Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jabloomf1230

Farewell to the Warthog

Recommended Posts

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...

 

 

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.

First of all. If we fight WWIII with the Russians or Chinese, it won't matter what plane you have because it will go nuclear and we are all going to die anyways.

 

But for the sake of discussion let us just say that by some miracle, the losing side of WWIII does not nuke the advancing army, let's talk about how you might fight a modern army vs modern army now. You don't fight in a vacumn, first off. The A-10 is not the only airplane in the USAF. The battle will be waged with combined weapons, SEAD aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks, artillery, etc. using their individual strengths against the enemy's weakness. If we are indeed in a close-in CAS scenario, then what better weapon to knock out enemy soft skinned AD weapons then artillery and M-1 tanks? Let the tanks make the sky safer for the planes so the planes can make the ground safer for the tanks. All of you saying that the A-10 cannot survive exhibit the kind of conventional, one dimensional and unimaginative thinking that gets planes shot down and battles lost.

 

Chances are though, we are not going to be fighting WWIII next. Chances are, it will be another small war of choice in some other 'stan or 'ia, and if we don't have aircraft like the A-10, it just means we will be fighting that war with suboptimal and inappropriate equipment, meaning more cost, unnecessary loss of life and wasted time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


If we fight WWIII with the Russians or Chinese, it won't matter what plane you have because it will go nuclear and we are all going to die anyways.

 

Very unlikely, it would have to be the end of the road for one side, nobody would let it get that far.  For large nuclear armed powers territorial integrity would be maintained.  Far more worrying in states like India and Pakistan than the established nuclear powers.

 

There is substantial evidence the Russian air defence radar can see stealth aircraft at least at a local level, on that point at one time Moscow was the most well defended target on Earth, obviously it had flaws, demonstrated by that West German pilot who landed on Red Square.

 

It could be said that the A-10 has been replaced by gunships like the AH-64, but sorry, i can't see how the F35 would replace anything the A-10 does other than in the stand-off role.  I can see drones replacing both within the next 20 years or so.

 

It's pretty likely this will be the last generation of manned aircraft fighting in war, personally i am pleased about that.


Ian R Tyldesley

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

It's extremely unlikely the US or NATO will get into a shooting war over Ukraine.

 

You are correct though, an A-10 would be pretty vulnerable against modern Russian forces if it tried to get down in the weeds like its original mission demanded. The Russians have had well over three decades to come up with air defence systems to counter the A-10. That's pretty much the crux of my entire argument.

 

 

 

Engine Room, you are still missing the point that CAS is not performed in contested airspace.

 

As I explained above, the kind of AA units I'm talking about are self contained, embedded, organic to the ground forces they are designed to accompany into battle. They're not going to be taken out in the initial wave of SEAD strikes - they're going to stay passive and wait until an aircraft is foolish enough to get into the heart of their engagement envelope.

 

Unless you've got a way of detecting and identifying individual air defence units embedded in the ground forces, and then attack them from outside their engagement envelope you're going to have problems. Ironically, the F-35 with its sensor suite is better placed to do this than any current platform.

 

The A-10 is a one trick pony. Modern air forces - even the USAF - can't afford to have too many of those.

Share this post


Link to post

And neither will the F-35 be safe from them if it is loitering directly above it in the middle of it's engagement and detection envelope while it is trying to perform CAS.

 

If I had a dollar for everytime we developed a plane that was supposed to take on all roles....I'd be a guy with several more dollars. Planes are either going to be real good at a few things or really lousy at everything. It is foolish to think that the F-35 can provide CAS in any manner as capable ad the A-10 can. It's just not designed for it.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all. If we fight WWIII with the Russians or Chinese, it won't matter what plane you have because it will go nuclear and we are all going to die anyways.

 

I agree, if things really got so bad that world's largest superpowers with nuclear weapons started to fight no doubt they would be used sooner or later. 

 

Personally I think United States should just cut its military budget by half and do some good with that money, I could see plenty of things that could be better in the US if it didn't waste so much money on wars that gain absolutely nothing, like the current war in Afghanistan.  

 

In this modern globalized world a war between major superpowers would cause a severe impact in worldwide economics, especially with China involved. That alone makes a real full scale war between them extremely unlikely. 

 

Real threat comes from various terrorist groups that aren't under control of any government. Against them traditional military forces are rather useless, like the Afghan war has proved. Taliban still seems to be going strong, which was of course an obvious outcome to anyone who had read about what happened to the British & Soviets there. 

Never invade Russia in winter. And never, ever do a full scale ground invasion of Afghanistan. That's just waste of men, time and money. 

Share this post


Link to post

There's several observations I'd like to make:

 

During the Gulf War (been there, done that, got a T-shirt), our wing of Vipers flew with the Italians and the Brits.  Compared to the the Viper, the Tornados got the livin' snot beat out of them and everyone thought they were a pretty impressive A2G platform.  Our aircraft were not permitted below the hard deck of FL150 AGL or so...  Therefore, our survivability was high for the F-16. More likely we would run out of gas... it happened...  But the commanders tried to put the Tornados on the deck like an F-15E Strike Eagle or the F-111's we had deactivated, and they took quite a few losses.  The Eagles did not.  ECM saved their butts.

 

After the start of the air war, I moved to KKMC just south of the Iraqi border.  Here, the Vipers and Hogs were loaded and quick-turned to return over Iraq time after time.  Yep, I saw a few A-10s come back shot to hell, but a) they survived, and b) the target didn't.  I actually saw the proverbial half of a Hog make it home.  That was way super impressive.  And these boys were literally flying THROUGH the Republican Guard, not above them.

 

We had the boys out of Hill AFB flying block 30 Vipers with GPS - they were known as FastFACS (fast forward air controllers) because of their precision nav capabilities.  We had one hit by an SA-7, so speed and altitude will NOT always save your hindquarters.  Pilot survived, we flew the A/C out after the war, new radome, some panels, some ABDR, and a new NLG/engine.

 

F-35?  Have talked to some people I know here at WPAFB and in the field - one word - junk.  Too heavy to be a 9G airframe, and too unreliable to be a front line aircraft.  We went through this with the F-4.  USAF, USN, and USMC all flew the bird, and we all love her ugly butt, but she was a heavy, heavy maintenance hog.

 

I'll bet Putin's Su25's (the Soviet-era Sukhoi version of the A-10) are not being retired...

 

Here's two further observations -

 

1 - When I was active duty, we had like over 100 active, Guard, and Reserve F-16 fighter squadrons - there's only like around 18 active and 20 or so Reserve/Guard units now.  That number is being massively cut, and the F-35's are a LONG way, if ever from filling the Viper's shoes.

 

2 - Not that I was a fan of Romney or Obama when they were running for President, but I remember the ridicule the then-Presidential candidate Obama and the press gave Romney for saying that Russia was as big of an enemy as she had ever been to the US...  How's that working for you now, Mr. President?

 

I apologize to everyone for that last comment, but I'm stil a Cold Warrior... 


Personally I think United States should just cut its military budget by half and do some good with that money, I could see plenty of things that could be better in the US if it didn't waste so much money on wars that gain absolutely nothing, like the current war in Afghanistan.  

 

While I understand why you would say what you did here, I respectfully disagree. 

 

First, you're in Finland, which if I'm correct, was always part of NATO.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  However, one of the things that kept a balance in Europe was that the Soviets (read that as "Russians") were pretty convinced that they would be soundly thrashed in any conflict with NATO because of the power of the US armed forces behind NATO.  NATO now, like US current foreign policy, is fairly weak based on what I've read and heard. Scary...

 

Second, the US armed forces are a shadow of what they were even 10 years ago.  I respect every person in uniform and appreciate what they do, as I've been there myself.  But, the US military is tired.  Equipment is tired.  People are tired.  It shows in the Vipers I used to turn a wrench on that are still flying that I've seen up close and personal.  It shows in the low morale and poor dress and appearance standards of some of its members.  Before I get crucified, it really does exist.  I see it every day - not from everyone, but four Army members walking across a mall parking lot in their DCU's and no cover in sight. USAF SP's on the gates that look like they slept in their ACU's.  "Time out" cards in basic training.  Dirty jets.  Base housing eliminated and torn down.  Roads in poor shape.  Buildings in poor shape.  Base and installation hospitals and medical centers that don't even have an emergency room or trauma unit any more.

 

But by God, we've got like double the amount of civilians on goverment welfare programs and food stamps than ever before.  We have money for that.

 

BTW, I looked up over the interstate highway I was travelling down last week, and there was a Predator drone... about 500 AGL, no USAF markings.  Interesting... 

 

I will now step carefully down from my soap box.  I apologize if I offended anyone.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Concerning the ability of the A-10 to make it back to base with considerable damage, I'm reminded of advice given to WW2 bomber pilots:

 

It is inadvisable to bail out over a target you've just bombed.

 

Hook


Larry Hookins

 

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Share this post


Link to post

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.....

What makes you think that what happens in Ukraine or in other parts of the world, has got anything to do with the u.s. warplanes?


Gorky Max

 

Share this post


Link to post
First, you're in Finland, which if I'm correct, was always part of NATO.  

 

 

In fact we still aren't part of NATO. After WW2 we tried our best to keep good relations to both west & Soviet Union, thus we stayed away from NATO. In the end it worked quite well, good relations with Soviet Union were most helpful for our exports business. 

 

If the situation in Ukraine gets really bad I could certainly see it changing attitudes more NATO friendly. It's not like Finland alone could really protect itself from a serious Russian aggression nowadays. 

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how military tech goes in future. I feel drones will keep taking more and more space from traditional ground attack aircraft, it's kind of scary to think what kind of things could be done with current rate of development. Micro drones equipped with poison darts come to mind... 

Share this post


Link to post

There's several observations I'd like to make:

 

 

Thanks for the insight, interesting stuff.

 

The Tornado's performance in the first Gulf War has been something of a controversy in the UK. The Tornado was conceived as an aircraft that would penetrate Warsaw Pack air defences at low altitude and high speed, day or night, in any weather to attack targets behind the front lines. The RAF in particular intended to use its aircraft to attack Warsaw Pack air bases.

 

This same role was given to the RAF Tornados in Desert Storm. When the RAF told the USAF that it was going to attack at low altitude and use the JP233 submunition to take out the Iraqi runways the reaction from the USAF was something along the lines of "YGBSM!" Iraq was flat and featureless, lacking the opportunities for terrain masking. The USAF advised the RAF against attacking from low level, but the RAF pressed on and five aircraft were lost in low level attacks before the RAF switched to medium level attacks. To this day the decision - insistence even - of attacking from low altitude in such flat and featureless terrain in the teeth of such heavy defences remains very controversial.

 

 

Second, the US armed forces are a shadow of what they were even 10 years ago.

 

 

The interesting thing is that even now the US is still the biggest defence spender by a very large margin. The US defence budget is mind boggling - it's equivalent of the next ELEVEN biggest defence spending nations COMBINED.

 

The entire USAF could be disbanded tomorrow, and just with the remaining assets of the USN and USMC the US would still retain the most powerful and capable air force in the world.

 

An observation on my part - again, with all due respect and no offence intended - is that many Americans are absolutely convinced that they have to retain this massive military machine at any cost. It's hard for me to understand how you guys have got your knickers in such a twist over healthcare reform yet don't seem to even bat an eyelid at spending nearly 700 BILLION dollars on defence when no other country could even dream of spending that much. US defence spending could be cut massively and still retain a world class military, whilst at the same time plowing all that extra money into national infrastructure or public services.

 

The climate of profligous defence spending is exactly how you're now stuck with the F-35 - an aircraft that is 160 billion dollars over budget and seven years late. It's how things like F-22, B-2, SSN-21 and DDG-1000 have all happened - massively expensive weapons programmes that have cost the American taxpayer astronomical sums of money.

 

These words from President Eisenhower were absolutely prescient:

 

 

 

First, you're in Finland, which if I'm correct, was always part of NATO.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  However, one of the things that kept a balance in Europe was that the Soviets (read that as "Russians") were pretty convinced that they would be soundly thrashed in any conflict with NATO because of the power of the US armed forces behind NATO.  NATO now, like US current foreign policy, is fairly weak based on what I've read and heard. Scary...

 

As FSCamp correctly points out, Finland was never in NATO. I don't know how your history is but you may or may not be aware that the Soviet Union actually invaded Finland in 1939. The ensuing Winter War was one of the most heroic and extraordinary military actions where the Finns exacted a very heavy toll on the invading Soviets and forced them to sue for peace. This was actually on of the things that convinced Adolf that he could defeat the Red Army during Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

 

Finland spent the Cold War in a position of armed neutrality.

Share this post


Link to post

It's easy to say that the US military is bigger than anything else and can easily be cut massively and still be bigger than anything else. The thing that people forget when they say that is that the US also defends a lot of other countries. By doing this, it has allowed those countries that are under its umbrella to spend more of their gdp on economic growth and social welfare instead of defense and not be at risk of a bigger neighboring country sending unbadged spetnaz into their airports to begin a takeover. Because these countries can develop freely, economically and socially, the US sphere of influence benefits from peace stability and economic growth, both of which encourages the other. That is why the western world has so far outpaced the USSR's sphere of influence.

 

Even though communism may be 'dead', it can be plainly seen now from recent events, that there is still two sides to this world. There is one side, the modern western world, that respects the rule of law and there is the opposite side that does not. Since the end of the cold war, that has been the basic conflict that has evolved to replace it. On one hand, you have countries whose governments are held accountable to their people, where rules are mostly abided by, where people strive to afford equal opprtunities, and where if leadership is perceived to fail by its governed, it can be changed, replaced ir even punished. Nobody is suppposed to be above the law on these countries. People here can live without fear and feel free to develop economically and socially.

 

On the other hand, you have countries that do not respect the rule of law. In these countries, corruption and coercion are the engines of governance. Their leaders appoint themselves to power as they please, the people under them are forced into servitude or obedience, and there is no peaceful mechanism for the people to change or replace their leadership. These governments hold themselves above any laws, and will do as they please, with no respect or consideration to anybody else. People here live in fear and their economic and social development is stunted.

 

That is the primary conflict the world is in here in 2014. An example of which can be seen in the Ukraine, where a small country that wanted to align itself with the western world, with the rule of law, with economic and social development, just got militarily invaded by a powerful neighbor who says 'nyet', and is forcing them back into servitude and obedience.

 

Personally, I think that defending our life under respect of the rule of law is something worth keeping a military that is stronger than those that do not respect the rule of law, for.

 

As for the Tornado's use of low altitude methods during DS, there is a simple reason for that. Their crews didn't think they could hit anything from high altitude. And if you can't destroy anything, what is the point of burning that fuel? Only after they realized that they did not exist in a vacumn, that there were other assets that could help them target from high altitude, were they able to think imaginatively, and adjust their tactics away from the traditional artist's renderings of a Tornado strike, in order to use the strengths of other assets to both hit things and avoid losses. I think I might have said something similar earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


. There is one side, the modern western world, that respects the rule of law and there is the opposite side that does not.

 

Yet modern western world doesn't have much of an issue supporting countries that belong the opposite side whenever it's in their economic / political interests. Think about Saudi Arabia and China for example, both of them make even Russia look quite democratic. Still western world has no problem with them severely violating basic human rights every day, just because of money.

 

 

 


where a small country that wanted to align itself with the western world

 

Only part of the country wanted to do that though, big parts of eastern Ukraine have Ethnic Russians as majority of their population, they still want to stay close to Russia. Most of the people in Crimea seemed to welcome the invaders with open arms. 

 

When we look at all the other violent conflicts going on right now huge majority of them are actually mainly internal conflicts, usually involving numerous different armed groups. Actual full scale wars between established governments will most likely keep getting more and more rare.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, like so many recent conflicts the western media is presenting a horribly simplistic and one sided version of what's happening in Ukraine. People are happy to lap this up because it feeds their world view and sometimes prejucides.

 

Suffice to say perhaps it might be worthwhile going to ask the 60% of Crimeans who are of Russian descent exactly who they think the "bad guys" are.

 

I'd like to write more, but I know Avsim isn't the place for this kind of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Yet modern western world doesn't have much of an issue supporting countries that belong the opposite side whenever it's in their economic / political interests. Think about Saudi Arabia and China for example, both of them make even Russia look quite democratic. Still western world has no problem with them severely violating basic human rights every day, just because of money.

 

 

Only part of the country wanted to do that though, big parts of eastern Ukraine have Ethnic Russians as majority of their population, they still want to stay close to Russia. Most of the people in Crimea seemed to welcome the invaders with open arms.

 

When we look at all the other violent conflicts going on right now huge majority of them are actually mainly internal conflicts, usually involving numerous different armed groups. Actual full scale wars between established governments will most likely keep getting more and more rare.

Then I guess it would be alright for Mexico to invade Texas and California and take it back. Afterall, large parts of those areas are occuppied by ethnic hispanics.

 

I wouldn't say that we don't have issues with doing business with countries like China, as we constantly harangue them about things like human rights.

Unfortunately, like so many recent conflicts the western media is presenting a horribly simplistic and one sided version of what's happening in Ukraine. People are happy to lap this up because it feeds their world view and sometimes prejucides.

 

Suffice to say perhaps it might be worthwhile going to ask the 60% of Crimeans who are of Russian descent exactly who they think the "bad guys" are.

 

I'd like to write more, but I know Avsim isn't the place for this kind of discussion.

What are we not hearing then? Have the ethnic Ukrainians been 'cleansing' the ethnic Russians there?

Share this post


Link to post

As usual, this kind of discussion has gone south. Interesting, but risky. I personally want to see this thread continues thou. The U.S. cannot even afford a replacement for T-38. Phasing out the warthogs are just reasonable. It is indeed fair for, again, the tax payers.


Gorky Max

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...