End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet
http://news.yahoo.com/end-looms-us-air-force-39-39-warthog-115956604.html
QuoteWashington (AFP) - Long disliked by the US Air Force, the A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack jet may finally be heading for the chopping block due to budget constraints.
The "Warthog," first designed as a tank buster to target Soviet armored vehicles in the middle of the Cold War in the early 1970s, is shunned by many aviators.
Although the twin-engine aircraft is slow, it is incredibly efficient at providing close air support for ground forces, making it an appreciated asset for the US Army.
But the US Air Force "never had a whole lot of interest in a subsonic close-air support plane," explained Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with consulting firm Teal Group.
Some of the comments are very interesting:
QuoteAs an airborne infantry vet, I saw these at first hand views... saw one take practically a very sharp, almost vertical nose dive straight down... I just stared at it and thought, "turn up, turn up! you're gonna burn in!" it fell below a tree line just a few hundred feet from our position and I honestly expected to see an explosion, but this plane was able to turn up somewhere on just the other side... These planes rock! I always felt a sense of more security knowing these planes were overhead!... We can't just scrap them! I wish I had a piolets license, I'd buy one! Hate to see them go!
...
From a recipient of the benefits of the A-10 I'm sad to see it go. It's not as sexy, fast or hi-tech as any other "fast mover" but it puts rounds on target and scares the hell out of any enemy ground troops. If ever you've had the displeasure of receiving the business end of that 30mm canon you'd know what I mean and if you've ever called in CAS and all the A-10 had was the 30mm then you'd be happy to hear that grinding "brapp" sound of the 30mm putting rounds on target.
...
So let's get this straight. We probably will be dealing with insurrections and terrorist groups for a long, long time. We have a plane that actually worked well in both Iraq and Afghanistan and probably more places than we care to know of, and the Brass wants to scrap it. Make a lot of sense. Now we have an F-35 fighter which most likely will continue to cost a fortune, isn't proven and we're going to pay millions and millions in cost overruns, and probably could be defeated by an F-15 Silent Eagle, but we can't have that can we? Jeez, and I wonder why the U.S. is going broke.
We need to let the Army operate fixed-wing CAS.
QuoteSpeaking Thursday before the American Enterprise Institute think-tank in Washington, Welsh stressed that to make the same savings of $3.7 billion, "we would have to shut down three to four times as many F-16s squadrons as we do A-10s."
I dont buy that bit at all. the A-10 is one of the cheapest aircraft to operate that I know of.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 13, 2013, 12:00:35 PM
QuoteSpeaking Thursday before the American Enterprise Institute think-tank in Washington, Welsh stressed that to make the same savings of $3.7 billion, "we would have to shut down three to four times as many F-16s squadrons as we do A-10s."
I dont buy that bit at all. the A-10 is one of the cheapest aircraft to operate that I know of.
Yeah, that sounds like bunk to me as well.
This part made me laugh out loud
Quote"...we have to be very honest with ourselves inside the Air Force about how much we can afford"
Where's that honesty been with the F-35?
Or the B-2, for that matter.
Or ANYTHING in the DOD budget.
I also recall that the AF signed contracts last year for new wings for the A-10 fleet.
it seems like every year theres a story about retiering the A-10 and it doesnt happen.
we'll see.
Is it true that the A-10 is "shunned by many aviators?" I'm sure it handles like a pig and it's slow, but hell, to have that kind of CAS power between your legs...must be how Mirth feels on date night.
Fighter jocks hate anything subsonic. And air-to-mud has never been popular with the AF. Yet they continue to fight the Army on operating fixed-wing CAS aircraft.
I agree with your earlier statement, that the Army should be dealing with these CAS assets and not the Air Force.
given the choice Id rather fly an A-10 then a F-16 or F-15. I think it would be a lot more fun!
I guess the question is: with so much precision munition, is CAS still necessary?
My gut tells me yes, but I really do not know. It's not an area I've ever looked into.
smart weapons cost a lot of money. 30mm shells dont. ;D
Im pretty sure that it also costs a lot less money to patch 23mm hole in an A-10 vs a F-16 or F-35. that is if the F-16 or F-35 can make it back to base.
Also, what one of the commentators said was priceless - that it scares the hell out of the enemy. There's something to be said for that giant flying titanium-lined tank bearing down on your position and when that BRRRRRRRAAAAPPPP starts.
The only reason its survived since the 80s is that every time they try to cut it, the Army finds some Congressman to introduce a bill transferring them from the USAF to the Army, which promptly causes the USAF to do an about-face and decide to hang onto them after all. It's not that the USAF really *wants* it, they just don't want the Army to have it.
Ah. The high school, clique mentality is still alive and well in the Armed Forces.
They're worried about going back to being the United States Army Air Forces.
Really? I never knew that. 'Course it's been a long while. My grandfather was in the Army Air Corps and went over to the Air Force when things changed in the late 40s. I had my eye on joining the Air Force in 1990 or so, but changed my mind.
I was being tongue-in-cheek, but it does seem like the Air Force never really got over the fight to become an independent branch.
.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on December 13, 2013, 01:10:06 PM
It's not that the USAF really *wants* it, they just don't want the Army to have it.
And that's why we have the finest military in the world!
I really hope the army buys these this time.
.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on December 13, 2013, 12:17:15 PM
Is it true that the A-10 is "shunned by many aviators?" I'm sure it handles like a pig and it's slow, but hell, to have that kind of CAS power between your legs...must be how Mirth feels on date night.
A few years ago, I was lucky enough to be able to talk to an A10 pilot, and look over his aircraft, on the static flight line at RAF Luchars (it was an international air display). He said they are a fantastic to fly. I've got some photo's somewhere.
pffft
the original 'end of the A-10' article was published back in the early 80's. ;)
That Scorpion is a cute little aircraft. It just looks a little fragile for it's intended role. All the Shilkas out there are probably drooling from their 23mm muzzles already.
The f16 is probably the lowest maintenance cost plane.
As stated before why have CAS now? A high volume guidance pack for small rockets sounds cheaper to me. Pilots are expensive to train. Planes are expensive to maintain. The cost of 30mm shells doesn't matter. For the times you need CAS before a truck mounted system can get in theater put a bigger gun on the drones.
When the poop hits the fan - a manned aircraft is probaly the most adaptive platform for applying 30 mm love. That whistle the A-10 makes is just "magic" - I suspect some enemy troops stand there and watch it prior to be vaporized!
Quote from: MIGMaster on December 17, 2013, 02:58:26 PM
When the poop hits the fan - a manned aircraft is probaly the most adaptive platform for applying 30 mm love. That whistle the A-10 makes is just "magic" - I suspect some enemy troops stand there and watch it prior to be vaporized!
i'd jump into the closest foxhole.... even if it was the outhouse hole if that puppy was anywhere in my vicinity
I'd sooner have a beating heart and smell like shit, that be shredded beef with a hint of Polo cologne
If some thirty mike-mikes hit you, I don't think there'd be anything left except wisps of woolly mammoth hide. :D
I'm thinking of the SU-25 Frogfoot. I wonder what their operators think of that platforms future?
Or was the experimental IL-102 the 'real' Warsaw pact version of a CAS type aircraft?
Quote from: endfire79 on December 17, 2013, 05:45:10 PM
Or was the experimental IL-102 the 'real' Warsaw pact version of a CAS type aircraft?
Dang, I'd never heard of the IL-102 so I googled a pic:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.wp.scn.ru%2Fcamms%2Far%2F722%2Fpics%2F1_1.jpg&hash=ee833a57b899df4db8f70e7685222016ac70a216)
Note the backward-facing gunner's position. He controlled the two 23mm cannon in the end of the tail.
The prototypes were developed from an earlier IL design (IL-40) which just oozes with that stark early postwar Sovtech design zeitgeist:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flankers-site.co.uk%2Fmodl_il-102_files%2Fil-40_real_01.jpg&hash=13743429599f0bf3e38a8e39ebc4f0bdd5bd6314)
Quote from: endfire79 on December 17, 2013, 05:45:10 PM
I'm thinking of the SU-25 Frogfoot. I wonder what their operators think of that platforms future?
Or was the experimental IL-102 the 'real' Warsaw pact version of a CAS type aircraft?
The Sovs, excuse me the Russkies, have a long history of dedicated ground attack aircraft.
.
Quote from: Staggerwing on December 17, 2013, 06:57:08 PM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flankers-site.co.uk%2Fmodl_il-102_files%2Fil-40_real_01.jpg&hash=13743429599f0bf3e38a8e39ebc4f0bdd5bd6314)
What a big nose you have.
I wonder if ground forces have their own truck with 50km missiles that drops a 1-5 spread of 500lb'ers on the enemy location. Your troops call it in with binos delivering gps data. No hanging around under fire waiting for a plane to show up. The splat hits within 3 minutes. Move on.
we call the MLRS. 8)
So what use is CAS if you are well supported with your own rockets, 50km, 100km, 250km to advance the front? Planes are really deep strike systems. You see all those parades of 2nd rate militaries showing off their missile trucks. The reality is it is a cost effective system. It's nice to have 50 million $ planes swarming everywhere until you get the bill.
for one you cant retask a ballistic missile in flight.
nor can you have a missile hang out overhead for a few hours waiting for something to happen.
If you can put guidance on a plane dropped bomb, you can put it on a missile lofted bomb. Yes, im saying a few standard 500 lbrs in the nose-cone. If you want to direct it to miss at the last moment you can send it new coordinates.
Why loiter burning jp5 when the truck can loiter for weeks with the engine off.
theres also the fact that having human eyes above talking about what he sees to the grunts below helps tremendously.
after some digging it would seem a M28 rocket costs $95,000. thats a little over a million per salvo for one fire mission. A-10s dont cost that much to fly for a week. here:
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
$17,000 per hour to fly. it is by far the cheapest manned combat aircraft on that list.
So almost 3 mill per week to protect an area. How many areas do you need to protect? You also have about 1 mill per pilot trained. You also forgot this little problem of buying all those planes. 12 mill each not including parts, maint, crews, hangars, all kinds of stuff.
dude... A-10 were bought and paid for decades ago when they were even cheaper. it costs less to fly then a VIP Lear Jet per hour. the next cheapest thing is a Cessna. your talking about buying more MLRS and all the men, training, parts and bs that go with that. A-10s are cheap to fly, armored like a tank, strike fear into the enemy and make problems go BOOM because they can sling a weapons by the literal fucktons.
You also need 3 of all of that for every area needing potential 24hr sorties. Then more so you can be loading planes while others are delivering. Up to what 30 planes per squadron? 1 squadron for every 100km of front?
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 17, 2013, 09:15:06 PM
dude... A-10 were bought and paid for decades ago when they were even cheaper. it costs less to fly then a VIP Lear Jet per hour. the next cheapest thing is a Cessna. your talking about buying more MLRS and all the men, training, parts and bs that go with that. A-10s are cheap to fly, armored like a tank, strike fear into the enemy and make problems go BOOM because they can sling a weapons by the literal fucktons.
True. However the current airframes need replacement so the purchase cost is relevant. To continue with this system you will have to buy it all again.
no we dont. the whole fleet has been getting new wings since 2007 as well as avionic upgrades.
why ya so harsh of the Hog baby? I aint been hearin no complaints about them in theater workin their magic.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 17, 2013, 09:26:30 PM
no we dont. the whole fleet has been getting new wings since 2007 as well as avionic upgrades.
why ya so harsh of the Hog baby? I aint been hearin no complaints about them in theater workin their magic.
Fine, you can have the last word prior to my post.
I like the A10. I just wonder about the cost of CAS missions. Why not have ground troops self serve their support while pilots do real strike missions. You know the shit that shuts down the enemy ability to keep going.
oh that...
we're not allowed to do that. thats actual warfare not the NATO operation we've got going now.
I thought this was a very balanced article on the pros and cons of retiring the A-10:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/
Id rather be in an A-10 taking ground fire then any other plane I can think of.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2013, 01:47:32 PM
Id rather be in an A-10 taking ground fire then any other plane I can think of.
SR-71?
those aint flying and never provided CAS.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2013, 02:28:39 PM
those aint flying and never provided CAS.
Really? I had no idea! :o
Blackbirds have been out of service for a long time.
Yeah, I know. Just like I know that a Mach 3 recce bird that flew at the edge of space wasn't used for CAS.
well I dont know what you do and dont know so my baseline is that you know nothing Sgt Shultz.
Who pissed in your cornflakes today? You're more of a bitch than usual.
The Sgt Schultz reference was a nice touch though.
Quote from: mirth on December 30, 2013, 05:35:40 PM
Who pissed in your cornflakes today? You're more of a bitch than usual.
The Sgt Schultz reference was a nice touch though.
its that time of year when his ancestry weighs heavy on his shoulders....
it was a Monday so toss off.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 31, 2013, 02:17:51 AM
it was a Monday so toss off.
More like it was a day ending in 'y'.
Quote from: Windigo on December 31, 2013, 01:47:41 AM
Quote from: mirth on December 30, 2013, 05:35:40 PM
Who pissed in your cornflakes today? You're more of a bitch than usual.
The Sgt Schultz reference was a nice touch though.
its that time of year when his ancestry weighs heavy on his shoulders....
Maybe some good old fashioned guilt about not turning in a certain overdue review?