Combat crop duster

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

The decomission of the A-10 has to do with its lost of mission, let face it the A-10 was built as tank buster for the massives tanks formation of the Soviets. And yes is it a great job in Gulf in 89-90 and agian in Afghanistan but not for what is was attended. Just look the cannon and weapons it carried.

The DOD can say that, but that argument is disingenuous at best (and fatuously incompetent at worst). They (and we) are well aware that the A-10 is currently the USAF's best jet-powered COIN/CAS platform, and there's been 16+ years of COIN/CAS missions in Afghanistan alone (with no end in sight). The A-10 has saved plenty of U.S. and allied troops' bacon there. Since, in the foreseeable future, the U.S.A. is more likely to engage in COIN than a large-scale conventional war with a technologically comparable rival, getting rid of the USAF's best COIN weapons is silly (to put it nicely), even if it was originally designed as a tank buster.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The DOD can say that, but that argument is disingenuous at best (and fatuously incompetent at worst). They (and we) are well aware that the A-10 is currently the USAF's best jet-powered COIN/CAS platform, and there's been 16+ years of COIN/CAS missions in Afghanistan alone (with no end in sight). The A-10 has saved plenty of U.S. and allied troops' bacon there. Since, in the foreseeable future, the U.S.A. is more likely to engage in COIN than a large-scale conventional war with a technologically comparable rival, getting rid of the USAF's best COIN weapons is silly (to put it nicely), even if it was originally designed as a tank buster.

Well I guess is all depends on how you look at the A-10 combat record, this article here, states that according to air force records over 80% of the CAS missions where by other aircraft. Now it also looks at how the stats were collected, but the point is other aircraft could do the roll

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...10-retirement/

I also think that aircraft while a good design, is past its prime with airframes around 33-42 years old. An interesting note is the large structural cracks that found in the wings during inspections in 93-95 this led to the HOG UP program in 1999 which fixed and upgraded the A-10.

While the A-10 has gotten a lot of press for its limited combat missions, I think it is a good idea that the air force look at other options such as the Embraer’s A-29 Super Tucano, Textron’s AT-6 Wolverine and the Air Tractor’s OA-802 Longsword. It should also be looking at unmanned options as well.

I also wonder if CAS/COIN aircraft should be given over to the army as ultimately they will the ones needing them.

Anyway it a long way till 2022.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Well I guess is all depends on how you look at the A-10 combat record, this article here, states that according to air force records over 80% of the CAS missions where by other aircraft. Now it also looks at how the stats were collected, but the point is other aircraft could do the roll

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...10-retirement/

I also think that aircraft while a good design, is past its prime with airframes around 33-42 years old. An interesting note is the large structural cracks that found in the wings during inspections in 93-95 this led to the HOG UP program in 1999 which fixed and upgraded the A-10.

While the A-10 has gotten a lot of press for its limited combat missions, I think it is a good idea that the air force look at other options such as the Embraer’s A-29 Super Tucano, Textron’s AT-6 Wolverine and the Air Tractor’s OA-802 Longsword. It should also be looking at unmanned options as well.

I also wonder if CAS/COIN aircraft should be given over to the army as ultimately they will the ones needing them.

Anyway it a long way till 2022.

One line tells me that the Chair Force has no idea what they are doing "Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh has said, “We’ve flown a number of close air support missions with multiple airplanes,” including the B-1 bomber, F-15E, and F-16."
Using a B-1 Bomber for close air support? Having spent the second half of my career as EOD my personal experience with Air Force close air support was that using specialty munitions do not work, we got sent in after the fact to destroy the classified guidance package on smart munitions that did not go off, and clean up the cluster bomb field that because the pilot did not follow the procedures for deploying them did not activate correctly. As for having close air support cover us the only unit I have first hand experience with is the AH-64, but the A-10 does about the same job with direct fire gun/missiles, and the Apache worked very well.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Well I guess is all depends on how you look at the A-10 combat record, this article here, states that according to air force records over 80% of the CAS missions where by other aircraft. Now it also looks at how the stats were collected, but the point is other aircraft could do the roll

...
I also think that aircraft while a good design, is past its prime with airframes around 33-42 years old.

I remain a fan of the A-10, but as seen above, plenty of planes can do some sort of CAS. It's better with a low, slow, airframe such as the A-10. Getting a COIN design from this flyoff would be great, as long as the AF supports it with funding and crewing.

"War is Boring" (I think) made much this point yesterday, it's the training & attitudes of the crews that matters as much as the airframe when it comes to delivering effective CAS.

IMO, the AF needs specialized planes for specialized missions. COIN missions, with a more permissive air-defense environment, can get away with "cheaper" planes, so I'd like to see something develop there, which may or may not be the A-10.

In short, as long as /something/ dedicated replaces the A-10, I'm OK with letting it go. The F-35 seems to want to replace the F-15E and F-117, which are not what I'm looking for. Back in the '70s, the Navy spoke of a "high-low" mix of ship designs, I guess that's a label I wouldn't mind for attack aircraft.

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Well I guess is all depends on how you look at the A-10 combat record, this article here, states that according to air force records over 80% of the CAS missions where by other aircraft. Now it also looks at how the stats were collected, but the point is other aircraft could do the roll

I also think that aircraft while a good design, is past its prime with airframes around 33-42 years old. An interesting note is the large structural cracks that found in the wings during inspections in 93-95 this led to the HOG UP program in 1999 which fixed and upgraded the A-10.

I can guarantee that the USAF is playing fast and loose with the definition of CAS. The current fad position is that PGM can enable CAS by "fast movers" (F/A-35, F-16, F-15, B-1, etc) and even "high fliers" (B-52 and drones). I just don't buy. An F-16 dropping a GBU-32 at 600 kts and 5,000 ft is NOT flying CAS in my opinion. Any grunt will tell you that effective CAS is from a plane under 2,000 ft and 400 kts. When I was at the 8th TFW at Kunsan AB Korea the USAF was all about "speed is life' and the A-10 was simply un-survivable and the F-16 was going to take over the mission. "Studies" showed it could cut it. Few re-call that the A-10 was slated for retirement at the start of "Desert Storm" and NO A-10 were scheduled to deploy. Gen Horn briefed Gen Schwarzkopf on the deployed air assets, not mentioning the A-10. Schwarzkopf pointedly ask when the A-10s would arrive, and Horn responded none were deploying and the F-16 would perform the mission, primarily going to an Air Guard unit with 30mm gunpods. Schwarzkopf, noticeably miffed, responded, "General, I don't think you understood me. When are MY A-10s arriving?" Horn got the hint (order) and the A-10s deployed, but that did not stop the USAF for going forward to "prove" the A-10 was obsolete and the "do all" F-16 could do the job better and safer.

It was a disaster! The F-16s performed horribly. They couldn't do the strikes without getting down on the deck and slowing to A-10 speed, and they could not do that without taking hits that would force them down. The gunpods were useless; vibration was so severe some pilots almost lost control and accuracy was nil. In contrast, the A-10 was a champion! Studies also showed it had one of the highest readiness rates and was the most effective for CAS. All talk or retiring them ceased.

I suspect budget realities are going to throw the F-35 into doing this, and the USAF will finally have to admit it can't - after either losing a couple of planes or a unit getting overrun. Either way, people are going to die because some idiots that have never been stuck on the ground BEGGING for a flight of A-10s AND praying that the ridiculous B-1 that was first sent does not drop another GBU-32 on top of them decided that the F-35 could do the job as well as the A-10.

And keep in mind the A-10 is pushing 45 now, and it is still the best CAS plane out there. Sorta tells you the genius of the designers and ineptitude of the USAF brass and Congress. My guess, in the short term, the USAF is going to end up trying to use drones with Hellfires and Mavericks. The geewiz F-35 and B-21 are going to EAT the available budget, meaning they can't develop a new CAS aircraft. The Scorpion or something like it might work. As for an armed crop duster...for pity sake PLEASE try and get something like the P-47 or A-1....armored, able to break AT LEAST 300kts, and carrying a few tons of ordinance.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by mpipes

I can guarantee that the USAF is playing fast and loose with the definition of CAS. The current fad position is that PGM can enable CAS by "fast movers" (F/A-35, F-16, F-15, B-1, etc) and even "high fliers" (B-52 and drones). I just don't buy. An F-16 dropping a GBU-32 at 600 kts and 5,000 ft is NOT flying CAS in my opinion. Any grunt will tell you that effective CAS is from a plane under 2,000 ft and 400 kts. When I was at the 8th TFW at Kunsan AB Korea the USAF was all about "speed is life' and the A-10 was simply un-survivable and the F-16 was going to take over the mission. "Studies" showed it could cut it. Few re-call that the A-10 was slated for retirement at the start of "Desert Storm" and NO A-10 were scheduled to deploy. Gen Horn briefed Gen Schwarzkopf on the deployed air assets, not mentioning the A-10. Schwarzkopf pointedly ask when the A-10s would arrive, and Horn responded none were deploying and the F-16 would perform the mission, primarily going to an Air Guard unit with 30mm gunpods. Schwarzkopf, noticeably miffed, responded, "General, I don't think you understood. When are MY A-10s arriving?" Horn got the hint (order) and the A-10s deployed, but that did not stop the USAF for going forward to "prove" the A-10 was obsolete and the "do all" F-16 good do job the better and safer.

It was a disaster! The F-16s performed horribly. They couldn't do the strikes without getting down on the deck and slowing to A-10 speed, and they could not do that without taking hits that would force them down. The gunpods were useless; vibration was so severe some pilots almost lost control and accuracy was nil. In contrast, the F-16 was a champion!

I suspect budget realities are going to throw the F-35 into doing this, and the USAF will finally have to admit it can't - after either losing a couple of planes or a unit getting overrun. Either way, people are going to die because some idiots that have never been stuck on the ground BEGGING for a flight of A-10s AND praying that the ridiculous B-1 that was first sent does not drop another GBU-32 on top of them decided that the F-35 could do the job as well as the A-10.

And keep in mind the A-10 is pushing 45 now, and it is still the best CAS plane out there. Sorta tells you the genius of the designers and ineptitude of the USAF brass and Congress. My guess, in the short term, the USAF is going to end up trying to use drones with Hellfires and Mavericks. The geewiz F-35 and B-21 are going to EAT the available budget, meaning they can't develop a new CAS aircraft. The Scorpion or something like it might work. As for an armed crop duster...for pity sake PLEASE try and get something like the P-47 or A-1....armored, able to break AT LEAST 300kts, and carrying a few tons of ordinance.

And if my personal experience is not an anomaly I have seen a 50% failure rate in PGM, or I guess I should say from the drops that I know of we (EOD) got sent to destroy the classified guidance package on the 50% of the bombs that did not go boom.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by mpipes

It was a disaster! The F-16s performed horribly. They couldn't do the strikes without getting down on the deck and slowing to A-10 speed, and they could not do that without taking hits that would force them down. The gunpods were useless; vibration was so severe some pilots almost lost control and accuracy was nil.

Here is an article I found on the Gun Pod, check out the end where the Marines found a use for it

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...art-1597577525

[Adm.Lee]

I remember hearing about "A-16" in 1990 or so, and could never figure out why the AF wanted to take their agile dogfighter down into the weeds. I knew they wanted to bury the A-10, but were they so enamored of the F-15 that they wanted to bury the F-16, too?

So it would seem.

[mpipes]

Yep. The 174th was the only dedicated CAS aircraft assigned to that particular mission. It was THE A-10 stand in that was scheduled which Storming Norm ended rather pointedly. Its a miracle no one lost control and augered in or tore a firing gunpod loose and kill themselves or a wingman.

If I remember right, they were talking about sending some to the 8TFW where I was stationed in 1989 after development. One of the maintenance officer had worked on A-10s and then F-16, and did not believe there was any way the F-16 could take the firing vibrations for any appreciable time.

[copeab]

Of course, in the world of T2K, where infantry operates on foot, cavalry on horse and armor is worth more than gold, a cropduster with 100kg fragmentation bombs or 7.62mm gun pods is a sufficiently dangerous threat while not stressing local resources.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by mpipes

I can guarantee that the USAF is playing fast and loose with the definition of CAS. The current fad position is that PGM can enable CAS by "fast movers" (F/A-35, F-16, F-15, B-1, etc) and even "high fliers" (B-52 and drones). I just don't buy. An F-16 dropping a GBU-32 at 600 kts and 5,000 ft is NOT flying CAS in my opinion. Any grunt will tell you that effective CAS is from a plane under 2,000 ft and 400 kts. When I was at the 8th TFW at Kunsan AB Korea the USAF was all about "speed is life' and the A-10 was simply un-survivable and the F-16 was going to take over the mission. "Studies" showed it could cut it. Few re-call that the A-10 was slated for retirement at the start of "Desert Storm" and NO A-10 were scheduled to deploy. Gen Horn briefed Gen Schwarzkopf on the deployed air assets, not mentioning the A-10. Schwarzkopf pointedly ask when the A-10s would arrive, and Horn responded none were deploying and the F-16 would perform the mission, primarily going to an Air Guard unit with 30mm gunpods. Schwarzkopf, noticeably miffed, responded, "General, I don't think you understood me. When are MY A-10s arriving?" Horn got the hint (order) and the A-10s deployed, but that did not stop the USAF for going forward to "prove" the A-10 was obsolete and the "do all" F-16 could do the job better and safer.

It was a disaster! The F-16s performed horribly. They couldn't do the strikes without getting down on the deck and slowing to A-10 speed, and they could not do that without taking hits that would force them down. The gunpods were useless; vibration was so severe some pilots almost lost control and accuracy was nil. In contrast, the A-10 was a champion! Studies also showed it had one of the highest readiness rates and was the most effective for CAS. All talk or retiring them ceased.

I suspect budget realities are going to throw the F-35 into doing this, and the USAF will finally have to admit it can't - after either losing a couple of planes or a unit getting overrun. Either way, people are going to die because some idiots that have never been stuck on the ground BEGGING for a flight of A-10s AND praying that the ridiculous B-1 that was first sent does not drop another GBU-32 on top of them decided that the F-35 could do the job as well as the A-10.

And keep in mind the A-10 is pushing 45 now, and it is still the best CAS plane out there. Sorta tells you the genius of the designers and ineptitude of the USAF brass and Congress. My guess, in the short term, the USAF is going to end up trying to use drones with Hellfires and Mavericks. The geewiz F-35 and B-21 are going to EAT the available budget, meaning they can't develop a new CAS aircraft. The Scorpion or something like it might work. As for an armed crop duster...for pity sake PLEASE try and get something like the P-47 or A-1....armored, able to break AT LEAST 300kts, and carrying a few tons of ordinance.

I had this same fight with idiots on Youtube who think that all CAS is done with JADAMS from 20K feet. When I pointed out that I didn't like the idea of dropping a 1000lb bomb on a target 500m away, they tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. After all, those JADAMS will hit a 3m CEP. I guess that 1000lber's blast radius has an IFF function too...huh? When I point out that sometimes you need a good old fashioned "MK1 Eyeball" to look "over yonder" they talk about "survivability." The same a****les that don't want a jet flying low have NO PROBLEM killing a company of soldiers by sending them unsupported into a "meat grinder."

They need to repeal that ridiculous restriction on the Army flying CAS. The Army should then take the A10 and pay the Air Force for them so the flyboys can go buy more F35s. CAS is like sex or money... YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH OF IT!

[cawest]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I had this same fight with idiots on Youtube who think that all CAS is done with JADAMS from 20K feet. When I pointed out that I didn't like the idea of dropping a 1000lb bomb on a target 500m away, they tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. After all, those JADAMS will hit a 3m CEP. I guess that 1000lber's blast radius has an IFF function too...huh? When I point out that sometimes you need a good old fashioned "MK1 Eyeball" to look "over yonder" they talk about "survivability." The same a****les that don't want a jet flying low have NO PROBLEM killing a company of soldiers by sending them unsupported into a "meat grinder."

They need to repeal that ridiculous restriction on the Army flying CAS. The Army should then take the A10 and pay the Air Force for them so the flyboys can go buy more F35s. CAS is like sex or money... YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH OF IT!

The us army cannot have the A10's. the Key West agreement bares it. now back in 1988/89. they did work out a work around, that i don't think they will try again. From what i understand of the agreement. The army would pay for and man the units in peace time, but in time of war they would fall under the USAF for command. Now with the problems of finding parts for an air-frame that last came off the lines in 1984. I don't see them risking that much money on a 30 year old air frame (at best).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by cawest

The us army cannot have the A10's. the Key West agreement bares it. .

I know that; I just think they should throw out the Key West Agreement out and the laws attached to it. If the Air Force doesn't want to fly a credible CAS platform, let the Army have it (regardless of whatever aircraft we eventually end up going with).

[mpipes]

My guess is that things will muddle forward with F-35s and drones increasingly doing the CAS mission. At some point, things will come to a head and Congress will strip the CAS mission from the USAF. I think it has been heading that way for 50 years now. After all, that is where attack helicopters came from was the army's need for something. I think it is a matter of time now.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by cawest

The us army cannot have the A10's. the Key West agreement bares it. now back in 1988/89. they did work out a work around, that i don't think they will try again. From what i understand of the agreement. The army would pay for and man the units in peace time, but in time of war they would fall under the USAF for command. Now with the problems of finding parts for an air-frame that last came off the lines in 1984. I don't see them risking that much money on a 30 year old air frame (at best).

That's why the Key West agreement NEEDS TO GO! Whatever you do, don't say that a 30-year-old plane is too old to rehab around any B52 pilots. The B52s have been flying for 60 years and are expected to serve for about 10 more years after their recent update. The average B52 airframe age is like 42 years old. I just flew in a newly "Zeroed" 1974 Cessna 172 that was nicer to fly than the 1982 one I took my first lesson in. There's no reason the 300 A10 airframes cannot fly for another 30 years with a proper rebuild.

[swaghauler]

I see no reason why the Army or Air Force shouldn't adopt a new turboprop aircraft. The Broncos supposedly cost the Air Force $1,000 per flight hour to operate. The A10 is supposed to cost around $10K per flight hour of operation. I have heard that an F15 costs around $30K per flight hour in fuel and maintenance costs but I don't know if this is accurate. I know it costs between $100 and $200 per flight hour to operate a Cessna (based on age, condition, and the region you fly in), so the numbers SEEM accurate based on fuel and inspection costs.