I'm sorry Donald but many of the Marines I served with didn't really care about which aircraft was providing the CAS, but they did like Marines providing for Marines.

As for risk aversion and living and fighting in the current environment, well......welcome to the 21st century.

The A10 lands shorter than anything else, but needs a lot more runway. IIRC balnced field with a training load was about 4500 feet of hard surface, and went up dramatically with a bomb load. Most fast movers use less.

Warsaw Pact/ Fulda gap scenarios against 50 year old equipment were considered high attrition in 1985. Today???

I find it odd that you take one experts opinion (Marine Corps Infantry Officers) as solid gold/irrefutable fact yet you won't take another (16+ year A/A instructor pilot of the ONLY pure air-to-air platform in the western military) because it doesn't align with your opinion. Oh well...

"Correct. They won't base them close anymore. I think that's an interesting idea that would really work with defined borders and clear lines of good guy vs bad guy (like the Fulda Gap). Not applicable in any scenario we've been fighting since then. If a scenario like Folda Gap comes back, that sounds like a winner of an idea."

...thought we were talking about a high intensity conflict where you would likely have large ground maneuver units facing each other...in such a scenario you would have more defined lines where it makes sense to move the CAS forward ...that was the original intent of the Hog design...

"Well I say that because it is accurate. Reading/talking to people and doing it is not the same thing. So, if you ever met an astronaut does that mean you are qualified to speak to space flight. Your point about belly-aching are moot because the environment has changed, the dynamic has changed, the ability for our country to accept risk has changed. The public acceptance of "if they cross the gap, we're at war" was such that people were (on some level) prepared for losses. We, as a country, are no longer prepared to accept losses..."

...wondering what exactly is "accurate" ?...this is difficult logic to unravel, but the point seems to be the AF can't plan for CAS as we know it to be in high intensity conflict because the public would not accept the associated losses...a more accurate statement would be that the current AF isn't comfortable with the predicted losses that would be likely with performing CAS in high intensity conflicts...certainly the Army recognizes the certain high casualty rate in any such future conflicts, but they don't redefine their mission responsibilities because of this...wanna talk about potential risk in a high intensity conflict--climb into an armor vehicle and head off to the fight and you'll learn quickly about risk on the modern battlefield...

"Thankfully no one has ever had to defend an A-10 in a real high intensity conflict - so the best thing we can do is train for it. I've defended A-10's in over 50 exercises - averaging 6-9 sorties per exercise. I've been ad-air for 5 different A-10 unit inspections. I've helped them run tests both on the Nellis and Eglin ranges to test their survivability. When I was chief of a/a tactics at RAF Lakenheath I did all the Germany-based A-10 threat library updates and helped them make a training plan for advanced fielded threats. So... yeah, I've done some A-10 planning in my day. I'm no Hog instructor and it's been 2-3 years since I did much with them; BUT I am actually briefed to the current threats, I've helped them develop tactics, I've mission-planned real world scenarios from South Korea to China to Europe and I've been the simulated bad guy that crushed them as soon as they entered the advanced arena"

...all great stuff...but I'm curious with your experience if your basing your view that the Hog couldn't survive on the modern battlefield on interdiction type missions (which don't necessarily have to be assigned) that would expose the A-10 to the threat over long times/distances as opposed to a more traditional CAS role where they would be forward with the troops with shorter fights and operating within a combined arms team that is suppressing enemy air defense systems....

...also, never bought into the fact that the bad guys fast movers would target our slow moving CAS assets...that they would have much higher priority missions, and presumably have their hands full attempting to survive against our fighters....

"Call BS on whatever you want. Tell ya what, just go to Vegas and sit on the north end of their 10k' long runways and watch the A-10's take off there. (with less than a combat load). There's no nice way to say this: you're just wrong."]

...I ask for stats and get hyperbole...your not really saying that the A-10 can't operate forward off shorter, less improved runways than the fast movers?

"Well I have personally seen the F-15E, F-16 and F-18 all use the gun in Afghanistan. It works, it works really well if the target is soft and the guy is good....

...more current AF logic exposed...that if the fast movers are good enough for CAS under certain scenarios, well then that has just got to be good enough...their view might look differently if they were the guys on the ground that needed CAS under tougher conditions....

"I'm not an F-35 fan, there is simply no way it can do what the Hog does. Nothing can. Barking up the wrong tree if you are looking for a fight on how great the F-35 is..."

..analysis is relevant to all fast movers, not just the F35

"[i]I find it odd that you take one experts opinion (Marine Corps Infantry Officers) as solid gold/irrefutable fact yet you won't take another (16+ year A/A instructor pilot of the ONLY pure air-to-air platform in the western military) because it doesn't align with your opinion. Oh well..."

...think you need to more clearly define your opinion

I can help you out with two of these points Donald:


And you shouldn't buy off on on that. One of the conditions of effective CAS is air superiority.
You likely won't be performing traditional CAS roles in contested airspace. There are conditions which might warrant such a risk, but then you back to the risk aversion of the US at the current time.


It can't operate on shorter strips than the Hornet for example

"And you shouldn't buy off on on that. One of the conditions of effective CAS is air superiority.
You likely won't be performing traditional CAS roles in contested airspace. There are conditions which might warrant such a risk, but then you back to the risk aversion of the US at the current time."

...that argument Brian from our current AF has always baffled me, but I always enjoy these discussions...back in the day had the WP come thru the Fulda Gap the Hogs wouldn't have stayed on the ground waiting until we had "air superiority"...they would have been in the fight from the get go

...also depends on your definition of what is "effective CAS"...the guys on the ground would welcome any CAS...and of course history tells us--esp when you look at example of WWII at the Eastern Front that there was effective CAS on both sides at times when they didn't necessarily have air superiority....

"It can't operate on shorter strips than the Hornet for example"

...your talking apples and oranges though as to CAS capabilities...also, you'd have to expound on the Hog's ability vis a via the fast movers to operate in fwd lines as it pertains to austere conditions, unimproved strips, maintenance, durability, ability to rearm/refit while hot refueling, sortie rate capabilities, etc...

I don't know how many times it has to be said...A10s need the same runways as the fast movers to operate out of. It has long takeoff rolls and final approach speeds of 140 knots or so. We shared our FOL with F4s in desert storm...

Duplicate post

It isn't really an argument Donald but rather the current TTPs straight from the JOINT CAS Pub.

I said it once and you seemed to have missed it.
Welcome to the 21st century.


So you mean operate from FARPs for instance which the Marine Corps has been doing since it invented modern day CAS.

"I don't know how many times it has to be said...A10s need the same runways as the fast movers to operate out of. It has long takeoff rolls and final approach speeds of 140 knots or so. We shared our FOL with F4s in desert storm..."

...are you saying our fast movers have the same capability to operate out of forward unimproved strips as the Hog? if so, pls elaborate...don't the A-10's have more capability to operate out of rougher strips than the fighters?

...and, what about the other advantages the A-10 has as far as operating forward in areas of sortie rates, ease of maintenance, durability?

"It isn't really an argument Donald but rather the current TTPs straight from the JOINT CAS Pub."

...so current doctrine is not debatable? ...that's foolish...doctrinal guidelines are not written in stone--they are always evolving...

"Welcome to the 21st century"

...thanks, but are you saying there is nothing to be learned from history as it applies to current doctrine?

"So you mean operate from FARPs for instance which the Marine Corps has been doing since it invented modern day CAS."

...not exactly...I'm talking about the AF's current claims that the Hog can't fight in a high intensity conflict...and methods such as placing them forward help the CAS mission...of course the Marines use FARPs effectively--but what does that have to do with the AF or the Hog's capabilities or ability to perform in a high intensity conflict?

...but, as is well documented--ask any Marine Corps Infantry Officers (arguably the finest Infantrymen in the World) that have been in the fight most recently and they will tell you hands down that the A-10 is their preferred platform of choice when the going gets tough...it's not really even a debatable point...[/quote]

I certainly can't speak for all Marine Corps Infantry Officers as I'm an Engineer Officer and just responsible for getting them through the breach, but my preferred platform for that in the mechanized or foot mobile environment is generally a USMC driven AH-1 SuperCobra.

"I certainly can't speak for all Marine Corps Infantry Officers as I'm an Engineer Officer and just responsible for getting them through the breach, but my preferred platform for that in the mechanized or foot mobile environment is generally a USMC driven AH-1 SuperCobra."

...gotta love the Cobra, and I could see its benefit in supporting a breach...and our attack helicopters in inventory no doubt have a role in other ground attack missions, CAS missions to a degree, or support of the CAS mission being performed by fixed wing aircraft by suppressing enemy AD, etc...but as far as capabilities to the Hog in the typical CAS role--no comparison really in many areas as ability to operate in higher altitudes, weapon systems, ordinance load capacity, ability to see the battlefield, survivability, etc...troops on the ground deserve to have fixed winged aircraft suitable for the CAS role