Posted on 12/01/2014 9:17:03 AM PST by george76
A large association of battlefield target spotters has written to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to oppose the planned retirement of A-10 Warthog strike jets a debate that now encompasses the friendly fire deaths of five American soldiers in Afghanistan.
The A-10 endorsement from the Tactical Air Control Party Association is significant because, outside of the Warthogs pilots themselves, perhaps no other warriors know its ability to protect ground troops under fire better than the ground controllers who guide it to enemy targets.
...
The five fatalities occurred on June 9, when a B-1B strategic bomber a planned replacement for the A-10 dropped a 500-pound bomb squarely onto U.S. soldiers protecting a helicopter landing zone.
An investigation showed the flight crew lacked basic knowledge about the bombers sensors, which did not have the capability to detect friendly infrared strobes worn by soldiers that night. Not knowing the sensors limitations and not seeing any strobes, the crew unleashed the deadly bomb.
...
The Air Force is sticking by its guns, portraying the Warthog as a limited aircraft ... The Air Force retired 61 A-10s in 2013 and now operates 283.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I used to watch them operating at edwards. Awesome to watch. I worked on the B1-B project. I have no clue why they would consider it a replacement to the A-10. It can go really fast right on the deck...
The A-10 doesn’t do near vertical dives. No one does.
Let me know when you figure out how to put the Gatling gun on a drone.
L
Not any more. But some of the most fearsome CAS aircraft did, back in the day.
I'm not sure you need a 30mm depleted uranium shell to shred Toyota pickups. As my Dad used to say, use the right tool for the job. I'm sure a Predator could be fitted with 50 cal?
ISIS has tanks and APCs, too.
It’s elementary:
Politicians don’t get big contributions and kickbacks for sticking with weapons systems already designed and built.
They do get big contributions and kickbacks for handing out new multi-million dollar contracts for R & D and multi-billion dollar contracts to build new systems.
The Air Force never wanted the ground support role. The planes and mission should be turned over to the Army ASAP.
The B-1 does need twice the engines to take off.
There are high explosive incendiary (non-depleted uranium) rounds for the 30mm cannon. Should work on those Toyotas just fine. Like a fire hose of rifle grenades.
It is an excellent ground support aircraft but as noted earlier, the Air Force hates ground support missions. I remember only too well how dangerous it was to ask for USAF close air in Vietnam. We were lucky if they hit within a kilometer of where we asked and didn't hit us in the process.
For competent and effect close air support, there is no substitute for Marine aviation.
So-’s the B-52, but it gets the job done, admirably.
To some extent it’s sending a man to do a boy’s job.
And of course using a B-1 is even dumber.
I would think our vehicles would have some sort of transponder on them now—something that would shout out” Dont shoot me.
But, I am sure there are a million reasons why they wouldn’t.
They fly too high for a machine gun to be effective.
And if they flew low, they would be too slow.
The kickback stories were used for these systems and every new system I can remember since the 1970's.
The A-10 and F-14 (Yes, I know the latter was Navy), are the best damn milcraft for their respective roles.
The F-35 (flying anvil) OTOH is useless for anything — the F-16 can do the same at a fraction of the cost.
Maybe the answer is to turn the A-10 into an unmanned platform. That way the Pentagon folks would have their “high tech” stuff.
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.