• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A-10's scheduled for the Bone Yard


the a-10 does its job well. who needs speed if you can deliver body blows and take punishment.

besides the air force has been tactically wrong before. they actually designed planes without guns because they thought long-range missiles would make the era of gun-carrying areial dogfights was over. then along came Vietnam and the inconveinant truth that the mig-17 and mig-21's cannons could shoot down the f4 phantoms at close range.
 

You stand corrected or my mis-comprehension of what you posted in reference to cruiser hulls.

The tonnage of ships classifications have changed over the decades. Todays destroyers are as large as WW ll 6" gun cruisers.

You might enjoy reading this.-> Designing a Ship
 

Actually it was the Navy not the Air Force who didn't put a gun on the F-4 Phantom. It was the Air Force who adopted a Navy fighter that was originally designed to provide an air defense platform for carrier battle groups and added a gun to the F-4. The Navy and Marines would follow suit when they realized aerial dog fights will always be a reality in war.

What's interesting that during the Vietnam war the Air Force would adopt many Navy aircraft, the F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair, A-1 Skyraider, A-3 Skywarrior which the USAF called the B-66 Destroyer.
 

No argument from me. The A10 was developed during the Cold War and the need for a very rugged tank buster to fly through light AA fire. It lacked any real sophistication in electronics. The platform has been upgraded to use smart weapons and electronic/chaff countermeasures for missiles attack.

But as we have little say in what the fighter jocks and Zoomie brass thinks they need...

The A-10 is making way for Drone/ Buck Rogers type airframes.

Never said it was a good thang, but damn sure isn't an Obama PC thang like the OP is constantly trying to make every military decision out to be...
 

My point was and will remain the US Navy isn't 'knuckling under' to Obama. The sometimes ludicrous naval ship procurement isn't a product of Obama but Congress fighting for 'jobs' in their districts, defense contractors fighting to get as much buck out of every ship and the Naval brass asses having some very odd ideas on what a ship can do, and how many they 'need'.

I have plenty of warship books right here. But like I said mission capability means more than size. Using tonnage would have the Ticonderogas and Burkes in the same class, but they are not, and they occupy the same era.

Funny thing you are hung up on size as the cruisers of today are approx the same size as WWII cruisers.(8 to 10,000 tons) What has increased the size of destroyers are missiles. they are not heavy, they are bulky. For a hull to move through the water as 'cleanly' as possible the length has to be increased to keep a 'slick' beam to length ratio. Command and control centers, electronic displacement, need for helo, all adds to the size of a modern destroyer. what was a simple battleship fleet escort designed to attack the other fleet with torpedoes soon took on ASW and then AAW duties. Throw in the need to combat fast nuke subs, cruise missiles, small attack boats, the need to escort fast carriers, and the endurance to span oceans- the destroyer of today has far more on it's plate than it did at the start of WWII.

But most modern navies classify their ships by capability rather than size, hence a 3000 ton corvette, which back in WWII would have been the tonnage of a destroyer.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The reason A-10's are being retired is because the Joint Strike Fighter or F-35 lightning II will be able to take over the role.
Click to expand...

Any fighter can "take over the role" of providing CAS, but that does not mean they will be as good at it.

For one, there is the role that the A-10 was originally designed to do. And that is not Close Air Support, but "Tank Busting". Most people seem to have forgotten that this plane was originally designed to destroy tanks, a role it is very proficient at. Most seem to forget that in the Gulf War, A-10s destroyed over 900 tanks, and 1,200 artillery pieces. The Lightning simply does not have the speed and ordinance capability (especially the 30mm cannon) to take over that role.

An F-35 would be returning to base Bingo on ammo at a point where the A-10 is just getting warmed up. Compare the difference between 180 25mm rounds, and 1,174 30mm rounds. 11 hard points on the A-10 compared to 6 hard points on the F-35. And I am sure the minimum operating speed of the F-35 is mugh higher then that of the A-10 (not counting the F-35B variant with VSTOL capability).

No, the F-35 comes out a poor second best to the A-10 for CAS missions. And only the F-35B would be comparable to one of the other CAS fighters, the venerable Harrier.
 

The LAAW was developed during the Cold War to knock out Soviet tanks in Europe and was found to be more affective in Vietnam killing Charley. After the Vietnam War the same people said the LAAW was a obsolete Cold War weapons platform and was pulled from the armories and luckily not disposed of but put in storage. Fast track thirty years and guess what the weapon of choice is for killing the Taliban in Afghanistan, the LAAW.

Same was true with that obsolete M-14, A-10 Warthog, .45 M-1911 A-1, would have been true with the ONTOS if all of them weren't scrapped.

>"but damn sure isn't an Obama PC thang like the OP is constantly trying to make every military decision out to be... "<

If you go to post #1, of this thread your'll see where I said "There's three stories here:" in reference to the thread.

1# <Air Force Mourns Likely Passing of A-10 Warthog>

2# <Sen. Ayotte places hold on Air Force secretary nominee over fleet cuts>

3# <"Deborah Lee James, Obama's nomination for the next Secretary of the Air Force. Ring a bell ? She was part of Clinton's DoD when he was dumbing down the military and over downsizing the military. Is there a political agenda here ? ">

Where Obama comes in is not really with the A-10's going to the "bone yard" even though it was his military budget cuts before his sequestration along with those cuts from Obama's sequestration that had forced the Air Force to retire the A-10 earlier than planned. But that Obama as usual is nominating another Secretary of the military services who is just not unqualified for the position but during Congressional hearings has shown that she was completely out of the loop with the retirement of the A-10's.

Not one post on this thread has questioned the nomination of Deborah Lee James as Secretary of the Air Force. Just another Obama appointment of someone who's incompetent and who's more concerned with social engineering of the Air Force than making sure that the Air Force has aircraft that can fly and fight.
 

Actually the LAW, as we called it, was terrible at knocking out tanks. Just like the LAW the A-10 is being put into storage. The M14 is a dream weapon- sleek, sexy and far more difficult to maintain than the AR10 platform. If there had been enough AR10 type rifles in the system the M14 would have stayed in storage... I know this because I have used both extensively. I can own ANY 308 semi I want, I have a DPMS, but I love fondling the M1A. The 1911 was past it's prime- a high cap 45 of damn near any type is better than a 9mm. Ontos was cheap, I'll give it that.

But you miss the bigger picture- the Military for decades has slighted low intensity warfare for high tech, heavy warfare. Our Military did great against conventional forces but got it's ass handed to it when the guerrilla war started. Heavy in vehicles and light in grunts the military struggled to deal with the occupation. Struggles in the mountains of Afghanistan. That has NOTHING to do with Obama as those decisions were made starting decades ago.

Now it is funny to hear a you go on and on about a civilian should be telling the Air Force what planes to buy. The Zoomie brass decides that. And FYI an article on 'the air force mourning the passing of the A-10' isn't very factual... SOME in the Air Force will truly miss it but not the guys with lots of stars on their shoulders.

I forgot when it comes to the LAW- THE best weapon to knock holes in concrete buildings or into mountain caves isn't the LAW but what we carried before getting the Dragon... the 90RCL. Cheap rounds, very accurate, greater range, much more potent warhead, lets not forget the beehive round, and can knock a hole into a homogeneous steel MBT.
 

Unaware of the LAW ever being used in combat against tanks. We used them against bunkers and taking out snipers. Hear they were heavily used during the Battle of Hue.

M72 LAW making a comeback - The Firearm Blog
Marines Fought the LAW, and the LAW Won


http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/art...33/Elite-Marine-Corps-units-field-new-pistols
Semper Fi: Colt M45A1 CQBP Marine Pistol Review - Shooting Times

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put ‘em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45’s are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

http://defensetech.org/2005/11/16/small-arms-in-iraq-what-worked-what-sucked-what-a-hoax/


Now lets get down why leftist on the DP are always making things up and saying things that no one ever said.

>"Now it is funny to hear a you go on and on about a civilian should be telling the Air Force what planes to buy."<

Now please copy and paste with a link where I said what planes the Air Force should buy that the Air Force doesn't want.

I'm pretty sure I have brought this up before with you and if I remember correctly so have others on the DP. And as usual you will not come up with an accurate quote and link.

BTW: There is a member in my family who does have stars on his shoulders who off the record believes the Obama administration made a huge mistake canceling the F-22 and we will pay for that mistake twenty or so years down the road.

Also the best thing using against caves is a flame thrower and napalm. Everyone inside dies from affictiation because the napalm burning at the entrance of a cave or underground tunnels sucks up all of the oxygen. You know the lyrics, "Love is like oxygen, to much you get high, not enough you die."
 
notquiteright said:
Actually the LAW, as we called it, was terrible at knocking out tanks.
Click to expand...

Of course, the M-72 LAW was also not designed to take out tanks in the first place - hence the words "light anti-armor". It could only barely with luck go through the thinnest armor on a T-62.

It was however the perfect weapon to go through just about any armor on the BTR-BMP armored personnel carriers.

When I was going through ITS in 1983, we were specifically trained to not shoot at tanks, but to go after the APCs instead, and leave the tanks for the guys with the MULE calling in Copperheads, or somebody in the unit with a M-47 DRAGON, BGM-71 TOW or or an M-202 FLASH (which could not penetrate either but being incendiary would play havoc with optics and components and could theoretically damage the tank through heat if allowed to burn long enough - as well as give a great target for CAS).

Of course, most of our training with the M-72 and M-202 was in taking out bunkers and other fortified positions. Even way back in 1983 this was mostly what we were trained for with the LAW, and the SMAW was already being tested with line units and familiarization training given to those being trained as 0351s.
 

considering all the trouble the people at Lockheed-Martin are going through trying to get the F-35 to actually work, i think that at this point in time a glider can shoot down the f-35.
 
Surtr said:
Sounds like more military waste to me. Just because the military ordered it, does not mean they actually need it. The Bradley FLV and Future Warrior program are prime examples.
Click to expand...

Not a waste of money if it saves American soldiers and Marines lifes and is able to provide forward air control missions for U.S. attack aircraft who are providing close air support missions for ground troops. These aircraft usually provide escorts for helicopter assaults and provide CAS during combat search and rescue missions like the A-1 Skyraiders (Sandy) did during the Vietnam war.

The Marines were the last to operate a light attack/observation aircraft, the OV-10 Bronco. It was retired in 1995. The Marines, Navy and Air Force all operated the OV-10 during the Vietnam War.

Side note: In the movie "BAT-22" based on a true incident during the Vietnam war, in the movie the Air Force FAC was flying a Cessna 0-2 Skymaster (push-pull prop aircraft). To be historically correct, the FAC was actually flying an OV-10 Bronco.

Here's the problem with using aircraft as FAC, artillery and naval gunfire spotting. Helicopters are to slow and OA-10's and FA-18 D's are to fast and all aren't capable of having a long loiter time over the battlefield.

Another side note: The Air Force OV-10's were replaced by OA-10's and the Marines OV-10's were replaced by FA-18 D's.

The U.S. military no longer has a light attack/observation COIN aircraft.


Excellent article. -> The OV-10 Story


USMC OV-10 Bronco


The North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco is a turboprop light attack and observation aircraft. It was developed in the 1960s as a special aircraft for counter-insurgency (COIN) combat, and one of its primary missions was as a forward air control (FAC) aircraft. It can carry up to three tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours

Boeing considers restarting OV-10 production after 23-year hiatus

>"Boeing is considering the possibility of restarting production of the OV-10 Bronco turboprop, a Vietnam-era light attack and observation aircraft last produced in 1976.

The company confirms that the OV-10 could be offered as either a light attack or intra-theatre light cargo aircraft for the US Air Force. The international market is also driving interest in the slow-flying aircraft, which blends some of the observational capabilities of a helicopter with the range of a fixed-wing aircraft.

Boeing has cited recent USAF interest in acquiring a light attack aircraft as a possible reason to revive OV-10 production.

Although known for its surveillance prowess, the OV-10 remains in combat service in four countries: Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Venezuela, with a weapons load at least equivalent to the Bell AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter. Some of those countries, and perhaps new customers, could seek remanufactured or new production OV-10s as their current fleets wear out "<
Boeing considers restarting OV-10 production after 23-year hiatus
 
Jetboogieman said:
The reason A-10's are being retired is because the Joint Strike Fighter or F-35 lightning II will be able to take over the role.
Click to expand...
:lamo

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.
 

The problem here is that a lot of people seem to equate being the newest and fastest with being the best.

When you are talking about observation and CAS aircraft, being fast is actually a bad thing. You want to be going as slow as possible, so you can accurately spot and engage your target without accidentally firing on your own side. Helicopters are actually a great choice for this role, but they are to slow and vulnerable to linger over any kind of contested battlefield. Plus they lack the higher speeds needed to travel any kind of distance to get to troops in trouble on the ground.

And I remember the Bronco very well. Force Recon absolutely loved those things, and I saw them many times flying over Lejeune, Pendleton and Okinawa. Probably the last real COIN aircraft we had, they could actually airdrop 4-6 Marines from the back (they nicknamed the small back area the "Party Room"). And their short takeoff and landing distances let them operate from carriers with little modification.

And thanks about letting me know about the Super Tucano getting the nod. I knew that both that and the FMA Pucara were being looked at for that role, and I had thought the Pucara was in the lead.

Surtr said:
Sounds like more military waste to me. Just because the military ordered it, does not mean they actually need it. The Bradley FLV and Future Warrior program are prime examples.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes they do need it. A good CAS aircraft is of vital importance to the Army and Marines.

As for your "prime examples", you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

First of all, I have no idea what a "Bradley FLV" is, are you talking about the Bradley IFV perhaps? This was a very badly needed vehicle, an APC that could keep up with the new M1 tank. It also replaced the aging M-113 (which was over 20 years old by that time). And now the Bradley is over 30 years old and due for a replacement as well. Believe it or not, our stuff does wear out and needs to be replaced. That is why they often order so damned many and then they sit in supply dumps for decades. That is our only source of many parts and replacements until they finally build a replacement vehicle.

And "Future Warrior" is hardly an example of military waste. That is a concept and R&D program that has given us a great many things.

Yea, everybody always tends to focus on the more glamorous parts like the exoskeleton and HUD helmet. But they forget that the current combat helmets that we use today, as well as our newest body armor, flame retardant uniforms, MOLLE equipment system, DAGGER personal GPS system, and countless other things we use on a daily basis all came from this program. Future Warrior - Land Warrior has had attempts to kill it for several years now by idiots that really do not understand what it is. And every time the screams of the Army (as well as the threat that they will just continue it anyways and not share the products developed) had kept it alive.

I can only imagine that you consider a single dollar spent on the military to actually help keep them alive to be "waste". Myself, I do not see it that way at all.
 

then what has stalled the f-35 project?
 

I remember the Bronco in Vietnam. When I was assigned to Sub Unit One 1st ANGLICO we had a number of Marine aviators who were doing a tour as FAC's with ANGLICO units and they would be TAD as FAC's to VMO-2 as FAC's in OV-10 Broncos.

During the early 80's I was aboard Pendleton and not expecting what I was about to see this OV-10 was flying low and fast and then it made a steep climb and then I saw six Marines slide out of the rear of the Bronco and their parachutes deployed. I was told they were Force Recon. First time I ever saw the Bronco used that way.
 
Surtr said:
Sounds like more military waste to me. Just because the military ordered it, does not mean they actually need it. The Bradley FLV and Future Warrior program are prime examples.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the Abram tanks still being built even as hundreds are sitting unused in the desert.
 
notquiteright said:
Not to mention the Abram tanks still being built even as hundreds are sitting unused in the desert.
Click to expand...

The Marine Corps needs a medium tank. The M-1 is too large and heavy for the Corps if they are going back to their roots, amphibious assault light naval infantry.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
then what has stalled the f-35 project?
Click to expand...


The F-35 is not a CAS fighter, so it really does not belong in this discussion as to the A-10. If you want to discuss delays in the F-35 then that is a completely different topic.




I saw that many times over the years. Force Recon loved these things because of their low and slow insertion capabilities.


notquiteright said:
Not to mention the Abram tanks still being built even as hundreds are sitting unused in the desert.
Click to expand...


Actually, the US has not bought a new M1 tank in close to a decade. The factory is making a few new ones, but only for export. Mostly what the factory is involved in is repairs and upgrades to the tanks we already have.


As for "hundreds sitting unused in the desert", where?


I know we have enough to outfit an Armored Brigade sitting in the Middle East, that is part of our prepositioned force. In the event of war we simply have to ship the tankers to pick them up and drive them to where they are needed. A lot cheaper and faster then trying to move the Brigade with all of it's equipment. Others are part of depots holding tanks awaiting overhauls or repairs, as well as boneyards of decommissioned ones awaiting scrapping.


Then there are others that are held as "hot swaps", to be sent out if a unit finds it's M1 damaged or broken to a degree that it can't be easily fixed. Go to any military base and you will find at least a few motor pools holding such equipment, from artillery and HMMWVs to LMTVs, PATRIOT launchers and tanks. A few years ago I was preparing 12 PATRIOT launchers for part of a software-hardware upgrade and livefire exercise. And once all the equipment was upgraded and prepared Raytheon took them from us for the exercise and we picked up replacements form the depot.


Just because tanks are "sitting in the desert are unused", that does not mean they are not needed. I bet they are sitting there for a very good reason, you just do not know what it is.

APACHERAT said:
The Marine Corps needs a medium tank. The M-1 is too large and heavy for the Corps if they are going back to their roots, amphibious assault light naval infantry.
Click to expand...

Actually, I tend to question that. While I do think they need a real replacement for the antiquated AMPHTRACK,

Amphibious tanks have never really worked well at all, and Light and Medium tanks are a dead concept, killed by the advances of more and more powerful man portable anti-armor rockets. The only way I could see this concept remaining would be for one of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle proposals to actually be completed. Several of these proposed vehicles were essentially updated amphibious personnel carriers with what is essentially a medium tank gun to provide direct and indirect fire in support of ground troops.
 

I wasn't referring to an amphibious tank or was I suggesting retiring the Marines M-1 Abrams. But something between a light/medium tank that can be easily transported from ship to shore in "Mike Boats" LCM's. That would be able to support the Marine rifleman when he runs into something stopping his advance and is "danger danger close" to the enemy where he's to close to call for artillery, NGFS or CAS.

Something in line with the Cadillac Gage Stingray. Light enough to be transported by C-130's and a LCM can carry three to the beach.
Not really intended to take on heavy MBT like the Abrams or Leopard ll's.
Stingray Light Tank | Military-Today.com

For the past thirty or so years the Marine Corps Association's "Marine Corps Gazette" always seems to run an article every few years on the subject of a lighter tank being available for amphibious assaults. It's just a wish list and with todays Obama administration, wishing for something can get you relieved of your command unless it's a PC wish. :roll:

Re: The ambitious combat vehicles or amphibious assault vehicles, the Marines had one in the pipeline, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). It was killed back in 2011. -> The EFV Is Dead | Marine Corps Gazette
 

Yea, that has been a problem for decades.

Many of the requirements for the Marines means that some of their equipment is specific to them, and the Army is not interested in a joint development project. We saw that both in the Osprey (which the Army could not get involved in because of the Key West Agreement), and the Bradley (which from inception was only barely amphibious and shortly afterwards was not amphibious at all).

Over and over the Marines have tried to develop replacements for the AAV for decades (it is over 40 years old), but the Army has absolutely no interest in such a vehicle since they do not need an amphibious vehicle). And every time one gets into development the funding gets cut.

Then you end up with the Liberal Military Paradox. They see any use of money for the military as a waste under the Guns versus Butter model, then screams when members of the military die because their equipment is antiquated. Either way the military looses.
 

The A-10 and its airframe are quite frankly one of the cheapest if not the cheapest air frames and systems to maintain. They are not complicated or sophisticated birds. They were designed to be shot at and easily maintained with easily sourced parts for quick turnaround. The only real expensive thing one it is the Titanium armour bathtub to protect the pilot everything else is very common ordinary aircraft aluminum and steel. Its avionics are pretty much standard military avionics you would find on any number of birds.
 

The link Apacherat posted says otherwise, as does history(they had to replace the wings on all of them recently), as does my experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…