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

[Kraut783]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Etype]

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]

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]

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]

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

-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.

 

[mb]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mb]

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.