The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law • Hacker News Board

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#41

Post by 55acdda48ab5 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #19

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

What would be reasonable is the Air Force pulling its head out its ass and just giving the CAS role back to the Army, since they hate it so much. Seriously, just give the Army the CAS roles, and the Air Force can go zoom around in their shiny supersonic invisible aircraft, and the soldiers and marines on the ground can get the close air support they so need from an organization not doing everything it can to stop giv…

The problem is that the CAS mission the A-10 performs is effectively impossible against any modern enemy with modern missile systems and manpads. The A-10 is for shooting up poor brown people we're messing with for no particular reason, not for fighting a real war.

The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. We don't need the A-10 because it's useless for any war worth fighting in today's world.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#42

Post by jokoon » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:01 PM UTC

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #14

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

This is a real moral dilemma for me. I served in the military, and the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS. However, I also hate the defense lobby. One one hand there's probably a job interest in keeping the A-10 running. Mac Thornberry has taken campaign donations from lots of defense contractors, including some related to the A-10: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&c...…

Can't apaches do CAS properly because they're not fast enough, so they make good targets?

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#43

Post by cstross » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:10 PM UTC

55acdda48ab5 wrote: post #41

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be reasonable is the Air Force pulling its head out its ass and just giving the CAS role back to the Army, since they hate it so much. Seriously, just give the Army the CAS roles, and the Air Force can go zoom around in their shiny supersonic invisible aircraft, and the soldiers and marines on the ground can get the close air support they so need from an organization not doing everything it can to stop giv…

The problem is that the CAS mission the A-10 performs is effectively impossible against any modern enemy with modern missile systems and manpads. The A-10 is for shooting up poor brown people we're messing with for no particular reason, not for fighting a real war. The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. We don't need the A-10 because i…

The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries.

Or not to get into wars in the first place; then you could give up having an Air Force at all, right?

Seriously, "stop doing COIN in poor countries" is a political solution that requires a top-down policy change that goes counter to the entire historical direction of US military involvement since Vietnam. The US very seldom tackles even a second-rate military armed with Russian cast-offs -- the most recent example was Iraq in 2003 -- so the A-10 is still useful for the sort of brushfire wars and missions you get involved with. Even though they'd die like flies in a shooting war with a real front-rank opponent. (Like who?)

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#44

Post by 55acdda48ab5 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:10 PM UTC

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #14

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

This is a real moral dilemma for me. I served in the military, and the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS. However, I also hate the defense lobby. One one hand there's probably a job interest in keeping the A-10 running. Mac Thornberry has taken campaign donations from lots of defense contractors, including some related to the A-10: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&c...…

> the A-10 fleet as ground-piloted drones.

This is just a super expensive and failure prone way to do what 100 year old artillery technology does.

Site the enemy, call in artillery fire.

Drone techno fetishism is a big problem right now. Most of this stuff does not work nearly as well as people are pretending it does.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#45

Post by 55acdda48ab5 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

cstross wrote: post #43

55acdda48ab5 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the CAS mission the A-10 performs is effectively impossible against any modern enemy with modern missile systems and manpads. The A-10 is for shooting up poor brown people we're messing with for no particular reason, not for fighting a real war. The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. We don't need the A-10 because i…

The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. Or not to get into wars in the first place; then you could give up having an Air Force at all, right? Seriously, "stop doing COIN in poor countries" is a political solution that requires a top-down policy change that goes counter to the entire historical direction of US military involvement since…

> "stop doing COIN in poor countries" is a political solution that requires a top-down policy change

Yeah? That was my whole point. You make it sound like it's crazy. It's the most sensible course.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#46

Post by vinceguidry » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:17 PM UTC

rangibaby wrote: post #40

vinceguidry wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we're making comparisons to infantry weaponry, the M16 rifle is nine years older than the A-10 Warthog.

M16 has been replaced by the M4. Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. Variants of the original AK-47 are still used, even in Russia(!) where it is considered a superior weapon in urban warfare because it can penetrate cover better than more modern, smaller bullets. I think the A-10's future potential is unclear. It is theoretically extremely vulnerable to modern anti-air missi…

> M16 has been replaced by the M4.

This isn't a case of replacing old tech with new tech, it's a case of the changing realities of war making a short-barreled carbine adequate for most needs. The M4 has been around since 1988, they'd had plenty of time to do the switch if it really were the better weapon.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#47

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #14

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

This is a real moral dilemma for me. I served in the military, and the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS. However, I also hate the defense lobby. One one hand there's probably a job interest in keeping the A-10 running. Mac Thornberry has taken campaign donations from lots of defense contractors, including some related to the A-10: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&c...…

> the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS

You won't hear it here or on jalopnik et all, but there's substantive disagreement on this.

The A-10 no longer has a primary mission: the gun is not effective enough against modern tanks. For CAS in low intensity conflict it's both overkill and overly expensive per operating hour vs alternatives. The CEP on the big gun is >10m while the CEP on small guided munitions is now Let's compare to Beech's proposed attack variant of the T-6 Texan II. Depending whose numbers you believe, it's 1/5th to 1/10th the total operational cost per flight hour. Since it's our primary trainer essentially every pilot is already familiar with it. Likewise the ground crews can keep them running with ease. There is no parts problem, whereas with the A-10 replacements parts we don't have in the sitting in the AZ desert have to be done as small scale reverse engineering (for the cost of re-winging an A-10 we could have bought a new Texan or Tucano). It has a built in stabilized E/O ball, the advantage of which could be mitigated a bit by putting a pod on the A-10. But the T-6 is also a two seater, which allows situational awareness an A-10 pilot will never have. The back seater can focus exclusively and continuously on the situation on the ground, whereas an A-10 pilot has to re-acquire and re-orient on every pass, losing awareness of changes between passes. The two seats allows operational concepts the A-10 (and F35 for that) matter do not. For example, the back seater doesn't even need to be a pilot: they could be a controller/coordinator from a different branch, service, or even nation. The aircraft could be easily adapted to ISR roles with a back seater specialized in tending the electronics.

There's this huge internet enthusiast crowd that's infatuated with a big gun and can only see taking the A-10 out of service as some sort of conspiracy. But that's not the case, there is straightforward, solid, strategic thinking behind this.

People need to look at A-10 enthusiasm critically, and consider that maybe the planners actually know some of what they're doing, rather than being pawns in congressional conspiracies.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#48

Post by dingaling » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #38

the_ancient wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Airforce does not want the A-10 The Army and Marines are begging to keep it I trust the Army and Marines more than the fucking Airforce

The people that actually have to support and operate it don't want it, the people whose mission it supports but who don't bear the support burden do want it. In each case, there are structural biases that favor those decisions even if they aren't right on balance.

The Army has indicated repeatedly that it is willing to bear the support burden for tasks that are important to it.

For example, the Caribou and more recently the C-27 light transports that were taken from them and reallocated.

In 1960s the US Army was investigating organic fast-moving CAS aircraft, they tested the F-5A, G.91 and A-4 but were told that it was unacceptable. They even faced restrictions on arming the OV-1 Mohawk for which they paid every cent.

They want it, they will pay for it but the blue-suits have the document that says 'no'.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#49

Post by unchocked » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #47

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a real moral dilemma for me. I served in the military, and the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS. However, I also hate the defense lobby. One one hand there's probably a job interest in keeping the A-10 running. Mac Thornberry has taken campaign donations from lots of defense contractors, including some related to the A-10: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&c...…

> the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS You won't hear it here or on jalopnik et all, but there's substantive disagreement on this. The A-10 no longer has a primary mission: the gun is not effective enough against modern tanks. For CAS in low intensity conflict it's both overkill and overly expensive per operating hour vs alternatives. The CEP on the big gun is >10m while the CEP on small guided…

Spot on. People complain that the F-35 is overkill for brushfire CAS missions, but what they miss is that the A-10 is overkill too.

A weaponized T-6 crew with an observer and modern ISR would have way better situational awareness than a hog driver will ever get. A turboprop would also be able to spend far more time in loiter due to the low speed efficiencies of a large prop versus a small fan.

But the AF wouldn't play ball in that game. Let the Army fly fixed wing aircraft and a practical CAS solution for interminable brushfire conflict would be implemented pretty fast I think.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#50

Post by GunboatDiplomat » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

55acdda48ab5 wrote: post #41

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be reasonable is the Air Force pulling its head out its ass and just giving the CAS role back to the Army, since they hate it so much. Seriously, just give the Army the CAS roles, and the Air Force can go zoom around in their shiny supersonic invisible aircraft, and the soldiers and marines on the ground can get the close air support they so need from an organization not doing everything it can to stop giv…

The problem is that the CAS mission the A-10 performs is effectively impossible against any modern enemy with modern missile systems and manpads. The A-10 is for shooting up poor brown people we're messing with for no particular reason, not for fighting a real war. The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. We don't need the A-10 because i…

OK, you tell the soldiers and marines who are currently on the ground and fighting that we're getting rid of what is, for them, the most effective solution. Until we're actually not fighting these wars, it's best to keep the most effective weapons to fight them around.