PDA

View Full Version : A-10 cuts would save $3.5 billion



Gonzo432
10-27-2013, 12:05 AM
This was on PAGE 15 of the 28 October AF Times. The entire A-10 fleet would be retired. I know the fast-mover mafia has never been a fan of CAS, but come on. The A-10 is absolutely the greatest close air support platform in the history of air warfare. How long before big blue is pulling them out of the boneyard? What say you, forum dwellers?

Absinthe Anecdote
10-27-2013, 12:32 AM
It isn't the first time they have tried to get rid of them.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
10-27-2013, 01:21 AM
But wait, the f-16 and F-35s have a whopping 5 minutes of loiter time and a few hundred rounds of 'plinking' ammo for their CAS roles.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-27-2013, 01:43 AM
But wait, the f-16 and F-35s have a whopping 5 minutes of loiter time and a few hundred rounds of 'plinking' ammo for their CAS roles.

You want loiter time?

Bring back the A-1 Skyraiders.

Gonzo432
10-27-2013, 02:16 AM
But wait, the f-16 and F-35s have a whopping 5 minutes of loiter time and a few hundred rounds of 'plinking' ammo for their CAS roles.

I'd hate to have 20MM "plinking" ammo shot at me. The A-10 could fly over low and slow, pop flares and the bad guys would run for the hills. Low OR slow isn't an option for a Viper or Lightning II. I heard a 1 second burst from an A-10's GAU-8 at Eglin, I was maybe a half-mile away (MPF parking lot, it was the other side of the road from the hanger with the big thermometer). That was the most frightening sound I've ever heard, dang near plowed into a parked car

Nickymaz
10-27-2013, 11:59 AM
So to play devil's advocate I can see several reasons to can the A-10. The A-10 is the world's greatest can opener, it does one thing and does it extremely well. But the AF can't afford one-trick ponies anymore. The CAS mission is important, but we have many platforms that can do it (granted, not as well as the A-10). But between organic artillery and helicopters, F-16s/15s, B-1s, AC-130s and UAVs the CAS requirement is fairly well covered.

Looking into the future, the kind of conflicts we'll likely be fighting wont have drastic CAS requirements, they'll require aircraft that can evade enemy air defenses, defeat enemy fighters and drop bombs. Certainly not saying CAS wont be a apart of it but the CAS mission can be adequately filled by a variety of platforms.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
10-27-2013, 12:31 PM
So to play devil's advocate I can see several reasons to can the A-10. The A-10 is the world's greatest can opener, it does one thing and does it extremely well. But the AF can't afford one-trick ponies anymore. The CAS mission is important, but we have many platforms that can do it (granted, not as well as the A-10). But between organic artillery and helicopters, F-16s/15s, B-1s, AC-130s and UAVs the CAS requirement is fairly well covered.

Looking into the future, the kind of conflicts we'll likely be fighting wont have drastic CAS requirements, they'll require aircraft that can evade enemy air defenses, defeat enemy fighters and drop bombs. Certainly not saying CAS wont be a apart of it but the CAS mission can be adequately filled by a variety of platforms.

I think the only people who should have a "vote" are the ground pounders who've served in Iraq or AFG.

Stalwart
10-27-2013, 12:36 PM
I have heard the 30mm fired in anger, inter-service rivalry aside ... it was nice to know it was on our side.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-27-2013, 01:15 PM
So to play devil's advocate I can see several reasons to can the A-10. The A-10 is the world's greatest can opener, it does one thing and does it extremely well. But the AF can't afford one-trick ponies anymore. The CAS mission is important, but we have many platforms that can do it (granted, not as well as the A-10). But between organic artillery and helicopters, F-16s/15s, B-1s, AC-130s and UAVs the CAS requirement is fairly well covered.

Looking into the future, the kind of conflicts we'll likely be fighting wont have drastic CAS requirements, they'll require aircraft that can evade enemy air defenses, defeat enemy fighters and drop bombs. Certainly not saying CAS wont be a apart of it but the CAS mission can be adequately filled by a variety of platforms.

You think that our future engagements will not be Low-Intensity-Conflict against non-state actors?

Not me, I think those are the most likely types of engagements that we will continue to face. Just wait until we get dragged into some place like Nigeria or a half dozen other places in Africa.

I would not be surprised to see us going back to Afghanistan a few years after we leave. Either that, or Pakistan falls apart and we find ourselves in the Swat Valley in ten years.

Neer-peer engagements are a possibility that can't be overlooked, but I don't see them as being the more likely scenario by a long shot.

Bunch
10-27-2013, 10:25 PM
I for one side with leadership in this one. It seems that keeping the A-10 cost gives you little ROI in the future. We are about to enter a drawdown in operations and things will have to be eliminated, makes no sense to keep resource just for the sake of having them.

If the Army wants A-10 so bad then have them foot the bill of the cost.

imnohero
10-27-2013, 10:33 PM
I for one side with leadership in this one. It seems that keeping the A-10 cost gives you little ROI in the future. We are about to enter a drawdown in operations and things will have to be eliminated, makes no sense to keep resource just for the sake of having them.

If the Army wants A-10 so bad then have them foot the bill of the cost.

LOL. If only it was that easy. The AF spend $5 billion to get the C27 contract away from the Army so they could cancel it out of political spite. No way would the AF let the Army have A-10s.

efmbman
10-27-2013, 10:59 PM
The A-10 is absolutely the greatest close air support platform in the history of air warfare.

I could not agree more. Granted, I have enjoyed the CAS of the A-10 only... but I was grateful and wildly impressed.


I heard a 1 second burst from an A-10's GAU-8 at Eglin,...That was the most frightening sound I've ever heard...

It does get your attention! If you have an unwanted grid square you want removed, call the A-10's.


I think the only people who should have a "vote" are the ground pounders who've served in Iraq or AFG.

As one of those, I quickly and certainly vote KEEP THEM.


I have heard the 30mm fired in anger, inter-service rivalry aside ... it was nice to know it was on our side.

Agreed! The only platform I enjoyed more was the AC-130 (Spectre...?) Awesome.


If the Army wants A-10 so bad then have them foot the bill of the cost.

Sounds very strange given your stance on many social issues. Try to remember we all work for the same guy.

Bunch
10-27-2013, 11:10 PM
Sounds very strange given your stance on many social issues. Try to remember we all work for the same guy.

And WTF my stance on social issues has to do with this conversation?

What are you 12?!!!

Bunch
10-27-2013, 11:15 PM
LOL. If only it was that easy. The AF spend $5 billion to get the C27 contract away from the Army so they could cancel it out of political spite. No way would the AF let the Army have A-10s.

Air Force don't want them Army apparently does. The Air Force can't have it both ways on this one.

imnohero
10-28-2013, 12:04 AM
Air Force don't want them Army apparently does. The Air Force can't have it both ways on this one.

You wouldn't think so...but they always seem to win these aircraft arguements with the army. I don't know how they manage it.

akruse
10-28-2013, 01:14 AM
You wouldn't think so...but they always seem to win these aircraft arguements with the army. I don't know how they manage it.

How would that even work. Thats a shit load of infrastructure to set up.

imnohero
10-28-2013, 01:16 AM
How would what work, Transfering A-10s to the Army?

akruse
10-28-2013, 11:23 AM
How would what work, Transfering A-10s to the Army?

Yes. I'm guessing the easiest thing for them to do would be to just show up on base and take over all the facilities but I don't see our govt military doing that. They would probably build all new infrastructure on an Army post somewhere.

imnohero
10-28-2013, 11:45 AM
The Army has a fairly extensive aviation infrastructure already for their aircraft (helicopters, C12s, etc.) Hangers, runways, parking ramps, tugs, fuel trucks, etc. that they have already can handle thier largest helicopters. For comparison, the Chinook Helicopter has a max weight of around 35,000 pounds and is about 100 ft long and 60 ft wide with the rotors extended. The A-10 has a max weight of 50,000 pounds, is about 60 ft long and 60 ft wide. For an smallish aircraft like the A-10, I'm sure they would need to do some changes, but probably not extensive or large changes to existing infrastructure. In addition, they would probably only take the number they could accomdate without building new based or displacing existing aircraft. In other words, not the entire fleet.

I would expect that the physical transfer of the aircraft would be the easier part of the transaction. The Army would then have to think about aircrew, maintenance, funding, training, deployment plans, ROE, etc.

Stalwart
10-28-2013, 11:58 AM
Physical transfer is the easy part. Yes, establishing the funding lines for maintenance etc and the manning changes (would X number of billets be transferred from the USAF to the USA?, would it be 1 for 1?)

I would also think that the Army would want the aircraft to be somewhat close to the places they plan to train with them (large training bases or ranges) similar to how the Marine Corps has the major Air Stations close enough to the large 'infantry-centric' bases to allow adequate loiter time and interaction with the supported units.

BOSS302
10-28-2013, 03:14 PM
The Air Force will save $3.5 billion. Going by the Rules of Everything, here is what shall follow:

(a) The Air Force spends $20 billion in 10-15 years dragging them from the bone yard and re-establishing the A-10 program

or

(b) The Army spends $50 billion over the course of years as they absorb the A-10 fleet and spin-up their own A-10 program

or

(c) BRUWIN uses his glutes to establish CAS superiority throughout the AOR.

Juggs
10-28-2013, 08:45 PM
Yea screw the earth man. Get rid of the A10 and its 30mm death ray. The A10 can out maneuver any platform at low altitude and stay there longer. The lawn dart has some great capes but it can't hang out or take a beating like an A10. The A10 can kick ass and if needed take off from austere runways. The F16 could be taken down by a sleeve of golfballs. I wonder if the F22 or F35 can two target strafe a column of armor. Don't answer that, I know the answer. Once again the AF is screwing with the wrong platform. It's basically saying they don't care about the ground forces when it comes to peer warfare.

Juggs
10-28-2013, 08:50 PM
So to play devil's advocate I can see several reasons to can the A-10. The A-10 is the world's greatest can opener, it does one thing and does it extremely well. But the AF can't afford one-trick ponies anymore. The CAS mission is important, but we have many platforms that can do it (granted, not as well as the A-10). But between organic artillery and helicopters, F-16s/15s, B-1s, AC-130s and UAVs the CAS requirement is fairly well covered.

Looking into the future, the kind of conflicts we'll likely be fighting wont have drastic CAS requirements, they'll require aircraft that can evade enemy air defenses, defeat enemy fighters and drop bombs. Certainly not saying CAS wont be a apart of it but the CAS mission can be adequately filled by a variety of platforms.

They will certainly have cas requirements. Armor vs armor, troops vs troops. CAS will always be needed unless you're simply doing AI which you don't need 22s or 35s for.

Nickymaz
10-28-2013, 10:26 PM
They will certainly have cas requirements. Armor vs armor, troops vs troops. CAS will always be needed unless you're simply doing AI which you don't need 22s or 35s for.

And CAS can be done by 16s, 15s, AC-130s, attack helos etc. Other platforms can do CAS but the A-10 can't really do much else but CAS. That's the issue, it's the ultimate can opener in an age when we need multi-tools.

Juggs
10-28-2013, 10:34 PM
For 11 yrs of my life I had 100% on planning and execution of cas. I know what those aircraft can do and what they can't do. First, 16s and 15s aren't going to be able to knock out tanks like the A10 can. They will have one shot cape and be gone, plus use up most of the PT doing that one shot. Attack aviation can do the same mission but not to the extent. We need useful tools. Not pretty pretty tools. The A10 can carry more than the lawn darts or 15s. I've worked with almost every cas platform in my 11 yrs. Some in country some in training. You can't beat the A10. Also, the AC130 isn't going to help when you're in a tank battle in broad daylight. Transformers was wrong.

imported_chipotleboy
11-01-2013, 01:10 AM
And CAS can be done by 16s, 15s, AC-130s, attack helos etc. Other platforms can do CAS but the A-10 can't really do much else but CAS. That's the issue, it's the ultimate can opener in an age when we need multi-tools.

Since the A-10 doesn't really do much else than CAS, they get very good at it. They are more survivable than attack helicopters, they can persist longer than 16s, and unlike AC-130s, you can safely operate in daytime. (Check the Battle of Khafji to see why you don't operate AC-130s in daytime).

Juggs
11-01-2013, 11:49 AM
On top of what CB said, what a 16 or 15 strafe a tank and see what happens. Nothing. Nothing happens. When an A10 strafes a tank with its party mix, you'll see shit squirt out the holes of the tank. Yea that is the crew exiting through those holes.

CYBERFX1024
11-01-2013, 02:17 PM
I would personally have to disagree with the Air Force here. The A-10 Warthog is by the best CAS weapon we have today and it is able to take a beating. Leave it to the F-35 and us guys on the ground would be dead in short order.
I have both heard and seen the A-10 and the AC-130 shoot in Afghanistan when shooting at a range next to KAF, I absolutely love both of them firing but the A-10 is better by far. The A-10 was always firing in daylight and the AC-130 was firing at night, and screw with us because it would set off a rocket attack alarm at 2am.

The Marines know how bad ass the A-10 is even at a the expense of our own Marines (see Battle of Al Nasiriya)

20+Years
11-01-2013, 02:44 PM
The A-10 is badass.

Quit buying cubicles (modular furniture) to save money and go back to a plain desks. Insurgents have never retreated because the AF has modular furniture.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
11-02-2013, 01:00 PM
The A-10 is badass.

Quit buying cubicles (modular furniture) to save money and go back to a plain desks. Insurgents have never retreated because the AF has modular furniture.

Wooden desks with wooden chairs. Type writers and metal, gov issued in-boxes too.

imported_CLSE
11-04-2013, 06:26 PM
So to play devil's advocate I can see several reasons to can the A-10. The A-10 is the world's greatest can opener, it does one thing and does it extremely well. But the AF can't afford one-trick ponies anymore. The CAS mission is important, but we have many platforms that can do it (granted, not as well as the A-10). But between organic artillery and helicopters, F-16s/15s, B-1s, AC-130s and UAVs the CAS requirement is fairly well covered.

Looking into the future, the kind of conflicts we'll likely be fighting wont have drastic CAS requirements, they'll require aircraft that can evade enemy air defenses, defeat enemy fighters and drop bombs. Certainly not saying CAS wont be a apart of it but the CAS mission can be adequately filled by a variety of platforms.

The F-4 originally didn't have a gun because people predicted that with the introduction of guided air-to-air missiles, there would be no more dogfights.

I remember in the 90s people were predicting that soon there would be no need for grunts because technology had advanced to the point that we would literally have push-button warfare.

Multipurpose tools/platforms are certainly desirable as much as possible and can get the job done, but there are times where the intelligent and prudent thing to do is just get a tool designed specifically for the job.

The one-trick pony argument is bulls**t anyways, because I don't hear anybody calling for the retirement of the F-15C, which is another one-trick pony. F-15Es and F-16s can do air-to-air, so by the argument given to retire the A-10s, we should also retire the F-15Cs.

As far as the Air Force being able to "afford" one-trick ponies, this is where the "the military is not a business" thing kicks in - It doesn't matter if the MBAs say it doesn't make business sense to keep the A-10s in the fleet, the Air Force has an obligation to be able to provide the Army with the most effective close air support that we have available.

The A-10s have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that they provide superior effectiveness as CAS platforms, so we have an obligation to keep them in the fleet and ready to go when needed.

BOSS302
11-05-2013, 11:19 AM
Multipurpose tools/platforms are certainly desirable as much as possible and can get the job done, but there are times where the intelligent and prudent thing to do is just get a tool designed specifically for the job.



In CE, shops have a bad habit of ordering multi-tools (Gerbers, Leathermans, SOGs) for "their people". Yea, they are convenient at times but when it comes time to get the job done, I'm reaching for my purpose-built screwdrivers, my purpose-built knives, hammers, etc. I've been given three multi-tools in my career and one has gone in my emergency preparedness bag, one is worn as "Just in case" but usually gets used to open boxes, and the other broke into pieces in my hand (shitty Gerber).

Multi-tools are a shitty novelty; stick with what works.

Venus
11-05-2013, 06:38 PM
The A-10s have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that they provide superior effectiveness as CAS platforms, so we have an obligation to keep them in the fleet and ready to go when needed.

We need to give them to the Army or tell the Army to give us a portion of their budget for us to keep them. Maybe compromise have the AF keep possession and bring WO's over to fly them like we did with the Navy when we retired the EF-111 and we provided EWO's to fly on the EA-6B.

CYBERFX1024
11-05-2013, 07:08 PM
In CE, shops have a bad habit of ordering multi-tools (Gerbers, Leathermans, SOGs) for "their people". Yea, they are convenient at times but when it comes time to get the job done, I'm reaching for my purpose-built screwdrivers, my purpose-built knives, hammers, etc. I've been given three multi-tools in my career and one has gone in my emergency preparedness bag, one is worn as "Just in case" but usually gets used to open boxes, and the other broke into pieces in my hand (shitty Gerber).

Multi-tools are a shitty novelty; stick with what works.

I am in agreement with you in this case. I have been a CE guy for over a decade now and I usually only keep the multi-tools for just in case purposes. They are good thing to have for show but certainly don't fill the need when you want to do a good quick job. I have one in my tool bag here at work and one at home. That is it.

Bunch
11-05-2013, 07:21 PM
In CE, shops have a bad habit of ordering multi-tools (Gerbers, Leathermans, SOGs) for "their people". Yea, they are convenient at times but when it comes time to get the job done, I'm reaching for my purpose-built screwdrivers, my purpose-built knives, hammers, etc. I've been given three multi-tools in my career and one has gone in my emergency preparedness bag, one is worn as "Just in case" but usually gets used to open boxes, and the other broke into pieces in my hand (shitty Gerber).

Multi-tools are a shitty novelty; stick with what works.

Do you think that's a good analogy in this case? I mean given the disparity of the money involved.

efmbman
11-05-2013, 09:11 PM
Do you think that's a good analogy in this case? I mean given the disparity of the money involved.

I think CLSE made the best case against pinching pennies when it comes to CAS for the ground-pounders:


As far as the Air Force being able to "afford" one-trick ponies, this is where the "the military is not a business" thing kicks in - It doesn't matter if the MBAs say it doesn't make business sense to keep the A-10s in the fleet, the Air Force has an obligation to be able to provide the Army with the most effective close air support that we have available.

BOSS302
11-05-2013, 10:25 PM
Do you think that's a good analogy in this case? I mean given the disparity of the money involved.

I'm focusing on the point that trying to pack too much shit into a single platform is stupid and rarely works. Whether it's a $135,000,000 Joint Strike Fighter or a $45 Leatherman, both generally suck at everything and are perfect at nothing.

Meanwhile, my wire strippers are built for one thing but damnit, they do that one thing perfectly. The A-10 is built for one thing and does it better than anything else.

The F-22 gets its ass kicked by clouds and even tries to kill its own pilots...and the F-35 was ready to have its ass kicked by lightning before some genius figured it out and fixed it.

Bunch
11-06-2013, 04:01 AM
I think CLSE made the best case against pinching pennies when it comes to CAS for the ground-pounders:

The only thing I disagree is with the thinking that CAS should be an inherent Air Force mission when it comes to protecting Army troops. The Army knows what best for the Army and the Air Force knows what best for the Air Force. In a perfect world these two lines of thinking should work in unison for the betterment of the troops in the fight but when it doesn't then saving lives instead of saving money should drive policy.

The Marines provide CAS for their troops so IMO it will only make sense that the Army, if willing to foot the bill, should get that opportunity too even if it is on a limited capacity. As I said earlier the Air Force can't have it both ways on this one, they don't want the A-10 but if the Army puts a claim on them then at least until the Air Force can prove that it has a reliable replacement should place no objections to Army taking over portions or the entire A-10 fleet.

efmbman
11-06-2013, 12:40 PM
The only thing I disagree is with the thinking that CAS should be an inherent Air Force mission when it comes to protecting Army troops. The Army knows what best for the Army and the Air Force knows what best for the Air Force. In a perfect world these two lines of thinking should work in unison for the betterment of the troops in the fight but when it doesn't then saving lives instead of saving money should drive policy.

The Marines provide CAS for their troops so IMO it will only make sense that the Army, if willing to foot the bill, should get that opportunity too even if it is on a limited capacity. As I said earlier the Air Force can't have it both ways on this one, they don't want the A-10 but if the Army puts a claim on them then at least until the Air Force can prove that it has a reliable replacement should place no objections to Army taking over portions or the entire A-10 fleet.

Maybe I am reading your posts wrong... but you appear to contrdict yourself. I'm sure I am wrong and you are right, but I will press on nevertheless.

Warfare is not US Army vs US Air Force. We all work for the same guy. Sadly, in 1986 Congress had to create a law that required the services to work with each other. This was the Goldwater-Nichols Act. It requires that O6's serve in a joint assignment to qualify for flag (general/admiral) appointment. It also establishes that the service chiefs are responsible for providing forces to the geographic combatant commanders in order to ensure the combatant commander has the force neeed to accomplish the mission (win the war). What seemed totally logical and self-evident was not happening prior to the Goldwater-Nichols Act - it had to be forced upon the services to end inter-service rivalies.

This issue with the A-10 is a huge step backwards in my opinion. It is not the decision of the Air Force to decide that it is too expensive to protect Army troops. To even consider such a position would be possible is sickening. That is like saying in the event an airfield is being overrun by enemy forces, the Army should not provide assistance because, after all, the Air Force has security forces.

CAS was the inherent mission of the Army Air Corps in World War II and has been ever since as far as I know. GEN Bradley and GEN Quesada together pioneered cooperation with air and ground units in 1944 and the results are clear: friendly fire decreased dramatically and ground forces were able to advance rapidly and successfully. Teamwork wins wars.

Bunch
11-06-2013, 01:10 PM
This issue with the A-10 is a huge step backwards in my opinion. It is not the decision of the Air Force to decide that it is too expensive to protect Army troops. To even consider such a position would be possible is sickening. That is like saying in the event an airfield is being overrun by enemy forces, the Army should not provide assistance because, after all, the Air Force has security forces.

Where you are wrong is that the Air Force isn't saying that is "too expensive" to protects Army troops. The Air Force is saying that they have other platforms that can do the job the A-10 currently does. It seems to me that most Army folks and A-10 supporters are saying that it should be the A-10 and only the A-10 until a reliable platform has been tested.


CAS was the inherent mission of the Army Air Corps in World War II and has been ever since as far as I know. GEN Bradley and GEN Quesada together pioneered cooperation with air and ground units in 1944 and the results are clear: friendly fire decreased dramatically and ground forces were able to advance rapidly and successfully. Teamwork wins wars.

Yes teamwork works in the larger sense but in something so important as CAS shouldn't that be left to the Army? Again the Marines provide CAS to their own infantry guys (on a limited capacity and with no A-10 BTW) and it works perfectly for them and when they need extra help they call it in.

From an article related to CAS:

In OIF I differences between the Marine Corps’ and U.S. Air Force’s approaches were apparent. The DASC flowed strike aircraft of all types, not just Marine, to targets in the Marine zone for quick target prosecution. In the Air Force’s centralized control system, strike control remained at the higher echelon control agencies, which meant delays in getting clearance to employ ordnance. Additionally, the Army/Air Force system lacked the air-ground synergy implicit in the Marine Corps. This synergy came from an integrated air C2 system. Marines bring a complete C2 suite, radars, all of the equipment to the fight; furthermore, Marines conduct systematic and thorough training to integrate air with ground. On the other hand, the Army relies on the Air Force for air C2, and without dedicated training, friction results. Finally air-ground integration is Marine Corps culture and ethos that pays real dividends in a complex and dynamic combat environment. It really works.13

Link to article: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/close-air-support-0

I encourage you to read that article. When I read it it made my jaw drop, my take from the airticle is that the Air Force role as far as CAS is concern is just instead of being a helping hand in the fight is just like the person in the workplace that wants to be in everything but it just impeding everyone else from doing their job. And is not the first time I read or hear that arguement being made when it comes to the Air Force role in CAS operations.

Juggs
11-06-2013, 05:47 PM
The only thing I disagree is with the thinking that CAS should be an inherent Air Force mission when it comes to protecting Army troops. The Army knows what best for the Army and the Air Force knows what best for the Air Force. In a perfect world these two lines of thinking should work in unison for the betterment of the troops in the fight but when it doesn't then saving lives instead of saving money should drive policy.

The Marines provide CAS for their troops so IMO it will only make sense that the Army, if willing to foot the bill, should get that opportunity too even if it is on a limited capacity. As I said earlier the Air Force can't have it both ways on this one, they don't want the A-10 but if the Army puts a claim on them then at least until the Air Force can prove that it has a reliable replacement should place no objections to Army taking over portions or the entire A-10 fleet.

Who manages all the ranges for cas fixed wing cas platforms? AF.

The Marines are essentially an autonomous force. They haven cas, they have boats, and they have grunts. Now, they also have a minimal force. They also already have their own cas platform. The AV-8 is a great cas platform, it's not as good as A10, but the crew is the shit.

We need the A10 more than we need the F35. How much will it cost to keep the A10 fleet flying and how much is it costing to get the f35s going? Heck we've got this f22 that has killed pilots, and has yet to be put in an anti air role. Gee I wonder why pilots are leaving the f22 these days.

Juggs
11-06-2013, 05:58 PM
Where you are wrong is that the Air Force isn't saying that is "too expensive" to protects Army troops. The Air Force is saying that they have other platforms that can do the job the A-10 currently does. It seems to me that most Army folks and A-10 supporters are saying that it should be the A-10 and only the A-10 until a reliable platform has been tested.



Yes teamwork works in the larger sense but in something so important as CAS shouldn't that be left to the Army? Again the Marines provide CAS to their own infantry guys (on a limited capacity and with no A-10 BTW) and it works perfectly for them and when they need extra help they call it in.

From an article related to CAS:


Link to article: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/close-air-support-0

I encourage you to read that article. When I read it it made my jaw drop, my take from the airticle is that the Air Force role as far as CAS is concern is just instead of being a helping hand in the fight is just like the person in the workplace that wants to be in everything but it just impeding everyone else from doing their job. And is not the first time I read or hear that arguement being made when it comes to the Air Force role in CAS operations.

Funny, not one person cited in that article was part of an Army maneuver unit at a lower level. Not one junior enlisted JTAC. The JTAC is the most forward element of the TACCs system. I remember before Phantom Fury Marines had to wait on cas several times. I also remember during Baton Rouge, I didn't have to wait for cas. I had stacks of it. Large operations generally have assets holding just waiting.

The Marines have a different fighting style than the Army. One isn't completely concerned with other damages whie the Army is very concerned for it. Our recent battle has been against insurgents. What happens when it's force on force again? These flying computers can't do what the A10 does.

I don't know if I'm articulating what I'm trying to say very well. Either way, that article doesn't have a line company guy's opinion on the AF response.

Bunch
11-06-2013, 06:46 PM
Funny, not one person cited in that article was part of an Army maneuver unit at a lower level. Not one junior enlisted JTAC. The JTAC is the most forward element of the TACCs system. I remember before Phantom Fury Marines had to wait on cas several times. I also remember during Baton Rouge, I didn't have to wait for cas. I had stacks of it. Large operations generally have assets holding just waiting.

The Marines have a different fighting style than the Army. One isn't completely concerned with other damages whie the Army is very concerned for it. Our recent battle has been against insurgents. What happens when it's force on force again? These flying computers can't do what the A10 does.

I don't know if I'm articulating what I'm trying to say very well. Either way, that article doesn't have a line company guy's opinion on the AF response.

Im very interested in your take in all this. It seems that you have first hand experience about this topic. Parting from the premise that the A-10 is a very valuable asset which I think we can all agree. What is your take regarding AF/Army synergy in regards to CAS? Don't you think it will make sense for the Army to be granted an expanded role when it comes to CAS instead of relying on the Air Force?

Juggs
11-07-2013, 02:19 PM
Im very interested in your take in all this. It seems that you have first hand experience about this topic. Parting from the premise that the A-10 is a very valuable asset which I think we can all agree. What is your take regarding AF/Army synergy in regards to CAS? Don't you think it will make sense for the Army to be granted an expanded role when it comes to CAS instead of relying on the Air Force?

Do I think the Army has business operating fixed wing attack assets above a certain coordinated altitude? No, their attack aviation is great, however, it operates as a separate maneuver element don't as most aircraft due. They go where they want unless specifically directed. Plus they aren't cas, they may operate a lot like cas, but it's considered close combat attack. That doesn't require a qualified controller. Usually it's pushed to a qualified guy, but any joe can do it. If they were to get A10s they would do the same thing with that. Then we would have fixed wing assets flying around at 10k+ being controlled by folks that have no business doing it, plus the pilots would be trying to deconflict with AF assets. I have a hard enough time doing that with joint assets from the navy or Marine corps. Now I would have to worry about another guys separate SOPs and flying styles. PM me and I will go more into it.

akruse
11-07-2013, 02:36 PM
The A-10 is going away. Its a fact. Its great in a permissive environment but we have to move on.

Juggs
11-07-2013, 02:40 PM
The A-10 is going away. Its a fact. Its great in a permissive environment but we have to move on.

It's great in a nonpermissive environment also. As far as sams go. You just have to plan accordingly.

No it can't do air to air, then again neither can the b52 or B1. The F15C is a one trick pony. Can ONLY do air to air.

Juggs
11-07-2013, 02:56 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-BP8fRbuadA

Sure tell the joes in this fire fight the A10 isn't worth it because its a one trick pony. Ill even buy a cup, a mouth piece and some head gear because you'll get beat.

While I can't stand some of the attitudes of the A10 community you can't beat it when it comes to survivability at low altitude and its ability to force enemy troops to disengage.

akruse
11-07-2013, 03:04 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-BP8fRbuadA

Sure tell the joes in this fire fight the A10 isn't worth it because its a one trick pony. Ill even buy a cup, a mouth piece and some head gear because you'll get beat.

While I can't stand some of the attitudes of the A10 community you can't beat it when it comes to survivability at low altitude and its ability to force enemy troops to disengage.

I realize you are dead set in your ways but realize you aren't the only one involved with folks on the ground and who hear their opinions on stuff.

Juggs
11-07-2013, 03:11 PM
I realize you are dead set in your ways but realize you aren't the only one involved with folks on the ground and who hear their opinions on stuff.

Dead set in my ways or give a damn about those I supported, lived with, trained with and fought with? Ill go with the second. Especially since it was my ass being saved as well.

What opinions do you hear from joes on the ground? Please share. I doubt it sounds anything like "F35 is a great platform, way better than the A10". Or we don't need the A10 an F16 can kill tanks. Oh wait, no it can't. Not well anyways.

Plus I don't remember an F16 doing a strafe giving anybody a boner. Just saying.