A-10 The ground pounders friend

[CB90]

I am a Viet Nam era vet that served aboard a destroyer.

Thanks for your service.

I see many titles of military people hear but none use there own names.

For all we know, you're really a 12 year old boy. It's easy to tell who knows what they're talking about, and you're not winning anybody over in that regard.

I also worked for a major airline for 32 years. I soloed at 16 with only 7 hours under may belt. I am now 63 years old and was up in an old A-T 6 a few years ago. The pilot said I was a natural born pilot. He let me do all the flying with help in the aerobatics. Loved every second of it. My stomach needed rest though. Also was up in a B-17 not too long ago. "Nine of Nine" I may not be a genius but not may hear are either.

Literally none of that is in any way relevant to the point you are trying to make or to the counterpoints that have been made. Stop wasting space.

I will end here about the A-10. The truth never wins over a Liberal mind.

Ad hominem attacks and assumptions about political affiliations of others is about the lowest approach one can take in a debate.

Just read "The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate" by Douglas N. Campbell

So you're going to ignore the inputs of an Army aviator who actually delivers Close Air Support, and has received feedback from those who actually do receive said close air support for a book that was published before OIF/OEF really became a counterinsurgency operation? WTF.

 

[Bonza]

I am a Viet Nam era vet that served aboard a destroyer. I see many titles of military people hear but none use there own names. I also worked for a major airline for 32 years. I soloed at 16 with only 7 hours under may belt. I am now 63 years old and was up in an old A-T 6 a few years ago. The pilot said I was a natural born pilot. He let me do all the flying with help in the aerobatics. Loved every second of it. My stomach needed rest though. Also was up in a B-17 not too long ago. "Nine of Nine" I may not be a genius but not may hear are either. I will end here about the A-10. The truth never wins over a Liberal mind. Just read "The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate" by Douglas N. Campbell That ends this for me. This forum is like when I was told to go aboard the carrier Independence for a part we needed. Would have been better off being sent over to a Russian ship. Got no help from our own people.

The titles you see under people's names are just a military themed ranking for post count, not an actual indicator for someone's military service. That's indicated by a blue name, and some dark red names (not myself though). Calling us Liberals because we don't support your argument is hilarious.

I'm glad you enjoy planes as a hobby but this has nothing to do with whether the A-10 is adequate for high intensity warfare or not. Which it isn't, not today - remember what I said earlier. Drawing a distinction between a plane you love and a plane you want in your air force are two different things. You'd probably be best off separating the two in your mind as you've had no answers for anyone questioning your logic and therefore I can only assume your argument comes from the heart, not the head.

 

[gf0012-aust]

my eyes are starting to bleed profusely.

before lecturing people about the benefits and relevance of the A10 it would be really useful if you actually had a look at the conops for an A10 and then try to draw a relationship to the relevance of that requirement against contemp threats

there is a reason why CAS is regarded as a capability requirement rather than a platform centric solution
there is a reason why USAF has a philosophy that wants every combat aircraft at its disposal to have the capability to deliver CAS
there is a reason why the CAS role in modern conflicts has been picked up by aircraft such as B1's and the fast movers + rotaries
multiple special forces teams owe aircraft such as the B1 their gratitude in often delivering ord danger close - and where the A10 could not have remotely done so because they're unable to - be it logistics, be it the ability to deliver the weapons needed on target
its not about trivialising someones pet aircraft, its about the relevance of that platform to deliver the weapons that are needed when and where they are needed - if the JTAC wants support then they don't care whether its coming by B1 or by sopwith camel - as long as they get what they need when they need it - the conops of the A10 - even an upgraded A10, is not going to be able to deliver the desired ord "at will" - and thats why CAS is about capability required rather than platform required.

dismissing JSF while demonstrating a lack of awareness of the logistical and capability constraints for an A10 would seem to suggest that you haven't suspended platform rage and replaced it with just as much passion and fervour "with" capability rage - because if you did the issues about A10 fundamental limitations in todays permissive environment would be self generating.

your failure to appreciate that some of the responses in here are coming from people who have a first hand appreciation and exposure to the job does nothing to cement or convince others in the merits of your argument - as you are ignoring some of the basics as to why the A10 is not meeting the needs as effectively as what some other platforms are doing right now - and that includes B1's.

You are skating on some serious thin edge by allowing your enthusiasm to override some of the very very relevant advice and counterpoints that have been offered up.

In fact I'm seeing the same kind of emotional arguments in here that I saw generated elsewhere when the F14's were parked and the Hornets/Shornets replaced them.

The Riccioni, Sparks, Wheeler, Meyers types of logic in debate won't last in here

 

[Feanor]

Which countries would the U.S. have to go nuclear with to ensure air and sea supremacy?

Russia. But only because they would go nuclear first. Assuming we take their doctrine at face value. Otherwise, I'm guessing nobody is the answer.

Donald J. Conti you have been requested to provide proof of your military service claims in the forms of some sort of paperwork supporting it. If you had read the rules of this forum you would know that we do not let claims like yours stand without proof. Please provide such proof to myself or another moderator on this forum.

 

[OPSSG]

Donald J. Conti enough with being a counter-factual drama queen.

If you do not like the polices and rules of DefenceTalk, you can leave. Observing the Forum Rules and heeding the advice of a Moderator is not optional (see prior warning issued at #59).

We note that Donald J. Conti was specifically told by Bonza (a member of the Mod Team) to read Air Power 101 for New Members (at #15 of this thread).

All your replies thus far indicate a failure to read the bare basics to have a technical conversation on the topic of air power. It can't be that difficult to read a 2 page thread, prepared for the benefit of newbies like you.

The injection of your subjective political views and giving a political label to all who disagree with you, means you are not capable of understanding or objectively discussing the topic of air power. It is also clear that you are just trolling for a response in your last two posts (hence they are deleted).

Edit: Thread re-opened.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thread re-opened for business.

Comments that are based on analysis and considered opinion rather than being based on emotion and a paucity of analysis are the expected response de rigeur.

There are lots of other places available if the above is too difficult to abide by......

 

[Panther]

Quite an interesting discussion. Props to you guys for indulging that Donald Duck character for as long as you did.

Myself, I may not have first-hand experience with the Thunderbolt II or any other CAS platform but really with the huge shift towards airspace penetration and stand-off capabilities, if I were in charge of that stuff I would gladly offload entire wings of A-10 if it freed up funds for acquisition of F-35 especially considering the kind of adversarial systems we would be looking at in any unlikely event of confrontation with Russia/China. It would take major SEAD ops to create a suitable environment for the A-10 to operate in against a land force belonging to either of those two because of the sheer networking and air defence power involved in modern AD units in these countries.

Honestly, I'm sure we all have at least some affinity for the Warthog; it is rugged, has high survivability, has a powerful armament and above all it's a proven asset. The thing about the A-10 is, it's a great machine for blunting and suppressing enemy offensives when you need to as well as being a superb tank-killer but it's too heavy a platform for the kind of minor skirmishes we tend to see these days in Afghanistan and elsewhere. You can perform the same mission with vastly cheaper assets yet with the same (or better) efficiency and effectiveness; it seems highly unnecessary to expend Mavericks and a couple hundred thirty mike-mike on what turns out to be a platoon-sized formation. The kind of threats we are observing now and for the foreseeable future simply don't justify the expenditure on current single-mission assets.

I'll go a step further and say that even strategic bombers like the B-1/2 could be replaced or supplemented in the CAS role by far lighter and cheaper aircraft with a better ratio of maintenance work to flight time. I'm confident the Super Tucano and alternative craft like it would be superb in filling a CAS role within LIC boundaries. If we were to look at this from a resource-to-kill ratio perspective then it would be worth considering what it takes to get a bomber up in the air, plus armaments, fuel, etc. and keep it there for an extended period of time, relocating and striking where needed, as opposed to what it takes to push out a turboprop with wing guns and rocket pods, to get it to the AO, attack the enemy and then return. Food for thought I suppose.

Either way, the A-10 had it's time. Now it's in the USAF's best interests to let it go.

 

[Gremlin29]

I agree Panther. The problem the A-10 platform has now as far as a future is concerned, is that it really doesn't offer a unique/one of a kind capability. It's roles can and have been filled by other aircraft making it an obvious choice to for disuse. And that's before factoring in the severe cutbacks the US military is facing now and in the future. Many of the same things were being said back when the decision was made to drop the A-6E. The naysayers couldn't believe the F-18 would fill the role but it has, and has done so quite nicely. If anything, the AF is probably quite a bit behind the power curve on this decision.

The odd bit of this story (which hasn't been mentioned yet) is that it was only several years ago the AF tried to stand down Air Guard A-10's and stand them up in new AF squadrons claiming a full time unit was less expensive than a part time unit. Congress quickly ended that bright idea. Now it seems they don't need them at all which I think, shows some serious lack of forward planning on the part of the AF. Typically these decisions are based on 5 or 10 year plans.

 

[RobWilliams]

It's the US' strategic shift, it's not only a shift from a 50/50 to 60/40 favour to the Pacific but they're gearing away from insurgency operations altogether and aiming at being the victor in a near peer competitor.

The trouble is that the A-10 has a reputation of being a great tank hunter, the problem is that the US is no longer looking at having to seriously counter the hordes of tanks at the height of the power of the USSR and such having such a plethora of birds capable of downing a tank then relatively niche platforms like the A-10 - when the budget needs trimming - are the first to go.

Myself i'm a big believer in using rotary platforms for CAS, the UK has Apache's for that job and that can do a nasty job against tanks. We have overlaps sure (Apache can deal with tanks and CAS, as can Tornado loaded up with Brimstone and other A2G munitions), but if I were to have a platform like the A-10 added in as well, then that'd be the one I vote to go if one type had to.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'll go a step further and say that even strategic bombers like the B-1/2 could be replaced or supplemented in the CAS role by far lighter and cheaper aircraft with a better ratio of maintenance work to flight time. I'm confident the Super Tucano and alternative craft like it would be superb in filling a CAS role within LIC boundaries. If we were to look at this from a resource-to-kill ratio perspective then it would be worth considering what it takes to get a bomber up in the air, plus armaments, fuel, etc. and keep it there for an extended period of time, relocating and striking where needed, as opposed to what it takes to push out a turboprop with wing guns and rocket pods, to get it to the AO, attack the enemy and then return. Food for thought I suppose.

Either way, the A-10 had it's time. Now it's in the USAF's best interests to let it go.

exactly .... what you've highlighted is a variation of what people have been trying to impart - and why the USAF wants to be able to provide CAS as a brad capability req for a range of combat aircraft...

eg the B1 is also about range, depth, persistence, load out volume, precision, sprint, loiter etc.... so it becomes an ideal target fixer in given scenarios, in a different construct a Super Tucano, Apache, JSF may be better placed - and if they have the right or relevant weapons set are at that point in time - the best to deliver

CAS is about a capability being addressed - its no longer about a specific platform
For the US, when they consider how they have delivered on CAS support for the last 10 years - then the A10 is not in the mix as the platform of choice - irrespective of its formidable capability for the threat and scenarios it was initially designed for.

Logistics and maintainability don't provide the love when factored in against other assets doing the job and more readily available and in theatre.

eg think of the time and logistics it would take to break down, lift and shift a squadron of short hitters like an A10 squadron as opposed to an Apache squadron.

 

[StobieWan]

There's a comment above about the A10 knocking over 27 tanks in one day - you could do a dozen in one pass from a single F35A, at night, in cloud...at speed..at distance...

Or a single AH64 could turn over 16 in one pass, from behind a hill.

I like the A10, it's a brute of a machine and I'd have one in my imaginary 10 plane warbird hangar like a shot. Problem is, no radar, no decent night/poor weather vision - I know the A10C is a step forward but it's sort of near sighted and not very bright in terms of networking.

A pair of Ah64's can scan a whole formation, automatically divide the lot into priority fire zones and hand out targets to each other, and hit everything they see, once, in any thing short of a once in a life time sandstorm.

Meanwhile the A10 is still scooting around trying to work out which of the fuzzy mounds below are hostile.

 

[Waylander]

As we are discussing tank plinking by fast movers.
How do they manage that a Brimstone salvo doesn't hit the same target with multiple missiles?
Is there some form of algorithm where the first missile of a ripple targets the furthermost target to the right of the scan zone with the second missile targeting the next target in line?

And is a salvo of SDB IIs capable of the same feature?

 

[Volkodav]

exactly .... what you've highlighted is a variation of what people have been trying to impart - and why the USAF wants to be able to provide CAS as a brad capability req for a range of combat aircraft...

eg the B1 is also about range, depth, persistence, load out volume, precision, sprint, loiter etc.... so it becomes an ideal target fixer in given scenarios, in a different construct a Super Tucano, Apache, JSF may be better placed - and if they have the right or relevant weapons set are at that point in time - the best to deliver

CAS is about a capability being addressed - its no longer about a specific platform
For the US, when they consider how they have delivered on CAS support for the last 10 years - then the A10 is not in the mix as the platform of choice - irrespective of its formidable capability for the threat and scenarios it was initially designed for.

Logistics and maintainability don't provide the love when factored in against other assets doing the job and more readily available and in theatre.

eg think of the time and logistics it would take to break down, lift and shift a squadron of short hitters like an A10 squadron as opposed to an Apache squadron.

Technically a P-8 with a with the appropriate podded supplementary sensors and systems and load out of SBD and Griffin could be a competent and capable CAS platform in the future depending on the treat environment. Then again so could a variety of platforms including transports and tanker transports.

 

[Gremlin29]

As we are discussing tank plinking by fast movers.
How do they manage that a Brimstone salvo doesn't hit the same target with multiple missiles?
Is there some form of algorithm where the first missile of a ripple targets the furthermost target to the right of the scan zone with the second missile targeting the next target in line?

And is a salvo of SDB IIs capable of the same feature?

Probably not unlike the way the Longbow does it. The difference being Longbow uses it's radar to identify and prioritize targets. Once there is one or more targets, you simply activate the missile and pull the trigger. The weapons processor prioritizes targets based on a target library and considers the threat and it's range. A ZSU 23-4 at 500 meters is going to outprioritze an SA6 at 8 K's. The ZSU becomes the priority target, pulling the trigger launches the missile but also advances the 2nd highest priorty target to become the 1st priority target. The targets are prioritized by the processor, and move up in priority when a missile is launched or by the pilot who can advance through the priority list and make his own selection.

It's sound great, but the fact remains that autonomous radar missiles are pretty dangerous to use anywhere but in a weapons free area. Many of us call them "mad dogs" because you really don't know for sure, what they are going to do. I reallize Brimstone has some self destruct/safety features but I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near them if I was a tanker or in any type of vehicle for that matter.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Technically a P-8 with a with the appropriate podded supplementary sensors and systems and load out of SBD and Griffin could be a competent and capable CAS platform in the future depending on the treat environment. Then again so could a variety of platforms including transports and tanker transports.

One of the USAF Generals has made that case when he argued that from his perspective, anything railed/bussed up needs to be considered as a supporting unit in assisting or supporting CAS

Unfort I never kept the link, which would have been useful to use in here as an illustration of head shed thinking

 

[CB90]

One of the USAF Generals has made that case when he argued that from his perspective, anything railed/bussed up needs to be considered as a supporting unit in assisting or supporting CAS

Unfort I never kept the link, which would have been useful to use in here as an illustration of head shed thinking

Sounds a bit idealistic, or maybe that's using the term "CAS" rather loosely. Delivering ordnance in support of troops in contact requires substantially more specialized training than deep interdiction missions beyond a relatively well defined forward line.

Part of me is suspicious that it's a way for USAF to slack on its resourcing of CAS by saying "everyone can do it." With training and the right equipment, sure. But throwing a Fleet MPRA crew (as opposed to Army/Marine crews that live and breathe CAS) at a CAS problem on without giving them the right training sounds like a blue on blue waiting to happen. Simply training them up also disrupts the readiness balancing act...P-3 community is now struggling to get back up to proficiency in its overwater ASW/ASUW roots after having its focus shifted over land.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sounds a bit idealistic, or maybe that's using the term "CAS" rather loosely. Delivering ordnance in support of troops in contact requires substantially more specialized training than deep interdiction missions beyond a relatively well defined forward line.

Part of me is suspicious that it's a way for USAF to slack on its resourcing of CAS by saying "everyone can do it." With training and the right equipment, sure. But throwing a Fleet MPRA crew (as opposed to Army/Marine crews that live and breathe CAS) at a CAS problem on without giving them the right training sounds like a blue on blue waiting to happen. Simply training them up also disrupts the readiness balancing act...P-3 community is now struggling to get back up to proficiency in its overwater ASW/ASUW roots after having its focus shifted over land.

I think his intention was imparting the view that the USAF should be able to send in any bussed up asset and fulfill a close support role rather than literal CAS

The P3 "problem" was almost a univerasal one after the collapse of the soviet union - ie a shift to different missions

smaller airforces like RAAF adapted to the ISR role faster than some due to inherent local constraints, in fact I do recall that it was the use of RAAF AP3's in the "over land" sensor mission that enbaled some curr developments.

I know we were looking at manned/unmanned combos as far back as 98, well before it became more than a theoretical glint in some future force planners eyes

 

[Waylander]

@Gremlin
Thanks for the insight into how the mentioned problem is managed by the Hellfire MMW / Longbow combo.

Just for clarification. The actual process of prioritizing the target is done by the Longbow radar and the onboard system which feeds the data into the missile before launch. The missile then compares it's own radar picture with the one it got from the Longbow radar and targets the highlighted target. Have I gotten it right?

Pretty clever system but as you said I wouldn't want to be close to enemy vehicles in a ground vehicle when a Longbow is at work...

Now the question is if the Brimstone is also fed by the onboard radar of the aircraft or it is just scanning a certain sector in front of it and uses the mentioned algorithm. I am sceptical though if most aircraft radars can even put together a picture good enough to feed brimstone like Hellfire is fed by the Longbow radar. Another point is that with an algorithm at work hitting priority targets first may be complicated.

The same applies to SDB II which would also need some mechanism to avoid multiple hits onto the same target when ripple fired. The difference being that it uses an infrared imager to identify targets.

A very interesting topic although such calabilities are a tankers nightmare...

 

[gf0012-aust]

@Gremlin
Thanks for the insight into how the mentioned problem is managed by the Hellfire MMW / Longbow combo.

you can get some insights into apache pilot training and how some of the systems work if you read "Apache" by Ed Macy

 

[StobieWan]

Probably not unlike the way the Longbow does it. The difference being Longbow uses it's radar to identify and prioritize targets. Once there is one or more targets, you simply activate the missile and pull the trigger. The weapons processor prioritizes targets based on a target library and considers the threat and it's range. A ZSU 23-4 at 500 meters is going to outprioritze an SA6 at 8 K's. The ZSU becomes the priority target, pulling the trigger launches the missile but also advances the 2nd highest priorty target to become the 1st priority target. The targets are prioritized by the processor, and move up in priority when a missile is launched or by the pilot who can advance through the priority list and make his own selection.

It's sound great, but the fact remains that autonomous radar missiles are pretty dangerous to use anywhere but in a weapons free area. Many of us call them "mad dogs" because you really don't know for sure, what they are going to do. I reallize Brimstone has some self destruct/safety features but I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near them if I was a tanker or in any type of vehicle for that matter.

They're a "everything dies" solution for sure - I know pretty much all the Brimstone releases in Afghanistan by RAF jets are using the laser seeker for that very reason.