Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on May 27, 2003, 04:25:22 PM
-
Check this out!
Airforce folly (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/opinion/27CORA.html?ex=1054612800&en=b6251bc29db9c4a4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)
-
the army should be given the A-10, they are the ones who need close air support not the AF.
-
then the Army and Marines, whose troops the Air Force will be leaving high and dry, should recommission all the Hogs out of mothballs and tell the AF to go suck a tail pipe!
-
Its in the NY Times....need I say more?
-
I read somewhere that after 1991, 8 nations made inquires into buying mothballed A10's.
They were denied.
Seems odd, don't it?
-
That article could be a reprint of articles from the last 15 years. In the NYT defense... they did a good job on the A-10 stats.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
then the Army and Marines, whose troops the Air Force will be leaving high and dry,
the marines have their own air support.
-
bad idea imo
-
Time to bring back the P-38 ;)
-
I was surprised to find out that the Marine F-35 JSF doesn't have a cannon. Seems odd, considering that it's a close ground support vehicle.
I guess they can put heavier caliber stuff on wingpods, but I wonder if the new doctrine is "bullets are obsolete, missiles are good, m'kay". If so, I hope it isn't a repeat the beginning of Vietnam and the Air Force (no dogfighting training, the assumption being that all fighting would be push-button stuff from stand-off distances, etc).
-
The USAF agreed to procure the A10 when the Army said get a plane like that or we will get in the fixed wing attack air business.
Looks like they will have to step up again.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the marines have their own air support.
I am curious as to what the Marines have that can compete with the A-10. Are you talking about helos? Isn't the survivability of the A-10 far superior?
-
I would think the Harrier compares to the A10
-
Also dont forget that before the A10 there was the "Dragonfly" A-37, (T-37 Cessna, "Tweety Bird") used by the Army as a close air support for a period of time during Vietnam, and the A-1 Skyraider was used for close air support. The army also had the OV-10 used for fac and close air support.
-
The Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for fifthteen years so they can goto Congress and ask for money to buy somehing 'fast and shiny'. It has happened yet.
-
Originally posted by MajTom
I would think the Harrier compares to the A10
No no....Harrier has 4 really really nice Infra Red weaknesses for anyone with a heat seeking missile. One of the Navy guys here was an F-14 driver and didn't have much good to say about the Harrier....low payload, cant carry a lot, cant loiter around for long, and is nowhere near as armored as the A-10. Just a very poor comparison.
Asking a Marine about the Harrier is double edged. Some hate it, some love it. I do not have the numbers on how many were lost in the Gulf War but the impression left on me is they are good at a very specific mission.
-
On a side note, the air museum down the street from me has one of onl 2 copies of the plane the A-10 beat out for the CGS contract. It is designated the A-9.
(http://www.pe.net/~marfldmu/a9zz.jpg)
Northrop A-9 (http://www.pe.net/~marfldmu/a9a.htm)
-
I remember seeing pics of that plane in late 70's, always reminded me of a Panther or a Banshee. McDonnell/Douglas, Northrop
-
Whats the difference on a technical level between operating rotary wing aircraft, such as the AH-64 Apache, or a fixed wing aircraft, such as the A-10, that makes the former's requirement only 2 years of college(Associates Degree), while the latter 4 years of college(Undergrad)?
I'm not talking about manuevering either, or air combat, since there were pilots in WWII, which was more stick 'n rudder than operating a computer, that had no college or only a year of college credit.
Anyone in the know?
-SW
-
The helo uses much more avionics and requires more brainpower. Remember, the A10 flies a few hundred feet above the deck dodging AA fire. The Apache flies a few feet off the ground and dodges AA fire as well as trees.
Firepower wise the Apache beats the A10, but the A10 can stay longer over target and can "reach" other places faster.
The two complement each other perfectly IMO.
I really wonder what the AF will try to replace the A10 with. Unmaned remote controlled drones carrying Hellfire missiles ?
-
Yeah, plus the Apache uses an IR (or is it a ground terrain) sensor on one eye while you are looking at the real world with your other eye, atleast thats what I got from looking at the helmet.
But, if it requires more brain power- why only 2 years of college needed, and not 4 like a fixed wing aircraft?
Thats what I wanna know, not as a "well helos are better"... I wanna know for a possible (near) future job...
-SW
-
wait, i though the helos required the 4 yr degree.
Wow. Thats really weird if helo requires only 2yrs. Maybe they require 2 yrs because the helo training program is longer than the fixed wing training program?
Maybe they need pilots..quick? You know, be all that you can be instead of Fly High? ;)
The apache uses both IR and "camera" sensors. They got a "VR" tracking headgear which moves the optics in the nose of the helo, with the camera information and most HUD data shown on 1 eye while the other eye is free to look at the gauges in the helo's cockpit as well as visually flying the chopper.
Its a very neat system, but those guys train really hard to get used to it.
-
Thats all I can figure, because in WWII they really needed pilots at the onset- and so they lowered their requirements from 2 years minimum of college to simply a H.S. graduate. Got this from the book "Close Calls Two tours with the 353rd FG" by Bill Price.
For the Helo stuff, I got some info from here: http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/prerequ/wo153A.html
And some more info from a brochure out of a friend's packet for joining the Army. The brochure detailed that someone needed to have graduated from H.S., taken atleast 15 credit hours at an accredited institution(guess that means anything from Community college to Ivy Leage), and not be over 29 years of age at the time of enlistment. Also needed a 110 on the General Techinical part of the ASVAB and a 90 on the Alternate Flight Aptitude Selection Test and sign up for 6 years active duty.
Guess they desperately need helo pilots?
-SW
-
SW- back about 1980, I had friend that was a TI at lackland, He quit the AF as an E-4 or E-5, went into the Army for helo training and was made a CW-1 to fly helicopters.
It would appear that the Army is always desperate for pilots
-
Interesting, thanks for the info MajTom.
-SW
-
Originally posted by OIO
Firepower wise the Apache beats the A10, but the A10 can stay longer over target and can "reach" other places faster.
The two complement each other perfectly IMO.
I think we'd really need to examine the ordinance closely to determine this.
The Apache's Mainstay is the Hellfire Missle which it can carry up to 18, or 8 with 38 FFARs. It also carries 1200 30mm rounds w/ this load out.
On the other hand, the A-10 hauls 16,000 lbs of ordinance, including up to 6 AGM-65 Mavericks and 14, 2.75" rockets, 2 AIM-9Ls and 1150 rds.
Is the Hellfire more potent than the Maveick, or vice versa?
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
I am curious as to what the Marines have that can compete with the A-10. Are you talking about helos? Isn't the survivability of the A-10 far superior?
The Marines use the F/A-18 and the AV8 Harrier for close air support in addition to their helicopters. In fact, the Marines are the ones that wrote the book on close air support since they're the ones that pretty much started it when they used old Curtiss biplanes in that role during the Banana Republic wars in the early part of the 20th Century.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by OIO
I really wonder what the AF will try to replace the A10 with. Unmaned remote controlled drones carrying Hellfire missiles ?
Most likely the F-16 until the JSF is ready to be deployed.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The Marines use the F/A-18 and the AV8 Harrier for close air support in addition to their helicopters. In fact, the Marines are the ones that wrote the book on close air support since they're the ones that pretty much started it when they used old Curtiss biplanes in that role during the Banana Republic wars in the early part of the 20th Century.
Ack-Ack
The guy in the office next to me was a Marine A-4 pilot in Vietnam. He has some amazing tales to tell, but this one seems to be very Vietnamesque.
Every Marine pilot is assigned as a forward observer for a portion of his tour. The logic was(is?) that a pilot should be the one talking to the pilots.
Actually even the forward observer was insulated from the guy with the ordinance. The guy on the ground would talk to a guy in a Bronco, who would vector in the air support. Art (my co-worker) said this was to filter out the stress level the forward observer sometimes conveyed over the radio.
Well during one very nasty firefight, Art's company was in deep doo doo. The VC were within 30 yards of their entrenchment, and the situation was dire. Art called the Bronco pilot and requested a drop within 30 yards of his position. Not wanting to make a mistake, the Bronco pilot flew into the teeth of the situation to make sure he called in the right coordinates. A napalm drop was made close enough to Art so that "One guy stood up in his foxhole and was fried." The rest were saved by the drop.
Later Art, (a Marine Captain) wrote up a request for a commendation for the Bronco pilot. HQ read Art's write up of the events of that day, and promptly busted the Bronco pilot for flying too low.
sheeesh.
-
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/colrosenbergerwarning.htm
-
Even for National Guard units? I sure hope not because I think A-10s are really remarkable aircraft. I would expect the A10 to still fly with the NG units after they leave the main AF.
-
The Apaches got their tulips kicked in Iraq. The pilots couldn't deal with brownouts and augered on takeoff and landing.
Plus they got the crap shot out of them by poorly trained units using small arms, AAA.
The A-10, as usual, performed superbly. No way are they gonna retire them.
Cadillac of the skies!
-
Maverick is fire and forget while the hellfire is radar guided or laser-guided (Longbow Apache has the Radar H'Fires though).
Either way, for close support, the helo beats the A10 good. However, if you got 2 units, 100 miles apart engaged in fighting, the A10 can go to each one and drop ord. on each when called upon, the helo can only stay with 1 unit providing said fire support.
-
Originally posted by OIO
Maverick is fire and forget while the hellfire is radar guided or laser-guided (Longbow Apache has the Radar H'Fires though).
Either way, for close support, the helo beats the A10 good. However, if you got 2 units, 100 miles apart engaged in fighting, the A10 can go to each one and drop ord. on each when called upon, the helo can only stay with 1 unit providing said fire support.
no disrespect to helo and apache guys but in afghanistan the a10 was giving great close support in places where apaches could not go without probably getting shot down. apaches can kick some bellybutton but mgs will hurt them in the end because they can be hit much easier than the a10. a10 is a tough mofo AND its not easy to hit for a guy with a mg. i sure hope they dont get rid of them.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The guy in the office next to me was a Marine A-4 pilot in Vietnam. He has some amazing tales to tell, but this one seems to be very Vietnamesque.
Every Marine pilot is assigned as a forward observer for a portion of his tour. The logic was(is?) that a pilot should be the one talking to the pilots.
Actually even the forward observer was insulated from the guy with the ordinance. The guy on the ground would talk to a guy in a Bronco, who would vector in the air support. Art (my co-worker) said this was to filter out the stress level the forward observer sometimes conveyed over the radio.
Well during one very nasty firefight, Art's company was in deep doo doo. The VC were within 30 yards of their entrenchment, and the situation was dire. Art called the Bronco pilot and requested a drop within 30 yards of his position. Not wanting to make a mistake, the Bronco pilot flew into the teeth of the situation to make sure he called in the right coordinates. A napalm drop was made close enough to Art so that "One guy stood up in his foxhole and was fried." The rest were saved by the drop.
Later Art, (a Marine Captain) wrote up a request for a commendation for the Bronco pilot. HQ read Art's write up of the events of that day, and promptly busted the Bronco pilot for flying too low.
sheeesh.
maybe your buddy got told a bogus story. i cant see how a fac could ever be busted for going for max accuracy.
-
Originally posted by osage
The Apaches got their tulips kicked in Iraq. The pilots couldn't deal with brownouts and augered on takeoff and landing.
Plus they got the crap shot out of them by poorly trained units using small arms, AAA.
The A-10, as usual, performed superbly. No way are they gonna retire them.
Cadillac of the skies!
thats not really a fair call on what happened. look at it from the pov of iraqi soldiers. when apaches are around they are the most dangerous and most visible thing that every mg gunner can actually hit. the work in a dangerous place dont fault them when they get shot down more often.
-
I think the Apache guys fire from a hover and were an easier target than the fast moving A-10.
-
A-10 a Cadillac of the skies? More likea Ford Bronco of the SKies :-D
-
Originally posted by anonymous
maybe your buddy got told a bogus story. i cant see how a fac could ever be busted for going for max accuracy.
I wouldn't doubt that it did happen during Vietnam. From the stories my dad and uncles have told me about some of the stupid, silly crap they got busted for, it's quite possible the FAC pilot did got popped for violating a hard deck rule.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Jack55
I think the Apache guys fire from a hover and were an easier target than the fast moving A-10.
Not to mention that the Iraqis did learn something from our time in Somalia. Fire as many RPGs and bullets in the sky and eventually you're going to bring down something and they did.
Ack-Ack
-
Well, whoever the guy is who wrote that article couldn't find his as*hole with both hands and a flashlight. If the A-10 is going to be decommissioned, it won't be to make room for the JSF or anything else. And it certainly won't be because all Air Force brass still advocate High Altitude Daylight Precision Bombing like this joker thinks. It's because the plane was designed with a 20 year life expectancy, which is rapidly approaching if not already past, and maintainence crews are having more and more trouble keeping them airborne because no one makes spare parts for them anymore. It's a great airplane, and I'll hate to see it go, but if we can't maintain them anymore, then we'll have to move to something that we can.
-
Mjolnir, I hope you aren't suggesting that this 'simply couldn't happen' based on the question that 'if there was no suitable replacement, why would they retire this plane?'
1. The A-10 is being retired.
2. There are no planes with equivalent capability in the pipe to replace it.
Please reconcile those two. Unless you know about some secret armored close support aircraft for the Army that's about to enter service....
-
Guys, look at what happened with the Navy A-6E. Their only dedicated bomber capable of flying in any weather, and they retire it with nothing of similar capability around. Max bomb load of six tons, all-weather avionics, ugly as sin too! Grumman offered to redesign the aircraft for more modern everything and restart production. That got thrown out. The Air Force offered 'em a Navy-version of the F-117 with AB's, and that got thrown out. In the end, the A-6 was replaced with the Plastic Bug (F-18), which will get replaced by the Stuper Bug (F-18E/F). With the exceptions of the Army, who rarely use fixed-wing AC, and the Marines, who aren't dumb when it comes to CAS, everyone is going towards "higher, faster, better". Looks like the Marines might take over the CAS role for both Marine and Army units. Cause at this rate the USAF will be dropping one bomb per month on a tank column and saying "We achieved maximum destruction with no casualties"
Never trust a staff-level officer to do anything right; they're more dangerous then a squeaky-clean Lt with a radio and a map!
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mjolnir, I hope you aren't suggesting that this 'simply couldn't happen' based on the question that 'if there was no suitable replacement, why would they retire this plane?'
1. The A-10 is being retired.
2. There are no planes with equivalent capability in the pipe to replace it.
Please reconcile those two. Unless you know about some secret armored close support aircraft for the Army that's about to enter service....
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not arguing that the A-10 is going to be retired. I'm just saying the reasons listed in the article aren't necessarily correct. It's time is up, we can hardly keep the things in the air anymore because no one makes parts for a plane that wasn't supposed to last any longer than this. So we have to move to another platform. I don't really think the Lawn Dart or the JSF will do the job the same way as an A-10, but that's all we've got now. So in typical AF fashion, we'll try to do more with less.
Another thing to consider is that the CAS role is rapidly being redefined. Look at Afghanistan. The guys on the ground were calling in B-52s for CAS. The job is not plane-specific, much as some would like it to be. The definition of CAS, as laid out in AFDD-1, is:
CAS consists of air operations against hostile targets in close proximity to friendly forces; further, these operations require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces. CAS provides direct support to help friendly surface forces carry out their assigned tasks.
It doesn't say "low and slow strafing runs with a 30mm cannon." It just says attacks against hostile targets in close proximity to our own guys.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
maybe your buddy got told a bogus story. i cant see how a fac could ever be busted for going for max accuracy.
He wasn't "told" the story he was the forward observer. He related this story to me while I was reading a copy of the request for commendation he had written to HQ.
All true.