Farewell to the Warthog

[ultra_porthos 4]

They did not have to rail road anyone.  If that was your experience then it may be unique.  The drawdown was announced with goals and how it would be achieved by letting folks out early or not allowing officers to stay in due to  sizing constraints.

 

There were more than enough service members that volunteered to get out to meet the downsizing goals.

[brant 12]

I hope they keep them. 

 

I live next to a base where they are stationed; the sound of that gun is unbelievable. I was out on the deck just a couple of hours ago and four of them flew over me at just under 1000', and then i heard the cannons blasting (i'm between the rwy and the bombing range). My first thought is always, "thank God they're not here to kill me". 

[Dillon 2,197]

They did not have to rail road anyone.  If that was your experience then it may be unique.  The drawdown was announced with goals and how it would be achieved by letting folks out early or not allowing officers to stay in due to  sizing constraints.

 

There were more than enough service members that volunteered to get out to meet the downsizing goals.

 

My discharge was honerable, I'm speaking on what I personnaly witnessed. Your assessment happened as well...

[Raptor 5]

I think you might have missed what I was commenting on Raptor.  I didn't say the AC-130 would be the first into any fight.  In fact neither are the majority of the ground forces or the A-10 for that matter.  Most of that goes to the B-2 nowadays.  

Either way, what I was commenting on was whether or not the A-10 was the most relevant aircraft the US Flies.  As in currently.  And quite simply it is not.  The A-10 is a awesome Weapon system but its not the most relevant.  That would mean it goes to the Aircraft that is utilized the most.  I can tell you now, that it is the AC-130.  It's not some hypothetical what if we started a war with such and such.  We shouldn't be trying to have conversations like that anyways.  But given our current Operations globally, the AC-130 is everywhere helping the ground forces.  The A-10 is not, they rotate in and out of theater just like every other fighter.  The AC is ALWAYS there.  That's all I was commenting on.

I agree with you... But one has to have air supremacy in order to operate effectively...

 One outstanding weapon system it is...

  Migs and effective AAA can change the enviromemt in a heartbeat...

 I remember the "cone of fire" from the AC's in Nam... 7.62 Minigun , 20 Mike-Mike and 40 MM Bofors were all seen long before Afghanastan....

Her trial by fire was long ago and and in an land forgotten by most, it was Viet Nam where she came of age...

 They were effective when operating in UNCONTESTED airspace....

 Ask the boys who flew up on the Ho Chi Mihn trail chasing trucks...

Their mission, still to this very day, relies upon the same set of parameters to be met, to be effective in combat.

 I am NOT belittleing either platform, just pointing out that both are hindered by the reality of the battle space they inhabit.

If Migs are present in the AC-130's battlespace, then all bets are off. The AC is toast... PERIOD...  If I can see you.I can and will kill you...

 If they were to operate in the Fulda Gap situation, the Ac's would be DEAD...

 That was my point, plain and simple...

 An AC-130 does me little good over the South China Sea in a conflict against the Chinese.... Give me a good old P-3 or a P-8....

 Hi Tech is all great, But BLIND RELIANCE upon it is a fools folly...

 We have in the last wars held all the cards, Aghanistan, Iraq '91, and '03, "WE HELD THE ACES"...Well, Good for us.... 

 We seem to think we will always have the upper hand, our last twenty years seem to bear this as factual.... YET...

 Against China in the S China Sea, or the Russians in God knows where...

 Are we going to be so fortunate in the reality of the battle space....

 

 Dillion, I think you have a very good grasp of of the reality we face....

 One of the most relevant posts I have seen.

 Carter did what Obama is trying to do today...

History does repeat itself...

[Kattz 132]

A few things about the A-10 you all might want to consider:

 

It was designed before the likes of the ZSU-23-4, and SA-7 made the airspace over a battlefield much more dangerous. The A-10 requires a permissive environment to do its job and would be totally chewed up if it tried to get down in the weeds with modern battlefield air defences.

 

Weapons systems such as the following would make a pretty nasty mess of an A-10 if it came down to low altitude to use that famous and much vaunted GAU-8A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K22_Tunguska

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-18_Grouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-16_Gimlet

 

That's why the major focus of the latest C model has been to give the A-10 the ability to sit up at medium altitude out of the threat envelope and use precision guided weapons just like the F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18.

 

If you look back at the first Gulf War most of the A-10's kills were with the AGM-65 and not the gun. In fact General Chuck Horner is on record as saying he had to pull the A-10 off the toughest Republican Guard units because too many were being damaged and sent in F-16s to finish the job whilst the A-10s were re-tasked with softer targets.

 

 

 

As much as I agree the F-35 is a black hole for taxpayers money - taxpayers in nine countries, no less - the problem is Lockheed know full well there is no alternative to F-35.

 

Cancelling it is unfortunately now out of the question if the US is serious about retaining a military technological advantage. Lockheed has been very smart - they know that in a few years from now nobody is going to want to buy any more upgraded teen series or even the Eurocanards. They know F-35 will be the only real choice and as such they've got the western fighter market by the balls..... and they're not afraid of squeezing.

 

I partially agree with your thoughts.  Was in the F-16 strike forces in the 1st Gulf War.  Some of those smart new CBUs and the older AGM65/Rockeye mixes were pretty devastating to ground targets.  BUT... CAS needs something down in the weeds.  We mothballed most of the A-10 fleet post-Gulf War, and our CAS systems were so poor that we almost bought several hundered Su-25's from the Russians after 9/11.  The F-35 is the purported replacement for the Viper (F-16) and allegedly can support CAS, which I sincerely doubt and frankly is an expensive POS in my opinion.  Not a viable option for CAS, and standoff weapons, while accurate, sometimes do not support the "danger close" environment of the ground-pounders.

 

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the air... NOTHIN' BITES LIKE A VIPER.^TM

My discharge was honerable, I'm speaking on what I personnaly witnessed. Your assessment happened as well...

 

Yep, I saw the railroading in the USAF in late '94 and was a victim of it, forced to take a special duty assignment because I made E6 too early.  Agree with your post, Dillon, and thank you for your service.

 

 

Carter did what Obama is trying to do today...

History does repeat itself...

 

In my opinion, the actions of the Chief Executive are much more dangerous now than in the Carter years, as there's many more variables in the mix, both known and unknown.   In my opinion, Putin sees us as a paper tiger after Syria.

 

 

Kattz out.

 

[Raptor 5]

I partially agree with your thoughts.  Was in the F-16 strike forces in the 1st Gulf War.  Some of those smart new CBUs and the older AGM65/Rockeye mixes were pretty devastating to ground targets.  BUT... CAS needs something down in the weeds.  We mothballed most of the A-10 fleet post-Gulf War, and our CAS systems were so poor that we almost bought several hundered Su-25's from the Russians after 9/11.  The F-35 is the purported replacement for the Viper (F-16) and allegedly can support CAS, which I sincerely doubt and frankly is an expensive POS in my opinion.  Not a viable option for CAS, and standoff weapons, while accurate, sometimes do not support the "danger close" environment of the ground-pounders.

 

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the air... NOTHIN' BITES LIKE A VIPER.^TM

 

Yep, I saw the railroading in the USAF in late '94 and was a victim of it, forced to take a special duty assignment because I made E6 too early.  Agree with your post, Dillon, and thank you for your service.

 

 

 

In my opinion, the actions of the Chief Executive are much more dangerous now than in the Carter years, as there's many more variables in the mix, both known and unknown.   In my opinion, Putin sees us as a paper tiger after Syria.

 

 

Kattz out.

 

 Your interpretation of the Geo-Political situation is spot on in my opinion.

 Putin has totally out maneuvered Obama on all fronts thus far...

 The Chinese are

 Obama is still clueless on the world stage. He thinks "anti-cold war" doctrine, when cold war politics are still influencing events of todays real world geo-political stage. 

 The "Russian Bear" is BACK...

 

 The F-16 ATG mission was the USAF way of justifing it's exesistence in the beginning, and it was designed in from the beginning, not a add on, like other programs were.

 But remember that it won the Bombing Competition in Europe early on in it's career and the competition weren't exactly slouches either. F-111, Bucaneers, and Jaguars, all lost the the new kid on the block.

 But, in the case of the F-16, it excelled at the ATG mission by design, not by default...

[PiperFM 8]

Let's be honest here, the A-10 is a fearsome weapon system.  Now, let's take the liberty to think how the US Military might respond to the Russian foray into the Crimea, and possibly the rest of the Ukraine; mostly CAS, possibly medium altitude attack missions.  They'd be torn apart by the Russian SAM systems.  The F-16s, and eventually F-35s will have much better survivability and capability than the A-10 in these high threat environments we all can see they might be in over the next half century than the A-10.  We can have these aircraft deal with high threat CAS, while in conflicts similar to Afghanistan, we could use the much lower cost, but still advanced Textron Scorpion.  This would be a great Hi-Low solution to the problem.  It's not perfect, but with how we've put all our chips behind the F-35, it's really our only choice, and I'm hoping it's not all that bad.

 

 

The A-10 is a fearsome weapon that I adore, but for the safety of our pilots and ground troops, there are better tools for the job.

 

Edit:  I'll stipulate, the first point I make occurs in a world where we don't appease Putin; but that's probably not going to happen. <_<

[Tabs 2,790]

What's with all this talk about the A-10 being a low survivability airplane in a hostile environment? That airplane can take more punishment than anything else in our inventory and still make it home. I remember seeing photos of one from the first Gulf War with a chunk of one wing missing, most of one of the vertical stabs gone, bullet and shrapnel damage all over the thing etc and it still made it back safely with no injuries to the pilot. I feel like the F-35 could be shot down with a handgun on the looks of it lol...

 

I would almost bet money that it's not actually going to be retired. They have tried to kill the A-10 so many times since its inception in the 70s. The F-16, F-111, F/A-18 etc were all supposed to be jack-of-all-trades airplanes that made the A-10 unnecessary - none of them actually were and the Army complained every single time they tried to kill it because the guys on the ground love that airplane. I remember reading that the Iraqi forces called it the "fork tailed devil" in both wars and you'd have enemy forces just abandoning their convoys if word got out that A-10s were in the area rather than risk getting shot up by that GAU-8/A. I think the F-35 is pretty clearly just the latest in that line of supposed usurpers and that it won't actually be able to perform that job. See here for a report on what a boondoggle the F-35's become overall too - it's not meeting it's cost or performance goals currently: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-60-minutes/

[PiperFM 8]

Sure, but comparing 90's and 2003 Iraqi air defense to the Russians or Chinese is a terrible comparison.  If the Iraqis had even TRIED to fight effectively, and hadn't though they could fight the Coalition on the field with conventional tactics we had perfected for 40 years, losses would have been much greater.  If we didn't have the F-117s and B-2s to knock out their integrated air defense network, A-10s would have had much greater losses.  The truth is the Russians and Chinese now have some ability to counter these weapons, or conduct this same tactic themselves, and we probably can't guarantee air supremacy; we need strike aircraft that can push a button, switch from A/G to A/A, shoot down the enemy aircraft, and continue on with the mission.  For dedicated CAS, we will have aircraft like the AT-6 Texan II, the Textron jet, or if it comes down to it we can take A-10s out of the boneyard and have them flying again in probably a few weeks.

[fuelpumps 3]

Good warplane... bad foreign policy, especially for tax payers. 

[EngineRoom 205]

 

 

What's with all this talk about the A-10 being a low survivability airplane in a hostile environment? That airplane can take more punishment than anything else in our inventory and still make it home. I remember seeing photos of one from the first Gulf War with a chunk of one wing missing, most of one of the vertical stabs gone, bullet and shrapnel damage all over the thing etc and it still made it back safely with no injuries to the pilot. I feel like the F-35 could be shot down with a handgun on the looks of it lol...

 

Ryan you're missing the point. How long was that A-10 stuck on the ramp for being repaired? Did it fly again during the war? Did it fly again at all?

 

Is it not better to build an aeroplane that avoids being hit in the first place?

 

I really don't know how many times I have to repeat what I've said above - the A-10 was designed post Vietnam where the low altitude threat was almost entirely small calibre AAA up to 23mm. It was never designed to fly into the teeth of the kind of modern battlefield AA defences that I've given examples of above. Look at the changes made in the A-10C and the capabilities added - they are designed to allow it to fly at medium altitude using precision guided weapons so that it doesn't have to go down low and put itself in danger in the first place.

 

 

Sure, but comparing 90's and 2003 Iraqi air defense to the Russians or Chinese is a terrible comparison.  If the Iraqis had even TRIED to fight effectively, and hadn't though they could fight the Coalition on the field with conventional tactics we had perfected for 40 years, losses would have been much greater.  If we didn't have the F-117s and B-2s to knock out their integrated air defense network, A-10s would have had much greater losses.

 

Exactly. Just as General Horner explained above - when the A-10A was sent against well trained and equipped Republican Guard units it got a bloody nose, with FOURTEEN aircraft on the ramp needing repairs before they could fly again. F-16s had to be used to finish the job.

 

Another interesting case study to look at from Desert Storm was "Package Q". Emboldened by early Coalition successes a very large strike package consisting of 78 aircraft including more than 50 F-16s supported by F-4Gs, F-15Cs and EF-111As were sent to attack targets in the Baghdad area. The mission was a failure, two F-16s shot down, and several aircraft barely making it to friendly tankers before they ran out of fuel. The package was quite effectively "mission killed" by Iraqi air defences and the Coalition planners then went straight back to only using F-117 and Tomahawk missiles to attack targets in the Baghdad area. One of the lessons taken away from Package Q was that the next generation of tactical aircraft would need to be stealth if they were to remain effective in the face of an integrated air defence network.

 

Fast forward to 1999 and the Serbians managed to shoot down an F-117 with a 1961 era S-125 Neva missile. A lot of people make the excuse this was a one off, a fluke, poor planning by the F-117 mission planners, etc. What is slightly less well known is that another S-125 detonated close enough to another F-117 in the same conflict. That F-117 managed to make it back to its base but it never flew again.

 

Gulf War 1 & 2, Libya 1 & 2, the Balkans - all pitted the west against 1960s era Soviet air defence systems. US/NATO/Western aircraft and weapons remain untested against anything like contemporary Russian and Chinese air defence systems.

[hayser75 1]

I think the recent events in Ukraine with Russia make it pretty obvious that the A-10 is still needed, something designed for the cold war might get some action.....

[tf51d 284]

Wouldn't helicopter gunships like the Apache be a better fit for the CAS role? With it's hover capability, it can stand off from a distance away from most threats and still pack a wallop, with it's hellfire missiles. You would lose the use of the gun in that scenario though! Close in it would be even more vulnerable then  the A-10,  

I think the recent events in Ukraine with Russia make it pretty obvious that the A-10 is still needed, something designed for the cold war might get some action.....

That is the precise type of combat theater where the A-10 would be the most vulnerable. 

[KevinAu 441]

Engine Room, you are still missing the point that CAS is not performed in contested airspace. Again your pointing out of Horner's comments is misleading because those A-10s were being misused on BAI missions. CAS is not something you do until you've neutralized the major surface to air threats over the battlefield. Assigning the mission to an aircraft like the F-35 just means the mission gets done with more sorties required of a high value, low density asset that is better used elsewhere, if the generals decide to risk an expensive asset on that mission at all.

 

And by the way, it is also pretty foolish to think that stealth is the only defense required now. The Russians already have equipment that defeats it.

[PiperFM 8]

Engine Room, you are still missing the point that CAS is not performed in contested airspace. Again your pointing out of Horner's comments is misleading because those A-10s were being misused on BAI missions. CAS is not something you do until you've neutralized the major surface to air threats over the battlefield.

 

And when/where exactly on the battlefield with the Russians and Chinese do you expect a superpower to leave troops out in the open with a completely neutralized AA network?  Because as you say...

 

And by the way, it is also pretty foolish to think that stealth is the only defense required now. The Russians already have equipment that defeats it.

 

So how do you expect to take down the Russian air defense network if our stealth aircraft don't work?  Pre-targeted Tomahawks would miss their targets when the highly mobile Russian SAM batteries relocate.  Relying on a best-case scenario of the USAF obtaining Air Supremacy 100% of the time isn't how you should plan a military operation; thought should be given to the worst-case scenario, which would be they can shoot down our B-2s, and the air is contested.  You would need a fast-moving interdiction jet for anything near CAS we would be seeing on the 2014+ non-Afghanistan battlefield.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 'Hog is a freaking awe-inspiring plane, and I will lament its passing, but its mission will dissapear shortly, and there are cheaper options to take on its role soon.