|
|
|
Hard Charger
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:46 PM
Posts: 2,369,
Visits: 2,501
|
|
May 28, 2003: Despite its repeated success as a ground attack aircraft, the U.S. Air Force is again planning to retire the A-10. The aircraft was built to come in low, take enemy fire, and keep fighting. A-10s have a 30mm cannon that fires armor piercing shells, and also uses Maverick anti-tank missiles and bombs. The A-10 was set for demobilization before the 1991 Gulf War. The Army was asked if it wanted to take the A-10s, but Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the offer was withdrawn. Since the Gulf war, the number of A-10s in service has fallen by half, to about 168. To replace the retired A-10s, the Air Force has trained about a quarter of its F-16 pilots to perform close support missions. But F-16s don't get very close, as the air force won't let them fly below 10,000 feet. The reason is simple; only the A-10 is built to go low, take hits, and keep flying and fighting. A-10 pilots are protected by armor, as are key aircraft components. The air force believes that JDAM and Maverick missiles, used from 10,000 feet, can replace the A-10 and its cannon. But army troops, and A-10 pilots, will tell you that nothing, yet, replaces coming in at under a thousand feet with the cannon firing. You see the battlefield more effectively, and it's great for the morale of the soldiers you are supporting. The army has expressed a willingness to take over the close support mission. This would mean the army would get the A-10s, and build a successor aircraft (which might be a UAV). The army would also take over the AC-130 gunships. The air force has expressed a willingness to do this, as long as it gets to keep the billions of dollars it normally spends on maintaining the A-10s and gunships. It is, after all, about money. Dropping the A-10 makes it easier for the air force to afford the new F-22 (at $260 million each) and the F-35 (at $50 million each.) Another problem would be the culture shock of the air force pilots and ground crews transferring to the army. The air force is really world class when it comes to aircraft maintenance, certainly more so than the army. But that's a minor problem compared to the army trying to pick up the tab for the A-10s, as well as a replacement aircraft. How much is effective close air support worth? Probably too much for either the air force or the army to find room in the budgets for. The air force plans to retire the last of the A-10s by the end of 2004.
www.strategypage.com
This would be a very interesting development.The Army would have the same close support capability now enjoyed by the Marines.
|
|
|
|
|
Ei Temporis Vita Semper Resumo Sese
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 4:21 AM
Posts: 8,490,
Visits: 7,608
|
|
I would NOT want a goddamn UAV providing CAS to my unit... The A-10 is already serving past it's point of retirement (as I've gone into detail about before) and there is nothing out there (aside from Russian Su-39s...) that can even dream of replacing it. DoD dropped the ball on this big time... come a few years, our hooahs are going to have nothing but rotary wing & Spectre for close support.
"The degenerative and loony should never be denigrated but, rather, thanked. In their absence, the rest of you would be obliged to fill congressional seats... positions naturally unsavory to the sane and honorable." Thorax
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
How much is effective close air support worth?
One helluva lot more than some worthless $6 Billion POS Stryker armored cars.
It would be great if the Army took back the CAS role and flew the A-10s and AC-130s IMO. The next step is taking back the tactical troop transport and then establishing an all new heavylift blimp fleet. The US Army Air Corps shall return.[ ]
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/7/2008 5:22 PM
Posts: 1,006,
Visits: 995
|
|
The army can barely afford to pay for the Stryker...how could they maintain the C-130 fleet? aviation maintainence is a TAD more different than repairing the 5 ton.
The AF is goofing big time, but when the fighter mafia wants their cash cow F-22, they get it....at the cost of 1/3 of the B-1 fleet and Close Air.
 
Fighters are our salvation, But BOMBERS alone provide us with the means of VICTORY! - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
The army can barely afford to pay for the Stryker...how could they maintain the C-130 fleet? aviation maintainence is a TAD more different than repairing the 5 ton.
Well I don't care if the C-130 can land, all it needs to be able to do is take off. That ought to cut down on some required maintenance. LOL [][:o)][:o)][crazy]
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 10/25/2008 8:48 PM
Posts: 3,380,
Visits: 1,309
|
|
Well if the Air Force would give up it's Club Med accomadations, do away with the three-wheeled bikes, and transfer Mortarman back to the Army then it could afford all it's little fighter thingees.
It would be nice to see Army drivers in C-130s amd A-10s, but it won't ever happen. It's a case of "I don't want it but you can't have it either" so I won't hold my breath.
I served with some very capable Army aviators who flew C-7 Caribous' for SF when we got them back in the Army in the 80's. So I know Army aviation can fly and maintain the birds but yeah the cost would be prohibitive for sure. Maybe a small fleet to start with then gradually transfer the missions for close support to the Army. I agree with Delta I'd rather have an Army Specter or A-10 then a brand new Stryker Bde.
[82nd][E7][E6][uswingm]
Stand in the door!
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
I thought I had read something about a remanufacture for the A-10. That would be good. New avionics, IFF, check those airframes, are needed improvements.
BTW I would like to see the Army do Army CAS. The whole reason the Marines have an Air Force is because we don't trust the Air Force to be there for CAS.
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 6/18/2007 2:59 PM
Posts: 2,321,
Visits: 978
|
|
It was a hideous! mistake to seperate the Air Corps from the Army. The zoomies think they run the whole F-ing world. While leaving us Grunts out to dry.
| | | |