Farewell to the Warthog

[ramrunner800 10]

 

Manpads are targeted visually.

 

That is incorrect.  The operator visually points the weapon at the target, however the actual targeting and guidance are done by an IR seeker head.  Stealth aircraft have their intakes and exhausts designed to limit their IR signature (actually eliminating it is impossible).  This will prevent, or at least greatly increase the difficulty, of obtaining a lock.  If lock is obtained, it will be difficult to maintain until impact.

 

I agree that this isn't really the place to discuss politics, though as war is simply politics by other means, the discussion of military reasoning is inherently at least somewhat political.

 

 

 

Suffice to say that there is still no good military reason to retire the asset.

 

I guess the 4 Star's at the Pentagon have no idea what they're doing, they should have called you.

[KevinAu 441]

That is incorrect. The operator visually points the weapon at the target, however the actual targeting and guidance are done by an IR seeker head. Stealth aircraft have their intakes and exhausts designed to limit their IR signature (actually eliminating it is impossible). This will prevent, or at least greatly increase the difficulty, of obtaining a lock. If lock is obtained, it will be difficult to maintain until impact.

 

I agree that this isn't really the place to discuss politics, though as war is simply politics by other means, the discussion of military reasoning is inherently at least somewhat political.

 

 

I guess the 4 Star's at the Pentagon have no idea what they're doing, they should have called you.

A-10s, helicopters, B-2s all have design features to reduce IR lockon vulnerability. Ironically, the F-35 is the one aircraft here in this discussion that doesn't have any kind of shielding designed for the exhaust.

 

You mean the four stars who declared that BVR was the way of the future and eliminated the gun from fighter aircraft? The four stars only march to their orders and spin the story to agree with their boss and keep on his good side.

[Longhaul444 27]

Name another a/c in the US inventory that can fly back on 1 engine, missing half a wing or a tail and not crash? The A-10 has done that, show me a 15, 16, 22, or 35 that can do that.

[ultra_porthos 4]

Name another a/c in the US inventory that can fly back on 1 engine, missing half a wing or a tail and not crash? The A-10 has done that, show me a 15, 16, 22, or 35 that can do that.

The B-17 FLying Fortress could do that.....but then again, eventually they retired them  ^_^

[KevinAu 441]

The B-17 FLying Fortress could do that.....but then again, eventually they retired them ^_^

The B-17 was retired because there was another aircraft built specifically to replace it in her mission and was superior to it in every way. The A-10C, however, is equipped with recent upgrades, does not actually have a replacement aircraft that does its mission in a better manner, and is only being retired in order to pay for non-military social agendas. If you want to argue against keeping the aircraft, that is fine, but just make sure you argue for retiring it with an understanding of the real reasons. Make the argument that Obamacare is worth junking the A-10 for, even right after they spent all that money upgrading it. Otherwise, you're just a sucker for their lies because there is no reason to retire it based on capabilities, threats, tactics or mission requirements. It is purely a budgetary reason.

[ultra_porthos 4]

The B-17 was retired because there was another aircraft built specifically to replace it in her mission and was superior to it in every way. The A-10C, however, is equipped with recent upgrades, does not actually have a replacement aircraft that does its mission in a better manner, and is only being retired in order to pay for non-military social agendas. If you want to argue against keeping the aircraft, that is fine, but just make sure you argue for retiring it with an understanding of the real reasons. Make the argument that Obamacare is worth junking the A-10 for, even right after they spent all that money upgrading it. Otherwise, you're just a sucker for their lies because there is no reason to retire it based on capabilities, threats, tactics or mission requirements. It is purely a budgetary reason.

It was a joke.  I have been on the benefit end of CAS and appreciate what the A-10 can do.  I have also had equally good support from other platforms as well.  Can any single aircraft do EXACTLY what the A10 can?  No really.  Is there a mission subtitute aicraft that can be used with different OP's?  Yes.  

As the guy on the ground calling for support, I don't care it it is an A10, or a an F-16, or an AH-64.  And I have had all three keep me alive.

 

All budetary considerations are psuedo political.  It happens during every administration, not just this one.  

[KevinAu 441]

As a taxpayer, I do care about what airplane they use. If the money that I worked for and then gave them got used to buy the 'C' upgrade for that plane over the last couple of years, I'd like to see them use it for at least a few years and drop a few bombs on people that deserve it, in order to get a return on that investment. If they are going to spend it on the upgrade and then immediately retire it, then I am going to be kind of upset. Because I worked for that money. If my kid immediately threw away a new toy I bought for him, that will surely be the last toy he gets. The decisions being made are insulting to the taxpayer and the soldier on the ground. They are essentially taking my hard earned money, placing it in a 55gal drum, and then setting it on fire. They have absolutely no sense of the worth of people's hard earned income that is being given to them.

[ViperPilot 81]

Name another a/c in the US inventory that can fly back on 1 engine, missing half a wing or a tail and not crash? The A-10 has done that, show me a 15, 16, 22, or 35 that can do that.

 

 

An Israeli F-15 had a mid air and made it back to base on one wing...

 

 

My second post (#21) still stands; I'll take the word of the guys on the ground, down in the weeds. If they say the 'Hog is the best for the Mission, who am I to argue?

 

You lose a Lightning II to ground fire, there goes one airplane, that will essentially cost the US Taxpayer $200M. By comparison, that figure is...

 

-- About 25% of the Initial 90 Day Mission performed by Spirit and Opportunity, the Mars Exploration Rovers.

 

Like I said... a Money Pit, to keep the MIC (and P3Dv2) kicking...

[Fielder 3,663]

#47 Brant said....

 

" I hope they keep them. "

 

Your wish is granted !!

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-force-shelves-warthog-plane-retirement-amid-232648633.html

[Mithras 87]

Since this thread hinges on budgetary concerns, I think it is prudent to note that in our open and free democracies (I'm British and wince at every new defence cut) the elected politicians are interested only in what the people think, and react accordingly. Yes there is some foresight and strategic planning, but they care about what Joe Public thinks. In the UK, its floods right now, so watch that funding escalate. If its terrorism, then woebetide any prime minister who doesn't pore a billion or two into stopping that bottle. With defence, the politicians are briefed by the military (probably intelligently and reasonably) but they dance to the tune of the electorate - here in the UK, armoured vehicles were a big thing, forcing the MoD to invest massively in American vehicles after the media got hold of that story and forced the government to do something.

 

I guess its hard to legitimately and sensibly plan for the next perceived threat, when the media and the electorate wll try and rip you apart if that clashes with what 'they' think is the current threat. Look at the current angst we ae having over whether or not to keep a nuclear deterrent with our submarine fleet, because the public and media claim that 'our wars are fought against terrorists', whats the point of a nuclear missile against a terror threat?? Short sighted.

[KevinAu 441]

It was pure idiocy to ever try and retire that aircraft at this point in world history. I guess those four star generals should have called me.

[ViperPilot 81]

Once again, the Defense Department has recognized the error of their ways, and are re-considering retirement of the Warthog fleet, given the ISIL threat in Syria...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/air-force-a-10-isis/index.html

 

I just don't see how a debutante like the F-35 could get her skirts all grimy, whereas the 'Hog loves getting into the mud!

 

Alan  :smile:

[scottb613 1,188]

How anyone could think a swept wing jet would ever do better than a straight wing jet in a CAS role - is beyond me... You need a brawler who can take a punch - not some prima ballerina who thinks she's never going to get touched... If anything - brush off the assembly line and make more - as it's proven itself to be the quintessential CAS platform...

 

Regards,
Scott

[ailchim 206]

We all get attached to our nation's aircraft don't we...

 

I would have thought the A10 was the perfect, proven weapon for the current conflict where there isn't a sophisticated air defence.  Also, God forbid any allied aircraft be shot down over there, but if it did happen, better it's an A10 than an F35 the remains of which ends up in the hands of the Russians or the Chinese.

[stans 702]

Once again, the Defense Department has recognized the error of their ways, and are re-considering retirement of the Warthog fleet, given the ISIL threat in Syria...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/air-force-a-10-isis/index.html

 

I just don't see how a debutante like the F-35 could get her skirts all grimy, whereas the 'Hog loves getting into the mud!

 

Alan  :smile:

I must agree.  The A-10 is ugly, slow, and about as sexy as a rusty screwdriver, all of which make it undesirable for the image of the USAF.  But, it is uniquely qualified for the missions of today, something that I doubt the F-35 will be able to do.