The A-10 and the Apache

Charles T. Booher | June 12, 2003 | Charles T. Booher

[BioForce1]

I am not a military expert. To the extent I have military opinions I am certain that there are a lot of people who have better informed opinions about military issues than I do and I respect them for their expertise in this vital field of human endeavor. I am sorry if my thoughts on the war and how it is going are not as well informed or give offence to those who know more about military issues as I do.  I have always been pro-military my entire life, and I have been in the 30 to 37 percent tax bracket since I graduated from college.  When my father got out of law school he was only in the 5% tax bracket his first year, and it took him 20 years to get to the same tax bracket I was in when I got out of college.  I am glad that all that tax money went to pay for the worlds greatest military machine and I grateful that I am getting my money’s worth out of that tax bill now that this very just and noble war is being fought with such courage and competence by our military in Iraq.

That being said I just got up this morning to learn that yet another Apache helicopter has been shot down in Iraq. The crew was rescued and none of our brave soldiers were captured or injured, but scratch another $30 million dollars of tax money, and right now because my job in high tech has been exported to India and China and I am hoping I can scratch up a mortgage payment in the next couple of months.  This US taxpayer has not paid much income tax since my job was exported almost a year ago and given this fact I am anxious to find a cheaper way for the US military to annihilate the remaining Baathist thugs who still terrorize the cradle of civilization. The US military has been having a lot of problems with attack helicopters being shot down and it seems to me that maybe the military needs to rethink the concept of the attack helicopter and come up with a new way to put deadly fire on an enemy that is engaging US ground forces in close proximity.  

I believe that much of the problem is that our close air support platforms are too oriented around destroying tanks and it seems to me that the US military has the best ground based tank busters in existence and that there has been a negligence in the area of close air support against lightly armed enemy ground forces.

Here is an Idea:

Take the A-10 and instead of its main cannon firing depleted uranium armor piercing shells, let us develop a new type of ammunition for the A-10 main gun that would be some kind of proximity fused fragmentation grenade that would create hell on Earth for any enemy fighting US soldiers on the ground.  A whole bunch of helicopters have been shot down in this war, but only one A-10 has been shot down, and none of the other types of aircraft the US is using has been shot down in the war with Iraq.  The attack helicopter looks to be a very delicate butterfly on the battlefield. I know that helicopters will have a role in transporting troops and materials until the Osprey is perfected and deployed, which is something I think should happen soon.  The US military needs to come up with some new kind of Air Artillery that is not so vulnerable to enemy ground fire, and I would like to see this happen fast.  The various branches of the military should put away their rivalries and build a next generation close air support weapon platform that is not so easily shot down by rifles and RPG fire.  Maybe the A-10 weapon systems can be re-configured and this fine airplane can be transformed to perform the missions that the attack helicopters have been doing.  The A-10 has enough hard points that it could carry the same 2.75-inch rockets that the Apache carries. 

My hope is that the remaining pockets of Baathist gangsters are totally wiped out before such a weapon can be developed and deployed, but I am more than willing as a taxpayer to spend whatever it takes to be certain that our military is equipped to destroy any other military stupid enough to fight the USA.  My sincere wish is that we achieve this noble goal with a minimum expenditure of tax money and that the USA will continue to have the best military the world has ever seen for the foreseeable future even if the bulk of our future civilian high technology experts are located in India and China.

 

 

[Cacophonous]

It's an interesting idea, and not without merit, but one of the hurdeles is in inter-service rivalry: the A-10 is and Air Force asset, and the Apache is the Army's. They don't always play well together. I know the AF has been talking about getting rid of the Warthog because it's not sleek and sexy (my favorite plane; looks like something two bubbas put together in their garage one weekend), but the Army likes it for ground support. My solution is to have the Army stand up 5 or 6 A-10 squadrons. But that won't happen either.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I love the A-10! You don't hear about the mission of this aircraft much, usually frontline support and anti-armor.

The 30mm cannon is very impressive when firing!

[boris]

I concur with one point made in your post: you are not a military expert.

--Boris

[Rodney King]

That being said I just got up this morning to learn that yet another Apache helicopter has been shot down in Iraq. The crew was rescued and none of our brave soldiers were captured or injured, but scratch another $30 million dollars of tax money

I think that your concept of cost is off. What would it cost if we did not have the Apache's? How many men and how much time would it take to perform the same mission?

Your idea for the A-10 had no merit, because there are mission profiles that require super slow movement and or hovering, which of course the A-10 is not able to do.

[Koblenz]

One of the big problems with today's military is that there are only 3 companies that can produce military aircraft, down from 11 or 12 in the 1950s and 1960s. Thus, the military must rely heavily on one type of aircraft, and there isn't the R&D competition there once was.

[joesnuffy]

Just refit Cobras like the Marines have
A-10s dont get shot down much because they are flying tanks..
The Osprey is a money pit - imo

[Reeses]

I have been in the 30 to 37 percent tax bracket since I graduated from college. When my father got out of law school he was only in the 5% tax bracket

When your father got out of school there wasn't a 37% tax bracket. You pay 37% because you live in a socialist world now.

[ken5050]

The "problem" as you so delicately phrase it, goes back to the post WW II Key West agreement, in which the newly formed USAF was given responsibility for airpower, and for meeting the airpower and airtransport needs of the Army. and the Army was allowed to keep choppers, basically because the AF figured they'd never amount to anything in combat. The USAF vigorously opposed the first attempts to fit rockets on choppers.....some wags state that the AF's sole opposition to choppers is that the Army doesn't require you to be an officer to fly one...

[tbpiper]

The attack helicopter is more like a wasp than a butterfy. They can be swatted, yes, but they're pretty damn tough and can do things that the A-10's can't. They can sneak into hostile territory, land and wait, etc. They can conduct a very 'up close and personal' war.

I agree with Cacophonous that the A-10's would be great in the Army (Hey! Maybe they could set up an Army Air Corps!...or has that been done aready?)

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

but scratch another $30 million dollars

Check a price guide: ~$14.5 million per unit cost for an AH-64A, ~$18 million per unit cost for an AH-64D. No report yet if the aircraft is repairable or is a total loss.

Total helicopters destroyed in the Vietnam War was 5,086 out of 11,827. Total number of helicopters destroyed in Operation Iraqi Freedom < 20.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

A large part of the problem is that neither the Apache nor the A-10 is meant to be used alone. The Army, due to the current civilian leadership and untested urban warfare ideas, has yet to decide the current and future use of the field artillery. Artillery is the way we have supported forward air assets in the past. When low and slow air assets are exposed in forward areas without close ground support, they get shot down. This is a fact of life, the Pentagon knows it but has yet to determine how to deal with it.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I'm hoping to buy an A-10 if they sell them off at surplus. I'm having trouble with woodchucks.

[Reeses]

Another approach is robotic warriors. Not only could they be smaller and cheaper, they are inhumanly fearless and come with zero political cost when they are killed.

[donmeaker]

The A-10 already has 30mm fragmentation rounds, called HEI for High Explosive Incendary. These work well against personnel. There are also cluster bombs, which are lots of little grenades. Cluster bombs work well in urban areas, in that they don't make large buildings structurally unsound like larger bombs. The problem is they have a high dud rate. and look enough like balls that the US gets lots of bad publicity when a kid is injured by them. The point is the US has great antipersonnel capability. What then is the problem?

The problem is: Tough to see the spots on the leopard from 4,000 feet up and 300 mph. Getting the A-10 from an airstrip to the fight leads to a delay, and the enemy can do his work before the A-10 can respond, then run away.

One way to think about this is the OODA cycle or Boyd cycle. There are many sources for this on the net, but the short decription is :each combatant has to Observe the situation, Orient yourself, Decide what to do, and Act. If you can go through the OODA cycle faster than your enemy, then you win. The Iraqi thugs, and Al Queda for that matter, take their time in the covert OOD phase, and then shoot and scoot, forcing our boys to go through the whole cycle as the thugs only do one part.

Given these tactics, I can think of two responses:

1. better vehicle and body armor:reduces the ability of the enemy to act effectively. That is why the Bosnian Peacekeepers went in with heavy armor units against Serbian thugs. Part of this will be policeing up RPGs, but leaving folks with AK-47s which don't work against Kevlar, but do work against thugs.

2. better pursuit after the action begins, to keep the enemy from breaking contact. That is where the attack helicopters come in. Unmanned Aircraft would also be useful, to follow, and point out the enemy for fire. Ideal would be to follow all the way back to the base camp.

There are other options, but LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS.

[mbynack]

I spent 22 years in the AF and worked with the A-10s when they first came into the inventory. Both the A-10 and attack helicopters have strengths and weaknesses and one isn't a replacement for the other.

The A-10 requires runways to operate, can't hover, and has to maintain airspeed of over 100 mph to stay in the air. On the other hand, it does have anti-personnel capability in the form of cluster bombs, and fragmentation bombs. It can carry a huge load of dozens of different types of weapons. It's not nearly as susceptible to ground fire as the helicopters.

The attack helicopters are more suited to the anti personnel role because they can fly low and slow and have mini-guns. Unfortunately slow speed and low altitude makes them easier to shoot down. They’re really effective at supporting armor and ground movements because they can stay with the units that they’re supporting and can go places that the A-10 can’t (i.e., into canyons and under bridges.)

Both platforms are very good at what they’re designed for, but they aren’t interchangeable.

[banjo joe]

You pay 37% because you live in a socialist world now.

Yep. And it looks like Stalin's clone is already on the scene.

[Cacophonous]

Actually, I called it a "hurdle", and only one of many.

You are right; I think a review of the interactions between the services is required. In 1947, when the AF was formed, we also removed the requirement of a War Department (and the financial commitments that go along with it) to commit troops. Hence all services became combat, when in reality, air power is better suited to support ground troops (like the Apache and A-10 do). I still contend that while air (and naval) superiority can be a decisive factor in a war, a nation cannot win a war without grunts; hence all other services should be to support the Army.

My own personal opinions, worth precisely nothing...

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Cacophonous]

I use spudzookas on woodchucks...