USAAF ignores wars lessons

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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..."
 
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.
 
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????
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:



 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

N
Warsaw pact integrated air defense system?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Dimlee
Non Soviet Warsaw Pact Rifle division December '85
Replies
0
Views
564
Vincenzo
Japan unveils largest warship since WWII
2 3
Replies
58
Views
6K
parsifal
767 emergency lands with no wheels at Warsaw airport
Replies
4
Views
1K
A4K
Vigilantes appearing in the border drug wars
Replies
7
Views
2K
Messy1
Menu
Log in
Register