The new A-10 Ground Crew reports for duty.
Posted on 09/10/2014 8:36:34 AM PDT by GonzoII
With top officers still calling for the aircraft’s retirement as a cost-saving measure, the US Air Force has announced a major potential investment in depot maintenance for the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt.
The air force on 9 September announced a $46 million contract award to Korean Air Lines Co. (KAL) for depot-level maintenance and repair of A-10s, commonly called Warthogs, stationed Osan Air Base, South Korea. The work will be performed at KAL’s facility in Seoul with an expected completion date of 30 September, 2020. No funds were obligated at the time of award, which is standard for maintenance contracts.
The award comes as the US is set to bolster its offensive against Islamic militants in the Middle East and with air force brass only weeks ago continuing their call for retiring the Cold War-era aircraft.
The A-10 was designed to fight tanks on the European plains in case the Cold War with the Soviet Union ever boiled over into open combat. Its role then evolved into close air support, flying low and slow to cover ground troops from the uncontested skies of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Air Force Gen Mike Hostage, chief of US Air Combat Command, in July told reporters the aircraft would not survive sorties over countries like Syria that have integrated air defence systems. That assertion has been widely debated, but the US is considering air strikes in that country in its ongoing fight against the Islamic State. Airstrikes so far have been carried out by carrier-based aircraft like the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Air Force officials maintain that the A-10’s sole close air support (CAS) role can be taken on by other aircraft, including the Lockheed Martin F-16, the Boeing F-15E and the Rockwell/North American B-1 bomber. Unmanned air vehicles like the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper also have been floated as CAS aircraft.
The Air Force stands to save $4.2 billion by retiring the A-10, a move that in the current fiscal environment “makes eminent sense” in the words of chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. Welsh was quoted by the Wall Street Journal in August as remaining steadfast that it was the correct course and would protect funding for the service’s three main modernisation priorities: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the Boeing KC-46 aerial refuelling tanker and a next-generation bomber to replace the Northrop Grumman B-2.
But retiring the A-10 is unpopular in Congress, where the argument has taken on an emotional tone. The US House of Representatives has voted to block the retirement plan in its version of the federal defence spending bill but did not allocate funding to keep the aircraft flying.
As a former A-10 fighter pilot, not true.
Enemy troops are a legitimate tgt.
Called in A-10 strafe runs against Iraqi troops. A couple of passes and they surrendered.
See my Post 37.
They must have changed the rules.
Before I got my A-10 assignment (I was a FAIP), I was under that same impression. However, went to RTU and received LOAC training and found out it was not a violation of LOAC to use the gun on troops. Thing is, if you think about it, a tank, truck, bunker, they all have people in them and you are trying to kill the people (if not the vehicle). And, at what caliber is a gun “too lethal” to be used against troops?
It is the 30mm part I think that gave birth to the idea you can’t use the gun against people. . .but the Apache has a 30mm (not the same power, mind you), and no one questions the use of that weapon.
Cheers.
Not too many people know that a lot of the design for the A-10 was based on the experience of Hans-Ulrich Rudel, an amazing Stuka pilot of WWII.
“Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.”
N.B.: He died of old age, a testament to his skill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
Actually, an A-10 can fly (based on specs, no one has allowed it to actually happen) from an LHA/LHD. It just cant land back aboard.
Iirc the USMC used to operate OV-10s from LHA/LHD/LPHs, on one way missions where the Marines had taken an ashore staging area via vertical envelopment.
Same thing can happen with the A-10s. Fly them ashore after the first wave, have them operate, as they’re designed to, from roads or dirt strips using CH -53s to haul in fuel and bullets.
The new A-10 Ground Crew reports for duty.
The Stewardess Corps
No MEU commander is going to sacrifice 53s or MV-22s for a capability that will probably not be used for routine deployments. Then you have to find space for the support personnel. Makes more sense to put all the support personnel on the C-130 to Rota or Hawaii//Okinawa/Diego Garcia.
Yeah. That ride in the Pacific would suck.
Post 46; especially this part: “The A-10 is called the Thunderbolt II, as in the grand-baby of the old WWII P-47 combined with the old A-1 Skyraider.”
Notwithstanding the fact ALL aviation is based on what went before, the A-10’s design was based on P-47 experiences and the A-1. Germans had nothing to do with it.
The Hog was, and is, a purpose-built jet based on the P-47 and A-1, upgraded to what we envisioned we would face when confronting the Soviets, and we knew we needed a jet that was survivable, hence triple redundant flight control system, high and wide engines, interchangeable flaps and slats, other easily replaced and interchangeable parts, titanium bathtub, HUGE gun.
Rudel’s book was required reading for everyone on its design team, and the only argument was whether he directly consulted in the program or not.
The A-10 is not a direct descendant or a cross breed. Some say it was designed around its cannon, but a better analysis is that it is a plane designed for CAS *pilots*, what they want, not what the engineers wanted.
The Germans started the war with CAS, the British had none, and the Americans were obsessed with strategic bombing. “USAAF doctrinal priorities for tactical aviation were, in order, air superiority, isolation of the battlefield via supply interdiction, and thirdly, close air support.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support#RAF_and_USAAF
The OV10s would have been perfect for today’s missions. Slow, had a punch and easy to maintain. Our brass in its infinite wisdom sold off the fleet.
The Norks are still a threat with loads of armor so we should keep the Hogs around until they fold.
“Rudel’s book was required reading for everyone on its design team, and the only argument was whether he directly consulted in the program or not.”
None that I knew read that book, and I met several, and just asked a couple that I still keep in touch with, as I was an A-10 fighter pilot and we know the history of CAS and where the requirements came from.
“Some say it was designed around its cannon, but a better analysis is that it is a plane designed for CAS *pilots*, what they want, not what the engineers wanted.”
Requirements are pushed up from the users (in this case CAS fighter pilots). Engineers do not establish requirements. . .ever. Be it CAS, strategic bombers, recce platforms, whatever, it is the user not the engineer that defines requirements.
CAS fighter pilots pushed for a jet that was survivable and able to bring an excellent anti-armor gun (provides versatility with multiple passes. . .lesson from the Vietnam experience). The gun was central to the design as the gun was envisioned as THE weapon. The platform was designed around a gun that could perform the anti—armor mission, so yes, it was designed around the gun, and CAS pilots sat in the development and helped and worked with the engineers.
“The Germans started the war with CAS,”
Not exclusively, as they did also appreciate strategic bombing. And they learned CAS from the French, as the French had CAS as one of their primary missions starting in WWI, derived from Mecozzi’s ideas as opposed to Douhets strategic mission theory.
And something to consider regarding German CAS: “As the war commenced, however, some serious failings in German airpower theory and doctrine came to light. First, enthusiasm for the technique of dive-bombing set the development of German bomber technology back several years. Gen Ernst Udet, who took over air force technical development in 1936, insisted that in the future, all bombers be designed as dive-bombers. This necessitated the redesign of excellent aircraft like the Ju-88 and resulted in production delays.” The Paths to Heaven: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0029_meilinger_paths_of_heaven.pdf (Note, this source is a scholarly source, a well researched source, a product of extensive study and not some blurb on, ahem, wiki).
“the British had none,”
Too busy fighting the battle of Britain.
“and the Americans were obsessed with strategic bombing.”
Daylight strategic bombing to be precise, and fighters were necessary to provide escort to the bombers. The ground attack role, the CAS role was there so when D-Day happened, we had CAS fighters.. .Again, The Paths to Heaven is a much better source than some wiki thing. Download it and enjoy: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0029_meilinger_paths_of_heaven.pdf
“USAAF doctrinal priorities for tactical aviation were, in order, air superiority, isolation of the battlefield via supply interdiction, and thirdly, close air support.”
So? The best thing about airpower is that it can accomplish many missions at the same time, and strategic bombing was emphasized because we knew it was going to be a long war and we needed to hit COGs to affect the ability of the Germans to sustain their ops tempo and fielded forces, but at the same time we have CAS fighters doing their mission as well.
Again, The Paths to heaven for a compelling read that you will find informative, as it is a scholarly source, not some blurb on wiki.
Yup. . .got that right.
Seems like eliminating ISIS would be an ideal use of A-10s. Not North Korea. But what do I know.
I’ve wondered about that for years.
Why not both? Sounds like a good use. . .
ISIS or ISIL or whatever they are calling themselves today do not have over 6000 tanks. N Korea may have antiquated armor but they can still inflict a lot of damage.
We can take out ISIS/L if we had the green light to do it.
Yes, that was 5th MEB off the coast of Kuwait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.