Hummmm, apparently the A-10 is still doing things that no other aircraft can do better. The AF needs to think long and hard about a suitable replacement for the A-10 and the existing inventory isn't going to work.

quote:

SECDEF: A-10 will stay until 2022

Staff Report 9:21 a.m. EST February 2, 2016

Defense Secretary Ash Carter today announced what has been anticipated for months. The A-10 will not be retired.

In a speech previewing next week’s budget release, Carter also highlighted new technologies his department is developing in order to meet what he called a “major inflection point” that takes “the long view” for the Department.

"We’re also investing to maintain more of our 4th-generation fighter and attack jets than we previously planned – including the A-10, which has been devastating ISIL from the air. The budget defers the A-10’s final retirement until 2022," Carter said. Replacing it with F-35s on a squadron-by-squadron basis so we’ll always have enough aircraft for today’s conflicts."

The Air force had planned to retire the A-10, but faced intense pressure from Congress.

Absolutely not. It's only political cronyism that is keeping the A-10 alive. There is a reason the USAF has been trying to replace them since Desert Storm. They are too slow to get to the fight and they get shot up way too easily. There is nothing the A-10 does that the F-16 doesn't do at twice the speed and with much less chance of getting shot.

I find it interesting that in these discussions of the A-10, that those of us with actual USAF experience seem to think they should go. In all my 24 years as a USAF pilot, I don't ever remember coming across a pilot with experience who WOULDN'T rather fight a ground war in F-16 vs in an A-10.....

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:
Absolutely not. It's only political cronyism that is keeping the A-10 alive. There is a reason the USAF has been trying to replace them since Desert Storm. They are too slow to get to the fight and they get shot up way too easily. There is nothing the A-10 does that the F-16 doesn't do at twice the speed and with much less chance of getting shot.

I find it interesting that in these discussions of the A-10, that those of us with actual USAF experience seem to think they should go. In all my 24 years as a USAF pilot, I don't ever remember coming across a pilot with experience who WOULDN'T rather fight a ground war in F-16 vs in an A-10.....

Try talking to a few of the guys on the ground under that support, and ask them about twice as fast and twenty times as high.

And an Air Force pilot's first priority used to be completing the mission, not how fast they can get back to the air conditioning.

Heaven forbid that you should get shot at. To complain about taking fire to an infantry grunt or Apache pilot that is muzzle to muzzle with the enemy isn't going to get you much sympathy.

The F16 does a nice job of air superiority and tank plinking from altitude behind the lines but it cannot or does not get down and close, and it cannot loiter, or carry the load, or survive the damage an A10 can. There are times you really need a big gun laying down a line of fire just in front of your position. As for its speed it is still much faster than a helicopter and it is capable of rough field operation. Base it forward maybe sharing a field or stretch of highway with the Army.

I really think the Airforce needs to do it like the Marines. Every pilot was first an Infantryman down in the dirt taking fire.

Jerry Liles
Army ret.

Jerry; don't know where you got that idea! All Marine officers go through Officer Basic School in Quantico and then on to their specialty training. My roomate at the Naval Academy went Marine Corps, went to Quantico then direct to flight training. My best friend and hunting buddy while I was in flight training came from ROTC, Quantico and again, direct to flight training.

OBC for the Marines is designed to make them capable of leading Infantry as well as other tasks and is arranged like this:


Phase I (7 Weeks): Individual Skills
Leadership
Rifle and Pistol Qualification
Land Navigation
Communications
Combat Lifesaving
MCMAP

Phase II (6 Weeks): Rifle Squad Leader Skills
Decision-making
Combined Arms
Rifle Squad Tactics/Weapons
Scouting and Patrolling

Phase III (6 Weeks): Rifle Platoon Commander Skills
Rifle Platoon Tactics
Convoy Operations
Engineering
Crew-served weapons

Phase IV (7 Weeks): Basic MAGTF Officer Skills
MOUT
Rifle Platoon (REIN) Tactics
Force Protection
Expeditionary Operations (AMFEX)


While they may not be infantry in the sense that they have lead an infantry company they have been trained as a grunt and understand what a grunt does and needs.

Jerry Liles

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Liles:
Heaven forbid that you should get shot at. To complain about taking fire to an infantry grunt or Apache pilot that is muzzle to muzzle with the enemy isn't going to get you much sympathy.

The F16 does a nice job of air superiority and tank plinking from altitude behind the lines but it cannot or does not get down and close, and it cannot loiter, or carry the load, or survive the damage an A10 can. There are times you really need a big gun laying down a line of fire just in front of your position. As for its speed it is still much faster than a helicopter and it is capable of rough field operation. Base it forward maybe sharing a field or stretch of highway with the Army.

I really think the Airforce needs to do it like the Marines. Every pilot was first an Infantryman down in the dirt taking fire.

Jerry Liles
Army ret.

That is just not true. The F-16 can turn tighter than the A-10 and has no issue flying at A-10 speeds. The F-16 has enough loiter time. Of course, the A-10 cannot fly anywhere near F-16 speeds.

The type of CAS many of you talk about would best be handled by an Apache or AC-130, but then again, that kind of battlefield doesn't happen much anymore. It's time to quit fighting yesterday's war.......

Getting shot in an airplane is NOT a badge of honor, as in fact often a sign of bad judgement. The goal is to make them miss when they shoot at you, and that is where the A-10 falls way short. It's why the USAF pulled them out of environments where they'd get shot and used F-16s instead.

Finally, a ground pounder having affectionate feelings because of a perceived commonality with A-10s is less than meaningless. What groups troops need is ordnance on target with a fast reaction time. F-16s are much superior for that. The idea that ANY airplane, outside of say an AC-130, is going to continuously loiter over a battlefield is completely unrealistic. Planes will be on patrol or dedicated to a certain target, and those planes will be redirected to the hotspots as they arise.

The A-10s time has past, and it has been for the last 25 years.

I believe both the Army and Marine Corp volunteered to take over all A10s from the Airforce - ought to be a simple solution...

I am not a flier, so I don't know , but can the F16 do all that with the same load or ordnance as the A10?

As a ground type, I really don't care about aerial performance other than how much ordnance the platform can provide, for how long and how precisely in support of the ground op -the boots on the ground that actually matter(contrails are pretty to look at though...).

I don't know if they have the same exact load, but a better question is which one will be there with what you need when you need it. That has more to do with USAF/Army coordination, planning, and flexibility in execution.

We in the USAF, especially pilots and aircrew, are driven to meet the needs of our primary customer--the 19 yr old on the ground with his M-16, as effectively as we can. There is a great story about a flight of F-16s responding to a request for help from a very small unit about to be overrun by a much larger Irai force. The only issue was the F-16s were carry anti-armor bombs. They figured out how to make it work anyway, took out the Iraqis and saved the small American unit.

When I was deployed over their running airlift, I stretched the system beyond imagining in order to get supplies to the troops that needed them.

The USAF wants nothing more than to clear the way for ground troops to be successful and safe.

INTJ;

I appreciate the fact that you guys deliver us, our junk and then support our needs form the air. I have personal experience with both A10s and f16s, an they both figured out how to help-I found that the A10s would hang around more often to make sure- then again, the 16s would go higher and perhaps be working other close by issues but be back in a few if we asked and they had means to help. Once, a pair of 16s w/o ordnance flew close in to threaten our adversaries while we maneuvered to better positions- I suppose it takes a pair to come in low and fast as well as low and slow-

When we had dedicated AC 130 support- it made things a bit more comfortable espc. in the mountains of either IRQ or AFG. Neither 10s nor 16s could drop into tight spaces like a bunch of 105s from 10000 ft- near vertical delivery.

As an Engineer assessment unit in late 2003, we had a pair of USAF pilots attached doing BDA- they sure liked to stay in improved facilities, but they willingly traded M9s for M4s once they took a bit of fire- and learned quickly how to use them.


Thanks for help overhead.

Well it's like Andy Griffith said in "No Time for Seargants"--it's the Army that wins the wars, and the Air Force is just the helpers.....