Remembering the father of the A-10 Warthog

MSgt VanDerwilt: "The proper application of air power destroys enemy assets before they have a chance to engage our forces on the ground." Your kidding me right? You gave a text book theoretical reply to the very real need that ground troops have for immediate Close Air Support when they come into contact with a decentralized guerilla enemy that melts and hides into the local population in Afghanistan and that employs unconventional war fighting that does not lend itself to "The application of Air Power that destroys enemy assets" before they come into contact with our forces on the ground." If anything, the Iraq and Afghanistan Counter Insurgency's Wars that we have been fighting for the better part of fifteen years have shown us that traditional concepts of the type of air power that you are quoting me, just like in Vietnam, have little effect upon a Motivated Guerrilla Type Enemy that hides and moves among the local civilian population, and then you add our very Restrictive Rules of Engagement (ROEs) that our ground combatants operate under, and you end up with the perfect environment for the Application of Close Air Support Air Frames that fly slow and low to the ground, with a long linger time. That means Attack helicopters, Drones, and single role CAS fighter/bombers like the A-10 or something like the Douglas Air Craft Sky Raider that it replaced with its massive and powerful air cooled engine and armor in vulnerable locations and pilots that sat in protective armored tubs (like the A-10s titanium protective tub).
LTC Yinon Weiss Capt Jeff S.

Capt Lance Gallardo - At no time have I advocated against the CAS mission or the aircraft that excels at it. I've repeatedly expressed the opinion that the A-10 should, not just kept in service, but new airframes built using modern techniques, materials, and components to make it even more lethal. To my point. CAS is not the only mission the Air Force carries out. Nor should it be. While the foreseeable future has us engaged in counter insurgency, asymmetric warfare, where A-10's and AC-130''s are the preferred platforms, there's the rest of the globe that requires force projection and reconnaissance. Missions where other platforms excel.

"Today, virtually every combat aircraft brings some degree of precision intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to the fight, allowing airmen the ability to find, fix, and finish a target without ground assistance."

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/its-not-airpower-vs-boots-on-ground-any-more/

But the problem, MSgt VanDerwilt is that the US Air Force does not prioritize CAS as you do, if they did their would have been a successor air frame to the A-10 Warthog that is in development process right now, where we could have a planned phase out of the A-10 as the new CAS fighter/Bomber came on line. Follow the money in any organization and you will quickly uncover what the organization values. To some extent you will uncover the organizations guiding philosophy and core beliefs. Money never lies, people lie and say they support the CAS mission, when their money says otherwise. CAS is not sexy to the Air Force Brass, which thinks in terms of the next Gen Air Superiority 6th or 7th Gen fighter. If the AF had a few John Boyd's left, they would be developing a plane (like the f-16) that cost half of what the F-35 or F-22 costs, was manufactured and designed around a few simple and proven Fighter Combat principals (like Dicta Boelcke and John Boyd's theories on Energy and Maneuverability), and was not trying to be all things to everyone (and master of none).

Capt Lance Gallardo - Agreed. Now explain that to Congress, who thinks in terms of multi-role equals cost savings. When the high cost of the F-22 was brought up, the first thing out Congresses mouth; "Can it do multi-role, can it be made to drop bombs?" Air Force "leadership," desperate to save their golden fighter at any cost, give the answer they think will receive approval versus making them understand, in the words of Pierre Sprey, a race car designed to haul rocks will not win races. Priority one for the Air Force is air dominance. Without it, all other air and ground operations is wishful thinking. The sleek and sexy fighter thing is just human nature. Would you rather have the Camaro or the Prius?

Sgt Mike Sarris - The USAF is REQUIRED by the NCA the fight and win a major world war. Air supremacy was established during DESERT STORM by air superiority fighters. It doesn't matter how long or how easy it was to get there, it's the fact that we had to get there in the first place.

Without air supremacy, the battlefield will be littered with A-10 parts as well as the bodies of our ground forces. Your absolutely correct that the conflict in Afghanistan is a CAS war, but did you ever stop to wonder why USAF fighters in the theater carry air -to-air missiles? This includes the A-10, whose AIM-9's are more ballast than weapon. The reason is because we're fighting a ground force in close proximity to Iran. Yeah, they have an air force too!

The A-10 cannot help as much as a multi role fighter in the future conflict that we're required to win. If you want the A-10 so badly, then tell your congressman to fund it along with the F-35 development. Or ask him to relieve the USAF from having to win an air war against any future enemies, because keeping the A-10 just might prevent us from doing it.

MSgt John Taylor - The "We can't win an Air War with the A-10 around" is a straw dog Sarge, and you know it. It's the lowest cost per flight hour of any airframe in a combat role. You need the Fighters for Air Superiority, but they can't help when it comes time to take out a column of Tanks, or hitting mobile missile launchers like the SCUDs Saddam loved so much.

And despite the arguments, A-10's are not a single role aircraft, they perform many roles, just not the "Hair on fire" stuff that the Fighters are designed for. The only Fighter that is remotely successful in the CAS role is the F-15E, and it can't get as close, nor hang around the battlefield as long as an A-10 can.

We will always need to control the skies, but no war has ever been won from 35,000 feet, so like I said before, as long as we have our brothers on the ground, we need to be there to get them home safely. the F-35 will never be used close enough to the ground for the proverbial "Golden BB" to take it out, it simply costs too much to risk it, same with the F-22.

We have the tool in our box, we need to keep it there, because there will always be a need to protect the troops on the ground, no matter what you want to believe about future conflicts being won solely from the sky.

Sgt Mike Sarris - The A-10 is a single role aircraft (Air to ground), within that role it can perform several missions (CAS, SAR) but it's not the only thing that can destroy a tank column. Any acft that can carry external stores can do it. Any hellfire armed helicopter can do it. The A-10 is one of two acft that can do it with a gun (AC-130), big deal.

The F-15E is the baddest and most versatile air to ground aircraft in the inventory, not the A-10. The F-15E can do what the A-10 can do except shoot 30 mm rounds (The F-35 has a 25 mm gun) The A-10 will have to be heavily modified to continue its service (The price isn't included in its cheap operating cost)
The A-10, with the radar cross section of a small office building, cannot shoot down Russian, Chinese, Syrian, N Korean or Iranian fighters. These are real threats to our brothers on the ground, not made up ones so that we can buy fast aircraft.

I love the A-10 and I stood by it when in the past the USAF tried to get rid of it. And I believe that is't the USAF's past mistakes that's preventing them from getting rid of it today when it's actually justified. There just isn't enough money to go around. The USAF has to prepare today to fight tomorrows war, with a limited capability. The A-10 doesn't have to go, but it's money does need to go to the F-35 (Which is actually coming along)

MSgt John Taylor - Maybe, just maybe the USAF Brass should reconsider their all-consuming need for Stealth then, or come up with something that can't be spotted miles away using Over-The-Horizon radar. Stealth was a really great technology, until people figured out that standard radar may not see it, but OTH spots is immediately, a missing signal on the receiving end shows just what is out there, no matter how stealthy using current technology. Stealth aircraft cost ten times what an F-15, F-16, or A-10 cost to build, carry much less payload as a trade-off, and cost a ton to maintain. Why not stop the insanity with the current Trillion-dollar cluster that is the F-35, and build a real, honest to God Air-Superiority fighter, without all the expensive Stealth included. Faster, better turning radius, superior radar, and a ton of weapons that don't need to be hidden. That's a smart way to increase our abilities, and still not spend our Great Grandchildren into poverty for the latest, greatest, can't beat an F-16 with drop-tanks on POS...and don't even give me any of the BS about the software not being right. If a plane needs that much software to fly, it shouldn't be in the air. You know as well as I do, the more moving parts, the higher rate of failure in one of those parts. Let's make the next F-15 instead of the next F-35. Technology is nice, but reliability is better, because War will show just how reliable a system is, and God help the guys who have to keep the F-35 flying, they're gonna need all the help they can get.