Jump to content

Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?


Recommended Posts

I was just looking up Linebacker yesterday, as a matter of fact. I don't think we should underestimate the stress that was put on the Bradley IFV fleet during the Iraq war. There's the old maxim that 1 year of combat equals seven years of peacetime deployment to a vehicle, and that doesn't include IEDs, platter charge off-route mines and RPGs. The Army simply couldn't afford the luxury of AA Bradleys lounging around while the rest of the fleet was being worn to a frazzle. Its nice to have equipment handy for a future theoretical conflict involving an enemy with airpower. But when you're fighting an actual hot war future theoretical conflicts have to take a back seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is the case, most of our UAVs and all of our attack helos would be unusable as well.

As for UAV's, just wait and see. they will get shot down all the time.

And Helos have a much better tactical ability than fixed air in that they can fly close to the earth and use terrain as cover.

As one post mentioned, Being seen is death on the modern Battlefield.

And A-10 are like a tourist taking photos, they hang around in the same spot way too long. They are so slow, they just seem odd when you see them on the battlefield.

There is no use for them, they need the skies cleared and ground anti air cleared to be of any use. So they are a cheap option and are useable as long as you are fighting a ill equipped enemy force. Not really what this game is trying to portray , is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: M6 Linebacker

 

Actually before they even refurbed them back to M2A2 status they were already being used in Iraq as otherwise normal Bradleys (as it wasn't like ADA troops sat the war out, and if you're not shooting TOWs or Stingers the platforms are more or less the same).  

 

I'm of the mind retiring them was still a mistake.  The Avenger isn't armored at all, so it's not like it is going to follow just behind the armor or something and snipe helicopters.  It's just not survivable at all.  Of course the bigger mistake was opting out of BRADATS or similar platforms back in 1993.  

 

Re: A-10

 

Here's the thing.  Both it and the SU-25 have about equal odds of completing a strike in the sort of CMBS scenario (while both do things better than the other one, neither commands some amazing advantage that makes it more likely to slip past fighters or heavy SAM presence).  To that end if neither were in, I'd be okay as it's just excluding planes that would either be aborting because they've been locked up, or simply not deployed to the AO.  However if the SU-25 is in, and able to complete strikes in scenarios, then it's equally valid to stick the A-10 in, because if anything it is more likely the US would be able to achieve the sort of air control to employ strike fighters in the long run, while the SU-25 just wouldn't be long for the air war.

 

So again, neither of them?  Okay!  Makes sense.  One but not the other?  Que?

 

Re: USAF

 

The bigger issue I feel with the A-10 is it is one of the few assets the USAF employs that is actually customer friendly.  When it comes down to getting fixed wing support, the USAF is often very user unfriendly because their priorities are usually:

 

1. Shooting down enemy planes.

2.Proving air power can win a war by bombing things in the enemy capital city because that'll show em'

3. Shooting down enemy planes.

4. Killing ADA assets because they're super annoying and they keep triggering that damn alarm in the cockpit

5. Killing enemy aviation (planes)

6. Bombing things that might or might not be logistical assets for the enemy

7. Killing enemy aviation (drones and helicopters)

8. Crew rest

9. Routine Maintenance

10. Wishing the USAF would put out a movie that made them look as cool as Top Gun made Navy pilots look

11. Complaining about the food

12. Complaining about lack of enemy aviation to kill

13. Returning the Army's phone calls to find out what it wanted.

 

So to that end, the A-10 was something that wasn't going to be borrowed to go do CAP missions, bomb a palace, or conduct DEAD missions.  It was all the time, every day going to be doing either CAS, or battlefield interdiction, both of which get thumbs up from the Army and USMC.  And the A-10 was built from the ground up to liaison and fly CLOSE to the troops it was supporting.  

 

The F-35 in contrast flies tens of thousands of feet above the battlefield, isn't really designed to talk with, or coordinate with someone in the mud, and drops two bombs and returns to an air conditioned hanger some hundreds of miles away.  To make matters worse the USAF refers to the B-1 as a CAS capable plane, which is to say I have a brain surgery capable leaf blower.  

 

More than the airframes involved the A-10 was that commitment to support the dude fighting and winning the war.  The F-35 represents a reduction in that customer service, and removing it as an emphasis and instead shuffling it to the lowest priority.

 

Which is to make a really good argument for US Army fixed wing units, because by god the USAF doesn't want the job, might as well do it ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

 

27 1/2 years of service in the USAF (active and reserve) and you've just hit the nail on the head. I'd type more, but the AF says I need 10 hours of sleep a night, and my aide has yet to turn down my bed. Sigh. Cutbacks suck. I'll probably have an unironed bathrobe in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

 

27 1/2 years of service in the USAF (active and reserve) and you've just hit the nail on the head. I'd type more, but the AF says I need 10 hours of sleep a night, and my aide has yet to turn down my bed. Sigh. Cutbacks suck. I'll probably have an unironed bathrobe in the morning.

no way, this is America!!! That bathrobe, ironed and warmed is a god given right!  (oh and don't forget to remind your aide to fluff your pillow.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we want to stay competitive in the air in the coming decades, we'll eventually need to replace our aging F-16s and F-18s, and the F-35 is now the only realistic option for doing so.

 

I'd agree with that, but am not sanguine about the prospects of the F-35. I suppose it can be made to work if you hit it with a big enough hammer, but doing so is possibly going to cost so much that we won't even need to lose a war to end up in the dumps.

 

The A-10 is great for low intensity COIN, but it's just not built for the realities of modern high intensity conflict.

 

I think you are right about that too. But I think the problems of ground attack in a high intensity environment need to be thought through all over again and a fresh approach taken. It seems to me that the F-35 began its design life as a replacement for the A-8 and then had too many other responsibilities attached to it. And it costs too much for what in the end is a mediocre performer.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faced with both growing interest in the game and growing temptation to buy it, I headed over to see whether it was playable on my iMac. Answer? Somewhat better than marginally, but not by a great margin. Am running OS X 10.7.5, have twice the minimum RAM and gobs of HD space, but verily sucketh on the VRAM front.

 

Is there a reason you're still using OSX 10.7?  10.9 will likely perform better in most aspects of usage.  What kind of video hardware do you have?  VRAM requirements (on OSX) are fairly flexible and depend greatly on what sort of hardware is in the pipeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And A2A, depending on who you believe   :P

 

Only against large multiengined targets though!

 

Re: Ukrainian SU-25

 

Not really the same deal.  The A-10C is also a more capable platform, also given how spotters work in this game, I'm not sure I could run it through a US JTAC if I was doing a scenario that was supposed to be largely Americans.  

 

It just doesn't make sense to me in a practical sense.  The A-10 is more likely to be able to do it's job over the Ukraine (which is to say it'll struggle and only be really terribly good in very permissive environments) than either of the SU-25s.   It's not like there's an ultra detailed flight model that needs to be put in right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A-10 is more likely to be able to do it's job over the Ukraine ... than either of the SU-25s.

 

The USAF has options besides the A-10, including it's preferred one of using the F-35. Russia and the Ukraine don't have that option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the Cold War, the drill was for the A-10s to smite the ZSU-23/4s from 4 km slant range out and the tanks from 2 km. Ideally, someone else (arty, helos, maybe ground troops) would deal with the ZSU, but that wasn't prudent for planning. I've read the UNCLASSIFIED, later CONFIDENTIA,L reports on A-10 live fire tests (ammo lot acceptance trials for Aerojet General's rounds) against combat loaded M-60s with engines running. The M60s were subbing for T-62s. Target was a (simulated) Russian 10-tank Tank Company in combat formation.

 

I can assure all concerned that you can kill a tank without having to penetrate the primary envelope, though that wasn't the case here in all instances. What I saw were lots of M-Kills, some F-Kills, some combined and some K-Kills. Broken track, destroyed drive sprocket or return sprocket, wrecked torsion bars, engine hits and such, alone or in aggregate, wiped out mobility. Gun barrel penetrations resulted in F-Kill, especially if sights were also involved.  There were repeated penetrations of the fighting compartment from the side, clearly evidenced by torn apart plywood mannequins.

 

Let's stipulate the A-10's gun, for the sake of argument, can't penetrate the fighting compartment, but everything else is fair game. A T-90 is essentially a much better protected and sensor rich T-72, right? Everything on the outside of the tank is vulnerable, the tracks and running gear are vulnerable, external fuel and oil tanks are vulnerable, the lower hull (mild steel) is vulnerable, likewise the engine compartment and components therein. And if a Maverick planned to be fired during a single popup hits (was initially one, but Hughes figured out how to shorten the process and get two off), the tank is history. Permanently. Am not sure whether terminal dive angle would or wouldn't clear Arena coverage, but in any event, it the Maverick went off that close to the tank, the occupants would be most unhappy and would also take a huge kinetic wallop from the remains of the heavy missile. We used to joke at Hughes that the warhead was there only in case the weapon missed. Our Operations Analysis Department weapon analyst concluded the KE on even a dummy missile was close to that of an impacting 16" shell. In firing tests, an IIR guided Maverick MAW (300-lb blast frag WH version used for Marine Corps CAS) completely smashed in the engine compartment of a running but not combat loaded M60, setting the tank on fire and leaving a very twisted smashed in engine compartment. 

 

The A-10 is specifically designed to operate in a high threat environment, and it wouldn't be operating alone, either. SEAD/DEAD, jammers, CAP, etc. Real combat has shown the plane can take punishment which would certainly down most planes. How well does an F-16 or F-35 fly with one engine destroyed? Not at all! An A-10 has come back with one so demolished up you could hardly tell there had ever been a port engine. Another A-10 had an SA-6 blow up underneath it so close that the warhead's detonation tore off part of the leading edge and left a huge hole in the port wing. This is the damage and loss summary for the A-10 in GW I. And in 2013, an A-10 took a direct engine hit from a SAM, never lost controllability and flew 120 miles back to base. Also, I think some here greatly overestimate how easy it has for a fast moving fighter, even one with LD/SD, to detect and engage an A-10 on the deck, an A-10 now sporting an RWR, flares and chaff, also not exactly situation clueless, thanks to digital data links keeping the pilot informed of the larger picture via E-3 AWACS, high persistence UAVs and other means. It also carries the very nasty full aspect capable AIM-9X. And I certainly agree with the argument that if the Su-25 is in for the Russians, then the US ought to have the A-10. But having Ukrainian SU-25s as CAS (ikalugin) is hardly comparable to having A-10s which are, relatively speaking, way past them across the board. 

 

panzersaurkrautwerfer (armored dinosaur that throws cabbage--can't be an herbivore),

 

Thanks for providing the, er, Air Force priority list and the brilliant crack about the B-1B in a CAS role. Laughed heartily over that one.

 

c3k,

 

Frightening and droll. We used to talk at Hughes about the two types of TAC pilots: the glorious (as seen by USAF) scarf and goggle crowd and the much derided air to mud ground support pilots. At Hughes, though, we had the bases covered in either case. We built the Maverick, the GBU-15 CWW and the AMRAAM. But Hughes also had the TOW, and stopping all those Russian tanks, one way or another, was a big part of the company's business.

 

Michael Emrys,

 

The idea (allegedly) behind the F-35 was to be Stealthy in the early part of the war and using expensive highly capable guided weapons until the air defenses were sufficiently quelled. Later, the thing was to become a flying dump truck, laden with decidedly not LO MERs and TERs commonly seen on birds configured for strike. Since we all know that the Air Force is extremely chary of exposing its fast movers to ground fire (have reports the F-15s flying CAP wouldn't even enter the target area--at normal operating altitude-- during RED FLAG, for fear of SAMs), we are left with the F-35 as yet another plane likely to be operating, shall we say, high up in open sky and visible for enormous distances to anyone interested.  If the Air Force, by choice or circumstance, and to **** with the agreement that forced the Army out of fixed wing combat aviation, can't or won't keep the A-10 operational, then I think the Army, in the interests of own force survival, ought to take it over. My understanding is that the Marine F-35 VSTOL is working well, but I doubt the Marines would want to see the A-10 leave the "save our butts when no one else can" category, either. 

 

(Marine Hymn plays; pilot sings)

 

"From the halls of Montezuma (Marine A-10 in Digicam fires Mavericks, then lets rip GAU-8 sonorously, wiping out.. ) to the shores of Tripoli"

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

Have OS X 10.7.5, Lion, which appears to be the most my late 2009 3.06 Intel Core 2 Duo iMac Arlington can handle. Adding some RAM (have 4 GB) would help game performance, I'm sure , but the killer on my end is the paltry 256 MB ATI Radeon HD 4670, for which the only potential upgrade path involves major cyber surgery and may not work even then. I can't run OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, since Apple's own requirement list says mid 2007 iMac or newer. Likewise, OS X 10.9 Mavericks is out. Identical issue. This leaves OS X Yosemite, and I can't run that, either, for the same reason. My iMac, sad to say, is a cyber fossil, but right now, it's what I have. I need one of my book or other projects to succeed, for then I'll be able to get some wonderful new Mac. Have been dying since seeing the breathtaking 27" iMac with its "can count gnats from space" Retina display. But I'm a reasonable man. I'd settle for the 21.5" model. Grudgingly. Naturally, if I do manage said feat, CM will then transition to Q-switched N-dimensional holographic hyperspatial display mode--for which there will, naturally and perversely, be no iMac upgrade path!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding your comments, John, I found the exact same true in CMSF, to my delight.  You'll get mission kills and mobility kills on armor (T-90S in my test, I think?  It was a scenario specifically for practicing with CAS) with the GAU-8, but you arent gonna be blasting em to pieces.  Were the same possible in Black Sea, I'd be very pleased :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nerdwing,

 

Good to know, and now we've got the GBU-54 LGJDAM--for when you really want that tank dead. So far as you're aware, are the Russians still building their AFV lower hull sides (not fronts) with mild steel? That was a surprise when I read about the practice in threat docs, but it saves a fortune in resources, time and money when fielding a huge tank force, as was the case during the Cold War.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: USAAF

 

I think it'd really be better in the long run for the Air Force to divest itself of the CAS, battlefield interdiction and smaller (like C-130 and down) transports. The ultimate end users for the A-10 and nearly all the C-130 platforms are the Army and sometimes Marines.  Those planes exist for those dudes.  Also if we sliced off the F-16 to fill a similar role to what the USMC uses its F/A-18s for, it would allow the USAF to focus on what it views as its larger strategic mission, without having to either retain or maintain assets it honestly only is obligated to have them for the Army. 

 

So to that end aligning CAS and interdiction type planes (A-10, F-16 post F-35 adoption in the USAF) against an Army fixed wing element, and moving the C-130s in a similar role, Army now only has itself to blame if it doesn't get CAS/regional airlift, while the USAF can focus on the strategic/theater type missions.

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... appears to be the most my late 2009 3.06 Intel Core 2 Duo iMac Arlington can handle. .... I can't run OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, since Apple's own requirement list says mid 2007 iMac or newer. Likewise, OS X 10.9 Mavericks is out. Identical issue.

 

I don't know much about Macs, but .. um... a 2009 model IS newer than a 2007 iMac...

 

Unless we've gone BC again, but I'm sure someone would have said... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey John, if you have not done so already, why not download the Mac Demo for Red Thunder? I don't know how much difference 10.6 to 10.7 would make (I don't know anything about Macs). However, there was at least one relatively big tank battle in the demo. That is probably as good a system stress test as you could hope to have for representing CMBS scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is sound that since SU-25 is in, A-10 should be in. But I honestly think neither should be. Both aircraft require very controlled air spaces for the kind of effectiveness seen over Afghanistan. The aircraft should only be included in scenarios with a back story of temporary air control, and if this is the case, then the other side should not get their reciprocal attacker for that scenario.

 

Every kind of CAS, no matter which aircraft is carrying out the operations, requires a high degree of control over both airspace and the SAM environment. If we assume that SEAD operations are not all that effective, especially against Russian long-range SAMs - then one would have to ask what aircraft can seriously be used for such a purpose without the mission being akin to suicide? I would doubt that an F-16 on a ground attack mission flying at medium to high altitudes has a higher degree of survivability than a low-flying A-10 in such an environment. Sure, the A-10 would be subjected to ZSU, MANPADS and all that stuff - but the low-level threat environment is not all that different (though certainly more lethal) to the one pilots would have faced during the cold war and for which the A-10 was designed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is sound that since SU-25 is in, A-10 should be in. But I honestly think neither should be. Both aircraft require very controlled air spaces for the kind of effectiveness seen over Afghanistan. The aircraft should only be included in scenarios with a back story of temporary air control, and if this is the case, then the other side should not get their reciprocal attacker for that scenario.

Both it and the SU-25 have about equal odds of completing a strike in the sort of CMBS scenario (while both do things better than the other one, neither commands some amazing advantage that makes it more likely to slip past fighters or heavy SAM presence). To that end if neither were in, I'd be okay as it's just excluding planes that would either be aborting because they've been locked up, or simply not deployed to the AO. However if the SU-25 is in, and able to complete strikes in scenarios, then it's equally valid to stick the A-10 in, because if anything it is more likely the US would be able to achieve the sort of air control to employ strike fighters in the long run, while the SU-25 just wouldn't be long for the air war.

So again, neither of them? Okay! Makes sense. One but not the other? Que?

But the game is set in 2017 and the forces available to scenario designers are based on some educated guesses as to what equipment and resources are going to actually be available. It is not based on fitness for use, or fitness for the modern battlefield. Just like the US AA defence is not filled out with hypothetical future equipment just because some might feel that role is missing, there is no A10 cause it is due to be retired.

That call has nothing to do with if the equipment is up to the job or not.

 

I have a brain surgery capable leaf blower.

Wait I can do brain surgery with my leaf blower. Time to convert the garage into an operating theatre and make some real money :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eeeh, it's still going to be trucking along at least into 2016, and the sort of conditions on retirement Congress have dropped make the USAF simply setting the planes on fire in a very large "accident" the only really reasonable way we're at A-10s retired by 2017.  

 

Either way I wouldn't have batted an eye if the SU-25 wasn't in the game either, I can't think of a way they'd be able to complete a mission outside of a strictly RU-Ukraine throw down, or if we started recreating airport fights and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If DCS is any indication, Im surprised just how much fuel the Su-25 uses in full-power compared to the A-10.  The A-10 can cruise along at 100 without a problem.  The Su-25 will go bingo in no time at all it seems.

 

In practice, their speeds seem to be roughly similar.  The 25 can of course "sprint" so to speak in an emergency, or in a "one pass, haul ass" scenario,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...