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

[blankslate]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-deploys-ground-attack-10-planes-turkey-155644211.html

Washington (AFP) - The US military has deployed a dozen A-10 ground-attack planes to the air base at Incirlik in southern Turkey, a US official said Tuesday.

The 12 planes, famed for their tank-destroying capabilities, arrived over the weekend and have already been scheduled to fly missions in support of the US-led coalition fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq and Syria, the official told AFP.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said the move had "added capability" to the coalition's efforts against IS.

Known by troops on the ground as "Warthogs," A-10 planes are heavily strengthened and designed to withstand direct hits from armor-piercing rounds.

The planes typically fly lower and slower than F-16s, which also puts them more in harm's way.

"There's more significant risk than other aircraft due to the flight path they typically fly," the official said.

It wasn't immediately clear if the US-led coalition has already used A-10s during its bombing campaign of IS jihadists, which has been going on for more than a year.


The move comes three weeks after Russia launched its own bombing campaign in Syria. Officials from the Pentagon and Moscow are due to finalize an "understanding" over air-safety rules to avoid planes from the two powers flying into each other.

The official said the A-10s could potentially be used to support rebel groups fighting IS in northern Syria, including a group called the "Syrian Arab Coalition" that received a massive airdrop of ammunition this month.

Turkey in July allowed US planes to use Incirlik Air Base to attack IS positions in Syria.

The bolded part is what puzzles me. The A-10s should have been already in use, imo, and if this is the first time they've been used why the hell haven't they been used prior to this?

Sure the F-16s and other planes that have been known to have participated in missions are fine planes but they are not specialized for the ground attack support role in the way the A-10 is.

Perhaps the coalition forces were waiting for the understanding with Russia over flight safety rules between each others' planes because the A-10 is relatively vulnerable to other planes compared to fire coming from the ground.



....

 

[K1052]

The Air Force has been trying to get the A-10s retired for a while. To keep using them in combat would be counter to that aim.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

A-10s have been deployed against ISIS for some time. Typically rotating out every 6 months. This should be the third deployment if I remember my numbers right.

Edit: Looked it up. The last deployment arrived in April for 6 months so it lines up for the 6 month deployment time.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/239817-twelve-more-a-10s-deploy-in-fight-against-isis

 

[dainthomas]

The Air Force has been trying to get the A-10s retired for a while. To keep using them in combat would be counter to that aim.

They're basically the perfect weapon for pounding the hell out of these rock-throwing terrorists.

 

[Oyeve]

Love the A-10! One-winged capable tank killer!

 

[K1052]

They're basically the perfect weapon for pounding the hell out of these rock-throwing terrorists.

I don't dispute that but the Air Force has been working on sending them all to the desert for years fighting against Congress. It's not much of a surprise they are reluctant to deploy them.

 

[MongGrel]

Someone is going to get hurt badly.

 

[Genx87]

Dont these CAS planes require a forward spotter?

 

[MongGrel]

Dont these CAS planes require a forward spotter?

Require ? No.

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't dispute that but the Air Force has been working on sending them all to the desert for years fighting against Congress. It's not much of a surprise they are reluctant to deploy them.

Fighting against the Army too. The Army hates F-16s as CAS planes, and loves the A-10.

Did I hear that the Air Force relented and will procure a successor to the A-10, or am I imagining that and they still think they're going to use the F-35?

 

[Genx87]

Require ? No.

So how do they acquire targets? Just going to fly out over Syria and start blowing shit up?

 

[Genx87]

Fighting against the Army too. The Army hates F-16s as CAS planes, and loves the A-10.

Did I hear that the Air Force relented and will procure a successor to the A-10, or am I imagining that and they still think they're going to use the F-35?

afaik they will use the F35.

 

[Blackjack200]

So how do they acquire targets? Just going to fly out over Syria and start blowing shit up?

I believe the rebel forces do not have heavy tracked vehicles like tanks and APCs, so if you're flying around in your A-10 and see a tank shelling a town, you put some 30mm DU into it.

 

[chucky2]

Fighting against the Army too. The Army hates F-16s as CAS planes, and loves the A-10.

Did I hear that the Air Force relented and will procure a successor to the A-10, or am I imagining that and they still think they're going to use the F-35?

afaik they will use the F35.

The Air Force has to deliver the F-35 (so much money has been spent to this point, and so many states and nations have $ involvement with its delivery, it's an unstoppable juggernaut of a program), so the excuse is the A-10 cannot survive in a modern high threat environment, thus the F-35 is needed.

Forget that none of the wars we're really fighting are high threat, or that the F-35 won't have the loiter times the A-10 has, or fly slow and low enough to properly support troops as the A-10, or be risked flying that low and slow, or have the weapons capacity (internally, because hey, it's "high threat" and thus cannot use external stores), etc.

If the AF really and truly is going to do away with the A-10, the Army should seriously consider just acquiring it and running them itself ala its helicopter fleet.

 

[Blackjack200]

If the AF really and truly is going to do away with the A-10, the Army should seriously consider just acquiring it and running them itself ala its helicopter fleet.

Historically the DoD wouldn't let them operate a fixed wing attack plane. Though maybe in this case the Army could appeal.

 

[momeNt]

How easy is it for terrorists to hit these with rocket launcher or high caliber rounds and disable the plane or kill the pilot?

 

[MongGrel]

How easy is it for terrorists to hit these with rocket launcher or high caliber rounds and disable the plane or kill the pilot?

Pretty hard, as A-10's are made to fly with half their wing blown of and have an armored cockpit.

F-35's can still barely get off the ground half the time.

Apaches are nice in the same role. Haven't seen much about them in awhile. What they were developed for also.

 

[Nebor]

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.

 

[chucky2]

Historically the DoD wouldn't let them operate a fixed wing attack plane. Though maybe in this case the Army could appeal.

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.

 

[chucky2]

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.

They just need to develop a pod to be hung off the A-10 to defeat/'defeat enough' modern SAMs, thus reducing the threat (sort of like the Sniper pods enhance Gen4 airframe capabilities). And as you bring up, the OpFor needs to first acquire and then properly use them for them to be an active threat.

 

[Blackjack200]

Pretty hard, as A-10's are made to fly with half their wing blown of and have an armored cockpit.

F-35's can still barely get off the ground half the time.

Apaches are nice in the same role. Haven't seen much about them in awhile. What they were developed for also.

Apaches are fine, but they're not nearly as capable. The A-10 can fly 400 mph, carry 12 tons of ordinance, and their gun is on another level.

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.

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.

They just need to develop a pod to be hung off the A-10 to defeat/'defeat enough' modern SAMs, thus reducing the threat (sort of like the Sniper pods enhance Gen4 airframe capabilities). And as you bring up, the OpFor needs to first acquire and then properly use them for them to be an active threat.

Pod? You mean like an ECM pod?

 

[blankslate]

Pod? You mean like an ECM pod?

Pretty sure that's what he's talking about. Several years ago I read an interesting article in the Atlantic about fighters (specifically the F-15 and F-22) and how air combat is changing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/the-last-ace/307291/

a part of the article touches upon ECM capabilities being retrofitted onto older aircraft and how it can change the situation.

An AMRAAM missile like the one Rodriguez used over Kosovo was a major step forward because it frees the attacking plane from having to keep its radar pointed at the target. The American plane can launch a missile from outside the WEZ, turn, and kick on its afterburners before the target has a chance to even shoot.

These tools rely, of course, on radar, which can be jammed.

“If you can’t match your enemy’s technology, you can always subtract from it,” says Wayne Waller, a Virginia contractor who designs radar systems for the F‑15. “You may invent something that gives you an advantage, but you can’t hang on to it for very long. Our radar used to be difficult to jam, but the capability to do that has improved geometrically. That knowledge is out there. And the jamming advances cost a lot less than improving the radar.”

Countries that cannot afford to build fleets of the most advanced supersonic fighters can afford to build pods with clever software to mount on older airframes. This was brought home dramatically in Cope India 2004, a large aerial-combat training exercise that pitted F‑15 pilots from Elmendorf against India’s air force, which is made up of the MiG‑21 and MiG‑29, and the newer Mirage 2000 and Russian-built Su‑30. The exercises were conducted high over north-central India, near the city of Gwalior.

“We came rolling in, like, ‘Beep-beep, superpower coming through,’” Colonel Fornof told me. “And we had our eyes opened. We learned a lot. By the third week, we were facing a threat that we weren’t prepared to face, because we had underestimated them. They had figured out how to take Russian-built equipment and improve upon it.”

A small country can buy a MiG‑21 on the world weapons market for about $100,000, put in a better engine, add more-sophisticated radar and jamming systems, improve the cockpit design, and outfit it with “launch and leave” missiles comparable to the AMRAAM. These hybrid threats are more dangerous than any rival fighters America has seen in generations, and they cost much less than building a competitive fourth-generation fighter from scratch. The lower expense enables rival air forces to put more of them in the air, and because the F‑15 can carry only so many munitions, American pilots found themselves overwhelmed by both technology and sheer numbers during the exercises over India.

It's a pretty good article but of course time has proven some of the information wrong particularly about the F-35 and while I believe the F-22 is a very capable and needed plane it is very expensive and the teething problems it has had regarding the oxygen system for pilots and the less than durable ant-radar coating has highlighted issues with the acquisition procedures for new planes.


....

 

[maddogchen]

yeah! bring out the heavy tank killers to destroy those pesky M1A1 tanks.

 

[kage69]

For those of you who haven't heard the good news...

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/congress-issues-air-force-sharp-rebuke-bars-a-10-retirement/

A-10 is staying put thankfully. Part of me still can't believe replacing it was actually going to happen. It does the job better than anything else (sorry Frogfoot), and the intended replacement simply doesn't come with the appropriate armor, ability to loiter, low speed maneuverability or payload. Cost like that ALONE for CAS means there are probably some AF brass that need a CAT scan.

The AF didn't learn it's lesson with the Phantom it seems. Glad Congress has our war fighters' backs on this one.

 

[irishScott]

For those of you who haven't heard the good news...

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/congress-issues-air-force-sharp-rebuke-bars-a-10-retirement/

A-10 is staying put thankfully. Part of me still can't believe replacing it was actually going to happen. It does the job better than anything else (sorry Frogfoot), and the intended replacement simply doesn't come with the appropriate armor, ability to loiter, low speed maneuverability or payload. Cost like that ALONE for CAS means there are probably some AF brass that need a CAT scan.

The AF didn't learn it's lesson with the Phantom it seems. Glad (for once) Congress has out war fighters' backs.

The problem is we're the sole remaining super-power, we have no real adversary to keep our edge. So we can get by with things like women on the front lines (I don't care how well-trained they are, their bodies will fall apart faster under the same abuse) and sub-par air support. And the people pushing the flashy tech and social justice angles have more motivation and backing because winning every battle perfectly is not longer a necessity.

If we ever end up in another large conventional war where F-35s and mixed-gender units suffer excess casualties at unsustainable rates, only then will we pull our heads out of our asses.