Posted on 01/29/2009 4:37:49 AM PST by markomalley
Its nickname is warthog.
Thats the first clue that flying an A-10 is not the Air Forces most glamorous mission.
Its designed to support ground troops, not to engage in the dogfighting that makes up the pop culture image of air combat.
The wars in the Middle East, though, have made close-air support bombing targets near troops one of the Air Forces top missions.
The A-10 was not the most sexy, popular weapon system the Air Force had,said Lt. Col. Paul Johnson, the 414th Combat Training Squadron director of operations at Nellis Air Force Base. But now since we invaded Afghanistan and we invaded Iraq, that is the mission du jour.
Training, in turn, is adapting.
As a trial, the Air Force is adding a week of training on close-air support to the upcoming Red Flag, the aerial combat exercise run by Nellis. (This is in addition to Green Flag, an ever-evolving, joint exercise with ground forces that prepares units for deployment and focuses on close-air support.)
Its the reality of the time that were living in now; the fight thats happening now, Johnson said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others perceived a reluctance by the Air Force to shift focus to missions tailored for irregular warfare, such as close-air support, intelligence collection and troop movement.
Many just didnt think the Air Force was getting it, according to Jeffrey White, a former, longtime military-capabilities analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Dominated by fighter pilots, Air Force leadership is sometimes derided by critics as fly boys or the fighter mafia. The service, the criticism goes, is interested only in the glamorous missions. And now that unconventional warfare is the dominant fight, some say the Air Force is only begrudgingly fulfilling its role.
There are no aces for flying ground support, White said.
The tension over priorities reflects a decades-long philosophical debate about the role of the Air Force: What mission should be predominant?
Gates, who never undermines the significant contribution the Air Force makes to the wars, has been pushing hard for more emphasis on intelligence collection using unmanned drones (much of which is done out of Creech Air Force Base, north of Las Vegas).
Last spring he vented publicly and forcefully, particularly toward the Air Force, that senior military leaders were stuck in old ways of doing business.
Shortly thereafter, and following a report detailing the erosion of the nuclear weapons program, Gates in an unprecedented action fired both the civilian Air Force secretary and the Air Force chief of staff.
Although the nuclear weapons issue is a valid reason alone for the firings, its telling that Gates then appointed as chief of staff a general who lacks a call sign, making it the first time the head of the Air Force doesnt have a fighter or bomber pilot pedigree. Instead, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz has a background in transportation command and is more joint-forces minded.
Still, it would be wrong, White said, to paint the service as a dogmatic bureaucracy that cant adapt. It can and does.
And, added Michael OHanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, the air-air and intense air-ground missions are still there, still driving most force structure, still absorbing most modernization dollars not for these wars, but for deterrence and possible future wars.
Success comes down to achieving a balance between the current needs and the ability to handle future threats. The Air Force would be called on to rapidly wage conventional air warfare if, say, things went bad with Iran or North Korea, White said.
Regardless, now A-10 pilots have a little more cachet, or as Johnson put it, hair on their chest.
One of the things I liked about Rumsfled was that he worked on pushing the military out of its Cold War mind set. As my brother-in-law (Army) put it, the Army was run by a bunch of colonels and generals who were trained to fight Soviet tanks in Germany and not insurgents in Kandahar.
Without a doubt, the best in close ground support aircraft to ever fly, PERIOD. If politico’s and DOD contractor execs would stop with their greed, such aircraft could easily be improved upon w/ regards to avionics, weapons systems and performance. No need to change the armor on this aircraft unless it is lighter weight and performs like that on the Abrahams.
‘There is nothing more sexy to the guys (and girls) on the ground as a hog in the air.’
That’s true! And an AC-130 as well!
One type of aircraft is useless without the other. The A-10 can't fly in an environment where we don't have air superiority and the air-to-air planes can't take and hold the ground.
We will always disagree on this one.
So I’ve been told.
Alas, they won’t look to either of us for sound advice.
Yepperdoodle, good thing we got them there zoomies to keep the Taliban Air Force off our A-10s.
No wait....
Go Ugly Early bttt
No need to engage in revisionist history. There were quite a few other platforms involved in that turkey shoot, particularly Marine TACAIR. I suggest you speak with the F/A-18D FastFAC aircrews who were coordinating the strikes for the real gouge.
So does the Army.
Only in a low threat environment, otherwise the A-10 is extremely vulnerable to MANPADS and AAA. Little known fact; during Desert Storm the Air Force lost more A-10s to those threats than the Marine Corps lost AV-8Bs.
We also need a UAV with a big Gatling that can act as a "mini-me" A-10.
Carefull, or else A.A.Cunningham will start calling you a Zoomie Kool-Aid drinker!
</sarc>
You hit it.
Most people think the A-10 is capable of flying in an unattrited atmosphere, and it’s clearly not.
During ODS, the A-10 never intentionally flew in contested airspace or in an ADA environment. Fast movers usually cleared out ADA before the A-10 went to work.
When it was hit, it survived.
But, it was hit by the remaining ADA assets and not by the brunt of what existed before F-16s cleared the kill box.
The A-10 may be doing great in Afghanistan, but too many extrapolate its capabilities to other conflicts, or fail to see what future conflicts may bring.
This plane needs some more stores on the wings:-)
Back to mines of salt I must go.
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
Why a gun at all?
Newer UAV are carrying Hellfires, can carry the SDB, and there’s even a laser-guided 2.75” rocket now available.
Carrying a heavy gun with tons of dumb munitions is counterproductive for that kind of work. Especially when it requires the UAV to orient and close in with the target. Hellfires and rockets don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.