Posted on Feb 24, 2015
What do you think about the article, "US Air Force Manipulated A-10 Casualty Data?"
11.6K
10
9
3
3
0
This would be not be a surprise to me, the Air Force is obsessed with fighters designed to fight an enemy that collapsed in 1991.
http://defensetech.org/2015/02/10/group-af-skewed-data-in-a-10-smear-campaign/#more-24522
http://defensetech.org/2015/02/10/group-af-skewed-data-in-a-10-smear-campaign/#more-24522
Air National Guard
Air Force
Army
A-10
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
The very nature of CAS is that sometimes friendlies get hit. They don't call it "close" for nothing....particularly when it's "danger close." IMHO this is essentially them trying to justify the hi-tech hoohahs on the F-35. Yup, buy the F-35 and you'll never have Blue on Blue again......
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The USSR collapsed. Not Russia. Russia is still an adversary that is one of two serious challenges to our National Security. What is fact is that Russia still has a formidable Air Force, Navy and Army that needs to be countered.
But, even then, Russia is not the only reason to maintain an up to date air force, the PRC is also an active threat. The PRC is actively seeking to counter US Naval, Space and Aerospace systems in order to get a leg up on a potential fight with the United States. This is not speculation, this is fact.
While I agree that the A-10 is an effective CAS platform, I strongly disagree with your national security threat assessment.
But, even then, Russia is not the only reason to maintain an up to date air force, the PRC is also an active threat. The PRC is actively seeking to counter US Naval, Space and Aerospace systems in order to get a leg up on a potential fight with the United States. This is not speculation, this is fact.
While I agree that the A-10 is an effective CAS platform, I strongly disagree with your national security threat assessment.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Russia & China are 2 BIG reasons to keep the Hawg. Those two countries rely on tanks & movement of ground troops that would be ideal targets for a GAU strike.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
That was my point. The US is still set up for mass-attrition warfare, Russia has moved on from its Soviet past to develop a doctrine more similar to China's unrestricted warfare that uses social media, economics, cyber attacks, deception and proxies.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree completely that the US needs to be ready for varying threats, however I find it unlikely that any adversary the US is likely to face would be foolish enough to throw its armored units out against us. They already know what the results would be. In my opinion that would most likely deploy dispersed infantry armed with advanced man portable anti-air and armor weaponry.
Egypt did this to absolutely devastating effect against the Israelis in 1973. This however, does not lessen the importance of the A10 which is what this is all about. On the contrary this will mean that American forces will be further outnumbered and engaged at closer ranges than before where the close in (within visual eyesight), low altitude abilities of the A10 will be absolutely indispensable.
On your other point, PRC is indeed a threat but less than many would believe. Their primary concern at this time has been to create denial of access capabilities to prevent free exercise of our Naval superiority in the South China Sea. This has taken the form mostly of naval aircraft and missile developments. While they may move into long-range power projection, they are yet to cross that bridge. The same is true of Russia, they are more concerned with their "near-abroad" than directly challenging the US globally. Where we come into conflict here is that the US cannot allow any single nation or group of nations in a single region to gain enough power to challenge our hegemony there. Russia and China both have designs tonact as regional hegemons, a concept that is directly counter to our national security strategy.
This does not mean however we will engage them directly. This is extremely unlikely, even taking into account the hypothetical I posed above. All three powers. The US, the PRV and Russia are all nuclear powers and no nuclear power has yet fought another nuclear power in open warfare; the risks are simply to high. Far more likely is containment, such as our recent increase in relations with India to subvert Chinese influence and proxy conflcit such as Russia has employed in Ukraine to excellent effect.
Egypt did this to absolutely devastating effect against the Israelis in 1973. This however, does not lessen the importance of the A10 which is what this is all about. On the contrary this will mean that American forces will be further outnumbered and engaged at closer ranges than before where the close in (within visual eyesight), low altitude abilities of the A10 will be absolutely indispensable.
On your other point, PRC is indeed a threat but less than many would believe. Their primary concern at this time has been to create denial of access capabilities to prevent free exercise of our Naval superiority in the South China Sea. This has taken the form mostly of naval aircraft and missile developments. While they may move into long-range power projection, they are yet to cross that bridge. The same is true of Russia, they are more concerned with their "near-abroad" than directly challenging the US globally. Where we come into conflict here is that the US cannot allow any single nation or group of nations in a single region to gain enough power to challenge our hegemony there. Russia and China both have designs tonact as regional hegemons, a concept that is directly counter to our national security strategy.
This does not mean however we will engage them directly. This is extremely unlikely, even taking into account the hypothetical I posed above. All three powers. The US, the PRV and Russia are all nuclear powers and no nuclear power has yet fought another nuclear power in open warfare; the risks are simply to high. Far more likely is containment, such as our recent increase in relations with India to subvert Chinese influence and proxy conflcit such as Russia has employed in Ukraine to excellent effect.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't want to believe that leadership would do something like this, however, I am also a realist. The bottom line question of getting rid of the A-10 is the dumbest idea ever. Fortunately, I do not see them getting much traction on it. Look at the other "old airframes currently in the inventory". There are still F-15s (supposed to have been replaced with the F-22) and the B-52 (supposed to have been retired with the B-1 and B-2). There does reach a point where a design is simply the best in the business. In CAS that is the A-10. It is tough, and deadly and not much else can fly low or slow enough to do what it does. As a member of a deployed A-10 unit, I have great pride in our unit and this aircraft. We are breaking unit records so to say that this aircraft can be replaced is laughable. Our unit has dropped close to twice what the previous unit of fast flyers did and that is not counting the 30mm usage.
Here is an idea for the leadership to think about. If they are worried about the age of the current fleet of A-10s, build new ones. Then one could upgrade the flight components and targeting systems all for way cheaper than the cost of the F-35. Worked for the C-130. How to pay for it? Easy, don't buy as many 35s which is still having issues getting combat ready and wont be able to do the job as well when it finally does.
Here is an idea for the leadership to think about. If they are worried about the age of the current fleet of A-10s, build new ones. Then one could upgrade the flight components and targeting systems all for way cheaper than the cost of the F-35. Worked for the C-130. How to pay for it? Easy, don't buy as many 35s which is still having issues getting combat ready and wont be able to do the job as well when it finally does.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google