5 ms·

The problem is that the CAS mission the A-10 performs is effectively impossible against any modern enemy with modern missile systems and manpads. The A-10 is fo

The problem is that the CAS mission the A-10 performs is effectively impossible against any modern enemy with modern missile systems and manpads. The A-10 is for shooting up poor brown people we're messing with for no particular reason, not for fighting a real war. The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. We don't need the A-10 because it's useless for any war worth fighting in today's world.

cstross 10y ago
The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. Or not to get into wars in the first place; then you could give up having an Air Force at all, right? Seriously, "stop doing COIN in poor countries" is a political solution that requires a top-down policy change that goes counter to the entire historical direction of US military involvement since Vietnam. The US very seldom tackles even a second-rate military armed with Russian cast-offs -- the most recent example was Iraq in 2003 -- so the A-10 is still useful for the sort of brushfire wars and missions you get involved with. Even though they'd die like flies in a shooting war with a real front-rank opponent. (Like who?)
- 55acdda48ab5 10y ago
  > "stop doing COIN in poor countries" is a political solution that requires a top-down policy change Yeah? That was my whole point. You make it sound like it's crazy. It's the most sensible course.
  - cstross 10y ago
    In the abstract, yes, it's the most sensible course. Unfortunately, from where I'm watching (hint: not an American) it looks like the State Department has an ad-hoc de-facto promotion track whereby you can't make it to the top unless you've got a proven record of running a short, victorious war. Not that this is official policy or anything so formally clear-cut -- it's more like an emergent property of the institution itself, and the priorities that the bureaucracy has evolved to service -- but you don't get to become SecState unless you're a hawk and the best way to acquire hawk credentials is to "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business" as Michael Ledeen put it (according to Jonah Goldberg). (Tertiary source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen )
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The military doesn't get to decide when to go to war or against whom.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
OK, you tell the soldiers and marines who are currently on the ground and fighting that we're getting rid of what is, for them, the most effective solution. Until we're actually not fighting these wars, it's best to keep the most effective weapons to fight them around.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  You could also tell them 'hey we're bringing you back home to the States' and I think that would help the medicine go down.
  - gohrt 10y ago
    but then adding "and laying you off from your job" might make it a bitter pill.
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    But that's not going to happen. So... we're back to "do the job with sufficient equipment," or "do the job without sufficient equipment."
  - SEJeff 10y ago
    That is sadly untenable. Daesh, AQ, and affiliates aren't going to just stop wanting America to burn in ashes because we pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan. War sucks, but you can't reason with ideology of fanatics. If they try to kill you, you have to kill them or let them kill you. You can try to help educate the children and give them alternatives to killing you, but you can't stop them all as ideals never die.
SEJeff 10y ago
It really isn't. The A10 is basically a flying tank meant to be hit and survive. The Iraqi army of desert storm was a "modern enemy" with pretty decent soviet gear at the time. US gear was just that much better due to us spending such an obnoxious amount of our GDP on our military. A manpad doesn't have remotely explosive power of the AA that hit the A10 in this video, don't believe me? See the pictures yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY There are literally dozens and dozens of similar stories. The A10 is simply put the most effective CAS tool the US Military has or ever had. CAS is a very important part of US warfare and just because they might be against an enemy with better anti-air doesn't negate the need for boots on the ground, which require CAS for maximum survivability. Most likely the Stealth B2s or RQ-170 Sentinel would be sent in first to quickly take out as much of the AAA as possible. Disclaimer: I'm a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and flew the Shadow 200 TUAV. I targeted several times for A10s and have heard the BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT up close.
- platz 10y ago
  I think OP is saying flying tanks don't do well against missiles.
  - SEJeff 10y ago
    Right. The OP is wrong :) I showed a concrete example proving it. That was with an actual anti-aircraft missle. A manpad is much much smaller and the A10 was designed explicitly to take direct manpad strikes.
    - platz 10y ago
      Oh, i see - Thanks!
- ecnal 10y ago
  >The A10 is basically a flying tank meant to be hit and survive. Like Dale Storr's OA-10, which took a single Strela hit and went down? The A-10 is certainly more likely to be mission killed by MANPADS and AAA than other aircraft (which are liable to be destroyed outright), but those that survive are not useful for combat--Kim Campbell's A-10 was grazed by a Shilka and rendered combat ineffective; after she landed it in manual reversion, it was shipped back to the US and required months of intensive repair. That's great if your objective function is maximizing the number of airframes that are eventually flyable again after being damaged, but godawful if your goal is to actually use them to perform CAS. >The A10 is simply put the most effective CAS tool the US Military has or ever had. I completely agree with this, but tools only benefit you /if you can use them/. A-10s cannot survive in contested airspace, and if the not-at-all-fearsome Iraqi Army spanking them so hard that they ended up with a 10,000 foot hard deck didn't clue politicians in on that, maybe a few videos of modern SHORAD like the Pantsir which are available for $peanuts will. >just because they might be against an enemy with better anti-air doesn't negate the need for boots on the ground, which require CAS for maximum survivability The CAS you get is better than the CAS you don't. If your primary CAS tool is the A-10, then being against an enemy with even the slightest anti-air capability means that you don't get any CAS at all. >Most likely the Stealth B2s or RQ-170 Sentinel would be sent in first to quickly take out as much of the AAA as possible The RQ-170 is a phenomenally expensive unarmed recon drone that the US operates a handful of. The B-2 is useful for striking an enormous number of fixed targets, but is not designed or intended to be employed in a SEAD/DEAD role against anything more mobile than theater-level air defenses. No SEAD weapon in the world is capable of striking air defenses that it isn't fired at, and as a result anything flying at low level is vulnerable to SHORAD whose operators use the advanced tactic of parking it in a treeline and waiting until they hear a jet to engage it.

cstross 10y ago

The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. Or not to get into wars in the first place; then you could give up having an Air Force at all, right? Seriously, "stop doing COIN in poor countries" is a political solution that requires a top-down policy change that goes counter to the entire historical direction of US military involvement since Vietnam. The US very seldom tackles even a second-rate military armed with Russian cast-offs -- the most recent example was Iraq in 2003 -- so the A-10 is still useful for the sort of brushfire wars and missions you get involved with. Even though they'd die like flies in a shooting war with a real front-rank opponent. (Like who?)

55acdda48ab5 10y ago
> "stop doing COIN in poor countries" is a political solution that requires a top-down policy change Yeah? That was my whole point. You make it sound like it's crazy. It's the most sensible course.
- cstross 10y ago
  In the abstract, yes, it's the most sensible course. Unfortunately, from where I'm watching (hint: not an American) it looks like the State Department has an ad-hoc de-facto promotion track whereby you can't make it to the top unless you've got a proven record of running a short, victorious war. Not that this is official policy or anything so formally clear-cut -- it's more like an emergent property of the institution itself, and the priorities that the bureaucracy has evolved to service -- but you don't get to become SecState unless you're a hawk and the best way to acquire hawk credentials is to "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business" as Michael Ledeen put it (according to Jonah Goldberg). (Tertiary source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen )
- gozur88 10y ago
  The military doesn't get to decide when to go to war or against whom.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

OK, you tell the soldiers and marines who are currently on the ground and fighting that we're getting rid of what is, for them, the most effective solution. Until we're actually not fighting these wars, it's best to keep the most effective weapons to fight them around.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
You could also tell them 'hey we're bringing you back home to the States' and I think that would help the medicine go down.
- gohrt 10y ago
  but then adding "and laying you off from your job" might make it a bitter pill.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  But that's not going to happen. So... we're back to "do the job with sufficient equipment," or "do the job without sufficient equipment."
- SEJeff 10y ago
  That is sadly untenable. Daesh, AQ, and affiliates aren't going to just stop wanting America to burn in ashes because we pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan. War sucks, but you can't reason with ideology of fanatics. If they try to kill you, you have to kill them or let them kill you. You can try to help educate the children and give them alternatives to killing you, but you can't stop them all as ideals never die.

SEJeff 10y ago

It really isn't. The A10 is basically a flying tank meant to be hit and survive. The Iraqi army of desert storm was a "modern enemy" with pretty decent soviet gear at the time. US gear was just that much better due to us spending such an obnoxious amount of our GDP on our military. A manpad doesn't have remotely explosive power of the AA that hit the A10 in this video, don't believe me? See the pictures yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY There are literally dozens and dozens of similar stories. The A10 is simply put the most effective CAS tool the US Military has or ever had. CAS is a very important part of US warfare and just because they might be against an enemy with better anti-air doesn't negate the need for boots on the ground, which require CAS for maximum survivability. Most likely the Stealth B2s or RQ-170 Sentinel would be sent in first to quickly take out as much of the AAA as possible. Disclaimer: I'm a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and flew the Shadow 200 TUAV. I targeted several times for A10s and have heard the BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT up close.

platz 10y ago
I think OP is saying flying tanks don't do well against missiles.
- SEJeff 10y ago
  Right. The OP is wrong :) I showed a concrete example proving it. That was with an actual anti-aircraft missle. A manpad is much much smaller and the A10 was designed explicitly to take direct manpad strikes.
  - platz 10y ago
    Oh, i see - Thanks!
ecnal 10y ago
>The A10 is basically a flying tank meant to be hit and survive. Like Dale Storr's OA-10, which took a single Strela hit and went down? The A-10 is certainly more likely to be mission killed by MANPADS and AAA than other aircraft (which are liable to be destroyed outright), but those that survive are not useful for combat--Kim Campbell's A-10 was grazed by a Shilka and rendered combat ineffective; after she landed it in manual reversion, it was shipped back to the US and required months of intensive repair. That's great if your objective function is maximizing the number of airframes that are eventually flyable again after being damaged, but godawful if your goal is to actually use them to perform CAS. >The A10 is simply put the most effective CAS tool the US Military has or ever had. I completely agree with this, but tools only benefit you /if you can use them/. A-10s cannot survive in contested airspace, and if the not-at-all-fearsome Iraqi Army spanking them so hard that they ended up with a 10,000 foot hard deck didn't clue politicians in on that, maybe a few videos of modern SHORAD like the Pantsir which are available for $peanuts will. >just because they might be against an enemy with better anti-air doesn't negate the need for boots on the ground, which require CAS for maximum survivability The CAS you get is better than the CAS you don't. If your primary CAS tool is the A-10, then being against an enemy with even the slightest anti-air capability means that you don't get any CAS at all. >Most likely the Stealth B2s or RQ-170 Sentinel would be sent in first to quickly take out as much of the AAA as possible The RQ-170 is a phenomenally expensive unarmed recon drone that the US operates a handful of. The B-2 is useful for striking an enormous number of fixed targets, but is not designed or intended to be employed in a SEAD/DEAD role against anything more mobile than theater-level air defenses. No SEAD weapon in the world is capable of striking air defenses that it isn't fired at, and as a result anything flying at low level is vulnerable to SHORAD whose operators use the advanced tactic of parking it in a treeline and waiting until they hear a jet to engage it.