Attacking ISIS near Mosul on January 22nd.
Via Michael Yon:
That these A-10s are rolling in is a sure sign that US special operations forces are out there helping the Kurds. (No secret there -- this is often in the news.)
Ideas that drones or F-35s can replace A-10s, or Kiowa Warriors is wrong. Apaches also cannot replace KWs or A-10s -- each has a roll, and Apaches simply cannot do what KWs or A-10s do.
If anyone say drones or F-35s can cover for A-10s or KWs, just switch the channel. If a person were to say that Canada is in Asia, we would stop listening, right? Likewise, anyone saying drones in the foreseeable future, or F-35s, can replace A-10s or KWs might as well be saying that Canada is in Asia. It is safe to ignore him. He has no useful input on the topic.
nothing says form is function better than an A-10 warthog
A-10 you magnificent bast ard.
Ultrarealistic discussion on how Canada should produce our own A-10s starting in 3, 2, 1...
"BRRRR.......BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.....BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
The sound of angels as heard by ground troops.
"BRRRR.......BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.....BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
The sound of several thousand VPM (virgins per minute) heard by the enemy.
War is too important to be left to the politicians. -- Particularly progressive politicians; they always want to start the wars, but then apply ROEs that make it impossible to win them.
Teddy roosivelt was right TALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK
Interesting video - the real thrill of watching a skilled warthog pilot at work is when he unleashes that 30mm rotary cannon and surgically removes any armor concealed personnel the ground force may encounter. Love the sound of that 30mm avenger.
There are only little bity pieces of tanks where the warthog has flown.
We could just buy American ones (and all the replacement parts we can get our hands on!) if they are stupid enough to drop them. I know. Probably still a fantasy unless there's a new CPC majority in October.
I understand Air Force generals are also behind the push to kill the A-10 and not just politicians because they don't like their branch of service doing close-support dirty work.
We wouldn't be able to buy warthogs unless we could sole source them thru Irving.
It was a great plane in its day, but that day is almost over. It really only operates down low and there it is now very, very vulnerable to the new generation of MANPADS with dual sensitive seeker heads that defeat flare defences. If you want shot down aircraft and dead pilots, fly the Hog in contested airspace defended by 2nd gen MANPADS, to say nothing of bigger, better vehicle mounted A2A missile technologies.
It can still work in some circumstances, like the video shows but it is no longer battle worthy in a clash with any first class military, like China or even Iran, it had to be withdrawn from combat in GW2 because it was too risky for pilots to fly them in combat.
While it is great for Hollywood and YouTube, the days of going down low and strafing are going the way of Tiffiy rocket salvos or Stuka dive bombing. As a realistic tactic, strafing is in the almost extinct class.
In a perfect world, the USAF would and could afford to keep a few squadrons of Hogs on active status for circumstances like attacking low technology enemies such as ISIS. In the real world, the future is multi role aircraft and precision strike. The Air Force simply does not have the money to fund the retention, maintenance, training and operation of an aircraft that has limited uses and can have its mission delivered by other aircraft and other means.
Don't get me wrong, I am an airplane junky and love the Hog and that gun. I love the Spitfire, the P-51 and the Super Sabre as well, but every aircraft has a useful, practical and affordable life time and the Hog is pretty much at its best before date.
It will be sad day when the last one flies into the Boneyard, but that day is coming.
As opposed to the current CinC of the US, who talks loudly and carries a limp stick.
I recall in the days of my youth, that tanks were obsolete...with a life expectancy of 2 minutes...in battle.
The advent of wireguided ATM, such as Sager, in the late 60-70s indicated this as well.
As that video clearly shows, tanks are very relevant.
Attack helos are alleged to be sitting ducks for manpads, but remain a popular battlefield assessory globally.
Mounted lancers were proven obsolete at Balaclava in the 1850s but were successfully deployed as late as the 1890s in the Boer War.
Many weapon systems have been prematurely declared obsolete. That is more a constant.
And many weapons were kept in inventory long after they were tacticaly obsolete and financially unsupportable. But I do miss the USN steaming a battleship into the fray in GW1. The Mighy Mo and the WisKey were glorious to watch steaming into the Gulf. Who doesn't love an Iowa class?
The Hog would be retired now if it wasn't for jobs in some Congressman's District taking precedence over the best assessment of professional USAF officers.
Same thing happened when the F-14 Tomcat went obsolete and if they ever try to retire the Buffs, the howls from Congress will be load & long.
In the real world today, the US is attacking ISIS, and not China. We can guess what a confrontation with China can be like, but it's also likely that our military will be involved in more sub-national warfare such as with the likes of ISIS for some time. The fact is, we don't know.
Based on the most simplistic of idiology... wouldn't proper tactical deployment out-weigh "Hollywood and YouTube" expenditure of troops?
Granted "in contested airspace" and "in contested airspace defended by 2nd gen MANPADS"... this is the case.
Is this the case? Because it doesn't seem to be the case. As you say "It can still work in some circumstances, like the video shows..." well damn Jeez' ain't that the point.
Sorry Fred.... I agree with what you say, different perspective on manpower costs. Effectiveness. End result.
I was a bit harsh, my appologies.
PS.... love the A-10
You go to war with the military you have, not the military you want. Nobody builds battleships any more, either.
Attacking ISIS is a backyard kiddies sideshow for the USAF.
The adults in the USA military are looking to the future and that look is aimed at the intersection of the Pacifc Ocean and China's ambitions.
And that future does not include low level strafing runs.
It is over. Any ground gun attacks will come from Apaches doing Sneak & Peak tactics to foil the MANPADS.
And I do truly love the Hog. Got nothing against it except time has caught up to its capabilities & tactics.
The point is the USAF cannot afford to keep fleets of specialized weapons suited for only very limited combat uses. Even if they had the money they wouldn't do it. The funds get much bigger bang elsewhere.
Kinda like owning an F-150. Be better if I had a Honda Civic for short distance urban runs, a four wheel drive with studded tires for snowy winter days, a convertible T Bird for summer Sundy drives and an F-350 for heavy hauling,but I can't afford to buy and upkeep all those vehicles so I make do with my multi role F-150.
Remember when the Arrow was cancelled because manned interceptors were obsolete.
The IOWAs were refitted because somebody realized that while Exocets were murder for unarmoured tin cans but only burned the paint on armour.
BTW.....IOWAs are battle-cruisers not battleships.
It was refloated, repaired, obsolete US battleships that decided the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
I think all of the armchair generals here have missed the big picture. 2nd gen manpads, high tech fighters, etc, are the stuff of video game dreamers, not combatants. With a nuclear arsenal, NOBODY wins a big one, meanwhile ISIS and Boko Harum are demonstrating that you can take over a continent with cast off and used, "obsolete" hardware, and beat-up toyotas and F-150s. The west hasn't won a major conflict since WWII. So much for the posturing. Currently, the west isn't able to overcome barbarians with knives, let alone real weapons systems.
Yes. Refer to the "Key West Agreement." Fire the generals. They only want to fly high out of danger keeping the skies clear for democracy. Scrap key west and give the A-10s to the Army and Marines. Then the Air Force pukes can cower in their bunkers while the rest of the military gets on with their jobs. By the way, if we fire all those generals and give all ground support to the Army and Marines, we will have all the UPDATED A-10s built, on new lines, that the Canadians and the rest of us need. In fact, sell the tools and rights to Israeli Aircraft and we will have all the IA-10s we can possibly use.
"BTW.....IOWAs are battle-cruisers not battleships."
Where'd you get that piece of nonsense from. The Iowas were the second largest class of battleship ever built, only slightly less massive than Japan's Yamato class. The US only ever built 2 BCs, the Alaska class. The inventor of the concept, Jackie Fisher described battlecruisers as ships with battleship armament and cruiser speed and protection. That's NOT what the Iowas were, and the US navy designations for them as BB 61-64 disagrees with you.
Other than the Alaskas, the last BC ever built was the Hood in 1916, and arguably the Soviet Kirov class missile ships built in the 1970s and '80s.
Not entirely. It can be reasonably argued that the West won the Korean War by preventing NK conquest of the entire peninsula. It's also worth noting that Israel won all its wars, because otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Well Fred. If you think the F-35 is going to close the gap on close in air support, then you know little about that aircraft.
No air force general is ever going to waste F35s to do ground support. Create a next generation A-10 for the army, do a third generation Harrier for the marines, and let the air force decide how to handle the high altitude interceptor without having to keep everyone else happy.
As an example to obsolete thinking, in WWII the British sank the Italian fleet, including battleships, at Taranto using old, slow, obsolete, open cockpit, bi-wing Fairy Swordfishes. They also sank the Bismarck. Both feats nobody was able to do with the most modern aircraft of their time. I see a lot of BS in here from the gullible fools that want cheap (or expensive) multi-purpose aircraft. That's what moronic generals want so they can have lots of fighter jocks to leave the Air Force to. In reality, there is NO truly effective multi-purpose aircraft, ship, or infantry weapon. All those multipurpose weapons operating at less reliability, accuracy, and efficiency will generally lose to the special purpose weapon designed and built to take them out. The difference possibly being training and user. After that the smoke of battle. By the way, since the A-10 is not made anymore, but is handled by squadrons and AMARC, congressional districts are not really in the equation.
Funny about that. The USAF has been using F-16s for A2G for decades and the F-35 is an F-16 on steroids. The JSF has been designed to do Ground Attack, just do it with stand off weapons.
Again . . ground strafing runs are old school and will have a very, very limited role in future combat. God I miss the howl of a Stuka in a dive. It was so effective.
Close in air support is done now with smart bombs & missiles. A B1B circling at 25,000 with a loadout of 80 x 500lb JDAM's or 200+ x SDBs is way the real hurting is put on ground targets these days.
But whatever you prefer to believe is entirely up to you.
If anyone has the time, this thread is a bit long, sometimes in very technical detail & depth, but a very good primer on the future of Ground Attack.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&sid=85e493d1f86b8d5bd1db24e0a27d127e
"The Iowas were the second largest class of battleship ever built, only slightly less massive than Japan's Yamato class"
Preposterous.....largest class refers to # of units built.....IOW the flower class corvette by your measure is bigger than the Bismarck.
The IOWAs were fast heavy cruisers intend to escort fast carriers. They were intended to fend off cruiser attacks and depended on the carriers' aircraft to deal with the heavies... Their armour was insufficient to protect against their own class of armament. In fact a successful PR campaign (which you fell for) exaggerated the thickness of their main belts as 18".....impossible to achieve on a 32 knot ship.
The Bismarck woulds had the IOWA fer brekkie.
Seems the USS New Jersey historical association thinks it is Battleship. You should contact them and tell them ship they served on is not a Battleship
http://www.ussnewjersey.com/hist_sts.htm
While you are at it, you should get the USN's Battleship Design Advisory Board to re-write all their documents and history.
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship
WOW... you missed the whole point.
All fighters if it be F-16 to F-18 must slow down for Close in air support. Did you miss the main part. They don't use guns. You only have so many bombs to drop. A-10 can do both.
The F-35 is now way over weight, growing in size and slowly losing it's stealth. You know, that thing it uses to protect it's self.
By the way. Tell us MR.Arm-chair General. When was the last time a B-1 was used on close air support. 500lbs bombs have quite a large kill area. Not something you want to use when your troops are danger close.
Try: Janes Fighting Ships.
Fool!
By the way Fred.
My info comes for someone who has lived through a fire-fight with in Close air support. (me)
It's another reason even in Nam they used the Spad because jets come in to fast and getting the bombs on target isn't 100%
Largest refers to tonnage per unit. Their displacement each was 45,000 tonnes, exceeded only by the Yamatos at 72,000 tonnes. Total main shell throw weight was 12 tons, flank speed 33 kts, main armour belt 12 inches.
Bismarck displaced 41,000 tons, total shell throw weight was 8 tons, flank speed, 30 kts, armour belt was 13 inches. So much for:
"The Bismarck woulds had the IOWA fer brekkie." The Bismarck was just an updated copy of the Baden class built by Germany during WW1.
"The IOWAs were fast heavy cruisers..." The US Navy designated them BBs, not CAs when they started construction in the 1930s and when they were reactivated in the 1980s.
The numbers speak for themselves. Is there a single statement in your last two posts that isn't mostly or completely wrong? Are you just trying to bluster your way through? Give it up, bud.
30 cal rounds are far cheaper than a smart bomb or cruise missile in taking out a Toyota pickup with a machine gun of a gaggle of rag-tags chopping off heads. It can also do the smart stuff too and as an added bonus it can fly back home with part of it's wing missing (gulf war documents several) as opposed to rotary winged devices. They don't glide worth beans. There is always the one-two combination punch of A-10 and say F-16 flying CAP. The premature retirement is strictly due to $$$.
RCAF (ret)
Enjoy fred.
The “friendly fire” airstrike that killed five American soldiers in Afghanistan on June 9 is the first known case of a battlefield catastrophe that can be linked to automatic defense spending cuts that greatly curtailed prewar training.
A review of the worst American fratricide in the long Afghanistan War also shows that the military’s official investigation faults a Green Beret commander, an Air Force air controller and the four-man crew on the B-1B bomber that conducted the errant strike.
But the investigation, headed by an Air Force general, does not question the use of a strategic bomber for close air support, even though experts say the tragedy illustrates why the big plane is misplaced in that role.
The Washington Times has reviewed the investigation and interviewed knowledgeable sources to compile a picture of the doomed operation in southern Afghanistan’s Zabul province, as well as the political and military missteps that precipitated it. Key among them, according to defense experts, was the use of the strategic bomber.
The B-1B’s sheer size required it to fly a wide orbit of five miles for optimum bombing as it made right turns over the nighttime battle site. This put it outside the range of night vision goggles. The goggles were the only equipment the bomber had to identify the infrared strobe lights worn by U.S. troops to distinguish them from the enemy and to keep them safe
Thanks Tex.
Jets are cool, but not at 100ft off the deck and trying to keep your men from being over run.
Another reason why we use the AC-130.
But only at night.
Which is why they developed the SBDs referenced before. They have a choice, depending on the target.
better tell the USAF they are missing the point. The F-35 is being developed to deliver their doctrine,not mine.
Read that. A tragic series of human errors. They do happen.
Cdn troops know very well mistakes are made in A2G. The F-16 incident at the Farm Range and the A-10 strafing troops "beside the fire" are the two most recent ones.
It's called wasting cash.
If it ever sees combat and can't protect. We all lose.
In a scathing assessment the Rand corporation stated the Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter is 'a double-inferior,”. John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue from Rand concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press, 'The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,
You also can't find the (slow) speed the jet can operate at. Which is must in close in support.
SBD..... Jezzzz
Do us all a favor. Don't join the service. Most of all the Marines or Army.
You try to pass this line off to them on close in support. Someone my throw you to the bad guys.
Bad intel is one thing. Coming in so fast or at 10.000ft you can't tell who is good or bad is another.
Just like we have had helos kill the wrong tanks
Again, you know zip about combat.
Guess the Rand Corp. knows better than the:
United States Air Force
United States Navy
United States Marine Corps
Royal Air Force
Royal Norwegian Air Force
Israeli Air Force
Turkish Air Force
Japanese Air Force
Korean Air Force
Italian Air Force
The Belgians, Danes, Poles, Singaporeans and of course Canadians are seriously considering buying the F-35. Maybe we should send them that Rand Report so they don't make the same mistake as all those amateur Air Forces listed above
Been there done that. Infantry. But a long time ago. Miss my FN C1 and really, really miss my old Sterling SMG. That was a fun gun.
Seems the Marines and Army better get used to the SDBs because they are getting them?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheon-wins-usas-gbu-53-small-diameter-bomb-competition-06510/
Sounds like the F111 redux.....a multi-role master of none. Me, I'll side with Rand. You can cheerlead the politicians if you wish. Politicians killed the Arrow.
It sounds like you have all the expertise of McNamara....not a compliment.
Yeah the Bismarck was an updated Badden.....the IOWAs secondary intended role was as a AAA escort for flat-tops.
Dustoff
Yeah, the Spad was originally designed as a subhunter.
It's air-cooled radial was not terribly vulnerable to small arms ground fire. It's ability to lift the payload of a B17 worked as well.
You are entitled to select any source/s of information you like, and believe you have it all figured out. Your circus, your monkeys.
I'll go along with the thousands of professional Air Force officers in those Air Forces I listed above. I actually do believe they know their jobs, know what they are doing and respect their desire to get the best equipment for the troops they will have to send down range some day.
If you think they are all dumbasses, incapable of doing their jobs and they refuse to listen to the wisdom of the Rand Corp analysts then that is something you have a right to believe.
Fred out.