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

Tenshinai wrote:So in effect what you just said was simply that pilots are worth more than soldiers on the ground.
And since there´s far more soldiers on the ground, i can easily argue that you have no trouble trading a few thousand people on the ground as long as you don´t have to lose one of your precious pilots.
But hey, obviously ground pounders are just target (practice) for you uber flyboys anyway, right...

I never said that – don’t put lies in my mouth! I didn’t say don’t buy other aircraft, I said don’t throw away the best just to buy a bunch of cheap crap to save a few bucks for the brass to get bonuses from. Ask any ground pounder what they would like to see over their head (yes any air support is welcome but) they are elated to see an A-10 show up.

TN4994 wrote:(MAD-4A) - I don't think you read the post correctly? Today's technological simulators have reduced the overall cost of pilot training, thus minimizing the effect of converting to a new aircraft…All good aircraft.

I read it perfectly, as I just posted – I didn’t say don’t buy any other CAS planes, just don’t throw away the best one in the world. All these other fixed wing “A-ttack” aircraft are irrelevant. The reason the Air Force is wanting to do away with the A-10 is because of the “A” in-front of its designation. The Air Force idiots who currently have more stars on their shoulders than brain cells seem to think that they shouldn’t have ANY aircraft that doesn’t start with a “B” or ”F” [that’s “B-ombers” or “F-ighters”} not “A-ttack” so they want to do away with the “A”-10 and replace it with the “F”-35 then, with the most well-known “A”-ttack aircraft out of their inventory, they will quietly do away with the rest, betraying their agreement with the Army. That’s the issue – not cost. They are never going to buy the "A"-39 on mass no-matter what the price tag.

Ensign Re-read wrote:I continue with my stance, in the LONG RUN the exact aircraft choice is not _AS_ important (but NOT unimportant) as having top brass that CARE about the CAS mission, and will not settle for a cursed multimission aircraft (F-35, F-this, F-that, F-etcetera).
ERR...

You seem to have a thing against multi-role aircraft. The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft & it’s been consistently good at all its roles. It’s a little light in the loafers for a bomber but it can get bombs on target & it can clear a good size area on the ground with a few Rock-eyes. Truth is most aircraft should be multi-role to some degree. The only exception would be the dedicated CAS aircraft (& even they can be used as Anti-Helo fighters with guns amd maybe a sidewinder or 2), and a few special use (like the E-2C - even the EA-6B should be able to strap a few bomb {or a Harpoon} on if needed) – you always need ground support. If you’ve swept the air clear of enemy aircraft (as we did in both Iraq & Afghanistan) then what use is a single role fighter unequipped to carry any type of bomb (like the MIG-25)? – Pretty useless! A few can be sent up in escort sweeps “just in-case” but if the enemy doesn’t have an “air-ace” up their sleeve, these won’t do anything but waste fuel. A multi-role fighter can have a few held back for “just in-case” and the rest reassigned where they’re needed (like CAS) even the ones on fighter escort can be given a couple of Mavericks or rocket pods so when they get up there and the enemy doesn't send anything up they can do something. In WWII all the navies had specialized aircraft, Fighters, Bombers, Torpedo, Scout. And you had what you had. You lose your bombers & Torp planes or they’re out on a mission and then a scout spots another enemy fleet, you can’t do anything ‘cause all you have is fighters for CAP. The Navy (& to some degree Marines) has done away with most of its specialized aircraft and gone almost exclusively with multi-role F/A-18s. This gives the Navy (with each carriers limited inventory) the flexibility to send whatever aircraft are on hand out to do whatever mission is needed, and they are doing quite well.

"Multi-role aircraft works great for the Navy/Marines."
I haven't kept up with the specific missions of today's armed forces.
But when I hear multi-role or multi-task it bothers me. It means vehicle force reduction. Less vehicles to accomplish the overall mission. That's how bean-counters think.
In SEA we flew EVAC out of Cam into Nam. We had two main protectors for these rescue missions and our nicknames didn't coincide with the official ones. Why? Because it gave us the Linus Blanket effect.
US AC-130's would circle high and
Australian UH-1's would buzz low.
If I'm on the ground I want security. I want to know that if Top calls for support, it's coming, and not being diverted to Operation Overkill protecting some hauncho's rear-end.

TN4994 wrote:But when I hear multi-role or multi-task it bothers me. It means vehicle force reduction. Less vehicles to accomplish the overall mission. That's how bean-counters think.

not necessarily, a carrier has about the same air group regardless of types (subject to hanger space taken up and losses/replacement) a carrier in the 70-80s would have (usually) 24 F-14s, 12 A-7s & 12 A-6s as its combat load (+ support) that’s 24 dedicated fighters, 12 dedicated short-range bombers and 12 dedicated long-range bombers. The current complement is 48 F/A-18 hornets (now being upgraded to the Super Hornets) that’s still 48 combat aircraft but all 48 can defend the fleet from enemy air attacks and all 48 can be sent on ground (sea) strike missions, as needed, if a mission (any mission) comes up then you can simply pick units currently available on hand regardless of mission, only the load-out is changed. In addition you don’t need to store replacement/repair parts for 3 different types of aircraft they all use the same part stores this greatly simplifies logistics. (From what you said I take it, it was in VN – you know the logistics nightmare the AF had with supplying parts for F-4s, F-5s, F-102, F-104s, F-105s, F-111s, A-3s, A-37s, B-66 etcetcetc…)

MAD-4A wrote:

TN4994 wrote:But when I hear multi-role or multi-task it bothers me. It means vehicle force reduction. Less vehicles to accomplish the overall mission. That's how bean-counters think.

not necessarily, a carrier has about the same air group regardless of types (subject to hanger space taken up and losses/replacement) a carrier in the 70-80s would have (usually) 24 F-14s, 12 A-7s & 12 A-6s as its combat load (+ support) that’s 24 dedicated fighters, 12 dedicated short-range bombers and 12 dedicated long-range bombers. The current complement is 48 F/A-18 hornets (now being upgraded to the Super Hornets) that’s still 48 combat aircraft but all 48 can defend the fleet from enemy air attacks and all 48 can be sent on ground (sea) strike missions, as needed, if a mission (any mission) comes up then you can simply pick units currently available on hand regardless of mission, only the load-out is changed. In addition you don’t need to store replacement/repair parts for 3 different types of aircraft they all use the same part stores this greatly simplifies logistics. (From what you said I take it, it was in VN – you know the logistics nightmare the AF had with supplying parts for F-4s, F-5s, F-102, F-104s, F-105s, F-111s, A-3s, A-37s, B-66 etcetcetc…)

Don't know of any problems with F4 supply. Or with H-43 supply.
Do know the more with less doctrine. It's simple. Make 100 aircraft do the job of 300.
That's what I'm worried about.
Besides a few cruise missles should be able to take out a carrier.

MAD-4A wrote:You seem to have a thing against multi-role aircraft. The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft & it’s been consistently good at all its roles. It’s a little light in the loafers for a bomber but it can get bombs on target & it can clear a good size area on the ground with a few Rock-eyes.

You've obviously never worked on or with a multi-role aircraft.

In the mid-eighties, I went on a day trip to the range at Zaragosa Spain. Working the range that day were F-4Ds of the Spanish AF, F-4E/Gs from Spangahlem AB Germany (the unit I was TDY with) F-16Cs from Spangdahlem (also from the unit I was TDY with) and A-10s from somewhere else in USAFE (I never did find out which base they were from.)

The differences in accuracy were extremely noticable. The Spanish F-4Ds were dropping live 500lb bomb on the far side of the valley, and unless they were actually aiming at three different targets, the safest place on the range was their aim point.

Everyone else was dropping practice bombs. The F4E/G models were usually within 100 yards of the target, with a few "shacks." The F16Cs were better, but still +/- 50 yards with only about 40=50% "bullseye" and a few "shacks." Both multi-role fighters used targets about a mile from the observation towers.

The A10s, OTOH, worked a pair of targets only 50-100 away from the observation towers at an altitude just below to tops of the towers (About 250ft AGL) and consistently put their practice bombs with 10 yds of the target, with around 75% "shacks."

If I ever needed CAS, I certainly know which aircraft I would want overhead, and I certainly would hope it wasn't a Spanish F-4D.

My second choice for CAS around my precious hide would be an A1E but those had been long retired by the mid-eighties. Third choice would probably be an A-37B Dragonfly -- also long gone from USAF service.

From personal experience, I wouldn't want most multi-role aircraft dropping bombs or strafing anywhere close to my precious hide -- unless the situation was pretty much lost anyway, then a 50/50 chance of being bombed by friendly fire might look like good odds.

The problem isn't multi-role aircraft. It's every-role mentality.

Weird Harold wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:You seem to have a thing against multi-role aircraft. The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft & it’s been consistently good at all its roles. It’s a little light in the loafers for a bomber but it can get bombs on target & it can clear a good size area on the ground with a few Rock-eyes.

You've obviously never worked on or with a multi-role aircraft.

In the mid-eighties, I went on a day trip to the range at Zaragosa Spain. Working the range that day were F-4Ds of the Spanish AF, F-4E/Gs from Spangahlem AB Germany (the unit I was TDY with) F-16Cs from Spangdahlem (also from the unit I was TDY with) and A-10s from somewhere else in USAFE (I never did find out which base they were from.)

The differences in accuracy were extremely noticable. The Spanish F-4Ds were dropping live 500lb bomb on the far side of the valley, and unless they were actually aiming at three different targets, the safest place on the range was their aim point.

Everyone else was dropping practice bombs. The F4E/G models were usually within 100 yards of the target, with a few "shacks." The F16Cs were better, but still +/- 50 yards with only about 40=50% "bullseye" and a few "shacks." Both multi-role fighters used targets about a mile from the observation towers.

The A10s, OTOH, worked a pair of targets only 50-100 away from the observation towers at an altitude just below to tops of the towers (About 250ft AGL) and consistently put their practice bombs with 10 yds of the target, with around 75% "shacks."

If I ever needed CAS, I certainly know which aircraft I would want overhead, and I certainly would hope it wasn't a Spanish F-4D.

My second choice for CAS around my precious hide would be an A1E but those had been long retired by the mid-eighties. Third choice would probably be an A-37B Dragonfly -- also long gone from USAF service.

From personal experience, I wouldn't want most multi-role aircraft dropping bombs or strafing anywhere close to my precious hide -- unless the situation was pretty much lost anyway, then a 50/50 chance of being bombed by friendly fire might look like good odds.

That sounds more like pilot error and lack of practice than anything else. but then if the planes are flying too fast, it would be harder to drop dumb bombs on target since they'd be likely to overfly the target because they were so fast. The A-10 is built for slower attack runs, and built to take any punishment thrown its way.

Weird Harold wrote:You've obviously never worked on or with a multi-role aircraft.

actually I was in the NAVY where multi-role is the order of the day.

Weird Harold wrote:In the mid-eighties

when they were still using black powder muzzle loaders? Well as far as avionics anyway, electronics were still in the stone-age back then. I think keyboards were mad of quarts and granite , anyway, electronics have come along way since then. A friend of mine told be the same basic reason for the F-16 to be single engine, that they are reliable enough now to not need a backup (course I told him that no engine is reliable enough with 2-3 23mm rounds passing through them - that's why the Navy insists on multi-engine)

Weird Harold wrote:If I ever needed CAS, I certainly know which aircraft I would want overhead, and I certainly would hope it wasn't a Spanish F-4D.

I believe the key word there is not “multi-role” but “Spanish” !

As I have said the Air Force would be betraying their agreement with the Army if they scrap the A-10, it is an indispensable resource for the specialized role of CAS. But that doesn’t mean “EVERY” multi-role aircraft is useless crap. Every fighter should have some multi-role capacity (as I pointed out – 300 Mig-25s would be useless in Afghanistan right now – for us not them – as there are no enemy aircraft to shoot down, having F-16s & F-18s means that they can be regularly sent on ground attack missions and IF something dose pop up {like Chinese Mig knockoffs coming over the border} well they jettison their bombs and fighters are on hand).