Posted on 01/29/2009 4:37:49 AM PST by markomalley
Its nickname is “warthog.”
That’s the first clue that flying an A-10 is not the Air Force’s most glamorous mission.
It’s 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 Force’s 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.)
“It’s the reality of the time that we’re living in now; the fight that’s 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 “didn’t 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, it’s 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 doesn’t 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 can’t adapt. It can and does.
And, added Michael O’Hanlon, 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.”
The last new one was delivered in 1984. In 2007 Boeing won a contract to build 242 new sets of wings for the A-10 fleet. Supposedly they will stay in service till 2028.
Beg to differ. Read up on a guy named “Hans-Ulrich Rudel.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
He wasn't a nice guy (he was Nazi's Nazi...) but he was definitely a ground support “ace” and he had input on the design of the A-10.
A pod of laser-guided 2.75s would be nice for engaging enemy personnel.
I didn't know that either. Neat. I always thought the A-10 was just a great no-nonsense looking aircraft.
Folks on this thread don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground.
The A-10 HAS been upgraded! The changes were significant enough to rename it the A-10”C”!
However, that doesn’t mean it is always the best at CAS. “Bombs on target” quickly and accurately is better than watching a plane fly close to you. Years ago, you HAD to get close to be accurate. I know - I lived those days.
Targeting pods and PGMs have changed reality. With a targeting pod, you can see the target better at 15000 feet than you can flying a plane at 200’. In addition, with ROVER, the ground guys can point out exactly what they want you to hit, reducing blue-on-blue accidents. And with PGMs, you can put the bombs on the bad guys more accurately at 10,000 feet than you can dropping at 200’.
THAT is the reality NOW. And in a place like Afghanistan, where the bad guys pick the local to fight, a fast moving F-15/16 can orbit near the scene, and quickly arrive in position to support the troops in contact. That is faster than an A-10, and allows a few planes to support ground commanders over a broader area.
Thanks for the update....glad to hear someone in DOD was allowed to invest into some common sense. The Falcon has been the USAF’s workhorse for years....awesome aircraft. The Eagle is the quick accurate heavyweight no enemy wants to go head to head with......hated to see the Tomcat retired. Best long ranged multiple target fighter the Navy has every used.
And don’t forget about the modded Global Hawks flying long range single wery high value target missions. The Biting Bloodhound.
Yes, there’s something about women in flight suits.
;-)
I’ll bet you did!
I used to enjoy watching them play while shooting touch ‘n goes on the weekend.
The sniper in the picture is Snr. Armn. Polly-Jan Bobseine.
She’s so cute.
Is the entire base painted in Earth Tones?
The A-10 is brilliant for this war. But will it be brilliant for the next war, the war against the nuclear-armed Chinese? You have to be prepared for the next war. Playing catchup is a loser’s strategy.
The A-10 HAS been upgraded with new avionics and weapons systems! That is why it is now the A-10C. Work started years ago - BEFORE 9/11!
Also, with modern targeting pods and precision bombs, an F-15E/F-16 can hit the CAS target from 20,000’ as accurately - or MORE - than an A-10 at 200’.
Too bad you don’t understand that Vietnam was 40 years ago. An F-15E at 20,000 feet is very quiet from the ground...
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.