"The U.S. Force Admits That They Do Not have..." Topic

…A Plan For Close Air Support For Close Air Support When The A-10 Is Gone.

"Head of Air Combat Command Gen. Hawk Carlisle informed reporters on Friday that, despite a week of deliberation, the Air Force is still unclear as to what next-generation aircraft would replace the A-10's much-needed close-air support capabilities.

The week-long summit, which brought together leaders across all branches of the military to discuss close-air support, concluded on Friday with broad agreement that the Air Force's position on the matter is correct: the A-10 needs to be retired in order to cut costs and make way for the expensive F-35, Defense News reports. Currently, the Air Force's budget exceeds sequestration limits by $10 USD billion dollars, and one of the justifications given by Air Force leadership for retiring the A-10 stems from the toll it takes on the budget…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

When I took my AirScience classes as an ROTC cadet in the late 60s, we studied mainly strategic tactics; TAC air was entirely about interdiction…nothing about close air support--even though Vietnam was at its height. When I was a junior officer and in grad school, the "real pilots" made fun of the Warthog drivers. Nice to see we learned so much since then.

Heads need to roll, NOW………

Overpaid generals, who aren't earning their keep, and that want to kill the one aircraft that can still perform the job long after it was built.

We need the A-10, and not the F-35, despite what all the military brass says.

Brilliant idea though, pull CAS from our troops, without having a replacement ready to fill in for it [heavy, dripping sarcasm intended, in case you couldn't tell].

If they pull a stunt like that, and we have to go to war, they need to have their pensions cancelled too.

The F-35 Coot won't even be able to field all its weaponry until at least 2022, and that's if there aren't further delays, which there always are, especially with this ill-fated program.

How then do you explain the fact that the current head of the USAF spent most of his flying career on A-10s…?

"USAF Jet-Jockeys hate the A-10 and… oh, hang on a minute… I seem to be talking out of my hoop!"

"US Generals don't know anything about A-10s…! oh, hang on, yes he knows everything about A-10s… Whereas I, a keyboard warrior, know cock-all about the subject, having only ever flown a 737 in Tourist Class."

I'd also add that Tango's heading is not the heading of the article and is very disingenuous, as that is not what the USAF said at all. They said that they do not have a direct successor for the A-10. They DID NOT say that they have no clue what to do about CAS.

I call ballhooks.

Just because he flew the A-10, doesn't mean he isn't going along with the current political stand, to get funding for the new jet, and to keep his job.

I seem to recall another air force general saying anyone for the A-10s was committing treason, so……

Sorry Jemima, killing A-10s doesn't make sense when we could be at war with the Russians, Iranians, or both next week, and are currently at war with ISIS, AQ, and others.

There is no other more robust, capable, or cost-effective jet than the A-10, for CAS, down in the weeds, where the sorties frequently need to be flown.

Of course, what do I, and many other air force personnel, and/or senators and congressmen know, that fully support the Warthog?

And, sorry to burst your bubble, but I've flown 1st Class, a time or two as well.

killing A-10s doesn't make sense when we could be at war with the Russians, Iranians, or both next week

Haha, the A-10 wouldn't be allowed near a near-modern opponent.

The A-10 was a cheap disposable tactical bird that was intended to die holding off the Soviet hordes just long enough for REFORGER to turn the tide.

Against modern AA guns and MANPADs the A-10 fleet wouldn't even manage that. SEAD missions can knock out the big SAMs that can threaten a high flying F-16/F-18/F-35 but not the low level AA that would mince the A-10.

In gaming parlance the A-10 is "win more".

Yeah, right.

Quaker, you might want to look at the environment the A10 was built for. Who can put that kind of net up today?

Anyone with a modern MANPAD can kill an A-10, and Russia has a lot of those. The USAF could dismantle higher level AA grids which would allow its high altitude fighters and bombers to operate with relative impunity.

So why do you need the A-10? Its only niche these days is low-level CAS against primitive opponents. That is a "nice to have" not a "necessary" capability (and is rapidly being supplanted by drones).

I personally am not a huge fan of the F-35, but most A-10 fans are assessing the situation with nostalgia/romanticism.

I know we've got an experienced FAC here on TMP, so maybe he can comment. My MOS doesn't talk aircraft onto targets directly.

I'd love to see some *detailed* use cases (like a topo map with enemy/friendly units, airspace control measures, etc.) where CAS can only be prosecuted by an A-10.

I'll bet ¥100 such a scenario doesn't exist.

Is it a cool aircraft? Absolutely.
Should we have some sort of low-cost dedicated CAS aircraft for environments with little/no air defense threat? Yes. Super Tucano, please.
Is the US military doomed to lose every future military conflict because A-10s aren't overhead doing gun runs? NO!

I got started in the video game industry as a designer on an A10 flight simulator (A10 Tank Killer II). I love the plane and met dozens of A10 pilots (many who served in the first Gulf War) and have, I believe, a somewhat decent, if amateur understanding of the aircraft.

There were three things the A10 pilots feared, ZSU-23s (at the time), manpads and SA-8's (9k33 OSA). All of these are designed to shoot down lowflying aircraft.

However, the A10 was built for survivability and there are multiple examples of A10s taking several hits and coming home ok. They have triple redundant controls (two hydraulic systems and a back up direct system). I think a single manpad would have to be extremely lucky to take down an A10, but two would do the trick. The truth is somewhere in between Quaker and Mako.

The downsides of the A10 are- very slow (one pilot told me the only way to reach the official rated speed of an A10 would be to strip it clean and then go into a 90 degree dive). The engines were underated from the get-go and the hotter the environment, the slower it goes.

Until the C model, it was still using the same avionics it had in the 1980s. The down side of the C is that now pilot work load is much greater. You aren't going to fly terrain masking when trying to lock up a target with a litening pod (the old pods made use of units on the ground that would lock up targets with ground based designators- meaning the a10 could release and then get the hell out- self targeting pods means the aircraft has to maintains direct line of site to the target to designate).

As long as we fight asymmetric forces, the modern A10 is cheap to maintain, can loiter for a a very long time and can drop lots of SDBs and strafe with the gun. Against a symmetric force, the lack of speed and absolute need to fly terrain masking routes just to stay alive would limit its effectiveness.

To me the answer would be to build a new A10 with greater speed, keeping the survivability and the ability to fly both high and low profile attacks while keeping a large loiter capability- but the way procurement works these days, they'd screw that up anyway. In the meantime, the army has gone to drones and those are great (until the enemy hacks or jams them).

I'd give them to the army and let them keep them, but the Air Force would never go for that, and the army has its own modernization issues with a need for a new rifle, new sidearm, new tank, new IFV, new self propelled artillery system, new transport helicopter and new scout helicopter all imminent.

With no money to go around, and a need to adapt to changing needs on the battlefield, we live in interesting times.

I know we've got an experienced FAC here on TMP, so maybe he can comment. My MOS doesn't talk aircraft onto targets directly.

I don't know if you are referring to me Noble ? But I was trained at USAF AGOS and was Bn S-3 Air in the 101,'81-'83. And I have talked directly to A-10s. From the ground with a PRC-77, etc. … Even had them come by low and slow enough to see the pilots wave at me while I was on the back of a truck … *[I was somewhat reluctant to post this as I didn't want KatieL to diagnose me again, I quote her > "" I might offer a tentative diagnosis of something along the lines of narcissistic compensatory obsessive behaviour. It's not a serious problem unless it's left untreated for extensive periods of time. And you're starting to look like you're getting towards that point -- anger issues are one of the potential outcomes.

I'd really recommend getting some help so that you can firstly get a diagnosis from someone clinical and then get on the right treatment to start to live in the moment and not remain stuck endlessly storying your past.""] … just say'n …

The A-10 is the only aircraft that can take hits, and be more than likely to return to base in one piece, and/or to protect the pilot, with that nice bathtub of armor he sits in.

Super Tacanos (just because you put "super" in the aircraft's name, doesn't mean it is) and carbon-fiber birds will just shatter, when hit by enemy groundfire.

Using a $150 USD mil a copy aircraft for CAS/mud-moving doesn't make a lot of sense from an economics standpoint, unless the targets you are taking out are more valuable than that, or dangerous enough to warrant the attention, e.g. nuke tipped missiles; nuke weapons production facilities; large, expensive, enemy surface vessels; etc.

Legion 4: I remember you were a mech infantry company commander (right?). I was thinking of someone else, with I think OIF/OEF JFAC/TACP experience.

Mako11: You have a point Re: survivability….to an extent. What targets HAVE to be prosecuted by low-flying armored fixed-wing aircraft? That's the question no one has answered to my satisfaction. Why can't they be prosecuted by high-flying fixed-wing craft with PGMs? Why can't they be prosecuted by attack helicopters (also reasonably armored against ground fire)?

AAA assets have come a long way in the past few decades. I question the utility of a titanium bathtub and redundant systems against a Pantsir S-1 / Tunguska / similar integrated gun/missile system. Phased-array radar guided 30mm cannons…..ouch.

The A10 was designed to take hits from MANPADS and still fly. We've seen a LOT of pictures of A10s that have taken damage and flown back to their home airfield.

ZSU23-4s or ZSU30-6 are scary, but that's why they're first priority targets.

Legion 4: I remember you were a mech infantry company commander (right?). I was thinking of someone else, with I think OIF/OEF JFAC/TACP experience.

Yes, you are correct, Sir !

Those underneath a layer of clouds, in close proximity to friendly troops, those that haven't been identified yet, or when the atmosphere is hazy, and you can't see the ground from 8 miles up.

Also, when more than a Hellfire, or two, fired from a drone, are required to do the job.

Attack helos are far more vulnerable, and can be brought down by a single farmer, with an old bolt action rifle, like we saw in the early days of the 2nd Iraq War.

Of course, I guess the guys on the ground don't need CAS, which seems to be the option the USAF brass are considering.

I always thought the A-10 was cool, but new technologies may have past it buy. What can it do that cannot be done better and safer by AH-64s, UAVs, and smart weapons launched from safe distances?

And should we go to war, toe-to-toe with the Russkies,, I seriously doubt whether or not we have A-10s will have anything to do with the outcome.

Mako11:

Those underneath a layer of clouds

GPS-guided bombs. Particularly the JDAM and SDB families.

in close proximity to friendly troops

That's a weaponeering/procedural issue, and is a delivery platform-independent concern. Also, consider this article ( link ). The A-10 stacks more bodies than any other aircraft….friendly bodies, unfortunately.

Also, when more than a Hellfire, or two, fired from a drone, are required to do the job

Good thing an MQ-9 Reaper typically carries 4 Hellfires, then :D.

Attack helos are far more vulnerable, and can be brought down by a single farmer, with an old bolt action rifle

Citation needed.

I read this article ( link ) ages ago but forgot about it. It has some good points about A-10 uses cases.

When "flying cover over outposts where attack helicopters can't get (high altitude areas [e.g.] above 10,000 feet in the mountainous areas of Eastern Afghanistan for instance) and other USAF aircraft cannot get down/under the weather or fly in tight spaces (F-16, et al) or are too limited in numbers (AC-130)."

GPS munitions and build more AC-130s…

When "there is little to no air-to-air/IADs [integrated air defense system] threat and its use eases the demand for artillery and ground logistics requirements to support that artillery (cannon or rocket)[:] think of the support provided by Warthog pilots during the march to Baghdad in 2003); and the 30mm [gun], which is unique and intimidating to those on the receiving end, but not as precise as the gun on the AH-64 or the AC-130."

Note that he mentions the A-10's vaunted gun is less precise than AH-64/AC-130 gunfire.

Saying that a fixed-wing aircraft eases your ground logistics artillery burden is missing the forest for the trees. The fuel for a single sortie would probably pay for a whole pallet of 155 rounds or HIMARS rockets, and axing the aviation maintenance facilities and staff would pay for 5-ton trucks and some Motor-T Soldiers to drive said pallets around….several times over.

Of course, I guess the guys on the ground don't need CAS, which seems to be the option the USAF brass are considering.

One reason I'm really glad the Marine Corps has such tight, integrated procedures and training for air support, and our own aviation assets. The Army though? Those guys are screwed. :(

You can't drop GPS bombs on targets you can see through the clouds, due to rules of engagement, and risk of collateral damage/casualties.

I suspect the A-10 has saved far more friendlies than it has killed, so that argument is just silly.

The Reaper can't carry anywhere near the payload of the A-10, and doesn't have a gatling cannon.

The AC-130 and AH-64 are far more vulnerable to ground-fire than the A-10.

Just look at how many A-10s were lost vs. AH-64s in Iraq, and Afghanistan. I don't recall a single farmer with a bolt-action rifle claiming to have downed a Warthog, but several Apaches were supposedly lost that way.

Perhaps the A-10's gun is less precise, but it spews a lot more shells.

The Apaches that were shot down were either due to poor firing position occupation procedures or a golden BB.

The first thing I learned from all the Nam era flight instructors who raised me from a pup was to look down and see who is below you when occupying any location. The Apache drivers in question forgot that for the most part.

Golden BBs OTH always roll kills.

You can't drop GPS bombs on targets you can see through the clouds, due to rules of engagement, and risk of collateral damage/casualties.

You should review the 3 Types of Terminal Control. GPS ordnance can be dropped through clouds if the JTAC or other spotter has visual contact with the target. That's Type 2 control. I haven't heard of Type 2 Terminal Control being restricted/banned by theater ROE. ( PDF link )

I suspect the A-10 has saved far more friendlies than it has killed, so that argument is just silly.

Resource optimization is partly a question of error rates. Other CAS platforms such as the F-16 have caused near-0 friendly losses, and handle something like 80% of all CAS in OIF/OEF. It's completely rational to axe a platform with a 1% error rate in favor of those with a 0.1% error.

The Reaper can't carry anywhere near the payload of the A-10, and doesn't have a gatling cannon.

The AC-130 and AH-64 are far more vulnerable to ground-fire than the A-10.

Demonstrate a target type that can *only* be effectively engaged by 30mm high-ROF cannon. Otherwise this distinction holds no value. It's like saying the USAF would suck if they don't have sharks with laser beams (the A-10's Vulcan cannon is the laser beam in this case). All systems have trade-offs. The point is that, when integrated and operated as part of a system-of-systems, the advantages of the A-10 platform do not offset its disadvantages/operational costs when compared to alternative ordnance delivery platforms.

Perhaps the A-10's gun is less precise, but it spews a lot more shells.

You just stated that GPS ordnance through cloudcover has a collateral damage risk, but then gloss over the collateral damage risk of spewing a large number of 30mm rounds in an inaccurate fashion. Does not compute.

Noble, well said.

Viper … were not you a USAF pilot ?

Does anyone know if the USAF (or anyone else) has actually practiced using Drones for CAS? I wonder how much comfort it would give the ground pounders when they see a Drone providing CAS? Maybe a new aircraft can replace the A-10. I would think it should be designed solely around the mission of CAS. Just my humble opinion.

I thought drones were already used in that role?

I was reading stories a while back where they looked into what life was like for drone pilots and some of them talked about the stress of watching an infantry patrol take casualties while they were flying in support of them.

I believe they are … and I'm sure they are very welcomed by those on the ground they support.

Perhaps the A-10's gun is less precise, but it spews a lot more shells.

You just stated that GPS ordnance through cloudcover has a collateral damage risk, but then gloss over the collateral damage risk of spewing a large number of 30mm rounds in an inaccurate fashion. Does not compute.

Drop a 500lb JDAM and you have a ~10m CEP plus a ~300m blast range.

At the last Hogsmoke (A10 competition), the media and scorekeepers were ~200m off the axis of the strafing target. Furthermore, the A10's gun will throw all those shells into a circle about 15m in diameter. So the A10's gun can be used in much closer proximity to ground troops than a JDAM.

Whereas I agree the A-10 has limite duse against people with a decent AA net…

…. who have you been fighting for the past 15 years?

A Bradley isn't much good against a T80 either, but it still has a role.

Incidentally, I'm guessing drones are a lot more vulnerable than A10s?

For a start anyone with decent technology might have a go at breaking the control link….or hacking it.

A Bradley isn't much good against a T80 either, but it still has a role.

Exactly … I remember when the Bradley was still a "work in progress". The talk was it couldn't take a main MBT gun round hit and survive. And we looked at each other and said, "What can !?"

Incidentally, I'm guessing drones are a lot more vulnerable than A10s?

For a start anyone with decent technology might have a go at breaking the control link….or hacking it.

Maybe … regardless drones cost less for a number of reasons. Not the least the "pilot" is not in the cockpit over the battlefield …

Incidentally, I'm guessing drones are a lot more vulnerable than A10s?

Quite a bit more vulnerable. Smaller, not built as tough, no radar warning receivers, no missile launch warning systems, no chaff/flares/jammers, poor situational awareness for the pilot…

Right now, drones are filling the role of the Observer planes from Vietnam, minus the Forward Air controller capabilities.

Legion, yes I was. I flew both the A-10 and F-16. I flew as many CAS sorties ( in combat) in the F-16 as I did in the A-10. In addition, I was a FAC in both. My views on the subject are well threaded throughout TMP. I have tried not to get caught up in the discussion but can't seem to lay off. It would be more fun if we could do this all over a beer.

Drop a 500lb JDAM and you have a ~10m CEP plus a ~300m blast range.

Hence the shift to smaller munitions such as the SDB and Hellfire.

At the last Hogsmoke (A10 competition), the media and scorekeepers were ~200m off the axis of the strafing target. Furthermore, the A10's gun will throw all those shells into a circle about 15m in diameter. So the A10's gun can be used in much closer proximity to ground troops than a JDAM.

How do we reconcile this supposed pinpoint accuracy with the A-10's high fratricide numbers? Is it a question of tactical employment/ground coordination procedures? *shrug* I dunno…

Viper guy
Legion, yes I was. I flew both the A-10 and F-16. I flew as many CAS sorties ( in combat) in the F-16 as I did in the A-10. In addition, I was a FAC in both. My views on the subject are well threaded throughout TMP. I have tried not to get caught up in the discussion but can't seem to lay off. It would be more fun if we could do this all over a beer.

Thought so ! Remembered your "Call Sign" – Viper guy ! And I generally take the word of guys like you who have the Real World expertise/experiences on a subject … like you do being a "Hog Driver" ! Or other vets who have "been around the block" ! Like Noble, Lion, Scout, Sabre, etc. … !

Hence the shift to smaller munitions such as the SDB and Hellfire.

Hellfire apparently has a larger danger area than a 155mm artillery shell (based on a report from a Canadian unit's 3 weeks of hell), and even the SDB is 250lbs.

How do we reconcile this supposed pinpoint accuracy with the A-10's high fratricide numbers? Is it a question of tactical employment/ground coordination procedures? *shrug* I dunno…

Aside from the greater accuracy generally meaning people willing to call in air support much closer to their own position?

I generally blame USAF procedures and culture, though I'm sure Viperguy has some better answers. I was Navy, and have a rather dim view of USAF anymore.