6
6
0
From "Janes IHS-360"
http://www.janes.com/article/55459/usaf-deploys-a-10s-to-incirlik-for-syria-strikes?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%2023.10.15%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
USAF deploys A-10s to Incirlik for Syria strikes
The United States has deployed 12 Fairchild-Republic A-10C Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey to support its strikes in Syria and Iraq.
The US Air Force (USAF) revealed the deployment on 22 October, although the aircraft arrived at Incirlik on 15 October.
The A-10s, from Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, are reportedly replacing the six Lockheed Martin F-16Cs that the USAF deployed to Incerlik from Italy in August. The A-10s have already flown combat missions over Syria and are supported by 300 ground personnel.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Do you find it as surprising as I do that the USAF has to keep on bringing this beast out of pre-retirement when accurate and timely ground support has to be provided? If the F-35 is REALLY the replacement for the A-10, why isn't the USAF sending F-35s - after all it has more than twelve of them?
http://www.janes.com/article/55459/usaf-deploys-a-10s-to-incirlik-for-syria-strikes?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%2023.10.15%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
USAF deploys A-10s to Incirlik for Syria strikes
The United States has deployed 12 Fairchild-Republic A-10C Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey to support its strikes in Syria and Iraq.
The US Air Force (USAF) revealed the deployment on 22 October, although the aircraft arrived at Incirlik on 15 October.
The A-10s, from Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, are reportedly replacing the six Lockheed Martin F-16Cs that the USAF deployed to Incerlik from Italy in August. The A-10s have already flown combat missions over Syria and are supported by 300 ground personnel.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Do you find it as surprising as I do that the USAF has to keep on bringing this beast out of pre-retirement when accurate and timely ground support has to be provided? If the F-35 is REALLY the replacement for the A-10, why isn't the USAF sending F-35s - after all it has more than twelve of them?
F-35
A-10
Air Force
IHS Jane's
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 11
9
9
0
COL Ted Mc, your title made me imagine the Monty Python "Bring Out Your Dead" episode, with the A-10 protesting from the death cart, "but I'm not dead yet!" It's not dead yet.
(9)
(0)
3
3
0
When the Air Force is "done" with their A-10 fleet, I hope they hand them over the Marine Corps. Shore up the gear struts and put a tailhook on these beasts. This platform continues to prove its worth in the CAS role. Just wished they could be carrier-based.
(3)
(0)
TSgt Dave Beem
Hell, in (I THINK) 1968, they launched and recovered a C130 off the Forrestal quite a few times. I wonder if a C17 could manage a drop in on the new carriers? And honestly, I doubt the A10 would even NEED a cat launch. Might need a tailhook though. If there's any A10 jocks here, sound off. What's the tightest takeoff and landing you've done? (Don't incriminate yourselves...but "I know a guy who...".) Hell, you could probably adapt a landing gear off a mothballed navy fighter without a huge expense.
As far as ability goes, TIME ON TARGET means EVERYTHING. If you're flying 800mph, and you're in visual range of the target, you MIGHT have 2-3 seconds to both identify AND fire on a target. We found out during Desert Shield/Storm that the Go fast drivers would actually fire on the DECOYS more than the REAL targets. You don't have time to notice those funky shadows or the two electric heaters stuck in a plywood frame
As far as ability goes, TIME ON TARGET means EVERYTHING. If you're flying 800mph, and you're in visual range of the target, you MIGHT have 2-3 seconds to both identify AND fire on a target. We found out during Desert Shield/Storm that the Go fast drivers would actually fire on the DECOYS more than the REAL targets. You don't have time to notice those funky shadows or the two electric heaters stuck in a plywood frame
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Martens
Actually, the Marine's were offered the bird and refused them. Course, that was many years ago but they were brought in and offered back when they were still purchasing them. My father was in the ANG back when the bird was still in acquisition and his unit was the first guard unit to receive them. I was in college ROTC at the time and I remember there was talk of the Corps buying them also. Now, after my own years in service as a weapons controller and then later a maintenance officer, it is time for the bird to stand down. There has been a lot of talk about the fighter community leadership wanting to get rid of the A-10, but I just don't see that. The fighter mafia of the time were even then indifferent to the bird but did not think it survivable. They were wrong as long as we maintain air superiority over the battlefield. Now, it's become a numbers game with increasingly smaller budgets. The supply/maintenance chain is very thin for the craft. I remember culling parts from the boneyard many years ago to try and keep the fleet flying and that well is running dry. And truth be told, she's not so survivable in the current operations scenarios. I'm in acquisitions now after and working with the propulsion guys on the F-35 program and getting exposed to the bird I think it's going to be an effective weapon system even if the program is rife with overruns and mismanagement. I see the costs more a result of too many hands in that pie though with every congressman out there trying to garner funds and manufacturing for their districts. It's strange how they love to chat about spreading the benefits of manufacturing around the states but then complain about cost overruns and delays. I do wish they had all gone with the larger wing the Navy is purchasing with the C model with elimination of the wing fold mechanism though. The top end speed isn't sacrificed too much for the increased payload it enables. And operationally I wonder if the validity of the VTOL capability of the B-model will be borne out. It's a balancing act. While the A-10 can loiter longer she takes more time to get on target and is more vulnerable and while that big gun is effective and popular, the F-16 and F-15E have been as effective in real use. JMHO, W
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Walter Martens - Captain; "Maintaining air superiority" over an opposition that doesn't have any aircraft isn't all that difficult.
Admittedly the A-10 isn't an exceptionally good "first strike" aircraft - but that's NOT what it was designed for and the need for a "first strike" aircraft declines as the opposition's air power and anti-air capability declines. (On top of that, a "first strike" aircraft isn't all that useful against a person packing a MPADS.)
The solution to "aging airframes" is NOT patching and splicing, it is build new ones. What the heck ALL of the R&D, engineering, and manufacturing technical work has already been done and I could probably have you a factory to manufacture A-10s on a 24/365 basis up and running within 24 months (at the outside).
Admittedly the A-10 isn't an exceptionally good "first strike" aircraft - but that's NOT what it was designed for and the need for a "first strike" aircraft declines as the opposition's air power and anti-air capability declines. (On top of that, a "first strike" aircraft isn't all that useful against a person packing a MPADS.)
The solution to "aging airframes" is NOT patching and splicing, it is build new ones. What the heck ALL of the R&D, engineering, and manufacturing technical work has already been done and I could probably have you a factory to manufacture A-10s on a 24/365 basis up and running within 24 months (at the outside).
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Martens
Appreciate your enthusiasm for the jet Col Ted, but it'd take a lot more than that. Not just for the physical aspects of reconstructing the tooling/molds etc. to build more craft but the red tape involved. There currently is no quick path through acquisition that could circumvent the bidding process. Not to mention the many improvements that the aircraft would be addled with and congressmen wanting a piece of that acquisition cash-cow in their respective states. That would all take years and funds that don't exist. And, in the end you have an aircraft that still is more vulnerable to the current threat than is acceptable compared to other weapons systems. So, not enough money and a limited capability "niche" aircraft.
Yet, congressmen will continue to step in and rescue the bird, exposing those aircrews to greater risk unnecessarily while at the same time cutting defense budgets which pulls money from current operations and acquisitions to support this bird. Give the military the budgets they really need to effectively take on this mission,(including funding for specialized war machines instead of limited budgets necessitating catch-all weapons systems) supported by directives that truly allow engagement methods and tactics that will produce results, and we could secure the battlefield.
But I don't see that happening. Nobody on capital hill has the backbone nor stomach to truthfully destroy this enemy, IMHO, as evidenced by their unwillingness to even properly identify them.
Yet, congressmen will continue to step in and rescue the bird, exposing those aircrews to greater risk unnecessarily while at the same time cutting defense budgets which pulls money from current operations and acquisitions to support this bird. Give the military the budgets they really need to effectively take on this mission,(including funding for specialized war machines instead of limited budgets necessitating catch-all weapons systems) supported by directives that truly allow engagement methods and tactics that will produce results, and we could secure the battlefield.
But I don't see that happening. Nobody on capital hill has the backbone nor stomach to truthfully destroy this enemy, IMHO, as evidenced by their unwillingness to even properly identify them.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Ted Mc
Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; You see - name changing" DOES "change reality".
You do realize that the US government executed (as war criminals) people who used "waterboarding" as a method of "enhanced interrogation" don't you? (Admittedly the people executed weren't "White" "Christians".)
You do realize that the US government executed (as war criminals) people who used "waterboarding" as a method of "enhanced interrogation" don't you? (Admittedly the people executed weren't "White" "Christians".)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; My apologies, I'm still caffeine deficient.
The US didn't EXECUTE anyone for "waterboarding". However it did sentence a Japanese officer (Yukio Asano) to 15 years imprisonment for it, and on January 21, 1968 a US Soldier was convicted of waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner.
Prior to that (in the Spanish American War) Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended and fined by court-martial for waterboarding a prisoner - the JA comment was that the actions were a “resort to torture with a view to extort a confession.”.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1947waterboardwarcrime
The US didn't EXECUTE anyone for "waterboarding". However it did sentence a Japanese officer (Yukio Asano) to 15 years imprisonment for it, and on January 21, 1968 a US Soldier was convicted of waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner.
Prior to that (in the Spanish American War) Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended and fined by court-martial for waterboarding a prisoner - the JA comment was that the actions were a “resort to torture with a view to extort a confession.”.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1947waterboardwarcrime
Context of '1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime'
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event 1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It will be sad day when she is mothballed...hopefully it will be for an airframe that is "better". And I don't think we are there yet...
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
TSgt (Join to see) - Staff; If you have a MUCH better than "adequate" piece of kit that you are thinking of replacing with a different piece of kit with no track record and specifications which don't match the existing one - simply because they don't make the old one any more - one potential solution is to start making the proven piece of kit again.
There are places in the world where the obsolete SMLE is the personal (long gun) weapon of choice simply because it works reliably while all of the "much better" personal (long gun) weapons don't. Potentially you could spend billions of dollars to develop a version of the "much better" personal (long gun) weapon which would be as rugged and reliable as the SMLE. The question is "Why bother?".
There are places in the world where the obsolete SMLE is the personal (long gun) weapon of choice simply because it works reliably while all of the "much better" personal (long gun) weapons don't. Potentially you could spend billions of dollars to develop a version of the "much better" personal (long gun) weapon which would be as rugged and reliable as the SMLE. The question is "Why bother?".
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I for one prefer the old reliable A-10. It is perfectly suited for its CAS role. As I said, when its replaced I hope its for a weapon that is actually better, not just presumed to be better.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Martens
Well, anything replacing any other article is by necessity unproven. There's flat no way to prove a weapons system until it's actually in use.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
This beautiful girl certainly didn't look dead by any means when I saw her flying over me downrange in 2014. She always made her presence felt.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC (Join to see) - Spec; I have always had a personal preference for weapons that actually look like weapons that mean business.
Adjusting for inflation, the KMS Admiral Graf Spee cost less than the USS Zumwalt by a factor of at least three. They are of roughly comparable size however the Zumwalt is about 2kts faster than the Graf Spee was (of course the Graf Spee was using 1930s technology engines and propellers). The Graf Spee looked like it meant business, the Zumwalt doesn't.
Adjusting for inflation, the KMS Admiral Graf Spee cost less than the USS Zumwalt by a factor of at least three. They are of roughly comparable size however the Zumwalt is about 2kts faster than the Graf Spee was (of course the Graf Spee was using 1930s technology engines and propellers). The Graf Spee looked like it meant business, the Zumwalt doesn't.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Absolutely correct sir. Many times simply the imposing presence of the A10 was enough of a deterrence to never have to fire off a round.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SPC (Join to see) When we were out not a soul would fire on us while an A-10 was loitering overhead. They didn't have a death wish.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
From "War is Boring"
The U.S. Air Force Knows the A-10 Will Beat the F-35
http://warisboring.com/articles/in-a-contest-the-u-s-air-force-knows-the-f-35-will-lose-to-the-a-10/
Several weeks ago, the Project on Government Oversight announced its cautious optimism upon learning the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation planned to conduct a close air support fly-off between the proven A-10 and the yet-to-be proved F-35.
The cautious aspect of that optimism has been proven to be warranted. Under questioning by Rep. Martha McSally, an Arizona Republican and former A-10 pilot, F-35 program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan dismissed the idea of a comparative test as irrelevant. The exchange occurred during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing on updates to the Joint Strike Fighter program.
Bogdan’s remarks echo earlier comments by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, who described the proposed test as a “silly exercise.”
Michael Gilmore, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, said in late August, “The comparison tests on the close-air support mission will reveal how well the F-35 performs and whether there are gaps, or improvements in capability, compared to the A-10.”
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It seems that the tactical decisions on how war is to be fought are now going to be made by the Air Force AND those decisions are going to be the ones which involve the lowest level of risk to AIR FORCE personnel - regardless of what those decisions do to the casualty rate for any other service. The simple solution would be to give CAS to the Army and Marines and let the Air Force retrench around the espresso machines in the break rooms of their air conditioned combat zones between shifts of flying drones.
The U.S. Air Force Knows the A-10 Will Beat the F-35
http://warisboring.com/articles/in-a-contest-the-u-s-air-force-knows-the-f-35-will-lose-to-the-a-10/
Several weeks ago, the Project on Government Oversight announced its cautious optimism upon learning the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation planned to conduct a close air support fly-off between the proven A-10 and the yet-to-be proved F-35.
The cautious aspect of that optimism has been proven to be warranted. Under questioning by Rep. Martha McSally, an Arizona Republican and former A-10 pilot, F-35 program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan dismissed the idea of a comparative test as irrelevant. The exchange occurred during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing on updates to the Joint Strike Fighter program.
Bogdan’s remarks echo earlier comments by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, who described the proposed test as a “silly exercise.”
Michael Gilmore, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, said in late August, “The comparison tests on the close-air support mission will reveal how well the F-35 performs and whether there are gaps, or improvements in capability, compared to the A-10.”
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It seems that the tactical decisions on how war is to be fought are now going to be made by the Air Force AND those decisions are going to be the ones which involve the lowest level of risk to AIR FORCE personnel - regardless of what those decisions do to the casualty rate for any other service. The simple solution would be to give CAS to the Army and Marines and let the Air Force retrench around the espresso machines in the break rooms of their air conditioned combat zones between shifts of flying drones.
The U.S. Air Force Knows the A-10 Will Beat the F-35
Several weeks ago, the Project on Government Oversight announced its cautious optimism upon learning the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation planned to conduct a close air support fly-off between the proven A-10 and the yet-to-be proved F-35. The cautious aspect of that optimism has been proven to be warranted....
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Great question. For an aircraft 'no longer of use in the inventory' they sure keep letting loose those freedom farts on the enemy. When does the F-35 come riding in out from the sun in the last minutes to save the day?
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Mark Merino - Sergeant; I understand that there is a slight glitch in the development of the pontoon landing gear so that the F-35 can get into the backwoods fishing lodges that the Air Force favors.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well ... they just want something ... newer ... not about how good they will do the job. But when job needed to be done ... they still use the one that finish the job.
plus if F-35 get into even an accident at this point... do you think it will be good for the argument to replace A-10 at all?
plus if F-35 get into even an accident at this point... do you think it will be good for the argument to replace A-10 at all?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The A-10 wont die anytime soon, it is starting to get old and the structure is starting to show that. The frame of the jet is starting to crack and stretch but with this the repairs are starting to get more extensive and adding a lot of weight. So this is starting to become and issue for flight speed, flight surfaces, and engines to name a few. When you add to much to the jet things start to break this jet is fly by wire and wasn't designed to run with the extra weight. plus when the gun fires the frame take all of the pressures and causes major fatigue issues after so long. The F-35 cant do any of the things the A-10 can I am talking about lofting time in area and ground support. Probably going to make a few people mad with this but a drone with a big gun and has lofting time would probably take the place for ease of maintenance and range. Its also possible for remote control for ground forces to accurately use it to direct it exactly where they need it. I would like to see a new A-10 same design with updates but that's a tall hope.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
TSgt (Join to see) - Sergeant; Probably the most "cost-efficient" and "rapidly deployable" method of dealing with the fact that the existing A-10s are getting old and will need to be replaced would be to BUILD NEW A-10s.
This, however, involves an absolute minimal amount of staff time and doesn't actually involve spending money that can be scattered around to enhance people's chances for re-election (or cushy "consulting" jobs after retirement).
This, however, involves an absolute minimal amount of staff time and doesn't actually involve spending money that can be scattered around to enhance people's chances for re-election (or cushy "consulting" jobs after retirement).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Air Force(populace) loves the A-10. The officers and civilians who are getting kick backs for promoting the F-35 are the ones trying to kill it.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSgt (Join to see) - Master Sergeant; Face it, the A-10 isn't sexy enough. It just looks like something that does a difficult job effectively and economically.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google