I can understand why the USAF is trying (yet again) to get rid of the A-10 Thunderbolt II close support and ground attack aircraft. It's never particularly liked that mission, and wants to have all its jets to be high-speed, high-altitude, stealthy, sexy beasts. Nevertheless, the A-10 is beloved of the grunts on the ground, and can still put its ordnance on target with precision and deadly results.
Here's one of the more recent examples. What's described as an ISIL terrorist was riding a motorcycle when an A-10 caught up with him. WARNING: The slow-motion replay is fairly graphic. Don't watch it if you're squeamish.
I think that sort of attack is where the A-10 excels. I wouldn't like to see that capability lost.
Peter
So, this was a case of dueling Hogs....
ReplyDelete;-)
I am curious as to the camera footage. In my limited experience gun cameras on attack aircraft do not zoom and follow targets unless it was on a gunship such as an AC130. Then again the smart technology we have these days is amazing compared to my active duty days forty plus years ago.
ReplyDeletePretty sure the footage is from a separate platform, like a drone, and that whatever did the shooting didn't do the filming.
DeleteYeah, pretty sure that was a UAV filming that.
DeleteThanks Peter for putting up this video. It brought back a memory of a conversation I had with my father Kenneth Scheiwe when I was a child. He flew P-40's and P-47's for the 12th Air Force. He told a story of a pilot who strafed a motorcyclist. The gun camera footage made it appear that the rider was blown up and over the P-47. Seeing it, another pilot stated he wanted to try that. I asked Father, "Why did you shoot at motorcycles?" It seemed unnecessary and cruel to me. He explained that fuel was in such short supply in Germany that all transport was presumed to be military or in direct support of the war. It was a brief lesson on the cruel calculus of war.
ReplyDeleteThat capability is not lost by a long shot, Peter. In fact it is expanding. With all the advancements in spoofing and ECM technologies that role can almost be handed off to both slower and faster aircraft. That boy in the vid could just as easily have been sent to pick his 72 raisins by a drone or any number of choppers. From a purely tactical standpoint the A10 is functionally obsolete and the only reasons for keeping it active would have to be economics.
ReplyDeleteI love that ugly old bird too but she is as obsolete as the biplane. The bad guys will soon be riding the same wave of technology we are and soon manned combat aircraft will become a thing of the past.
I love the A-10, but if the Air Force any sense, they’d be replacing it with a pile of A-29s, or another turboprop powered light attack COIN aircraft that’s even cheaper to operate than the A-10. While the Warthog is far less expensive for CAS work than an F-16 or F-35, it is getting long in the tooth, and even its 30mm cannon is equivalent to a nuclear-powered flyswatter when it’s being used to kill motorcycles and technicals.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, however deep the AF brass’s dislike for the Warthog goes, it probably goes double for anything taking that role that doesn’t even have proper jet engines.
I know there's a rule or law that says the army can't operate fixed wing aircraft...but it's absurd. Give the A-10's or A-29's or whatever the ground support aircraft of the future will be. Let the airforce continue to waste billions on airplanes that will be useless in the next major conflict. Yes, F-35, I'm looking at you.
ReplyDeleteSad thing is, in the 60's there was a strong wing of the air force that understood the mission of supporting troops on the ground. COIN was huge as the Viet Nam war geared up. But then, we had a lot of WW2 and Korean vets back then.
Dang it...I really need to do a better job of proof reading before submitting these messages. Tried to delete it but...there's no "ok" button when the delete popup window opens.
ReplyDeleteShould have said:
Give the A-10's or A-29's or whatever the ground support aircraft of the future will be to the Army!
Oh, and fixed wingcombat aircraft
Having never been part of the Military, I could very well be talking out of my posterior, but could this be an indication that we should go back to having an Army Air Corp? Let the Air Force focus on air superiority and strategic bombing while the Army provides close air support for Army units?
ReplyDeleteThat seemed to be an unusually scattered impact area for the A10's gun. I'm not even sure he hit the target, and it would take another pass to verify it, after that dust cloud settles. Not sure a FLIR could see through that mess.
ReplyDeleteHe should've worn a helmet.
ReplyDeleteTake all the A-10s in the inventory and transfer the entire program to the Marine Corps. The Marines are used to supporting old, and even obsolete, technology and the A-10 role is far better understood by the Marine Corps mission.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at May 9, 2016 at 11:08 AM said...
ReplyDeleteHaving never been part of the Military, I could very well be talking out of my posterior, but could this be an indication that we should go back to having an Army Air Corp? Let the Air Force focus on air superiority and strategic bombing while the Army provides close air support for Army units?
In a word, no. Don't get fixated on the platform - the airplane itself - and focus on capabilities. In Afghanistan and Iraq we had B-52s and B-1s - big, strategic bombers designed to drop beaucoup bombs on large targets - loitering over the battlefield, dropping one bomb at a time. These bombs were in support of, targeted by and in some cases guided by, Army and Marine troops on the ground. Dropping a 500 or 1,000 pound bomb right where the soldiers and Marines want it IS air support. As for using a machine gun for smaller targets, that's why they have helicopter gunships. The A-10s gun is way overkill for that role.
In a conversation with an Iraq bound soldier and a two time Gulf War veteran recently, the A-10 came up. Both said the Army, specifically the 101st Airborne, would love to have the A-10's.
ReplyDeleteP.S. The Obama administration says there have no "combat" soldiers stationed in Iraq, just "advisors". They don't. The combat soldiers are "stationed" in Kuwait, they just fight in Iraq.