“The Air Force is sticking by its guns, portraying the Warthog as a limited aircraft ...’
The jet jockeys hate to fly “low and slow” even if it provides the best support. If they don’t want to fly them then they should bring back the Army and Marine pilots to fly them.
The Air Force only wants the latest gee-whiz stealth zoomie that costs $300 million each. Transfer all the A-10 squadrons and budgets to the Army and tell the AF generals to pound sand.
I have a 30 minute tape of two A-10s maneuvering near Eglin AFB. This was with an old VHS-c compact video camera.
They were fascinating to watch. The closest thing to compare to them is a WACO stunt plane or maybe a crop duster.
I know they have a lot of armor protecting the pilot and engines etc. but they also look like they would be really vulnerable to hand held antiaircraft missiles.
There is no replacement for the Warthog. Period.
We still need them.
How anyone could think a B1 could replace it is beyond me.
“...a B-1B strategic bomber — a planned replacement for the A-10...”
Huh? I have no military background, but that doesn’t make any sense to me.
'Loose lips sink ships'
So, sending a B1 bomber from England or Missouri is a replacement for a close air support and anti tank plane?
In what universe is that a reality. Did they install Ford Eco-boost engines in the B1? Or are they being housed in Afghanistan now?
Good grief!! Let's see who can stay on a target longer and deliver the goods accurately
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.
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.
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.
“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!”
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.
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
I’ve always envisioned the A-10 as an Army platform. Tank killers.
Active Duty ping.