My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

In the long run, exactly which aircraft is used is (almost) irrelevant.

What matters is which branch of the armed forces have responsibility for the CAS (Close Air Support) mission,
-=AND=-
has the authority to own/purchase/control/use said aircraft.



.

Ensign Re-read wrote:Earlier today, I heard about SecDec Chuck Hagel's resignation (i.e.: firing).

I wonder if Michèle Flournoy, one alleged potential replacement, is for the A-10, or if she's just another politician who is ignorant of the requirements for the CAS mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mich%C3%A8le_Flournoy




As for the other possibilities...

* I know nothing about Ashton Carter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Carter

* I understand that Jack Reed may have said no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reed ... itician%29

* I also understand that Kathleen Hicks is a long-shot.
{No Wikipedia entry found.}

It sounds like Michèle Flournoy and Jack Reed are out of the running, and Ashton Carter is now the frontrunner for SecDef.

Still also-rans are Kathleen Hicks and Robert Work.

Jane C. Timm of MSNBC: wrote:http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/heres- ... huck-hagel
Robert Work is the current No. 2 in command at the Pentagon, the deputy defense secretary, and the only name on this list currently on federal payrolls. He’s worked all over the Pentagon as the undersecretary of the Navy and as a retired Marine colonel. He’s also worked at Fourney’s CNAS—she replaced him at CEO when the Senate confirmed him at the Pentagon earlier this year.

Given that Carter previously had the role "...From April 2009 to October 2011, ...Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics with responsibility for procurement of all technology, systems...",

I seriously doubt that he will aggressively pursue the Army's role in the CAS mission.


Some new contenders:

Jonn Lilyea of This Ain't Hell wrote:http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=56697
Yahoo News says that the top choices remaining are; Ashton Carter, John McHugh, Carl Levin, Ray Mabus and Robert O. Work, a former Marine artilleryman who retired in 2001.

...guess at this point is McHugh, ...a Republican... the last two Democrat presidents like to have a Republican SecDef to blame.

.

Here's a cleaned up list of contenders for SecDef:


Ashton Carter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Carter


Kathleen Hicks
http://csis.org/expert/kathleen-h-hicks
http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographyde ... aphyid=179
http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/kathleen_hicks.html


John McHugh, (Republican)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._McHugh


Carl Levin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin


Ray Mabus and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Mabus


Robert O. Work, a former Marine artilleryman who retired in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Work


=====
http://news.yahoo.com/top-contenders-to ... QAtzVXNyoA



.

fallsfromtrees wrote:At this point I'm surprised that the AF hasn't tried to get the Marines to give up their Harrier IIs. Maybe that's next on the list after they've gutted the Army's ability to provide CAS. And then insist that all the aircraft on Navy Carriers have to be flown by the Air Force - swabbies should only be concerned with driving the ships.

A sideline part of the deal for signing up on the F-35 included the destruction of the tools for the Harrier. So if the marines version of the F-35 falls through(figuratively OR literally, neither of which would surprise me), then they have already effectively given up their Harriers AND might not get a replacement anytime soon.




#####

pushmar wrote:AN inexpensive alternative tohe A-10 is the Embraer Super Tucano. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EM ... per_Tucano
Brazilian ground attack aircraft.

Come now, that would be a REASONABLE idea.
Not to mention the fact that it IS foreign made and designed.

Something like the Scorpion:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28260781
might be more realistic.
OTOH, it´s cheap and reliable and NOT the result of a bigtime contract pouring money into some suitably connected company, probably making it anathema of US military politics.

Operating costs at 3k$ per hour stands out, and while it´s not supersonic or anything fancy, it has everything a ground support plane needs.
And they built a fully functional prototyp in less than 2 years.

Just goes to show that USA does not lack in people capable of making things work, just that they´re not the people who does the work they need to be doing.


Sure it lacks armour, but instead you could fly 2-4 for the cost of each A-10, and they´re less specalised ( for good AND bad ).

#####

TN4994 wrote:How's about an aircraft similar to the Russian Helicopter - MI-24 (NATO Designation Hind) or its upgraded versions?

The Mi-24 is as much a transport as it is a ground attacker, overall it´s more of a utility craft than a ground support craft.

And USA already has the Apache helicopter.

Problem is that helicopters have been found to be more vulnerable than earlier thought, especially so if they are not working under just about complete air superiority.
And even then, the improvements in shoulderlaunched SAMs and in light/medium AA have made helicopters to easy targets for a lot of missions they could "easily" do 20 years ago.





##########

Zakharra wrote:The A-10 can carry far more firepower in guns and bombs/missiles (10x more) for a longer distance, is faster

That is rather incorrect. The Super Tucano carries about 1/5th the warload, but has an operational cost per hour that is about 1/20th of the A-10.

It also has a massive 8+ hours loiter time and the A-10 can only achieve greater range if it trades warload for fuel tanks.
Cruise speeds are 520 and 560 kph. Difference in top speeds are just over 100 kph.
Not a huge deal for ground support planes.

has heavier guns that will take out a tank.

A-10 is tankbuster first, ST is ground support first. It can easily carry enough to kill 3-4 tanks per flight but it´s not it´s primary mission.
As it was originally designed for counter gerilla ops and the like, it´s focused more on being able to do what you might call offensive recon.

And in that regard it IS definitely better, as it can move slower and have better allround vision.

The A-10s are also a lot more durable, able to take a heck of a lot of damage and still fly and fight. The E-Super Tucano looks a lot more fragile.

It´s not fragile, but obviously almost anything is "fragile" compared to the A-10, since it was specifically designed to be able to survive almost any kind of hit.

In a firefight, I'd want the A-10 rather than the E-Super Tucano flying overhead.

Don´t be too hasty. For one thing, the ST has the advantage that IR-SAMs will have a far harder time against it.
For another, if the fight is in the jungle, the A-10s virtues are quickly reduced in importance, as the ST can drop low and very slow and be better at actually finding and hitting targets in that kind of situation.

And most importantly, you can have 5 or maybe even 10 STs for each A-10, that can be a BIG advantage.

A-10 is obviously the more powerful aircraft, but the Super Tucano is a very decent lighter attack plane.

And you might take notice that it´s also called the A-29 because USA is already buying it.
And my own country is looking at it as a potential replacement as a trainer/light attack.

Ensign Re-read wrote:In the long run, exactly which aircraft is used is (almost) irrelevant.

Provided it is appropriate for the role. XB-70 for tactical support?

Ensign Re-read wrote:What matters is which branch of the armed forces have responsibility for the CAS (Close Air Support) mission[...]

I'd argue that's not that relevant, listening to the people who are supported and those who are actually doing the flying would be the main issue.

BTW if you look, there are a lot of light and less fancy military aircraft types flying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault/Dornier_Alpha_Jet (apparently no longer in production)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_63_Pampa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca
http://www.aero.cz/en/defence-mro/programs/l-159-program/

Tenshinai wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:At this point I'm surprised that the AF hasn't tried to get the Marines to give up their Harrier IIs. Maybe that's next on the list after they've gutted the Army's ability to provide CAS. And then insist that all the aircraft on Navy Carriers have to be flown by the Air Force - swabbies should only be concerned with driving the ships.

A sideline part of the deal for signing up on the F-35 included the destruction of the tools for the Harrier. So if the marines version of the F-35 falls through(figuratively OR literally, neither of which would surprise me), then they have already effectively given up their Harriers AND might not get a replacement anytime soon.




#####

pushmar wrote:AN inexpensive alternative tohe A-10 is the Embraer Super Tucano. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EM ... per_Tucano
Brazilian ground attack aircraft.

Come now, that would be a REASONABLE idea.
Not to mention the fact that it IS foreign made and designed.

Something like the Scorpion:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28260781
might be more realistic.
OTOH, it´s cheap and reliable and NOT the result of a bigtime contract pouring money into some suitably connected company, probably making it anathema of US military politics.

Operating costs at 3k$ per hour stands out, and while it´s not supersonic or anything fancy, it has everything a ground support plane needs.
And they built a fully functional prototyp in less than 2 years.

Just goes to show that USA does not lack in people capable of making things work, just that they´re not the people who does the work they need to be doing.


Sure it lacks armour, but instead you could fly 2-4 for the cost of each A-10, and they´re less specalised ( for good AND bad ).

#####

TN4994 wrote:How's about an aircraft similar to the Russian Helicopter - MI-24 (NATO Designation Hind) or its upgraded versions?

The Mi-24 is as much a transport as it is a ground attacker, overall it´s more of a utility craft than a ground support craft.

And USA already has the Apache helicopter.

Problem is that helicopters have been found to be more vulnerable than earlier thought, especially so if they are not working under just about complete air superiority.
And even then, the improvements in shoulderlaunched SAMs and in light/medium AA have made helicopters to easy targets for a lot of missions they could "easily" do 20 years ago.





##########

Zakharra wrote:The A-10 can carry far more firepower in guns and bombs/missiles (10x more) for a longer distance, is faster

That is rather incorrect. The Super Tucano carries about 1/5th the warload, but has an operational cost per hour that is about 1/20th of the A-10.

It also has a massive 8+ hours loiter time and the A-10 can only achieve greater range if it trades warload for fuel tanks.
Cruise speeds are 520 and 560 kph. Difference in top speeds are just over 100 kph.
Not a huge deal for ground support planes.

has heavier guns that will take out a tank.

A-10 is tankbuster first, ST is ground support first. It can easily carry enough to kill 3-4 tanks per flight but it´s not it´s primary mission.
As it was originally designed for counter gerilla ops and the like, it´s focused more on being able to do what you might call offensive recon.

And in that regard it IS definitely better, as it can move slower and have better allround vision.

The A-10s are also a lot more durable, able to take a heck of a lot of damage and still fly and fight. The E-Super Tucano looks a lot more fragile.

It´s not fragile, but obviously almost anything is "fragile" compared to the A-10, since it was specifically designed to be able to survive almost any kind of hit.

In a firefight, I'd want the A-10 rather than the E-Super Tucano flying overhead.

Don´t be too hasty. For one thing, the ST has the advantage that IR-SAMs will have a far harder time against it.
For another, if the fight is in the jungle, the A-10s virtues are quickly reduced in importance, as the ST can drop low and very slow and be better at actually finding and hitting targets in that kind of situation.

And most importantly, you can have 5 or maybe even 10 STs for each A-10, that can be a BIG advantage.

A-10 is obviously the more powerful aircraft, but the Super Tucano is a very decent lighter attack plane.

And you might take notice that it´s also called the A-29 because USA is already buying it.
And my own country is looking at it as a potential replacement as a trainer/light attack.

Does the cost of operation include the cost for pilot training. Because these aircraft are being used for Close Air Support, which means the opfor is going to be shooting at them, and the survivability of the A-10 as opposed to virtually any other aircraft means you get the pilot back.It does you no good to have 5 times the number of aircraft, if they are going to get shot down 10 times as fast.

aairfccha wrote:

Ensign Re-read wrote:In the long run, exactly which aircraft is used is (almost) irrelevant.

Provided it is appropriate for the role. XB-70 for tactical support?

Ensign Re-read wrote:What matters is which branch of the armed forces have responsibility for the CAS (Close Air Support) mission[...]

I'd argue that's not that relevant, listening to the people who are supported and those who are actually doing the flying would be the main issue.

BTW if you look, there are a lot of light and less fancy military aircraft types flying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault/Dornier_Alpha_Jet (apparently no longer in production)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_63_Pampa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca
http://www.aero.cz/en/defence-mro/programs/l-159-program/

I did say "long run".

No even half way competent Army procurement officer would prefer a Cessna over the A-10 (original, rebuilt or 2nd production run). Likewise, I doubt that the Scorpion or the Super-Tucano would be selected.

The Air Force on the other hand would make a much less wise choice (to be polite), because the upper brass just don't care about the CAS mission.

And yes, I do agree that today's A-10 front line people doing the flying do indeed care about CAS. THEY are not the ones I am concerned about. It's the procurement brass and accountant suits who think so highly of the bovine-scat "multi-mission" concept and the F-22/F-35 capability to do it. (NOT!)



.

Ensign Re-read wrote:No even half way competent Army procurement officer would prefer a Cessna over the A-10 (original, rebuilt or 2nd production run). Likewise, I doubt that the Scorpion or the Super-Tucano would be selected.

The Air Force on the other hand would make a much less wise choice (to be polite), because the upper brass just don't care about the CAS mission.

I seriously doubt replacing one set of bean-counters with another has much of an effect (aside from army bean-counters maybe caring less about air-to-air capabilities or buying the same aircraft as the air force).

Ensign Re-read wrote:bovine-scat "multi-mission" concept and the F-22/F-35 capability to do it. (NOT!)

Slight disagreement here as well, multi-mission can work (A-4 Skyhawk, Phantom II, Panavia Tornado) but the all-mission approach apparently followed with those two aircraft is a recipe for failure. Even more so when the required compromise is meant to excel in one particular role and is saddled with stealth and VTOL design requirements.

aairfccha:

Let me rephrase...

The US Armed Forces already has an example of how one branch of the armed forces (the Navy) can be tasked to do certain things for the good of another armed force (the Marines).
{OK, some may say that it's really the other way around; let's let that argument slide for now.}

Why in the world can't we have the Air Force tasked to maintain and fly the A-10 (and/or subsequent CAS dedicated aircraft) for a revived "Army Air Corps"?

Yea, I do mean add in yet another complication to the already messy and expensive Armed Forces: a sub-branch (twing?) if you will, not an actual separate branch that is a part of the US Army, but crewed by the US Air Force.

On paper, this sounds ridiculous.
But the Navy/Marines can make it work!
In SOME way shape or form, there has to be a way (better that what is NOT in effect now) to better dedicate the CAS mission to people who are interested in building, maintaining and crewing the relevant aircraft to actually do the mission.

With a separate sub-branch, the Army would have "the power of the purse", and could make sure that the Air Force could not be in a position to compromise on the CAS mission.



.

Ensign Re-read wrote:No even half way competent Army procurement officer would prefer a Cessna over the A-10 (original, rebuilt or 2nd production run). Likewise, I doubt that the Scorpion or the Super-Tucano would be selected.

Like i mentioned above, the Super Tucano has already been given a USAF designation of A-29 because it HAS been selected for purchase.

Also, the only reason to NOT choose the Scorpion would be politics, everything so far says it´s a useful and cheap allround aircraft, even if it being subsonic makes it a poor selection for a fighter.

And in regards to "a Cessna", i suggest you take a look at the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly.
USA used the plane for almost 30 years.
And it´s not like it´s a bad plane even today.
As long as it´s used for the right mission.

And "right mission" is why someone might prefer it over an A-10.

Ensign Re-read wrote:Why in the world can't we have the Air Force tasked to maintain and fly the A-10 (and/or subsequent CAS dedicated aircraft) for a revived "Army Air Corps"?

No reason at all. Or more correctly, no GOOD reason at all.