A-10s deployed to Turkey (arrived over the past weekend)

[kage69]

I'd imagine the main concern is that A-10 is a relatively easy (slow & old) target for surface to air missiles. I don't know how many, if any, SAMs we've supplied to the rebels though.

Low level runs with maneuvering and flares seem to have kept our hogs relatively safe. I was concerned about the MANPAD threat too, but there's been plenty of fighting in the last year and I haven't heard of any hogs getting shot down.

Given what an A-10 is capable of withstanding, shooting a MANPAD at it is probably a better way to commit suicide than take it out of the skies. It took real SAMs, SA-9s and SA-13s, in Desert Storm to bring down some of the six A-10s that were shot down.


I'm all for pulling weapons that aren't effective or simply low on the cost/benefit scale, but removing an air frame that makes bloodthirsty jihadi piss and shit themselves when it approaches is just stupid.

 

[chucky2]

snip

It's not something I really understand, but I think it has to do with all the infrastructure needed to support FW aviation belonging to the Air-Force. The Army would need to coordinate air traffic control, IFF, ordinance (the bombs and missiles the A-10 carries are all Air Force), train FW pilots, etc. etc.

Really the answer is for the Air Force to keep flying the A-10 and not pretend that the F-35 can do that job. It can't.

Yes, mandating the AF keep flying the A-10, and doing it properly for support of ground troops, would be the best option. Short of that, all the things you list could either get AF folks chopped to the Army to handle those duties that Army couldn't fill, or, as you say, the Army would have to step up and field what is needed.

Pod? You mean like an ECM pod?

ECM to me would be more like electronic jamming of enemy radar, but something along those lines (if it couldn't be incorporated internally that is, which I'd think would be preferable).

 

[Oric]

the point is, this is all window dressing. USA does not wish to destroy ISIS or Al-Nusra

 

[OutHouse]

I think there is enough support in Congress, and in the Army (and possibly back channel Marines), to have the Army "buy" them from the AF. They could even take the money directly from the "sale" and earmark it only to be used for the F-35 program (which has been run like a joke, but that's a whole nother thread...), sweetening the deal.

buy them? then what, bring back the army air corps? you still need pilots, maint crews, parts. infrastructure and a gazillion other thing to get a squadron combat ready. that takes years.

 

[MongGrel]

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123436433

This is a bit old news now I guess, but a BUFF with a stand off bomb bay full of smart weapons is pretty nasty too.
They've started putting rotary bays in those internally.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...es-for-new-b-52-bomb-bay-upgrade-testing.aspx

Wonder what they might have in mind for those in the future, as they keep being upgraded and weren't capable of that internally before.

You could put a shitload of SLAM-ERs in one of those babies, among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84H/K_SLAM-ER

Like I said before, I used to work on a few things, SLAM-ER was one of the things in conjunction with the F-15K's.

Is why the F-15K's are called Slam Eagles.

 

[chucky2]

buy them? then what, bring back the army air corps? you still need pilots, maint crews, parts. infrastructure and a gazillion other thing to get a squadron combat ready. that takes years.

We have pilots now, we have maintenance crews now, we have parts now. We have all those things now. You can have the Army start getting their own folks Army owned over time (if that is even necessary), and in the meantime, you have the AF folks working on that stuff for the Army (if they can't just do it in perpetuity until the A-10 really can legit be phased out).

It doesn't take years, it takes the stroke of a pen and some planning, then official hand-off to the Army which now controls and pays for those assets. Better the AF just keep them, as long as they maintain and provide them properly, but it could be done under Army control if necessary.

 

[chucky2]

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123436433snip

They can deliver tons of firepower, and have loiter times, but don't have ability to get low and slow, or ID stuff on ground, like the A-10 can.

 

[kage69]

the point is, this is all window dressing. USA does not wish to destroy ISIS or Al-Nusra

That's pretty funny coming from a Turk.

 

[woolfe9998]

Damn, the weapon it carries is a beast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that.

 

[trenchfoot]

A-10's definitely have a place on the current battlefields in the Middle East. The problem with those birds is they don't make a profit on the corporate end like they used to.

The Corporates have to continually provide a need for their services even when a need isn't there. The A-10's existence and durability is preventing the Corporates from filling a role that the A-10's now occupy. What's actually needed is a technologically superior derivative, and not another fiasco like the F-35 turned out to be. The A-10's? They're armored tanks that fly. What can top that as a better bang for the buck in the role they're now filling?

But maintaining them wouldn't generate anywhere near as much profit as a whole new weapons platform would. And that right there is THE problem. The A-10, like the AC-130 and B-52 air frames, they're just too good and reliable designs to stuff down a hole and forget about.