8 ms·

> I don't know where the unwillingness to fund them comes from The Air Force. Air Force brass has less than zero interest in maintaining the A-10 fleet. Just a

by wahern 8y ago

> I don't know where the unwillingness to fund them comes from The Air Force. Air Force brass has less than zero interest in maintaining the A-10 fleet. Just a few months ago a friend of mine recounted a conversation he had with a base commander. Basically, the Air Force believes the F-35 and UAVs provide superior capabilities than the A-10 for every conceivable mission. I asked him why the Army doesn't offer to takeover the A-10, but I just got a big shrug. I don't think that possibility is on anybody's radar, by which I infer not even the Army is particularly keen on the A-10.

philwelch 8y ago
The Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. Also, it's entirely possible the Army is more than satisfied with their Apache attack helicopters and no longer needs an anti-tank machine gun with an airplane attached.
- wahern 8y ago
  The Army does have some fixed wing aircraft, so it's not without precedent. And in any event I figured if the Army loved the A-10 so much they could call the Air Force's bluff and ask Congress to give them a mandate. What all the evidence suggests to me is that there's overwhelming consensus at the Pentagon to scrap the A-10. Congress, the defense media, and anecdotally every ground trooper from Iraq and Afghanistan disagree, but there you have it.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >What all the evidence suggests to me is that there's overwhelming consensus at the Pentagon to scrap the A-10. Congress, the defense media, and anecdotally every ground trooper from Iraq and Afghanistan disagree, but there you have it. Grunts love firepower. Back when the M16 was new everyone got full auto. Then the powers that be decided it was overkill and gave them three round burst. Now the marines are fielding the M27.... Just because they eat crayons doesn't mean they don't know what works and what doesn't. That said, having your CAS system be capable of showing up at mach 1.8 is worth something.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- SEJeff 8y ago
  Don’t get me wrong, the GAU8 “Avenger” 30mm cannon the A10 was built around is an utter beast, but it has simply met its match with modern tank armor. It wouldn’t be effective against the most recent few generations of tanks do to increasingly effective armor. It was designed for old Soviet gear, which it obliterates, but it hasn’t been updated and Soviet weaponry has. A modern T14 Armata would be damaged (optics, sensors, etc) but ultimately would most likely survive an A10 gun run. Now for simple infantry ground support, there really is no match for a flying tank! As you’ve alluded to, the AH64 is a very capable flying tank and is very good at the same mission. Bonus points that the hellfire missiles the Apache carries are still quite effective against all currently known armor. Disclaimer: I flew the Shadow 200 TUAV in OIF II and did targeting for several A10 missions. Nothing quite like a BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT cutting the thing you’ve put a laser on in half! I still don’t think it would do well against a modern Russian armor division.
  - ryanmarsh 8y ago
    In my adult life I’ve only ever seen the BRRRRRRRRTTTTT used on troops in the open/defilade. Those rounds work fine, even on the high tech armor favored by the enemy in Afghanistan, trees.
  - hnzix 8y ago
    The "keep the A10" camp is specifically arguing that the A10 is crucial for providing air support to ground troops against insurgent-style opponents, and that there's no equivalent available if the A10s are mothballed. There's some interesting counter-arguments to that view in this thread; I'm not knowledgeable enough in the domain to have a strong opinion.
    - vnnkov 8y ago
      Ain't AC-130 Spectre is exactly for that?
      - elabajaba 8y ago
        They're too vulnerable to fly during the day because they're so big and fly so low.
- briandear 8y ago
  > The Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. That is 100% false. The 160th SOAR flies some CASA-212s, the MC-12 and the regular army flies a variety of SEMA and transport fixed wing aircraft. The Army doesn’t fly fighters, but air superiority isn’t their mission, that’s the Air Force’s job. Naval Aviation is really just a weapons system for ships; it’s for force projection rather than air superiority; Marine Aviation is strictly close air support for Marine operations: not force projection or air superiority. The Army isn’t more than satisfied with Apaches: they’re not going to be buying any more as the FVL program comes online. That program is taking over from the Blackhawks and Apaches. The Apache was designed to fight tanks in Western European Cold War scenarios. However, the Army actually wants F-35s rather than the Warthog for CAS. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said as much at a symposium last year. However, he wants the Air Force flying those planes as that has been the traditional division of labor for the Army: the Air Force generally provides CAS. But it doesn’t really matter what anyone says, there is a contingent of people that hate the military and everything the F-35 represents, regardless of the actual quality of the airplane. The critics have never flown the plane and many of those critics have never spent any time in combat situations where an F-35 would be relevant. There are plenty of ridiculous weapons systems that we don’t need (the Crusader artillery system for example,) but the F-35 isn’t one of them. It’s an incredible plane that allows missions that just wouldn’t be possible in a Super Hornet or a Raptor — at least not without unacceptable losses.
  - throw0101a 8y ago
    > However, the Army actually wants F-35s rather than the Warthog for CAS. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said as much at a symposium last year. Is this desire based on technical merits or political/practical realities? What criteria could be used to evaluate which aircraft is "better" for CAS? Seems that the F-35 has higher operating costs, is less maneuverable, is more fragile, etc. Does stealth have an advantage when one is strafing at less that 10K feet in a (generally) low-threat and low-intensity environment? Given all the combat engagements the A-10 has had over the decades, wouldn't it be prudent to at least have the F-35 run some "live" CAS missions to see how it does first? IIRC, the F-35 can't even fire its gun yet (until there's a future software update).
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  That's the problem. The branches of the US military are based on theater of operation, rather than mission. Close aerial ground support is 100% a different mission profile than for air superiority fighters and air defense batteries. If I were commander in chief, I would move most of the military to a new Logistics Corps, and put it in charge of all unit and cargo transport, aerial refueling, airdrops, at-sea resupply, construction and fortifications, vehicles maintenance, and permanent base buildings and facilities. Next, the nuclear triangle of long-range bombers, ballistic missile silos, and missile submarines would go into the Strategic Deterrents Corps, along with ballistic missile defenses, launch detection satellites, strategic-threat tracking radars, and hypersonic cruise missiles. The rest can go into Offense, Defense, and Special Teams, or any other arrangement they please. Once logistics, diplomacy, and strategic advantage are already taken care of, the tactics should be adaptable to the conditions of the conflict at hand.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    This is why the Marine Corps operates their own air support and the Navy also controls their own aviation.
mcguire 8y ago
My understanding, from knowing some Air Force officers and what I read: Air Force officers manage people. They don't do things. Specifically, they don't risk their own lives. The Air Force is built around NORAD and SAC and ICBMs. Being the organization owning nuclear missiles is their dream state. They recently added space and cyber to that, both of which also don't involve getting shot at. The A-10 is the ultimate in "not our job" to the USAF. UAVs could not get here fast enough. Unfortunately, they also don't want anyone else to have the whole aircraft thing. So the Army doesn't get to fly fixed wings and the Navy only has that "aircraft carrier" excuse.

by wahern 8y ago

philwelch 8y ago

The Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. Also, it's entirely possible the Army is more than satisfied with their Apache attack helicopters and no longer needs an anti-tank machine gun with an airplane attached.

wahern 8y ago
The Army does have some fixed wing aircraft, so it's not without precedent. And in any event I figured if the Army loved the A-10 so much they could call the Air Force's bluff and ask Congress to give them a mandate. What all the evidence suggests to me is that there's overwhelming consensus at the Pentagon to scrap the A-10. Congress, the defense media, and anecdotally every ground trooper from Iraq and Afghanistan disagree, but there you have it.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >What all the evidence suggests to me is that there's overwhelming consensus at the Pentagon to scrap the A-10. Congress, the defense media, and anecdotally every ground trooper from Iraq and Afghanistan disagree, but there you have it. Grunts love firepower. Back when the M16 was new everyone got full auto. Then the powers that be decided it was overkill and gave them three round burst. Now the marines are fielding the M27.... Just because they eat crayons doesn't mean they don't know what works and what doesn't. That said, having your CAS system be capable of showing up at mach 1.8 is worth something.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
SEJeff 8y ago
Don’t get me wrong, the GAU8 “Avenger” 30mm cannon the A10 was built around is an utter beast, but it has simply met its match with modern tank armor. It wouldn’t be effective against the most recent few generations of tanks do to increasingly effective armor. It was designed for old Soviet gear, which it obliterates, but it hasn’t been updated and Soviet weaponry has. A modern T14 Armata would be damaged (optics, sensors, etc) but ultimately would most likely survive an A10 gun run. Now for simple infantry ground support, there really is no match for a flying tank! As you’ve alluded to, the AH64 is a very capable flying tank and is very good at the same mission. Bonus points that the hellfire missiles the Apache carries are still quite effective against all currently known armor. Disclaimer: I flew the Shadow 200 TUAV in OIF II and did targeting for several A10 missions. Nothing quite like a BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT cutting the thing you’ve put a laser on in half! I still don’t think it would do well against a modern Russian armor division.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  In my adult life I’ve only ever seen the BRRRRRRRRTTTTT used on troops in the open/defilade. Those rounds work fine, even on the high tech armor favored by the enemy in Afghanistan, trees.
- hnzix 8y ago
  The "keep the A10" camp is specifically arguing that the A10 is crucial for providing air support to ground troops against insurgent-style opponents, and that there's no equivalent available if the A10s are mothballed. There's some interesting counter-arguments to that view in this thread; I'm not knowledgeable enough in the domain to have a strong opinion.
  - vnnkov 8y ago
    Ain't AC-130 Spectre is exactly for that?
    - elabajaba 8y ago
      They're too vulnerable to fly during the day because they're so big and fly so low.
briandear 8y ago
> The Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. That is 100% false. The 160th SOAR flies some CASA-212s, the MC-12 and the regular army flies a variety of SEMA and transport fixed wing aircraft. The Army doesn’t fly fighters, but air superiority isn’t their mission, that’s the Air Force’s job. Naval Aviation is really just a weapons system for ships; it’s for force projection rather than air superiority; Marine Aviation is strictly close air support for Marine operations: not force projection or air superiority. The Army isn’t more than satisfied with Apaches: they’re not going to be buying any more as the FVL program comes online. That program is taking over from the Blackhawks and Apaches. The Apache was designed to fight tanks in Western European Cold War scenarios. However, the Army actually wants F-35s rather than the Warthog for CAS. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said as much at a symposium last year. However, he wants the Air Force flying those planes as that has been the traditional division of labor for the Army: the Air Force generally provides CAS. But it doesn’t really matter what anyone says, there is a contingent of people that hate the military and everything the F-35 represents, regardless of the actual quality of the airplane. The critics have never flown the plane and many of those critics have never spent any time in combat situations where an F-35 would be relevant. There are plenty of ridiculous weapons systems that we don’t need (the Crusader artillery system for example,) but the F-35 isn’t one of them. It’s an incredible plane that allows missions that just wouldn’t be possible in a Super Hornet or a Raptor — at least not without unacceptable losses.
- throw0101a 8y ago
  > However, the Army actually wants F-35s rather than the Warthog for CAS. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said as much at a symposium last year. Is this desire based on technical merits or political/practical realities? What criteria could be used to evaluate which aircraft is "better" for CAS? Seems that the F-35 has higher operating costs, is less maneuverable, is more fragile, etc. Does stealth have an advantage when one is strafing at less that 10K feet in a (generally) low-threat and low-intensity environment? Given all the combat engagements the A-10 has had over the decades, wouldn't it be prudent to at least have the F-35 run some "live" CAS missions to see how it does first? IIRC, the F-35 can't even fire its gun yet (until there's a future software update).
logfromblammo 8y ago
That's the problem. The branches of the US military are based on theater of operation, rather than mission. Close aerial ground support is 100% a different mission profile than for air superiority fighters and air defense batteries. If I were commander in chief, I would move most of the military to a new Logistics Corps, and put it in charge of all unit and cargo transport, aerial refueling, airdrops, at-sea resupply, construction and fortifications, vehicles maintenance, and permanent base buildings and facilities. Next, the nuclear triangle of long-range bombers, ballistic missile silos, and missile submarines would go into the Strategic Deterrents Corps, along with ballistic missile defenses, launch detection satellites, strategic-threat tracking radars, and hypersonic cruise missiles. The rest can go into Offense, Defense, and Special Teams, or any other arrangement they please. Once logistics, diplomacy, and strategic advantage are already taken care of, the tactics should be adaptable to the conditions of the conflict at hand.
- philwelch 8y ago
  This is why the Marine Corps operates their own air support and the Navy also controls their own aviation.

mcguire 8y ago

My understanding, from knowing some Air Force officers and what I read: Air Force officers manage people. They don't do things. Specifically, they don't risk their own lives. The Air Force is built around NORAD and SAC and ICBMs. Being the organization owning nuclear missiles is their dream state. They recently added space and cyber to that, both of which also don't involve getting shot at. The A-10 is the ultimate in "not our job" to the USAF. UAVs could not get here fast enough. Unfortunately, they also don't want anyone else to have the whole aircraft thing. So the Army doesn't get to fly fixed wings and the Navy only has that "aircraft carrier" excuse.