Posted on 12/01/2014 9:17:03 AM PST by george76
My SIL works on the F-35, I will say it’s a great employment program for engineers, LOL.
I wouldn’t be so dismissive of “jet jockeys”. I’ve never met an A-10 pilot who didn’t LOVE flying the Warthog.
“The Air Force is sticking by its guns, portraying the Warthog as a limited aircraft ...”
Head firmly planted between their buttcheeks I see.
Would be nice to stick those in charge out under direct enemy contact, have them call for CAS and be told, “we have no warthogs because of you. But we do have saturation bombers!”
Transfer all the A-10 squadrons and budgets to the Army Marines
They once insisted that the F-16 could replace the warthog.
Guess they watched the training montage for Iron Eagle one too many times.
GIVE THEM TO THE MARINES!.........................
The F-16s with the 30mm pods (NY ANG) lasted a *single* day in combat during Desert Storm before ditching the pods in favor of a fuel tank and Rockeyes.
Hugh, even!
I was flying and mission ready in 1985, and no one was doing vertical dives back then.
We did do 45 deg dives, but those were inaccurate and terrible for target acquisition and ID.
Folks also ought to remember that fratricide happened with A-10s as well.
“On September 4 [2006] there was a friendly fire incident. U.S. warplanes mistakenly strafed Charles Company, as they were preparing to once again attack Pashmul. The A-10 killed one soldier and wounded at least 30, five of whom were seriously wounded. NATO said the friendly fire incident happened after ground troops battling Taliban militants requested air support. “Two USAF aircraft provided the support but regrettably engaged friendly forces during a strafing run, using cannons,” NATO said in a statement. NATO later identified the planes as US A-10 Thunderbolt II. The friendly fire incident essentially rendered C Company combat ineffective.”
And Army helicopters:
“The officers mistook the soldiers’ mud-walled compound for an enemy position and called down a U.S. Apache airstrike on the base. Roney was fatally shot in the head after a helicopter gunship opened fire on the base. He died later the next day after being taken to Camp Bastion. Eleven other British soldiers were wounded in the attack.”
B-1s are not normally used for CAS, but they would have tremendous loiter time. With faster moving aircraft, you can also hold them between several fights and send them to the fight that makes the most sense at any given moment.
Even at A-10 speeds, target ID at a low angle is tougher than it is from up higher, unless you get high enough that magnification becomes a problem. With modern targeting pods, lots of magnification is available - kind of like being 4 miles above with very powerful and stable binoculars.
Something like ROVER is also helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROVER
FWIW, I did do a little bit of work on the A-10C program - way out on the periphery & the organization I was with eventually got out of it entirely (over my objections), but I’m not anti-A10. Not with DM being the base closest to me...
Here;s an interesting piece from a defense journal:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/
As far as drone are concerned, the A10 can carry more and linger on target longer. Also, true eyes, real eyes on the target are better than camera images any day. Carry remotes in the field and all the sophisticated equipment needed to operate a drone is simply not very practical. Also, this equipment is hardly Marine proof, the environment in which this equipment would need to operate is harsh. Further, more than one guy could call in fire on target, with a drone, it would essentially be limited to one operator, lose him or his equipment and you are in a world of hurt.
The article I post above discusses how single role weapons are not desirable. The air force wants long range/fighter bombers. They do not revel in close support, but when it comes down to it, close air is all that matters. There is no one who can threaten us in the air, and distant bombing isn’t going to do the trick with insurgents. As we are seeing with ISIS and we have seen in the past you cannot control an area by air superiority alone.
Another element of this is that Boyd pushed this through while the Air Force brass was sleeping and dreaming over the B1 and F15, neither of which can hang over troops in need. There is a lingering resentment over this air craft which has been a fantastic piece of equipment. Also, dual role aircraft tend not to be very good at either role. I think of the dual purpose cross country down hill skis they had us use in the Marine Corps, essentially they were equally sucky in both roles.
Tank plinking. After the sun set the tanks’ metal cooled slower than the surrounding desert, making them stand out on the ‘Vark’s Pave Tack IR/laser designation unit. Easy pickings with 500lb laser guided bombs.
The A-10s now carry LITENING and SNIPER pods, that perform the same function (but with 20 years tech advancement) as Pave Tack. They also carry JDAM.
Lots of folks carry SNIPER and LITENING now. That is the point. They give the ability, with PGMs, of getting BETTER target ID and hits than going in low does. Add ROVER or an equivalent system, and there is no excuse for the JTAC and the bomber not being on the same page.
But when the JTAC screws up - as the one did in this incident - then things will be bad.
And yet the F-16 was still put out as a viable CAS aircraft after that.
Amazing to think about.
I did back when I drank alcohol.
Seriesly hugh!
The Navy is going ahead with procuring 109 P-8s* that cannot do ASW. At least there is little chance of friendly fire casualties during ASW.
* number dependent upon money; I suspect maybe 40 will be built
PGM’s like LGBs, JDAMs and SDB can do the CAS role well.
It is the delivery of ordnance close to friendlies that defines CAS.
Why fly low and get shot at by all the gomers with a gun when you can fly at medium altitude and deliver the same ordnance with the same accuracy.
Flying low is a cool airshow but altitude is driven by many factors, ordnance type, weather and the A/A threat.
I am a former FAC with the 1-01st and a former A-10 driver, so my heart is in CAS, I know the mission. I prefer A-10’s because they can stay around the tgt-area long enough to affect the battle, and the gun gives them a huge punch, either from a 12,000’ high altitude strafe run or 12,000 slant-range low altitude run. The B-1s were either dropping unguided and did not tgt the area correctly, or they dropped JDAMs and had the wrong GPS coords programmed. Don't know.
Please see my Post 57.
Agree with Mr Rogers.
Ahhh. . .not according to the GWAPS.
Gonna go a little snarky here. . .not mean, just snark:
You have never flow CAS, have you. You have never delivered ordnance have you. Tgt are moving, the same color, and you are miles away when the FAC brings you in, trying to talk your eyes onto the tgt. The closer you get the more refined the descriptions but make no mistake, until you practically fly over a tank/APC/whatever, it is darned near impossible to tell what sort of tgt it was. . .even with as "large" flag on it. But I agree, that's why there is no excuse for a soldier engaged in friendly fire if he can't tell a US from a bad guy, and the US guy is even wearing a flag.
"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"
Yeah. . .50-yrs have passed and no changes in ordnance, tgt ID, weaponeering, CAS protocols. . . .Ordnance and tgt-ID is a bear. . but I bet you loved the A-1.
A/A medal of honor winners in Vietnam: 0
A/G medal of honor winners in Vietnam: 5
“Large” flags/markers are great for helos but not for jets.
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.