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 Warthog’s 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 bomber’s 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 ...
“Limited” they mean basically a single mission aircraft: CAS.
Can do some battlefield BAI but when it comes to deep strike or A/A missions, not so much.
Did we fly Hogs together. . .RAF Bentwaters/Alconbury?
Yeah, true that.
The NY ANG (Boys from Syracuse) got the F-16 CAS mission because they were an A-10 unit that knew the mission. They traded their Warthogs for very early production F-16As with the 30mm gun pod.
A single day of combat ops with that told them it was unworkable. I mean, the big gun pod hanging in the F-16’s belly looked cool and all, but in operation it was basically a wide area spray weapon (not that the gun on the A-10 is a precision weapon). And Rockeyes/CBUs were a much better option.
...how well they handle ground support.”
In the end it always boils down to the infantry.
Bing, bing, bing! We have a winner.
The simple solution is if you aren't sure, don't drop. Those were our good kids down there and the pilot gets to live with the fact that they're dead, thanks to his lack of discipline/training/control. Being scared of ground fire is no excuse.
I have 27 years of combined arms experience, including both Marine Corps and Air Force FAC training. As for your "Vietnam was 50 years ago" excuse, I saw Marine and Navy F-4s nail pinpoint targets over and over and the A-4s were magnificent, pressing the attacks so low they flew through their own napalm burst. The Air Force couldn't approach that precision - and in August '66, bombed us near the DMZ, killing 27 Marines - despite air panels, flares and radio calls.
If the USAF is going to have a ground attack mission, they need to train a whole lot harder and get a lot lower.
You could always tell the Marine f-4 s .. they were the ones with elephant grass stuck in the bomb racks.
Would love to see them at New River. Miss seeing them fly overhead while they were at Willow Grove. Miss seeing anything fly overhead as I am temporarily away from home.
That's the right answer, but the Marines now salivate for the F-35 and the Army will not sacrifice their Helo budget.
I saw a flight demo with maneuvers like that in person at Godman Army Airfield at Fort Knox c. 1978. The Air Force was giving a day-long briefing to the Armor School Armor Officer Basic students on the A-10 that included the flight demo. There were also some great films of A-10s tearing up some old M-48s in the desert.
My dad used to play racquetball with the Air Force liaison officer at Knox, which is how I got to attend.
It amazes me as there is nothing in our inventory that can take the pounding the Warthog can and remain in the air.
I recall the F-16 being put out as the warthog replacement with this “logic”: “The Warthog is designed to take hits, the F-16 is designed to avoid them.”
A more flatulent piece of BS and wishful thinking I had never heard prior.
The Hog is designed for one task, just as fighters are designed for one task, and saturation bombers are designed for specifically that.
Hulka, you flew these things, what the heck is commands malfunction with getting rid of a can opener and trying to use a screwdriver for the same task?
Any insider insight on that?
There was an agreement in the past that fixed wing aircraft would “belong” to the airforce, the rotary wing stuff to the army.
So you will never see an Army Air Corps again.
” As for your “Vietnam was 50 years ago” excuse, I saw Marine and Navy F-4s nail pinpoint targets over and over...”
Sorry. I’ve got enough F-4 time to know that SOMETIMES F-4s nailed targets, and sometimes not. Guys with 3000+ hours tended to nail the target every time. Guys with 300 hrs, not so much.
“The Air Force couldn’t approach that precision...”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry. I also did a tour in a Navy squadron. It wasn’t doing bomb dropping, but they spent so much time practicing carrier landings that there wasn’t a lot left over for tactics. Good pilots and aviators, I respected them, I’m proud I had the chance to fly with them, but they were NOT BETTER aviators than the US Air Force pilots.
I’ve also controlled both from the ground as an ALO. Navy & Air Force both have outstanding pilots, and not so outstanding.
But dropping from higher altitudes with PGMs and modern targeting pods makes it MUCH EASIER to hit the target. I watched uncounted test missions on the new targeting pods. What they can do took my breath away.
Errors were made in all wars, by all services. But getting a bomb on target is easier now than it ever was, and air-ground coordination is vastly easier too. Heck, even the radios are just better now...
The "everybody makes mistakes" doesn't wash: when we got Marine Close Air, they nailed the enemy and they missed us. If we had the Air Force, they bombed from way up and sometimes got us. We take that personally. We weren't "just grunts" - we were some of the best people this country has to offer. There is no excuse for killing our own.
“when we got Marine Close Air, they nailed the enemy and they missed us. If we had the Air Force, they bombed from way up and sometimes got us.”
Hogwash! I flew with F-4 drivers who started in Vietnam. I’m well aware of the ‘scrape the bomb off’ theory of bombing. But only someone who is full of crap makes a statement like yours.
“The Air Force never wanted the ground support role.”
They just didn’t want the Army to have any aircraft with guns on them. Might show ‘em up, you know. The OV-1 was a great little great little ground support plane but we were ordered to remove the rocket pods and all we were allowed to use it for was recon. Of course, nobody objected to the Marines using their OV-10 in the ground attack role.
As far as being old age goes, in Vietnam the A-1E and A-26 were brought back for ground support, and the C-47 and C-119 were used as gunships and all did their jobs very well.
Air Force brass need to have windows installed in their stomachs so they can see where they’re going.
The last refuge, saying someone’s full of crap. I was there, you weren’t. I spent 17 months in combat and one year in the hospital afterward.
I remember everything just fine.
Call someone else names.
Good, maybe it's time the Navy Seals get an Air-Wing. Give them the A-10. They are the most Ad BAss guys on the planet, why not give them a Ad BAss airplane. Only after they give them to the Israeli's for a year or two to trick them out Israeli Style :-)...
I don’t care what you ‘remember’. This interservice rivalry stuff is horseshit, and those who push it are pushing horseshit!
I’ve always envisioned the A-10 as an Army platform. Tank killers.
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.