Or since we can't win a war and the enemy always accomplishes their objective anyway, we could just mothball and scrap all the jets. That would end the corruption, the graft, and the waste and maybe in 20 years when we really decide to go to war we can build ourselves the latest and greatest tools to actually win a war. Instead of fighting with the weapons of the last war.

John, you weren't by any chance an instructor at NAS Meridian back in the sixties, were you?

--for those interested and might have missed it there was an important, and in many ways somewhat remarkable, press conference conducted earlier this week by Senators (pro A-10) with former/retired AF JTACs participation...the link to the report of the conference (with further transcript/video links) is at : http://thehill.com/policy/defense/24106 ... hog-flying

highlights of the conference included:

...the JTACs (which included the current President of their Association as well as one who had been in combat with Army Rangers in the War on Terror) as expected spoke clearly (and in clear language that we expect from our Non-Commissioned Officers) on the advantages of the A-10...primarily, that in addition to the obvious benefits of the gun, that the advantage of the A-10 was its flight capabilities/characteristics which permitted the aircraft to stay on station in close proximity to the fight and for JTACs to actually have a "conversation" with the pilot to fight the battle...(in Army terminology--to find, fix, and destroy the enemy and to develop/shape the battle with CAS assets)...and the JTACs, while certainly acknowledging the advantages of advanced technology (such as GPS, precision guided munitions, and preplanned coordinates) in certain situations--stated that in our current War on Terror on a practical basis on many occasions there is a limit to "technology" and when our troops are in a fight in close contact and it is a fluid situation on the ground there is no substitute for the A-10 being on station...(insightful after action reviews from our JTACs that have been on the ground and in the fight-which brings into question the veracity of AF leaders who have consistently maintained that advantages" in technology in the form of precision guided munitions, GPS, and such are a substitute for so called "antiquated" weapon system as the A-10)

...also interestingly, and we haven't heard this line of thought process from the AF, that the JTACs also spoke about the A-10 gun's tighter shot group as it was designed for air to ground utilization as opposed to fast movers' weapons otherwise...

...the consensus of the Senators that spoke at the conference was that the AF's arguments to prematurely divest the A-10 have been deceptive--and a moving target so to speak...that the AF's claims--esp those that maintain that current fast movers/supersonic bombers (and in the future the F-35 CAS' capabilities) are compatible to the A-10--are "Unbelievable" and "Lack credibility"...

...along those lines of the AF's efforts to dump the A-10 Senator Graham stated that: "You keep making claims that don't bear out" and "If you don't watch it, you're going to ruin what's left of your reputation on Capitol Hill." ...Senator McCain called: ..."the Air Force's plan to retire the aircraft 'bewildering...that flying the A-10 was more economical than the F-35 'whose price continues to escalate' and the 'astronomical' cost of flying the B-1 bomber."

...Sen Ayotte (who is the Senate leader on this issue) stated (and similar to the House's legislation language) that her Bill to continue the A-10 in inventory would include very specific language to prevent the AF from reducing maintenance capabilities or otherwise "mothballing" and effectively retiring the A-10 in a backdoor effort to negate the intent of Congress as they have done in the past...(this was remarkable in the sense that our Senate has been forced to go into excruciating detail in their language--similar for example in dealing with a current world adversary in a nuclear arms agreement-- to keep the AF in check)

...my gut reaction in watching this conference--as well as similar ones from the House--as opposed to hearing the AF discuss the topic is that our lawmakers (and aircraft designers) have passion and understanding on the CAS mission...that the members of Congress clearly understand the importance and gravity of the situation...

...Astonishingly, Sen Ayotte indicated that the AF has most recently contacted her office with the news that the F-35--after of this--might not be the replacement for the A-10's CAS role after all, and that another CAS aircraft might be selected or developed for the mission...(if there is to be another CAS platform developed-which is good news-any role the AF plays must be scrutinized as they have not demonstrated the interest or enthusiasm for fielding such an aircraft in the future, and we must ensure we don't have as a result a make-shift platform of sorts as we have in other wars...of course, the House already recognize this fact as their subcommittee put in provisions for an independent analysis for any future CAS aircraft to be developed...)

...just from an aviation enthusiast perspective, it will be interesting to watch the development of a next generation CAS aircraft if it does take place...for instance, will it be for CAS purposes solely, or will it it include anti-armor capabilities as the A-10 eventually involved in to...

...finally, there does appear to be reason for our ground troops to be cautiously optimistic as now the Senate Armed Forces Chairman (McCain) as well as the new House Armed Forces Chairman and many members of Congress are behind retaining the A-10 until such time that another comparable platform can be developed and fielded...but it's a tough battle ahead against the AF who intends otherwise and has an effective deceptive marketing campaign

_____________________________

as to our own virtual hangar discussion:

--Thankfully it looks like the A-10 has been saved for the immediate future, and because of that, America still retains the preeminent CAS platform with a gun that has 80% dispersion over a 22' diameter from 9,000' slant range, long loiter time, and experts actuating the stick and throttles who specialize in delivering warheads on foreheads while in very close proximity to friendly troops.


...that pretty much says it all Chris...

--My beef with the current "keep the A-10" side of the argument is that it simply will not last forever. It REQUIRES a replacement attack aircraft. But, so long as we keep "keeping" the A-10 because we love the airplane (don't kid yourself, I'd switch uniforms if they'd let me fly that thing), we will eventually lose the capability it brings to the fight simply due to old age.

Time or politics will kill it. The argument must be for a capability and a replacement - not for the weapon itself.


...Matt's point is well taken of course...but bear in mind Sen Ayotte and the House leadership basically agree with this premise as they are making the argument to keep the A-10 for the reason that there is no other current aircraft that has the same CAS capabilities...that they intend to keep the aircraft in inventory for the current fight we have ongoing against the War on Terror--while at the same time to develop another CAS platform along the way for future conflicts...

--Also, after both the guy who protects strikers (me) and the guy who does CAS (you - Chris) say that the A-10 won't operate in contested airspace it's still a run-around to a conclusion that basically says 'ok, but I'm still right'

...actually, I'm listening to your arguments and others quite carefully...it's just that I'm attempting (in addition to other considerations) to reconcile this issue with the AF's current stance on dumping the A-10 because of such anticipated contested airspace scenarios in the future with our current real world situation that this will not likely come to pass within the existing anticipated lifetime of the A-10...and, that the AF when promoting this line of thought to otherwise uniformed lawmakers/public don't put into perspective that the A-10 would go to War in a high intensity conflict as part of a combined arms effort...not to mention that realistically, if we ever do find ourselves in a World War where we have lost Air Superiority or at least parity that tactical nuclear weapon deployment may become a plausible course of action and all of this will become a moot point...

...having said that, from my perspective, and it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but I still believe that in a high intensity conflict that if our A-10s are in theater that there will be a strong momentum to get them up and into the fight notwithstanding the current status of the air war...and, as I mentioned before--certainly in the past Cold War scenario they wouldn't necessarily survive on the ground for very long anyway as airfields would be highly targeted and it would be important to at least disburse them to alternate locations...

--It's just a trend item that no matter how much first hand operator information comes to light that:
....The CAS fight has changed since the 'Nam...

...apparently the JTACs that spoke at the Senate's Conference this week as referenced above would disagree with you...

My point is that there's no proof positive that the USAF kept the CAS mission "Just to keep the Army from getting the funding" - yet it was stated as fact.

...actually, the AF's dismal actions regarding CAS since the Korean War era is a matter of historical record...it's really not even a matter of debate...they have not only fought a separate CAS platform, but even when the A-10 was finally fielded have attempted to prematurely dump it on numerous occasions in the past decades...and, depending on how far you want to delve into the A-10's history, one will find that upon close examination the AF was a reluctant dance partner on this project from its inception...similarly, the AF has a dismal record on providing intratheater (mid-lift) cargo transport on the battlefield for the Army as evidenced most recently the C27 saga...

One little CAS detail that most people don't know about is the radios available to talk with ground forces. The Army primarily uses FM radios, which are only found on USAF A-10, F-16 and AC-130's. Also found in Marine F/A-18 and AV-8's.

The Air Force expects all CAS to be controlled by an ALO or ETAC on the ground with us. Fact is those guys were not always available or around when/where they were needed. All Army observers are trained to control CAS but without USAF radios they were very restricted.

--"It's just a trend item that no matter how much first hand operator information comes to light that:
1.) The Army isn't ready to have the Hog and that it's a bad idea...

Mr. Guthrie will likely not budge on his opinion that he knows more from the sideline than those of us who are doing it know. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I'm up for a discussion; real discussions revolve around expertise and known facts. This is not an example of that.

Evil - out."


...apparently the Senate Armed Services Committee would disagree with Evil's assertion that dialogue regarding the transfer of the A-10 to the Army isn't a "real discussion" and is categorically a "bad idea"

...indeed, in this week's Bill (which included provisions for the A-10 retention) the Committee (Chaired by Senator McCain):

"Directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the close air support mission, including the feasibility of transferring the A-10 fleet to the Army and/or Marine Corps." [reference link provided below]

...this is certainly a significant development in the Close Air Support/A-10 debate and no doubt reflects in part Congressional members' evolving understanding that the AF (as an institution) has no real interest/enthusiasm for the CAS mission or A-10--other than to protect their own parochial interests...

...as I've mentioned--the idea of transferring the A-10 as well as more of the CAS mission to the Army are hardly frivolous ideas as have been attempted to be portrayed by some in our own virtual hangar...that these concepts have been debated for decades in the Pentagon, and certainly in Army Schools/Doctrinal Centers such as Benning, Leavenworth, etc...the Army works diligently to keep Congress informed on these matters and keep them in the loop, but it is still somewhat remarkable to actually see the language in the Senate Armed Services Committee's Bill directing the GAO to review the CAS mission and the feasibility of transferring the A-10 from the AF

...I suspect the Army will take a cautious approach to all of this as we have many other challenges to face than to at this point now take on a decades old aircraft with a relatively short life span left...on the other hand, assuming the funding comes with the aircraft for all the training, maintenance, logistics, post installation costs and so forth then the Army might welcome it for no other reason than to set the groundwork to be positioned to field the next generation CAS platform and to also begin the challenging work on any CAS doctrinal changes between the branches...

...on a related note, the full House today passed their Defense Bill (re FY2016) which included provisions for the A-10 retention...still, more significant challenges and landmines in the future on the mission to retain the A-10...and no doubt more AF parlor tricks are on the way in their efforts to prematurely dump the A-10

...will also be interesting to see the AF's comments on the pending GAO's review of the CAS mission...

_____________

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/pr ... -year-2016

interesting reading from the GAO's report just released on the AF's plan to dump the A-10 prematurely...I've cited the article and posted the summary below, although the ref also has the full report attached...interesting in light of all the discussion--some of it in our own virtual hangar--of how some maintained the AF was making the decision, presumably well reasoned, to dump the A-10 based on budget concerns...the GAO confirms what many believe--that the decision was not fully supported by the facts/numbers as the AF leadership led us to believe

...and even more importantly, the GAO identifies the impact retiring the A-10 would have on our defense capabilities--significant impacts to be sure that the AF has not been very candid about



Preliminary Observations on Air Force A-10 Divestment
GAO-15-698R: Published: Jun 25, 2015.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-698R

What GAO Found

"The Air Force A-10 fighter aircraft divestment decision came out of a strategy-based, portfolio-wide review of alternatives used to develop the budget at lower than previously anticipated levels. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Air Force strategic guidance prioritized, among other things, fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35, readiness, and multirole aircraft, while placing a lower priority on single-role aircraft like the A-10. In developing its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Air Force examined its entire portfolio in light of this guidance and concluded that the benefits of divesting the A-10 outweighed the cost of retaining it. DOD reviewed and approved the Air Force A-10 divestment decision and submitted this as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget request.

The Air Force has not fully assessed the cost savings associated with A-10 divestment or its alternatives. In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Air Force estimated that divesting the A-10 would allow it to save $4.2 billion over its 5-year budget plan; however, our analysis found that the Air Force’s estimated savings are incomplete and may overstate or understate estimated savings. In presenting its budget to Congress, the Air Force provided a number of alternatives to A-10 divestment that would also result in approximately $4.2 billion in cost savings. However, these alternatives were rough estimates that were illustrative only and not fully considered as alternatives to A-10 divestment, according to Air Force officials.

Finally, Air Force divestment of the A-10 will create potential gaps in close air support (CAS)—a mission involving air action against hostile targets in proximity to friendly forces—and other missions, and DOD is planning to address some of these gaps. For example, A-10 divestment results in an overall capacity decrease in the Air Force’s CAS-capable fleet. This capacity reduction is mitigated by phasing A-10 divestment over several years and by introducing the F-35 into the fleet, but Air Force documentation also shows that the F-35’s CAS capability will be limited for several years. Air Force analysis shows that divestment of the A-10 would increase operational risks in one DOD planning scenario set in 2020. Divestiture of the A-10 could also contribute to gaps due to the training focus of its aircrews, its wide range of weapons, and its operational capabilities, including its ability to operate in austere environments and under the weather. Further, the A-10 is currently either the only or best Air Force platform to conduct certain missions, such as complex ones requiring aircraft specifically trained to coordinate rescue missions, escort helicopters, and suppress enemy forces or countering swarming small boats that could pose a threat to U.S. ships. In order to mitigate the loss of the A-10, the Air Force is considering a number of steps including transitioning A-10 personnel to F-16 and F-15E units that will have an increased focus on CAS and studying whether the F-16 or F-15E can replace the A-10 in some of its other missions. DOD is also planning on increasing the proportion of training that can be performed on simulators. As agreed with committee staff, GAO will be conducting a more-detailed assessment of these issues and report the final results later this year."

...I've been giving the ongoing A-10 debate some degree of thought...certainly, there is some degree of optimism for our Army Troops and Marines on the ground and in the fight that our elected representatives might "save the day", if only for the short term, despite the otherwise ill-advised recommendations from the AF to prematurely dump the Warthog...

...and, unfortunately, it appears to be pretty evident--as Pierre Sprey has indicated for some time now-that the F-35 is a "turkey" and certainly won't be purchased in the numbers by our Allies and our own country as the AF lead us to believe in the ongoing debate in their justification to dump the A-10 under the auspices in part that the F-35 could replace the A-10 in its CAS mission...

...all of this of course has many implications...hard to run all of them to ground in an aviation forum, but interesting to explore at least a few...first and foremost is that it is evident the F-35 won't be fielded anywhere close to the schedule the AF has promised...this is particularly problematic in that if the AF were to have been allowed to divest the A-10 early based in part on their unrealistic F-35's projected dates to come on line a significant CAS gap for our troops on the ground would result...(and of course, this is assuming, arguendo, that the F-35 is even a suitable CAS replacement (which it is not) for the A-10...

...even more problematic is that the AF's leadership have been certainly aware (more than the rest of us) that their F-35 projected schedule has not been realistic...but nonetheless, they attempted to deceive the Congress and the American people otherwise...

...not to mention that even for the F-35s to be fielded in the near future that they will be done so with capabilities--some pertaining to the CAS mission--still unresolved despite previous assurances from the AF otherwise...

...in that overall context of the F-35, makes me even more scrutinize--not that I required any further rationale to do so--the other AF's "declarations" that they must divest the A-10 because it presumably can't survive in the future conflicts because in part of the threats' next generational aircraft and evolving anti-aircraft technology...as we have discussed in some detail in our own forum, this is a highly debatable topic given the likely threat scenarios the Hog would even face within its anticipated life time; not to mention that it was designed to survive WP's anti-aircraft type capabilities; and that it would be deployed within the context of a combined arms AF and Army team...

...and closer to home, within our own virtual hangar I'm remain puzzled that Evil and others who have elected to engage will support the AF's contention that the Hog can't survive the next battle or that costs justify its extermination (despite evidence to the contrary when examining, for example, the operating costs per hour of the supersonic nuclear capable bombers being currently used-misutilized- in a low threat environment in the CAS role)...this aspect is most perplexing--as a former Infantry Officer with experience with basically every weapon system organic to a light/mechanized Infantry Brigade--if I was a participant of a civilian gun forum (which I am not) I certainly wouldn't be chiding those expressing outrage at certain Army leaders that have said most problematically (and that is being kind) that arming Army Recruiters in light of the ongoing terrorist attacks against our Recruiting Stations would be "creating more problems than it is worth", or words to that effect...

...interesting, all...especially to me the aspect of whether could the A-10 contribute (and survive) to our Country's likely future conflicts within the next couple of decades...interesting in that I'm certain it could--but yet others contend otherwise...and I'm still waiting on their logic supporting such contentions...

Don, I can tell you're a nice guy and all and I hate to be the one to bring this up to you but your "ongoing A-10 debate" consists of you reviving a thread where you posted the last comment over a month ago. Could it be the issue was thrashed out, no consensus was reached and the audience has moved on to other topics of more immediate interest?

Steve

Don, I can tell you're a nice guy and all and I hate to be the one to bring this up to you but your "ongoing A-10 debate" consists of you reviving a thread where you posted the last comment over a month ago. Could it be the issue was thrashed out, no consensus was reached and the audience has moved on to other topics of more immediate interest?


...guess that makes me Steve the King Ludwig II of Beechtalk...

...interesting though to consider the A-10 debate--which is still a fluid situation in D.C. to say the least and hardly resolved--in the context of more historical analysis/discussion coming to light looking back at the Cold War and hypothesizing on what would have happened had the WP attacked...just saw an interesting write up the other day considering the potential outcomes: would they have succeeded in making it to the Rhine? ... stopped at the Border? ...or would have tactical nucs been deployed by either side? ...and of course the Hog would have been in the thick of things, and what their survival rate have been?

...my guess is that we would have stopped them short of the Rhine and defeated the WP on the battlefield...that our Battle Plans of shaping the battle and destroying the WP forces in various choke points would have saved the day, and esp. so with our deep interdiction plans to disrupt their command and control, logistics, etc...that our superior training, and small unit effectiveness with excellent junior officer and NCO leadership in units such as the 11th ACR would have performed well...and the A-10 attacks against the second echelon forces would have been very effective

...interesting also to pontificate of whether today's AF leadership would be as aggressive in the A-10 deployment as their predecessors would have been back in the day...or said another way, if the AF's leadership in the Cold War had exhibited the same risk adverse tendencies of the current AF leadership as it pertains to the A-10's deployment--what impact would that have had on deterrence against the WP coming across the border?; and more to the point, what impact would that have had on NATO's chances of survival in a World War III scenario?

More testing coming, A10 vs F35

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ts/402790/

personally, I think the A-10 v F35 CAS evals will be a useful exercise...

but you've got to hand it to the AF...well, at least they are consistent:

"The announcement comes after Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the press Monday that he wasn't aware of any tests between the two planes and said a matchup "would be a silly exercise."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/business/0828 ... z3kRYmsW1p

...speaking of the A-10......interesting article out of Reuters that I thought might be of interest that I've provided just some highlights of as well as providing a link...thank god for Congress and Old Soldiers that have rallied against the AF Leadership to keep the A-10 in the fight....



...despite the AF leadership proclaiming the A-10 was a relic and no longer relevant looks like it has proved itself yet again in current operations against the bad guys...

"HOW AN UGLY, BRUTALLY EFFECTIVE WARPLANE WON THE BATTLE FOR ITS FUTURE"

"U.S.-backed Syrian rebels launched an attack late last month on Islamic State militants near the town of Hawl in northern Syria. They regained control of roughly 100 square miles of territory, according to the U.S. Defense Department.

“It was a fairly straightforward, conventional offensive operation,” Army Colonel Steve Warren told reporters via video conference from Baghdad, “where we estimated … several hundred enemy [fighters] were located in that vicinity.”

Warren continued his description. “There was a substantial friendly force — well over 1,000 participated in the offensive part of this operation. And they were able to very deliberately execute the plan that they had made themselves.”

Two types of U.S. warplanes, both optimized for precision attacks in close coordination with ground troops, were critical to the Syrian rebels’ success, Warren revealed. “We were able to bring both A-10s and a Spectre gunship to bear,” he said, “… It can only be described as devastating …. it killed nearly 80 enemy fighters and wounded many more.”


...thank god for Congress and Old soldiers...because if it were left to the AF leadership all of the the A-10s would be in the boneyard

"But the twin-jet A-10, an ungainly-looking, single-pilot plane with thick, straight wings and a massive, nose-mounted cannon, is out of favor with Air Force leaders — despite being vitally important to the U.S.-led campaign against Islamic State. The flying branch’s top generals and civilian officials have fought for years to get rid of all 300 A-10s and divert their operators and budget to other initiatives. Meanwhile, a grass-roots effort led by current and former U.S. ground troops and bolstered by key lawmakers has protected the A-10, also known by its nickname “Warthog.”"


http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... ts-future/

Quote: .speaking of the A-10......interesting article out of Reuters that I thought might be of interest that I've provided just some highlights of as well as providing a link...thank god for Congress and Old Soldiers that have rallied against the AF Leadership to keep the A-10 in the fight....

Donald,

No one was "speaking of the A-10.

Except you of course.


Jgreen

"Donald,

No one was "speaking of the A-10.

Except you of course. "

...me, and our soldiers/marines and allied soldiers on the ground in the fight...of course...

...and of course the AF would like nothing more than to not speak about the A-10 and go about their business of conducting close air support in a low intensity environment with supersonic nuclear capable strategic bombers from the flight levels with crews ill-trained for the mission...

...in any event the A-10 debate has been most interesting--esp. so the last several years...also interesting and critical is the ongoing debate and the evolving tactics (and aircraft utilized) of CAS in the different threat scenarios we are likely to face in the future...odd looking at all this from an Army perspective--it's like we are always going to the party with a reluctant dance partner

...and like I've said, thank God for Congressional oversight and leadership--because without it their would be no A-10s in the active inventory at the present...

Six pages of Eighty three days of and then, "Speaking of the Warthog".


I love BT and its members, even Donald

Now,



Jgreen