Murph Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 One observation here. Just like in any civilian controlled democracy the military is not free to do as they please, and the USAF has had to respond to political pressure on what systems it keeps and which it retires. These pressures are not always consistent with maintaining the best fighting force or with common sense, for that matter. Regards, Murph 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yardbird78 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 One observation here. Just like in any civilian controlled democracy the military is not free to do as they please, and the USAF has had to respond to political pressure on what systems it keeps and which it retires. These pressures are not always consistent with maintaining the best fighting force or with common sense, for that matter. Regards, Murph Amen to THAT, brother. Darwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don McIntyre Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Pretty typical for the DoD not to bother finding out what the troops in the field really want/need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) Pretty typical for the DoD not to bother finding out what the troops in the field really want/need. The problem is that too many times the troops in the field don't want what does the job best but want what makes them feel better. This is particularly true of the way ground troops see the use of airpower: every grunt on the ground would like to have his own dedicated attack plane ready to strafe the enemy at low level, but is this the best solution ? Maybe the best solution is to drop CBUs from mid level. Maybe the best solution is a single LGB right where the enemy machine gun is. Maybe the best solution is to carpet bomb the area where the enemy is assembling. How many troops in Vietnam considered the A-1 the best available CAS platform ? Yet when things got bad in Khe San the use of the B-52s was one of the most important factors in stopping the enemy offensive and saving the base. Is the Buff the ideal CAS asset in the mind of the average infantryman ? Likely not ! Did it do the job ? It did very well ! Edited October 22, 2013 by Giorgio N 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumbles Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 How many troops in Vietnam considered the A-1 the best available CAS platform ? Yet when things got bad in Khe San the use of the B-52s was one of the most important factors in stopping the enemy offensive and saving the base. Is the Buff the ideal CAS asset in the mind of the average infantryman ? Likely not ! Did it do the job ? It did very well ! Khe Sanh was more of an interdiction effort than CAS, especially where the B-52 was involved. It's not really an apples/apples comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Looks like the A_10 is safe for the time being. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/20/house-votes-to-block-a-10-retirement/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Good news indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I bet the guys on the ground are happy today... I'm happy too, as the Hog is one of my favourites. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomastmcc Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I bet the guys on the ground are happy today... I'm happy too, as the Hog is one of my favourites. very good news mike but how long can they keep the hogs going and the house etc keep stoping the pentagon from retiring the A10.. thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Well, the new wings were meant to keep the A-10s flying until 2040, so I gues with all the other upgrades they could keep them flying until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 So there's a chance I might see one at an airshow yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think the A-10 is on borrowed time, since the USAF hierarchy seems to consider it expendable. All eggs seem to be headed into the F-35 basket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learstang Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Interesting, because the F-35 may be on borrowed time itself. It seems a overly-complex and expensive mess of an aeroplane, and drones may make it expendable. Regards, Jason Edited June 23, 2014 by Learstang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 As far as the US is concerned anyway, there's no alternative to the F-35 and it's going to proceed - damn the expense. Not sure how the UK would proceed if it decided not to go with the F-35 for it's new carriers. Maybe buy some Rafales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 What I find very funny is how many people now say that the grunts on the ground have won their battle and so on... the reality is however that the strongest voices against the retirement of the A-10 came from the representatives of areas that would have been affected by the retirement of the type ! It was a political battle more than one about the real military use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVi Tophatter Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Bit odd to spend loads of money upgrading the A-10A to A-10C standard and then 'scrap' them a short while later... Quite wasteful in my eyes but what do I know. On the other hand, the Hog sounds like your time has come... skip to 01.25 and 01.40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ml7l5atuIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Bit odd to spend loads of money upgrading the A-10A to A-10C standard and then 'scrap' them a short while later... Quite wasteful in my eyes but what do I know..Remember the Jaguar upgrade and the Harrier GR.9? It's been done before and will be done again..... Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 . Remember the Jaguar upgrade and the Harrier GR.9? It's been done before and will be done again..... Trevor Worst of all ......... Nimrod, didn't even see service! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Worst of all ......... Nimrod, didn't even see service! Doh! How did I forget that one...... Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC1966 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) The Jag went because it was restricted to 85% power following the 104 -106 engine upgrade. The Nimrod would not have got an Air Worthiness Certficate allegedly and frankly we were too strapped for cash to keep the Harrier and the Tornado. All sad but true. Edited June 24, 2014 by PLC1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Not heard the Jag story before. Why bother changing the engine if full throttle was not an option? Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC1966 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 There were a few 'incidents' when the 106's first got fitted, started going sick when at full chat, at least once led to a bit of a shout coming into Colt and another ended up with the jet doing an emergency into Newcasle Airport. Engines could not be back-engineered as the upgrade was a big job. Was working in Eng Ops at Colt at the time. Never particularly well known issue, but it certainly was a major issue for the jet. Would guess there would have been a fair bit of egg on faces had people started to wonder why we could not successfully fit 106 engines in RAF Jags when I believe they were already in Jaguar Internationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Pretty typical for the DoD not to bother finding out what the troops in the field really want/need. Funny how the opinion of "troops in the field" is so sacrosanct when it comes to CAS, but the Air Force has no input when it comes to Army decisions about the purchase and employment of SAM systems. Sauce for the goose... Bit odd to spend loads of money upgrading the A-10A to A-10C standard and then 'scrap' them a short while later... Quite wasteful in my eyes but what do I know. On the other hand, the Hog sounds like your time has come... skip to 01.25 and 01.40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ml7l5atuIE There's only so much money to spend, and the A-10 is a single purpose platform, which the Air Force had to spend money upgrading to let it do CAS the way every other platform does CAS 99% of the time (PGM employment). The decision to put off its retirement has been entirely political on the part of Congress, who will be more than happy to turn around and chastise the military though for wasting money after they've ensured their pet "pork" has been removed from the cutting table. The Jag went because it was restricted to 85% power following the 104 -106 engine upgrade. That was a big issue in Northern Watch operations during the summer. Regards, Murph Edited June 24, 2014 by Murph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 One wonders how the AH-56A Cheyenne would have worked out had it been fielded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Just to add to Murph's comment, a recent briefing from a senior USAF officer (very senior), noted that if Congress saved the A-10, thus preventing the savings that come with fleet removal rather than salami-slicing across the force, this would run the risk of helping to create some serious training and readiness issues for the USAF as a whole. Reading between the lines, I couldn't help but wonder if we will be lamenting the grounding of the Thunderbirds and the absence of USAF types from airshows, since training for displays is clearly going to be binned ahead of maintaining operational readiness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now