CAS Today

[Daryl Hunt]

Today's CAS has changed from the CAS of the 90s and earlier. And for the first time, the Army is getting vocal about it.

 

[westwall]

"Daily News from Dung Tran"? Really? That's who you listen to now?

Here's the reality...

US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan
January 23, 2018
US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Daily News from Dung Tran"? Really? That's who you listen to now?

Here's the reality...

US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan
January 23, 2018
US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan

Yet the reality is that the A-10 is doing less than 16% of the CAS missions.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet in Syria, the Russians have bolstered the ability to shoot down any 4th gen aircraft out there out to at least 32 miles at up to about 30K in altitude with a .99 one shot capability. This pretty well precludes the A-10 and the AC-130s use for CAS in those areas. What we don't want is for some Syrian hot shot to get trigger happy and start WWIII. Instead, we want our own Birds to have the ability to strike wherever and whenever the need arises surgically. With Iran starting to arm the Insurgents in Iraq, it just might become a factor there as well if it isn't already. 2025 is not going to be a good year for the A-10 when it runs out of airframe hours time and has to be retired from service. And by then, it's day will already be past.

 

[westwall]

"Daily News from Dung Tran"? Really? That's who you listen to now?

Here's the reality...

US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan
January 23, 2018
US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan

Yet the reality is that the A-10 is doing less than 16% of the CAS missions.

Indeed. It does the DANGEROUS ones.

 

[westwall]

Yet in Syria, the Russians have bolstered the ability to shoot down any 4th gen aircraft out there out to at least 32 miles at up to about 30K in altitude with a .99 one shot capability. This pretty well precludes the A-10 and the AC-130s use for CAS in those areas. What we don't want is for some Syrian hot shot to get trigger happy and start WWIII. Instead, we want our own Birds to have the ability to strike wherever and whenever the need arises surgically. With Iran starting to arm the Insurgents in Iraq, it just might become a factor there as well if it isn't already. 2025 is not going to be a good year for the A-10 when it runs out of airframe hours time and has to be retired from service. And by then, it's day will already be past.

The difference being a regular aircraft will be shot down while the A-10 will most likely survive and be repaired.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Daily News from Dung Tran"? Really? That's who you listen to now?

Here's the reality...

US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan
January 23, 2018
US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan

Yet the reality is that the A-10 is doing less than 16% of the CAS missions.

Indeed. It does the DANGEROUS ones.

It does the ones that there are no dangers from the SA, AA or any other surprises. Just small arms. And where it's close to home base. They have to use it since it's paid for, pilots trained and it's available. No use in using high cost assets when you can use an A-10 without fear of losing an asset.

The days of the A-10 Cowboy is all but gone. And even the Army is seeing that. They are saying that they no longer care what Aircraft does it as long as it gets done. And it is getting done. Less than 16% of the CAS missions and going down is enough to keep it going but at what point do you take it out of the inventory? By 2025, it's gone anyway.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet in Syria, the Russians have bolstered the ability to shoot down any 4th gen aircraft out there out to at least 32 miles at up to about 30K in altitude with a .99 one shot capability. This pretty well precludes the A-10 and the AC-130s use for CAS in those areas. What we don't want is for some Syrian hot shot to get trigger happy and start WWIII. Instead, we want our own Birds to have the ability to strike wherever and whenever the need arises surgically. With Iran starting to arm the Insurgents in Iraq, it just might become a factor there as well if it isn't already. 2025 is not going to be a good year for the A-10 when it runs out of airframe hours time and has to be retired from service. And by then, it's day will already be past.

The difference being a regular aircraft will be shot down while the A-10 will most likely survive and be repaired.

Considering that the only weapons that can shoot when the A-10 is being used in that area are small arms, there will be no losses for any aircraft of any type used. It's a turkey shoot.

And the F-15E has proven it can take as much or more damage and still make it home is a given. And it's harder to hit. Plus, it can go down on the deck in soup that the A-10 dare not fly in. On the deck, even small arms can't hit it. By the time you are aware of it's even there, it's already climbing out and your world of hurt has just begun.

 

[westwall]

"Daily News from Dung Tran"? Really? That's who you listen to now?

Here's the reality...

US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan
January 23, 2018
US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan

Yet the reality is that the A-10 is doing less than 16% of the CAS missions.

Indeed. It does the DANGEROUS ones.

It does the ones that there are no dangers from the SA, AA or any other surprises. Just small arms. And where it's close to home base. They have to use it since it's paid for, pilots trained and it's available. No use in using high cost assets when you can use an A-10 without fear of losing an asset.

The days of the A-10 Cowboy is all but gone. And even the Army is seeing that. They are saying that they no longer care what Aircraft does it as long as it gets done. And it is getting done. Less than 16% of the CAS missions and going down is enough to keep it going but at what point do you take it out of the inventory? By 2025, it's gone anyway.

Untrue. The A-10 was requested back in the theatre because of its accuracy and ability to survive.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Daily News from Dung Tran"? Really? That's who you listen to now?

Here's the reality...

US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan
January 23, 2018
US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan

Yet the reality is that the A-10 is doing less than 16% of the CAS missions.

Indeed. It does the DANGEROUS ones.

It does the ones that there are no dangers from the SA, AA or any other surprises. Just small arms. And where it's close to home base. They have to use it since it's paid for, pilots trained and it's available. No use in using high cost assets when you can use an A-10 without fear of losing an asset.

The days of the A-10 Cowboy is all but gone. And even the Army is seeing that. They are saying that they no longer care what Aircraft does it as long as it gets done. And it is getting done. Less than 16% of the CAS missions and going down is enough to keep it going but at what point do you take it out of the inventory? By 2025, it's gone anyway.

Untrue. The A-10 was requested back in the theatre because of its accuracy and ability to survive.

Untrue. It was put back in there, yes. By your own cite, the Afghan Government requested "Aircraft" be returned to Afghanistan. They didn't say what type. But it did say it was there for Search and Rescue so it's going to be the OA variant. Lots of extra gas and light on weapons. The one mission that it can fill that that the others can't. Well, until the OX program is ironed out. Losing the A-1 left one hell of a hole that they still haven't really filled.

 

[westwall]

"Daily News from Dung Tran"? Really? That's who you listen to now?

Here's the reality...

US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan
January 23, 2018
US sends A-10 Warthogs back to Afghanistan

Yet the reality is that the A-10 is doing less than 16% of the CAS missions.

Indeed. It does the DANGEROUS ones.

It does the ones that there are no dangers from the SA, AA or any other surprises. Just small arms. And where it's close to home base. They have to use it since it's paid for, pilots trained and it's available. No use in using high cost assets when you can use an A-10 without fear of losing an asset.

The days of the A-10 Cowboy is all but gone. And even the Army is seeing that. They are saying that they no longer care what Aircraft does it as long as it gets done. And it is getting done. Less than 16% of the CAS missions and going down is enough to keep it going but at what point do you take it out of the inventory? By 2025, it's gone anyway.

Untrue. The A-10 was requested back in the theatre because of its accuracy and ability to survive.

Untrue. It was put back in there, yes. By your own cite, the Afghan Government requested "Aircraft" be returned to Afghanistan. They didn't say what type. But it did say it was there for Search and Rescue so it's going to be the OA variant. Lots of extra gas and light on weapons. The one mission that it can fill that that the others can't. Well, until the OX program is ironed out. Losing the A-1 left one hell of a hole that they still haven't really filled.

Soooooo, you're telling us that it can go into an extremely hostile area (in fact it appears it's the ONLY one that can), trying to locate aircrew that have already been shot down no doubt by all of those MANPADS you're warning us about.....and this helps your argument.... how?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet the reality is that the A-10 is doing less than 16% of the CAS missions.

Indeed. It does the DANGEROUS ones.

It does the ones that there are no dangers from the SA, AA or any other surprises. Just small arms. And where it's close to home base. They have to use it since it's paid for, pilots trained and it's available. No use in using high cost assets when you can use an A-10 without fear of losing an asset.

The days of the A-10 Cowboy is all but gone. And even the Army is seeing that. They are saying that they no longer care what Aircraft does it as long as it gets done. And it is getting done. Less than 16% of the CAS missions and going down is enough to keep it going but at what point do you take it out of the inventory? By 2025, it's gone anyway.

Untrue. The A-10 was requested back in the theatre because of its accuracy and ability to survive.

Untrue. It was put back in there, yes. By your own cite, the Afghan Government requested "Aircraft" be returned to Afghanistan. They didn't say what type. But it did say it was there for Search and Rescue so it's going to be the OA variant. Lots of extra gas and light on weapons. The one mission that it can fill that that the others can't. Well, until the OX program is ironed out. Losing the A-1 left one hell of a hole that they still haven't really filled.

Soooooo, you're telling us that it can go into an extremely hostile area (in fact it appears it's the ONLY one that can), trying to locate aircrew that have already been shot down no doubt by all of those MANPADS you're warning us about.....and this helps your argument.... how?

Give it a break. It's the only one that can fly slow enough with enough loiter time with teeth to keep the back guys away from the white hats. It's not good planning on the A-10s side, it's extremely poor planning on the Air Forces part. USAF shouldn't have been so keen on getting rid of the OV-10 so fast without a decent replacement. The OV-10 always has been just a stopgap as it is.

The A-10 was originally designed to attack Tanks. That role it can no longer do. If it were to be used in that role not a single one would survive the first attack and most of the tanks would make it. Since it wasn't able to be used in it's originally designed mission, they have used it for other uses. Using it for convoys is just an extension of attacking tanks. This is why it was so successful in Kuwait on the Highway to Iraq. But using it for the OA mission means the down pilot has to be within a 150 mile radius for it to have any decent loiter time. So you have to have more than a couple on station with at least one tanker on call. Not the most efficient replacement for one OV-10D or one A-1E. ACtually, they would use 2 OA-10As or 2 OV-10Ds or 6 A1Es. But in order to use the 2 OA-10s, it would still have to have at least one tanker on station. The O birds might have to be on station and ripping into the bad guys for up to 4 hours. The OA-10 doesn't have the fuel to do it for more than about 15 minutes. The good news is that he is going to have a lot of support from every other type of fighter that's in the air including F-18s, 16s, 15s and other A-10s. But none of them can stay around very long. Hence the need of a dedicated OV type with the range and loiter time. When they finally get around to funding the OX program, that's another mission that the A-10 will lose. At that point, it's mission will drop below 10% and I doubt they will be able to justify keeping it in the inventory.

 

[westwall]

Indeed. It does the DANGEROUS ones.

It does the ones that there are no dangers from the SA, AA or any other surprises. Just small arms. And where it's close to home base. They have to use it since it's paid for, pilots trained and it's available. No use in using high cost assets when you can use an A-10 without fear of losing an asset.

The days of the A-10 Cowboy is all but gone. And even the Army is seeing that. They are saying that they no longer care what Aircraft does it as long as it gets done. And it is getting done. Less than 16% of the CAS missions and going down is enough to keep it going but at what point do you take it out of the inventory? By 2025, it's gone anyway.

Untrue. The A-10 was requested back in the theatre because of its accuracy and ability to survive.

Untrue. It was put back in there, yes. By your own cite, the Afghan Government requested "Aircraft" be returned to Afghanistan. They didn't say what type. But it did say it was there for Search and Rescue so it's going to be the OA variant. Lots of extra gas and light on weapons. The one mission that it can fill that that the others can't. Well, until the OX program is ironed out. Losing the A-1 left one hell of a hole that they still haven't really filled.

Soooooo, you're telling us that it can go into an extremely hostile area (in fact it appears it's the ONLY one that can), trying to locate aircrew that have already been shot down no doubt by all of those MANPADS you're warning us about.....and this helps your argument.... how?

Give it a break. It's the only one that can fly slow enough with enough loiter time with teeth to keep the back guys away from the white hats. It's not good planning on the A-10s side, it's extremely poor planning on the Air Forces part. USAF shouldn't have been so keen on getting rid of the OV-10 so fast without a decent replacement. The OV-10 always has been just a stopgap as it is.

The A-10 was originally designed to attack Tanks. That role it can no longer do. If it were to be used in that role not a single one would survive the first attack and most of the tanks would make it. Since it wasn't able to be used in it's originally designed mission, they have used it for other uses. Using it for convoys is just an extension of attacking tanks. This is why it was so successful in Kuwait on the Highway to Iraq. But using it for the OA mission means the down pilot has to be within a 150 mile radius for it to have any decent loiter time. So you have to have more than a couple on station with at least one tanker on call. Not the most efficient replacement for one OV-10D or one A-1E. ACtually, they would use 2 OA-10As or 2 OV-10Ds or 6 A1Es. But in order to use the 2 OA-10s, it would still have to have at least one tanker on station. The O birds might have to be on station and ripping into the bad guys for up to 4 hours. The OA-10 doesn't have the fuel to do it for more than about 15 minutes. The good news is that he is going to have a lot of support from every other type of fighter that's in the air including F-18s, 16s, 15s and other A-10s. But none of them can stay around very long. Hence the need of a dedicated OV type with the range and loiter time. When they finally get around to funding the OX program, that's another mission that the A-10 will lose. At that point, it's mission will drop below 10% and I doubt they will be able to justify keeping it in the inventory.

As much as i like the Bronco (and I really do, one of my best friends owns one and it's a hoot to fly!) it has always been more than a little vulnerable to AAA. Two were lost in Iraq and 47 in Vietnam against VC and NVA Main Force units.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It does the ones that there are no dangers from the SA, AA or any other surprises. Just small arms. And where it's close to home base. They have to use it since it's paid for, pilots trained and it's available. No use in using high cost assets when you can use an A-10 without fear of losing an asset.

The days of the A-10 Cowboy is all but gone. And even the Army is seeing that. They are saying that they no longer care what Aircraft does it as long as it gets done. And it is getting done. Less than 16% of the CAS missions and going down is enough to keep it going but at what point do you take it out of the inventory? By 2025, it's gone anyway.

Untrue. The A-10 was requested back in the theatre because of its accuracy and ability to survive.

Untrue. It was put back in there, yes. By your own cite, the Afghan Government requested "Aircraft" be returned to Afghanistan. They didn't say what type. But it did say it was there for Search and Rescue so it's going to be the OA variant. Lots of extra gas and light on weapons. The one mission that it can fill that that the others can't. Well, until the OX program is ironed out. Losing the A-1 left one hell of a hole that they still haven't really filled.

Soooooo, you're telling us that it can go into an extremely hostile area (in fact it appears it's the ONLY one that can), trying to locate aircrew that have already been shot down no doubt by all of those MANPADS you're warning us about.....and this helps your argument.... how?

Give it a break. It's the only one that can fly slow enough with enough loiter time with teeth to keep the back guys away from the white hats. It's not good planning on the A-10s side, it's extremely poor planning on the Air Forces part. USAF shouldn't have been so keen on getting rid of the OV-10 so fast without a decent replacement. The OV-10 always has been just a stopgap as it is.

The A-10 was originally designed to attack Tanks. That role it can no longer do. If it were to be used in that role not a single one would survive the first attack and most of the tanks would make it. Since it wasn't able to be used in it's originally designed mission, they have used it for other uses. Using it for convoys is just an extension of attacking tanks. This is why it was so successful in Kuwait on the Highway to Iraq. But using it for the OA mission means the down pilot has to be within a 150 mile radius for it to have any decent loiter time. So you have to have more than a couple on station with at least one tanker on call. Not the most efficient replacement for one OV-10D or one A-1E. ACtually, they would use 2 OA-10As or 2 OV-10Ds or 6 A1Es. But in order to use the 2 OA-10s, it would still have to have at least one tanker on station. The O birds might have to be on station and ripping into the bad guys for up to 4 hours. The OA-10 doesn't have the fuel to do it for more than about 15 minutes. The good news is that he is going to have a lot of support from every other type of fighter that's in the air including F-18s, 16s, 15s and other A-10s. But none of them can stay around very long. Hence the need of a dedicated OV type with the range and loiter time. When they finally get around to funding the OX program, that's another mission that the A-10 will lose. At that point, it's mission will drop below 10% and I doubt they will be able to justify keeping it in the inventory.

As much as i like the Bronco (and I really do, one of my best friends owns one and it's a hoot to fly!) it has always been more than a little vulnerable to AAA. Two were lost in Iraq and 47 in Vietnam against VC and NVA Main Force units.

Everything is vulernable to AA when it's present and you are low and slow. This is why the other Aircraft are also there to take out those threats. But sometimes the fast movers just aren't there and the slow movers have to dodge. Let's face it, a Quad 23 can take out anything it can reach including an A-10. The last thing you want to try is to out Brrrrrttttt a Quad 23. He has range and can throw one hell of a wall of fire out very accurately. So you use a higher altitude bird with something like a Hellfire or two or three remembering the Quad 23 can reach out to about 20K in altitude and about 10 miles range. Luckily, there aren't too many of those little nasty things in Afghanistan used by the bad guys like you would find in Iraq or Syria.

When the OV-10s were lost, the bad guys had the nasty stuff. Losing two in Iraq in 91 was due to not having any way to drop flares. Unlike Nam, ground fire wasn't a real problem but heat seekers shot from the ground started to become everyone's problem. That was addressed in the two that the Marines "Borrowed" a couple of years ago for Iraq but it fell on deaf ears on the Air Force. No OV-10X will be seen. Someone should give the AF Planners a good Gibbs Head Slap.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Today's CAS has changed from the CAS of the 90s and earlier. And for the first time, the Army is getting vocal about it.

And yet the guys on the ground swear by the A-10. The Brass is easily distracted by ridiculously expensive, shiny, new objects.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Today's CAS has changed from the CAS of the 90s and earlier. And for the first time, the Army is getting vocal about it.

And yet the guys on the ground swear by the A-10. The Brass is easily distracted by ridiculously expensive, shiny, new objects.

Do they or are they buying into the PR from Arizona where most of the replacement parts are manufactured. Enter the Senator from Arizona.

Ground Troops can care less as long as it gets handled. And it does get handled. Just not by the A-10 most of the time.

 

[DrainBamage]

And yet the guys on the ground swear by the A-10. The Brass is easily distracted by ridiculously expensive, shiny, new objects.

Guys on the ground swear by anything that destroys enemies, and most troops who have witnessed CAS in Afghanistan have seen a precision guided munition hit an area where bad guys are because that is what the overwhelming majority of weapons used in CAS are.

Doesn't matter F-18, F-15, A-10, B-1, F-16, etc.