National Guard aircraft are typically much better maintained than active duty aircraft. They are flown by aircrews who are either former active duty or long term (experienced) National Guard who are mentoring the new bees. They usually kick active duty Air Force a** In the William Tell exercise. I am not talking out of my a** like some posters. 30 years Army National Guard Aviation. Now (thankfully) retired. I have had a little time up close and personal with A-10s. They are beyond awesome in the ground attack role! They could probably perform the mission as well or better than anything else. As previously mentioned they are bought and paid for. What is the cost of the F-35 going to be? Half a billion or more? They are better at defending themselves air to air but that is what F-22 MIGCAP is for.
When I was accomplishing My flight training In the Army OV-1 Mohawk at Fort Huachuca AZ The Air Force ground attack aircraft from Davis Monthan air force base used our ranges. The A-7s were very impressive with their speed and maneuverability. Later the A-10s where equally impressive. I and my same age Nephew went to Davis Monthan to get a close up look at the A-10s. As we were military aviation we got a special tour including sitting in the pilot's seat. Many years later (late 1980s) The Air Force was trying to become rid of the A-10. It was just not their style. They did not want the ground attack role. They imagined themselves as flying high and shooting down enemy fighters. Grudgingly allowing bombers and considering transport lower than Whale ****! Very similar to the Navy! The Air Force even tried to pawn them off on the Army which totally went against Air Force policy of allowing the Army to acquire tactical jet aircraft. There was a pipe dream to replace our aging OV-1 Mohawks which were a purpose built reconnaissance aircraft with converted A-10s. This would never work without spending billions. Fortunately for the Army Desert Storm happened. The incredible success of the A-10 caused the Air Force to re-think it's retirement. In my opinion refurbished A-10s are still a valuable asset for limited war. Please keep them. There is no current substitute.
In all actuality, cutting the A10 won't really save any money at all as that 3.7 billion and more would just be diverted to traiining and support for a much more expensive platform. Having crewed F-4's, F-15's, F-16's, and AC130A's, and having worked for General Dynamics and Lockheed on several other fighter aircraft programs, I've seen firsthand what it takes to maintain and operate various fighter aircraft. The more modern aircraft are much more fickle and expensive to maintain than the older workhorses. A classic example is the B-1 bomber. It was activated in 1986 at great expense and has never been fully mission capable while the most recent B-52 (#1040) will be 52 years old in October and it's still fully mission capable. The claim of saving a certain amount of money is just like a woman going shopping and claiming to have saved a certain amount of dollars. Unless she came home with the same amount of money that she left with, she didn't "save" anything.
You reminded me of an old Andy Capp cartoon. He came home to find his wife Flo with a brand new coat. His question was; How much did that cost? Her answer was, actually nothing. It was on sale for 50% off so I bought it with the money I saved. Obamanomics!
Chuck Hagel's got a good plan in the works overall......as a tanker, I do have a contention about the A-10.......cause I LOVE the friggin thing! F-16 and Harriers are nice for fly-by run.......but they can't stick around like an A-10 or AC-130.......and offer precise machine-cannon support upon immediate notice.
God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
Funny you mentioned Fulda, a guy just called me a few minutes ago from NTC/ Fort Irwin CA and said he was looking at two pics of me on a unit photo board hanging in the 11th ACR area (now located at NTC) from when I was stationed in Fulda Germany with the 11th ACR.
One of my best buddies joined the Army in 1972. He ended up as a "speed bump" 3rd AD in the Fulda gap. When I returned from my 2000 deployment having travelled from Dresden back to Ramstein I had to tease him that I had seen something he never did in Germany. The Fulda gap from the East side! When I look at any of my Army group photos I am puzzled by the skinny kid with my name next to him! I was fortunate to only get within 1,000 feet Above Ground Level of then Camp Irwin. Much later I did serve my sentence at JRTC Fort Polk Louisiana.
''Russian military forces are blockading Sevastopol airport in the Ukrainian region of Crimea, Ukraine's interior minister has said.
Arsen Avakov called their presence an "armed invasion".
Armed men also took over the other main Crimean airport, Simferopol, on Friday morning.''
Six-Gun, the pics you posted remind me of some of the photos of B-17's coming hoime from Germany. Some of them were shot up so bad it was difficult to see what was holding the tail on! Some planes just soak up everything the other side throws at them and still keep flying. I remember a B-52 coming back to Kadena with a 3-foot hole in one wing where a turbine-driven hydraulic pump used to be. Thart wasn't battle damage, just a catastrophic failure of a mechanical part. The interesting part of that one was the fact that the auxiliary fuel tank on the damaged wing left the plane due to a wiring short, and the other side couldn't be jettisoned to equalize the weight. Thye had to fly it home with one wingtip 3,000 pounds heavy for a while until the fuel in the tank could be burned off!
Jerry
Both of those other planes (B-17 and B-52) are among those rarities that take a beating and stay airborne. One of my instructors in electronic warfare school had a story of a double engine catastrophic failure in a B-52 that resulted in severe and instantaneous differential thrust favoring one side, meaning that one side of the plane was still giving full thrust while the other was a giant aerobrake). This resulted in a bad yaw state and nearly put them in a flat spin. In a plane that side, good luck pulling out of that situation. Somehow, someway, the pilot got them in stable enough state by dropping the power back on the opposing engines to the ones that failed and got it back home safely on the remaining 4 engines. Any other engine layout would've seen the 4 crewmembers ejecting, but the B-52 got them home. There's definitely a reason why we still have it.
Unless there's much more to it than meets the eye, I can't see an F-35 taking anywhere near the battle damage of its predecessors and surviving.
From what I understand, the USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years as CAS is not seen as their primary mission. I have heard third hand that the Army was a signature away from taking over the A-10 fleet until the Secretary of the Army saw the maintenance and training costs.
Just IMO, but the Apache is not a 1:1 stand in for the A-10's capability.
I have heard the same rumor and that the Marine Corps is also ready with a big catcher's mitt to take that broken down, obsolete warhorse off of our hands. Seems they think much more highly of what it does for their men in the field, too.
Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
That was my son's first base and he started his AF career working at DM on A-10 ejection seats. The first "souvenir" I got from him when he got there was an empty 30mm case fired from an A-10 that still sits on my desk. I would NOT like to be on the receiving end of one of those...
You run a geiger counter over that thing??? :silly::tooth:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
That was my son's first base and he started his AF career working at DM on A-10 ejection seats. The first "souvenir" I got from him when he got there was an empty 30mm case fired from an A-10 that still sits on my desk. I would NOT like to be on the receiving end of one of those...
You run a geiger counter over that thing??? :silly::tooth:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
I think the point is that the F-35 doesn't have to because it can fly so fast and high that it doesn't have to worry about getting hit by anything but advanced guided SAMS. Of course at low altitude in CAS that probably isn't always the case depending on the armaments and tactics used (dropping JDAMS vs. strafing with guns).
The last part you posted is the driving thrust of my concern. Smart weapons/guided stuff are pretty danged good, but not perfect. The failure rate hitting a specific target with guided stuff is a lot higher than the general public typically believes because the TV news and documentaries only tend to focus on images of the successful strikes. When you have Taliban fighters within a couple hundred yards of the troops you're supporting, there's no way you can risk dropping much by way of bombs from high altitude, let alone a cluster bomb unit or similar unguided bomb. That's where a gun or unguided rocket salvo in-close simply has no substitute and that's where a tough airframe that can sustain a LOT of small arms fire becomes critical.
Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
I think the point is that the F-35 doesn't have to because it can fly so fast and high that it doesn't have to worry about getting hit by anything but advanced guided SAMS. Of course at low altitude in CAS that probably isn't always the case depending on the armaments and tactics used (dropping JDAMS vs. strafing with guns).
That isn't Close Air Support. Close air support is the job of the A-10 and it's predecessor, the A-1 Skyraider a.k.a. Sandy, Hobo, and Spad. They both can fly low and slow to identify targets, are heavily armored, and can fly in weather that makes other aircraft, like the ones you mention, sit in the hangers. The A-1 could get in the grass and fly just feet of the deck to do strafing runs in it's CAS role, had a long loiter time over the operational area, and could carry huge amounts of munitions. Try that trick with a supersonic jet. The OV-1 and OV-10 did the same job to an extent, but aren't as versatile as the A-1 was and the A-10 is.
Close air support isn't dropping a JDAM from 10,000 feet.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
...the A-10 is the best at what it does, but it is a niche weapon system that's becoming increasingly vulnerable against enemies with moderately sophisticated AA capabilities and scrapping it would save a lot of money.
Dude, you should stick with your Obama hero worship and leave the "expert military advice" to those who ACTUALLY served. lol!
I see they have dropped their 'Ability to fight two wars/conflicts simultaneously' jargon with these upcoming proposed cuts.
I remember much talk about about no more "Task Force Smiths" the first group of Americans to land in Korea from Japan where they were told the North Koreans and Chicoms would run from the very sight of American soldiers. I'll trained and ill equipped is ain't the word for them at that time.
We need a strong military that is respected around the world by both those who like and despise us. What looks good on paper isn't always good on the battlefield. There are plenty of other areas to cut from and the impact goes far beyond the military at a time where high unemployment and lost revenues will effect the civilian communities as well.
It always cost a lot more in blood and dollars to play the catch-up game.
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Chuck Hagel says 'American dominance in the seas/skies can no longer be taken for granted' I agree with these proposed cuts, just insane at this time. What about Russia and the Ukraine, Obammy is warning them what is he gonna back it up with...Putin is laughing at us.
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
I have heard the same rumor and that the Marine Corps is also ready with a big catcher's mitt to take that broken down, obsolete warhorse off of our hands. Seems they think much more highly of what it does for their men in the field, too.
;
Giving the A-10's to the Army and Marines simply makes sense; same service branch, internalization of training, better communication when the . Not sure how well it fits in with the Marines occasional need for carriers, but it's a total no-brainer for the Army.
Let me talk about the F-35. I was designed to replace the F-16, F-18, AV-8, A-10, F-15 in some applications, and sell to an over seas market!! Will it ever do close air support as well as the A-10?? NO! It will probably be the last manned fighter the US ever designs. It's what you get when you have bean counting libtards running the military, ala McNamarra!! Do we ever learn anything from history??NO! They tried the same thing back in the 60's with the F-4. It was great as an interceptor, but could not dog fight and was not a good bomber. In this case it would be like entering a demo-derby driving a Prius instead of a Buick station wagon.
Hopefully, the armed services still have tactician's capable of overcoming any shortfalls in capability. But it's been a long time since we had anyone like Robin Olds!!
I see they have dropped their 'Ability to fight two wars/conflicts simultaneously' jargon with these upcoming proposed cuts.
I remember much talk about about no more "Task Force Smiths" the first group of Americans to land in Korea from Japan where they were told the North Koreans and Chicoms would run from the very sight of American soldiers. I'll trained and ill equipped is ain't the word for them at that time.
We need a strong military that is respected around the world by both those who like and despise us. What looks good on paper isn't always good on the battlefield. There are plenty of other areas to cut from and the impact goes far beyond the military at a time where high unemployment and lost revenues will effect the civilian communities as well.
It always cost a lot more in blood and dollars to play the catch-up game.
Military Channel aired some Korean War documentaries last week. Task Force Smith was accurately reported as 400 mostly "green" troops sent on a suicide mission with no hope of success. Basically we had to show the world something was being done concerning the North Korean invasion. Very sad.
Let me talk about the F-35. I was designed to replace the F-16, F-18, AV-8, A-10, F-15 in some applications, and sell to an over seas market!! Will it ever do close air support as well as the A-10?? NO! It will probably be the last manned fighter the US ever designs. It's what you get when you have bean counting libtards running the military, ala McNamarra!! Do we ever learn anything from history??NO! They tried the same thing back in the 60's with the F-4. It was great as an interceptor, but could not dog fight and was not a good bomber. In this case it would be like entering a demo-derby driving a Prius instead of a Buick station wagon.
Hopefully, the armed services still have tactician's capable of overcoming any shortfalls in capability. But it's been a long time since we had anyone like Robin Olds!!
All of this and blistering acquisition cost. When your F-35 helmets are running $1 million a piece AND are user-specific/not sharable among other pilots with only minor fit changes...and you're having airframe cracking issues without a singe combat sortie flown...and, and, and...
Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
Hmmmm- - - - -sort of reminds me of the B-58. That thing had several hundred hours' worth of maintenance time for every hour of flight. The planes never dropped a bomb except in practice, and their one and only purpose was a last-ditch Mach 3 penetration to targets in the USSR, with no fuel to get home on. Of course, getting home was a moot point, since once the ICBM's started flying there wouldn't be much home to return to. The reason they were only stationed at Little Rock and Bunker Hill was the fact that those locations gave us approximately 14 minutes of scramble time to get them airborne- - - - -the longest distance from the launch sites in the USSR. Fortunately, we never had to launch them for real.
Jerry
About a year ago, my son made a comment to me about the low % of the available F-35s that were able to be in the air at any given time and I asked if it was because of lack of parts or reliability issues. He said, nope, not enough working helmets...
Now there's a grand idea...lets create a multi-million dollar weapons system that can't get off the ground because the pilot hasn't got the right helmet....Advanced technology can go way too far. I recall they designed the F4 without guns because "guns were obsolete"
Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
I recall they designed the F4 without guns because "guns were obsolete"
The problem with a lot of aircraft-mounted guns is that some of the planes are capable of overtaking the rounds they fire and shooting themselves down. A few F-86 pilots in Korea learned that the hard way. The later-model 86's used mostly rockets as offensive weapons instead of guns. Fire, then make a turn to avoid passing up the bullets as they lose velocity! A subsonic plane like the warthog doesn't have that kind of problem.
Jerry
The problem with a lot of aircraft-mounted guns is that some of the planes are capable of overtaking the rounds they fire and shooting themselves down. A few F-86 pilots in Korea learned that the hard way. The later-model 86's used mostly rockets as offensive weapons instead of guns. Fire, then make a turn to avoid passing up the bullets as they lose velocity! A subsonic plane like the warthog doesn't have that kind of problem.
Jerry
I also recall that the first gun pods for the F4 were in-country field mods...American ingenuity at it's best...
Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
That isn't Close Air Support. Close air support is the job of the A-10 and it's predecessor, the A-1 Skyraider a.k.a. Sandy, Hobo, and Spad. They both can fly low and slow to identify targets, are heavily armored, and can fly in weather that makes other aircraft, like the ones you mention, sit in the hangers. The A-1 could get in the grass and fly just feet of the deck to do strafing runs in it's CAS role, had a long loiter time over the operational area, and could carry huge amounts of munitions. Try that trick with a supersonic jet. The OV-1 and OV-10 did the same job to an extent, but aren't as versatile as the A-1 was and the A-10 is.
Close air support isn't dropping a JDAM from 10,000 feet.
The major "mud movers" in WW2 were the Marine F4-U Corsairs and the Army Air Force P-47 Thunderbolts. It is fitting that the A-7 which was used by the Marines was the Corsair 2 and the A-10 Thunderbolt 2 which is used by the Air Force. Another effective Close Air Support airframe was the British Typhoon. They now have the Typhoon 2 Multi Role. Absolutely nothing against the A-1 Skyraider it was perfect in it's role(s). A former Navy SEAL Thanked me for the times the JOV-1s (armed OV-1s) saved their bacon. I'm sure he was remembering the Marine OV-10s whose mission was close air support. Arguing with a SEAL is not recommended. The armed OV-1's mission was to lead an unarmed low level OV-1 photo recon aircraft looking for Kodak moments and minimize the small arms holes by keeping the bad guy's heads down. There were other effective close air support aircraft including the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. These aircraft were all adapted to the close air support role. The A-10 is purpose built. Please keep it!
I spent quite a bit of time at Korat RTAFB Thailand working electronics on A-7's. Those things had enough hard point mounts on them to carry the contents of an average hardware store, and the cockpit and other essential areas were pretty heavily armored. When all the stuff on the wing pylons was used up they still had a 20MM Gatling gun onboard. I'd hate to be on the receiving end of what that plane had to offer!
Jerry
Well with Putin on the rampage I don't think these defense cuts are going to happen. The magazine Modern War #10 Mar-Apr 2014 has an article on eastern European militaries most of are small and poorly equipped ect. No doubt this will soon change do to Putin.
Oh the cuts are going to happen alright! Having a military capable of defending against Putin's kind of aggression is a 19th century concept. Just ask big ears and the ketchup bottle.
The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
Replies
Last time I checked, the Chinese and North Koreans had a couple of tanks in their inventories too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26379722
''Russian military forces are blockading Sevastopol airport in the Ukrainian region of Crimea, Ukraine's interior minister has said.
Arsen Avakov called their presence an "armed invasion".
Armed men also took over the other main Crimean airport, Simferopol, on Friday morning.''
Both of those other planes (B-17 and B-52) are among those rarities that take a beating and stay airborne. One of my instructors in electronic warfare school had a story of a double engine catastrophic failure in a B-52 that resulted in severe and instantaneous differential thrust favoring one side, meaning that one side of the plane was still giving full thrust while the other was a giant aerobrake). This resulted in a bad yaw state and nearly put them in a flat spin. In a plane that side, good luck pulling out of that situation. Somehow, someway, the pilot got them in stable enough state by dropping the power back on the opposing engines to the ones that failed and got it back home safely on the remaining 4 engines. Any other engine layout would've seen the 4 crewmembers ejecting, but the B-52 got them home. There's definitely a reason why we still have it.
Unless there's much more to it than meets the eye, I can't see an F-35 taking anywhere near the battle damage of its predecessors and surviving.
I have heard the same rumor and that the Marine Corps is also ready with a big catcher's mitt to take that broken down, obsolete warhorse off of our hands. Seems they think much more highly of what it does for their men in the field, too.
You run a geiger counter over that thing??? :silly::tooth:
You run a geiger counter over that thing??? :silly::tooth:
That isn't Close Air Support. Close air support is the job of the A-10 and it's predecessor, the A-1 Skyraider a.k.a. Sandy, Hobo, and Spad. They both can fly low and slow to identify targets, are heavily armored, and can fly in weather that makes other aircraft, like the ones you mention, sit in the hangers. The A-1 could get in the grass and fly just feet of the deck to do strafing runs in it's CAS role, had a long loiter time over the operational area, and could carry huge amounts of munitions. Try that trick with a supersonic jet. The OV-1 and OV-10 did the same job to an extent, but aren't as versatile as the A-1 was and the A-10 is.
Close air support isn't dropping a JDAM from 10,000 feet.
― Douglas Adams
Dude, you should stick with your Obama hero worship and leave the "expert military advice" to those who ACTUALLY served. lol!
I remember much talk about about no more "Task Force Smiths" the first group of Americans to land in Korea from Japan where they were told the North Koreans and Chicoms would run from the very sight of American soldiers. I'll trained and ill equipped is ain't the word for them at that time.
We need a strong military that is respected around the world by both those who like and despise us. What looks good on paper isn't always good on the battlefield. There are plenty of other areas to cut from and the impact goes far beyond the military at a time where high unemployment and lost revenues will effect the civilian communities as well.
It always cost a lot more in blood and dollars to play the catch-up game.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Chuck Hagel says 'American dominance in the seas/skies can no longer be taken for granted' I agree with these proposed cuts, just insane at this time. What about Russia and the Ukraine, Obammy is warning them what is he gonna back it up with...Putin is laughing at us.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3273339509001/how-gutting-the-army-puts-the-country-at-risk/#sp=show-clips
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Giving the A-10's to the Army and Marines simply makes sense; same service branch, internalization of training, better communication when the . Not sure how well it fits in with the Marines occasional need for carriers, but it's a total no-brainer for the Army.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Hopefully, the armed services still have tactician's capable of overcoming any shortfalls in capability. But it's been a long time since we had anyone like Robin Olds!!
All of this and blistering acquisition cost. When your F-35 helmets are running $1 million a piece AND are user-specific/not sharable among other pilots with only minor fit changes...and you're having airframe cracking issues without a singe combat sortie flown...and, and, and...
Jerry
Now there's a grand idea...lets create a multi-million dollar weapons system that can't get off the ground because the pilot hasn't got the right helmet....Advanced technology can go way too far. I recall they designed the F4 without guns because "guns were obsolete"
The problem with a lot of aircraft-mounted guns is that some of the planes are capable of overtaking the rounds they fire and shooting themselves down. A few F-86 pilots in Korea learned that the hard way. The later-model 86's used mostly rockets as offensive weapons instead of guns. Fire, then make a turn to avoid passing up the bullets as they lose velocity! A subsonic plane like the warthog doesn't have that kind of problem.
Jerry
I also recall that the first gun pods for the F4 were in-country field mods...American ingenuity at it's best...
Jerry