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

[Totentanz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Chuck Norris fights to save the A-10

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

 

[DA SWO]

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]

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]

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.

But that lack of speed allows it to be incredibly accurate when dropping bombs, launching missiles, or strafing with the 30mm. The Russians have considered the A-10 a MAJOR threat for decades. All of the people we have fought or possibly could have fought since the A-10 came on line fear it. The A-10 has saved countless American lives from Desert Storm to present. Seriously; the A-10 can put the steel on target more accurately than the F-16, F-15, F-17/18, or F-22.

This is from a ground pounders perspective. In Desert Storm I was the control station for some SF Recon Teams far north of the Euphrates River; deep in bad guy country. The teams that were discovered and had to be extracted under fire were kept alive by A-10's that were able to stay on station till the extraction helicopters could get there. They have continued that role to this day.
The A-10 can really do that Timex thing of taking a licking and keep on ticking. It’s designed from the tires up to sustain battle damage that would leave any of the a fore mentioned fighters as smoking holes in the ground.

The Air Force has NEVER been thrilled about the A-10. Since the Key West Agreement of 1949, the Air Force has stopped the Army from having its own armed fixed wing aircraft. After Vietnam the A-10 was created to fit that void between the fighter role and dedicated air to ground strike capability. Fighters or fighter-bombers fly too fast to adequately support ground troops. If you look at the record of blue on blue air to ground tragedies... I don't believe the A-10 will be prominent, if at all.

There is nothing in the production pipeline to replace the A-10. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a camel cross bred with a mule.

Most ground combat organizations like that Association of the US Army and others have been lobbying Congress hard to keep the A-10 because they know how important it is.

As we enter into a period of what is perceived to be “peace In our time,” the Air Force, as is all the military services, is scrambling to make budget. The Air Force hierarchy is depending on the yet to be delivered and proven F-35 JSF to fill the void left by retiring the A-10.

After serving with Naval Aviation units, Army Aviation units, and working closely with the Air Force through my career I can put little trust or faith in a multi-role aircraft when it lacks the weapon versatility of a specialist type aircraft.

Bottom line is that to retain the A-10 the Air Force would have to expend funding on it at the expense of other systems it understands better.

For all its myriad failings Congress does do something right occasionally. In opposing the Air Force, Congress is correct in opposing Air Force plans, for the good of those men and women still serving and will serve in harm’s way; Crain’s should support the efforts to keep as many A-10s flying in the active inventory as possible.

Sincerely;

RetPara
Master Sergeant
Army of the United States
Retired
Former Sergeant of Marines

 

[DA SWO]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

hahaha...those are great shirts!

 

[CDG]

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]

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]

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.

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.