Legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts

[joko104]

If the A-10 is for the Army, let the Army pay for them and take care of their operation out of their budget.



"The Air Force needs to make room for aircraft that are newer, more capable and survivable, he added.

“I can’t send an A-10 to Syria. It would never come back,” he said.

The Air Force needs a new base closure and realignment commission to do away with excess capacity, he said.

“We don’t have the latitude anymore to hang on to the amount of infrastructure that we have,” said Hostage.

“We are bringing our force down to the size that it needs to be in order to be sized for the sequestration budget,” he said."

Gen. Michael Hostage, Air Combat Command commander

 

[joko104]

Remember, there is CAS and there is CAS, as in "danger close". I have not said they are not used, but the closer the enemy is, the less useful something like a Predator with Hellfires will be, and more likely it will harm the good guys.



May be, may not be. May just be an ROE issue.

All I know was that I was taught that in ITS (now SOI) back in 1983, and it has been part of every ROE class I had ever taken.



Did I read that right, $2 billion to replace wings?



Part of the "excessive injury or suffering" rules. Same reason shotguns are not allowed to be used against personnel in war (security is a different matter), or the use of hollow point rounds. While not explicitly outlawed, most countries have removed them from the inventory on the chance that they might be classified as illegal and place the country that uses them in trouble with the Hague Conventions.

A predator with hellfire is going to be far more precise than an A-10 doing a straffing run. In addition, the Predator can hang around, the A-10 can't. The A-10 is a bigger target. And more risk can be taken with a Predator as there is no pilot to lose and the Predator costs less to operate and build.

 

[joko104]

The DoD has announced its intention to retire the entire A-10 fleet beginning in FY 2015. According to Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff, retiring the aircraft will save a total of $4.2 billion over the next five years. According to DoD leaders, the decision to retire the popular A-10 is painful but necessary as the military is forced to save money on older platforms to ensure there are sufficient funds available for future weapon systems. The decision to retire the A-10 has been met with significant resistance in Congress and it is unlikely that the DoD will be able to retire the aircraft in FY15. The Air Force is instead trying to work out a compromise with Congress to retire a percentage of the A-10 fleet in order to transfer maintenance crew to the F-35. The Air Force has suggested retiring three active-duty squadrons or about 72 aircraft, however, this was not been well received in Congress either.


[h=3]FY 2014 DoD Program:[/h]The Wing Replacement program is the biggest A-10
modification in FY 2014. It procures replacement wings for the A-10 because the cost of sustaining A-10 wings has exceeded economic limits. Economic analysis determined a $1.3 billion cost avoidance by replacing wings instead of repairing them. To increase the aircraft service life, replacing A-10 wings with enhanced wing assemblies provides the major contribution to meet the A-10's operational service life requirement. The replacement wings incorporate reliability and maintainability improvements to known fatigue critical locations. With these improvements, the replacement wings do not require major structural inspections for the first 10,000 hours of service life. The Budget funds a total of 145 wings. The A-10 fleet was recently restructured to a size of 283 aircraft.



All A-10s are at least 3 decades old. Aluminum is a material that fatigues (weakens), unlike wood and steel. It is not only the wings that are fatigued. Machines wear out.

 

[matchlight]

“I can’t send an A-10 to Syria. It would never come back,” . . . said . . . Gen. Michael Hostage, Air Combat Command commander

That doesn't make sense to me--it has the ring of yet one more of President Pinprick's generals giving him yet another excuse for doing precious little to defeat the jihadists in Syria. I've read more than once that survivability is one of the A-10's strong suits. It drops flares as defense against heat-guided missiles, and it is very maneuverable. It was designed to survive battle damage--that's why the engines are mounted above the fuselage, for example, and why the pilot is protected by a substantially armored "tub." Someone included photos on this thread, I think, of A-10's that had returned to base despite heavy battle damage.

 

[matchlight]

A predator with hellfire is going to be far more precise than an A-10 doing a straffing run. In addition, the Predator can hang around, the A-10 can't. The A-10 is a bigger target. And more risk can be taken with a Predator as there is no pilot to lose and the Predator costs less to operate and build.

You leave out one big difference. An A-10 can carry at least fifteen times as much weight in weaponry as a Predator. And with a full load of weapons, a drone can't spend nearly so much time over the target area as when it is being used strictly for reconnaissance and can carry a full load of fuel. If a commander can be sure beforehand that only a couple Hellfires will be needed, then the drone is great--but usually things are not so predictable.

 

[Bodi]

For more than a year, the A-10 has been the subject of one of the Pentagon’s fiercest budget fights with Congress. The Air Force wants to retire the jet in favor of funding the newer F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. By eliminating the A-10, the Air Force brass believes it could save more than $4 billion. The military also says the plane—the newest of which was built in 1984—cannot survive or operate effectively in combat missions against advanced defenses. “The time has come to move forward,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said in a July interview with Breaking Defense, an online magazine that covers the military and defense industry.

I disagree with that assessment... it serves a perfect purpose. We already have other fighters to take control of the air. Without control of the air the C130 gunships would also be useless... Apaches too.

 

[joko104]

That doesn't make sense to me--it has the ring of yet one more of President Pinprick's generals giving him yet another excuse for doing precious little to defeat the jihadists in Syria. I've read more than once that survivability is one of the A-10's strong suits. It drops flares as defense against heat-guided missiles, and it is very maneuverable. It was designed to survive battle damage--that's why the engines are mounted above the fuselage, for example, and why the pilot is protected by a substantially armored "tub." Someone included photos on this thread, I think, of A-10's that had returned to base despite heavy battle damage.

And, of course, there are the photos of the A-10s that didn't return.

 

[joko104]

You leave out one big difference. An A-10 can carry at least fifteen times as much weight in weaponry as a Predator. And with a full load of weapons, a drone can't spend nearly so much time over the target area as when it is being used strictly for reconnaissance and can carry a full load of fuel. If a commander can be sure beforehand that only a couple Hellfires will be needed, then the drone is great--but usually things are not so predictable.

Under that reasoning, we should always send all B52s, B1s, B2s, F-16s, F-18s and all AH-1s to any situation - because things aren't predictable.

A Predator can be sent into risk situations that a piloted aircraft cannot because Predators are entirely expendable.

 

[joko104]

There are some on this thread who never should have been and never should be sent into combat. Too afraid and a wrongheaded view of what priorities of the military are. They want all services of the military to exist solely to support infantry so that infantry under no circumstance ever actually faces any battle.

If our infantry is THAT ineffectual that our nuclear deterrence, fighter air superiority, bomber superiority, drone program, missile technology, electronics and computer technology superiority, information gathering and surveillance abilities, and the ability to hit anywhere on earth reliably all has to be compromised because our infantry is impotent against enemies, the answer is to fix the infantry.

The Army already has the biggest budget, though most engagements now either do not involve the Army (or Marines) at all, or are in a secondary role.

These policing and global position military engagements such as Iraq and Afghanistan may be necessary or not - that is debatable. But a MAJOR war is NOT going to be decided by M16s versus AK47s. That will be decided in the air. And not by A-10s and Gatlin guns.

To risk losing a REAL MAJOR WAR, because of a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that sending AH-1s, Apaches, drones and precision smart bombs and missiles to bail out a trapped squad might not be enough in a world policing military is absurd.

And despite the armchair wisdom of the old guys, there is a reason the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines don't want the A-10. The Air Force would gladly give them to any other branch of service - and none of the other 3 want them, including those branches who do employ ground troops. That's more than enough share of the military budget.

If the Army or Marines want the A-10, the Air Force would give them since the Air Force wants to throw them away. Your nostalgia for the past and belief that ancient weapons systems are neato isn't greater wisdom then they have.

They send people into harms way, not you, so they don't play your word and pretend-battle games. Nor can they plan all military strategy, which included budget decisions, around the paranoia over every soldier in the field. Their foremost task is no to protect infantry. Their foremost task is to accomplish the mission, whatever it is, anywhere in the world, regardless of size or advance notice.

The #1 purpose of the military is NOT to keep anyone in the military from being harmed. The #1 purpose is to accomplish the mission goals.

 

[matchlight]

Under that reasoning, we should always send all B52s, B1s, B2s, F-16s, F-18s and all AH-1s to any situation - because things aren't predictable.

A Predator can be sent into risk situations that a piloted aircraft cannot because Predators are entirely expendable.

Since when does the U.S. not send servicemen into combat because there is a risk they will be fired upon? Drones certainly have their uses--they've been especially useful in killing one or a few important jihadists who have been traced to some remote place that would be tricky for piloted aircraft to attack. But they don't carry enough weapons to provide continuous, effective close air support in a prolonged battle against a large force.

 

[joko104]

Since when does the U.S. not send servicemen into combat because there is a risk they will be fired upon? Drones certainly have their uses--they've been especially useful in killing one or a few important jihadists who have been traced to some remote place that would be tricky for piloted aircraft to attack. But they don't carry enough weapons to provide continuous, effective close air support in a prolonged battle against a large force.

The infantry has AH-1s,AH-61, MH-6, Predators, Apaches, F16s, F18s, B1s, B2s, B52s plus C130s to bail them out with against a large superior force kicking their ass. That's enough. There are other military concerns to maintain, develop and pay for than just protecting the infantry.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You leave out one big difference. An A-10 can carry at least fifteen times as much weight in weaponry as a Predator. And with a full load of weapons, a drone can't spend nearly so much time over the target area as when it is being used strictly for reconnaissance and can carry a full load of fuel. If a commander can be sure beforehand that only a couple Hellfires will be needed, then the drone is great--but usually things are not so predictable.

Not 15 times, but still more then twice.

In addition to the cannon, the A-10 has a total of 11 hard points for attaching ordinance, the Predator only has 2.

The A-10 can carry 4 types of rockets, 2 types of missiles (air to air and air to ground), 6 types of bombs (unguided, PGM and cluster), the Predator can carry 4 types of missiles. At it's most generous, the Predator can carry 12 missiles, the A-10 can carry a hell of a lot more then that because of a much more diverse ordinance capability.

And I have yet to figure out how a real pilot with "eyes on" the battlefield can possibly have less precision then somebody flying from a chair hundreds if not thousands of miles form the battlefield.

BTW, the Predator is really not that much smaller then an A-10. Most people have never actually seen one, so have no idea how big they really are. Most shots only have them on a runway with no frame of reference.

They really are not that much smaller then an A-10. But they do fly at about 1/3 the speed of an A-10, so if one is not on station in the immediate area, it will take 3 times longer to get on station. And deliver only a fraction of the ordinance once it does get there.

I disagree with that assessment... it serves a perfect purpose. We already have other fighters to take control of the air. Without control of the air the C130 gunships would also be useless... Apaches too.

This is why his words mean little to me. The Air Force never wanted the A-10, ever. They despise the mandate that they provide CAS to the Army, and have been trying to kill CAS aircraft since the 2 branches divorced in 1948. Notice in pretty much every discussion about this it is the Air Force that wants it killed, and it is the Army that insists it stays.

Myself, I believe that if it gets killed the Army has every right to grab them all up and declare that the Key West Agreement is null and void, and make the US Army Air Corps II.

 

[Bodi]

Most people have never actually seen one, so have no idea how big they really are. Most shots only have them on a runway with no frame of reference.

.

Thanks for the pic. I know I saw a pic before but I never realized how big the Predator actually was. Thnx...

 

[Oozlefinch]

Thanks for the pic. I know I saw a pic before but I never realized how big the Predator actually was. Thnx...

No problem. The big problem with the vast majority of pictures of the Predator either have it in the air, or on a runway with absolutely nothing else in the frame to give a reference to it's actual size. I have seen them in operation at White Sands and Fort Bliss, they are pretty big. And damned slow moving!

To give an idea, the Predator has about the same top speed as the AN-2 Colt, a post-WWII era biplane from the Soviet Union.

And an idea how slow that actually is from a "ground perspective"? Here, fast forward to around 2:35 on this video:



In total, we spent about 5 minutes between detection of the AN-2 and actually being able to shoot it. And every time we engaged the Colt, it was the exact same story. We would get visual confirmation of it long before we were able to shoot the thing, we had to wait until it would come within range to shoot at it. And ironically, the Colt is a naturally "stealthy" aircraft, we always identified it visually with binoculars and the "Mark 1 eyeball" long before we were given an alert over the radio from the RADAR pickets.

The A-10 flies 3 times faster then the Predator, so much harder to track and shoot. The Predator is literally so slow that the crew could spot it, sit down and eat the main course of their MRE before it actually gets close enough for them to shoot at.

 

[matchlight]

Not 15 times, but still more then twice.

In addition to the cannon, the A-10 has a total of 11 hard points for attaching ordinance, the Predator only has 2.

The A-10 can carry 4 types of rockets, 2 types of missiles (air to air and air to ground), 6 types of bombs (unguided, PGM and cluster), the Predator can carry 4 types of missiles. At it's most generous, the Predator can carry 12 missiles, the A-10 can carry a hell of a lot more then that because of a much more diverse ordinance capability.

And I have yet to figure out how a real pilot with "eyes on" the battlefield can possibly have less precision then somebody flying from a chair hundreds if not thousands of miles form the battlefield.

BTW, the Predator is really not that much smaller then an A-10. Most people have never actually seen one, so have no idea how big they really are. Most shots only have them on a runway with no frame of reference.

They really are not that much smaller then an A-10. But they do fly at about 1/3 the speed of an A-10, so if one is not on station in the immediate area, it will take 3 times longer to get on station. And deliver only a fraction of the ordinance once it does get there.



This is why his words mean little to me. The Air Force never wanted the A-10, ever. They despise the mandate that they provide CAS to the Army, and have been trying to kill CAS aircraft since the 2 branches divorced in 1948. Notice in pretty much every discussion about this it is the Air Force that wants it killed, and it is the Army that insists it stays.

Myself, I believe that if it gets killed the Army has every right to grab them all up and declare that the Key West Agreement is null and void, and make the US Army Air Corps II.

The information I can find lists the maximum payload of a Predator as 750 lb., and that of the A-10 as 16,000 lb. That is more than twenty times as much. I doubt if in practice either one would ever carry much more than half that, but the proportion between them is the same at half load.

 

[US Conservative]

Anyone else think the Iraqi's would do well with a squad of A10's?

 

[Oozlefinch]

The information I can find lists the maximum payload of a Predator as 750 lb., and that of the A-10 as 16,000 lb. That is more than twenty times as much. I doubt if in practice either one would ever carry much more than half that, but the proportion between them is the same at half load.

When it comes to things like this, that is a difference in the type of ordinance more then the amount actually carried.

The Predator is limited because of the weight it can carry, which means much less ordinance and ordinance of a lighter variety then an A-10 can carry.

For example, even if the Predator could carry a 500 pound iron bomb, it could only carry 1. The A-10 on the other hand can carry 8 on the wing pylons, and still have 3 hard points left for other ordinance. The Predator can only carry 2 Hellfire missiles (20 pound charge) and nothing else, the A-10 can carry 6 Maverick missiles (120-300 pound charge), and still have 5 hard points left over for other ordinance.

You would have to be running at least 5-10 Predators for every A-10 to come even close to the ordinance capabilities. And even going with the figure of 5, that is around $20 million in Predators to come even close to equaling a single A-10 (which in today's money are around $16 million each).

Ultimately, it comes down to "Hard Points", the locations on an aircraft that ordinance can be hung from. The Predator has 2, the A-10 has 11.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Anyone else think the Iraqi's would do well with a squad of A10's?

No, primarily because their logistical ability is more in the needs of at least some multi-role capability. Their military and capabilities are to low to justify having such a specialized single-use fighter.

But there are other aircraft that they probably could put to good use. The A-4 comes immediately to mind there. Specifically, the A-4AR Fightinghawk comes to mind, or the AirLand Scorpion (which with it's crew of 2 could also operate in a recon or battle control role if not engaged in a ground attack role).

In order to justify a single role aircraft, the nation has to have a military large enough to justify it's use. But I am sure that if the US was to donate a squadron of A-10s Iraq would surely find a good use for them.

 

[US Conservative]

No, primarily because their logistical ability is more in the needs of at least some multi-role capability. Their military and capabilities are to low to justify having such a specialized single-use fighter.

But there are other aircraft that they probably could put to good use. The A-4 comes immediately to mind there. Specifically, the A-4AR Fightinghawk comes to mind, or the AirLand Scorpion (which with it's crew of 2 could also operate in a recon or battle control role if not engaged in a ground attack role).

In order to justify a single role aircraft, the nation has to have a military large enough to justify it's use. But I am sure that if the US was to donate a squadron of A-10s Iraq would surely find a good use for them.

Im just thinking a terror eradication squad of A10's in the region, with willing an able allies would be a good idea. It would be in addition to more capable multirole aircraft.

 

[SheWolf]

The Air Force has always thought itself too good for the A-10. Fine. I've been saying for 30 years that it should be transferred to the Army.

I pretty sure the budget cut was in the sequester, and we should go without. That was the point of the sequester, everybody feels a little pain.

 

[joko104]

When it comes to things like this, that is a difference in the type of ordinance more then the amount actually carried.

The Predator is limited because of the weight it can carry, which means much less ordinance and ordinance of a lighter variety then an A-10 can carry.

For example, even if the Predator could carry a 500 pound iron bomb, it could only carry 1. The A-10 on the other hand can carry 8 on the wing pylons, and still have 3 hard points left for other ordinance. The Predator can only carry 2 Hellfire missiles (20 pound charge) and nothing else, the A-10 can carry 6 Maverick missiles (120-300 pound charge), and still have 5 hard points left over for other ordinance.

You would have to be running at least 5-10 Predators for every A-10 to come even close to the ordinance capabilities. And even going with the figure of 5, that is around $20 million in Predators to come even close to equaling a single A-10 (which in today's money are around $16 million each).

Ultimately, it comes down to "Hard Points", the locations on an aircraft that ordinance can be hung from. The Predator has 2, the A-10 has 11.

What a surprise that you'd quickly sacrifice Air Force pilots to save infantry, but want the Air Force to make it's focus on infantry.

I gather you were a low ranker in the Army, right?

You also are now jumping back and forth in exact opposite claims. Previously you claimed that missiles carried to much in explosives thus can result in friendly casualties. Now you are claiming the advantage of the A-10 over a Predator is that the A-10 carries 25 times as much explosives than a Predator and even as much or more than smart bombs.

One A-10 can't be in 4 places at one time, can it? 4 Predators can. There has to be 4 times as many shot-downs to stop the Predators.

How many Predator pilots can be killed or captured? Would a captured Air Force pilot burned alive by ISIS make any difference to our foreign policy challenges and issues?

 

[matchlight]

When it comes to things like this, that is a difference in the type of ordinance more then the amount actually carried.

The Predator is limited because of the weight it can carry, which means much less ordinance and ordinance of a lighter variety then an A-10 can carry.

For example, even if the Predator could carry a 500 pound iron bomb, it could only carry 1. The A-10 on the other hand can carry 8 on the wing pylons, and still have 3 hard points left for other ordinance. The Predator can only carry 2 Hellfire missiles (20 pound charge) and nothing else, the A-10 can carry 6 Maverick missiles (120-300 pound charge), and still have 5 hard points left over for other ordinance.

You would have to be running at least 5-10 Predators for every A-10 to come even close to the ordinance capabilities. And even going with the figure of 5, that is around $20 million in Predators to come even close to equaling a single A-10 (which in today's money are around $16 million each).

Ultimately, it comes down to "Hard Points", the locations on an aircraft that ordinance can be hung from. The Predator has 2, the A-10 has 11.

Agreed. It's like comparing a skinny kid's left jab to your chin to the best right hand Joe Louis ever threw landing flush on it. The one may make you flinch for a moment--but the other will make you wake up wondering what hit you, and where the hell you are.

 

[joko104]

Agreed. It's like comparing a skinny kid's left jab to your chin to the best right hand Joe Louis ever threw landing flush on it. The one may make you flinch for a moment--but the other will make you wake up wondering what hit you, and where the hell you are.

How many predator pilots have been captured or killed? Neither of you care to answer that, do you?

Predators can go where we must not send in low, slow aircraft to circle an area for an extended time. A-10s can only be sent where there is 100% command of the airspace at the time and a near certainty there is no ground fire method of shooting the low, slow A-10 down. None of that applies to a Predator.

So in a REAL battle situation if there was a call for air support, if the option is A-10s the response could very well be "can't do it" for lack of meeting those criteria, where Predators could be sent as Predator as Predators are expendable.

Do you understand the distinction between the risks that can be taken with machines versus live personnel?

I could argue against armored personnel carriers since troops on the ground have better vision and are more cost effective. If I follow your value that their lives don't have a cost factor and that is all that matters, that would be a valid position.

Iron bombs? The most ineffectual of all bombing and the one that most sacrifices pilots for low rate of success. WWII really no longer applies and iron dumb bombs missed their target well over 90% of the time.

Nor do I think anyone making a credible claim would define airstrikes by Pedators as a "skinny kid's left jab."

 

[joko104]

The A-10 was fairly reliable in Vietnam, though they were shot down.

But 1990 - and desert storm - A-10s were being shot down 1 per 800 flights - with this tripling for the number so damages as needing to be scrapped.

That was 15 years ago. Missile technology and other anti-aircraft weapons, plus their availability, has increased by 15 years.

So, for those of you wanting to still send A-10s into combat instead of Predators, what mission rate of lost of the pilot and aircraft do you claim is acceptable?

1 killed and lost per 500 missions? 1 per 300 missions? 1 per 100 missions? 1 per 50 missions? At least be truthful enough to state your acceptable death-rate of A-10 pilots.

What is your acceptable rate of capture of A-10 pilots to an enemy that will parade the pilot on the Internet and then behead or burn the pilot alive? How many of those are within your acceptable range - IF you want to claim you are posting in the context of reality?

 

[US Conservative]

The A-10 was fairly reliable in Vietnam, though they were shot down.

But 1990 - and desert storm - A-10s were being shot down 1 per 800 flights - with this tripling for the number so damages as needing to be scrapped.

That was 15 years ago. Missile technology and other anti-aircraft weapons, plus their availability, has increased by 15 years.

So, for those of you wanting to still send A-10s into combat instead of Predators, what mission rate of lost of the pilot and aircraft do you claim is acceptable?

1 killed and lost per 500 missions? 1 per 300 missions? 1 per 100 missions? 1 per 50 missions? At least be truthful enough to state your acceptable death-rate of A-10 pilots.

What is your acceptable rate of capture of A-10 pilots to an enemy that will parade the pilot on the Internet and then behead or burn the pilot alive? How many of those are within your acceptable range - IF you want to claim you are posting in the context of reality?

Was the A10 even used in Vietnam? Wiki says it was first introduced in 76-78 and first used in combat in Iraq war 1.
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia