Warthog status corrected to "sustain indefinitely"

I was a combat engineer officer in the Army. I did 150 combat missions in Baghdad before the "surge." It was an interesting time to be alive. My observation is that, in an urban environment, no fixed-wing aircraft is any help. We never got A-10s, but the F-16s were gone before we could get across what we needed done. In contrast, an AH-64 Apache crew would be on the radio with you figuring out exactly where you were, where the enemy was, and where the enemy wasn't (but possibly innocent civilians--"collateral damage" were) . Also excellent--and heretofore unmentioned in this thread, were the drones (predator, I think?), which were able to stick around forever. More of a recon platform than CAS circa 2006-09, but I think we'll live to see that change.

Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: How great of a risk for a potential armed conflict with Russia

Depends which source you read. I think it's cold war-esque posturing from Russia.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does no one any good.

Just like the crazies say China is going to call our debt, bankrupt us and ruin our economy. Yeah, why would they destroy their largest trading partner.

It's just fear mongering to keep the ridiculous amount of funding for the military-industrial complex.

The US spends more on the military than the next 20 countries combined. 19 of those countries our are Allies.

In reply to ShadowSix:

In the right environment, Apaches and AC-130 gunships are the perfect CAS. I'm a fanboi of both so my opinion might be skewed a bit though.

Regarding drones: Correctly armed I can see them being the future of CAS. A pilot to fly the drone with a support team on hand to help identify friendlies using multiple resources that are not easily available to in the theatre aircraft pilots. Neat stuff.

Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: How great of a risk for a potential armed conflict with Russia, or Russian armed pawns is there currently? I don't really keep up with world news so some of the language in previous posts piqued my curiosity.

Pretty decent...look at Syria and then look at the two presidential candidates (and the fact that a man-crush only lasts until the first hurtful comment).

Smart move to keep the A-10 going. The F-35 is way too achey-breaky for that sort of duty. It's the poster boy for the Russians' stereotype of US fighter planes as fragile sport planes.

mapper wrote: In reply to ShadowSix: In the right environment, Apaches and AC-130 gunships are the perfect CAS. I'm a fanboi of both so my opinion might be skewed a bit though. Regarding drones: Correctly armed I can see them being the future of CAS. A pilot to fly the drone with a support team on hand to help identify friendlies using multiple resources that are not easily available to in the theatre aircraft pilots. Neat stuff.

Agreed. I should say that I have no experience with the AC-130, though I've heard good things.

The reason I'm somewhat of a skeptic about the F-35, is story of the F-111. Multi-purpose airframe for the Air Force and Navy. Ends up only in Air Force hands and takes years and 3 different redesigns just to develop reliable air intakes. Only after about 20 years did it become truly viable.

The same things said about it were the same things said about the F-35. That's the big reason I wait with bated breath on the program.

As much as I like the A-10, I see the future of CAS as unmanned drones. Time spent waiting for fast movers to refuel/rearm/return is torturous and a logistical nightmare. Rotary aircraft are too vulnerable to small arms fire and lack the endurance to stay on station for long periods of time.

A Predator can orbit at 25,000 feet all day, can see in infrared, and can place a laser guided munition within a square meter of its aim point. Seems like a win to me.

Squadrons of aircraft strafing columns of Soviet....er Russian tanks is 1980's Cold war thinking. Everyone saw what we did in Desert Storm, it was a turkey shoot. Any adversary we face in the future will know not to repeat that mistake.

In reply to KyAllroad:

agreed, as VR advances the ability to just replace the manned fighter aircraft is going to be easier and easier.

Until skynet comes online.

As well a drone can take far more G-forces than a piloted vessel can. Human body frailties limit flight capabilities.

I think a prerequisite to drone fighters will be autonomous combat...the first time a drone's control channel is jammed before it's trivially gunned down will be the beginning of ubiquitous control channel jamming in short-range combat and the beginning of the combat AI arms race.

In reply to Appleseed:

In that regard, the F-35 is already miles ahead of the F-111. All 3 services have received their designs and are undergoing testing right now, not to mention the RAF, RN, RAAF, JASDF, and IAF. And while there are always issues with any new acquisition, we are past the point where cancelling any major version of the design is necessary.

Don't forget about the many aircraft since the F-111 was designed that have successfully been converted to joint service aircraft, including the F-4, A-7, H-60, and C-130. We have learned a lot in the 50 years since the TFX program.

Hotlinked for your pleasure.

I know nothing about the costs/benefit ratio of the A-10, but I do know that it rates an 11 on both the cool and badass scales, so it needs to be kept around on that basis alone.

In reply to KyAllroad:

Drones will continue to take on more and more CAS missions as time goes on, but they currently have payload limits that are less than any combat aircraft. Plus, we currently have no (unclassified anyway) low observable drones in combat roles. This is a thing that will be necessary for the future high intensity battlefield.

You should really look up the sensor infusion technology devoloped for the F-35. It is incredibly advanced stuff that combines a lot of the abilities available to drone operators with a pilot's eyes on target. They will be able to perform CAS as well as any current bomb truck, and do it in opposed airspace as well.

This reminds me of the F4. It was designed with no gun because all air engagements would be made with missiles. We see how that worked out.

I'm sorry, but hte A-10 is an amazing aircraft. Designed to be able to return the pilot home completely missing one engine and stabilizer, titanium tub to protect the pilot from small arms fire, tremendous firepower and load carrying abilities. I remember my first air-show watchign the A-10's doing CAS and time on target demonstration. 2 aircraft could keep gun/rocket/bombs on target every 15 seconds. If you can't admit that is pretty awesome and the aircraft is one helluva piece of engineering, well there's something seriously wrong with you.

All the Phalanx firepower without the cockpit.

In reply to Bobzilla:

And yet, the NAVY has the highest kill ratio in the F-4, even though the Navy never fielded a gun equipped Rhino. So if the gun is necessary for air to air, how can that be?

The F-4 was designed as a beyond visual range interceptor. The rules of engagement in Vietnam prevented Phantom crews from engaging targets BVR, which placed them against far more maneuverable aircraft in situations they were not trained for. The Air Force slapped a gun on and hoped it would be ok. The Navy created the school that became known as Top Gun and trained aircrews on how to conduct dissimilar air combat.

I've never said that the A-10 isn't an impressive aircraft. So is a P-51 Mustang, but I wouldn't want to fly one in a modern battlefield. And CAS from aircraft is not performed as time-on-target attacks, that's for arty to do. Aircraft perform precision strikes, including A-10s.

In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat:

I think at this point you're just looking to argue about something. Doesn't matter what, just something. And for that reason, I am out.

In reply to Bobzilla:

I apologize if that came off sounding confrontational. I hadn't intended it that way, but rereading it I can see how it might be.

I am not looking to argue, but discussion is the reason this forum exists right? Be pretty boring if everyone said "A-10 big gun cool" with no dissension. But there are a lot of myths out there, like your "you need a gun for air to air" myth, that are easily disproved if you look at the facts.

In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat:

They updated the A-10 after the gulf war, pretty sure it does have radar now. And they dive for either unguided rockets or the gun(which they do use quite a bit)

Methinks you need to have an opportunity to meet a pilot of one sometime

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: if you look at the facts.

I agree. You should. But seriously, time on target with guns and bombs isn't important? Tell that to the grunts on hte ground getting hit from multiple locations.

pheller wrote: All the Phalanx firepower without the cockpit.

A-10C conversion and modernization is go as the planes service life has now been extended to 2028 as orders for the F-35 have been cut for failing to meet metrics. (metrics means any measurable quantity set forth by DoD purchasing, not just performance)

pheller wrote: All the Phalanx firepower without the cockpit.

Wait a minute. I don't want skynet to have THAT!!!

Full disclosure: I'm a total A-10 "fanboi", as it were. Up until about 7 or 8 years ago, our local ANG base had about a dozen of them, and I used to see them flying around a lot. My ears still occasionally perk up to the sound of a poorly maintained vacuum cleaner, hoping against hope that the Warthogs are back.

I'll start out with the parts I agree with you on: In a massive US v Russian/Chinese conflict against ground forces covered by current gen SAM technology and the sky full of SU-27 or newer fighters, the A-10 probably does poorly. Do drones/F35's/F22/whatever is on the drawing board at Lockheed do better in that environment? Maybe, provided the few facilities capable of supporting those systems aren't taken out early on.

On the other hand, the A-10 is miles ahead of any of the other "fast movers" when it comes to "low level conflicts", or about 99.99% of the combat operations in the past decade. It has superior visibility, loiter time, per unit cost, payload and, most importantly, survivability when compared to pretty much anything else out that is manned. (I've heard the arguments about the B-1 in terms of payload and loiter time - but those ignore the transit times and massive support facilities required to operate a B-1 in a combat theater) I'm also not sold on drones, but I guess that's not really based on anything other than the number of times we've had to make apologies on the world stage for blowing up the wrong stuff with our drones. I just don't see the USAF being willing to send in a half billion dollar plane down into the weeds to get a visual on what they are about to blow up the way I see A-10's (and, to be fair, the Apaches) doing in some of the combat footage that's been released. Anything other than the A-10 is just too expensive and susceptible to the proverbial "golden BB" to do legitimate CAS.

In reply to kazoospec:

Growing up, we used to be on the route for the A-10's on their way to drops at Crane NAS in Southern Indiana. Back then (remember, 80's) they flew those "missions" at literally tree top levels. They used the little lake across the street as a way-point and would bank over the top of hte house. What I remember from those days.... you never heard the first one. By the time you heard him flying over, his wingman was already facing us and on target. IT was always amazing watching them manuevering at those super low altitudes.

In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat:

Facts regarding a gun in fighters? You sir, are ignoring the facts of a great number of missed kills in the F-4, both Navy and Air Force, because the pilot didn't have a gun. I will not bother to elaborate for you on certain geometric situations of ACM and BFM ,aka dogfighting, which will absolutely prevent making a missile shot. On the F-15's very first hot intercept, in 1978 IIRC, four Israeli F-15s intercepted four Syrian Mig-21s; one of the kills REQUIRED a gun kill because the Eagle driver found himself suddenly out of parameters for an AIM-9 shot with a bad guy on his nose inside of 1200 feet slant range. On the first day of Desert Storm an F-15 pilot engaged a MiG-29 and the fight got inside AIM-9 minimum range; the Eagle driver was close to taking taking a gun shot when the Fulcrum driver flew into the ground. Day Two of Desert Storm, another Eagle driver was engaged with a highly skilled MiG-25 pilot at low altitude who had foiled three of the Eagle driver's missile shots. The turning fight was rapidly getting close to minimum range for the Eagle pilot's LAST REMAINING AIM-9. Even as he he pressed the pickle button on his last missile, the Eagle pilot was already mentally setting up his gun shot.

Stop drinking the berkleying "modern fighters don't need a gun" Kool-aid and instead go do some research on General Robin Olds and Col. John Boyd. Every single berkleying "military expert" who has made that claim was NEVER a fighter pilot. Not a one of them.