# USAAF ignores wars lessons



## fastmongrel (Nov 8, 2013)

If this is true Air Force Brass Ignores War's Lessons to Wipe Out A-10s then Generals and Politicians are playing games with soldiers lives. I worry that the wests airforces are putting all there eggs in one fragile gold plated basket, relying on the F35 to cover the ground pounders is going to be a disaster.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Nov 8, 2013)

That would be the USAF, and they are not brain surgeons are they? They have to make their bonuses somehow.


----------



## Procrastintor (Nov 8, 2013)

Why would you scrap the Warthogs? Those things are worth the cost for psychological warfare alone, and I doubt the Lightning II will cut it, the worse armament and low-speed-stability will mean that you'll need more planes doing more attack runs on the same target for the same effect. Plus A-10s are cheaper, everyone wins.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2013)

I'd like to see the F-35 take even half the damage the A-10 can take, and remain airworthy

I've already vented on the absolute idiocy behind the idea of retiring the A-10 and when I was informed that "it was getting old and hard to maintain" I said "B******T!! the B-52 is infinitely older and still remains in front line service, so try a different line on me..."


----------



## muscogeemike (Nov 9, 2013)

We in the Army believed the AF didn't like the A-10. They felt it was forced on them and even looked down on the pilots. At one time in the 1980's there was talk (by the AF) of getting rid of them and the Army offered to take over all of them - the AF quickly changed their minds.

I even heard that initially there was some talk in the AF about not deploying the A-10 to the first Gulf War - of course after the job it did was so publicized the AF had to change their tune.

The truth is that until the A-10 the AF had not developed a true ground support aircraft since before WWII, they even tried to keep the Army from developing Helicopters in this role. Since the end of the "Cold War" the AF's role has been diminished and some of their Brass have struggled to adapt to their new place.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 9, 2013)

weve had a very similar story with our updated F-111s. the argument is that the Super hornets will be a "good enough" substitute, until the F-35 arrives. neither of the new aircraft could do anything like the job the F-111e's could do.

This kind odf slash and burn policy on the west military is happening everywhere. We are going broke and the first thing is cut the defence budgets. Funny thing is, the threat levels in the world to the west are incresing, not decreasing, and aircraft like the A-10, not the f-35, are whats needed. but the A-10s arent glamorous or sexy like the F-35, and theres not much money to made in retaining them. how much is there in the f-35 contracts????


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2013)

There is a certain merit to having a branch of the service maintaining it's own air assets. Since the Cold War, the USAF has tried to be the all-encompassing air service provider, much like the Luftwaffe did in WWII.

There is no reason why the US Army cannot have it's own assets, like rotary winged aircraft, for example and more importantly, a close ground support aircraft like the A-10. This is not to say the Air Force shouldn't have any, but in the hands of the Army, the A-10 would be far more effective since it's directly relevant to Army operations.

Insisting that the Army shouldn't be allowed to have any takes us back to the Army versus Navy days of the turn of the century. Like a couple of spoiled children arguing over a shiny toy in in the sand box.

They need to get thier heads out of their a$$es and come up for a fresh breath of reality.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 9, 2013)

I have heard it argued that the F-35 is unable to be cancelled due to nearly every state being involved!


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2013)

Great...one more plane "replaced" by the shiny new F-35. Kinda sardonic, but I will laugh when a nation or enemy exploits a flaw in the F-35's and everyone is sent scrambling to grab the old planes from mothball.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2013)

MacArther said:


> Great...one more plane "replaced" by the shiny new F-35. Kinda sardonic, but I will laugh when a nation or enemy exploits a flaw in the F-35's and everyone is sent scrambling to grab the old planes from mothball.



Probably a lot easier to find the flaws in the A-10, or any of the other old planes than in the F-35. The A-10 is, like it as not, a highly specialized aircraft. The F-35 is capable of more than just moving mud. A large air force, like that of the US, may be able to afford a bunch of airplanes that are useless outside of a very narrow niche; no one else can. In other words, the F-35 can move mud quite efficiently (and Hellfire and BAT can probably kill tanks just as efficiently as the GAU-8); the A-10 has about as much air-air capability as a dead weasel, while the F-35 is at least as capable air-air as the F-16.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 9, 2013)

The F35 is going to be a rubbish ground attack plane, too expensive, too fragile and apparently not even allowed to manouver below a thousand feet. I can see the majority of support missions being covered by drones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2013)

The A-10 is not a machine that should be exported anyway.

In any case, the A-10 was never meant to do anything more than scouring the earth of anything that walks or crawls. The fact that it has shot down enemy aircraft in battle is simply frosting on the cake.

Let the Air Force have the F-35 and transfer the A-10 fleet to the Army.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 9, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The A-10 is not a machine that should be exported anyway.
> 
> In any case, the A-10 was never meant to do anything more than scouring the earth of anything that walks or crawls. The fact that it has shot down enemy aircraft in battle is simply frosting on the cake.
> 
> Let the Air Force have the F-35 and transfer the A-10 fleet to the Army.



I think the Marines would like a few squadrons as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Nov 9, 2013)

From what I have been told by troops in Afghanistan, air support comes either as an attack helicopter that can approach behind safe ground, fire and hide, or by a laser guided bomb released by something unseen thousands of metres above.

The A10 was designed for a different era of air support. Even then I can remember keeping one in my ground AA sights for tens of seconds as it lumbered around the bridge I was helping 'defend', like an airborne galleon in full sail. Essentially it was a 1970's Skyraider which itself was a 1946 Stuka and all three depended upon air superiority. It did it very well, as did the Skyraider and Stuka (as my mother could have testified in the last case).

The F35 (and I am no fan of it) can do things the A10 cannot. The A10 can do a few things better than the F35 but is unable to do most of them at all. The F35 gives you choices for the (un)forseeable future.

I will be sad to see the A10 go but it's day has gone, like the DH Hornet and the HP Victor. They were all good in their day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2013)

yulzari said:


> From what I have been told by troops in Afghanistan, air support comes either as an attack helicopter that can approach behind safe ground, fire and hide, or by a laser guided bomb released by something unseen thousands of metres above.


And there in lies a problem. You either have air support that is unwilling to expose itself to fire to help the troops, or you have weapons that have to be dropped from high altitude. If I'm a infantry man, I don't want a B-52 dropping a "smart" bomb from 20k that could take a while to hit a target I may or may not be lazing effectively. I want something that will hug the ground enough to see the troops on both sides, provide direct fire support, and survive things the enemy might throw at it.

Also, many of these cost cutting measures seem to be geared towards fighting asymmetrical warfare type engagements. What happens if one of the big kids on the world block decides they don't like us anymore? There goes the F-35 solution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2013)

The A-10 does employ threat counter-measures, the pilot sits in a titanium "bathtub" and it can get up close and personal with enemy contacts while supporting grounds forces. A helo is certainly an asset in support, but the A-10 has a higher degree of mobility and can carry ordnance via hardpoints.

It can also take serious damage and remain airworthy.

Wonder how far the F-35 would get with holes like this:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 9, 2013)

Probably as far as to the ground...
Also, you can talk to a A-10 pilot, where, when, how you want/need his/her firepower and he/she will d*mn sure do their best to please you....try to talk to a smart bomb, doesn't work, does it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Nov 9, 2013)

Actually you are the one talking to the smart bomb as it is you who puts the designator onto the target. As a sort of one time infantry type I personally would prefer artillery. You can ask for more or move it about as you choose. They will even change the type of round if you ask nicely and they never run short of fuel and have to go away in the middle of the party. Also if they **** it up and hit you it is probably you that made the mistake. IIRC in the 1st Gulf War the USAF killed more British troops than the entire Iraqi armed forces....

However, by the Grace of God I am many years and miles from being personally involved. Best wishes to those who are.


----------



## yulzari (Nov 9, 2013)

You know I am getting a bit (pauses) peeved with the censorship software here. 

My gun has a flint in it's ****. My hens are looked after by a ****. I regard myself as **** of the walk. If I see an Antanov 22 I am trained to report seeing a ****. and the first Director of Television for the BBC was Gerald ****.

In the words of Top Gear's James May, 'oh ****' I may have upset the software!

Can I say penis? Oh, apparently I can. Where is the logic in that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2013)

yulzari said:


> Can I say penis? Oh, apparently I can. Where is the logic in that?


Perhaps the server doesn't like chicken?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 9, 2013)

WTF? Keep on track gents or this too shall go into the ether.


----------



## yulzari (Nov 10, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Perhaps the server doesn't like chicken?



It probably prefers bacon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 10, 2013)

The only aircraft that can replace the A-10, is another A-10! Pretty much the same as with the famous Buccaneer and Canberra.....

Pheeeww.....think that I saved the thread there!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2013)

The A10 fleet is getting old. No matter how many upgrades you do to it, the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.

Just saying ......


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> The A10 fleet is getting old. No matter how many upgrades you do to it, the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.
> 
> Just saying ......


That is a valid point.

As an observation, though, the A-10 was a comparatively simple design and built to be rugged. Most airframes would be in their 30's compared to the B-52, which saw it's last airframes manufactured in 1962. This sees the majority of Buffs in service are at least 50 years old.

There were other aircraft that saw extended service like the A4 Skyhawk and the F4 Phantom, but in the A10's case, I believe it could be kept in service by upgrades and periodic upfits for far less than what it would cost to replace them with the F-35.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 10, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.
> 
> Just saying ......


So apparently does the F35


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2013)

Marcel said:


> So apparently does the F35



That is a money hole to no end.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 10, 2013)

I always dreamed about a lighter version of the A-10 with a 20 or 25mm gatling nose cannon instead the massive 30mm to replace the IA-58. Too bad it going to be retired, it is/was the best strafer of the aviation history.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 10, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The A-10 is not a machine that should be exported anyway.



Why not? While the A-10 is a decent design, there is no real advanced technology in it: similar engines can be sourced from several countries, and guns, like the Oerlikon KCA and fUSSR's GSh-6-30А can, with proper ammunition, kill tanks. Comparable avionics can be sourced from a dozen countries (except, probably, for ECM) Nothing in the remainder of the design isn't something that couldn't be done by any aircraft manufacturer that can make aircraft in the 30,000 lb class. Also, there was an attempt to export it when it was fairly new. Thailand came close to buying a few, but nobody else thought it worthwhile. In other words, an aircraft comparable in capabilities could be made by the aviation industries in at least a dozen countries. Of course, the USSR did build the Su-25, which looks a lot like the A-9....




> In any case, the A-10 was never meant to do anything more than scouring the earth of anything that walks or crawls. The fact that it has shot down enemy aircraft in battle is simply frosting on the cake.
> 
> Let the Air Force have the F-35 and transfer the A-10 fleet to the Army.



I've got no problem with that, although the Army may not want it.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> The A10 fleet is getting old. No matter how many upgrades you do to it, the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.
> 
> Just saying ......



I would think it possible to build replacements, perhaps as an evolutionary improvement, with modest numbers coming off the production lines every year. thats gotts be cheaper than a whole new aircraft with roles that are probabaly questionable as to need. Losing the capability completely is a bad idea


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I would think it possible to build replacements, perhaps as an evolutionary improvement, with modest numbers coming off the production lines every year. thats gotts be cheaper than a whole new aircraft with roles that are probabaly questionable as to need. Losing the capability completely is a bad idea



That would mean producing all new tooling.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 11, 2013)

Su-25 still going.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 11, 2013)

The Basket said:


> Su-25 still going.



Yep. It seems Russia still has their wits about them.


----------



## muscogeemike (Dec 24, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> There is a certain merit to having a branch of the service maintaining it's own air assets. Since the Cold War, the USAF has tried to be the all-encompassing air service provider, much like the Luftwaffe did in WWII.
> 
> There is no reason why the US Army cannot have it's own assets, like rotary winged aircraft, for example and more importantly, a close ground support aircraft like the A-10. This is not to say the Air Force shouldn't have any, but in the hands of the Army, the A-10 would be far more effective since it's directly relevant to Army operations.
> 
> ...



At the Key West Accords, when the USAF became their own branch, they put severe limitations on the Army’s use of aircraft - the thinking of the time was that the A-Bomb had made land warfare obsolete and the Army had no bargaining power. The Army had to arm and test choppers after the Korean War in secret for a while; and in Viet Nam, when the Army started using more fixed wing aircraft, the AF raised hell.

When Korea came along and the Army found out how useful Helicopters were, especially for casualty evacuation, they ask for more choppers - the AF bosses used their power to denied the request.

I’ve often wondered how many guys died in Korea due to the AF’s actions?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 24, 2013)

Congress Forbids Air Force to Scrap A-10 … Next Year Only All bets are off for 2015
from https://medium.com/war-is-boring/696b42c15ce0



The U.S. Air Force will be prohibited from using any money appropriated in the 2014 budget to retire the A-10 Warthog if the National Defense Authorization Act passes Congress and is signed into law.

The flying branch wants to ground all 350 of the low- and slow-flying attack jets in order to divert money into developing new stealth warplanes, but ground troops and legislators value the A-10 for its ability to attack enemy troops in close proximity to U.S. forces.

The act protects the A-10 only in 2014. The Air Force could try again to decommission the plane in 2015.

The Senate is expected to pass its version of the authorization bill on Dec. 19 and the House of Representatives voted on the measure earlier in the month. The only remaining step after Dec. 19 will be for Pres. Barack Obama to sign the authorization into law.

“None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to make significant changes to manning levels with respect to covered aircraft or to retire, prepare to retire or place in storage a covered aircraft,” the NDAA states.

The term “covered aircraft” refers to the A-10 and the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft—which the Air Force is also trying to divest.

The 2014 NDAA also further stipulates that the USAF many not retire or prepare to retire the A-10 until after Dec. 31 2014, which includes the first quarter of the 2015 budget. However, the Air Force would be allowed to get rid of the aircraft the service was already planning to retire before April 9, 2013. That amounts to several dozen of the 350 A-10s.

The cannon-armed Warthog isn’t out of the woods yet. The aircraft was never really in danger of being retired in the 2014 budget, as the Air Force was examining proposals to retire the long-serving jet in the administration’s 2015 budget.

That being said, the Pentagon is considering multiple budget plans depending on how much money might ultimately be available. The recent two-year spending deal reached between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress gives the Pentagon a little more flexibility—but no final decisions have been made.

What the Air Force decides to do with the A-10 fleet won’t be revealed until the 2015 budget proposal rolls out around mid-February 2014. But if the service does propose to send the A-10 to the boneyard, it will surely face fierce resistance in Congress.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muscogeemike (Dec 24, 2013)

I've been retired and mostly out of touch with Army matters but I wonder if they have any desire, or can afford, to take the A-10?


----------

