McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate

[Zimme83]

Many. Like I said the Luftwaffe claimed 209 aircraft.

Any sources to back it up? As i stated in previous post it looks like the overwhelming majority of C-47:s downed were shot down by AAA.
The numbers of total Air victories for luftwaffe was 122 http://www.defendingarnhem.com/Luftwaffe.htm
On the 17th of september Luftwaffe did not manage to break trough the fighter screen, I havent found any report of that happening until the 21st of September.

In fact: Most sources support my claim that Allied fighter had almost total air superiority.

[Guppy35]

The USAF don't want the A-10, but I guess you know better.

That was a fantastic non reply that makes absolutely no sense is response to my comment.

I seem to recall the Air Force thought dogfighting was obsolete and that they didn't need a gun on the F-4.  How'd that work out for the pilots having to complete the mission?  Oh that's right.  Everything that followed had a gun and could turn tight. 

How often did the ground guys beg for A-1s that could get low and slow and not drop bombs on the friendlies because of it?

Generally history shows us that the higher up the chain and further away from the bullets guys make the decisions not based on what's best, but what looks good to them at the time.  Ask all the bomber guys who died to try and prove the pet theory of the go it alone bomber generals. 
The list goes on and on.

[PR3D4TOR]

No it hasn't. Where do you get such nonsense?

The Air Force is trying to reinvent the CAS mission in an era of smart weapons.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support

[PR3D4TOR]

Any sources to back it up? As i stated in previous post it looks like the overwhelming majority of C-47:s downed were shot down by AAA.
The numbers of total Air victories for luftwaffe was 122 http://www.defendingarnhem.com/Luftwaffe.htm
On the 17th of september Luftwaffe did not manage to break trough the fighter screen, I havent found any report of that happening until the 21st of September.

In fact: Most sources support my claim that Allied fighter had almost total air superiority.

"During Operation Market Garden, the Allied attempt to end the war in 1944 by forcing a route through the Netherlands and into the Ruhr region of Germany, Luftwaffe fighter forces managed to inflict significant losses on Allied planes transporting paratroopers and supplies into battle, but their own losses were serious. The Jagddivision's operational in the area claimed 209 Allied aircraft destroyed, including only 35 transport aircraft. In return the Luftwaffe lost 192 fighters.[105] The Allied operation failed, and the Luftwaffe survived into the following year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_history_of_the_Luftwaffe_%281939%E2%80%9345%29#The_end_in_the_West_1944_-_45

[Zimme83]

How can 35 claimed out of several thousand sorties be concidered significant? 35 claimed c-47:s for 192 lost fighters - that only support my opinion even more. The Allied fighters were able to prevent Luftwaffe from causing serious losses among the transport planes.

[PR3D4TOR]

209 aircraft in less than a week is not significant in your opinion. Compared to 192 losses that even gives the Luftwaffe a positive kill ratio. "Significant" must mean something different in Sweden.

Btw. I was wondering why you've removed your Sami flag avatar?

[Widewing]

The Air Force is trying to reinvent the CAS mission in an era of smart weapons.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support

Look at this ridiculous chart....



Inasmuch as the B-52 and B-1 have danger close distances exceeding two kilometers, how can they classify that as close support? It's pure nonsense. Ditto on Predator and Reaper (we manufacture their weapon's release system). Drones are not and will not be significant CAS aircraft in the immediate future. They are entirely too detached and very high risk for blue on blue error, not to mention inadequate payload.

When we look at the A-10, operational cost is well below that of a fast mover. Moreover, the fast movers are not coming down low. Thus, identifying opposition fighters is always difficult. If there's any significant TripleA threat, the AC-130s will be marginalized as well.

Compared to the F-16, the F-35 is very limited on weapon selection....

As to the Air Force's claim that they can accomplish a genuine CAS role without the A-10... I like this summation:

[PR3D4TOR]

Inasmuch as the B-52 and B-1 have danger close distances exceeding two kilometers, how can they classify that as close support? It's pure nonsense.

Smart weapons again.

[Zimme83]

209 aircraft in less than a week is not significant in your opinion. Compared to 192 losses that even gives the Luftwaffe a positive kill ratio. "Significant" must mean something different in Sweden.

Btw. I was wondering why you've removed your Sami flag avatar?

209 is still not anything else than claimed kills, and no, By WW2 standard losses <1% of sorties is not significant. Luftwaffe failed to interrupt the operations during market-garden in any significant way.

[Saxman]

If you were a guy on the ground under heavy fire in need of air support, which would you rather see coming to your aid? As an enemy combatant, which is more likely to make you @#$% your pants? An F-35 10,000 feet above the battlefield lobbing a smart weapon? Or an A-10 swooping in and spewing 4000 rounds per minute of hot 30mm death?

The A-10 is NOT a deep-strike craft. It's NOT designed for penetration of enemy air space. It's designed to loiter and directly support the ground troops right on the front lines, while the hotter and sexier rides take care of the rest. And it does its job very, VERY well.

[PR3D4TOR]

209 is still not anything else than claimed kills, and no, By WW2 standard losses <1% of sorties is not significant. Luftwaffe failed to interrupt the operations during market-garden in any significant way.

I'll consider your opinion on the matter with all the weight it deserves.

[PR3D4TOR]

If you were a guy on the ground under heavy fire in need of air support, which would you rather see coming to your aid? As an enemy combatant, which is more likely to make you @#$% your pants? An F-35 10,000 feet above the battlefield lobbing a smart weapon? Or an A-10 swooping in and spewing 4000 rounds per minute of hot 30mm death?

The A-10 is NOT a deep-strike craft. It's NOT designed for penetration of enemy air space. It's designed to loiter and directly support the ground troops right on the front lines, while the hotter and sexier rides take care of the rest. And it does its job very, VERY well.

True. However, the A-10 is old and won't be around for long no matter how much anyone wants it to. Production shut down 30 years ago, the company no longer exists and the people who worked on it are retired or dead.

[Widewing]

Smart weapons again.

Not CAS.... You have a group of Taliban on a rocky, tree covered slope. Ground troops can't see them, but are drawing fire. How does a B-1 at 20k locate them? You can't target what you can't see. You can't see squat from 20k, targeting pod or otherwise. The only way is to get down in tree tops. Helos are too damn vulnerable to ordinary small arms fire to do that. What's left? An F-35 at 400 knots? No dice.... This is the environment where the A-10 is irreplaceable. Point in fact, when attacking this kind of enemy, old fashioned dumb bombs often do a better job. Frequently, an old Warthog guided by the Mk.I eyeball is still the best CAS option.

[PR3D4TOR]

The USAF seems to want to change that. Like I said, they're leaving the low and slow approach.

[Saxman]

The USAF seems to want to change that. Like I said, they're leaving the low and slow approach.

I want Yvonne Strahovski and Jennifer Lawrence to knock on my door looking to do dirty, dirty things to me, but it's not gonna happen.

The USAF can WANT all they, well, want. That doesn't mean they CAN.