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

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.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about the URGENT FURY incident. I'm going to look that up.
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/12/american-warplane-s-forgotten-nazi-past.html

MEIN GOTT!
10.12.14
American Warplane’s Forgotten Nazi Past
The A-10 has been the favorite plane of American grunts for decades. But it was one of America’s most fearsome enemies who helped inspire the design of the so-called Warthog.
The U.S. Air Force’s A-10 is an ugly, low-flying, slow-moving beast of an aircraft known affectionately by the troops as the Warthog. But even as the flying tank gets ready to shred ISIS terrorists to pieces over Iraq and Syria with its massive 30mm cannon—firing depleted uranium shells the size of a Coke bottle—it hides a dark secret: an unrepentant Nazi fighter pilot helped to develop the ungainly warplane.

Engineer Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon procurement official who helped design the A-10, confirmed to The Daily Beast that none other than legendary Luftwaffe Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel was consulted to develop the Warthog.

“While we were readying the airplane and gun for full scale production, the 30mm gun program manager, Col. Robert Dilger, invited Rudel to lead a symposium in DC attended by several hundred engineers, analysts, tacticians and intel types on all aspects of CAS [close air support] operations in combat,” Sprey told the Daily Beast. “For lots of them it was eye-opening. I translated for Rudel who spoke very little English.”

Rudel was the Nazi-era Wehrmacht’s (which included the Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe) most highly decorated officer and the only man to have been awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds. During his wartime career, Rudel flew over 2,530 combat sorties over the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union and amassed a combat record of over 2,000 targets destroyed--800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.

“Rudel was certainly the expert on killing Soviet tanks, 519 of them. But he was also brilliant on tactics—both ground and air—training, C3 [Command, Control & Communication], reconnaissance and squadron leadership,” Sprey said. “During our concept design phase, I required every member of the team to read Stuka Pilot, Rudel's superbly detailed recounting of his combat experiences, in order to understand the most crucial combat effectiveness characteristics of a CAS fighter.”

During his wartime career, Rudel flew over 2,530 combat sorties and amassed a combat record of over 2,000 targets destroyed--800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.
Indeed, many of the characteristics of the Warthog, which is a darling of ground troops fighting in close proximity to enemy forces, were directly influenced by Rudel’s experience flying the Junkers Ju-87 Stuka dive-bomber and the ground-attack version of the Focke-Wulf 190D-9 fighter against the Soviet Red Army.

“The book most certainly influenced me, particularly regarding how critical it was to incorporate in any effective CAS design such things as cockpit armor, fire suppression, need for ultra-tight turn radius maneuvering performance, ability to fly under 500ft weather, getting 3-5 sorties per day per plane, large caliber cannon, ability to move a squadron overnight, and ability to operate sustainably from unprepared fields--grass, dirt, mud, gravel, etc,” Sprey said in an email.

However, as good a fighter pilot as Rudel was, it is an undeniable fact the he was an unrepentant Nazi and devotee of Adolf Hitler. After, the war Rudel—who became a relatively successful businessman--continued to advocate for the Third Reich and its genocidal, racist policies. One example of that: Rudel was a prominent member of the neo-Nazi German Reich Party from 1953 onward.

Others within the U.S. Air Force dismiss Rudel’s impact on the A-10 design. “Frankly, I’m not sure why he would be consulted, Rudel was a statistical outlier in life-expectancy for ground-attack pilots in the Luftwaffe,” one Air Force official told The Daily Beast.

Further, the Air Force official poured some cold water on the legacy of the Warthog—despite its popularity with the ground troops. “There is so much myth and half-truth wrapped around the A-10,” the official said.

It’s a common sentiment in some corners of the Air Force, which has been looking to jettison the A-10 for decades. The Air Force wants to replace the Warthog because the jet would be hopelessly vulnerable against a modern enemy like China or Russia even if the aircraft can handle itself against relatively primitive enemies in Iraq or Syria. Instead of the slow-moving, low-flying A-10, the Air Force would prefer to use the stealthy $400 billion F-35 stealth fighter for future wars. Thus far, Congress has prevented the service from putting the Warthog out to pasture.

The Air Force has some valid reasons for its view. One example cited by the Air Force official was the 1973 Yom Kippur war, when Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria. The official pointed out that low and slow flying ground attack planes directly supporting the ground infantry were easy prey to even 1970s-era Russian-built surface-to-air missiles. “One inconvenient aspect of the A-10 is how its proponents often overlook the impact of the Yom Kippur War on the idea of CAS in a near-peer environment,” the Air Force official said—near-peer being a military jargon for well-equipped and trained forces like those of Russia or China.

Israel’s losses during the Yom Kippur led the U.S. government to begin a frantic effort to replace the planes that were mercilessly shot out of the sky. Instead of using slow, low flying planes to support ground troops Israel began deploying the supersonic Mach 2-capable F-4 Phantom II for that role. “Yom Kippur lead to Operation Nickel Grass in which the U.S. replaced nearly half of Israel’s ‘low and slow’ CAS capability destroyed by SA-6 [surface-air-missiles], which didn’t change the fact that the IDF [Israel Defense Force] had already switched to ‘fast-CAS’ with the F-4 in response.”

Even to this day, Israel uses fast sophisticated supersonic fighters like the F-15 and F-16 to support its ground forces—just like the majority of the U.S. Air Force’s missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the service often uses everything including B-1 and B-52 bombers to F-15E Strike Eagle fighters to support ground forces, the official said.

The Air Force, the official said, does not “hate” the Warthog as many critics have charged. The service is “being prudently skeptical about the resiliency of an aircraft merely designed to suffer ZSU-23 [radar-guided anti-aircraft guns] and SA-7 [shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile] threats,” the Air Force official said.

Simply put, the Air Force does not believe that an aircraft like the A-10, which was designed to survive in an era before long-range, high performance guided missiles were commonplace, can survive during future conflicts.

The Air Force official reiterated that modern enemy missiles are far more deadly than the weapons the A-10 was designed to face. “SA-6s are the least of our concerns for CAS in the modern age of surface-to-air missile system proliferation,” the official said.

Proponents of the Warthog, however, argue that the ageing plane has no equal in supporting troops on the ground. “You've got a purpose-built airplane with the survivability, firepower and loiter time to cripple ISIS mobility,” said one veteran former U.S. Army Apache gunship aviator. Yes, the plane is vulnerable to ground fire. But it’s also super tough. “There's the survivability to take into account, too, which negates a lot of that vulnerability.”
Click to expand...
 
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? :rolleyes: 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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

That goat rodeo is squarely in the hands of the aviators planning and lobbying for the mission. Their leadership failed them.
 
Freefalling said:
That goat rodeo is squarely in the hands of the aviators planning and lobbying for the mission. Their leadership failed them.
Click to expand...


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.
 
pardus said:
I would turn the entire A-10 program over to the Army and Marines.
Click to expand...

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...8-)

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)
 
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar threads

pardus
New Army Rules for Tattoos, Grooming On the Way
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
18K
Brill
Brill
Ravage
NIGHT STALKER LEAD: From the Air, Delivering, Protecting and Extracting SOF Warriors
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ravage
Ravage
Back
Top