Of course they want to retire it. It's useless for funneling money to industry cronies because it's an already developed and built system. It doesn't rely on fancy, exotic materials or electronics.
They talk about wanting to allocate maintenance budgets into replacement aircraft? They could probably strip every A-10 down to the airframe and replace all the engines, avionics, and flight control systems, resulting in virtually new aircraft, for a fraction of what they plan to drop on the F-35.
The Air Force generals say the F-35 can do the same job as the A=10. What do the grunts say? How will the F-35 be better than the F-16, which is not as good for ground support? As a scientist (biologist) I say show me empirical data instead of asking me to take your word for it.
The A-10 "Warthog" is a product of Republic Aircraft. It embodies Republic's tradition of versatility , toughness and survivability. But to the USAF its always been an unwanted stepchild.
"Back when" the CW ETO NATO forces faced an enemy superior in land attack. Out of this quandary came two weapons systems. The M-1 Abrams tank. And the A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft which was literally a flying tank built around 37mm gatling cannon. The USA wanted control of both systems. The USAF didn't want the Army to have any fixed wing attack assets. The army got its tank. The USAF got the Warthog - which it promptly "retired" as soon as the cold war turned tepid. But then Desert Storm intervened.
Tactical analysis revealed a need for a long-loiter heavily-armed ground attack aircraft to pair up with untested Army rotary wing anti-armor attack assets. A crash program put "on the shelf" digital electronics into mothballed A-10s. Field mods and operational improvisations further enhanced the "Hog's" combat effectiveness.
CSA needs two attributes above all others. Long loiter time and the ability to "stay in contact" . Thanks to its slow(er) speed the A-10's turn radius keeps it close by. Its big wing has lots of room for external stores. And there's always that canon. >Jeff
Spending your flying career in support of the Army is not the path to generals stars. You need to spend it training to fight MiG's weather you ever see one or not.
The Army would sell their sisters for that plane, but they can't have it because the Air Force has a quasi-monopoly on fixed wing aircraft.
The A10 is cool but it is time for it to go. Despite the armor it is slow enough that it is not survivable against current threats. It cannot self protect, and can only do CAS in a low threat environment like the spectre gunship. It taks a long time to get to where the contact is. Modern fighters like the F-15e can carry more weapons, respond faster, are more survivable, can self escort, have longer range, and can see just as well since everyone is dropping precision weapons via the same target pod these days.
Anon 7:54, what you don't know about close air/ground support would fill a book. I've actually HAD that plane support me, and there is nothing that could replace it, except a new version of the same thing. No, it AIN'T time for it to go. It can't self protect, yeah, that's hot one. Did you notice in the film you didn't watch when it was dropping those flares that dissuade ground to air missiles? What would you call a 30mm cannon? Harsh language? Your lack of faith in the A-10 I find disturbing, like your lack of trigger time as a grunt. Ask the man with the rifle, he knows. We should get 300 more, and upgrade the lot of them.
Sean, having flown over 70 CAS missions myself in two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do in fact know what I'm talking about. We are on the same side here. I get your emotional attachment to the aircraft, but what I am saying is true. Flares are good against heat seeking threats only, like manpads. The A10 can only be employed in areas where other fighters have cleared the area of radar guided threats. If your unit was in contact, why would you not want the aircraft that can get to you literally twice as fast with more weapons when it gets there? Again, they will use the EXACT SAME target pod to drop precision ordnance with- NOBODY does visual bombs anymore and believe me you don't want them to. I get it. Everybody wants to keep them because they were purpose built for CAS...but every word of what I said is indisputable fact...It isn't a matter of faith...it is a matter of facts. In this case, the man with the rifle doesn't know what he doesn't know. If there were radar threats in that area your a10 wouldnt even have been allowed to go to your location. The REAL problem with CAS these days are the ROEs...which are written by senior ground commanders who don't want to risk having to answer for "excessive use of force" as if such a thing could even exist in battle. We landed every day with bombs on the jet that should have been dropped but weren't because we couldn't get cleared hot by ground command. That's not the grunts fault, not the JTACs fault, not my fault, it's some general's fault with more politician than warfighter in him. You want to fix CAS, fix that problem. It ain't the airplanes you need to worry about-that's our profession and we know it well- it's your senior leadership.
The A-10 reminds me of another aircraft that served ground troops well, the A-1 Douglas Skyraider.
It had the same abilities to loiter over the battlefield, provide accurate fire where needed, and my recollection is that it was heavily armored with protective material for the pilot.
It seems that the F-35 is supposed to fill too many roles, to satisfy the desires of too many generals. The end result would be an aircraft that does nothing well, but sufficiently lines the pockets of defense contractors with cash.
Why not update the Warthog with the ability to carry a couple of stand-off missiles, and associated radar. Does it drop ordnance? Our troops would definitely appreciate it, and the cost would be comparatively negligible, as the airframes are ready and paid for.
12 comments:
This is the plane I would loved to have flown when I was young.
Of course they want to retire it. It's useless for funneling money to industry cronies because it's an already developed and built system. It doesn't rely on fancy, exotic materials or electronics.
They talk about wanting to allocate maintenance budgets into replacement aircraft? They could probably strip every A-10 down to the airframe and replace all the engines, avionics, and flight control systems, resulting in virtually new aircraft, for a fraction of what they plan to drop on the F-35.
Look at the bright side. When the revolution comes, they won't have an A-10 left to use against us.
The Air Force generals say the F-35 can do the same job as the A=10. What do the grunts say? How will the F-35 be better than the F-16, which is not as good for ground support? As a scientist (biologist) I say show me empirical data instead of asking me to take your word for it.
The A-10 "Warthog" is a product of Republic Aircraft. It embodies Republic's tradition of versatility , toughness and survivability. But to the USAF its always been an unwanted stepchild.
"Back when" the CW ETO NATO forces faced an enemy superior in land attack. Out of this quandary came two weapons systems. The M-1 Abrams tank. And the A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft which was literally a flying tank built around 37mm gatling cannon. The USA wanted control of both systems. The USAF didn't want the Army to have any fixed wing attack assets. The army got its tank. The USAF got the Warthog - which it promptly "retired" as soon as the cold war turned tepid. But then Desert Storm intervened.
Tactical analysis revealed a need for a long-loiter heavily-armed ground attack aircraft to pair up with untested Army rotary wing anti-armor attack assets. A crash program put "on the shelf" digital electronics into mothballed A-10s. Field mods and operational improvisations further enhanced the "Hog's" combat effectiveness.
CSA needs two attributes above all others. Long loiter time and the ability to "stay in contact" . Thanks to its slow(er) speed the A-10's turn radius keeps it close by. Its big wing has lots of room for external stores. And there's always that canon. >Jeff
Spending your flying career in support of the Army is not the path to generals stars. You need to spend it training to fight MiG's weather you ever see one or not.
The Army would sell their sisters for that plane, but they can't have it because the Air Force has a quasi-monopoly on fixed wing aircraft.
The A10 is cool but it is time for it to go. Despite the armor it is slow enough that it is not survivable against current threats. It cannot self protect, and can only do CAS in a low threat environment like the spectre gunship. It taks a long time to get to where the contact is. Modern fighters like the F-15e can carry more weapons, respond faster, are more survivable, can self escort, have longer range, and can see just as well since everyone is dropping precision weapons via the same target pod these days.
"can only do CAS in a low-threat environment"?
Huh?
The A-10 was designed to fly into the teeth of the Warsaw Pact should it have ever headed west.
Look up "ZSU23-4".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4
The USAF should just transfer the A-10 to the USMC for CAS.
Anon 7:54, what you don't know about close air/ground support would fill a book. I've actually HAD that plane support me, and there is nothing that could replace it, except a new version of the same thing. No, it AIN'T time for it to go. It can't self protect, yeah, that's hot one. Did you notice in the film you didn't watch when it was dropping those flares that dissuade ground to air missiles? What would you call a 30mm cannon? Harsh language? Your lack of faith in the A-10 I find disturbing, like your lack of trigger time as a grunt. Ask the man with the rifle, he knows. We should get 300 more, and upgrade the lot of them.
Sean, having flown over 70 CAS missions myself in two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do in fact know what I'm talking about. We are on the same side here. I get your emotional attachment to the aircraft, but what I am saying is true. Flares are good against heat seeking threats only, like manpads. The A10 can only be employed in areas where other fighters have cleared the area of radar guided threats. If your unit was in contact, why would you not want the aircraft that can get to you literally twice as fast with more weapons when it gets there? Again, they will use the EXACT SAME target pod to drop precision ordnance with- NOBODY does visual bombs anymore and believe me you don't want them to.
I get it. Everybody wants to keep them because they were purpose built for CAS...but every word of what I said is indisputable fact...It isn't a matter of faith...it is a matter of facts. In this case, the man with the rifle doesn't know what he doesn't know. If there were radar threats in that area your a10 wouldnt even have been allowed to go to your location.
The REAL problem with CAS these days are the ROEs...which are written by senior ground commanders who don't want to risk having to answer for "excessive use of force" as if such a thing could even exist in battle. We landed every day with bombs on the jet that should have been dropped but weren't because we couldn't get cleared hot by ground command. That's not the grunts fault, not the JTACs fault, not my fault, it's some general's fault with more politician than warfighter in him. You want to fix CAS, fix that problem. It ain't the airplanes you need to worry about-that's our profession and we know it well- it's your senior leadership.
The A-10 reminds me of another aircraft that served ground troops well, the A-1 Douglas Skyraider.
It had the same abilities to loiter over the battlefield, provide accurate fire where needed, and my recollection is that it was heavily armored with protective material for the pilot.
It seems that the F-35 is supposed to fill too many roles, to satisfy the desires of too many generals. The end result would be an aircraft that does nothing well, but sufficiently lines the pockets of defense contractors with cash.
Why not update the Warthog with the ability to carry a couple of stand-off missiles, and associated radar. Does it drop ordnance? Our troops would definitely appreciate it, and the cost would be comparatively negligible, as the airframes are ready and paid for.
Post a Comment