Farewell to the Warthog

[KevinAu 441]

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.

Well, what's reasonable and what is fair for taxpayers, I am sure many different opinions will exist for. So if you really don't want to take this discussion south, you should really refrain from writing things like that because it inevitably invites pushback.

[Kattz 132]

 

 

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.

 

Thanks to both of you for the clarification.  I knew that the German forces were thoroughly beaten in WWII and they backed out of Finnish territory quickly.  I was unaware that they were not part of NATO.  Thanks for that; it is most interesting!

[Need-To-Know 34]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/08/06/bagram-pilots-save-60-soldiers-in-convoy-ambush.html?comp=7000023435630&rank=4

 

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan -- Two A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots assigned to the 74th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, provided close-air support to 60 U.S. Soldiers July 24.

The Soldiers were part of a routine clearance patrol that was ambushed after their lead vehicle in a convoy of 12 turned over during a patrol of an Afghanistan highway. The situation forced the Soldiers to establish an overnight base while they pulled the vehicle out of a ravine. As the sun rose, the unit began to receive heavy fire from a nearby tree line. The members were pinned behind their vehicles and three of the Soldiers suffered injuries. The unit was under fire and the wounded members needed a casualty evacuation so they called for close-air support.
 
However, there was one problem; the ground unit didn't have a way to confirm the enemy's position. The unit did have a joint fire observer who was able to communicate an estimated location to the A-10 pilots who arrived on scene shortly after receiving the call from a local base's joint terminal air controller responsible for coordinating aerial engagements.

"I flew over to provide a show of force while my wingman was looking for gunfire below," said the flight lead of the two-ship A-10 mission. "Our goal with the show of force was to break the contact and let the enemy know we were there, but they didn't stop. I think that day the enemy knew they were going to die, so they pushed even harder and began moving closer to our ground forces."
 
When the enemy combatants didn't flee after the show of force, the A-10 pilots decided to deliver air-to-surface munitions to protect the friendly ground forces.

"Even with all our (top-of-the-line) tools today, we still rely on visual references," said the lead pilot, who is on his first deployment from Moody Air Force Base, Ga. "Once we received general location of the enemy's position, I rolled in as lead aircraft and fired two rockets to mark the area with smoke. Then my wingman rolled in to shoot the enemy with his 30 millimeter rounds."
 
According to the pilots, that really stirred up the attacking force. The enemy moved even closer to the friendlies in an attempt to prevent the A-10 from attacking again. The ground forces were now taking on a large amount of fire from the trees and surrounding high terrain.

"We just kept putting down more 30 mm rounds," said the second A-10 pilot, also deployed from Moody AFB. "The bad guys were closing in and according to the muzzle flashes there were a lot of them, but because people were shooting all over the place, the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel."

The pilots said usually after the first or second pass, the enemy runs away, but this enemy force was large and willing to fight. The pilots continued to fire 30 mm rounds, but the enemy force refused to fall back. Now, the enemy force was close enough to engage the unit with grenades, so the convoy's commander approved the pilots to engage "danger-close." The term is meant to clearly communicate to the ground and air forces that the need for support is so grave the ground commander is willing to accept the potential risk to the friendly unit for the life-saving employment from the air.

"We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk," the second A-10 pilot said. "We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy's position and used the 30-mm gun -- 50 meters parallel to ground forces -- ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn't hurt the friendlies.

The engagement lasted two hours that day, and in that time, the A-10s completed 15 gun passes, fired nearly all their 2,300, 30-mm rounds, and dropped three 500-pound bombs on the enemy force.
 
 "That last gun runs must have made them give up," the two pilots agreed "because the firing stopped."
 
Shortly after the engagement was complete, an MC-12 aircraft specializing in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance arrived and began scanning the area for enemy forces that might be regrouping. Sometimes when close-air support leaves, enemy forces will attack again, so the A-10s remained on-station until all the Soldiers were safe.
 
"We wanted to make sure the area was safe because we had the pararescuemen from the 83rd Expeditionary Rescue Squadron coming to transport the injured to Bagram's hospital," said the second pilot. "The flight doctor assigned to our squadron treated the wounded in the emergency room. It was an example of a successful mission with contributions from all assets of our base."
 
After the pilots landed and debriefed, they went to the hospital to see the wounded Soldier.
 
"He was laying there and next to him was a picture of his high-school girlfriend," the lead pilot said. "We were glad knowing we helped get him home alive. He said, 'Thank you for shooting those bad guys'. Luckily we were only a few minutes away and all the friendlies made it out that day."
 
Providing close-air support is the squadron's main mission here, and is the specialty of the aircraft they fly, the A-10 Thunderbolt II nicknamed the "Warthog."

"This was one of the most intense sorties our squadron has come into contact with in the last four months in theater," the lead pilot said. "Afterward the Afghan National Army said they found 18 enemy dead, so I can only imagine how many were out there. This was close-air support and this is what we train for."

[IAF747 8]

Great to see the A10s being used effectively. When a lot of baddies are there I think it is highly effective. Now Ukraine has come on the radar screen I believe the A10 should be kept. I change my mind! I I say what a Presidential nominee said before the last US Presidential election, Russia is No.1 priority........ and I'm not getting political.

[xplanery 250]

Oh well, maybe United States could donate some A10's to the Afghan air force?

 

To me it would seem like they desperately need such stuff. After watching a couple of documentaries I'm not all that convinced they will be able to keep Afghanistan under control alone... 

 

I guess United States doesn't want to give them too much high tech stuff in case Taliban gets back into power. The Afghan & Iraq wars just proved how ineffective war tends to be when it comes to actually solving problems & creating sustainable development, both countries are doing more or less as bad as they were when the wars started. 

[Raptor 5]

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. 

 

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... 

 

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.

 

Don't apologize for speaking your mind, that's what discussion is for...

 

 In agree with much of what you are saying.

 One thing I

The military and the civilian population is tired of watching the dead come home from another forgeign war(s) which we have no intention of, nor any hope of winning...

 Oh, I forgot,  that was Viet Nam when the US population last saw body bags of OUR Nations Dead, off loaded at Dover AFB from C-141's.... 

  We,  the citizens, don't see the real cost of our military excursions today.

 I remember them, the media showing the dead being off loaded from C-141's at Dover AFB being handed over th their loved ones for burial...

 That is the REAL cost of our wars abroad...

 We don't see that today... Are we too desentized to the reality of war in our society...  Too even care?...

 

 The Tornadoes were tasked with a mission from the "Soviet Era" style of mentality. That was to be their job in a Fulda Gap senerio, but adapted to the Gulf War as a result of the propensity of our Generals "fighting this war with the Last wars tactics" 

 EX: The Civil War, rifled muskets with closed rank formation marches (1770's smooth bore Muskets) across a field"... Opps... We have seen the movie too.

 

 The state of the people I see here is as you said... Very Poor, and not at all as it should be. They are a mirror of the greater populace,  I fear.  Just enough effort to get by... Nothing More, Nothing Less...

 I see it here with the Vets who get hired to maintain front line aircraft. They have no passion for their chosen craft... Just making a paycheck...

 

 And Finland fought on BOTH sides of the conflict in WW II. They were invaded by the Soviets and fought against them, and they fought against the ##### as well later in WW II.  Poliitcal expeniency to be sure, but it is history none the less.  And I am not passing judgement here... Just looking at the history as it occured. By the way, so did France...

 

Too many are saying the "Cold War" is over, and I agree with that. The Soviet Union is dead...

 But Russian Nationalism is alive and well, Putin IS Russian above all else... Don't confuse one with the other, they are not the same...

 "Mother Russia" isn't just a slogan, It means something more...  Much More...

 

 

 

Oh well, maybe United States could donate some A10's to the Afghan air force?

 

To me it would seem like they desperately need such stuff. After watching a couple of documentaries I'm not all that convinced they will be able to keep Afghanistan under control alone... 

 

I guess United States doesn't want to give them too much high tech stuff in case Taliban gets back into power. The Afghan & Iraq wars just proved how ineffective war tends to be when it comes to actually solving problems & creating sustainable development, both countries are doing more or less as bad as they were when the wars started. 

 

 The Afghan AF can't even fly a C-27 cargo plane... USAF pulled the planes from the region for a reason...

  The Afghans are not able to operate such equiptment, you are dealing with a peoples who live in the very distance past, not the present or even near future world.

 

 No One has ever conquered the region of Afghanastan. Ask the Soviets how they fared... 1980-1990...

 

 We the USA, did not learn from that war either... nor the fact that Afghanastan has never been conquered during  it's long history... Bush had his head up his you know where to think otherwise...

[ramrunner800 10]

 

 

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.

 

Against modern IR guided MANPADS, which neither SEAD or Air Superiority can mitigate, the A-10 will not be able to provide any CAS; it will be a smoking hole in the ground.  It's a wonderful piece of aviation history, and today makes a good counterinsurgency aircraft.  It can only be effective, however, against a technologically inferior enemy.  Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to have reduced IR signatures, which will serve to mitigate (at least partially) the MANPADS threat. 

 

I will be sad to see the A-10 go, but I hope that we won't find ourselves in any more conflicts where we need it.

[DetCord 24]

Ask the solider under fire from the most prevalent kind of enemy we fight now a days and over the last 30 years - which AC he wants for close support.

 

Absolutely! We called CAS (A-10's) on several occasions when we were in a fire-fight and facing a numerically superior enemy. Most of time, the simple sound of the turbines echoing through the mountains was enough to get them to break contact and dip-out. Those that stayed, well, they had the Pain Train put on them.

[KevinAu 441]

Against modern IR guided MANPADS, which neither SEAD or Air Superiority can mitigate, the A-10 will not be able to provide any CAS; it will be a smoking hole in the ground. It's a wonderful piece of aviation history, and today makes a good counterinsurgency aircraft. It can only be effective, however, against a technologically inferior enemy. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to have reduced IR signatures, which will serve to mitigate (at least partially) the MANPADS threat.

 

I will be sad to see the A-10 go, but I hope that we won't find ourselves in any more conflicts where we need it.

A-10s can hit targets from 25000'. There is no need for it to fly into the manpad envelope.

[ramrunner800 10]

A-10s can hit targets from 25000'. There is no need for it to fly into the manpad envelope.

 

I feel like you just pretty much made the point for retiring it.  From 25000', what can an A-10 do that an F-35 can't?  Other than arrive on scene more slowly?

[KevinAu 441]

I feel like you just pretty much made the point for retiring it. From 25000', what can an A-10 do that an F-35 can't? Other than arrive on scene more slowly?

It can carry more than two bombs.

[ramrunner800 10]

It can carry more than two bombs.

Ok, then what can it do better than a B-1/B-2/B-52.  The real point here is that the A-10 will not be able to fulfill it's key mission. It's unique characteristic is that it gets in the weeds and does it well.  You have conceded that on a modern battlefield it will be incapable of doing the one thing that makes it a valuable asset, because of the MANPADS threat.  If you're looking for a high altitude bomb truck that can deliver large amounts of precision munitions quickly, there are lots of options.

 

Also, your idea that CAS only occurs once air superiority has been established is fantasy.  That may be how it goes against technologically inferior enemies like the Taliban, but against a sophisticated enemy, the skies may remain contested during the ground campaign.  Troops in contact are not going to want to wait until the skies have been cleared before they get support.

[KevinAu 441]

It can strafe better. B-1/B-2/B-52s can't.

 

It's key mission is to drop bombs and fire bullets at things on the ground. Flying in the weeds is not a mission, it is merely a technique. Techniques change to fit the circumstances no matter what plane. If there is a real manpad threat, so will the B-2 and F-35 be at risk just the same as the A-10. And those planes are a much bigger writeoff should they get shot down.

 

Your fantasy is that the only conflict we will ever fight in the future will be WWIII. But every instance of close air support performed have been performed in skies that we controlled. CAS in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom were all performed under skies we controlled. Troops will not be in contact until the skies are under control. That is how the US military fights wars. Whatever war the US fights will be a war of choice where the risks are minimal. For example, we had the perfect opportunity to engage the Russians in a high risk WWIII scenario and fulfill your fantasy just this week over a little country called Ukraine. However, instead of choosing to fight, we backed off and allowed an aggressive country have its way with a weaker country. Our leadership will make whatever rationalizations necessary to justify the appeasement. The US will not engage in WWIII. There is too much to risk and this country has proven its policy is to back away. Therefore, the more appropriate weapons are those that are cost efficient for the small wars against inferior opponents that we choose to engage with.

[ramrunner800 10]

 

 

It can strafe better. B-1/B-2/B-52s can't.

 

This is pointless you change the facts when they don't suit your argument.  It can't strafe effectively at FL250, where it has to stay in order to avoid MANPADS (a note, the S does not indicate plural, it stands for System).

 

 

 

If there is a real manpad threat, so will the B-2 and F-35 be at risk just the same as the A-10.

 

How do you figure?  That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

 

I'm sure that at the end of the age of the knight's in shining armor someone made the case that nothing was better at defending against sword attack than a suit of armor, and that the army was crazy to go to war without it.

 

I'm under no illusions that every war we fight will be WWIII, in fact, I suspect we will not see it in our lifetime.  I think part of how you ensure that is by preparing for WWIII, because the appearance of weakness encourages people to test you (I think Putin knows our military is geared to small war right now, and not currently trained or equipped challenge him in the Ukraine).  I agree with you that the A-10 is a wonderful aircraft, that does it's particular job like no other, and if no hard choices needed to be made, it should be kept.  But the reality is that hard choices do have to be made.  Purchasing assets that prepare us for the worst is something that has to be done decades in advance, and the A-10's can be brought back much more quickly if we ever need them (personally I hope that being less prepared for military adventure in the third world will make it less likely).  Please don't think I'm some hippie liberal peacenik though, nothing could be further from the truth.

[KevinAu 441]

Apparently you are not too familiar with current tactics and techniques. The preferred way to strafe is from altitude in a steep dive. It limits the aircraft's exposure within the engagement zone of manpads and small arms, it reduces risk of collateral damage by limiting the dispersal zone, it is a 'stealthier' method since the first indication to the target of an attack is the arrival of the rounds, the noise of the gun follows afterwards, and the aircraft's noise is minimized by the idle power setting.

 

Manpads are targeted visually. There is no difference that stealth will make to a manpad operator between targetting a stealth plane and the A-10. If an F-35 is flying over a battlefield in broad daylight, it can be shot down by a manpad just as any non stealth plane can be.

 

For once I will try to refrain from responding to your last paragraph in the spirit of avoiding going too political with this, as I am often apt to do. Suffice to say that there is still no good military reason to retire the asset.