Obama Activates 50 year old Aircraft to Fight ISIL

[longknife]

We flew them in 'Nam for God's sake! And, is anyone amazed that sometimes the old Tried and True can get done what the New Kids can't? Read the story @ Antiquated aircraft resurrected by Obama administration to fight ISIS

 

[Bleipriester]

This will scare the shit out of Baghdadi...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We flew them in 'Nam for God's sake! And, is anyone amazed that sometimes the old Tried and True can get done what the New Kids can't? Read the story @ Antiquated aircraft resurrected by Obama administration to fight ISIS

Let's not us the "I Hate Obama, spit on floor" It wasn't Obama that pressed the OV-10 back on the line. It was the Marines.

There is a problem right now using the A-10. It has really, really short legs and has problems operating if it takes off a a high altitude. It's also like swatting flies with a 9lb sledge and then complaining about the big holes in the walls and ceiling.

The OV-10 is in the Marines inventory. Unlike the AF, they never got rid of all of them. The Marines don't have any A10s so they use what they have. It doesn't matter that the OV-10 is far superior to the A-10 in CAS, Recon, Sandy operations and has twice the range or more. It does matter that it's what the Marines have. Can you imagine if the OV-10 was done like the Marines have done with the AH-1? The AH-1 started out with a single engine and grew into the twin engine after Vietnam. And for CAS there is absolutely nothing better except for the AH-64 which the Army seems to forget to use it for that. You can have a chopper support much closer to the action than a Fixed Wing.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The US has been using B-52's for over 60 years and I read some were that the military doesn't plan on retiring them until 2050. The M2 .50 cal machine gun has been around for 80 years. If it gets the job done use it.

The Military has a big problem with shiny new things spending trillions on unproven platforms and ignoring the reliable hardware.

 

[Bleipriester]

The US has been using B-52's for over 60 years and I read some were that the military doesn't plan on retiring them until 2050. The M2 .50 cal machine gun has been around for 80 years. If it gets the job done use it.

The Military has a big problem with shiny new things spending trillions on unproven platforms and ignoring the reliable hardware.

Obama´s war on ISIS has been a joke until now with 75 % of US sorties didn´t result in an use of weapons and various accusations of supply drops instead of bombs reaching ISIS. Now, replacing the current jets with two - yes, two - ancient aircraft will not make the joke more serious.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The US has been using B-52's for over 60 years and I read some were that the military doesn't plan on retiring them until 2050. The M2 .50 cal machine gun has been around for 80 years. If it gets the job done use it.

The Military has a big problem with shiny new things spending trillions on unproven platforms and ignoring the reliable hardware.

The M-2 isn't what it was in your Daddy's time. It can now do a barrel change in a couple of minutes. It's been modified over and over to keep it up to date.

The Buff flies in straight lines with gentle turns. A heavy Bomber will always outlive all the others. But, even so, it has been in service since about 1964. All the older buffs have either gone to static, scrap or sit so the Russians can count them being scrapped from orbit. Actually, the date for replacement is 2040 but it won't be completed until about 2050. While the B-21 should be cheaper than the B-1 to manufacture and there is nothing short of a carrier more expensive than a B-2, it will still take time.

When Vietnam wound down, so did the funding. It takes big bucks to keep a fleet in operation. The estimated mission requirements meant the brand new A-10 was needed. But war never happened with the wall coming down. The AF wanted to start replacing it starting 1998 but the Congress would have nothing to do with that happening. They have been trying to fund a cheaper, longer ranged bird for CAS/Sandy/low recon since they noticed that they didn't really have anything to do the job anymore. The A-10 has been just a stopgap all this time.

I suggest that they look at the T-6II that is currently being used for AF Pilot training. It won't take much to make it into an AT-6II since all the parts are available. It has the range, power and loadout to do the job.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The US has been using B-52's for over 60 years and I read some were that the military doesn't plan on retiring them until 2050. The M2 .50 cal machine gun has been around for 80 years. If it gets the job done use it.

The Military has a big problem with shiny new things spending trillions on unproven platforms and ignoring the reliable hardware.

The M-2 isn't what it was in your Daddy's time. It can now do a barrel change in a couple of minutes. It's been modified over and over to keep it up to date.

The Buff flies in straight lines with gentle turns. A heavy Bomber will always outlive all the others. But, even so, it has been in service since about 1964. All the older buffs have either gone to static, scrap or sit so the Russians can count them being scrapped from orbit. Actually, the date for replacement is 2040 but it won't be completed until about 2050. While the B-21 should be cheaper than the B-1 to manufacture and there is nothing short of a carrier more expensive than a B-2, it will still take time.

When Vietnam wound down, so did the funding. It takes big bucks to keep a fleet in operation. The estimated mission requirements meant the brand new A-10 was needed. But war never happened with the wall coming down. The AF wanted to start replacing it starting 1998 but the Congress would have nothing to do with that happening. They have been trying to fund a cheaper, longer ranged bird for CAS/Sandy/low recon since they noticed that they didn't really have anything to do the job anymore. The A-10 has been just a stopgap all this time.

I suggest that they look at the T-6II that is currently being used for AF Pilot training. It won't take much to make it into an AT-6II since all the parts are available. It has the range, power and loadout to do the job.

I was the .50 cal gunner for my unit while stationed at Ft Drum and it hasn't changed that much in decades other than the barrel, an improved head space, removable carrying handle, and a few other minor improvements.
As far as the A-10 goes its a flying tank wrapped around a 30mm cannon that can still fly with parts of its air frame destroyed and every grunt I know swears by its close ground support capabilities.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The US has been using B-52's for over 60 years and I read some were that the military doesn't plan on retiring them until 2050. The M2 .50 cal machine gun has been around for 80 years. If it gets the job done use it.

The Military has a big problem with shiny new things spending trillions on unproven platforms and ignoring the reliable hardware.

The M-2 isn't what it was in your Daddy's time. It can now do a barrel change in a couple of minutes. It's been modified over and over to keep it up to date.

The Buff flies in straight lines with gentle turns. A heavy Bomber will always outlive all the others. But, even so, it has been in service since about 1964. All the older buffs have either gone to static, scrap or sit so the Russians can count them being scrapped from orbit. Actually, the date for replacement is 2040 but it won't be completed until about 2050. While the B-21 should be cheaper than the B-1 to manufacture and there is nothing short of a carrier more expensive than a B-2, it will still take time.

When Vietnam wound down, so did the funding. It takes big bucks to keep a fleet in operation. The estimated mission requirements meant the brand new A-10 was needed. But war never happened with the wall coming down. The AF wanted to start replacing it starting 1998 but the Congress would have nothing to do with that happening. They have been trying to fund a cheaper, longer ranged bird for CAS/Sandy/low recon since they noticed that they didn't really have anything to do the job anymore. The A-10 has been just a stopgap all this time.

I suggest that they look at the T-6II that is currently being used for AF Pilot training. It won't take much to make it into an AT-6II since all the parts are available. It has the range, power and loadout to do the job.

I was the .50 cal gunner for my unit while stationed at Ft Drum and it hasn't changed that much in decades other than the barrel, an improved head space, removable carrying handle, and a few other minor improvements.
As far as the A-10 goes its a flying tank wrapped around a 30mm cannon that can still fly with parts of its air frame destroyed and every grunt I know swears by its close ground support capabilities.

Unless you are british or any number of blue on green deaths as well as any civilian .......etc.... For the mission that is let for the A-10, it's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer.

 

[Weatherman2020]

We flew them in 'Nam for God's sake! And, is anyone amazed that sometimes the old Tried and True can get done what the New Kids can't? Read the story @ Antiquated aircraft resurrected by Obama administration to fight ISIS

Not even an offensive aircraft, it's recon.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We flew them in 'Nam for God's sake! And, is anyone amazed that sometimes the old Tried and True can get done what the New Kids can't? Read the story @ Antiquated aircraft resurrected by Obama administration to fight ISIS

Not even an offensive aircraft, it's recon.

It was used for Recon, yes. But it is also damned good at CAS when you load out the 4 Minis (sometimes only two minis) and the bomb/rocket loads. And it was used to escort in CH-1s into battle areas. When the CH-47/53 USAF birds were headed up north to save a downed pilot, it was escorted by the AH-1s. And what was escorting the AH-1? The OV-10. The OV-10 was the top of the AV series

When loaded out with the Mk 4 Mod 0 the Navy used it for CAS and Ground attack. Carrying that 4 barrel Gatling 20mm on a swivel mounted gun pod makes it just as deadly as an AH-1. Think of this, the difference between an OV-10 and the AH-1Z is the OV-10 is faster, longer ranged, longer loiter time and more adaptable to a given mission.

The OV-10 is "Enough". You can use the A-10 but it's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer and then complaining about the big holes in the walls, floor and ceiling. You haven't lived until you saw an OV-10 hit a ground target with all of the Miniguns firing and the rockets going off. Then the bombs start going off.

Another feature is that the combat range (including a 4 hour loiter time) of the OV-10 is more than twice what the A-10 is. A loaded out A-10 has only a 150 mile combat range while the OV-10 has over a 600 mile combat range

There are still a huge amount of them owned by the US Government. Almost every branch is using them like DOD (Marines), DOJ, DOE, BLM, Forest Service, Coast Guard, and many other Federal Offices. If the Military (USAF) could just recall them.

The Phillipens has a bunch of them they would like to use to upgrade. Can you imagine if the US were to make a deal for the F-16 where those OV-10Ds were part of the deal. Same goes for Thailand.

The PI and Thailand uses them as fighters. The only time it's not an offensive Aircraft is when it's not attacking you.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The US has been using B-52's for over 60 years and I read some were that the military doesn't plan on retiring them until 2050. The M2 .50 cal machine gun has been around for 80 years. If it gets the job done use it.

The Military has a big problem with shiny new things spending trillions on unproven platforms and ignoring the reliable hardware.

Yeah can you imagine that, an aircraft that will be in active service for 100 years.

 

[HenryBHough]

Just because you got a drawer full of framing hammers there's no reason to abandon the tack hammer you also have when you want to drive a brad.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Just because you got a drawer full of framing hammers there's no reason to abandon the tack hammer you also have when you want to drive a brad.

Absolutely, the best tools last many lifetimes.

 

[williepete]

Another feature is that the combat range (including a 4 hour loiter time) of the OV-10 is more than twice what the A-10 is. A loaded out A-10 has only a 150 mile combat range while the OV-10 has over a 600 mile combat range.

BULLSHIT.

The Hogg's range is limited only by the endurance of the pilot.

How much air-to-air refueling time did you say you've logged?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At the end of Vietnam, there really wasn't a mission foreseen for the OV-10 for the US. The Foreseen battle was in a rolling forest European going against heavy armor. In 1990 that mission was no longer needed. But the old style mission of owning the Air with an enemy that is well equipped did come to bite us in the ass.

The OV-10 was only left in the Marines, the AF sold off thiers or handed them over to other Federal Agencies which still use them today.

Today, they need the equivelent of the AV10D+. The combat range and loiter time is quite impressive and it has ENOUGH firepower to get the job done. The good news is, there are hundreds of OV-10s around the world that can be had for a song that have low airframe time and could last for many years and they would be ENOUGH for CAS, Sandy, ground attack, Recon and FAC.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Another feature is that the combat range (including a 4 hour loiter time) of the OV-10 is more than twice what the A-10 is. A loaded out A-10 has only a 150 mile combat range while the OV-10 has over a 600 mile combat range.

BULLSHIT.

The Hogg's range is limited only by the endurance of the pilot.

How much air-to-air refueling time did you say you've logged?

Wow, you are wanting to keep the A-10 out longer than it should and fly a Tanker into the combat area of 150 miles or less from some pretty nasty Surface to Air weapons? How much time do I have in a refueling outfit? 8 years. Before that I was in a mixed unit of Tankers and Buffs. Before that , TFW. Know what that means? I also spent time in a TAW.

Now, list your qualifications. Mine aren't particularly that impressive so you should have to problem besting them. But since you asked about mine, let's here yours.

 

[williepete]

Now, list your qualifications. Mine aren't particularly that impressive so you should have to problem besting them. But since you asked about mine, let's here yours.

You flew tankers as a pilot? If so, how much tactical flight planning and weapons planning did you do? I know the answer: Zero.

You want to "here" mine. Not that it matters to the subject but:

RF-4C pilot and instructor pilot 1985-1989.
OA-37B pilot and FAC 1989-1991.
T-38 Instructor Pilot 1991-1994.
A-10 pilot and FAC 1994-1996.

I also spent plenty of time as a ground FAC. I also served a half tour on the battle planning staff as chief of close air support. So I'll keep my own counsel when it comes to CAS.

With air refueling, you don't have to go all the way back to your base and eat up valuable range time. You can hang out in the tanker orbit until you have a target, go service the target and return to the tanker track if you have weapons left over. Rarely does a four-ship of A-10s come off their first target empty.

 

[williepete]

Anymore, it really doesn't matter what the CAS aircraft is. With JDAMs, all you need is a bomb truck. With the degree of sophistication the young guys have now on fixing a target and de-conflicting the attack with friendly positions, they are able to send up accurate coordinates, the bomb truck loads the coordinates and sends one JDAM on its way. They don't miss.

The FAC aircraft is not as important as it was in my day. The guys on the ground are doing a fantastic job. Given a choice, I'm sure an air FAC would prefer a slower aircraft over a fast one.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The US has been using B-52's for over 60 years and I read some were that the military doesn't plan on retiring them until 2050. The M2 .50 cal machine gun has been around for 80 years. If it gets the job done use it.

The Military has a big problem with shiny new things spending trillions on unproven platforms and ignoring the reliable hardware.

The M-2 isn't what it was in your Daddy's time. It can now do a barrel change in a couple of minutes. It's been modified over and over to keep it up to date.

The Buff flies in straight lines with gentle turns. A heavy Bomber will always outlive all the others. But, even so, it has been in service since about 1964. All the older buffs have either gone to static, scrap or sit so the Russians can count them being scrapped from orbit. Actually, the date for replacement is 2040 but it won't be completed until about 2050. While the B-21 should be cheaper than the B-1 to manufacture and there is nothing short of a carrier more expensive than a B-2, it will still take time.

When Vietnam wound down, so did the funding. It takes big bucks to keep a fleet in operation. The estimated mission requirements meant the brand new A-10 was needed. But war never happened with the wall coming down. The AF wanted to start replacing it starting 1998 but the Congress would have nothing to do with that happening. They have been trying to fund a cheaper, longer ranged bird for CAS/Sandy/low recon since they noticed that they didn't really have anything to do the job anymore. The A-10 has been just a stopgap all this time.

I suggest that they look at the T-6II that is currently being used for AF Pilot training. It won't take much to make it into an AT-6II since all the parts are available. It has the range, power and loadout to do the job.

I was the .50 cal gunner for my unit while stationed at Ft Drum and it hasn't changed that much in decades other than the barrel, an improved head space, removable carrying handle, and a few other minor improvements.
As far as the A-10 goes its a flying tank wrapped around a 30mm cannon that can still fly with parts of its air frame destroyed and every grunt I know swears by its close ground support capabilities.

Unless you are british or any number of blue on green deaths as well as any civilian .......etc.... For the mission that is let for the A-10, it's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer.

If it does the job and protects the guys on the ground I don't care if its swatting flies with a nuclear bomb.

 

[williepete]

If it does the job and protects the guys on the ground I don't care if its swatting flies with a nuclear bomb.

Armchair quarterbacks who try to mix economy and war just don't get it. The bottom line is you show up with what you've got. And what you've got was purchased 10-15 years earlier. Decided by a previous administration who's priorities at the time are now long obsolete. If we could see into the future, our defense budget could be slashed 63.7%.