP will gain proponent proprietary ownership of JTAC duties and if I’m wrong I guess I’ll be eating my hat.

I attached a CAS history document written in 2003 that offers an Army perspective.


----------



## Johca (Sep 28, 2013)

The attached doc is a 2008 Rand study supporting the establishing of the 13L ALO AFSC.    Pages 14-15.

In addition, interviews with current ALOs and TACP personnel suggest that Army officers’ impressions do not consider all the factors of ALO competency. The TACP personnel are part of TACS, and proper use of the TACPs is essential to maximize the capability of the TACS.  While most ALOs do a very effective job in commanding the TACP resource, there were comments that suggested that misuse occurs and can fall into one of two categories.
The first case of misuse of TACP personnel occurs when inexperienced ALOs allow Army commanders to manage the deployment and use of the TACP personnel. Examples given in the interviews included convoy duty, routine foot patrols, guard duty, and kitchen police.
The second case of misuse of TACP personnel occurs when ALOs improperly employ TACP personnel due to a lack of knowledge or experience. Centralized command and decentralized execution form a major doctrinal tenet of the U.S. armed forces. 
In a ground combat context, it recognizes the Army commander’s role in setting objectives and defining the “commander’s intent.” Decentralized execution leaves the detailed execution of the plan to individual unit commanders.  ALOs have the doctrinal responsibility to employ TACP assets in such a manner as to fulfill the Army commander’s intent.   When inexperienced ALOs defer to the Army commander on the deployment of TACP personnel, there is the potential that a valuable asset, the TACP personnel, will be misused. And as a result, the TACS will be inefficiently employed.


----------



## CDG (Sep 29, 2013)

Will be reading both of those studies.  Thank you for posting them.  Not to sound like a fanboy, but I am consistently impressed by your in-depth knowledge on so many subjects, @Johca.


----------



## AWP (Sep 29, 2013)

Johca said:


> Air space conflicts especially in the altitudes from ground level to 5000 feet ( I might be off on the upper airspace level) between Army operations and Air Force operations has been a problem since the Korean War.  The Army’s perspective of Air Space incorporates artillery, mortar, and area defensive operational capabilities.  Even within the combat air rescue realm many Air Force pilots and Air Force Intel personal lacked an understanding of who owns the airspace around Army maneuver elements during the 1980s and 1990s when I began to get involved in battlestaff level mission planning.


 
Since we've drifted from the topic of the OP.... 

Airspace deconfliction isn't the exclusive domain (authority or responsibility) of the Army or the JTAC/ ALO. A Control and Reporting Center (CRC) also plays a large role in controlling the skies. Which elements "owns" the airspace is something I don't know, but what I do know is the work put in by CRC's and the impact they have on the battlespace.

Without getting into details, the CRC presented here is dated somewhat, but the mission sets presented are accurate.

http://www.552acw.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=14016



> The CRC directly supports the JFACC requirement for situational awareness and execution of the Air Tasking Order/Airspace Control Order (ATO/ACO) by performing the theater battle management functions of surveillance, early warning, combat identification, *force allocation, weapons control, airspace management*, theater missile defense, all source sensor data fusion, and intra-service connectivity.


 
The Marines have several (4 or 5?) Marine Air Control Squadrons which perform the CRC mission.

The Army is aware of them at least, even it is a copy-paste from the AF's website:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/thesaurus/toc.asp?id=36142

I will take a semi-educated guess and say that the on-scene control is where it starts to break down (patrol commander vs. JTAC/ ALO vs. rotary commander), but there is one other player involved. I don't think that the CRC's mandate extends below a certain altitude which is where problems arise, but good luck in receiving CAS in a timely manner without the CRC.


----------



## Johca (Sep 29, 2013)

During my 23 years of service there were no officers doing pararescue duties.  A PJ team leader of TSgt/MSgt rank got dragged into all sorts of versatile involvements to include commissioned commander level and action staff officer activities.   I also served when JSOC, USSOCOM, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency were less significant than they are now.  During this period there first started  capabilities called Rescue Special Operations Low Level and Special Operations Low Level I and II.  Level I and II was essentially the Army support tactical airlift C-130s and strategic airlift primarily C-141s and the occasional C-5s.   This was the period during which forward refueling point tactics and methods were developed.  I gained much flying hours flying C-141s and non Rescue and Special Operations Mission design series C-130s and C-141.  On occasion I would be the primary jumpmaster for the Army on a 3 aircraft formation airborne assault training exercise.  Typical scenario would be departing a location in California and flying low level typically to lesser utilized drop zones located at places such as Ft McCoy Wisconsin.

Also two WC-130 weather reconnaissance squadrons (54th WRS (typhoon) & 55th WRS (Hurricane) were aligned under the 41st Rescue and Weather Reconnaissance Wing, but no combat weather jumpers.

From August 1987 to October 1990 there existed the 173oth Pararescue Squadron.   This squadron had only two commissioned officers, the commander and the executive officer.  It had the primary Squadron initially at Eglin AFB and subsequently at McClellan AFB.  It had six globally separated detachments and three operating locations aligned under two detachments.  These Detachments were for lack of a better word commanded by pararescue senior NCOs.  I happened to be a MSgt assigned to Det 4 at RAF Woodbridge that had an operating location in Iceland and another in Spain.   When deployed I was either running a team or over seeing the operations of two and occasionally 3 teams often doing operations with Army SF and occasional State Department and other agencies.  My background also includes being a MFF instructor for the 23rd AF MTT and being an original member of DOD's first globally deployable mountaineering High Altitude Rescue Team.   Needless to say my experience is one of being there doing.

http://www.nwas.org/digest/papers/1978/Vol03No4/1978v003no04-Henderson.pdf    AN INTRODUCTION TO AIR FORCE WC-130 WEATHER RECONNAISSANCE, written in 1978,was to large of a file to upload, but sufficient to give an awareness of the past.

http://alaska.net/~jcassidy/pdf_files/HART History.pdf   gives some awareness of the depth of weather reconnaissance pertinent to extreme high altitude balloons and why I emphasized no weather parachutists assigned to any 41 RWRW unit.

http://alaska.net/~jcassidy/pdf_files/PJs Korean War.pdf  gives an idea of PJ mission utilizations before JSOC, USSOCOM, AFSOC and JPRA gained current influences. I was there participating in the growing pains of the AFSOC/Special Tactics and JPRA organizations and had a rear seat back of the room cheap seat direct knowledge of other growing pains.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 29, 2013)

Johca said:


> Also two WC-130 weather reconnaissance squadrons (54th WRS (typhoon) & 55th WRS (Hurricane) were aligned under the 41st Rescue and Weather Reconnaissance Wing, but no combat weather jumpers.
> 
> .



One minor correction, 3 Weather Reconaissance Squadrons, the 53rd at Keesler (Hurricane Hunters), 54th on Guam (Typhoon Chasers) and 55th at McClellan (Pole Vaulters flying WC-135's).

as an aside, 99% of the weather jumpers were assigned to Air Weather Service.


----------



## CDG (Nov 14, 2013)

An article I just read on SWJ talking about the A-10 being cut.  There is a free seminar on the 22nd in DC to talk about the A-10 and why cutting it is a bad move. 

_Participants will address questions surrounding (1) the vital importance of the Close Air Support mission, (2) the controversial decision to retire the A-10 in favor of the F-35, (3) what it will take to provide a CAS capability in the future, and most importantly, (4) how the Defense Department should proceed to insure our ground troops will be given the support they need and deserve. 
The seminar will take the form of a discussion among people having long experience in this mission area -- from a variety perspectives -- from aircraft designers, to pilots with A-10 combat experience and, most importantly, the views soldiers and marines on the receiving end of close support in ground combat operations.  In the interests of having a vigorous debate, pushbacks by people supporting the AF decision will be not only welcomed but emphatically encouraged and solicited.  The goal is to promote a free market of ideas.
This seminar will take place on 0930 Nov. 22  at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and will be sponsored by the Strauss Military Reform Project, a subsidiary of the Project on Government Oversight._

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/should-the-af-retire-the-a-10-a-seminar-on-a-seminal-question


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2013)

This month's Combat Aircraft Monthly has a blurb about this. It claims the AF's numbers say in FY12, A-10 operational and maintenance costs where about $1.1 billion compared to the F-15E's $1.3 billion and the F-16's $3.1 billion. However, the A-10's availability was less than the -15E's at 66.52 percent.

Curiously, later in the same edition it quotes a Mission Capable Rate in 2013 for the A-10 of 75.2 percent and the -15E at 79.3 percent. The article does not list the MCR for F-16's.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 28, 2014)

GOOD NEWS...A-10 not done yet  

*House Spending Bill Blocks A-10 Retirement
*
The US House of Representatives on Thursday evening, during deliberation on the fiscal 2015 defense spending bill, voted to block the US Air Force’s plan to cut the entire A-10 fleet.
The chamber approved the an amendment, offered by Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., that would prohibit the Defense Department from using money to divest, retire, transfer or place in storage any A-10 aircraft, along with blocking the department from preparing to cut any of the aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/...0017/House-Spending-Bill-Blocks-10-Retirement


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 28, 2014)

Kraut783 said:


> GOOD NEWS...A-10 not done yet
> 
> *House Spending Bill Blocks A-10 Retirement
> *
> ...



I'm glad to see that.  Considering Congress and the DoD's current propensity for picking completely abysmal air frames to sink precious dollars into, I'm relieved that they're keeping something that works.  This is just from my somewhat limited perspective, but if it ain't broke...


----------



## Grunt (Jun 28, 2014)

That's good news. That is one aircraft that instills fear on those on the receiving end of their arsenal. 

Long live the A-10.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 28, 2014)

So where does the money come from?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 28, 2014)

SOWT said:


> So where does the money come from?



I'm pretty sure it's NOT coming from cuts to the botched abortion known as the F-35, and I don't know enough about inter-service funding to say for sure whether or not it's coming from a cut to the Littoral Combat Ship program (with Austal shipyard located here in town, the reduction in ships to be made did make the news).  Funding is probably imagined to come from troop reduction, when in actuality it's coming from some unsustainable line of credit somewhere.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 28, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> I'm pretty sure it's NOT coming from cuts to the botched abortion known as the F-35,



Nope, they added funds (Thank you Sec Gates, wonder what state produces these gems?)



racing_kitty said:


> I don't know enough about inter-service funding to say for sure whether or not it's coming from a cut to the Littoral Combat Ship program (with Austal shipyard located here in town, the reduction in ships to be made did make the news).



Nope, rare that Congress takes funds from one Branch and moves it to another Branch of the Military (though I hadn't heard about the LCS cuts)



racing_kitty said:


> Funding is probably imagined to come from troop reduction, when in actuality it's coming from some unsustainable line of credit somewhere.



I am willing to bet those Troop/TriCare/VA cuts will not be imaginary.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 29, 2014)

Kill some of these defense programs...i.e. F-35....just cut down the order a bit.  But keep the best all day all weather CAS system in the inventory.


----------



## pardus (Jun 30, 2014)

Kraut783 said:


> Kill some of these defense programs...i.e. F-35....just cut down the order a bit.  But keep the best all day all weather CAS system in the inventory.



Or give the CAS assets and everything needed to run them to the Army and Marines.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 30, 2014)

pardus said:


> Or give the CAS assets and everything needed to run them to the Army and Marines.


Yep.

Sign the A-10 over to the Army and let mis-manage the program.
Give them 12 months of support and let Aviation take it over after that.


----------



## AWP (Jun 30, 2014)

Air Force: We're cutting the A-10's.
Army That's bullshit! We need CAS!
AF: Okay, we'll give you the airframes, support equip., and any crews who want to transfer.
Army: Outstanding! Now we need our manning authroization and budget increased....
Entire DoD: LOL!
AMARC in Arizona: We'll leave a light on for ya'!


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 30, 2014)

pardus said:


> Or give the CAS assets and everything needed to run them to the Army and Marines.



If only  (sigh)


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 30, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Air Force: We're cutting the A-10's.
> Army That's bullshit! We need CAS!
> AF: Okay, we'll give you the airframes, support equip., and any crews who want to transfer.
> Army: Outstanding! Now we need our manning authroization and budget increased....
> ...


Except the AGE would stay with the AF.
I doubt you'd get a lot of transfers either, Blue to Green wasn't a good deal for most of the folks who became green.

Too bad the Army's Aviation Acquisition folks are so incompetent.


----------



## CDG (Jun 30, 2014)

I don't see the Air Force ever turning over JTAC duties to the conventional Army, and the Army only uses Air Force JTACs because they have to.  CAS isn't as easy as some people in the Army seem to think, and if the way the JFO program is run is any indication, attempted implementation of a JTAC program would be a shitshow and a half.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 1, 2014)

Survivability Upgrades. Keep that thing flying for another 30 years. Some things just get better with age. Wine, C-130s, M2 Brownings, 1911s.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 1, 2014)

the interesting thing about the A-10 is it's survivability...  how much more armor and armament can you throw on that airframe?

eta.... and in the great scheme of the AF....  it's an inexpensive plane...  amazing ROI on it and the C-130, dontcha thunk?


----------



## AWP (Jul 1, 2014)

I think with each passing day I hate the F-35 just a little bit more...


----------



## pardus (Jul 1, 2014)

x SF med said:


> the interesting thing about the A-10 is it's survivability...  how much more armor and armament can you throw on that airframe?



I'll give you an example, the De Havilland Mosquito was designed to carry a 1000lb payload, it ended up carrying a 4000lb payload 1,500ml, thats Berlin and back. Which was IIRC the same payload the B-17 could carry to Berlin.

Incidentally, the Canberra bomber was the replacement of the Mosquito and was designed due to the requirement for a jet aircraft with the capability of a Mosquito. The Canberra was the first non-American designed aircraft, built in the USA for the USA since WWI IIRC, and it's still in service in the USA, Not bad for an aircraft that came into service in 1953!


----------



## CDG (Jul 2, 2014)

CDG said:


> I don't see the Air Force ever turning over JTAC duties to the conventional Army, and the Army only uses Air Force JTACs because they have to.  CAS isn't as easy as some people in the Army seem to think, and if the way the JFO program is run is any indication, attempted implementation of a JTAC program would be a shitshow and a half.



I ran across a paper written in 2003 by (then) MAJ Robert G. Armfield at the Air University that had a perfect quote for what I was trying to say in this post.

"Asking a traditional ground force soldier to understand all the issues 
surrounding coordinate based targeting, combat airspace management and airpower command 
and control is the same as asking an airman to understand the specifics of mechanized maneuver 
warfare. Warfare is complicated; effective airpower application is perhaps more so."


----------



## x SF med (Jul 2, 2014)

CDG said:


> I ran across a paper written in 2003 by (then) MAJ Robert G. Armfield at the Air University that had a perfect quote for what I was trying to say in this post.
> 
> "Asking a traditional ground force soldier to understand all the issues
> surrounding coordinate based targeting, combat airspace management and airpower command
> ...




the ground soldier is on the receiving end of ill-placed airpower application in a CAS situation...  I trust the pilot that smiles as I wave at him as he flies by in his chariot of death to send the other guy to his maker...  but that's just me, I guess.   I don't think CAS is from 5000-15000 ft above the battlespace.  that ain't close.


----------



## pardus (Jul 2, 2014)

CDG said:


> I ran across a paper written in 2003 by (then) MAJ Robert G. Armfield at the Air University that had a perfect quote for what I was trying to say in this post.
> 
> "Asking a traditional ground force soldier to understand all the issues
> surrounding coordinate based targeting, combat airspace management and airpower command
> ...



Rather patronizing. The Army has been performing CAS for sometime now.



x SF med said:


> the ground soldier is on the receiving end of ill-placed airpower application in a CAS situation...  I trust the pilot that smiles as I wave at him as he flies by in his chariot of death to send the other guy to his maker...  but that's just me, I guess.   I don't think CAS is from 5000-15000 ft above the battlespace.  that ain't close.



Exactly!

The AF has been trying to get rid of probably the best CAS asset we have, since before the Gulf War. So fuck'm, they should be made to hand over everything including the budget for them. Everyone would be happy then. :-/


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> Rather patronizing. The Army has been performing CAS for sometime now.



How is it patronizing?


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

x SF med said:


> the ground soldier is on the receiving end of ill-placed airpower application in a CAS situation...  I trust the pilot that smiles as I wave at him as he flies by in his chariot of death to send the other guy to his maker...  but that's just me, I guess.   I don't think CAS is from 5000-15000 ft above the battlespace.  that ain't close.



The term "close" has nothing to do with how high the aircraft is.  Helos are great, but they aren't the answer for everything.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> How is it patronizing?



I already addressed this in my previous post. I'll quote myself  "The Army has been performing CAS for sometime now." The AF is coming across like a superior wanker with no justification.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> The term "close" has nothing to do with how high the aircraft is.  Helos are great, but they aren't the answer for everything.



OK, now you are showing your ignorance. WTF do you know about our position on being supported? We know helos aren't everything, we also know AF is fucking us out of one of the best assests available.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> OK, now you are showing your ignorance. WTF do you know about our position on being supported? We know helos aren't everything, we also know AF is fucking us out of one of the best assests available.



So what is the Army's position on being supported?


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> OK, now you are showing your ignorance. WTF do you know about our position on being supported? We know helos aren't everything, we also know AF is fucking us out of one of the best assests available.


I would think his almost JTAC-ness would give him some creds.
have you been on the receiving end of CAS?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 3, 2014)

I dunno, he's been pretty high speed as a NG medic...


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> So what is the Army's position on being supported?



You tell me, you're the expert. 

So let me ask you, do _you_ think losing the A-10 is going to reduce the quality of CAS that the guys on the ground receive? 



SOWT said:


> I would think his almost JTAC-ness would give him some creds.
> have you been on the receiving end of CAS?



It certainly does. It doesn't make him the all knowing authority though. It makes him well versed in what the AF tells him is right.
No, so obviously I have no say in the matter, right?



Ranger Psych said:


> I dunno, he's been pretty high speed as a NG medic...



Golf clap.


----------



## AWP (Jul 3, 2014)

All of these years I thought one of a JTAC's responsibilities was to tell the Army (local commander) what the Air Force can provide, not what the Army needs.

In a sense, JDAM's are the worst thing to happen to CAS in perhaps ever. It has convinced HQAF that any platform can deliver effective CAS, so the days of guns and rockets are almost over. Nevermind that they are used extensively in a place like Afghanistan, the F-35 can do ALLLLLL of that and more. 

The AF should shutter the AD A-10 squadrons and keep those airframes for the Guard and Reserves. You save some money and can use those ariframes to keep the A-10 around for years to come.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> You tell me, you're the expert.
> 
> So let me ask you, do _you_ think losing the A-10 is going to reduce the quality of CAS that the guys on the ground receive?



Certain cases, just like losing F-16's or F-15E's would reduce the OVERALL quality of the CAS received.
What can the A-10 do that other platforms can not do?
Loiter, 30MM gun runs.
Other then armor, why is 30MM superior to 20MM?



pardus said:


> It certainly does. It doesn't make him the all knowing authority though. It makes him well versed in what the AF tells him is right.
> No, so obviously I have no say in the matter, right?.



No one says you should participate in the discussion, but your response was patronizing, the same thing he was accused of.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> The term "close" has nothing to do with how high the aircraft is.  Helos are great, but they aren't the answer for everything.



I realize the A-10 is not a helicopter, even though it does tend to hover when it does a full release...  I have lased targets and had the munitions lose read due to interference... it's scary as shit...  the CAS from an A-10 is personal, the pilot actually gives a shit because his ass is on the same firing line as yours...  and there are fewer per capita friendly fire incidents in the nearly 40 years of use than with the smart technologies used for HACAS in the past 10 years....  in my book as the guy on the ground, this is a hugely significant factor, especially since the G2A comms can be used to fine tune and move the Hog's attack profile to best suit everyone's needs...

Yes, I am very one sided in this...  but then again, how many SF guys did a glitch in a box just kill?  ...and how many have been blasted to mist by A-10's?

Oh yeah...  an A-10 is about $13 million in today's dollars....  how much does each new HACAS platform cost?   The fucking bombs cost more than the A-10 and are prone to problems with calibration...

So, color me jaded, old fashioned or whatever...  the A-10 plays nice with its friends and is the friggin scourge of its enemies.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Certain cases, just like losing F-16's or F-15E's would reduce the OVERALL quality of the CAS received.
> What can the A-10 do that other platforms can not do?
> Loiter, 30MM gun runs.
> Other then armor, why is 30MM superior to 20MM?



Yeah, I'm sure it would reduce the overall quality of CAS.
You know the answer to that as well as I, nothing else can do what it can do and it's role is sorely needed.
It's not the size of the gun that matters, it's how you use it 



SOWT said:


> No one says you should participate in the discussion, but your response was patronizing, the same thing he was accused of.



Yeah, fair enough, it was.  @CDG first beer is on me.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> You tell me, you're the expert.
> 
> So let me ask you, do _you_ think losing the A-10 is going to reduce the quality of CAS that the guys on the ground receive?



The Army's position on being supported is whatever the maneuver force commander I'm supporting tells me it is.  

Of course I think losing the A-10 is going to reduce the quality of CAS.  I've never even remotely said otherwise.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

x SF med said:


> I realize the A-10 is not a helicopter, even though it does tend to hover when it does a full release...  I have lased targets and had the munitions lose read due to interference... it's scary as shit...  the CAS from an A-10 is personal, the pilot actually gives a shit because his ass is on the same firing line as yours...  and there are fewer per capita friendly fire incidents in the nearly 40 years of use than with the smart technologies used for HACAS in the past 10 years....  in my book as the guy on the ground, this is a hugely significant factor, especially since the G2A comms can be used to fine tune and move the Hog's attack profile to best suit everyone's needs...
> 
> Yes, I am very one sided in this...  but then again, how many SF guys did a glitch in a box just kill?  ...and how many have been blasted to mist by A-10's?
> 
> ...



It seems from this post that you might think I don't have a problem with the loss of the A-10.  That is certainly not the case.  I don't think there's anything else in the inventory that can match it as a CAS platform.  I think every JTAC out there would love it if we got nothing but A-10s all the time.  That will never be a reality though, so we train to be able to utilize everything.  Mistakes can and do happen, unfortunately.  But HACAS platforms are not a sole-source cause of fratricide.  And in every case I've studied, the fault rested with the person, not the technology.  Loss of SA, not following doctrinal procedure, not battle-tracking, not knowing your equipment, etc.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> It seems from this post that you might think I don't have a problem with the loss of the A-10.  That is certainly not the case.  I don't think there's anything else in the inventory that can match it as a CAS platform.  I think every JTAC out there would love it if we got nothing but A-10s all the time.  That will never be a reality though, so we train to be able to utilize everything.  Mistakes can and do happen, unfortunately.  But HACAS platforms are not a sole-source cause of fratricide.  And in every case I've studied, the fault rested with the person, not the technology.  Loss of SA, not following doctrinal procedure, not battle-tracking, not knowing your equipment, etc.



By "person" do you mean man on the ground with the radio or pilot or both?
So let me ask you this. What % of fratricides (roughly, I'm not calling you out or asking for exact numbers) come from low level vs high level CAS, and do you think if the platforms were lower, there would have been a better chance of the pilot getting eyes on, therefore preventing a blue on blue regardless of the direction he'd been given from the man on the ground?


----------



## AWP (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> I don't think there's anything else in the inventory that can match it as a CAS platform.  I think every JTAC out there would love it if we got nothing but A-10s all the time.  That will never be a reality though, so we train to be able to utilize everything.


 
Years ago I spoke to some JTAC's over here and hands down they preferred the A-10, then the -15E, and then the F-16. The line of thinking was that the -10 was obviously built for CAS and those pilots trained for CAS. The -15E had a back-seater, and the -16 was just fast and with a single pilot. The theory was that the extra crew in the -15E made for a more efficient use of the platform. The pilot could fly the plane and the WSO could handle the radios and coordination. They really noticed it when the planes were flying below terrain, down in the valleys. (The N2K region comes to mind)

From my POV working the CRC mission I've noticed the controllers would often make multiple calls to a -16 and that rate went down considerably when speaking to the Hawg's and Eagles. Speed and seats...

Outside looking in, I can only conclude that task saturation is a problem in modern "do it all" single-seat fighters...which is all we're purchasing for the future and I think that's a huge mistake. We're trying to fight wars on a budget and that's a bucket of fail. Accountants and lawyers run the wars now.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 3, 2014)

x SF med said:


> I realize the A-10 is not a helicopter, even though it does tend to hover when it does a full release...  I have lased targets and had the munitions lose read due to interference... it's scary as shit...  the CAS from an A-10 is personal, the pilot actually gives a shit because his ass is on the same firing line as yours...  and there are fewer per capita friendly fire incidents in the nearly 40 years of use than with the smart technologies used for HACAS in the past 10 years....  in my book as the guy on the ground, this is a hugely significant factor, especially since the G2A comms can be used to fine tune and move the Hog's attack profile to best suit everyone's needs...
> 
> Yes, I am very one sided in this...  but then again, how many SF guys did a glitch in a box just kill?  ...and how many have been blasted to mist by A-10's?
> 
> ...


Probably the best answer I have seen.

Problem, as I see it, is the A-10 supporters focus on the gun ignoring other attributes.

The AF can prove a 20MM strafe run is just as deadly, and they have 12 years of data to show how many 20mm vs 30mm strafe runs have been made.

The slow speed, quick return to target and ability to loiter rarely get mentioned, which gives Big Blue the ammo (no pun intended) to argue that an F-16 can do everything an A-10 can do, and do it in a higher threat environment.

I'd  shitcan the Active units and keep the Guard guys/gals on a semi-constant mob/rotation schedule (agree with FF on that one).
The other option would deactivate the Squadron in Korea, one in AZ and one in GA; turn Korea into a 175 day rotation split between Active and Guard units.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Probably the best answer I have seen.
> 
> Problem, as I see it, is the A-10 supporters focus on the gun ignoring other attributes.
> 
> ...



That along with the payload are it's main attributes IMHO. I really don't see the gun caliber as a big deal, for armor sure.

What platforms have those 20mm strafes come from? I find it hard to believe a fast jet can be as accurate as something like the A-10, and it it isn't accurate it isn't deadly, regardless of how many runs are made.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> By "person" do you mean man on the ground with the radio or pilot or both?
> So let me ask you this. What % of fratricides (roughly, I'm not calling you out or asking for exact numbers) come from low level vs high level CAS, and do you think if the platforms were lower, there would have been a better chance of the pilot getting eyes on, therefore preventing a blue on blue regardless of the direction he'd been given from the man on the ground?



From the cases I've seen, the guy on the ground was typically, but not always, at fault.  The Udari Range incident is one where the pilot was in the wrong, and there have been night training missions end with guys on an OP being strafed because the pilot confused the IR pointer terminating at the target with the IR strobe placed on the OP.  Altitude has had nothing to do with any of the cases we studied here at JTACQC, or that I've read about on my own.

DESERT STORM- A Marine LAV is out scouting for the Army.  The JTAC that owned that area's airspace was never notified that the Marines had moved forward of the FLOT.  Aircraft spot the vehicle and call it up.  JTAC, going off the information available, stated "NO FRIENDLIES FORWARD OF FLOT" and cleared the aircrew.  Several Marines were killed.


OIF- The event filmed by the BBC news crew.  JTAC told the aircraft there was no time for a 9-line and went straight to a talk-on.  Aircrew confirmed they saw a road, an intersection, and vehicles.  The JTAC was taking fire from a position in front of him, but the aircrew were contact a position to his rear.  The BBC position was never reported to the JTAC.  Attack was cleared and the F-14 dropped on friendlies.


OEF- 2 x A1os attack an OP.  A-10s had been prosecuting targets in the area for roughly an hour when the sun began to rise and the aircrew switched from NVGs to day visual.  Target and friendly locations looked similar, and the A-10s rolled in on the OP.

OEF- JTAC fails to understand his equipment and passes a friendly grid to a B-52 for a JDAM drop.  The JTAC had taken over from another JTAC that had already been conducting strikes for awhile.  DAGR batteries die and when it re-initialized the JTAC passed the first coordinates that popped up, which were the friendlies.

Qala-i-Jangi_ F-18 drops a 2k pound JDAM on friendlies.  Aircrew mixed up the friendly and target grids.  Flight lead recognizes the error and corrects it in his system.  Wingman fails to make the correction.  Wingman reads coordinates back to lead, and lead again looks at the wrong set of coordinates and checks off on the drop.

-


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> From the cases I've seen, the guy on the ground was typically, but not always, at fault.  The Udari Range incident is one where the pilot was in the wrong, and there have been night training missions end with guys on an OP being strafed because the pilot confused the IR pointer terminating at the target with the IR strobe placed on the OP.  Altitude has had nothing to do with any of the cases we studied here at JTACQC, or that I've read about on my own.
> 
> DESERT STORM- A Marine LAV is out scouting for the Army.  The JTAC that owned that area's airspace was never notified that the Marines had moved forward of the FLOT.  Aircraft spot the vehicle and call it up.  JTAC, going off the information available, stated "NO FRIENDLIES FORWARD OF FLOT" and cleared the aircrew.  Several Marines were killed.
> 
> ...


The Desert Storm mishap a/c was an A-10 IIRC.  There was another A-10 Blue on Blue in OIF IIRC.

F-14 at Udari Range was being talked on target by a fast FAC handing off to the JTACs. again IIRC.

There was also an AC-130 mishap early OEF timewise.

@pardus F-15's and F-16's have both flown strafe missions in Afghanistan.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> @pardus F-15's and F-16's have both flown strafe missions in Afghanistan.



Sure but how accurate are they? Particularly compared to A-10/AC-130.

ETA: That is my point of contention the the AF's mentality on replacing the A-10, the justification is "the fast movers can do it". Just because something can drop a bomb and fire it's guns doesn't mean they can do effective CAS/replace the A-10 without loss of capability. 

I _could_ perform a heart transplant, but would you want me doing it on you?


----------



## x SF med (Jul 3, 2014)

So, we all agree that the A-10 is:
Dependable
Well armored
Accurate
Ground troop friendly
Has great loiter time/fast reengagement
Cost effective

and it strikes fear into the people on the wrong side of the nose...

Why is the AF replacing it for CAS, again?

Ground Troops think the A-10 is the sexiest plane in the AF inventory, but it is closely tied with the c-130 for that honor...  Oh, they've essentially gotten rid of the 130, with no STOL medium lift rough ground capable replacement...  anybody see a pattern here?


----------



## Grunt (Jul 3, 2014)

x SF med said:


> ...Why is the AF replacing it for CAS, again?...



There is always that one or two people who feel they "have to leave their mark" on something...good or bad...they don't care. They just want to be "remembered".


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> Sure but how accurate are they? Particularly compared to A-10/AC-130.
> 
> ETA: That is my point of contention the the AF's mentality on replacing the A-10, the justification is "the fast movers can do it". Just because something can drop a bomb and fire it's guns doesn't mean they can do effective CAS/replace the A-10 without loss of capability.
> 
> I _could_ perform a heart transplant, but would you want me doing it on you?


How many strafing fratricides have their been?


----------



## AWP (Jul 3, 2014)

The AC-130 mishap killed CWO Harriman from 3rd Group during Anaconda. I think that was a navigation error by the crew.

Re: strafing I know it was used to good effect at Roberts' Ridge from both -15E's and -16's.

2009, an F-15E executed a CFIT while practicing strafing. The flight lead's WSO took the blame for that one.
http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/history/2296-f-15e-losses#0-12-airframe-90-0231

Airframes other than the A-10 are using their guns. How often? I have no idea. That's probably a Master's thesis at the Air War college waiting to happen.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> Sure but how accurate are they? Particularly compared to A-10/AC-130.
> 
> ETA: That is my point of contention the the AF's mentality on replacing the A-10, the justification is "the fast movers can do it". Just because something can drop a bomb and fire it's guns doesn't mean they can do effective CAS/replace the A-10 without loss of capability.
> 
> I _could_ perform a heart transplant, but would you want me doing it on you?



The AC-130 is the most accurate when it comes to cannon fire.   The accuracy of the A-10 and fast movers strafe runs aren't really much different, from what I understand.  Again though, no other cannon brings the hard target kill capability that the GAU-8 does. Another advantage of the A-10s gun is that even though it's a bigger round, it carries a lot more of them.  1150 rounds vs. 300-500.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

x SF med said:


> So, we all agree that the A-10 is:
> Dependable
> Well armored
> Accurate
> ...



The Air Force has never embraced the CAS role.  The A-10, TACPs, JTACs, etc. are all looked at just a bit askance by Big Blue.  They'll talk us up all day long to look supportive, but at the end of the day I believe the AF wishes it could focus solely on air-to-air, strategic bombing, and deep interdiction instead of having to devote resources to those pesky ground guys that go out and close with an destroy the enemy.  Airpower alone will never win a war, no matter how much some pilots seem to think it will.


----------



## CDG (Jul 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> The Desert Storm mishap a/c was an A-10 IIRC.
> 
> F-14 at Udari Range was being talked on target by a fast FAC handing off to the JTACs. again IIRC.



It was an A-10, it strafed the LAV.

The Udari incident was as fucked up as a football bat from start to finish.  The FAC was adding nothing to the situation, just interjecting "nose looks good" here and there, for whatever reason.  No one ever established who had terminal control.  The JTAC was using incorrect night brevity.  The worst part is the end of the transcript, when the aircraft has already released ordnance, and the JTAC comes up "ABORT, ABORT, ABORT" because he realized what had happened.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 3, 2014)

CDG said:


> It was an A-10, it strafed the LAV.
> 
> The Udari incident was as fucked up as a football bat from start to finish.  The FAC was adding nothing to the situation, just interjecting "nose looks good" here and there, for whatever reason.  No one ever established who had terminal control.  The JTAC was using incorrect night brevity.  The worst part is the end of the transcript, when the aircraft has already released ordnance, and the JTAC comes up "ABORT, ABORT, ABORT" because he realized what had happened.


F/A-18 auto-released IIRC, i.e. he released before getting cleared to release.

While we are talking fratricide, don't forget URGENT FURY where the ANGLICO had the A-7 strafe  the TOC.  Friend of mine lost both his legs that day, another (2?) Soldiers died.


----------



## CDG (Jul 4, 2014)

SOWT said:


> F/A-18 auto-released IIRC, i.e. he released before getting cleared to release.
> 
> While we are talking fratricide, don't forget URGENT FURY where the ANGLICO had the A-7 strafe  the TOC.  Friend of mine lost both his legs that day, another (2?) Soldiers died.



I hadn't heard about the URGENT FURY incident.  I'm going to look that up.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 13, 2014)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/12/american-warplane-s-forgotten-nazi-past.html



> tweet
> post
> *MEIN GOTT!*
> 10.12.14
> ...


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2014)

So we consulted with a Nazi German CAS specialist because we forgot about our own Ninth Air Force in Europe, Fifth in the South Pacific, plus the UK and Soviet CAS systems/ aircraft?  Rudel was a badass pilot, but if we had to have him onboard to develop the A-10 then our aerospace industry is dumber than we think.


----------



## pardus (Oct 13, 2014)

I read about the A-10 in Rudel's book IIRC. I don't recall him having much input into the design but I read it many years ago now.
He can't be beaten for experience thats for sure. 
That article is the best argument I've seen for getting rid of the A-10. It should not go, but it's good to see the reasons why the AF is thinking that way and that they have a plan in place for symmetrical warfare CAS.


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2014)

pardus said:


> That article is the best argument I've seen for getting rid of the A-10. It should not go, but it's good to see the reasons why the AF is thinking that way and that they have a plan in place for symmetrical warfare CAS.


 
The problem is that many of the threats cited would be eliminated through a systematic SEAD campaign. Plus the AO where CAS would occur is also where AH-64's operate...so any threat to an A-10 is significantly worse to RW assets. In other words, the AF's argument for killing the A-10 would also apply to Army gunships.

On the surface the argument in the article works, but I think it is ultimately written to justify the damned F-35.


----------



## pardus (Oct 13, 2014)

Would not surprise me in the slightest.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 13, 2014)

Fixed-wing CAS to me meant the ground crews were pulling leaves and twigs out of the stabilizers.


----------



## CDG (Oct 13, 2014)

There's a place for JDAMs and LGWs.  However, those capabilities will never be able to replace what the A-10 and its pilots bring to the fight.


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2014)

The relative success of JDAM's and other PGW's for CAS has effectively killed CAS as we know it. I stopped reading MISREP's a few years ago, but the amount of gun runs and even WP rockets being used is greater than many would guess. If the threat level has degraded enough for strafing and CCA then the -35's stealthy characteristics hinder CAS.

Besides, pilots performing CAS in a high threat environment? The weapons are internal, your "stealthyness" sucks ass when the doors open up....and that's assuming you could find pilots willing to perform CAS in that environment.

I think the AF officers making that argument are on their heels and scrambling to justify the decision to kill the -10 for their beloved -35. The -35 has a place, but it isn't the catch-all "new F-16" that everyone is selling. The AF should really consider making CAS a Guard mission with dedicated two-seat CAS platforms. COIN isn't going away, so they should look at a "blended" 6th ASOS with a few Guard CAS squadrons augmenting the excellent CAA's on AD in that unit.


----------



## pardus (Oct 13, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> The problem is that many of the threats cited would be eliminated through a systematic SEAD campaign. Plus the AO where CAS would occur is also where AH-64's operate...so any threat to an A-10 is significantly worse to RW assets. In other words, the AF's argument for killing the A-10 would also apply to Army gunships.
> 
> On the surface the argument in the article works, but I think it is ultimately written to justify the damned F-35.



I do recall a time in Iraq where the 64's were shot up in an "ambush" with small arms fire and were temporarily taken away from an attack role.



Freefalling said:


> The relative success of JDAM's and other PGW's for CAS has effectively killed CAS as we know it. I stopped reading MISREP's a few years ago, but the amount of gun runs and even WP rockets being used is greater than many would guess. If the threat level has degraded enough for strafing and CCA then the -35's stealthy characteristics hinder CAS.
> 
> Besides, pilots performing CAS in a high threat environment? The weapons are internal, your "stealthyness" sucks ass when the doors open up....and that's assuming you could find pilots willing to perform CAS in that environment.
> 
> I think the AF officers making that argument are on their heels and scrambling to justify the decision to kill the -10 for their beloved -35. The -35 has a place, but it isn't the catch-all "new F-16" that everyone is selling. The AF should really consider making CAS a Guard mission with dedicated two-seat CAS platforms. COIN isn't going away, so they should look at a "blended" 6th ASOS with a few Guard CAS squadrons augmenting the excellent CAA's on AD in that unit.



I would turn the entire A-10 program over to the Army and Marines.


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2014)

pardus said:


> I do recall a time in Iraq where the 64's were shot up in an "ambush" with small arms fire and were temporarily taken away from an attack role.


 
That goat rodeo is squarely in the hands of the aviators planning and lobbying for the mission. Their leadership failed them.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 14, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> That goat rodeo is squarely in the hands of the aviators planning and lobbying for the mission. Their leadership failed them.


 

Index for Goat Rodeo:  I-227, 11th AHR 03/23/03.  "..._underestimation of the enemy, logistical problems, overly restrictive rules of engagement, unimaginative attack routes...and, most of all, an intemperate rush to get into the fight without adequate preperation..." -- (_Gordon, Trainor, _COBRA II)_

Most effective "ADA system" against AH64s that night were massed AK47s.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 14, 2014)

pardus said:


> I would turn the entire A-10 program over to the Army and Marines.


 
As long as we're dreaming, the Marines would probably love A10s...another legendary piece of "supplimental artillery" to augment AV8s and Cobras. The first few carrier landings might be a bit dicey... 

I sense some tension here between Army ground and Air Force. CAS in the Marines has been air-to-mud since WW2, and Marine aviators in the past have prided themselves on tempting the devil with their definition of "close." That's why I joked above about pulling twigs out of stabilizers. According to my winger friends it was not uncommon during Vietnam to remove vegetation from F4s, and I don't doubt it based on my views from the ground. Marine aviators sometimes B-billet as FACs with Marine infantry. Do Air Force pilots or TACs embed with Army infantry? Or are they mostly paired with SF/SOF? If not, "..._here the Army and Air Force could still learn a good deal from the Marines..." -- _(Murray/Scales_, The Iraq _War_)_


----------



## CDG (Oct 14, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> Do Air Force pilots or TACs embed with Army infantry? Or are they mostly paired with SF/SOF? If not, "..._here the Army and Air Force could still learn a good deal from the Marines..." -- _(Murray/Scales_, The Iraq _War_)_


 
Air Force pilots serve as Air Liaison Officers assisting in the planning and integration of airpower from the Brigade to Corps levels. The new 13L officer careerfield allows officers to serve as ALOs for their entire career.  The enlisted JTACs work from the platoon level up, but are typically not officially assigned below the Battalion level.  The enlisted guys are the ones that embed with Army combat maneuver units (infantry, armor, mech) and go out on missions.  JTACs can and do support SOF units, but the careerfield primarily supports conventional forces.  Guys wishing to support only SOF can assess for a chance to be selected for a SOF TACP assignment at one of the Special Tactics Squadrons.


----------



## RetPara (Oct 17, 2014)

SOWT said:


> While we are talking fratricide, don't forget URGENT FURY where the ANGLICO had the A-7 strafe  the TOC.  Friend of mine lost both his legs that day, another (2?) Soldiers died.



Point Of Order.

The A7 strafe of the TOC was because of the fucking maps.  At the time of the incident there were four different maps in use on, around, or above the island.  All of which had different grid patterns and no one was using lat-longs.  It was after that incident which had 17 KIA/WIA combined that (then) Defense Mapping Agency got let off the damn leash to produce the contingency map packages that should of been with the assualt troops 24 hours before execution.   I will spare you the boring rant that periodically gets repeated on the topic that gets repeated periodically.....   Yes.  I STILL loose fucking sleep over this.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 17, 2014)

RetPara said:


> Point Of Order.
> 
> The A7 strafe of the TOC was because of the fucking maps.  At the time of the incident there were four different maps in use on, around, or above the island.  All of which had different grid patterns and no one was using lat-longs.  It was after that incident which had 17 KIA/WIA combined that (then) Defense Mapping Agency got let off the damn leash to produce the contingency map packages that should of been with the assualt troops 24 hours before execution.   I will spare you the boring rant that periodically gets repeated on the topic that gets repeated periodically.....   Yes.  I STILL loose fucking sleep over this.


Regardless, the ANGLICO was supposed to get clearance first. He didn't.
BTW- Do you use the same screen name on all your forums?  If so, you know who I am talking about.
Hardcore Harry.


----------



## RetPara (Oct 17, 2014)

Yep - I'm only on about 37 different forums...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 6, 2014)

A little A-10 video love for you...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-these-a-10-warthogs-on-a-training-mission-rip-old-1655041843

Goddamn it I love that farting sound those guns make...


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 3, 2014)

There is hope!!!

*Lawmakers Agree to Block Retirement of A-10 Fleet*

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/03/l...ment-of-a-10-fleet/?comp=1198882887570&rank=4


----------



## Gunz (Dec 3, 2014)

Kraut783 said:


> There is hope!!!
> 
> *Lawmakers Agree to Block Retirement of A-10 Fleet*
> 
> http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/03/lawmakers-agree-to-block-retirement-of-a-10-fleet/?comp=1198882887570&rank=4


 

Indeed good news but I think @Centermass beat you to the punch on the _Congressional Reduction..._thread. And like I responded there, it made no sense to deprive that operation of such a perfect fit CAS platform. I suspect hell was raised in the right quarters.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 3, 2014)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Goddamn it I love that farting sound those guns make...


 
I first heard it on AH-1s nosing over to smoke one of our hot spots and it is indeed a happy and welcome fart noise.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 3, 2014)

Here are some articles from War is Boring:

The low- and slow-flying A-10 Warthog jet is back in the Middle East—seven years after the attack planes withdrew.

The prospect of A-10s joining the war against Islamic State was subject to rumors in September, when elements of the Indiana Air National Guard’s 122nd Fighter Wing—which flies the twin-engine A-10—deployed to Southwest Asia.......

Here is the full story:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-a-10-warthog-is-back-in-iraq-and-just-in-time-b0366b43750b


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 3, 2014)

A squadron of U.S. Air Force A-10 attack jets landed in the Middle East—possibly in Kuwait—starting on Nov. 17. The twin-engine tank-killers bolster the American-led aerial armada pummeling Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

The A-10 is uniquely suited to low, slow attacks on insurgents hiding in rough terrain. But that hasn’t stopped the Air Force from trying to prematurely retire all 250 A-10s—even though the flying branch just finished upgrading the planes with new electronics and weapons. Congress opposes the retirement plans.......
Full story at link

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/this-was-your-week-at-war-e01736c6cb6a


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 3, 2014)

Iranian Su-25 Frogfoot jets were in Baghdad in late June and, by early July, were bombing Islamic State forces in a desperate bid to halt the militants’ advance through northwestern Iraq.

But the special Su-25s—modified to launch guided weapons and interface with surveillance drones—have quit Iraq. And for air support, Iran’s militias in Iraq now depend on the U.S. and its allies.


Officials suggested the twin-engine attack planes had returned to Iran for maintenance checks. Never mind that Su-25s are rugged planes that rarely need such checks.

The three Su-25s returned home to Shiraz air force base no later than Nov. 12. On Nov. 21, the Sukhois appeared at an airshow on Kish Island, a popular tourist destination
Again, the full story by clicking on the link.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/am...pport-for-irans-militias-in-iraq-1083d547db9e


----------



## x SF med (Dec 3, 2014)

If you can't beat 'em.... send in A-10's they will.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Here are some articles from War is Boring:
> 
> The low- and slow-flying A-10 Warthog jet is back in the Middle East—seven years after the attack planes withdrew.
> 
> ...





SOWT said:


> A squadron of U.S. Air Force A-10 attack jets landed in the Middle East—possibly in Kuwait—starting on Nov. 17. The twin-engine tank-killers bolster the American-led aerial armada pummeling Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The A-10 is uniquely suited to low, slow attacks on insurgents hiding in rough terrain. But that hasn’t stopped the Air Force from trying to prematurely retire all 250 A-10s—even though the flying branch just finished upgrading the planes with new electronics and weapons. Congress opposes the retirement plans.......
> Full story at link
> ...



That is good news! I am glad to see them coming back.

Pure, unadulterated pain from above.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 3, 2014)




----------



## CDG (Dec 4, 2014)




----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 31, 2014)

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-hourly-cost-of-military-aircraft-2014-12

Another reason to keep the A-10 alive, as it is one of the lowest costing birds in terms of cost per flight hour.


----------



## AWP (Dec 31, 2014)

I laughed when I saw the story about activating the Guard A-10 unit and sending them to fight ISIS. I stood in line with them that morning for breakfast.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 31, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I laughed when I saw the story about activating the Guard A-10 unit and sending them to fight ISIS. I stood in line with them that morning for breakfast.


Yeah, hard to argue a weapon system is outdated when you keep activating that unit.


----------



## CDG (Jan 19, 2015)

USAF General says advocating for the A-10 to lawmakers is "treason".  I'm sure he didn't mean it literally, but c'mon Sir.  You should know better in this day and age. 

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/16/general-praising-the-a-10-to-lawmakers-is-treason/


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 19, 2015)

CDG said:


> USAF General says advocating for the A-10 to lawmakers is "treason".  I'm sure he didn't mean it literally, but c'mon Sir.  You should know better in this day and age.
> 
> http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/16/general-praising-the-a-10-to-lawmakers-is-treason/


Active duty members should be flooding the Reps/Senators with copies of his speech and a reminder that he violated Federal Law.  He needs to retire NOW!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 21, 2015)

The legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts.

Pretty lengthy and nifty article...
http://fxn.ws/1BGRBGn


----------



## CDG (Jan 21, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts.
> 
> Pretty lengthy and nifty article...
> http://fxn.ws/1BGRBGn



Congress has made it clear that the A-10 is safe for now, thank god.  And, interestingly enough, the black hole of funding that is the F-35 will have a sensor suite that is far inferior to what all other attack aircraft currently carry.  So much for the USAF claiming that it will be able to replace the A-10 when it comes to CAS capability.  No IR pointer, no VDL, first generation SNIPER pod technology.  For fuck's sake.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/warthog-lives_823820.html

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2015)

And it continues...... A government watchdog group is claiming that the USAF skewed data relating to friendly fire and CIVCAS deaths in order to make the A-10 look bad.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was true.  The USAF, minus a small percentage, just doesn't really give a shit about CAS.  They don't want to give it up completely to the USA because of inter-service rivalries, but they would prefer if they could just build sleek air-to-air fighters and not really have to worry about the ground situation.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232202-watchdog-air-force-doctored-the-data-to-make-a-10-look-bad

Edited for spelling.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 10, 2015)

CDG said:


> ... but they would prefer if they could just build sleek* air-to-sir* fighters and not really have to worry about the ground situation.
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232202-watchdog-air-force-doctored-the-data-to-make-a-10-look-bad



sounds like a good way to control the damn officer population.


----------



## CDG (Feb 10, 2015)

x SF med said:


> sounds like a good way to control the damn officer population.


LMAO.  Fixed.  Little Freudian slip of the typing finger perhaps.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 10, 2015)

*US Deploys A-10s to Europe Amid Debate to Arm Ukraine*

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...to-arm-ukraine.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2015)

Air Force: A-10's suck! They don't zoomie-zoom and pew pew pew other airplanes. We need the money for the F-35!"
World events: LOLZ
Air Force: Deploy the A-10's! They need to kill people!
Rational Human Beings Everywhere: Um...why do you default to A-10 if it is so useless and you intend to cut it?
Air Force:  REASONS!


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 10, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> *US Deploys A-10s to Europe Amid Debate to Arm Ukraine*
> 
> http://www.military.com/daily-news/...to-arm-ukraine.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1


Just remember USAFE would have had to ask for them, vice asking for additional F-16's.

AF (non) leadership gets worse on a daily basis.
Thank you Merrill McPeek.
Thank you Bill Clinton
signed
All the worlds shit heads.


----------



## Wild Bill (Feb 12, 2015)

A-10 and AC-130's, they are the best platforms I've ever controlled. The loiter time and poundage of death. Two great things when your nuts are hanging out for help. Loved asking for ordinance check, would be so low would break antennas.



x SF med said:


> View attachment 12113


Love it



CDG said:


>


Haha, that is awesome


----------



## AWP (Feb 13, 2015)

When you think about it, the AF is right. Other than Desert Storm and nearly 15 years of war the A-10 really hasn't done much...


----------



## AWP (Feb 13, 2015)

Then there's this lovely article. Long but with many compelling points. The last few lines sum it up.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179



> All this leads to the question: at what point does the USAF's bureaucratic total war against this proven national asset become not just foolhardy but subversive? The USAF has a track record lasting decades of thankfully failed attempts at killing the A-10. But this time, with the jet being called to hot spots around the world once again, the USAF's case for its retirement is even harder to make than it was two years ago. And now, with unofficial gag orders and doctored data coming into focus, along with the same old slew of hollow reasons and half-truthful arguments that attempt to validate their decision to retire the A-10, where does the realm of illogical decision making by the USAF end and one of outright sabotage begin? Have we already crossed that line?
> Sadly, I think so.


----------



## CDG (Feb 13, 2015)

Great article.  The USAF at large has really stuck its head in the sand when it comes to the A-10.  By far the biggest problem is that so much of the USAF just doesn't get it.  They don't understand CAS, don't want to understand CAS, and treat those that do understand it as neanderthals incapable of seeing the "bigger picture".


----------



## AWP (Feb 13, 2015)

CDG said:


> By far the biggest problem is that so much of the USAF just doesn't get it.  They don't understand CAS, don't want to understand CAS, and treat those that do understand it as neanderthals incapable of seeing the "bigger picture".


 
I've lost track of the gun run footage I've seen against moving vehicles. We also lost a Strike Eagle crew practicing high angle strafing...so the brass may not understand, but there are a number of pilots and dead guys guys who "get it." Sadly, neither group will rise to decision-making positions. The JDAM answers the fighter pilot mafia's most urgent prayer: please make CAS easier so I can focus on shooting down planes and "real pilot" stuff.


----------



## CDG (Feb 13, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I've lost track of the gun run footage I've seen against moving vehicles. We also lost a Strike Eagle crew practicing high angle strafing...so the brass may not understand, but there are a number of pilots and dead guys guys who "get it." Sadly, neither group will rise to decision-making positions. The JDAM answers the fighter pilot mafia's most urgent prayer: please make CAS easier so I can focus on shooting down planes and "real pilot" stuff.



The pilots that do get it, and want it to rise on the priority list, will always be looked at a bit askance by the "real" pilots who only care about taking pictures of MiGs while inverted.  Top officials making statements about the B-1 being able to handle the CAS workload if the A-10 retires shows an incredible level of ignorance to CAS.  Then when people point out the other side of the coin, it's because they don't understand the future challenges, don't understand budgets, don't understand the threat, etc., etc.  When you have the Vice Commander of ACC compare advocating for the A-10 to treason to a class of officers..... well.  

I HATE the JDAM argument.  "Y u need CAS? I can haz JDAMS!!".  Goddammit. JDAMs have their place, but I'm so tired of hearing people talk about them as the be all end all of future CAS.  1150 rounds of 30mm is far more valuable, in far more situations, than a couple of 38s is.  The FA article hit the nail on the head when it talked about "tech for the sake of tech".


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2015)

"Tanks could not be reached for comment" is my favorite!


----------



## CDG (Feb 17, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 12627 "Tanks could not be reached for comment" is my favorite!


 "Error-The requested attachment could not be found"


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 17, 2015)

*I am just posting this comment from CSAF as a way to show how they are trying to misdirect people.*

Critics of the Air Force's plan to retire the A-10, who say the F-35 is simply not an adequate platform for the close air support mission, are ignoring the Marine Corps' huge endorsement of it, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Friday. At a press conference during AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Welsh said "it's an interesting conversation where everyone's talking about the F-35 not doing close air support when that's all the Marine Corp is buying it for," Welsh said. "This thread of conversation" that USAF doesn't care about the CAS mission "has really become a little ridiculous," he said. "I've got 140,000 data points over the last seven years that prove that's a ridiculous statement," Welsh added, offering the statistics on how many CAS sorties the service has flown during the period. "That's about 20,000 a year. When is there a little bit of credit given for that?" He said his father "thought he flew" CAS in P-40s, P-47s, P-51s, and F-84s, and his father's friends thought they did so in A-1s and A-7s, "long before we had an A-10." They believed they had a "mentality, a culture, and a focus" of giving ground support full attention, Welsh argued. "So why people, all of a sudden, looking backward, (are) saying they didn't is a little beyond my comprehension," he added.

*let's ignore the fact that the Marines will have STO/VL version, and I assume (maybe wrong) that will allow a slower airspeed when required.
I can be CAS centric all day long, zipping by at 500 kts is different than zipping by at 250 kts.
5-10 sec of strafe capability does allow for a lot of runs on a target.*


----------



## CDG (Feb 17, 2015)

It's a red herring argument and nothing more.  The fact you allocate sorties for CAS does not prove you care about from a service-wide perspective.  The USMC may want it to replace the AV-8, as that aircraft has the highest rates of CIVCAS, but I highly doubt they would argue it's a capable replacement for A-10s.  His argument about P-40s through A-7s is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Mentality, focus, and culture is what the A-10 community has.  They also have the right tool to express that mentality, focus, and culture.  The F-35 community will NOT be focused on CAS, and they don't have the right tool for the job if they were anyways.


----------



## AWP (Feb 17, 2015)

The irony of the Air Force citing the Marine Corps as justification for an Air Force acquisition. What's next? "Every Airman is a pilot?"


----------



## CDG (Mar 10, 2015)

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ial-until-2022.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1

It continues. The ignorance to CAS is staggering here.  Exactly how is the SDB II the "military's top CAS bomb"?  The fact that it can be launched from 40nm out is wholly irrelevant to CAS.  First off, even in a BOC, I don't know any JTACs that would feel comfortable with a bomb being pickled from that far out with the intention of landing IVO friendlies.  That aside, the airspace deconfliction for that would be a nightmare on top of a nightmare.  It ain't like it's a HIMARS or GMLRS round with a MAXORD, ORD X, GTL, and TOF.  You'll probably get a time of fall, but other than that no one knows where the fuck that munition is going in the airspace. In addition to these issues, exactly what is the SDB II going to have effects against?  Unarmored vehicles and personnel in the open are about it.  So what, we're only developing COIN munitions now?  It'll be real fun to go up against a Russian Armor BN with SDB IIs as opposed to 30mm DU rounds.  Thanks, USAF.  Top notch work here.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 10, 2015)

40 miles out is NOT CLOSE Air Support.  WTF is this jabeeb trying to spout?


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2015)

I'd e willing to bet the "40 nm" capability is mainly for a linear battlefield. That would, in theory, give us the ability to strike ground troops without exposing the aircrew to SHORAD. You still run into major airspace deconfliction issues, but I can't imagine any JTAC or GFC signing off on this munition being used at max range. It does reiterate the sad fact I've pointed out before which is "CAS" is all about PGM's and in this case the SDB II will run about 200k+ per round. One bomb will cost more than many homes in the US. I'm sure that's cheaper than a 30mm gun run.


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2015)

A breakdown on aircraft spending. #48 on the list is the A-10. Of note is #30, the OH-58D, which the Army has begin to retire. FY14 spending on the -58 was almost 4 times that of the A-10. If the AF can't retire the A-10 due to politics it can underfund it to the Boneyard.

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/DoD-Aircraft-Programs.html


----------



## Johca (Mar 10, 2015)

Part of the issue is the introduction of precision guided munitions (GPS, laser, radar) has allowed transformation of bombers into being considered as providing a legitimate CAS capability.   Unfortunately there are many politician and top Air Force leaders who also don't understand the differences between CAS and close air support strikes (air support substituted for artillery).   Also fear of political repercussions has changed air interdiction into a rule of engagement quagmire where positive target confirmation of a specific human target rather than a tank, bridge, train is engaged by air to ground precision weapon rather than strafing and dive bombing is most desired.

The avoid political risk driving tactics be using precision guided air  to ground is contributing to the A-10 demise as much as it is also contributing in the use of snipers to target specific threat rather than establishing a free fire zone where all whether in uniform or not is considered an armed enemy combatant.   The UAV and long range precision guided tactical missile and cruise missile is the unconventional warfare weapon of choice for keeping the politician safe from negative public opinions and fears of massive use of boots on the ground since the 1990s.

There is actually a 1960s Star Trek TV episode where war is waged by computer simulation where the unlucky civilians are required to report to humanitarian  operated death chambers. 

A Taste of Armageddon
The _Enterprise_ arrives at a planet to establish diplomatic relations and finds itself in the middle of a "peaceful" war that threatens to destroy the ship.


----------



## busdriver (Mar 10, 2015)

I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about what an "aviation journalist" says about CAS or anything else for that matter.  They're mostly wrong, and that particular ding dong seems to be repeating what another ding dong said on jalopnick; a site originally started to talk about cars.  The SDB2 isn't operational yet, so clearly he's missing something.  That said, I wouldn't ping about max ranges, it's a max, the AC-130W drops sdb from much shorter range.  The crazy ass, no one knows where the hell the weapon is going problem is also a thing of the past from what the AFSOC dudes have told me.

The A-10 issue is so emotional it's almost difficult to have a reasoned discussion.  The ideal solution would be to have optimized platforms for every mission, that are survivable in any threat environment.  Good luck making that happen.

I would love for the A-10 to stick around forever, but it's not reasonable.  The biggest issue in my opinion is making sure the pink body in the cockpit is correctly trained to accomplish the mission.  If the correctly trained body is in a platform optimized for the mission, even better.  But the number one priority is people.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 11, 2015)

busdriver said:


> I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about what an "aviation journalist" says about CAS or anything else for that matter.  They're mostly wrong, and that particular ding dong seems to be repeating what another ding dong said on jalopnick; a site originally started to talk about cars.  The SDB2 isn't operational yet, so clearly he's missing something.  That said, I wouldn't ping about max ranges, it's a max, the AC-130W drops sdb from much shorter range.  The crazy ass, no one knows where the hell the weapon is going problem is also a thing of the past from what the AFSOC dudes have told me.
> 
> The A-10 issue is so emotional it's almost difficult to have a reasoned discussion.  The ideal solution would be to have optimized platforms for every mission, that are survivable in any threat environment.  Good luck making that happen.
> 
> I would love for the A-10 to stick around forever, but it's not reasonable.  The biggest issue in my opinion is making sure the pink body in the cockpit is correctly trained to accomplish the mission.  If the correctly trained body is in a platform optimized for the mission, even better.  But the number one priority is people.




It's obvious you've never been the one calling in CAS at Danger Close...Ground guys get very emotional about support in the right place, at the right time, hitting the right target and having it repeatable in reasonable amounts of time.  An A-10 pinpointing your exact target and coming back immediately to get the next, with visual confirmation, clear communication (including using VS-17s if needed), and a nearly indestructible airframe is like having Michael the Archangel come down and deliver you from all evil...  Whereas, Joe Cool in his electronically airconditioned smartbomb dropping 40miles out and at angels 11 is at best guessing even if the bomb has 47 PhDs.

The bodies on the ground are more important that the next big fucking expensive airframe or bomb...  update the A-10 as a dedicated CAS platform, and let the JSF be the panacea for all other air combat missions.  There is no onesize fits all...  vonRichtoven and Rickenbacker and Daly drove those points home in the creations of their repective Air Forces...  Screw sexy and highest speed now and outdated when it finally gets built.  Why spend 10+x the initial cost of an A-10 on a platform that is unproven, doesn't even have the bombs the command says it's going to use, and needs software that is 5 iterations and 5 years away to make the non-existent bombs work...   without being able to see your target.

I guess being astonished by fiscal waste is emotional...   how many hundreds of billlions dollars are we into the JSF program?  What do we have to show for it at the moment?  How long has this been in the works?   And we're supposed to have a flyable/fully capable of all air mission aircraft in 4 years...   when the entire JSF fleet is grounded the first time due to a software bug or overheating microchip, what is going to cover those missions that plane has replaced?


----------



## CDG (Mar 11, 2015)

busdriver said:


> I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about what an "aviation journalist" says about CAS or anything else for that matter.  They're mostly wrong, and that particular ding dong seems to be repeating what another ding dong said on jalopnick; a site originally started to talk about cars.  The SDB2 isn't operational yet, so clearly he's missing something.  That said, I wouldn't ping about max ranges, it's a max, the AC-130W drops sdb from much shorter range.  The crazy ass, no one knows where the hell the weapon is going problem is also a thing of the past from what the AFSOC dudes have told me.
> 
> The A-10 issue is so emotional it's almost difficult to have a reasoned discussion.  The ideal solution would be to have optimized platforms for every mission, that are survivable in any threat environment.  Good luck making that happen.
> 
> I would love for the A-10 to stick around forever, but it's not reasonable.  The biggest issue in my opinion is making sure the pink body in the cockpit is correctly trained to accomplish the mission.  If the correctly trained body is in a platform optimized for the mission, even better.  But the number one priority is people.



The problem is that these sentiments are not limited to aviation journalists.  Top generals have expressed similar thoughts.

Whether the SDB2 is operational currently is irrelevant.  The overarching problem is the attitude that continuously providing new versions of PGMs is the answer to CAS.  

The A-10 is an emotional issue because it literally is life and death for the dudes on the ground.  I take my mission to support those dudes very seriously, and they have every right to expect me to bring the right tools to the job.  Can I actually control what aircraft the USAF keeps/doesn't keep?  Of course not.  But if the USAF leadership is sending the message that they prefer technology over the actual best tool for the job, then that stigma carries over everywhere else.  

The people as priority line is exactly the point!  If people really were the priority, the A-10 would get the upgrades it needs and would keep flying.  Far more lives are at risk by retiring it then by keeping it and attempting to replace it with an alphabet soup of other platforms.  The training of the pilot makes no difference at all when he has 180 rounds of gun and 1 or 2 bombs available as he's zipping along at 500 kas vs. the loadout the A-10 brings to the fight as it loiters IVO the battelfield and builds SA.


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 11, 2015)

busdriver said:


> I would love for the A-10 to stick around forever, but it's not reasonable.


 
We have aircraft currently in heavy use that were developed decades before the A-10.  Specifically, the C-130, KC-135, CH-47, and the U-2 all predate the A-10's maiden flight by at least 10 years.  Even the UH-60 was put into service shortly after the A-10.  In my (admittedly lay) opinion, USAF could make the same happen if they were willing to make the A-10 and close air support a mid-level priority.

(Yes, I know some of the aircraft listed belong to Army not Air Force.  The point is the viability of continued service of aging aircraft, regardless of the branch of service.)


----------



## AWP (Mar 11, 2015)

Something else to consider with CAS is the airframe's speed and loiter time. Faster plane = arrives on station sooner, but probably leaves sooner. The speed at which it loiters has to be a factor in developing SA. Then you also have to consider tanker support. Even in Afghanistan where it is rather solid owning to the threat level, we see a/c leaving because the gas just isn't there. Tanker track locations, finite resources, etc.

We've reached/ are reaching a point where data overload has to be considered as well. Look at all of the data streams available to a pilot; that's a lot for one guy to process. I find it interesting the handful of JTACs and dozens of ABM's I've worked with all ranked the -15E behind the A-10 for CAS (our work with the Navy/ MC is a fraction compared to the AF); they all attribute it to the WSO in the backseat helping the pilot to split the workload.

I understand the cost of a two-seat fighter, training another crewman, etc., but a fast, single-seat fighter will perform CAS with the same weapons as a heavy bomber and with a fraction of the crew at a faster speed?

At some point the dialogue isn't even about the A-10, it is about the other variables. At this rate I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see 9-lines and TTP's change for an "all PGM" mission. No more "make your run..." or verbose descriptions, just a GPS coord. and a few other things. The explanation will be packaged and sold in a myriad of ways, but will all boil down to finding a way to reduce the pilot's workload.


----------



## busdriver (Mar 11, 2015)

Nope I've never been a JTAC.  I watched some A-10 cool guy video a while back that interviewed some of the dudes on the ground; their love of the A-10 had a lot to do with being low so they could see it working and they identified with the pilot since they were both close to the action.  Went on the say that if there was such a thing, the A-10 pilots were grunts of the air.  While it was chest thumping cool, it is the type of emotional argument that doesn't work.  For instance, x SF Med's point about reasonable re-attack time is the one thing on his list that is quantifiable.  

If your argument is that a big ass gun is the answer to CAS (the polar opposite of the argument that new PGMs are not the answer) then why does the 2x bombs (at IOC, more come later) matter at all?

Night one of a major conventional campaign against a modern threat, if we don't get the opportunity beat the shit out of the air defenses for a week or so; you probably won't have any CAS as it stands now.

Anyway, enough playing devil's advocate.

Totentanz, stress on a fighter's airframe is a different life than a heavy aircraft.  That said, I'm sure the A-10 could be kept flying for a good while longer if that was the decision.  

Freefalling, great post.  I think that was the intent behind digitally aided CAS, for multiple reasons that hasn't taken off. 

Something to think about: As a general rule of thumb you don't completely change your tactics (that still work) when you get a new capability, rather you look to integrate it to augment what you know works.  So the A-10 started as a visual only, very simple "gun fighter."  The addition of precision guided weapons and whatnot didn't change


----------



## CDG (Mar 12, 2015)

busdriver said:


> Nope I've never been a JTAC.  I watched some A-10 cool guy video a while back that interviewed some of the dudes on the ground; their love of the A-10 had a lot to do with being low so they could see it working and they identified with the pilot since they were both close to the action.  Went on the say that if there was such a thing, the A-10 pilots were grunts of the air.  While it was chest thumping cool, it is the type of emotional argument that doesn't work.  For instance, x SF Med's point about reasonable re-attack time is the one thing on his list that is quantifiable.
> 
> If your argument is that a big ass gun is the answer to CAS (the polar opposite of the argument that new PGMs are not the answer) then why does the 2x bombs (at IOC, more come later) matter at all?
> 
> Night one of a major conventional campaign against a modern threat, if we don't get the opportunity beat the shit out of the air defenses for a week or so; you probably won't have any CAS as it stands now.



Having a visible aircraft is certainly not an emotional argument.  If it's a Danger Close situation, or there are close by CDE/CIVCAS concerns, then the ability to see the aircraft becomes very important.  It takes away a type of control to not be able to visually acquire the attacking aircraft.  Beyond that, the comfort to the guys on the ground of being able to see the A-10 may be emotional, but it is not invalid.  The psychological aspect matters, and I would bet that the site of an A-10 provides comfort to US troops while instilling fear in the enemy.  That is a definitive advantage, and not one to be dismissed.

The GAU-8 is not the only answer to CAS, but it is the best answer in more situations than any other munition I can think of. PGMs have their place, and I am not saying we don't need them at all.  What I am saying is that it is decidedly NOT WORTH IT to forgo the benefits of the A-10 and it's cannon for a faster aircraft with a couple PGMs thrown on it.  The large loadout is still a factor because at some point the gun goes Winchester, or you need to hit something that the gun isn't the best answer for. How useful is it to have a platform show up that you can Winchester in 2 passes?  Not only do you now need more aircraft, but the pilot very likely hasn't built enough SA to be able to provide a competent situation update to the ASOC or the next set of aircraft.  This may seem unimportant, but as a JTAC it can take a big weight off your shoulders to have an aircraft with enough SA to brief up the next flight coming in so you can get to work right away.

You are correct about not having CAS without freedom of movement/maneuver for aircraft.  This has nothing to do with the A-10 though.  We're not getting CAS from the F-35 either if the IADS/ADA/whatever isn't neutralized. If we're going in on a ground offensive without some softening up of the enemy's air defenses prior, then someone fucked up.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 12, 2015)

Lower, Slower, more ammunition across the board of multiple types... and when it comes down to it, I'm pretty sure 2 gun runs on troops in the open ALSO ends up being more economical than the flashy dropajdam bullshit that seems to be the flavor of the day.

An A-10 pilot will fly around LOW in his flying tank and check shit out if they can't see it immediately. An F-16 or F/A18 pilot will stay at altitude and look through their fancy wancy optics and say "we can't see wtf you're talking about, have a good one we're RTB'ing for fuel"


----------



## busdriver (Mar 12, 2015)

CDG, great post.  I've clearly played the heal in this discussion.  But in all seriousness I worry that the AF has not actually done any kind of analysis on how vulnerable the A-10 would actually be if given the electronic protection upgrades and IR protection upgrades that are possible.  They've simply sold the service's soul on the F-35, or in other words, the farm has been mortgaged to get the new hotness.  I don't think the F-35 will be the giant turd some think it will be, but it clearly won't be as good a CAS platform as the A-10 when the A-10 can still contribute.  I think there still needs to be a CAS focus within some parts of the F-35 community for those times that for whatever reason the ground push happens before the air defense can be properly dealt with.  But given the most likely threat versus the most dangerous threat, I think there is actually a future for the A-10 for a long time to come.  I can only hope that big blue takes the advice of the guys in the trenches and actually allocates the correct training time to the mission.  (aka the platform may do everything, but this squadron will only do two things)


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 25, 2015)

Chuck Norris fights to save the A-10

http://defensetech.org/2015/03/23/c...og-from-retirement/?comp=1198882887570&rank=7


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 25, 2015)

Another thing that comes to mind are shoulder fired SAM's and AAA.

Stealth does not make you invisible, only gives you a reduced RADAR return.  CAS in a true sense (down low, semi-slow) really negates stealth, so why have a stealth fighter doing the mission?

I can see the F-35 not making it to a CAS-centric squadron, leaving F-15's/16's as the only available  platforms; and you won't see a Strike Eagle until the interdiction/SEAD portion of the game is over.  

The easiest way for the AF to prove the -16 can do it is too remove A-10's from the active duty deployment schedule and let the -16 crowd take it (Iraq would be a good place to start).


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 25, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> CAS in a true sense (down low, semi-slow) really negates stealth, so why have a stealth fighter doing the mission?


 
Just playing the Devil's Advocate here, and coming at this question in broad strokes - are there any considerations for movement in to and out of the objective (I may have the wrong doctrinal term there).  For a quite a while we've enjoyed uncontested control of the airspace surrounding our battlefields; would the answer to this question change if that was no longer the case?


----------



## RetPara (Mar 25, 2015)

Well I called the publisher of Crain's Detroit Business Monday after some really erroneous comments in her weekly on air interview.   I got the following back that will be published in the magazine next week.



> To the editor:
> 
> I disagree with the characterization of the A-10 as a fighter aircraft. (See “Defense bill could retire Selfridge jets,” Page 1, March 16) The A-10 is not and never has been a fighter.  It was designed from the landing gear up to be a Close Air Support bird.  It could defend itself against a fighter....  but I wouldn't put money on it.  Fighters are built to dominate airspace with their guns or air to air missiles.  While the A-10 has a 30mm gatling gun and a couple of Sidewinder Air To Air missiles for self defense....that ain't much. Fighters are fast and armed heavily with weapons to kill other fighters, bombers, or attack planes or helicopters.  The A-10 ain't that fast, compared to the F-16 it's slow.
> 
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 25, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> Just playing the Devil's Advocate here, and coming at this question in broad strokes - are there any considerations for movement in to and out of the objective (I may have the wrong doctrinal term there).  For a quite a while we've enjoyed uncontested control of the airspace surrounding our battlefields; would the answer to this question change if that was no longer the case?


Stealth helps get in and out, but CAS isn't a stealth mission.

An ODA lasing a target is supporting an INTERDICTION mission, that requires stealth.
A compromised ODA needing air support to complete an exfil is CAS/ECAS, stealth over the target isn't that big a player as everyone has an idea where everyone is.  That exfil needs a fighter with a gun, bombs, and loiter time (not necessarily in that order).  That's where the F-16's/35's come up short.
Add a requirement to escort slow moving aircraft (HH-60's for instance) and (IMO) the A-10 is better.


----------



## CDG (Mar 25, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> An ODA lasing a target is supporting an INTERDICTION mission, that requires stealth.



This is all but obsolete, from anyone, these days.  We still have currency requirements for ground-based lase, but with the advances in TGPs and the prevalence of other assets capable of lasing, the ground-based LASER is pretty much out the window.  You may do LASER hand-offs, but that's about it.  In a force-on-force this is even more of an unlikely scenario because of the reactive armor T-90s and the like carry.  The more likely interdiction scenario is using VDL to perform a Type 3 from X number of klicks away.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 25, 2015)

CDG said:


> This is all but obsolete, from anyone, these days.  We still have currency requirements for ground-based lase, but with the advances in TGPs and the prevalence of other assets capable of lasing, the ground-based LASER is pretty much out the window.  You may do LASER hand-offs, but that's about it.  In a force-on-force this is even more of an unlikely scenario because of the reactive armor T-90s and the like carry.  The more likely interdiction scenario is using VDL to perform a Type 3 from X number of klicks away.


Equipment and tactics may have changed, but the day will come when we put ODA's out in a SR role.  Some of those teams will get compromised, and have to get extracted under fire.

Hopefully the F-35 crowd can accomplish effective CAS.


----------



## RetPara (Mar 26, 2015)

If you read accounts of recon missions from Nam, DS, Iraq, and A'stan....   the requirement for CAS does not change.   The A-10 is the only aircraft in the US inventory that is built to do that.   The C-130 was already over 20 years old when the A-10 was fielded.   I don't believe the mods/upgrades/PIPs the A-10 has received comes close to matching what has been done to the C-130.   The Air Force staff is trying to run their service on the cheap.....


----------



## CDG (Mar 26, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Equipment and tactics may have changed, but the day will come when we put ODA's out in a SR role.  Some of those teams will get compromised, and have to get extracted under fire.
> 
> Hopefully the F-35 crowd can accomplish effective CAS.



I agree.  My point was specifically about the ground-based lase method of employment.


----------



## CDG (Mar 27, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> Chuck Norris fights to save the A-10
> 
> http://defensetech.org/2015/03/23/c...og-from-retirement/?comp=1198882887570&rank=7



And he's selling shirts...... http://www.booster.com/savea10kickstart


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 27, 2015)

hahaha...those are great shirts!


----------



## CDG (Mar 27, 2015)

A great article on the entire chain of events so far: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807

The conduct of senior USAF generals and officials is embarrassing, infuriating, and unbelievably ignorant.  General Post should be fired immediately, and the USAF brass needs to be held accountable for the lies, cover-ups, and data doctoring.  This is getting to the point of ridiculous.  A CAS summit is held by SMEs in the matter, recommendations are made, and then those recommendations are altered to fit a pre-conceived plan?  Unbefuckinglievable.


----------



## AWP (Mar 27, 2015)

CDG said:


> A CAS summit is held by SMEs in the matter, recommendations are made, and then those recommendations are altered to fit a pre-conceived plan?  Unbefuckinglievable.


 
Not the first time the AF* has done this on a large (or small) project.

* - I'm sure the other branches have, but I'm only familiar with two on the AF side.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 27, 2015)

CDG said:


> A great article on the entire chain of events so far: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807
> 
> The conduct of senior USAF generals and officials is embarrassing, infuriating, and unbelievably ignorant.  General Post should be fired immediately, and the USAF brass needs to be held accountable for the lies, cover-ups, and data doctoring.  This is getting to the point of ridiculous.  A CAS summit is held by SMEs in the matter, recommendations are made, and then those recommendations are altered to fit a pre-conceived plan?  Unbefuckinglievable.





Freefalling said:


> Not the first time the AF* has done this on a large (or small) project.
> 
> * - I'm sure the other branches have, but I'm only familiar with two on the AF side.



You should read the story about creating "Battlefield Airmen".
The Deputies will not allow an opposing opinion to get past them into the Bosses in-basket.
Same can be said for MAJCOM Commanders.


----------



## CDG (Mar 27, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> You should read the story about creating "Battlefield Airmen".
> The Deputies will not allow an opposing opinion to get past them into the Bosses in-basket.
> Same can be said for MAJCOM Commanders.



Do you have a link?  I ran a Google search for "story behind the creation of Battlefield Airmen" and came up dry.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 27, 2015)

CDG said:


> Do you have a link?  I ran a Google search for "story behind the creation of Battlefield Airmen" and came up dry.


Air Commando Association Quarterly magazine, may not be posted yet.


----------



## AWP (Mar 27, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Air Commando Association Quarterly magazine, may not be posted yet.


 
http://www.aircommando.org/sites/journal/Vol 3 Issue 4 web.pdf

Page 44. Is that the article you mentioned?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 27, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> http://www.aircommando.org/sites/journal/Vol 3 Issue 4 web.pdf
> 
> Page 44. Is that the article you mentioned?


Yep, some inaccuracies; but a good overall look at how GO's can fuck up the staffing process.


----------



## busdriver (Mar 27, 2015)

DA SWO, that concept isn't totally dead.  Haven't heard about it in awhile but I know at least one dude that was still floating the idea a year ago or so.  I wouldn't emphasize a need for "control" however.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 27, 2015)

busdriver said:


> DA SWO, that concept isn't totally dead.  Haven't heard about it in awhile but I know at least one dude that was still floating the idea a year ago or so.  I wouldn't emphasize a need for "control" however.


Which concept?

Was sitting next to an A-10 Pilot in ortho today.  LtCol getting ready to hit 20 and retire.
Probably hasn't met the Col Board, but he's punching out.

Later I was reminiscing.  The A-1 was the best CAS bird in Vietnam.  Large load, loiter and a good strafing ability.
Replaced by the OA-37, then A-7.  Relatively slow aircraft, but the OA-37 bomb load wasn't near the SPAD (flew slow though).  The A-7 was better (accuracy wise), but faster.  A-7 had a vulcan with a decent bomb load (and self defense using the cannon or sidewinders).
The A-10 replaced those aircraft.

Yet management thinks CAS can come from a modified F-16.


----------



## busdriver (Mar 27, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Which concept?


  Sorry, the JFACC OPCON ground team hunting targets concept.  

History moment: F-100s were FACs at one point.  Wasn't CAS per se, but they did find targets with the ole mk1 eyeball and flew really stinking fast doing it!  

As for modifying an F-16?  Ain't gonna happen.  The concept is to change the tasking statement for some units to prioritize CAS.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 13, 2015)

I sat and watched two f22s take off and fly around some today. It's such a sexy bird.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 13, 2015)

busdriver said:


> Sorry, the JFACC OPCON ground team hunting targets concept.
> 
> History moment: F-100s were FACs at one point.  Wasn't CAS per se, but they did find targets with the ole mk1 eyeball and flew really stinking fast doing it!
> 
> As for modifying an F-16?  Ain't gonna happen.  The concept is to change the tasking statement for some units to prioritize CAS.


F-100's were working in North Vietnam, heavy AAA/SAM.
How many TIC's did they work?
How much ResCap did they do?


----------



## Johca (Apr 13, 2015)

F-100s were before my time.  F-4s, A-7s and occasional F-105 are my Red Flag and other exercise recollection from 1977 to mid 1980s.  I've not come across any documents of F-100s doing RESCAP for Air Force helicopters although it is possible.  I was too young to be serving in the military or to be in Vietnam, so I would have to ask around.


----------



## busdriver (Apr 13, 2015)

I know, was a bit of hyperbole.  Is that treason?


----------



## Gunz (Apr 16, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> ...The A-1 was the best CAS bird in Vietnam.  Large load, loiter and a good strafing ability.
> Replaced by the OA-37, then A-7.  Relatively slow aircraft, but the OA-37 bomb load wasn't near the SPAD (flew slow though).  The A-7 was better (accuracy wise), but faster.  A-7 had a vulcan with a decent bomb load (and self defense using the cannon or sidewinders).
> The A-10 replaced those aircraft...


 
It was a good thing to be able to see the A/C, comm with the pilot and direct him onto the target, whatever he was driving. If he's low, slow, full of bullets and talking to you he's an extension of your tactical reach and not some guy in an air-conditioned office at 20,000 feet thinking about beer-call.  Sometimes it make sense to stick to the old, proven ways. Rifles and frags are still the essentials of ground combat. Air combat is a different dimension and dynamic. For air and ground combat to fuse into a workable partnership there has to be a compromise. Since the ground element can't enter the dimension of the air element, the air element has to get slower, get lower and kill the fuck out of the guys who are shooting at the ground element. Air Force generals don't get it. Marine generals do.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 16, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> It was a good thing to be able to see the A/C, comm with the pilot and direct him onto the target, whatever he was driving. If he's low, slow, full of bullets and talking to you he's an extension of your tactical reach and not some guy in an air-conditioned office at 20,000 feet thinking about beer-call.  Sometimes it make sense to stick to the old, proven ways. Rifles and frags are still the essentials of ground combat. Air combat is a different dimension and dynamic. For air and ground combat to fuse into a workable partnership there has to be a compromise. Since the ground element can't enter the dimension of the air element, the air element has to get slower, get lower and kill the fuck out of the guys who are shooting at the ground element. Air Force generals don't get it. Marine generals do.


Then explain the F-18.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 16, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Then explain the F-18.




A General or 7 or 10 thought that tractor was sexy.


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2015)

I softened, however slight, my hate for the F-16 as a CAS platform after talking to a Viper driver. The plane is sold as a cheap, do-everything solution to all of aviation's problems and I always thought it was employed in that manner. The AF actually has F-16 units which focus on CAS vs. air-to-air and while there are still ways to skew training from "ugly" to glamorous it at least tells me that someone put some thought into using the F-16 in a CAS role.

It can't, it won't, replace the A-10 but a system is in place for that to happen should anyone with balls execute that plan. The loss of the A-10 can be mitigated. It rises and falls on leadership...


----------



## CDG (Apr 17, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Then explain the F-18.



And the AV-8.


----------



## CDG (Apr 17, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I softened, however slight, my hate for the F-16 as a CAS platform after talking to a Viper driver. The plane is sold as a cheap, do-everything solution to all of aviation's problems and I always thought it was employed in that manner. The AF actually has F-16 units which focus on CAS vs. air-to-air and while there are still ways to skew training from "ugly" to glamorous it at least tells me that someone put some thought into using the F-16 in a CAS role.
> 
> It can't, it won't, replace the A-10 but a system is in place for that to happen should anyone with balls execute that plan. The loss of the A-10 can be mitigated. It rises and falls on leadership...



When discussing options like F-16s, it ALWAYS comes down to that cannon.  In MCO, ULO, whatever, the 20mm rounds from an F-16 are simply too small and underpowered to affect heavy armor.  People would be a lot more on board with replacing the A-10 if this fact was being looked at and addressed.  I can live with giving up some of the other benefits of the A-10.  That 30mm cannon is one of those deal-breakers for pretty much every JTAC I've talked to when it comes to getting on board with retiring the Warthog though.


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2015)

CDG said:


> When discussing options like F-16s, it ALWAYS comes down to that cannon.  In MCO, ULO, whatever, the 20mm rounds from an F-16 are simply too small and underpowered to affect heavy armor.  People would be a lot more on board with replacing the A-10 if this fact was being looked at and addressed.  I can live with giving up some of the other benefits of the A-10.  That 30mm cannon is one of those deal-breakers for pretty much every JTAC I've talked to when it comes to getting on board with retiring the Warthog though.



And the cannon is simply too everything to be made into an external store. A plane has to be designed around that beast.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 17, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I softened, however slight, my hate for the F-16 as a CAS platform after talking to a Viper driver. The plane is sold as a cheap, do-everything solution to all of aviation's problems and I always thought it was employed in that manner. The AF actually has F-16 units which focus on CAS vs. air-to-air and while there are still ways to skew training from "ugly" to glamorous it at least tells me that someone put some thought into using the F-16 in a CAS role.
> 
> It can't, it won't, replace the A-10 but a system is in place for that to happen should anyone with balls execute that plan. The loss of the A-10 can be mitigated. It rises and falls on leadership...


I think most F-16/35 Pilots know what they do well, and what they don't do well.


CDG said:


> When discussing options like F-16s, it ALWAYS comes down to that cannon.  In MCO, ULO, whatever, the 20mm rounds from an F-16 are simply too small and underpowered to affect heavy armor.  People would be a lot more on board with replacing the A-10 if this fact was being looked at and addressed.  I can live with giving up some of the other benefits of the A-10.  That 30mm cannon is one of those deal-breakers for pretty much every JTAC I've talked to when it comes to getting on board with retiring the Warthog though.


I think part of the issue is we haven't gone nose to nose armor wise for awhile.
So big blue thinks they can SDB tanks from altitude/distance and the 30MM isn't that big a requirement.
20MM will do a number on most targets, and the ability for repeated strafing runs is important (eliminating the F-35), so will we really see A-10's as the prime tank destroyer again?


----------



## Gunz (Apr 17, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Then explain the F-18.


 


CDG said:


> And the AV-8.


 
They want them in case they need them. There's a time and place for Marine fast-mover capability; like one that can fly off a carrier as part of the MEU. If you need them, they're there. IMV there's Danger Close, Close and Not So Close and proper platforms for each application. 20 insurgents within easy rifle range for low, slow and full of firepower or an enemy regiment on a hillside a klick away that I wan't to bring the whole world down on. The Marine Corps doesn't need it's own air force but a fast-mover with the time-tested air/ground coordination unique to the Corps can come in handy. In Vietnam Marine F-4s delivered our nape and came in so low you could clearly see the flight helmets, but nobody wants nape right in their back pocket.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 24, 2015)

I just thought this was really cool -


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 30, 2015)

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ed-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children love hand me downs. Just sayin.


----------



## CDG (Apr 30, 2015)

_Over the past decade-plus of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, James said, "the A-10 has done a magnificent job, but so has the F-16 and the F-15E, and the B-1 bomber has been a contributor and there have been a number of aircraft that have contributed to the totality of close-air support. So to me, close-air support is not a plane, it's a mission."_

This is such an unbelievably ignorant argument and shows just how little Ms. James knows about CAS.  Yes, it is a mission.  And what do you need for a mission?  The best tool for the job!  Just because other tools can and have worked in some circumstances does not mean they are the best choice.  How hard is it to understand that?  Contributions do not equal ability to handle the full workload.  I cannot stand seeing senior USAF leadership repeat this misguided line over and over as a justification for retiring the A-10.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 30, 2015)

That's the equivalent of saying: "the 11B has done a magnificent job, but so has the 88M, and the 19D, and the 25A has been a contributor and there have been a number of Soldiers that have contributed to the totality of assaulting this house.  So to me, assaulting this house is not an MOS-specific task, it's a mission."

Best tool for the job and all that like @CDG was saying...:-":wall:


----------



## BloodStripe (May 11, 2015)

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/10/40524...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150510

30 seconds of your life is all that it takes you change the lives of others forever.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 11, 2015)




----------



## Kraut783 (May 11, 2015)

pffftt.....any fighter or bomber can do that 





*SARCASM*


----------



## AWP (Jun 6, 2015)

The Air Force's hypocrisy knows no bounds. AFN just showed a "commercial"/ break in programming touting the AF's NATO commitment by forward deploying A-10's to Romania. Ground footage of a 30MM gun run was shown at least twice in the segment.

Stills from the exercise:
http://theaviationist.com/2015/04/02/dacian-thunder-a-10s-romania/

Clownshoes.


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 1, 2015)

UH-1N Huey Replacement Industry Day Announcement - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

Industry Day for the Huey Replacement coming up in Ohio.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 1, 2015)

NavyBuyer said:


> UH-1N Huey Replacement Industry Day Announcement - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities
> 
> Industry Day for the Huey Replacement coming up in Ohio.


Fucking waste of money.


----------



## pardus (Sep 1, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Fucking waste of money.



That's what I was thinking, just buy some more Blackhawks to replace them.


----------



## CDG (Sep 1, 2015)

I thought the Lakota was replacing the Huey?


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Sep 1, 2015)

CDG said:


> I thought the Lakota was replacing the Huey?



H model Hueys and Kiowas, and only CONUS if I recall correctly - the Lakota is nondeployable


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 1, 2015)

pardus said:


> That's what I was thinking, just buy some more Blackhawks to replace them.


Nah, Just take the HH-60's that are being replaced by newer HH-60's and send them to the missile fields.  Flying isn't as hard on the airframes as combat, and you don't have to run another acquisitions program.


CDG said:


> I thought the Lakota was replacing the Huey?


Primarily a Guard a/c.  I think USAREUR bought some too, but the Lakota isn't suitable for missile field support.
SLEP the HH-60's and send them into the missile field, cuts down on parts, training, assignments, etc.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 1, 2015)

The current HH-60G's are basically worn out and the last one won't be retired until the second half of the 2020's.  Long term it would be cheaper to just buy new mike models.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 1, 2015)

busdriver said:


> The current HH-60G's are basically worn out and the last one won't be retired until the second half of the 2020's.  Long term it would be cheaper to just buy new mike models.


That's fine, but the Missile Support mission gets hand me downs until we can replace the H's with M's.
Those UH-1's have been at it for a long time, some of them have combat hours on them.
We kill ourselves by making this another acquisitions program.  We can't afford what we already are trying to buy.


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> We kill ourselves by making this another acquisitions program.  We can't afford what we already are trying to buy.



Our acquisitions process is broken.  The F-35 has a lot of visibility, but the Navy's new carrier and LCS has slid under the radar. Look at the tanker mess, the CSAR-X debacle, and on a lesser scale the Army's uniform adventure.

The Navy wants an Ohio class replacement, the AF a new bomber, and there's probably some I've forgotten or don't know about. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but we need to fix the system before we start something new. We've wasted billions upon billions, probably a trillion plus, because we can't manage new acquisitions. Insanity.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 2, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Our acquisitions process is broken.  The F-35 has a lot of visibility, but the Navy's new carrier and LCS has slid under the radar. Look at the tanker mess, the CSAR-X debacle, and on a lesser scale the Army's uniform adventure.
> 
> The Navy wants an Ohio class replacement, the AF a new bomber, and there's probably some I've forgotten or don't know about. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but we need to fix the system before we start something new. We've wasted billions upon billions, probably a trillion plus, because we can't manage new acquisitions. Insanity.



Lets see: F-35 (which sucks because of the V/STOL requirements)
               KC-46 Tanker (1st flight just slipped again because of a sub-contractor)
               HH-60M (have not heard any bad news on this one)
               LRS-B, AKA New Bomber (they just got their knuckles slapped for a bad cost estimate)
               C-5M (on-going with all the kinks worked out)
               T-X just started
               JSTARS Replacement (RFI Phase?)
              The various C-130J Programs
               CV-22's.
I understand the UH-1's are at the end of their service life, but they are not getting new helicopters until these other programs complete, get cancelled or somehow come under budget.  IIRC the C-5 program should be finished (Apr 2018).

The Navy is also buying F-35's, the P-8 Pegasus, and may still be buying F/A-18's.

The Marines are buying F-35's and MV-22's.

Slipping/cancelling all those programs during the Clinton era is biting us in the ass.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Lets see: F-35 (which sucks because of the V/STOL requirements)
> KC-46 Tanker (1st flight just slipped again because of a sub-contractor)
> HH-60M (have not heard any bad news on this one)
> LRS-B, AKA New Bomber (they just got their knuckles slapped for a bad cost estimate)
> ...



The Navy plans to keep Super Hornets until 2035-ish. Let that sink in when you read about the -35.

Everything slips to the right, we get that, but the nonsense over the last decade or so is out of hand. Contractors deserve some heat, Lockheed and the -35 for example, but ignore the military's role in the debacles listed here. Even as a contractor I won't excuse a company's actions, but the military and our elected officials bear a huge amount of the blame...or should.


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 2, 2015)

I don't work for a major systems acquisition command so I cannot comment on those large projects, but as a Contract Specialist working for the Navy's largest command in GLS, I can fully attest to the broken acquisition process. The blame falls equally on contractors and the Government on many of the debacles in acquisitions. I could give some pretty interesting stories from my short time here, but to protect both contractors and us I won't.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 2, 2015)

NavyBuyer said:


> I don't work for a major systems acquisition command so I cannot comment on those large projects, but as a Contract Specialist working for the Navy's largest command in GLS, I can fully attest to the broken acquisition process. The blame falls equally on contractors and the Government on many of the debacles in acquisitions. I could give some pretty interesting stories from my short time here, but to protect both contractors and us I won't.


You have to add Congress to the mix.
Matter of fact, I blame Congress for most of the Acquisition ills as they wrote the rules.
(and I blame AFSOC for the CSAR-X Fiasco)


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 2, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> You have to add Congress to the mix.
> Matter of fact, I blame Congress for most of the Acquisition ills as they wrote the rules.
> (and I blame AFSOC for the CSAR-X Fiasco)


 
Proposed changes are made by the DAR Council and the CAA Council. According to FAR 1.201-1

(a) Subject to the authorities discussed in 1.103, revisions to the FAR will be prepared and issued through the coordinated action of two councils, the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (DAR Council) and the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAA Council). Members of these councils shall --
          (1) Represent their agencies on a full-time basis;
          (2) Be selected for their superior qualifications in terms of acquisition experience and demonstrated professional expertise; and
          (3) Be funded by their respective agencies.

(b) The chairperson of the CAA Council shall be the representative of the Administrator of General Services. The other members of this council shall be one each representative from the--
          (1) Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, and Treasury; and
          (2) Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, Small Business Administration, and Department of Veterans Affairs.

(c) The Director of the DAR Council shall be the representative of the Secretary of Defense. The operation of the DAR Council will be as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. Membership shall include representatives of the military departments, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

(d) Responsibility for processing revisions to the FAR is apportioned by the two councils so that each council has cognizance over specified parts or subparts.

(e) Each council shall be responsible for --
          (1) Agreeing on all revisions with the other council;
          (2) Submitting to the FAR Secretariat (see 1.201-2) the information required under paragraphs 1.501-2(b) and (e) for publication in the Federal Register of a notice soliciting comments on a proposed revision to the FAR
          (3) Considering all comments received in response to notice of proposed revisions;
          (4) Arranging for public meetings;
          (5) Preparing any final revision in the appropriate FAR format and language; and
          (6) Submitting any final revision to the FAR Secretariat for publication in the _Federal Register_ and printing for distribution.

Those making these changes are seasoned contracting professionals. The sad part is that a few (probably more than a few) have been out of execution for so long that they really have little to no knowledge any more about the actual contract writing process other than what is listed in CFR Title 48 Chapters 1 and 2. Yes, they are all SME's on the FAR and DFARS, but you tend to forget things and see how they actually work when you aren't active in execution. It is not a knock on them, it happens to everyone in just about every subject that you work in. However, it those of us in this career field do our jobs properly and contractors didn't try to play the system, there wouldn't be as much fodder to cut through to get to the meat.


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 5, 2015)

Was going through old photos today and found this. I took it at the Gary, Indiana Air Show roughly 8 years ago.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 10, 2015)

Just ran across this vid on YouTube - do not recall seeing this posted here.  Pretty damn interesting perspective - Not sure who produced it, but obviously they were pro A10 and JTAC.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 11, 2015)

Another video that summarizes the Hog's capabilities nicely, straight from the mouth of one of it's designers:


----------



## x SF med (Sep 11, 2015)

@Blizzard - nice find, thanks for posting it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 11, 2015)

Blizzard said:


> Another video that summarizes the Hog's capabilities nicely, straight from the mouth of one of it's designers:



An excellent review of what the A-10 is, how it works, and why it is such a perfect tool for CAS. Makes you wonder why the current administration wanted to take it out of service?


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 11, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Just ran across this vid on YouTube - do not recall seeing this posted here.  Pretty damn interesting perspective - Not sure who produced it, but obviously they were pro A10 and JTAC.


Backstory.
Produced by the AF (Combat Camera, etc).
AF held (stopped) release when they figured that this video wouldn't help justify retiring the A-10.
Video was "leaked" to a blogger (John Q. Public) who has released it via Youtube, his blog and Facebook pages.


----------



## AWP (Sep 11, 2015)

The new USAFE-AFRICOM "commercial" on AF starts with shots of the A-10 refueling, taxiing, and making gun runs.

Sad.,just sad. Use it for propaganda while actively working to cut the very program you're touting? Nicely done, AF leadership. Nicely done.


----------



## Grunt (Sep 11, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> ...Sad.,just sad. Use it for propaganda while actively working to cut the very program you're touting? Nicely done, AF leadership. Nicely done.



Yep...that shows a certain level of willful stupidity in action.


----------



## AWP (Sep 24, 2015)

I know a few of us advocate/d the A-29 as a CAS platform or even an A-10 "replacement," and this article makes a pretty compelling case. It also contains some infuriating bits of history.

I won't angrily wax poetic except to say it is heartbreaking.

The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 24, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I know a few of us advocate/d the A-29 as a CAS platform or even an A-10 "replacement," and this article makes a pretty compelling case. It also contains some infuriating bits of history.
> 
> I won't angrily wax poetic except to say it is heartbreaking.
> 
> The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money


The last paragraph made me almost vomit.
AT-6B is a waste of tax dollars, but my guess is supplying Iraq was the bribe to stop another GAO Contract review.
Originally a Navy project, AF pilots were added when it became an obvious success.
RumInt says SecDef or CentCom denied SOCOM's request to deploy it (I feel ACC omnipotent presence in the decision).

I supported Super T's in Colombia, and freely admit my bias towards the plane.  It's a no-shit poor man's A-10.
It is not however, a WW II era plane.  It's a modern attack fighter, and I am willing to bet Embraer would be offended if they knew it was being referred to as a WW II fighter.


----------



## AWP (Sep 24, 2015)

The thing that kills me about the Super T debacle is when you stack it against the MC-12 and various AFSOC U-xxx airframes. We fielded a/c when they were needed, but the Super T program never went anywhere? If ACC didn't have a hand in that I would be stunned.

The AF has sold its soul (and airmen and capabilities and....) for the F-35.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 24, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> The thing that kills me about the Super T debacle is when you stack it against the MC-12 and various AFSOC U-xxx airframes. We fielded a/c when they were needed, but the Super T program never went anywhere? If ACC didn't have a hand in that I would be stunned.
> 
> The AF has sold its soul (and airmen and capabilities and....) for the F-35.


No, Robert Gates (a texan) sold the AF/Navy/Marine Corps souls to a Texas Company.
He killed the one fighter we really need now because he had no vision, or was just a corrupt bastard.


----------



## AWP (Sep 25, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> No, Robert Gates (a texan) sold the AF/Navy/Marine Corps souls to a Texas Company.
> He killed the one fighter we really need now because he had no vision, or was just a corrupt bastard.



I was anti F-22 until coming here. That thing is a beast and we should have more of them. Those poor bastards are basically doing 6 months on, 6 off. The AF's personnel cutting measures haven't helped either, but that's probably another discussion. Bottom line: we could use more F-22's but that ship has sailed.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I was anti F-22 until coming here. That thing is a beast and we should have more of them. Those poor bastards are basically doing 6 months on, 6 off. The AF's personnel cutting measures haven't helped either, but that's probably another discussion. Bottom line: we could use more F-22's but that ship has sailed.



The Raptor is a game changer in the air combat arena. The downside of that is that there are not enough around. I'm not sure the F-35 is as capable as the Raptor. With all the Raptor's avionics, and magic, maintainers will have their hands full. If one were to look at the big picture, meaning POTUS after Bush, it is pretty clear that the drawdown is a little dangerous right now.


----------



## AWP (Oct 11, 2015)

And another AFN commercial on the A-10 deployment to Europe, this one showing A-10's conducting austere field operations with CCT's from Mildenhall. I guess that's something the F-35 can do as well as the A-10?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 11, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Raptor is a game changer in the air combat arena. The downside of that is that there are not enough around. I'm not sure the F-35 is as capable as the Raptor. With all the Raptor's avionics, and magic, maintainers will have their hands full. If one were to look at the big picture, meaning POTUS after Bush, it is pretty clear that the drawdown is a little dangerous right now.


Planes in the air tend to be like boots on the ground, you still need to be able to hold real estate and if you don't have enough air frames someone else will be able to knock you out.  Like who came up with the random number of 187...


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 11, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> And another AFN commercial on the A-10 deployment to Europe, this one showing A-10's conducting austere field operations with CCT's from Mildenhall. I guess that's something the F-35 can do as well as the A-10?


Funny you mention that.
AF touted dirt field ops when we first fielded the A-10, but we never really did them.
Fast forward to this year and Big Blue is running A-10's through the dirt strip at Hunter-Liggett as fast as they can, these events are not random occurrences.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 13, 2016)

Well, someone in government finally listened to all those voices out there, pleading with them to keep it in service in order to continue protecting those who need it more than anyone. 

*A-10 Retirement Indefinitely Delayed*


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 13, 2016)

Someone must have listened to those of us down in the mud and blood!


----------



## Grunt (Jan 13, 2016)

They listened...that's spooky.

Something is about to happen!!!!!


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 13, 2016)

Red-Dot said:


> Someone must have listened to those of us down in the mud and blood!


..... or they figure we will need them soon.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 14, 2016)

maybe they are finally realizing how beautiful and awesome the A-10 really is...  It's like a nice medium rare bacon wrapped steak that's been marinated in Blanton's that has super powers coming to your rescue...   But that's just my take.


----------



## LibraryLady (Jan 14, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Well, someone in government finally listened to all those voices out there, pleading with them to keep it in service in order to continue protecting those who need it more than anyone.
> 
> *A-10 Retirement Indefinitely Delayed*



Random Musing.  I wonder how much of our tax dollars went into this decision making process.  :wall::wall::wall:

LL


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 14, 2016)

We've seen this merry-go-round before....CAS gets out-dated by hi-tech, then we get into a war in which we rely on low-tech CAS, which gets out-dated by hi-tech, then we get into a war in which we rely on low-tech CAS.....

Keep the A-10, Keep the AV-8B....hell, bring back the A-1.....


----------



## AWP (Jan 14, 2016)

I'm too cynical to think the AF finally saw the light. Something caused the reversal and guys on the ground aren't it.


----------



## Blizzard (Jan 14, 2016)

I think it was just typical politics; threaten to take away things that are most valuable/will cause the most pain to people to do without in an effort to get them to pay attention or bully them to a viewpoint/solution.  It's not the first time the A-10 was threatened to be mothballed...doubt it will be the last (even if they say the issue is settled).


----------



## CDG (Jan 15, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm too cynical to think the AF finally saw the light. Something caused the reversal and guys on the ground aren't it.



With how long the F-35 is taking to become remotely operationally ready for CAS, they can't afford to cut the A-10 right now.  I believe we are moving towards more boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS, and that fight will require CAS, as will any and every fight until the end of time.  There is no better platform for CAS, and the leadership knows it.  They can argue all they want about the F-35/MQ-9 combo being sufficient.  Or how F-16s and bombers have done CAS. The fact is that RPA crews are overtasked and undermanned, and we don't have F-35s yet.  F-16s are showing signs of their age and that community has started losing CAS proficiency in the last 3-4 years.  We call F-16 squadrons now and get told, "Yeah, we're not really training for CAS anymore."  Bombers are great if you have 20 minutes to cool your heels between passes.  "Oh, we'll just pattern manage then, blow up a whole box."  Cool bro, let's add 10 more minutes to that attack setup while 6-10 grids get read, plugged into the system, and read back.  Hopefully they're all correct and none have to be re-keyed.  "Readbacks correct........ Uh, disregard, those dudes just moved, standby for new coordinates."  They don't have a choice.  It would be blatant disregard for the dudes on the ground if they went through with cutting the A-10 now.


----------



## AWP (Jan 15, 2016)

CDG said:


> F-16s are showing signs of their age and that community has started losing CAS proficiency in the last 3-4 years.  We call F-16 squadrons now and get told, "Yeah, we're not really training for CAS anymore."



Wow. The Block 40 squadrons are supposed to be focused on ground attack. That would give you at least one per AD Wing.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 15, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Wow. The Block 40 squadrons are supposed to be focused on ground attack. That would give you at least one per AD Wing.


My guess is the A-10 reprieve resulted in the Block 40 guys moving on.


----------



## AWP (Jan 15, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> My guess is the A-10 reprieve resulted in the Block 40 guys moving on.



Maybe, I don't know. The way a squadron from Hill explained it to me, 40's did most of the bombing while 50's were supposed to fly ahead, conduct SEAD/ DEAD, and blast planes as needed. Eh, maybe the paradigm has shifted, but most of the Viper squadrons that went through Bagram were 40's.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2016)

CNN jumps in as the AF tries to make cotton candy of their earlier "decision."

ISIS may have saved the A-10 - CNNPolitics.com



> "When we made the decision on retiring the A-10, we made those decisions prior to ISIL, we were not in Iraq, we were coming out of Afghanistan to a large extent, we didn't have a resurgent Russia," Goldfein said in an interview on "Defense News with Vago Muradian,"


----------



## Gunz (Jan 21, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> ...hell, bring back the A-1.....


 
I'd drink to that. The Spad is Bad.


Complete with music from "Shaft"


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 21, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I'd drink to that. The Spad is Bad.
> 
> 
> Complete with music from "Shaft"



If you ever wondered what we had before the A-10, it was ^^^^^^^^^^^.


----------



## CDG (Jan 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> CNN jumps in as the AF tries to make cotton candy of their earlier "decision."
> 
> ISIS may have saved the A-10 - CNNPolitics.com



L. O. L.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 22, 2016)

Just like in business, it's great to have generalists, but you need to have the specialists in place to really make the show run.


----------



## AWP (Jan 22, 2016)

x SF med said:


> Just like in business, it's great to have generalists, but you need to have the specialists in place to really make the show run.



In some ways we're victims of our own success. WWII saw fighters like the P-47, P-51, and F4U Corsair (or FG-1 if you prefer) used in the ground attack role. When people point to the P-47's success they tend to forget it was a "good enough" fighter until the P-51 arrived. Only one of those would fly from a carrier.

The Navy used Panthers in a dual role, but that was necessity as much as capability. The A-1, used in various configurations, were used by both branches as an attack aircraft before becoming a CAS platform because of its speed and availability.

The AF and Navy generally developed their own aircraft because of their unique mission requirements.

The F-4 was used in Vietnam, again out of necessity. The F-105 was a poor fighter and really developed for SAC. In a nuke war it would see use as a short range nuke bomber, not a fighter. F-4's and A-7's were used by both branches, but the F-111, intended as a dual service platform, only saw action in the AF.

Enter today and we have the F-14 upgraded to a very capable bomber prior to retirement. The F-16 and F-18 are dual-use. The F-15 had to become a new variant to act as a bomber.

We've bought into this multiuse concept because it has worked...and it has worked mostly because we haven't fought the 9th Mongolian Horde. I think the A-10 is our first special purpose CAS platform. While it is the best hands down, it wasn't a "need" until we began addressing the quantity of Soviet tanks in Europe. Prior to the A-10 our great CAS platforms were, minus the F4U, a/c past their prime that contained excellent CAS attributes.

The Navy and AF have used the same a/c, but with limitations. The F-16 was considered for the F/A role and the YF-17, which competed against the F-16 for an AF contract, was modified to become the F/A-18; like the YF-17 the F-16 couldn't be a Navy aircraft without modifications.

Now we have the F-35, that abomination which is trying to be all things to all people while also cutting/ bleeding edge in the next war. We've gotten away with it, but only because of our opponents and dual-use/ dual-branch a/c require minor to significant modifications. Anyone who signed off on the F-35's basic concept is idealistic at best and a moron at worst.

The tragedy with the A-10 isn't that we're losing the plane. That is inevitable given time and technology, but we haven't learned from the A-10. After how many years at war since the 80's, we haven't learned the value of a CAS platform? Fighter-bombers are supposed to bridge the gap between purpose built a/c, not supplant them. The AF bought F-22's, but will rely on the F-35 to do most of its fighting in a future war. The Navy realized the -35's limitations and plans to keep -18's in service until 2040. It is like we KNOW the answers but are too blind or proud to do the right thing.

Edited for typos


----------



## Gunz (Jan 23, 2016)

What we loved about the A-1,  it had the AH-1's beat for range, speed and weight of ordnance. 4x 20mms, rockets, bombs etc...got over the target fast and just punished the shit out of it. Like the A-10, armor around the cockpit, could take a beating. We loved the Cobras too but A-1s could drop _nape_, and do it at controlled speeds that probably enhanced accuracy.


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 24, 2016)

Too bad they didn't re-tool and build an A-10 MK II. Same great air frame just various upgrades in engine, sensors, frame material etc. (the Avenger would obviously stay)


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2016)

Red-Dot said:


> Too bad they didn't re-tool and build an A-10 MK II. Same great air frame just various upgrades in engine, sensors, frame material etc. (the Avenger would obviously stay)


Over reaction by Congress years ago killed that possibility.


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 24, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Over reaction by Congress years ago killed that possibility.



Yeah...the Fulda Gap scenario never came to fruition.


----------



## CDG (Feb 3, 2016)

Hawg is safe until 2022.

Defense Secretary Carter: A-10 will stay until 2022


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 3, 2016)

CDG said:


> Hawg is safe until 2022.
> 
> Defense Secretary Carter: A-10 will stay until 2022


Which speaks volumes about the AF's statements regarding the A-10's usefulness.


----------



## AWP (Feb 3, 2016)

The A-10's become a woman in an abusive relationship. Every time she goes to leave that asshole, he realizes he can't cook dinner and begs for her to stay.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 5, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm too cynical to think the AF finally saw the light. Something caused the reversal and guys on the ground aren't it.



Mayhaps it has more to do with the fact that the F-35 just cannot deliver?  Both literally and figuratively.

F-35 Still Dogged With 'Deficiencies': Pentagon Report | Military.com


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Mayhaps it has more to do with the fact that the F-35 just cannot deliver?  Both literally and figuratively.
> 
> F-35 Still Dogged With 'Deficiencies': Pentagon Report | Military.com


That and CSAF was forced to admit it was a budgetary decision and not a strategic/tactical decision.
That former A-10 Wing Commander who is a House Member knows how to question General Officers.


----------



## Red-Dot (Feb 5, 2016)

2022!? That gives the Hawg a lot more time to smoke the mujahideen!


----------



## compforce (Feb 10, 2016)

MG Martin just found out that the money to keep the A-10 flying is coming from the F-35 budget....  

Air Force general faints during budget talks


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 10, 2016)

compforce said:


> MG Martin just found out that the money to keep the A-10 flying is coming from the F-35 budget....
> 
> Air Force general faints during budget talks



I couldn't get the video to play, even on my office computer. Several things could have happened, hypoglucemia, a run of PAT, or even Atriaf Fibrilation. Worse case might include a pacemaker. Or, maybe he just didn't want to talk any more about the struggle to keep the A-10 in the inventory :-".


----------



## x SF med (Feb 11, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I couldn't get the video to play, even on my office computer. Several things could have happened, hypoglucemia, a run of PAT, or even Atriaf Fibrilation. Worse case might include a pacemaker. Or, maybe he just didn't want to talk any more about the struggle to keep the A-10 in the inventory :-".



Um, maybe, just maybe, the A-10 is like Chuck Norris, and just talking bad about it tried to kill him....  it could happen, because the A-10 is the only plane that can kill Chuck Norris...


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 11, 2016)

" because the A-10 is the only plane that can kill Chuck Norris"


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 11, 2016)

"Don't fuck with the A-10 General, I'll kill you..........seriously"


----------



## AWP (Feb 12, 2016)

The A-10's so tough....
(How tough is it?!)
...that even tankers can't knock it out of the sky with their tail harpoon.









(The above is sarcasm and I'm embarrassed I have to explain this to some of you)


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 12, 2016)

Early on, the gasses that followed the rounds out of the berrels, would ignite. This produced a flame coming out of the front of the War Hog. The higherups saw this as a problem to be solved. They should have left it alone, in my opinion. There is just something about the vision of a fire belching A-10 in full ground attack mode.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Early on, the gasses that followed the rounds out of the berrels, would ignite. This produced a flame coming out of the front of the War Hog. The higherups saw this as a problem to be solved. They should have left it alone, in my opinion. There is just something about the vision of a fire belching A-10 in full ground attack mode.



I've had exactly the same thought on that subject.

What's the risk here, that it will give away the aircraft's position?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 12, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I've had exactly the same thought on that subject.
> 
> What's the risk here, that it will give away the aircraft's position?
> 
> View attachment 14933



Prolly some repainting of the nose. There are a lot of avionic sensors in the nose of nearly all aircraft. I think the avionic risks out weighed that wonderful image of a fire belching A-10.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Prolly some repainting of the nose. There are a lot of avionic sensors in the nose of nearly all aircraft. I think the avionic risks out weighed that wonderful image of a fire belching A-10.


I thought the redesign was to stop the engines from ingesting gasses for the cannon?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I thought the redesign was to stop the engines from ingesting gasses for the cannon?



That was a consideration IIRC.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 19, 2016)

So based on this...the A-10's first retirement is in 2017?
Combat Aircraft Monthly USAF reveals planned unit changes


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 19, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So based on this...the A-10's first retirement is in 2017?
> Combat Aircraft Monthly USAF reveals planned unit changes


Yep, starting in October 2017.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 19, 2016)

Great plane, great pilot...this has some helmet cam and and actual cockpit audio after the missile hit.








He says: "They still haven't found the seat cushion because my pucker-factor was so high" Bwaaahhaaaaaaaaaahaaa


----------



## AWP (Feb 19, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So based on this...the A-10's first retirement is in 2017?
> Combat Aircraft Monthly USAF reveals planned unit changes



Where do you see A-10's closing in FY17?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 19, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Where do you see A-10's closing in FY17?


FY18 which starts in Oct 2017 was my interpretation.


----------



## AWP (Feb 19, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> FY18 which starts in Oct 2017 was my interpretation.



That makes sense. Thank you.


----------



## AWP (Feb 27, 2016)

More of the A-10 doing the same things an F-35 can do. 

U.S. Air Force A-10 and MC-130J combat planes at work out of an austere landing field in Bulgaria



> The Hogs are becoming increasingly active in eastern Europe.
> 
> Taken on Feb. 11, 2016 the following interesting pictures show U.S. Air Force A-10C Thunderbolt IIs and a single MC-130J Commando II operating out of an austere landing site at Plovdiv, Bulgaria.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> More of the A-10 doing the same things an F-35 can do.
> 
> U.S. Air Force A-10 and MC-130J combat planes at work out of an austere landing field in Bulgaria



The C-130 and all it's various levels of outfitting is an airframe that I have always loved. From simple, short field in country cargo, hurricane taskings, to the AC-130's, I just love the rugged bastards.


----------



## AWP (Mar 11, 2016)

I just....goddamnitsomuch.

Decades-old OV-10 Bronco planes used against ISIS - CNNPolitics.com



> The Vietnam-era OV-10 Bronco turbo-propeller planes are part of an experiment to see if "light turbo-prop aircraft" are more effective in conducting counterinsurgency operations, a U.S. military representative told CNN this week.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 11, 2016)

"..._ like drones, the  OV-10 can loiter over the battlefield for hours, but unlike drones, the pilot has greater visibility of the battlefield and can see the location of enemy forces and attack them directly with machine guns and more bombs and missiles than a drone can carry. "
_
The fucking lightbulb in Uncle Fester's mouth just lit the fuck up. Again.

We worked with Marine OV-10s many times as spotter planes. Very cool effective little platforms. Great aircraft. They will find the Bad Guys and direct you to them.


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Mar 11, 2016)




----------



## Totentanz (Mar 11, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The C-130 and all it's various levels of outfitting is an airframe that I have always loved. From simple, short field in country cargo, hurricane taskings, to the AC-130's, I just love the rugged bastards.



More than 6 decades of service and it has performed the vast majority of the mission sets possible (including air to air engagement) ... What's not to love?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 11, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> More than 6 decades of service and it has performed the vast majority of the mission sets possible (including air to air engagement) ... What's not to love?



For use on IG events in the mid to late '80's, we would use C-141's, and C-130's. Every C-141 developed problems that would ground the aircraft for the length of our deployment. I would then have to get a second aircraft on short notice, not an easy task, and we would get C-130's.Wen we left the base, the C-141 we requested, was still on thew ground; usually "hydraulic" woes. My last year on the Team, we avoided C-141's like the plague. On one occasion, we had the the great luck of having access to a C-5B @ Dover AFB. The C-130's were the ones that I loved working with the best. It was one of the few aircraft that we could use to travel in reverse on the ground, a big plus for Hi-Jackings.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 11, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> "..._ like drones, the  OV-10 can loiter over the battlefield for hours, but unlike drones, the pilot has greater visibility of the battlefield and can see the location of enemy forces and attack them directly with machine guns and more bombs and missiles than a drone can carry. "
> _
> The fucking lightbulb in Uncle Fester's mouth just lit the fuck up. Again.
> 
> ...


Desert Storm doomed the OV-10.

We hadn't upgraded them to counter IR missiles and the Marines lost two IIRC.
I can't believe we couldn't mount the disco ball on them and make them effective again.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Desert Storm doomed the OV-10.
> 
> We hadn't upgraded them to counter IR missiles and the Marines lost two IIRC.
> I can't believe we couldn't mount the disco ball on them and make them effective again.



The article doesn't say if these two Navy OV10s have been upgraded. I'm kind of assuming no since ISIL isn't known for firing heat seekers. But if they're going to reactivate more of them for support missions with SOF they might want to consider it.


----------



## pardus (Mar 11, 2016)

While I think bringing back the OV10s is awesome, I'm puzzled as to why we are considering a platform that seems to be inferior in every aspect to the A10, to appease people who don't want to see the A10 replaced.
This seems to me to be a case of "we have to get rid of the A10s, we can have later F15/16/35s or earlier OV10s".
Why are we so opposed to keeping the A10s? 
With all the arguments about the vulnerabilities of the A10s from the USAF, we are seriously considering the OV10s? Really?  
Fuck it, bring back the Skyraider, it was a better CAS platform than the OV10.


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2016)

pardus said:


> While I think bringing back the OV10s is awesome, I'm puzzled as to why we are considering a platform that seems to be inferior in every aspect to the A10, to appease people who don't want to see the A10 replaced.
> This seems to me to be a case of "we have to get rid of the A10s, we can have later F15/16/35s or earlier OV10s".
> Why are we so opposed to keeping the A10s?
> With all the arguments about the vulnerabilities of the A10s from the USAF, we are seriously considering the OV10s? Really?
> Fuck it, bring back the Skyraider, it was a better CAS platform than the OV10.



I'd like to the cost for refurbishing an OV-10 vs. purchasing new A-29's. I suspect a few things happened:
- this is a one-off test of the concept, not the airframe
- they pulled this from Bureau of Land Management/ some civvie contractor for use. That cut down significantly on time to refurb/ prep the airframe
- Someone, somewhere sees the writing on the wall WRT the fight against ISIS and future conflicts PLUS the F-35's inability to do the job while the A-10 is being taken out back, Ol' Yeller style. I'll bet JSOC or someone with some gas made this happen because they don't trust the -35 and they see how expensive it is to operate Cold War a/c in the desert toilets in which we fight.

It is heartbreaking because the topic came up time and time again in 200x and no one moved. Now we find ourselves in a war which can use the capability but not as much as say Afghanistan a decade ago, so we'll spend the money? It shows how incredibly shortsighted and territorial we've become and why we cannot, will not win another war unless it lasts less than 10 days and involves nearly every tank in our arsenal. Otherwise, put an L on the scoreboard.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 12, 2016)

pardus said:


> While I think bringing back the OV10s is awesome, I'm puzzled as to why we are considering a platform that seems to be inferior in every aspect to the A10, to appease people who don't want to see the A10 replaced.
> This seems to me to be a case of "we have to get rid of the A10s, we can have later F15/16/35s or earlier OV10s".
> Why are we so opposed to keeping the A10s?
> With all the arguments about the vulnerabilities of the A10s from the USAF, we are seriously considering the OV10s? Really?
> *Fuck it, bring back the Skyraider, it was a better CAS platform than the OV10*.




As much as I love the OV10s, the article, I think, gives waay too much emphasis on the OV10s role as a CAS platform, when, in fact, it's better suited in an observation role. We never once used OV10s for CAS, it just wasn't done. But they were excellent spotter aircraft, they could stay over your AO a long time and with the optics onboard they could spot the bad guys and direct you to them even if it took several hours. I can see them being used in a limited CAS role, maybe in a danger close contact or where their visual capabilities and slower speed would make their use practical...but what do we really want, usually, when we call in CAS? The kind of shock and awe that an A10, a Skyraider, an AC130, or attack helos can bring to the scene.

I didn't get the impression from the article that the OVs were being tested as a replacement for A10s already in theater. I think the gist of all this is mission-driven, the A10s were deemed  necessary to the mission by the guys on the ground and a strong message was relayed by political pressure to the high end of the chain. And that got everybody thinking, hey, what else to we have in the boneyard that might be useful here?

And BTW, do we have any Skyraiders still laying around? Because yes, it would fit in with what we're trying to do, and it's a whole lot scarier than an OV10.


----------



## CDG (Mar 12, 2016)

This was not a conventional initiative.  Interesting people were doing interesting things and the conventional side went, "Hey, we should try that."


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Mar 12, 2016)

OV-10G+


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2016)

VAL-4 "Black Ponies" in Vietnam. The Black Pony insignia can be seen on the OV-10G+ (thanks @Raksasa Kotor) test aircraft. Not knowing the new specs and the cost/ time required to acquire and convert -10's to the new configuration vs. an A-29, the planes appear, based on open source info, to have similar loadouts and performance specs. Cost of operation is another concern so I don't see how a twin engine could beat a single engine in that category.

I suspect the -10G+ is a better platform. At worst it won't lag much behind the A-29 but I'm sure they are easier and cheaper to acquire. An A-29 appropriations bill would be killed by Kansas legislatures. The AF loathes CAS and given the Navy's history and close association with the Marine Corps it would make sense for VAL or VMAL squadrons to pop up.

Black Pony Buno 155417 - Side #105

OV-10Bronco.Net - VAL-4's OV-10 Technical Reports <- A great bit of history.

The Story Of The OV-10A Bronco



Ocoka One said:


> And BTW, do we have any Skyraiders still laying around? Because yes, it would fit in with what we're trying to do, and it's a whole lot scarier than an OV10.



That's a non-starter. The handful left are in museums and if they existed in mass quantity they use radial engines. The A-1 could fly to the moon and back on a single tank of gas and no one will touch it because of the reciprocating engine. DC-3's and C-7 Caribous are still in use with PT-6 turbines. Off the top of my head, the only reciprocating aircraft left in the US inventory would be S-2 trackers for wildfires and I'll bet some of those have turbines.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2016)

Key point from the article.
Navy Pilots.
NavSpecWarCom drove Imminent Fury, which was killed off by ACC (bastards)
So SpecWarCom came up with another proof of concept mission.

I hope they put Black Pony stickers on the nose.
Didn't see the post where they had them on the plane.
The Imminent Fury guys had Black Pony stickers on their planes too.

OV-10 is a better FAC than the A-10, 2nd set of eyes can help a lot. I suspect it burns a lot less Jet Fuel than the A-10 which makes the money changers happy.


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I hope they put Black Pony stickers on the nose.
> Didn't see the post where they had them on the plane.
> The Imminent Fury guys had Black Pony stickers on their planes too.



They even have Navy BuNos on the tail.












ETA the A-29 w/ Black Pony.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 12, 2016)

My question about the Skyraider was meant in jest. Very interesting about the Val-4s, I wasn't aware of that program. Unless I'm mistaken, the Marine OV10s that spotted for us carried no bombs and were not assigned to any CAS role. We got F4s, Scooters, Cobras or VNAF Skyraiders.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> My question about the Skyraider was meant in jest. Very interesting about the Val-4s, I wasn't aware of that program. Unless I'm mistaken, the Marine OV10s that spotted for us carried no bombs and were not assigned to any CAS role. We got F4s, Scooters, Cobras or VNAF Skyraiders.


I am sure the Marine OV-10's had smoke rockets and .50 cal.
I have to back and look to see if the AF guys supporting SOG had flechettes along with smoke.


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2016)

Another article, this one with some more stats that answers some of my earlier questions.

Why Is America Using These Antique Planes to Fight ISIS?



> The twin-engine Broncos—each flown by a pair of naval aviators—completed 134 sorties, including 120 combat missions, over a span of 82 days beginning in May 2015 or shortly thereafter, according to U.S. Central Command, which oversees America’s wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
> 
> An F-15 can cost as much as $40,000 per flight-hour just for fuel and maintenance. By contrast, a Bronco can cost as little as $1,000 for an hour of flying.
> 
> The Defense Department slipped $20 million into its 2012 budget to pay for the two OV-10s to deploy overseas—part of a wider military experiment with smaller, cheaper warplanes.



10 million to refurb and modernize the planes. Our A-29 contract with Afghanistan clocks in around 21 million per plane but includes spares, training, etc. Various sources have a new A-29 coming in around 12 million, give or take.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 12, 2016)

Can they talk sat like the A-10?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Can they talk sat like the A-10?


Yes, look close at the middle pic @Freefalling put up.  Sat Plate and a GPS hump.


----------



## pardus (Mar 12, 2016)

Hell, if we're going to go old school...


----------



## Gunz (Mar 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I am sure the Marine OV-10's had smoke rockets and .50 cal.
> I have to back and look to see if the AF guys supporting SOG had flechettes along with smoke.




I'm sure they had something to sting with.

My personal experience with OV10s is restricted to the POV of a young grunt who thought they were cool. I commed with pilots whenever I had the PRC25 on search & destroy; and I got close up to some on board the USS Okinawa and was able to look into the cockpits like an awestruck kid. So whatever they use them for is fine with me

If I'd joined the Nevada ANG instead of the NCANG I might've been able to play with em, at least on the ground.


----------



## AWP (Mar 13, 2016)

pardus said:


> Hell, if we're going to go old school...



Easiest way to see one of those fly is to act a fool on this board...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Easiest way to see one of those fly is to act a fool on this board...



The Stukas have long been known for their dive bombing effectiveness. They are dependable, accurate, and best known for the fear they induce, when one comes to discover that they are the target. 

The Germans had pretty good luck with them too.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 13, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Stukas have long been known for their dive bombing effectiveness. They are dependable, accurate, and best known for the fear they induce, when one comes to discover that they are the target.
> 
> The Germans had pretty good luck with them too.



They had sirens on them, didn't they? So they'd scream in a dive.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 13, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> They had sirens on them, didn't they? So they'd scream in a dive.



Yes some did have sirens installed. Hitler is said to have liked using them for the increased fear factor the added sound brought. As if the bombs didn't scare folks enough .


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 13, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> They had sirens on them, didn't they? So they'd scream in a dive.


Record Hillary's shrill voice and play it as you bomb ISIL.


----------



## AWP (Mar 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Record Hillary's shrill voice and play it as you bomb ISIL.



FAE's, nukes...I'm down, but this? My God, man....we're better than that.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Record Hillary's shrill voice and play it as you bomb ISIL.



I *like* that idea.


----------



## AWP (Mar 19, 2016)

A very interesting article which might as well say "We read a thread on Shadowspear.com...." Rather than quoting a bunch of text, these two graphs sum it up, minus one point below. I am surprised the F-15 ranked so low. The handful of JTAC's I've spoken to like the Strike Eagle.

Views from the Ground on the A-10 Debate













> But the vast majority of the conversations were not about the characteristics of the weapons. What the JTACs wanted was a “warm fuzzy.” They wanted to interact with a pilot that had skin in the game because they were flying close enough to the ground to put them in danger. *They wanted someone whose primary purpose was to conduct CAS — not to shoot down stray enemy aircraft or act as a data-targeting “cloud” in the sky.* As our surveys show, even though the A-10 was the preferred platform, many on the ground also support multi-mission platforms like the F-16 and the F-18. *The real concern was not necessarily the aircraft, but the increasingly diverse set of missions these pilots were being called to conduct*.



Shack.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 19, 2016)

I am surprised not to see the B1 on the list and that it got beat out by an F-18.......


----------



## CDG (Mar 19, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I am surprised not to see the B1 on the list and that it got beat out by an F-18.......



B-1s are good in certain situations.  Overall, I'm taking a lot of other platforms before I take a B-1 though.  Just like the graph shows.


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2016)

The "Father of the A-10" passed away and was buried in Arlington on March 11. A-10's flew a Missing Man formation.

Remembering the father of the A-10 Warthog - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 22, 2016)

God....I love that missing man formation, always moving for me.


----------



## CDG (Mar 26, 2016)

Good article from WOTR that I just read.  Talks about the USAF's obsession with the idea of stealth and why it needs to refocus.

Stuck on Denial Part I: The U.S. Air Force and Stealth


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 26, 2016)

All "Brrrrt" all the time...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 26, 2016)

...and one more just because I happened upon it and thought it was pretty cool seeing the guns fired from the ground in test-mode...





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1009698069111487


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 26, 2016)

CDG said:


> B-1s are good in certain situations.  Overall, I'm taking a lot of other platforms before I take a B-1 though.  Just like the graph shows.



Its all about the current fight....right now..its bombs and time on TGT.....

The F18 offers neither!!!!:wall:

I am not arguing with the pie graph, just saying I'd put the B-1 before a few other assets on that chart!!!!!:blkeye:

Lets call it 12%.....:blkeye:


----------



## CDG (Mar 26, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Its all about the current fight....right now..its bombs and time on TGT.....
> 
> The F18 offers neither!!!!:wall:
> 
> ...



Based on what?  What's your experience with CAS?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 27, 2016)

hehehe......really?????


----------



## CDG (Mar 27, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> hehehe......really?????



Yes, really.  Your profile says you were Army Commo, so I'm curious about what you're basing your opinions off of.  It's a simple query.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 27, 2016)

Fair enough, new war = new techniques....

We are not allowed to go to the fight, therefore we must control the fight in the air.

This equals the most fire power and best comms platforms  in the Air Force arsenal.

I rate it A-10, AC-130, B-1.

In 24 months of crushing this shit, even the AC-130 W looses out cause it sucks!

So if you wanna talk deployments and what has been used let me know, we can talk off line.


----------



## CDG (Mar 27, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Fair enough, new war = new techniques....
> 
> We are not allowed to go to the fight, therefore we must control the fight in the air.
> 
> ...



We don't need to talk offline.  I'm aware of what is being used and how it's being used in the current fight. 

Most firepower by volume, but that comes with cons as well.  Most total bombs doesn't equal most useful firepower, it's situation dependent.  What are you basing best comms off of?  In other words, what criteria means best comms to you?  

How does the Whiskey suck?

I don't think the B-1 is a bad platform, and there are definitely cases where it is the best platform.  If we're talking what airframe is the 80% solution more often than not, I don't think the B-1 is anywhere near the top.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 27, 2016)

Best comms equals a quality SATCOM.

F-15/F-18 SATCOM unusable.

AC-130W 30mm is as inaccurate as my pistol shooting!

The B1 has time on TGT and bombs, so I think it is the 80% solution!


----------



## CDG (Mar 27, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Best comms equals a quality SATCOM.
> 
> F-15/F-18 SATCOM unusable.
> 
> ...



SATCOM is not the be all end all of comms.  Current fight is one thing, but we can't lose sight of being able to communicate in other ways.

Explain why you are saying the Whiskey model 30mm is so inaccurate.  That's not what I'm tracking currently.

Time on TGT, sure.  It also needs that because reattacks are 20 minute affairs.  Again, lots of bombs doesn't mean it's best suited for every situation.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 27, 2016)

F35 compromised. And more proof--as if it were needed--that PRC business interests are supervised by its intelligence services.

Man Who Sold F-35 Secrets to China Pleads Guilty | VICE News


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 27, 2016)

Saw some unskilled shooting, if you say its fixed then I believe you! 

Predator is 1% on the pie graph.  Would you take a Pred over a B-1?


----------



## CDG (Mar 27, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Saw some unskilled shooting, if you say its fixed then I believe you!
> 
> Predator is 1% on the pie graph.  Would you take a Pred over a B-1?



Unskilled, or the weapon system was inherently inaccurate?  Either way it's an issue for a real world mission, but I haven't heard anything along those lines before.

Mission dependent I would.  The Pred is like the B-1, really good for some things, not very useful for others, and not the 80% solution very often. Either one is nice to have in an overall stack, but I wouldn't want either with nothing else available unless it's a very specific situation.  I don't dislike the B-1, I just think a lot of other platforms are better for doctrinal CAS.  If we're talking pre-assault fires, Type 2s from a TOC on fixed targets, or a show of force with afterburners, then give me a B-1.  For engaging hostile targets in close proximity to friendly forces that requires the detailed integration of the air mission with the fire and movement of those forces, I'm only using a B-1 if I don't have another, more responsive, option.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 28, 2016)

Understand, thanks!!!


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2016)

The AF might move towards a dedicated CAS platform.

Air Force Moving Forward With A-10 Replacement Option



> WASHINGTON — The Air Force is moving forward with a key step in developing a dedicated close-air support plane to replace the A-10 Warthog, a top general said Thursday.
> 
> “My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft requirements document for a follow-on CAS airplane,” Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said. “It’s interesting work that at some point we’ll be able to talk with you a little bit more.”



Or they are paying lip service to the political firestorm.



> Once the requirement is firm, the next step will be deciding the most cost-effective way to meet that need, Holmes said. The Air Force will weigh the capability and affordability of three alternatives: building a new A-X, using existing aircraft to meet the CAS mission, or extending the life of the A-10, Holmes said.



FWIW, Holmes as the Wing Commander at Bagram from 08-09 and was generally well-liked. He's an F-15 driver but has most of his time in air superiority, not Strike Eagles.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 10, 2016)

Just a question,  why not just upgrade the A-10?

Is it not feasible?


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 10, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Just a question,  why not just upgrade the A-10?
> 
> Is it not feasible?


Might not be cost effective.
The planes are old and eventually replacing parts gets too expensive.
We can get away with it (B-52 for example) if we have parts sitting in the boneyard, but eventually you have to build new parts and that is very expensive.


----------



## CDG (Apr 10, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Just a question,  why not just upgrade the A-10?
> 
> Is it not feasible?



It sounds like a joke to say it's too expensive given what the F-35 has cost us, but it was deemed not fiscally responsible. Lol.  It's true, the A-X if done right would be cheaper than upgrading the A-10, but we know how that will probably go.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 10, 2016)

Thanks guys, this kind of stuff is always crazy.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 29, 2016)

Nice to see the F-35 is on track.  

Only one of six Air Force F-35s could actually take off during testing


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Nice to see the F-35 is on track.
> 
> Only one of six Air Force F-35s could actually take off during testing



I am a voracious reader, particularly news, one of my favorite sites is www.realclearpolitics.com.  It's kind of a clearing house, and it has sub-categories, one of which is defense.  Almost everyday there is at least one article about how effed up the F-35  project is.  I don't know if it is or isn't, or if it just has early-stage teething problems like the Osprey had, but most of the press on it is quite negative.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 30, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I am a voracious reader, particularly news, one of my favorite sites is www.realclearpolitics.com.  It's kind of a clearing house, and it has sub-categories, one of which is defense.  Almost everyday there is at least one article about how effed up the F-35  project is.  I don't know if it is or isn't, or if it just has early-stage teething problems like the Osprey had, but most of the press on it is quite negative.



I saw a couple of them flying down in Charleston a few weeks back. They are pretty airplanes.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 30, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I saw a couple of them flying down in Charleston a few weeks back. They are pretty airplanes.



That they are.  I saw the flying demo a couple years ago at the air show at Cherry Point.  Cherry Point is the east coast base for the F-35 for the Marines so I imagine we'll see them more around the coast.


----------



## AWP (Apr 30, 2016)

The F-35 is symptomatic of a larger, broken acquisition process. Instead of delivering a product that's mission capable we're delivering a product with the knowledge it isn't ready, but we'll fix it as we go. That drives up the cost substantially and one could argue increases the length of time it takes for IOC. It doesn't help that we're trying to build the "same" aircraft for 3 services. A Navy/ AF variant would benefit from not being saddled with the F-35B's VTOL accommodating fuselage. Look at the USS Gerald Ford and the LCS; this isn't a uniquely USAF problem.

I think the -35 will ultimately prove to be a badass, but way, way, way over budget, late to the billionth degree, and a jack-of-some-trades, master of none. I honestly don't think we need that many and would better served placing our money in existing technologies like the Silent Eagle and developing better data-sharing to leverage the -22 and -35's sensor arrays. Even the Navy acknowledges the -35 isn't a true solution, intending to field the F/A-18 until at least 2040. This doesn't even cover:
1. Using UAV's to handle SEAD/ DEAD, freeing up airframes and reducing that mission's risk. 
2. Our overreliance on stealth which can be negated and a/c like the Silent Eagle or other semi-stealth/ low observable platforms have options available to them. 
3. Quantity has a quality all its own.
4. "CAS, LOL" as the AF's position clearly indicates.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 30, 2016)

@Freefalling As to the UAV doing the SEAD mission I just read a book about a wild weasel F16 pilot, he talks at great length how the UAV would be almost useless in that role.


----------



## AWP (Apr 30, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> @Freefalling As to the UAV doing the SEAD mission I just read a book about a wild weasel F16 pilot, he talks at great length how the UAV would be almost useless in that role.



The guy with the most SAM kills? I haven't read it but I've seen an interview. It is on my To Read list.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The guy with the most SAM kills? I haven't read it but I've seen an interview. It is on my To Read list.



Yeah Viper Pilot by Dan Hampton. It is an enjoyable read. The dude is obviously quite full of himself though.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 30, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah Viper Pilot by Dan Hampton. It is an enjoyable read. *The dude is obviously quite full of himself though.*


Well duh, he's a fighter pilot


----------



## Kraut783 (May 2, 2016)

a breath of fresh air....?

"McSally said she appreciates the pressure the Air Force is under to find cost savings, while at the same time modernizing its fleet, but argued that the A-10 and its close-air support capabilities are historically underappreciated."

"McSally also pointed out that, at least compared to some aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory, the A-10s aren’t even that old. The youngest B-52 bomber is 54 years old, yet the Air Force intends to fly that plane through 2040. By contrast, the A-10s were built in the late 1970s and were originally planned to fly until 2028."

McSally Wants To Tie A-10 Retirement To F-35 Flyoff


----------



## DA SWO (May 2, 2016)

A-10 would do well in Korea.
Iran may be a stretch, but again I think the crews would do well.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 11, 2016)

...and yet another testament to the amazing machines...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 11, 2016)

I love this plane.....comms on this guy are the best out there right now.....


----------



## Etype (Jun 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...and yet another testament to the amazing machines...


Below the weather because it's 60s technology required him to be.

We'll be ok without the A-10, times have changed.

This is also a direct contradiction to the competence of the pilots. The wrong aircraft with the wrong tools, doing a job that he shouldn't be doing. 

We have HARMs so pilots don't have to overfly missle sites in slow planes.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> Below the weather because it's 60s technology required him to be.
> 
> We'll be ok without the A-10, times have changed.
> 
> ...


Agree, for some reason they were tasking A-10's to fly north and keeping the F-16's south, that changed shortly after this event. (I believe the book is called Warthog, A-10's in Desert Storm, my books are packed in anticipation of a move so I can't grab it.)


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 12, 2016)

The Charlie's are all upgraded....no more 1971 called and wants their cockpit back!  The pilots can do word puzzles up there while jamming 9 lines and telling you about the Stanley Cup match u missed....


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> We have HARMs so pilots don't have to overfly missle sites in slow planes.



Dan Hampton is a former F-16CJ pilot who wrote a book about his career. Allegedly he had more SAM site kills than anyone at the time of his retirement and as a career CJ pilot his primary mission was SEAD/ DEAD/ Iron Hand/ Wild Weasel....whatever folks want to call it. He hated HARM's and carried CBU's when given the option. His argument was the same as many of the WW pilots in -105's during Vietnam. Even if you kill the radar (not a given) the missiles and techs are still alive; bombs prevent that from happening.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Dan Hampton is a former F-16CJ pilot who wrote a book about his career. Allegedly he had more SAM site kills than anyone at the time of his retirement and as a career CJ pilot his primary mission was SEAD/ DEAD/ Iron Hand/ Wild Weasel....whatever folks want to call it. He hated HARM's and carried CBU's when given the option. His argument was the same as many of the WW pilots in -105's during Vietnam. Even if you kill the radar (not a given) the missiles and techs are still alive; bombs prevent that from happening.


Was his book Viper Pilot?


----------



## AWP (Jun 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Was his book Viper Pilot?



Yes. Good book, classic fighter pilot arrogance, but is overall worth it considering his whole career, minus a stint with the Egyptians, was in CJ's doing the SEAD mission from Germany in the 80's, to both Iraq wars.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 24, 2016)

I know there has to be a future replacement, but don't like the general stating  “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.”  As the TACP's / JTACs here probably would care what platform it is.....as I'm sure the customers also care.

Why the US Army Could Care Less about the A-10 Warthog


----------



## Etype (Jun 24, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> I know there has to be a future replacement, but don't like the general stating  “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.”  As the TACP's / JTACs here probably would care what platform it is.....as I'm sure the customers also care.
> 
> Why the US Army Could Care Less about the A-10 Warthog


I agree with the article, in general. Mainly this-


> While the Air Force does not dispute that the A-10 is its most capable close air support machine, the service does contend that the Warthog will not be able to deliver those effects inside highly contested airspace. Though some contend that the A-10 might be able to survive inside highly contested airspace—those voices are few and far between and increasingly marginalized. Generally, most military officials agree that only stealthy aircraft can survive inside a radius defended by advanced Russian-built air defenses.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 24, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> I know there has to be a future replacement, but don't like the general stating  “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.”  As the TACP's / JTACs here probably would care what platform it is.....as I'm sure the customers also care.
> 
> Why the US Army Could Care Less about the A-10 Warthog


Meh, politics.
You'll see CSAF touting an Army Weapon System in a few weeks.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 24, 2016)

True....we need to plan for a war with a nation like Russia, but we also need to allow for the lower tech engagements (Aghanistan/Iraq/Libya...etc).  The Douglas Skyraider was not a match for a Russian Mig during Vietnam....but we still used them, very effectively, for close air support. 

Just my 2 cents....


----------



## Etype (Jun 24, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> The Douglas Skyraider was not a match for a Russian Mig during Vietnam....but we still used them, very effectively, for close air support.
> 
> Just my 2 cents....


We lost a shit load of them. The reason we used them is because guidance technology was in its infancy in Vietnam.

I'd argue that an AH-64 is much more effective against a low tech enemy than an A-10- but that argument doesn't need to be made. 

Thankfully, the Air Force has already realized that guidance technology, attack helicopters, and AC-130 and MC-130Ws have rendered the A-10 obsolete.


----------



## CDG (Jun 25, 2016)

Stealth is not the answer, at least not the complete one.  I get where the General is coming from, but the fact is that it absolutely matters what platform you have overhead.  If the environment is that denied, then dudes will have to figure out a way to operate without CAS overhead.  Simple as that.  The F-35 loses its stealth if it carries external ordnance, and its internal ordnance load is very limited. F-22s aren't doing CAS,  So what do you have?  If we're up against an enemy with advanced enough strategic SAMs that we an only use stealth aircraft, than their tactical SAMs are going to be just as deadly and CAS is going to be severely limited anyways. Radars advance just like stealth characteristics, and our proposed high tech enemies are not nearly as behind the 8-ball as our defense industry seems to want to believe.


----------



## CDG (Jun 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> We lost a shit load of them. The reason we used them is because guidance technology was in its infancy in Vietnam.
> 
> I'd argue that an AH-64 is much more effective against a low tech enemy than an A-10- but that argument doesn't need to be made.
> 
> Thankfully, the Air Force has already realized that guidance technology, attack helicopters, and AC-130 and MC-130Ws have rendered the A-10 obsolete.



The A-10 is far from obsolete.  AH-64s are great, but they are not better than an A-10.  They have the advantage of a longer loiter time and not requiring a JTAC for control, but have a limited ordnance loadout, and less accurate cannon.  

Over-reliance on guidance technology is a big problem if we're talking about what our options are in a contested environment.  If our planes are working against a high tech enemy, then what good is guidance?  There are vehicles out there than can immediately react to LASER energy and launch ordnance autonomously against the source of that energy.  GPS spoofing and jamming takes JDAMs out.  So what are we left with?  The AC-130 is probably the least survivable aircraft we have in a contested environment.


----------



## Etype (Jun 25, 2016)

CDG said:


> The A-10 is far from obsolete.  AH-64s are great, but they are not better than an A-10.  They have the advantage of a longer loiter time and not requiring a JTAC for control, but have a limited ordnance loadout, and less accurate cannon.
> 
> Over-reliance on guidance technology is a big problem if we're talking about what our options are in a contested environment.  If our planes are working against a high tech enemy, then what good is guidance?  There are vehicles out there than can immediately react to LASER energy and launch ordnance autonomously against the source of that energy.  GPS spoofing and jamming takes JDAMs out.  So what are we left with?  The AC-130 is probably the least survivable aircraft we have in a contested environment.


A-10s are only applicable in low threat environments,t he preferred choice in these situations is rotary wing and gunships.

The fact that A-10s have yet to carry HARMs is proof that the Air Force acknowledges they aren't suitable for use in a high threat environment.

This whole idea that we somehow won't be able to suppress the threat, yet the A-10 will be able to operate is nonsense.

We have bombers for bombing, we have gunships and rotary wing for precision fires.  The A-10 was cool, but I think they got it right this time.


----------



## AWP (Jun 25, 2016)

The A-10 is one of the cheapest aircraft in our arsenal to operate. The F-35 can't carry the -10's bombload and would have to add external pylons to come close which will increase their cost per flight hour. I think the AF desperately needs a dedicated CAS platform like the A-29 or AT-6. A-10's are over Iraq right now and that environment is seeing a lot more SAFIRE than people realize, but we can be honest...it isn't the same as a modern division's ADA capabilities.

The AF could put about 6 squadrons of CAS in the Guard and Reserves (like they are doing with the A-10), retain the capability, and have a cost effective means of OEF/ OIR-style engagements. It would have the money for this had it not thoroughly botched the F-35 acquisition process.

As is, there won't be a CAS platform and the -35 will have to do it all. Say an OEF style event kicks off in 20 years. The taxpayers are going to pay through the nose to generate the same number of sorties as even the F-16 squadrons. The only way the -35 becomes close to cost effective or can generate the same type of destruction is through SDB's or better guided munitions like a new CBU.

We might as well embrace our F-35 overlords though, and all of the cons that come with them.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> A-10s are only applicable in low threat environments,t he preferred choice in these situations is rotary wing and gunships.
> 
> The fact that A-10s have yet to carry HARMs is proof that the Air Force acknowledges they aren't suitable for use in a high threat environment.
> 
> ...


F-15 isn't launching HARMs and they fly in high threat environments.


----------



## Etype (Jun 25, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> F-15 isn't launching HARMs and they fly in high threat environments.


F-15s are fighters, not really multi-role aircraft like F-16s and F-18s. 

Against the TB, IS, and AQ, anything works for ground attack. Hell, if a CASA-212 can fly, you'd be safe in anything.


----------



## AWP (Jun 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> F-15s are fighters, not really multi-role aircraft like F-16s and F-18s.
> 
> Against the TB, IS, and AQ, anything works for ground attack. Hell, if a CASA-212 can fly, you'd be safe in anything.



-15E's are strike a/c brought in to replace the F-111's though their air to air is defensive. F-16C's are the only AF a/c that carry the HARM with the Block 50 CJ model optimized for the Wild Weasel role.


----------



## Etype (Jun 25, 2016)

A-10 Thunderbolt II | Military.com



> This platform is just too lethal and poses a threat to all ISIS (Muslim Terrorists) and should be eliminated from the US military arsenal. We need a system that will inundate the enemy with marshmallows and goat spareribs...



Funny quote, but I feel like we make the majority of oir military decisions based on fighting insurgents.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 25, 2016)

In the long run, we will lose CAS airframes in num


Freefalling said:


> -15E's are strike a/c brought in to replace the F-111's though their air to air is defensive. F-16C's are the only AF a/c that carry the HARM with the Block 50 CJ model optimized for the Wild Weasel role.



One of the most impressive aircraft that hit the SAC base I was at, was the FB-111. The swing winger was impressive to watch as it launched from sub zero temps near the Canadian Border. The noise could threaten windows in base housing a mile or so away. A loooong red, yellow and purple plume followed the bird down the runway and up until the wheels were in the wells. It was capable of Mach three at sea level. It could fly the entire length of the Grand Canyon at a 500' deck, without the pilot touching the stick. What an impressive aircraft to see, and hear. 

The USAF Thunderbirds were impressive to watch and hear when they were flying F-4s. From there they transitioned to the F-16s, just a whisper compared to the Phantoms. I wish they would have used the F-111s. Just the sound would have left people stunned. Just imagine an F-111 with wings back roaring over the runway at Mach three; God but that would have really grabbed everyone.


----------



## moobob (Jun 26, 2016)

Etype said:


> We lost a shit load of them. The reason we used them is because guidance technology was in its infancy in Vietnam.
> 
> I'd argue that an AH-64 is much more effective against a low tech enemy than an A-10- but that argument doesn't need to be made.
> 
> Thankfully, the Air Force has already realized that guidance technology, attack helicopters, and AC-130 and MC-130Ws have rendered the A-10 obsolete.



A-10s end up being quieter than any rotary wing aircraft. When you're trying to pick a fight with the "oh they have beards don't shoot them" crowd and  any CAS other than A-10s show up... then they REALLY don't want to fight. A-10s off station... They don't even notice them sometimes until you're calling in gun runs.


----------



## CDG (Jun 26, 2016)

Etype said:


> A-10s are only applicable in low threat environments,t he preferred choice in these situations is rotary wing and gunships.
> 
> The fact that A-10s have yet to carry HARMs is proof that the Air Force acknowledges they aren't suitable for use in a high threat environment.
> 
> ...



I don't think I ever said anything about the A-10 in a high threat environment.  We don't have many aircraft that can work in a true denied airspace environment.  There are not enough gunships and 64s to go around, especially for the conventional side.  Those dudes aren't getting gunships.  So what else ya got JTAC?  Shit, we got A-10s checking in.


----------



## Etype (Jun 26, 2016)

CDG said:


> Those dudes aren't getting gunships.


We got AC-130s a couple times when I was in the 82nd.

A couple, which was twice as many times as when I was on an ODA...


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 26, 2016)

Etype said:


> We got AC-130s a couple times when I was in the 82nd.
> 
> A couple, which was twice as many times as when I as on an ODA...


I have friends whose experience is totally opposite of yours.
I also should have added the A-10 can operate in a medium threat environment too.
Stealth (or stand off)  is the only semi-safe bet in a high threat environment.


----------



## CDG (Jun 26, 2016)

Etype said:


> We got AC-130s a couple times when I was in the 82nd.
> 
> A couple, which was twice as many times as when I as on an ODA...



Your anecdote is the first I've heard that doesn't have the ratio heavily skewed the other way.  The vast majority of conventional guys I've talked to have reported never having a gunship overhead.


----------



## moobob (Jun 26, 2016)

CDG said:


> Your anecdote is the first I've heard that doesn't have the ratio heavily skewed the other way.  The vast majority of conventional guys I've talked to have reported never having a gunship overhead.



You're much more likely to get AC-130s on an SFODA. It depends on your mission.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2016)

moobob said:


> You're much more likely to get AC-130s on an SFODA..


...unless JSOC wants them.


----------



## CDG (Jun 30, 2016)

Great article from WOTR about "high threat CAS". 

The Myth of High-Threat Close Air Support


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 30, 2016)

A-10 was designed around us already having won the air-superiority fight based on what I know.  It was meant to be able to take a pounding as it loitered but never a true missile.  Any CAS platform would be used once we had either air-superiority established or in a 70/30 air dominance time I would think.  A true CAS platform isn't really meant to go air to air against a fast mover.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 30, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> A-10 was designed around us already having won the air-superiority fight based on what I know.  It was meant to be able to take a pounding as it loitered but never a true missile.  Any CAS platform would be used once we had either air-superiority established or in a 70/30 air dominance time I would think.  A true CAS platform isn't really meant to go air to air against a fast mover.



A-10's routinely held their own against F-16's and F-15's at Red Flag.
A-10's have taken missile hits and brought the pilot home.
A-10 was designed to fight the Warsaw Pact (using Army helo's as Teammates) in the Fulda Gap; go study the Cold War Battle Plans to see what our options were "back in the day" and what the envisioned SAM/ADA threat was.


----------



## AWP (Jun 30, 2016)

The A-10 was designed to deal with what a Warsaw Pact division carried in the 70's. "Zeus," SA-7's, and SA-9's primarily. The "bathtub" is designed to withstand hits from a 23mm which is the same caliber as a ZSU-23-4. Back in the day it was the most fearsome ADA asset at the division level. It can certainly handle some modern ADA systems, but others? I love the A-10, but there's no way. Even the SA-6 which predates the -10, would slaughter the Hog without a successful SEAD campaign. It lit up the IAF in '73.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The A-10 was designed to deal with what a Warsaw Pact division carried in the 70's. "Zeus," SA-7's, and SA-9's primarily. The "bathtub" is designed to withstand hits from a 23mm which is the same caliber as a ZSU-23-4. Back in the day it was the most fearsome ADA asset at the division level. It can certainly handle some modern ADA systems, but others? I love the A-10, but there's no way. Even the SA-6 which predates the -10, would slaughter the Hog without a successful SEAD campaign. It lit up the IAF in '73.


But SEAD is a given, even for stealth platform.
Remember the first target hit by the AH-64/MH-53 team in DS?
Same thing in OIF, we degraded the ADA/SAM structure creating holes.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 9, 2016)

The A-10 is a tool in the tool belt...you don't break out the hammer when you need a level....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 23, 2016)

For an airplane they keep threatening to get rid of...

The A-10 Warthog Just Got A Little More Badass


----------



## Etype (Jul 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> ...which is the same caliber as a ZSU-23-4. Back in the day it was the most fearsome ADA asset at the division level.


S-60, 57mm.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 23, 2016)

I think they should return to using the ammo propellant that was first used in the A-10. The gas from the previous round was still near enough to the gun's muzzle that the next round would ignite the still present gas. So when the pilot squeezed off the cannon fire, it looked like the beast was belching fire out the front of the aircraft. What a sight that must have been.


----------



## CDG (Jul 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> For an airplane they keep threatening to get rid of...
> 
> The A-10 Warthog Just Got A Little More Badass



APKWS is the shit.  It took a long time for it to get off the ground and start being used, but it is proving to be highly effective.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The A-10 Warthog Just Got A Little More Badass





> Since the A-10 Warthog, recently seemingly destined for the scrap yard, is now engaging enemy Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Taliban forces in Afghanistan
> 
> In addition, it’s lighter — which means that the A-10 can carry 38 of these, instead of the two 500-pound bombs it carried before.



LOLWUT?

Even the bad guys know those statements are crap.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Even the bad guys know those statements are crap.



What was most surprising to me, (I guess it shouldn't be) were the number of people in the "comments" section of the story discussing your very point.  In much more detail that they probably should, and all beginning with:  "I worked on these from 2002 until..." 

OPSEC much?


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> OPSEC much?



I firmly believe in OPSEC, but when we're feeding bullshit to the American people, a disinformation campaign, and our opponents know better? Unreal. I'm not dropping classified info either. 5-10 minutes on the Web and you'll find enough .mil sources to support what I'm saying.

Our obsession with *SEC is stupid and counterproductive. I think one reason people don't trust the military is because we lie about things which are easily disproven.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 24, 2016)

@Freefalling - Agreed..."but"...

I typically review the comments section of military based stories and am often shocked at some of the detail found in some of the posts.  Granted, in most cases I would have no clue as to the accuracy of their claims, but I think that after Snowden, NSA, WikiLeaks, and the countless SEAL "I was there" books, there has been a desensitization to the importance of information security.  The common person wants to get in on the action and show that they know stuff too...and Facebook and comment sections seem to be the venue of choice.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Freefalling - Agreed..."but"...
> 
> I typically review the comments section of military based stories and am often shocked at some of the detail found in some of the posts.  Granted, in most cases I would have no clue as to the accuracy of their claims, but I think that after Snowden, NSA, WikiLeaks, and the countless SEAL "I was there" books, there has been a desensitization to the importance of information security.  The common person wants to get in on the action and show that they know stuff too...and Facebook and comment sections seem to be the venue of choice.



I totally agree, but at the risk of stating the obvious we can only control our actions. There are too many sites to scrub even if the Mil had the authority.


----------



## Etype (Jul 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> LOLWUT?
> 
> Even the bad guys know those statements are crap.


Yup. Since when did an A-10 only have two hard points, or a 1,000# payload???  

Those are WWII era specs.

ETA- 
I think I speak for a lot of end users when I say this- I'm not impressed by the military's fixation on smaller and smaller ordnance. From the SDB, to the 130W, and now this.

I guess they have a place in our world police missions, but our world police missions are proving ineffective- just like small bombs are against thick walls.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

Etype said:


> Yup. Since when did an A-10 only have two hard points, or a 1,000# payload???
> 
> Those are WWII era specs.



To say nothing of the thousands of locals and sympathizers who worked on Bagram and Kandahar who could see the ordnance loadouts on practically every mission. I never saw one maxed out, but can still recall their typical payload. As you know, there are some survivors who WISH they only carried two 500lb. bombs.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 24, 2016)

Etype said:


> Yup. Since when did an A-10 only have two hard points, or a 1,000# payload???
> 
> Those are WWII era specs.
> 
> ...


Collateral damage will stop a war faster than code-pink.
We need to harden the fuck up and stop wringing our hands when some "innocent" person gets taken out with the snake's head.


----------



## Etype (Jul 24, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Collateral damage will stop a war faster than code-pink.
> We need to harden the fuck up and stop wringing our hands when some "innocent" person gets taken out with the snake's head.


Yep.  I can shoot something bigger than a 2.75" rocket off of my shoulder. If I need an A-10, I want something serious coming off its wing!


----------



## Brill (Jul 24, 2016)

Etype said:


> Yep.  I can shoot something bigger than a 2.75" rocket off of my shoulder.



GoPro that shit!


----------



## Etype (Jul 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> GoPro that shit!


Done.

3.307" and 5"!


----------



## CDG (Jul 25, 2016)

Etype said:


> Yep.  I can shoot something bigger than a 2.75" rocket off of my shoulder. If I need an A-10, I want something serious coming off its wing!



The ordnance is there if the fight requires it.  Right now, it doesn't.  APKWS is doing exactly what is needed right now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 26, 2016)

Time for trip to Target!

This Is How You Make An A-10 Warthog Out Of Legos


----------



## Etype (Jul 27, 2016)

CDG said:


> The ordnance is there if the fight requires it.  Right now, it doesn't.  APKWS is doing exactly what is needed right now.


And what is exactly needed? We aren't doing so hot anywhere.


----------



## AWP (Aug 12, 2016)

I'll leave this right here....


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 12, 2016)

Shut up and take my money!


----------



## AWP (Aug 28, 2016)

Photo from a recent exercise in Louisiana. A-10's flying with Columbian Super Tucanos. Those -29's should be on the flightline at Moody...


----------



## Brill (Aug 28, 2016)

Love the high AOA!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> Love the high AOA!



Could be the A-10's maintaining lift at a slower air speed.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 28, 2016)

I don't know why we don't fly the Tucano... So cheap, long loiter time, high ordinance load.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 28, 2016)

Great little planes. I was under the impression we had some but apparently we're building them under contract for the Afghans.


----------



## Etype (Aug 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know why we don't fly the Tucano... So cheap, long loiter time, high ordinance load.


Because we're not a third world military.

It wouldn't be bad for places like Afghanistan though. It'd probably be a leg up over attack helicopters, if it wasn't guns that you wanted.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 28, 2016)

Etype said:


> Because we're not a third world military.
> 
> It wouldn't be bad for places like Afghanistan though. It'd probably be a leg up over attack helicopters, if it wasn't guns that you wanted.



I would rather have a Tucano than an F-15/16/18/22/35 overhead. Do you have any idea what they can carry? Loiter times are amazing. I think using these in conjunction with the A-10 would provide a nice capability for CAS.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know why we don't fly the Tucano... So cheap, long loiter time, high ordinance load.



Prolly because military managers are just not looking any farther ahead than the Raptor's, and the one aircraft that meets all needs, the ever popular F-35. 

The Tucano brings back memories of the Viet-Nam era Sandies.


----------



## Etype (Aug 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> . Do you have any idea what they can carry?


Less than 25% of an A-10.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 29, 2016)

Etype said:


> Less than 25% of an A-10.



But you can put up 4 for the same cost. Or 3 and 1 like we did with OV-10's, and put a JTAC in the back seat.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 29, 2016)

The OV-10 has a bigger payload capacity than the Tucano. I'd like to see that old Bronco upgraded and brought back for counter-insurgency but I guess it's being phased out in most places and replaced by the 29s.  We touched on this earlier in the thread but the OV-10s were versatile platforms especially in support of small ground units like ours. @Red Flag 1 don't get me started again on Spads , I'll hijack the whole thread with A-1 stuff.

That's a VNAF A-1 getting some Nape. And look at the "payload" on the A-1H...The guy dropped a freakin toilet on N. Vietnam Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 29, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> The OV-10 has a bigger payload capacity than the Tucano. I'd like to see that old Bronco upgraded and brought back for counter-insurgency but I guess it's being phased out in most places and replaced by the 29s.  We touched on this earlier in the thread but the OV-10s were versatile platforms especially in support of small ground units like ours. @Red Flag 1 don't get me started again on Spads , I'll hijack the whole thread with A-1 stuff.
> 
> That's a VNAF A-1 getting some Nape. And look at the "payload" on the A-1H...The guy dropped a freakin toilet on N. Vietnam Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa
> 
> View attachment 16455 View attachment 16456




The toilet. I just hope it was packed full.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would rather have a Tucano than an F-15/16/18/22/35 overhead. Do you have any idea what they can carry? Loiter times are amazing. I think using these in conjunction with the A-10 would provide a nice capability for CAS.


In Afghanistan maybe, not so safe in Syria.
I like the guy in the Super T taking pics of the A-10's.


----------



## Etype (Aug 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> In Afghanistan maybe, not so safe in Syria.
> I like the guy in the Super T taking pics of the A-10's.


Agreed, ISIS would chew OV-10s and A-1s up.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> In Afghanistan maybe, not so safe in Syria.
> I like the guy in the Super T taking pics of the A-10's.



Right. Or many of the "low intensity conflicts" that we are going to see. I like the idea of having a FAC in the backseat.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Right. Or many of the "low intensity conflicts" that we are going to see. I like the idea of having a FAC in the backseat.



I do like the back seat crew member for a lot of reasons. I do have to say, that my back seat rides were, sometimes, for the obvious purpose to see vomit squeeze itself out around my face mask. If the usual acrobatics did not work, no notice high G loadings nearly got me; but I was able to keep all my cookies. After a while, they let me alone, and we did the usual stuff. One thing that did get to me was in a T-38 doing touch and go's, and some approaches . One low approach went inverted, once lined up. For the most part I would have my head in the gauges, this one had me looking at nothing but concrete. I have no idea how far we were AGL.


----------



## CDG (Aug 29, 2016)

Etype said:


> Agreed, ISIS would chew OV-10s and A-1s up.



The OV-10s have been doing fine so far.


----------



## Etype (Aug 29, 2016)

CDG said:


> The OV-10s have been doing fine so far.


What have they actually accomplished? We have Dash-8s in Iraq, they aren't flying near ISIS AA guns and they don't make a difference tactically.


----------



## CDG (Aug 29, 2016)

Etype said:


> What have they actually accomplished? We have Dash-8s in Iraq, they aren't flying near ISIS AA guns and they don't make a difference tactically.



I assume the units that are using them have good reason to do so, or else they would have stopped.  I can't speak to anything specific though.


----------



## AWP (Aug 29, 2016)

Our guys are taking SAFIRE, not AK-level stuff either, in Iraq and Syria; there's more than people realize. One saving grace is none of it is radar controlled. A Super Tucano wouldn't last or be forced into a performance envelope that would degrade its capabilities.

Afghanistan and Iraq pre-ISIS? We really missed the boat there.

I firmly believe the -29 can play a role, but it should be a Guard and Reserve aircraft. We have a great precedent with A-10's and pilots who are switched on to CAS. The Guard's deployment cycles would also be a good fit for medium-length engagements and fine for long-term roles like Afghanistan given the proper force structure.

The closest thing we have to a one size fits all platform is the F-16 and it has limitations with some models optimized for SEAD/ DEAD and others for CAS. I think even the air-to-air side has some differences depending on the model and we're absolutely kidding ourselves if we think pilots can do it all. Even in a multirole aircraft there has to be a certain "division of labor" where missions are concerned.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 31, 2016)

Bottom line these slower CAS platforms can't get to the TANK and back in time to make it worth how much $$$ they save.:blkeye:

If you give me 4 of them, Some AF smart guy at an AF acronym spits them out to a different tasking!

Math doesn't work!:wall:

I'll take 2 x A-10's....check please!!!!


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2016)

A-10's over Charlotte, Air Force not amused.

Air Force grounds pilots after buzzing Panthers



> The Panthers were practicing Monday when the A-10 "Warthog" attack jets swooped low, alarming some inside and outside the stadium.
> 
> It's unclear whether the pilots of the A-10C Thunderbolt IIs, based at Moody Air Force Base in south Georgia, will face consequences for their actions.
> 
> "As professional airmen we take aviation safety very seriously," Air Force Col. Thomas Kunkel said in a statement to The Associated Press.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 1, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> A-10's over Charlotte, Air Force not amused.
> 
> Air Force grounds pilots after buzzing Panthers



Ummm....sir, I didn't know I couldn't do that?


----------



## 104TN (Sep 1, 2016)

Ingrates. The correct response is, "Awesome! Thanks!"


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> A-10's over Charlotte, Air Force not amused.
> 
> Air Force grounds pilots after buzzing Panthers



I don't see the big deal. Now if they dropped some ordinance, I can see the grounds keepers getting bent out of shape. Hell, they should have gotten a standing ovation; but that's just me.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> A-10's over Charlotte, Air Force not amused.
> 
> Air Force grounds pilots after buzzing Panthers


2,3 and 4 will just claim they were watching lead and not their altimeters.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 2, 2016)

They were from Moody. Probably Falcons fans.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Our guys are taking SAFIRE, not AK-level stuff either, in Iraq and Syria; there's more than people realize...



Do you mean like ZPUs, ZUs, SAMs? Does ISIS even have SAMs? Have they used Stingers?



Etype said:


> Agreed, ISIS would chew OV-10s and A-1s up.



I don't know if I'd put the A1 in the same category as an OV-10 or A29 in terms of vulnerability. It was an attack aircraft that could go 300+ mph and carry a shitload of ordnance. They faced some pretty heavy stuff over there.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Do you mean like ZPUs, ZUs, SAMs? Does ISIS even have SAMs? Have they used Stingers?



Yes.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 2, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I don't see the big deal. Now if they dropped some ordinance, I can see the grounds keepers getting bent out of shape. Hell, they should have gotten a standing ovation; but that's just me.



Looks like they busted the Bravo and the TFR.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I don't know if I'd put the A1 in the same category as an OV-10 or A29 in terms of vulnerability. It was an attack aircraft that could go 300+ mph and carry a shitload of ordnance. They faced some pretty heavy stuff over there.



The Skyraider was built to have the ability to loiter and drop a lot of ordinance, they were able to absorb tons of damage on Ground Support missions.  They knew they would take a lot of hits, OV-10 and A29 are not built as attack aircraft in contested air space.


----------



## Etype (Sep 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Do you mean like ZPUs, ZUs, SAMs? Does ISIS even have SAMs? Have they used Stingers?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I'd put the A1 in the same category as an OV-10 or A29 in terms of vulnerability. It was an attack aircraft that could go 300+ mph and carry a shitload of ordnance. They faced some pretty heavy stuff over there.


I think an A-29 is just as fast.

We also lost 191 A-1s in Vietnam.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 2, 2016)

Etype said:


> I think an A-29 is just as fast.
> 
> We also lost 191 A-1s in Vietnam.



Yes sir, you're probably right about speed. Not to belabor the point because it's not central to the thread, but those 191 A-1s were lost over an 8 year period (64-72). To put A-1 losses in perspective, during that same time frame the Navy and Marine Corps lost 363 A-4 Skyhawks...and most of the Marine Scooters were doing CAS.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The Skyraider was built to have the ability to loiter and drop a lot of ordinance, they were able to absorb tons of damage on Ground Support missions.  They knew they would take a lot of hits, OV-10 and A29 are not built as attack aircraft in contested air space.




No. The Skyraider was designed as a dive/ torpedo bomber for the US Navy; CAS was secondary (and a function of its first war in Korea). The USAF adopted it much later.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> No. The Skyraider was designed as a dive/ torpedo bomber for the US Navy; CAS was secondary (and a function of its first war in Korea). The USAF adopted it much later.



That's very true... but it adapted to the CAS role very well. I look at the Skyraider (and I'm prejudiced since VNAF A-1s did CAS for us) as a classic aircraft, designed for one purpose but able to serve in a number of roles equally well, maybe not as versatile as our beloved C-130 and our AH-1s, but a faithful warhorse nonetheless.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 2, 2016)

I thought it started product in the Mid-50s, did not know it was a design on the tails of WWII.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The Skyraider was built to have the ability to loiter and drop a lot of ordinance, they were able to absorb tons of damage on Ground Support missions.  They knew they would take a lot of hits, OV-10 and A29 are not built as attack aircraft in contested air space.



Define contested airspace.  Because navy/AF OV-10 saw a lot of shit during the late 60's.



Ocoka One said:


> Yes sir, you're probably right about speed. Not to belabor the point because it's not central to the thread, but those 191 A-1s were lost over an 8 year period (64-72). To put A-1 losses in perspective, during that same time frame the Navy and Marine Corps lost 363 A-4 Skyhawks...and most of the Marine Scooters were doing CAS.



I'd wager most of the AF loses were CAS or RESCAP.  You also have to look at losses vs sorties to get a better idea of loss rates.


----------



## CDG (Sep 2, 2016)

The surface to air threat in Vietnam vastly outweighed the current SAM threat in the Middle East. The NVA had all kinds of Soviet systems for both point and area defense, and ranging from the tactical to strategic level.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> The surface to air threat in Vietnam vastly outweighed the current SAM threat in the Middle East. The NVA had all kinds of Soviet systems for both point and area defense, and ranging from the tactical to strategic level.



IIRC correctly the had SA-2's and a metric shit-ton of radar and manually guided AAA; I think MANPADS showed up in the early 70's, but can't remember. I vaguely recall something about the Soviets' unwillingness to share newer systems. Kind of a moot point given their layered defenses.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 4, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Define contested airspace.  Because navy/AF OV-10 saw a lot of shit during the late 60's.



And Marine Broncos as ground support, spotters etc.


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 10, 2016)

Air Force's Football Uniforms Today Are Maybe The Coolest Things Ever - Daily Snark

Sweet.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 10, 2016)

Nice A-10 looking headgear.


----------



## AWP (Sep 10, 2016)

No, this is all about "Shark Week" guys. Get it together. 

Air Force Football Team Will Wear Shark Week-Themed Uniforms on Saturday



> In the immortal words of Tracy Jordan, "Live every week like it's Shark Week." The Air Force Falcons will honor those wishes on Saturday by donning shark-themed uniforms against the Georgia State Panthers.



For a plane it is determined to cut, the AF goes out of its way to use, publicize, and mimic its role.


----------



## AWP (Sep 13, 2016)

The F-35's ready to go and by that I mean "go sometime past 2020." Don't forget, the Air Force says they are ready for combat. There are a lot of money shots in the article, but to quote a few:



> Last month the Air Force declared its variant “ready for combat,” and most press reports lauded this as a signal that the program had turned a corner. But a memo issued from the Pentagon’s top testing official, based largely upon the Air Force’s own test data, showed that the declaration was wildly premature.
> 
> Michael Gilmore’s latest memorandum is damning. The F-35 program has derailed to the point where it* “is actually not on a path toward success, but instead on a path toward failing to deliver the full Block 3F capabilities for which the Department is paying almost $400 billion.*”





> As it stands now, the F-35 would need to run away from combat and have other planes come to its rescue, since it *“will need support to locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles).”*
> 
> In several instances, the memo rated the F-35A less capable than the aircraft we already have.



A bit of a read, but good if you're interested in this dumpster fire.

The F-35 Stealth Fighter May Never Be Ready for Combat


----------



## Gunz (Sep 13, 2016)

*The DOT&E memo reports that these door-induced aiming errors “exceed accuracy specifications” which will make it quite difficult for pilots to hit targets. And since the Air Force’s F-35 only holds 181 rounds — as opposed to 511 for the F-16 and 1,100 for the A-10 — every bullet will count.

*
 In light of the accuracy problems for CAS, it sure is a good thing that our people on the ground at least have sturdy and reliable battle helmets. Oh, wait...*:-"*
*



*


----------



## CDG (Sep 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The F-35's ready to go and by that I mean "go sometime past 2020." Don't forget, the Air Force says they are ready for combat. There are a lot of money shots in the article, but to quote a few:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_Cannons are the most effective weapon in far more CAS situations than rockets (which the F-35A currently does not carry) or a couple of guided bombs (which it does). This is true especially when the plane needs to engage a target in a “danger close” situation, with the enemy in very close proximity to friendly troops._

Cannons are useful when they're useful, and they're not when they're not.  Just like every other weapon.  Danger close is not a fixed distance, it's based on the weapon. 

_As mentioned earlier, the F-35A, now declared “Initially Operationally Capable,” can only carry two bombs, *both of which are too big to be safely used near friendly troops*._

What?  I'm not sure what the author is trying to say here.  The ordnance that the F-35 can carry is not some new superbomb that no one has ever dropped during CAS. 

_At 250 meters (820 feet), a 500-pound bomb __has a 10 percent chance__ of incapacitating a friendly soldier based on the military’s risk-estimate table._

I have no idea what risk-estimate table they looked at, but this is not even close to the truth.  There is a 0.1% chance of incapacitation at 275 meters for a standing target.  For the mathematically challenged, that equates to a 1 in 1000 chance.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The F-35's ready to go and by that I mean "go sometime past 2020." Don't forget, the Air Force says they are ready for combat. There are a lot of money shots in the article, but to quote a few:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


F-35 has external hard points that the author is ignorant about, or chose to ignore.
F-18 was on the chopping block with wing and main landing gear problems.
I'd challenge anyone to name a fighter fielded in the last 50 years that didn't get a re-design of some sort after being fielded.
I don't see the F-35 as an A-10 replacement, but do see it replacing ( 1 for 1) the F-16.


----------



## AWP (Sep 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I'd challenge anyone to name a fighter fielded in the last 50 years that didn't get a re-design of some sort after being fielded.



But how much and at what cost? At some point we have diminishing returns. Maybe the F-35 turns out to be the greatest thing ever, but right now it looks like we should take Old Yeller out back and drop him. I am 100% on board with your view listed above, but at what point do we call it for what it is and figure out a Plan B? Right now our Plan B is to spend more money and trust in the process.

I was against the F-22 until I started seeing what it brings to the table. I want to believe the -35 will do the same, but I'm skeptical and think our money's better served by:
A) Reduce the numbers purchased
B) buy other proven airframes, even updates variants
C) We as a nation need to revisit our acquisitions process. This isn't an F-35 problem.

I think the AF is putting all of its eggs into a fragile basket. We need to back off F-35 purchases even if the cost per airframe increases.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> But how much and at what cost? At some point we have diminishing returns. Maybe the F-35 turns out to be the greatest thing ever, but right now it looks like we should take Old Yeller out back and drop him. I am 100% on board with your view listed above, but at what point do we call it for what it is and figure out a Plan B? Right now our Plan B is to spend more money and trust in the process.
> 
> I was against the F-22 until I started seeing what it brings to the table. I want to believe the -35 will do the same, but I'm skeptical and think our money's better served by:
> A) Reduce the numbers purchased
> ...


Remember gates drove the F-35 and the AF is living with a (crappy) SecDef/POTUS decision.


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 13, 2016)

F-22, F-35... Nope, F-15 still going strong. Air Force investing $12B in F-15s - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Viper1 (Sep 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> No, this is all about "Shark Week" guys. Get it together.
> 
> Air Force Football Team Will Wear Shark Week-Themed Uniforms on Saturday
> 
> ...



Ridiculous.  They could have gone back to the P-47, or the P-40 and the Flying Tigers. No sense of history.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 17, 2016)

--- sigh ---

Air Force grounds F-35s after declaring 10 aircraft 'combat ready'



--- double sigh --

_Officials say the F-35 is 'still in development and challenges are to be expected'_


----------



## AWP (Sep 18, 2016)

The pilots from Charlotte were suspended from flying pending an investigation.

Pilots off flight duty as Air Force investigates low-altitude pass over Charlotte



> The Air Force pilots who made a low-altitude pass over Bank of America Stadium and uptown Charlotte on Monday have been restricted from flight duties as the military and the Federal Aviation Administration investigate the incident.


----------



## Brill (Sep 18, 2016)

Last two Saturdays I've enjoyed watching two ship flights of Warthogs passing overhead. Yesterday a pair was -1000' over the Bay.

Those GE engines sound like the Liberty Bell!

Not my video but something like this:


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 21, 2016)

Call me crazy "crazy", but shouldn't one make sure that their new toy works right, before one talks about plans to build an equally stealthy tanker to fuel it?

Air Force Could Pursue Stealthy Aerial-Refueling Tanker | Defense News


----------



## Gunz (Sep 21, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> F-35 has external hard points that the author is ignorant about, or chose to ignore.
> F-18 was on the chopping block with wing and main landing gear problems.
> _*I'd challenge anyone to name a fighter fielded in the last 50 years that didn't get a re-design of some sort after being fielded.*_
> I don't see the F-35 as an A-10 replacement, but do see it replacing ( 1 for 1) the F-16.



True. I'm just thinking back to all the hiccups of the AV-8 and the V-22. But those were very challenging V/STOL aircraft. The F-35 seems to be plagued.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> Last two Saturdays I've enjoyed watching two ship flights of Warthogs passing overhead. Yesterday a pair was -1000' over the Bay.
> 
> Those GE engines sound like the Liberty Bell!
> 
> Not my video but something like this:




Nice. 104th FS, 175th Wing, Maryland ANG.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> Last two Saturdays I've enjoyed watching two ship flights of Warthogs passing overhead. Yesterday a pair was -1000' over the Bay.
> 
> Those GE engines sound like the Liberty Bell!
> 
> Not my video but something like this:



Like I mentioned before I sometimes fly general aviation out of Martin state. I was on my downwind in August when I was Cautioned by ATC " Skyhawkxxxxx caution overflying flight of 4 A-10's passing overhead at 1 thousand 800." Meanwhile I am putting along at 80 knots at 1300 ft. Sure enough 4 A10's overfly us in echelon 500 ft above. Pretty fucking cool.... the sky hawk I was flying has overhead windows, kinda like a sunroof. I felt like a fighter pilot for about 5 seconds as they passed overhead...


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> True. I'm just thinking back to all the hiccups of the AV-8 and the V-22. But those were very challenging V/STOL aircraft. The F-35 seems to be plagued.



Yeah the F-35 is a VSTOL aircraft, at least in the one configuration.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 21, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> True. I'm just thinking back to all the hiccups of the AV-8 and the V-22. But those were very challenging V/STOL aircraft. The F-35 seems to be plagued.


The Chinook had a lot of issues during development.


----------



## CDG (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah the F-35 is a VSTOL aircraft, at least in the one configuration.



Not exactly. The F-35B is STOVL capable.  Short Takeoff Vertical Landing. There is currently no variant capable of vertical takeoff.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

CDG said:


> Not exactly. The F-35B is STOVL capable.  Short Takeoff Vertical Landing. There is currently no variant capable of vertical takeoff.



I watched one hover at an air show...


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I watched one hover at an air show...





CDG said:


> Not exactly. The F-35B is STOVL capable.  Short Takeoff Vertical Landing. There is currently no variant capable of vertical takeoff.



A better way to say that is that it is VTOL capable but is operationally STOVL.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah the F-35 is a VSTOL aircraft, at least in the one configuration.



True, I had forgotten that. Maybe problem-plagued simply because it's supposed to be everybody's everything.


----------



## AWP (Sep 22, 2016)

Marine requirements are one of many reasons it has had so many issues. The Navy and AF found some ways to make use of the space created for a VTOL capability, but trying to do everything with one airframe was a poor choice.

Overall, the biggest problem with the program is how the program is managed. "Concurrency" is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated by the USG.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 23, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Call me crazy "crazy", but shouldn't one make sure that their new toy works right, before one talks about plans to build an equally stealthy tanker to fuel it?
> 
> Air Force Could Pursue Stealthy Aerial-Refueling Tanker | Defense News


AF has said they want two additional tanker variants, so looking at all possibilities makes sense.
KC-46 isn't too far away.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Marine requirements are one of many reasons it has had so many issues. The Navy and AF found some ways to make use of the space created for a VTOL capability, but trying to do everything with one airframe was a poor choice.
> 
> Overall, the biggest problem with the program is how the program is managed. "Concurrency" is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated by the USG.


Gates screwed us on this, Rummy was smart enough to only insist on commonality INSIDE the airframe.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 24, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> AF has said they want two additional tanker variants, so looking at all possibilities makes sense.
> KC-46 isn't too far away.




Maybe we'll be seeing a KC-35


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 18, 2016)

Pentagon plans new super rival to the troubled F-35

Here we go! Time for the replacement to begin


----------



## pardus (Oct 27, 2016)

*U.S. Air Force Fires Up the A-10 Depot Line to Keep Warthogs Flying 'Indefinitely'*

**


----------



## Grunt (Oct 27, 2016)

There are few planes that occupy the skies that strike fear like an A-10! I absolutely love them and what they do. They seriously rain down pain from the sky!


----------



## Centermass (Oct 28, 2016)

The US Air Force has embraced reality — *the A-10 is here to stay ‘indefinitely'*

After years of threatening to cut funding to the A-10 program and funnel the money to the newer F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force seems to have finally faced facts — the A-10 is just too effective to get rid of.

Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski recently told AviationWeek that the depot line that maintains and repairs the Air Force's 283 A-10s has been reopened to full capacity.

“They have re-geared up, we’ve turned on the depot line, we’re building it back up in capacity and supply chain,” said Pawlikowski. “Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely.”

The move also follows trials initiated by the Air Force to determine if the F-35 or A-10 better executes the close air support role, which suggest that *the A-10 came out on top.*

The Government Accountability Office debunked the Air Force generals' contentions that the A-1o could be replaced, arguing that the plane's low flight costs, unique airframe, and hyper competent, impeccably trained pilot community was without peer in today's Air Force.

Full Story


Nice to finally see something with some common sense prevail.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 28, 2016)

Somebody's lightbulb finally turned on.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 28, 2016)

That is one of the overall best decisions the military has made in quite a while, IMO.

And the enemy just shuttered....


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 28, 2016)

The GAO only provides guidance. An agency does not necessarily have to follow what they say.


----------



## x SF med (Oct 28, 2016)

Warthogs!!!  (even better than Wolverines!!!)


----------



## x SF med (Oct 28, 2016)

This entire thread is now an anachronism...  or will have been an anachronism, may yet be an anachronism, will might have been....  ah whatever...


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Somebody's lightbulb finally turned on.


Which is disconcerning.
Someone decided that we will need lots of CAS before the FU-35 is operational.


----------



## AWP (Oct 28, 2016)

Two threads merged, title of this thread changed.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Two threads merged, title of this thread changed.



HOW DARE YOU CHANGE MY TITLE !!!!   Damn power hungry Admins


----------



## Gunz (Oct 29, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> HOW DARE YOU CHANGE MY TITLE !!!!   Damn power hungry Admins



Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 29, 2016)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2016)

We tend to take what we can when it comes to CAS...but historically the Army loves when the Marines are flying the missions because their job is to support you and they understand it.


----------



## CDG (Oct 29, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> My son went USCM after VMI. He settled in with Combat Eng, and hated anyone providing CAS but Marine Aviators. His opinion of the A-10 was that they should not be in the air. Reason: The pilots were not Marines, and therefore could not provide CAS. We never have been able to find a middle ground in discussing CAS.



That is a very interesting viewpoint, and not one I've ever heard before.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 29, 2016)

[Q


----------



## CDG (Oct 29, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I get where he is coming from, and in some ways, I think he is correct. Half way through under grad, he enlisted in the USMC, Parris Island and was a Lance Corporal before he graduated. From there USMC OCS, TBS, and got a slot as a Marine Aviator. His real love was on the ground, living through the grunge with other Marines. So a Combat Engr slot opened up, and there he stayed.
> 
> All USMC piolts go through OCS and TBS, I'm not sure about Lawyers, but even pilots know what the Marine on the ground is going through. That shared  background, in my son's opinion, makes the Marine Aviators, the best, and  most trusted for Close in CAS; and he may be right. Being somewhat of a purist, my son takes that thought all the way out to the end. Why give the USAF pilots the A-10 to provide CAS to pilots who can't provide USMC grade CAS?
> 
> In the end, he will grant me that killing tanks is part of the A-10's CAS roll. He will agree that a USAF pilot can safely kill a tank, without risking the lives of Marines, most of the time.



If there was anyone who understood the ground picture and cared, it's the A-10 drivers.  I think it's pretty short sighted to think that only those who have been through ground specific training can perform CAS well.  Knowing what the guy on the ground is going through only has much to do with effective CAS anyways.  "I understand" does not equate to "I can do my job in an efficient and effective manner and keep friendlies safe".  Many, many other factors go into effective CAS beyond what experience the pilot has on the ground.  The pilots are a part of the CAS team, not the only player. There is absolutely no reason why the USMC should be the only service performing the CAS mission.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 29, 2016)

[Q


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 29, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I get where he is coming from, and  in some ways, I think he is correct. Half way through under grad, he enlisted in the USMC, Parris Island and was a Lance Corporal before he graduated. From there USMC OCS, TBS, and got a slot as a Marine Aviator. His real love was on the ground, living through the grunge with other Marines. So a Combat Engr slot opened up, and there he stayed.
> 
> All USMC piolts go through OCS and TBS, I'm not sure about Lawyers, but even pilots know what the Marine on the ground is going through. That shared  background, in my son's opinion, makes the Marine Aviators, the best, and  most trusted for Close in CAS; and he may be right. Being somewhat of a purist, my son takes that thought all the way out to the end. Why give the USAF pilots the A-10 to provide CAS to pilots who can't provide USMC grade CAS?
> 
> In the end, he will grant me that killing tanks is part of the A-10's CAS roll. He will agree that a USAF pilot can safely kill a tank, without risking the lives of Marines, most of the time.




Had a co-worker almost killed by a Marine F/A-18 pilot dropping 500 lbs of happiness way short of the mark.
CAS is more than flying low.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2016)

CDG said:


> If there was anyone who understood the ground picture and cared, it's the A-10 drivers.  I think it's pretty short sighted to think that only those who have been through ground specific training can perform CAS well.  Knowing what the guy on the ground is going through only has much to do with effective CAS anyways.  "I understand" does not equate to "I can do my job in an efficient and effective manner and keep friendlies safe".  Many, many other factors go into effective CAS beyond what experience the pilot has on the ground.  The pilots are a part of the CAS team, not the only player. There is absolutely no reason why the USMC should be the only service performing the CAS mission.



Thinking historically, the big Air Force doesn't care for the tactical fight, but it doesn't want to let the Army have the tactical airframes.  As can be seen by the F-35 can fill the role of the A-10 in the fight.  Although I will point out that the A-10 wasn't truly built to just hang around, it was built to be tactical support for an armor-on-armor fight.  The big Air Force likes flying fighters and bombers, historically speaking.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 29, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Thinking historically, the big Air Force doesn't care for the tactical fight, but it doesn't want to let the Army have the tactical airframes.  As can be seen by the F-35 can fill the role of the A-10 in the fight.  Although I will point out that the A-10 wasn't truly built to just hang around, it was built to be tactical support for an armor-on-armor fight.  The big Air Force likes flying fighters and bombers, historically speaking.


Can you say Key West Agreement?
The Army is just as protective.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2016)

CDG said:


> That is a very interesting viewpoint, and not one I've ever heard before.



I have heard it from people before. Particularly guys that had been to JTAC out in Arizona.


----------



## CDG (Oct 29, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Thinking historically, the big Air Force doesn't care for the tactical fight, but it doesn't want to let the Army have the tactical airframes.  As can be seen by the F-35 can fill the role of the A-10 in the fight.  Although I will point out that the A-10 wasn't truly built to just hang around, it was built to be tactical support for an armor-on-armor fight.  The big Air Force likes flying fighters and bombers, historically speaking.



There are a myriad of reasons why it would be a bad idea for the conventional Army to own CAS aircraft, and to train their own JTACs.  Yes, big blue likes flying fighters and bombers.  Luckily, the red headed step children of the USAF continue to hang around and enjoy their role as outsiders stuck between two services.


----------



## CDG (Oct 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I have heard it from people before. Particularly guys that had been to JTAC out in Arizona.



The SOTAC guys?  What was their reasoning behind offering that viewpoint?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2016)

CDG said:


> The SOTAC guys?  What was their reasoning behind offering that viewpoint?



I think it was similar to what was said by RF1.


----------



## Etype (Nov 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> ... the A-10 wasn't truly built to just hang around, it was built to be tactical support for an armor-on-armor fight...


Which is another reason why it's becoming obsolete.

Apaches can rearm and refuel from a FARP, have the ability to hover, and have weapons that are optimized for firing from a hover.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 5, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> My son went USCM after VMI. He settled in with Combat Eng, and hated anyone providing CAS but Marine Aviators. His opinion of the A-10 was that they should not be in the air. Reason: The pilots were not Marines, and therefore could not provide CAS. We never have been able to find a middle ground in discussing CAS.



Wow, he is a purist. 

From a ground-pounder pov, there really is no preference as long as it's effective. True, Marine aviators spend some training time with infantry units and the Air/Ground Team is not an empty expression. But I've seen some pretty ballsy CAS carried out by other-than-Marines, notably the USAF-trained  VNAF.

It may surprise some, and I can't speak for any but the guys in my Group, but it was our consensus that Army helo pilots would risk their ships more willingly than our own USMC pilots to fly in to hot LZs, especially for medevacs. It may have been that Marine pilots had stricter regulations--which wouldn't surprise me--but we generally had a higher regard for the Army Huey drivers and crews assigned to support us.


----------



## CDG (Dec 5, 2016)

This is not directly related to CAS, but the arguments are still valid for the discussion of that mission set, and I didn't feel it warranted starting a new thread.  This article provides a history of PGMs, the reason why, and how that reasoning mutated into the risk-averse attitude we currently see.

Political Airpower, Part II: The Seductive Allure of Precision Weapons


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 5, 2016)

From the story, my favorite part which sums up why we will never win unless policy is changed:  :wall: 



> *Precision weapons were intended to make the combat application of airpower more efficient and safer in the long run, not to make them more palatable as a policy option.  An airpower tool became a political one — another aspect of “political airpower.”*
> 
> By 2014 in Iraq, the handcuffs evolved further into an iron maiden, with Army generals mandating an airborne real-time video feed before personally granting approval for each and every air strike. If one of these generals were away from their desk (i.e. sleeping or at a meeting), the ISIL target lived to fight another day.  And, the potential warfighting value of seizing the initiative was lost.



Something I hope PE Trump and a SECDEF like Mattis can fix...


----------



## WarMachine504 (Dec 5, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> From the story, my favorite part which sums up why we will never win unless policy is changed:  :wall:
> 
> 
> 
> Something I hope PE Trump and a SECDEF like Mattis can fix...



Spot on.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 5, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> From the story, my favorite part which sums up why we will never win unless policy is changed:  :wall:
> 
> 
> 
> Something I hope PE Trump and a SECDEF like Mattis can fix...



How? Do you think it likely PE Trump will reduce or change the reliance and usage of such systems?


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 5, 2016)

CDG said:


> This is not directly related to CAS, but the arguments are still valid for the discussion of that mission set, and I didn't feel it warranted starting a new thread.  This article provides a history of PGMs, the reason why, and how that reasoning mutated into the risk-averse attitude we currently see.
> 
> Political Airpower, Part II: The Seductive Allure of Precision Weapons


Good article.  These couple comments sum it up and resonated for me:

"Unrealistic expectations surrounding the application of force are making the strategic utility of precision far less than it ought to be — ultimately hindering both strategy and operational utility of the U.S. military. The ubiquitous nature of precision has resulted in the growth of a generation of policymakers who misunderstand the nature of warfare."

"The use of precision weapons _had_ dropped unintended casualties to levels unimagined mere decades before — but they had not dropped to zero — and anything more than zero became politically unpalatable.  And so the handcuffs emerged, in the form of increasingly higher levels of approval, often by individuals with no airpower expertise hundreds or thousands of miles from the engagement.  Because of the demonstrated ability of a precision weapon to limit unintended damage, particularly against civilian targets, they were wrapped in a semi-impermeable shield of risk aversion that limits their use."

The topic has been discussed in a lot of circles for some time but precision munitions have really played a leading role in exacerbated political and public expectations on war; the law of unintended consequences.  The use of UAVs/drones now enter into that same discussion.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 5, 2016)

You want to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs. Even with PGMs. Politicians don't get it. PGMs are only precision while they're in the air. Once they impact, the shit goes wherever physics and fate send it.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How? Do you think it likely PE Trump will reduce or change the reliance and usage of such systems?



That is not what I said.  For starters, read this:
Iraq and ISIS Discussion

That is about 15 Generals too many.  Idle hands create more bureaucracy and red tape.  All I was saying was I hope the duo clean up the clutter, stream line the approval process to drop these guided munitions, and make the guys on the ground more effective.  Currently they are hamstrung by extra Generals from 200 Miles away thinking they know best because that has been an OK culture for the last 4-6 yrs, letting politics outweigh common sense.

Sometimes the risk is high for a the greatest reward.  These princesses want no risk but great reward...


----------



## AWP (Dec 5, 2016)

We've taken a lot of power and responsibility out of a local commander's hands and pushed it up to an O-6 hundreds of miles away (or thousands). I don't like playing the "I know something you don't" game on the Net, but a true discussion on the failures and limitations of the "kill chain" is high side material. I think the easiest way to describe it is "unnecessarily long with too many people in a risk adverse culture making decisions based upon lawyers and pixels on a screen."

I'd like to think Trump, Mattis, et. al. will receive briefings on "the one that got away" and start asking themselves how is that possible. Mattis should already know, but a blunt refresher in front of the president's staff is in order.

C'mon, when the GFC and his JTAC don't "own" all of the assets in their ROZ, something's freaking wrong.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 6, 2016)

You need death from above, you've got a pretty small opportunity window, if you miss it your ass might be in a sling, so you pull the chain. Minutes pass as General Fuckstick in North Carolina confers with his legal team; they recommend a teleconference with the Pentagon and send for take-out from China Wok. In the meantime you're either getting roasted on a spit or watching the bad guys unass the AO.

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 11, 2016)

Looks like an old-school platform is coming back

Air Force “Joke” Turns the Tide in Afghan War » Article 107 News


----------



## CDG (Dec 12, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> Looks like an old-school platform is coming back
> 
> Air Force “Joke” Turns the Tide in Afghan War » Article 107 News



I had been hearing about this.  Some dudes in a couple select locations were the test bed for bringing these aircraft back, and the reports we were getting back indicated it was going better than expected.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 12, 2016)

They're bringing these back, too. They did the upgrades out at Nellis. Some required welding and changing to a heavier weight oil. To improve thrust-to-weight ratio, they've upgraded to a 6.7 liter turbo. The new variants will have a polycarbonate bubble canopy to improve pilot visibility.


----------



## Etype (Dec 12, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> Looks like an old-school platform is coming back
> 
> Air Force “Joke” Turns the Tide in Afghan War » Article 107 News


With some sort of IR aiming device, I bet that would be a pretty slick platform. 2,800 rpm collectively of 20mm vs. 1,250 rpm of 30mm from a DAP, that's a pretty significant difference.



Ocoka One said:


> They're bringing these back, too. They did the upgrades out at Nellis. Some required welding and changing to a heavier weight oil. To improve thrust-to-weight ratio, they've upgraded to a 6.7 liter turbo. The new variants will have a polycarbonate bubble canopy to improve pilot visibility.
> 
> View attachment 17439


What is that???


----------



## Gunz (Dec 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> What is that???




_That _is a Ryan 147B Lightning Bug. They were used as SAM bait...and for photo reconnaissance. They couldn't land, and on mission return they just fell out of the sky, deployed a chute and a HH53 Jolly Green Giant snagged the chute in mid-air.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> With some sort of IR aiming device, I bet that would be a pretty slick platform. 2,800 rpm collectively of 20mm vs. 1,250 rpm of 30mm from a DAP, that's a pretty significant difference.
> 
> 
> What is that???


Drone from VN war.


----------



## CDG (Dec 14, 2016)

Really good article from WOTR.  I agree with the author completely. 

No End in Sight to the Army’s Dependence on Airpower


----------



## Gunz (Dec 14, 2016)

CDG said:


> Really good article from WOTR.  I agree with the author completely.
> 
> No End in Sight to the Army’s Dependence on Airpower



The proponants of MDB keep dropping terms like "joint effort", "partnerships", "working closely", "in conjunction " and "coordination" with the other services...while at the same time talking about empowering the Army to sink ships (with land-based artillery equipped with anti-ship capabilities), establish air supremacy with anti-aircraft weapons and have infantry platoon sergeants conducting cyber warfare on their laptops. And all this against our future enemy, a cyber-proficient conventional major power (China? Russia?) with an air force and a navy. The concept itself seems impractical, like a seamless meshing of the gears between all the services in which everybody knows how to do everything in everybody else's domain. Like cross-training...only on a massive scale.

 I don't see the Army fighting enemy aircraft carriers anytime soon. But...I could be wrong.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 14, 2016)

CDG said:


> Really good article from WOTR.  I agree with the author completely.
> 
> No End in Sight to the Army’s Dependence on Airpower



Disagreed with him on this paragraph.

_Operation Allied Force over the Former Republic of Yugoslavia proved that air forces alone could win. Reasonably characterized as “winning ugly”, it was a 78-day NATO air campaign that stopped the slaughter of Kosovar Albanians and led to the independence of Kosovo and Montenegro. The Army’s contribution was limited to defensive measures; even Army aviation was unneeded in the operation. The Army’s view that only they can achieve victory in warfare is unsupported by the historical record and dismissive of the Army’s complete dependence on the joint force for its logistics._

NATO authorized a ground incursion, and that's when negotiations got serious.


----------



## Etype (Dec 14, 2016)

If it's a CAS or CCA platform for a low threat environment that the Army wants, a DAP equivalent in conventional aviation would be pretty slick. Twin 30mm cannons, forward facing M134s, or .50 cal miniguns, 2.75 rockets, a metric fuck-ton of ammo, and long loiter time.

We already have rotary wing pilots, crews, and training facilities.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 14, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> In other words, I don't see the Army fighting enemy aircraft carriers anytime soon. But...I could be wrong.



We could certainly use land based anti-ship ballistic missiles in the South China Sea.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 14, 2016)

Etype said:


> If it's a CAS or CCA platform for a low threat environment that the Army wants, a DAP equivalent in conventional aviation would be pretty slick. Twin 30mm cannons, forward facing M134s, or .50 cal miniguns, 2.75 rockets, a metric fuck-ton of ammo, and long loiter time.
> 
> We already have rotary wing pilots, crews, and training facilities.


Whats the difference between that and the Apache fire power wise?


----------



## Etype (Dec 15, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Whats the difference between that and the Apache fire power wise?


DAPs have 2 or 4 hardpoints, the most common setup seems to be 2x 30mm (the same gun used by Apaches) and 2x rocket pods. The miniguns in the doors are fixed to fire forward.  I don't know how many rounds of 30mm the DAP carries, but I know it's more per gun than the Apache carries.

So, 2x the 30mm, plus 7.62, level on rockets. DAPs can carry Hellfires, but I think the consensus is that an extra 30mm is the better use of space.

They gain their advantage from the cabin space- the rear half houses a fuel tank, while the front half is full of ammo.


----------



## CDG (Dec 15, 2016)

Etype said:


> DAPs have 2 or 4 hardpoints, the most common setup seems to be 2x 30mm (the same gun used by Apaches) and 2x rocket pods. The miniguns in the doors are fixed to fire forward.  I don't know how many rounds of 30mm the DAP carries, but I know it's more per gun than the Apache carries.
> 
> So, 2x the 30mm, plus 7.62, level on rockets. DAPs can carry Hellfires, but I think the consensus is that an extra 30mm is the better use of space.
> 
> They gain their advantage from the cabin space- the rear half houses a fuel tank, while the front half is full of ammo.



With the Kiowa being retired, I think it would be highly effective to field teams of Apaches and DAPs working together.  I don't see the conventional Army ever getting them, but it's a nice thought.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 15, 2016)

Teufel said:


> We could certainly use land based anti-ship ballistic missiles in the South China Sea.



Speaking of that, I seem to remember reading of a Marine shore battery on Tulagi sinking (or at least discouraging) a Japanese submarine that had surfaced in the strait and was firing its deck gun at Higgins boats...So maybe you have something there.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Speaking of that, I seem to remember reading of a Marine shore battery on Tulagi sinking (or at least discouraging) a Japanese submarine that had surfaced in the strait and was firing its deck gun at Higgins boats...So maybe you have something there.



Anti ship ballistic missiles will change warfare at sea. They probably already have. I believe we need to leverage land based anti ship ballistic missiles to help control littoral seas. Other countries are already doing this and we need to do the same.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Anti ship ballistic missiles will change warfare at sea. They probably already have. I believe we need to leverage land based anti ship ballistic missiles to help control littoral seas. Other countries are already doing this and we need to do the same.



I very much agree, and showing my naïveté, trying to wrap my head around how it would work.  The targets are moving.  The missiles need guidance to target the ships.  How do they do that?  Satellite?  Our ships/aircraft as C3?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 15, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> The missiles need guidance to target the ships.  How do they do that?  Satellite?  Our ships/aircraft as C3?



"Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!"   Sorry , had to...


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 15, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Anti ship ballistic missiles will change warfare at sea. They probably already have. I believe we need to leverage land based anti ship ballistic missiles to help control littoral seas. Other countries are already doing this and we need to do the same.



Getting off basis here, but this plays drastically into the Marine Corps future in planning beach assaults. What is being done to prevent ships from getting hit by land based anti ship ballistics before they get close enough to allow Marines to breach the beach.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 15, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Getting off basis here, but this plays drastically into the Marine Corps future in planning beach assaults. What is being done to prevent ships from getting hit by land based anti ship ballistics before they get close enough to allow Marines to breach the beach.



I don't think anybody in their right mind would plan an amphibious assault unless they felt land-based anti-ship ballistics could be neutralized beforehand. In fact, I just can't see the Marine Corps even considering a frontal beach assault on a well-defended coast when you have vertical envelopment capabilities.


----------



## Etype (Dec 15, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I very much agree, and showing my naïveté, trying to wrap my head around how it would work.  The targets are moving.  The missiles need guidance to target the ships.  How do they do that?  Satellite?  Our ships/aircraft as C3?


Surface radar.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2016)

Etype said:


> Surface radar.



Which makes sense, but do it with...ships?  Aircraft?

In my deeply depleted and plebian state of mind, am I wrong in thinking that if we had radar-equipped whatever to lock the land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles onto target, we would be close enough to just use ship-based or air-based missiles?  Eliminating the need for land-based missiles?

Of course, my knowledge in this area comes from Tom Clancy novels circa mid-80s.


----------



## Etype (Dec 15, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Which makes sense, but do it with...ships?  Aircraft?
> 
> In my deeply depleted and plebian state of mind, am I wrong in thinking that if we had radar-equipped whatever to lock the land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles onto target, we would be close enough to just use ship-based or air-based missiles?  Eliminating the need for land-based missiles?
> 
> Of course, my knowledge in this area comes from Tom Clancy novels circa mid-80s.


I would assume the missle batteries would have their own radar system.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 15, 2016)

Etype said:


> I would assume the missle batteries would have their own radar system.



Or the missiles themselves. Some cruise missiles have a point that once they get to a kill box they actively scan the area and attack any target they "see"


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 15, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I don't think anybody in their right mind would plan an amphibious assault unless they felt land-based anti-ship ballistics could be neutralized beforehand. In fact, I just can't see the Marine Corps even considering a frontal beach assault on a well-defended coast when you have vertical envelopment capabilities.



Not disagreeing, but if that's what you are proposing as a fix, as more and more countries have surface to sea missiles, then you are going to need to change Marine Corps doctrine.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Not disagreeing, but if that's what you are proposing as a fix, as more and more countries have surface to sea missiles, then you are going to need to change Marine Corps doctrine.


I'm at dinner right now but I'll try to formulate a coherent response later. Bottom line: it's not a pretty scenario and is radically increasing the risk of forcible entry from the sea. 

This isn't a uniquely Marine Corps issue; proliferation of modern man portable anti air weapons and GPS guided surface to surface missiles should concern the USAF and US Army as well.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 15, 2016)

I will start a new topic to discuss anti access area denial problems and hybrid warfare if you guys want since it's slightly off topic here.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 15, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Not disagreeing, but if that's what you are proposing as a fix, as more and more countries have surface to sea missiles, then you are going to need to change Marine Corps doctrine.




I'm sure you're much more up-to-date on Marine Corps doctrine than I am, bro. I took part in three amphib assault exercises, one in open landing craft, one in amtracs and the third a vertical envelopment in 46s from a flight deck. It's hard for me to imagine heading in for a frontal beach assault against the kind of weapons a technologically modern enemy would possess.


----------



## CDG (Dec 15, 2016)

Teufel said:


> I will start a new topic to discuss anti access area denial problems and hybrid warfare if you guys want since it's slightly off topic here.


I would enjoy that discussion.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 29, 2016)

Watch: F-35 Air Force Pilot Compares the Lightning II vs F-16, F-22 and A-10 | Fighter Sweep

From someone who flies the new platform...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 31, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Watch: F-35 Air Force Pilot Compares the Lightning II vs F-16, F-22 and A-10 | Fighter Sweep
> 
> From someone who flies the new platform...



I liked this.  it does not appear to be a formal interview, but more of a Q&A from foreign pilots who were interested in the aircraft.  (looks like he just got done flying)

Knowing no more than what the video showed, my perception is that the pilot likes flying the F-35 and considers it a very important tool in our air inventory.  He also discusses the reality of needing a multi-purpose jet, as having mission specific jets is just not going to happen based on cost. 

He referenced the A-10, and tried to dispel the myth that only the Warthog can give effective CAS.  The comments did not seem to come from a place of envy or jealousy, but more from a true belief.

A good find.


----------



## CDG (Jan 5, 2017)

War On The Rocks is releasing a series on air superiority.  First two installments are out, and they are good reads.  It directly relates, because you don't get CAS, or you get severely limited CAS, without air superiority.

The Future of Air Superiority, Part I: The Imperative

The Future of Air Superiority Part II: The 2030 Problem


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 5, 2017)

I understand for the most part that our Naval Air arm is a tactical  air force, but anything on the F-35C successor in the F/A-XX program other than: Navy Seeking ‘Family of Systems’ to Replace Super Hornets


----------



## Teufel (Jan 5, 2017)

I think air superiority will not be a realistic goal in the future because of the proliferation of near-peer aircraft and advanced anti-air weapons. Instead you may achieve "air control" similar to sea control for a particular area for a defined and finite period of time until you destroy your enemy's Air Force.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 5, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I liked this.  it does not appear to be a formal interview, but more of a Q&A from foreign pilots who were interested in the aircraft.  (looks like he just got done flying)
> 
> Knowing no more than what the video showed, my perception is that the pilot likes flying the F-35 and considers it a very important tool in our air inventory.  He also discusses the reality of needing a multi-purpose jet, as having mission specific jets is just not going to happen based on cost.
> 
> ...




And yet, he says the A10 and the F22 are better at what they do than the F35. My take on this is "consider the source." He's a serving officer, he's flying a new (and much criticized platform), he's expected to help sell the package and he's not about to go on camera and say anything negative about the aircraft.


----------



## Etype (Jan 5, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I think air superiority will not be a realistic goal in the future because of the proliferation of near-peer aircraft and advanced anti-air weapons. Instead you may achieve "air control" similar to sea control for a particular area for a defined and finite period of time until you destroy your enemy's Air Force.


Just a few years ago, dog fighting with guns was supposedly going to be making a comeback. The reason cited was aircraft counter measures and stealth technology would render them near impervious to guided weapons.  I wonder where that argument stands today.


----------



## Teufel (Jan 5, 2017)

Etype said:


> Just a few years ago, dog fighting with guns was supposedly going to be making a comeback. The reason cited was aircraft counter measures and stealth technology would render them near impervious to guided weapons.  I wonder where that argument stands today.



The invention of the nuclear bomb was supposed to render ground combat irrelevant. It didn't. Warfare is a game of move and counter-move. The British found it difficult to conduct visual targeting during strategic bombing missions during WWII. They developed targeting methods using radio waves. The Germans learned to jam them. We use GPS targeting in the modern era. This can also be jammed or corrupted. The F22 is currently a peerless 5th generation fighter. China, India, Russian and Japan are currently developing 5th generation fighters of their own. It is only a matter of time before the US is no longer a generation ahead of our competitors. Development of advanced fighters will also help our potential enemies innovate weapons to defeat them.

The Tiger tank was once peerless. It isn't anymore.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 6, 2017)

It seems inevitable that unmanned platforms will someday dominate the battlefield airspace...lower cost etc and as the technology evolves expanded applications.


The US and its UAVs: A Cost-Benefit Analysis


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 6, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> It seems inevitable that unmanned platforms will someday dominate the battlefield airspace...lower cost etc and as the technology evolves expanded applications.
> 
> 
> The US and its UAVs: A Cost-Benefit Analysis


Until they get jammed and crash requiring manned aircraft to do the job.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 6, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Until they get jammed and crash requiring manned aircraft to do the job.



Right...for now. But 15-20 years down the road?

I mean the Wright Brothers flew less than the length of two football fields in 1903. Sixteen years later a Curtiss NC4 goes Transatlantic. Some biplanes were still being flown operationally by Western militaries in 1939-40. A few years later the Germans are flying jets. My point being that in aviation a lot happens technologically within a short span of time.

So as the designs improve and evolve, I see UAVs eventually taking over more missions that are presently handled by manned ACs. I can even see them doing limited CAS, perhaps controlled by the units in contact. I also think eventually UAV designs will even incorporate big frame platforms for cargo capabilities.


----------



## CDG (Jan 6, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Right...for now. But 15-20 years down the road?
> 
> I mean the Wright Brothers flew less than the length of two football fields in 1903. Sixteen years later a Curtiss NC4 goes Transatlantic. Some biplanes were still being flown operationally by Western militaries in 1939-40. A few years later the Germans are flying jets. My point being that in aviation a lot happens technologically within a short span of time.
> 
> So as the designs improve and evolve, I see UAVs eventually taking over more missions that are presently handled by manned ACs. I can even see them doing limited CAS, perhaps controlled by the units in contact. I also think eventually UAV designs will even incorporate big frame platforms for cargo capabilities.



So, they already do CAS.  They do Air Interdiction.  They do a new mission called Kinetic Strike, which is what we're calling it when a JTAC is controlling a strike that not's CAS and not AI.  Think a JTAC sitting with his team, or in a JOC, well away from the dude being targeted.  Drones are good at it, very good.  They can follow a guy for a long time, confirm all sorts of identifiers, do some other things, and rifle off a Hellfire.

The issue with the future fight is the A2/AD discussion.  Drones are highly susceptible to being jammed, or shot down.  If drones start to proliferate, so will cheaper surface to air threats designed to shoot them down at a low cost.  They have no protection capability, and no maneuverability.  Drone swarms have been talked about, but that is a long ways off.

We need all the pieces of our puzzle.  Drones are great for some things, and terrible for others.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 6, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> It seems inevitable that unmanned platforms will someday dominate the battlefield airspace...lower cost etc and as the technology evolves expanded applications.
> 
> 
> The US and its UAVs: A Cost-Benefit Analysis


Global Hawk unit cost is 220k...I see that going up.


----------



## Etype (Jan 6, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Global Hawk unit cost is 220k...I see that going up.


$220 million, or $220,000,000.


----------



## CDG (Jan 6, 2017)

Here's another good article on the F-35.  I agree, after actually working these a couple times, that they bring a lot to the fight.  There's nothing else out there that can fuse sensors and intelligence like this aircraft.  That being said, in my experience, they are most effective in flying alongside A-10s, not replacing them.  A two-ship of F-35s and 4x A-10s can do a massive amount of damage to a large enemy, even one arrayed in geographically separated locations. 

'One our adversaries should fear': US Air Force General describes how the F-35 is above and beyond the competition


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 6, 2017)

Etype said:


> $220 million, or $220,000,000.



Wow, misread that...that's not worth it in my opinion.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 6, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> Wow, misread that...that's not worth it in my opinion.



For a plane that can stay airborne over a target, undetected for a day+? Maybe. 

The global hawk is an amazing machine. Far exceeding the limits a human pilot could achieve. As an aviator myself, though at a lowly level, I hate to see pilots losing jobs. But even on the civil side we aren't far removed from total automation.


----------



## CDG (Jan 6, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> For a plane that can stay airborne over a target, undetected for a day+? Maybe.
> 
> The global hawk is an amazing machine. Far exceeding the limits a human pilot could achieve. As an aviator myself, though at a lowly level, I hate to see pilots losing jobs. But even on the civil side we aren't far removed from total automation.



Not only undetected and for a long period of time, but the sensor suite on the RQ-4 is ridiculous.  It is well worth the money for the strategic capability it gives us.


----------



## Etype (Jan 6, 2017)

@ThunderHorse - 
It's also very fast, as UAVs go.

This is a huge bonus when it comes to shifting targets, and means it can operate much farther from its home airfield than other UAVs.


----------



## AWP (Jan 6, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> The global hawk is an amazing machine.





CDG said:


> Not only undetected and for a long period of time, but the sensor suite on the RQ-4 is ridiculous.  It is well worth the money for the strategic capability it gives us.



Totally agree. I'm rather familiar with one capability it provides, the BACN suite. BACN is an amazing tool whose effects on C2 are underappreciated. If it is airborne, you don't have to worry about comms, voice or data.

RQ-4 Global Hawk > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN)


----------



## AWP (Feb 4, 2017)

Trump: We need to revisit the F-35? Do we need the plane?

Lockheed: Hey! We found we could shave $700 million from the next batch of planes.

Trump: Sold.

After Trump attack, Lockheed Martin slashes F-35 cost - CNNPolitics.com

Pentagon strikes new F-35 deal with Lockheed after Trump involvement


----------



## CDG (Feb 4, 2017)

Surprise, surprise.  Call them on their bullshit and they magically find $700 million to cut.  Disgusting practices by LM.


----------



## compforce (Feb 4, 2017)

It wasn't LM that made the bad deal, it was our government.  Companies take advantage of the govt all the time.  Having a business person in office to call them  on their bullshit is one of the reasons I liked Trump.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 4, 2017)

I don't know the particulars, however I believe in the phrase "we teach others how to treat us." For too long the government accepted high prices, cost overruns, and missed deadliness without accountability to the vendor. This is a welcome change and I hope to see it applied to other aspects of government, not just the DoD.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 3, 2017)

F-35 going to be featured at the Duluth, MN airshow.  My parents live close enough to the Duluth Airbase that as I kid I used to watch the F-4's all day long and could always catch most of the airshows, they flew right over us.

Might need to take a trip to Duluth this summer.

The Duluth Airshow’s getting some Lightning – the rare F-35’s been added to the lineup

I like the hollywood-like promo video too...


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 3, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> F-35 going to be featured at the Duluth, MN airshow.  My parents live close enough to the Duluth Airbase that as I kid I used to watch the F-4's all day long and could always catch most of the airshows, they flew right over us.
> 
> Might need to take a trip to Duluth this summer.
> 
> ...



The F35 came to the Baltimore fleet week airshow. It flew by twice and did some rolls and the heritage flight.


----------



## CDG (Apr 24, 2017)

Pretty good article from WOTR, and I think the analogy made is a good one.

Playing Moneyball: The Scouting Report on Light Attack Aircraft


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 24, 2017)

CDG said:


> Pretty good article from WOTR, and I think the analogy made is a good one.
> 
> Playing Moneyball: The Scouting Report on Light Attack Aircraft


How many rounds does the "Light Attack Aircraft" carry?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 26, 2017)

Love articles like this....

Once at risk of extinction, iconic Warthog plane lives on


----------



## Gunz (May 26, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Love articles like this....
> 
> Once at risk of extinction, iconic Warthog plane lives on




It wouldn't surprise me if the SecDef had seconded McSally's recommendation to Trump. What ground-combat commander in our recent wars wouldn't be a proponent of this aircraft?

I also love the fact that the U2 is being given a new lease. It was upgraded to the current U2S model a few years back.

You gotta love all that good old military shit that refuses to die: A-10s, U2s, C-130s, BUFFs, AH-1s and the Ma Deuce.


----------



## 104TN (Jun 20, 2017)




----------



## AWP (Jul 18, 2017)

AF Chief of Staff: A-10 replacement? Maybe not.

Air Force Weighs Scrapping A-10 Replacement | RealClearDefense

The USAF Admits It Isn't Actually Working on an A-10 Replacement



> On July 16, 2017, in chat with Aviation Week, Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein offered updates on the status and future of the A-10 fleet, as well as progress toward a new, CAS-focused aircraft, commonly referred to as A-X. In the interview, the service’s top official ran through the usual talking points, explaining that other, multi-role platforms can perform the critical close air support (CAS) job, as well as blaming budget cuts and caps for difficulties in obtaining a direct replacement for the Warthog.
> 
> As such, Goldfein said that the Air Force was “not yet” actively working on developing A-X, according to Aviation Week. When asked if this meant the service might ultimately retire the A-10 without a purpose-built replacement, he said “maybe.”


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 16, 2017)

U.S. Airman Forced to Belly-Land A-10 Warthog After Canopy Blows, Landing Gear Fails

On July 20, Capt. Brett DeVries of the Michigan Air National Guard was forced to land his A-10 Warthog with the landing gear up and no canopy after the aircraft's gun malfunctioned, wreaking havoc on systems across the entire plane. The belly landing took place at the Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center in northern Michigan. DeVries, an A-10 pilot with the 107th Fighter Squadron stationed at Selfridge Air National Guard Base just north of Detroit, was able to safely exit the aircraft after the emergency landing, and no injuries resulted from the incident.

DeVries and fellow airmen from the 107th, known as the "Red Devils," were on a training flight to drop dummy bombs and conduct strafe runs at Grayling Air Gunnery Range. Four A-10s dropped their dummy ordnance during the routine training flight and then circled around to make a strafing pass. On his strafing run, DeVries' A-10 Thunderbolt II, affectionately called the Warthog for its rugged appearance, suffered a major malfunction after the aircraft's 30mm GAU-8 Avenger Gatling-style autocannon blew out, creating a "donut of gas," as reported by DeVries' wingman Major Shannon Vickers. The malfunction caused the canopy of DeVries' A-10 to blow while flying about 325 knots (374 mph), slamming his head back into the cockpit seat.

"It was like someone sucker punched me," DeVries recalls in a recent report of the incident. "I was just dazed for a moment."


----------



## medicchick (Aug 16, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 19418
> 
> U.S. Airman Forced to Belly-Land A-10 Warthog After Canopy Blows, Landing Gear Fails
> 
> ...



I don't need no stinking landing gear
 :-"


----------



## Gunz (Aug 16, 2017)

She beat ya to it, Marine. Mountain Climbers...Ahhhhgain


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 16, 2017)

medicchick said:


> https://shadowspear.com/vb/threads/i-dont-need-no-stinking-landing-gear.28263
> :-"





Ocoka said:


> She beat ya to it, Marine. Mountain Climbers...Ahhhhgain



Negative Ghost Rider!

It's not my fault if "_some people_" cannot post similar-subject material into one thread to keep the forum nice-and-tidy... ...:wall:...


----------



## medicchick (Aug 16, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Negative Ghost Rider!
> 
> It's not my fault if "_some people_" cannot post similar-subject material into one thread to keep the forum nice-and-tidy... ...:wall:...


I wasn't aware this thread was about a kick ass pilot who managed to safety land a plane that had major malfunctions.  I though this was about planes being dc'd.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 16, 2017)

medicchick said:


> I wasn't aware this thread was about a kick ass pilot who managed to safety land a plane that had major malfunctions....



It's not.  It's my nearly debilitating OCD of needing to have everything in my life organized and orderly.  I wish that were a joke!


----------



## Gunz (Aug 16, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Negative Ghost Rider!
> 
> It's not my fault if "_some people_" cannot post similar-subject material into one thread to keep the forum nice-and-tidy... ...:wall:...






medicchick said:


> I wasn't aware this thread was about a kick ass pilot who managed to safety land a plane that had major malfunctions.  I though this was about planes being dc'd.




She wins.


----------



## AWP (Oct 26, 2017)

Yep, that F-35 program is beautifully managed. Wharton should teach its MBAs how to run a program like the F-35's...

108 U.S F-35s Won’t Be Combat-Capable



> The new F-35 program executive officer, U.S. Navy vice admiral Mat Winter, said his office is exploring the option of leaving 108 aircraft in their current state because the funds to upgrade them to the fully combat-capable configuration would threaten the Air Force’s plans to ramp up production in the coming years.



It actually gets worse if you read the article. Trigger alert.


----------



## Kaldak (Oct 28, 2017)

Just when I thought I'd heard all the stupid the day could produce, I read this. F*cking A.



AWP said:


> Yep, that F-35 program is beautifully managed. Wharton should teach its MBAs how to run a program like the F-35's...
> 
> 108 U.S F-35s Won’t Be Combat-Capable
> 
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 30, 2017)

AWP said:


> Yep, that F-35 program is beautifully managed. Wharton should teach its MBAs how to run a program like the F-35's...
> 
> 108 U.S F-35s Won’t Be Combat-Capable
> 
> ...





Kaldak said:


> Just when I thought I'd heard all the stupid the day could produce, I read this. F*cking A.


Just make them training aircraft.


----------



## CDG (Nov 7, 2017)

An article from The Mitchell Institute.  I disagree with pretty much everything here.  To start, it amazes me that people still don't know what JTAC stands for.  When that gets messed up, it already makes me question how much experience the author has.  Secondly, it seems as though he is advocating letting the "combat cloud" do the job of the JTAC and just trusting rote data collection to figure everything out and get the bomb where it needs to go.  I very much disagree with that.  There needs to be someone on the ground where the action is who can figure out what exactly is going on, and cross check everything.

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_5da6ef63b45a4a8097aa35c0063ebccd.pdf


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2017)

CDG said:


> An article from The Mitchell Institute.  I disagree with pretty much everything here.  To start, it amazes me that people still don't know what JTAC stands for.  When that gets messed up, it already makes me question how much experience the author has.  Secondly, it seems as though he is advocating letting the "combat cloud" do the job of the JTAC and just trusting rote data collection to figure everything out and get the bomb where it needs to go.  I very much disagree with that.  There needs to be someone on the ground where the action is who can figure out what exactly is going on, and cross check everything.
> 
> http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_5da6ef63b45a4a8097aa35c0063ebccd.pdf



I've just read the abstract....HOLY SHIT! I work with the largest Link 16 network on the planet and the author's faith in tactical datalinks is...excessively optimistic. Additionally I've watched the CAOC/ CRC/ JTAC relationship and even at my observer's level I can see the need for a JTAC instead of a "cloud" for airspace deconfliction. That paper will play well with someone who doesn't see the process at work.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 7, 2017)

AWP said:


> That paper will play well with someone who doesn't see the process at work.



So, what your saying is the higher ups will start implementing this "cloud" over the man on the ground


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2017)

The first time some halfwit puts their JRE in a data loop* while the "cloud" manages the battlefield...oh, boy.

* - this happens a couple of times a day that I'm aware of, so probably more often.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 7, 2017)

AWP said:


> I've just read the abstract....HOLY SHIT! I work with the largest Link 16 network on the planet and the author's faith in tactical datalinks is...excessively optimistic. Additionally I've watched the CAOC/ CRC/ JTAC relationship and even at my observer's level I can see the need for a JTAC instead of a "cloud" for airspace deconfliction. That paper will play well with someone who doesn't see the process at work.


Read the authors bio, 
F-16/15 driver whose skillset is primarily Air Defence.
It's possible he never did a CAS mission.


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2017)

I just hope the position paper doesn't gain traction.

Thinking about it: duplicate tracks, fat-fingered data, jumping PPLI, missing 28.2's (and other messages), poorly formatted ATO (which the system won't load), ATO with bad/ old data, improperly trained datalink personnel (all ranks), untrained datalink personnel (all ranks), loss of comm, broken hardware (without a spare because we try to do things on the cheap and that $100k device wasn't purchased), bad or missing firewall exemptions, joint and/or coalition interoperability issues, data releaseability constraints, operators who "know better" so they change the connection matrix, improperly designed network, improperly configured filters...and the list goes on.

ETA: I just read the whole paper. From a pure link and C2 angle, he is dead wrong. He has conceptualized a technical utopia with little to no understanding of the underlying technology (and at least one key manned component of the kill chain). His basic premise is pure garbage because the tech he envisions won't be around for decades.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 7, 2017)

CDG said:


> An article from The Mitchell Institute.  I disagree with pretty much everything here.  To start, it amazes me that people still don't know what JTAC stands for.  When that gets messed up, it already makes me question how much experience the author has.  Secondly, it seems as though he is advocating letting the "combat cloud" do the job of the JTAC and just trusting rote data collection to figure everything out and get the bomb where it needs to go.  I very much disagree with that.  There needs to be someone on the ground where the action is who can figure out what exactly is going on, and cross check everything.
> 
> http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_5da6ef63b45a4a8097aa35c0063ebccd.pdf


I thought the author raised several good points. I don’t think the author advocates getting rid of JTACs but rather how to rapidly provide CAS in a high threat environment with multiple surface and air threats. Link 16 isn’t perfect but it is pretty good. We already use link 16 to fuse multiple sensor platforms into a common operational picture. It would be great to integrate ground maneuver forces into that C2 tool. I know the Chinese wish they had it and are developing a knock off.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 5, 2018)

Good article and great video on the A10.

“Grunts In the Sky” Documentary Showcases the A-10’s Contribution to Modern Warfare


----------



## Grunt (Jan 5, 2018)

I do love Apachies and Cobras, but out of all the United States' arsenal that has the capability of raining down pain from the sky, the A10 is my absolute favorite. That plane is a "Warrior."


----------



## Topkick (Jan 5, 2018)

The A-10 is a badass, but I always enjoyed knowing the AC-130 was lurking overhead.


----------



## Topkick (Jan 5, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Good article and great video on the A10.
> 
> “Grunts In the Sky” Documentary Showcases the A-10’s Contribution to Modern Warfare


Cool video. I guess if you fly an A-10, you can still rock a porn mustache too.


----------



## AWP (Jan 5, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Cool video. I guess if you fly an A-10, you can still rock a porn mustache too.



That's a deployed Air Force thing. It started with pilots and aircrew and has filtered down to the unwashed masses. It is kind of a big deal with competitions and some units will designate a specific day to shave them off.


----------



## AWP (May 11, 2018)

While I can't see this ever being used, it is a neat concept. The B-1B Gunship. Imagine "Bone" loitering around the battlefield at low level.

Boeing's Been Granted A Patent For Turning The B-1B Into A Gunship Bristling With Cannons



> A B-1B Lancer 'gunship' may sound like something a kid doodles on his desk during a 4th-grade math class, but Boeing has actually been awarded a patent for just that.


----------



## Box (May 11, 2018)

If the image of a B-1B gunship doesn't cause a freedom boner, then there is simply no hope for the future of mankind.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 11, 2018)

AWP said:


> While I can't see this ever being used, it is a neat concept. The B-1B Gunship. Imagine "Bone" loitering around the battlefield at low level.
> 
> Boeing's Been Granted A Patent For Turning The B-1B Into A Gunship Bristling With Cannons


It's possible that with Lockheed Martin getting closer to finishing their compact fusion reactor, designs like the B-1B may be feasible ground attack platforms due to the hypothetical increase in range and loiter times that this new tech is supposed to bring. Given that the latest prototype fusion reactor being developed is supposed to fit inside a connex, it might be a bit before Skunkworks can miniaturize this tech ever further (for fighter type aircraft, not seeing how it wouldn't fit into a B-1B or B-2).

Maybe Boeing is trying to jump the gun and establish themselves before a rival companies technology starts to bear fruit in the next few years.


----------



## Devildoc (May 11, 2018)

It shatters my paradigm of "low and slow"....


----------



## AWP (May 11, 2018)

"A B1 gunship is a better CAS platform than the F-35. Change my mind."


----------



## Gunz (May 14, 2018)

Nothing sez 'Murica better than a freaking B1B.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 14, 2018)

sooooo...let's retro fit the B-1, but not build a solid A-10 upgrade/replacement


----------



## AWP (May 14, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> sooooo...let's retro fit the B-1, but not build a solid A-10 upgrade/replacement



I took this as more of an IP protection issue or a "hey, don't retire the B-1 because we can use tham as gunships" type of thing. 

Just load 'em up with SDB's and let them loiter over the battlefield. Not as good as an A-10, but they can employ about 300,000* of those in one sortie....when the crews and JTAC learn their jobs and don't kill friendlies.

* - Actual numbers are a bit less


----------



## CDG (May 15, 2018)

AWP said:


> I took this as more of an IP protection issue or a "hey, don't retire the B-1 because we can use tham as gunships" type of thing.
> 
> Just load 'em up with SDB's and let them loiter over the battlefield. Not as good as an A-10, but they can employ about 300,000* of those in one sortie....*when the crews and JTAC learn their jobs and don't kill friendlies*.
> 
> * - Actual numbers are a bit less



Ouch.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 15, 2018)

AWP said:


> I took this as more of an IP protection issue or a "hey, don't retire the B-1 because we can use tham as gunships" type of thing.



I could see that.


----------



## DA SWO (May 15, 2018)

AWP said:


> I took this as more of an IP protection issue or a "hey, don't retire the B-1 because we can use tham as gunships" type of thing.
> 
> Just load 'em up with SDB's and let them loiter over the battlefield. Not as good as an A-10, but they can employ about 300,000* of those in one sortie....when the crews and JTAC learn their jobs and don't kill friendlies.
> 
> * - Actual numbers are a bit less


The patent illustration may be deceptive.  For all we know they plan on mounting a laser system, which would make the Bone even more awesome.


----------



## Gunz (May 15, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> The patent illustration may be deceptive.  For all we know they plan on mounting a laser system, which would make the Bone even more awesome.



Why not. Lockheed has the contract to build the HELIOS system for the Navy...I could see an airborne version eventually coming out of that program, especially given the near-billion dollars of incentives on the table.

Talk about precision in the CAS role...


----------



## AWP (May 23, 2018)

The F-35 has flown its first combat mission, but details are pretty scarce.

Everything We Know (And Don’t Know) About Israel Launching World’s First Air Strikes Using The F-35 Stealth Aircraft



> Israel is the first country to have used the F-35 stealth aircraft in combat, the Israeli Air Force Commander, Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin said on Tuesday, in remarks that were made public through the IDF’s official Twitter account.


----------



## BloodStripe (May 23, 2018)

I think it is pretty safe to say that Israel has mastered the art of SEAD in their AO.


----------



## Gunz (May 23, 2018)

You can depend on Israel to make the best use of its armaments. In decades past, when the US was stingy and France cut off military aid, the Israelis have had to make-do. One of their major successes in the critical Yom Kippur War was the quick turn-around time of salvaging, repairing and returning tanks, aircraft and other assets to the battlefront.

If they have it, they will use it.


----------



## AWP (May 23, 2018)

What's interesting though is they flew it in an area with the most sophisticated Russian SAM batteries available. On one hand, we know what the -35 can do and on the other it opens itself up to being studied on any radar files the Russians may have from that night.  Interesting development.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 23, 2018)

AWP said:


> What's interesting though is they flew it in an area with the most sophisticated Russian SAM batteries available. On one hand, we know what the -35 can do and on the other it opens itself up to being studied on any radar files the Russians may have from that night.  Interesting development.



While that data will be useful, it also wasn't employed in the exact same manner/environment that we'd be using it. The 35 has it's litany of issues stemming specifically from a combination of being a joint service/role fighter/bomber, and it's deviation in many ways from past airframes. It does bring some interesting capacities to the fight, and loses some when compared to legacy platforms in the same role.


----------



## Gunz (May 24, 2018)

"The Strange Notch"

FWIW

Strange notches on the F-35 raise questions about its first tastes of combat with Israel's air force


----------



## Devildoc (May 24, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> You can depend on Israel to make the best use of its armaments. In decades past, when the US was stingy and France cut off military aid, the Israelis have had to make-do. One of their major successes in the critical Yom Kippur War was the quick turn-around time of salvaging, repairing and returning tanks, aircraft and other assets to the battlefront.
> 
> If they have it, they will use it.



They used the shit out of the A-4.  Those are hard as hell to break, a SAM not withstanding.


----------



## DA SWO (May 24, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> They used the shit out of the A-4.  Those are hard as hell to break, a SAM not withstanding.


Just ask John McCain


----------



## DA SWO (May 24, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> While that data will be useful, it also wasn't employed in the exact same manner/environment that we'd be using it. The 35 has it's litany of issues stemming specifically from a combination of being a joint service/role fighter/bomber, and it's deviation in many ways from past airframes. It does bring some interesting capacities to the fight, and loses some when compared to legacy platforms in the same role.


I think the AF F-35's will ultimately be successful, not sure about the Navy or Marine variants.


----------



## Devildoc (May 24, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> Just ask John McCain



...and Stockdale.  280-something A4s were shot down over VN.  But those things were built like brick shithouses, could take a beating.

RE: Marine Corps F-35, I really have not followed the program, but at the last air show at Cherry Point I was asking the demo pilot about it, he loved the technology, but said it was going to be hard to replace the Harrier and a lot of the pilots felt the same way.  To be fair it could have been good ol' fashioned nostalgia talking, I dunno.....


----------



## Gunz (May 24, 2018)

A4s..."Scooters."  Never worked with Scooters. But we did do CAS with F4s and A1's (Spads).



DA SWO said:


> I think the AF F-35's will ultimately be successful, not sure about the Navy or Marine variants.




The C's and B's will be _made_ to work no matter what...because there's already $170-$180 _billion _in non-recoverable over-budget expenditures. With that kind of money sunk into a project, it will be shoved through production, design flaws notwithstanding.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 24, 2018)

Honestly, the aircraft would have had about 9000 less problems as an airframe across the board if it didn't require that VTOL/STOL component and instead could just cat launch and hook land. The AF wouldn't probably care much about having a slightly more robust airframe to handle that. Throw in the VTOL that's where shit goes off the rails.  Fuckin Marines. LOL


----------



## BloodStripe (May 24, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> I think the AF F-35's will ultimately be successful, not sure about the Navy or Marine variants.



Why do you say that? I think the C will be successful in that the Navy can now penetrate deeper with stealth technology. 

The B is the biggest question mark. It has to work for the MAGTF but I feel as if of needs that A canon to really help it. Perhaps a near future laser will be fitted.


----------



## Gunz (May 24, 2018)

Thrust vectoring is tricky. It was with the AV8. But the 35 has a lot of other issues, like structural weakness etc. Even the half-million dollar helmets have been a problem.


----------



## AWP (May 24, 2018)

- The B model VTOL requirement screwed the program. They should have had two fuselage designs, A/C and B, with common components like the wings, "tailfeathers", etc.

- Assuming the IAF used the -35's stealth characteristics, the Syrians and Russians have a VERY robust and layered air defense network. Operating in that environment is pretty analogous to what they can expect elsewhere. The Syrians/ Russians have everything from old SA-5's to the newest models, of everything, use mobile SAMs, vary their radiation patterns, use AWACS, etc.

- The -35's become too big to fail. Eventually the bugs willbe worked out, but at what cost financially and in capabilities like the loss of the A-10 or other cuts required to feed the beast? Even the Navy's realized Super Hornets/ Rhinos will be in service beyond 2030.

- No other nation can match our stealth aircraft. Even the new generation of Chinese aircraft are 5-10 years away from being fully operational and we're already looking beyond that.


----------



## AWP (Jul 11, 2018)

The A-10/ F-35 flyoff has begun. If this article's correct (these guys usually are) then the A-10 doesn't stand a chance.

The U.S. Air Force Is Hiding Its Controversial Flyoff Between the A-10 and F-35


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 11, 2018)

I read that same article earlier. I wasn't surprised one bit when they called it rigged.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 11, 2018)

Color me shocked:
..._and there is now evidence to suggest the service maybe be manipulating the test parameters to favor the stealthy fifth-generation _fighter jet.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 12, 2018)

AWP said:


> The A-10/ F-35 flyoff has begun. If this article's correct (these guys usually are) then the A-10 doesn't stand a chance.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force Is Hiding Its Controversial Flyoff Between the A-10 and F-35



As long as the AF can define CAS as dropping bombs, heaven help the team needing multiple gun runs to save their ass.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 12, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Color me shocked:
> ..._and there is now evidence to suggest the service maybe be manipulating the test parameters to favor the stealthy fifth-generation _fighter jet.



Of course they are. Money talks.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 12, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> As long as the AF can define CAS as dropping bombs, heaven help the team needing multiple gun runs to save their ass.




Amen. Sometimes slower and lower gets the rounds where the need to be with less chance of killing your friends.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 12, 2018)

And why do we need a stealth platform for CAS? C'mon guys....you have the best ever CAS platform and your just pissing it away...it has a niche...expand on the design, update it...whatever. Just DO IT.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 13, 2018)

Lack of a target indicator beyond their own networks of our flot?  Afg/iraq and even everything since oh vietnam has us confusing the circumstsnces. There will be a future conflict where the enemy will have enough, or enough tech, to sustain birds in the air over our heads. Then CAS becomes double duty.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 13, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> And why do we need a stealth platform for CAS? C'mon guys....you have the best ever CAS platform and your just pissing it away...it has a niche...expand on the design, update it...whatever. Just DO IT.


Stealth isn't being sold as a CAS feature, CAS will be secondary for the F-35, just like CAS isn't the F-16's (original) primary mission.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 13, 2018)

Understood, but trying to do everything with one platform is not the best way forward. I get it, but it's just frustrating.


----------



## CDG (Jul 13, 2018)

If you need stealth, probably not really a great CAS environment.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 17, 2018)

CDG said:


> If you need stealth, probably not really a great CAS environment.



Stealth could help you infiltrate into and out of the area to establish temporary air control and deliver fires.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 17, 2018)

Not sure if it was here or somewhere else. But I remember someone saying that our air dominance in the GWOT was something of a fluke, due to our enemies lack of military infrastructure. When we end up fighting a near peer adversary, who can effectively contest the skies, maybe stealth might be more important in a CAS setting. On the other hand, our adversaries have the blueprints for the f-35 and are actively working on countering our shiny new fighter.

Sucks that the Air Force brass is being douchey with the A-10, considering they're throwing all the proverbial eggs (not jut CAS) in the F-35 basket. I get the feeling we are going to be majory fucked, when the Russians and Chinese crack the F-35's design shell.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 17, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Not sure if it was here or somewhere else. But I remember someone saying that our air dominance in the GWOT was something of a fluke, due to our enemies lack of military infrastructure. When we end up fighting a near peer adversary, who can effectively contest the skies, maybe stealth might be more important in a CAS setting. On the other hand, our adversaries have the blueprints for the f-35 and are actively working on countering our shiny new fighter.
> 
> *Sucks that the Air Force brass is being douchey with the A-10, considering they're throwing all the proverbial eggs (not jut CAS) in the F-35 basket. I get the feeling we are going to be majory fucked, when the Russians and Chinese crack the F-35's design shell*.



SecDef Gates made that decision.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 17, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Not sure if it was here or somewhere else. But I remember someone saying that our air dominance in the GWOT was something of a fluke, due to our enemies lack of military infrastructure. When we end up fighting a near peer adversary, who can effectively contest the skies, maybe stealth might be more important in a CAS setting. On the other hand, our adversaries have the blueprints for the f-35 and are actively working on countering our shiny new fighter.
> 
> Sucks that the Air Force brass is being douchey with the A-10, considering they're throwing all the proverbial eggs (not jut CAS) in the F-35 basket. I get the feeling we are going to be majory fucked, when the Russians and Chinese crack the F-35's design shell.




Classified data was not compromised. Apparently.


----------

