...but just thinking out loud JGG, it's a very interesting time and certainly relevant to this forum as the analysis/development phase is now on for the next CAS aircraft...here's hoping that Pierre Sprey is consulted...as well as the ongoing strategery/tactical reviews and planning of providing CAS in an ever increasing hostile environment due to increasing technology of anti aircraft weaponry

...challenging times for the troop/marines on the ground lie ahead as the AF seems intent on basically punting on CAS in any real meaningful way or in its true sense--esp. so in high intensity environments...

...and then there is the GAO ongoing review that the Senate has requested of them to determine the feasibility of transferring the A-10 to the Army...very interesting indeed, esp. since the GAO just a few months ago basically called B.S. on the AF's rationale to dump the A-10...

Donald,

I'll let you in on a little secret . I don't have anywhere near enough information to have an opinion. I just thought I'd poke a little fun at you which you took in very good fashion.

Congrats. I'm happy whenever people are interested in something rather than nothing.

One thing I read though which I will recount knowing I shouldn't and that is that UAV's are the ultimate mission goal. I can't think of a better scenario than "where" the A-10 was designed to operate 40 years ago.

Anyway, I'll go back to trying to figure out how to get my 6715 John Deere tractor to quit loping at full power.

You have a great Thanksgiving.

Jgreen

"UAV's are the ultimate mission goal"

...interesting, I'm not really that knowledgeable on this area...first thought would be that there is no substitute for having an aircraft in the a.o. with the pilots' eyes on the targets and helping the troops on the ground shape the battlefield...think there is also a practical aspect of how much ordinance they can carry...not to mention they would seem to be very vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft and small arms fire

I get on "kicks" of reading about subjects. My latest was books on the Luftwaffe. Paraphrasing one German General:

The ability of Germany to produce armaments was barely affected until the last months of the war. The great shortage of Luftwaffe strength was its ability to replace pilots lost on the Eastern front and in Africa.

UAV's do have eyes, probably more capable eyes than manned aircraft. Only the eyes are not on the battle field, but likely in Kansas, safe from destruction. That is already true today. Most of the drones used to attack and kill terrorists targets are piloted my men sitting at controllers in the United States. In fact, there is a big push by the military to deal with the emotional stress caused by sitting at a computer screen, killing people five thousand miles away and then going home to normalcy.

The advantage to UAV's is almost without limit. They have, as a % of their gross weight, a larger ability to carry armaments since they do not have to be equipped with the support systems needed by human pilots.

It is highly likely that in the few remaining years I have on this earth, that human manned combat aircraft will cease to exist in technologically advanced military systems. Fighting a war where you only lose machines, not pilots, is far more politically correct and sellable to the public.

Like I said, however, I don't know squat, so I may be wrong or crazy or both .
I do read a lot though.

One thing you can bet on; the A-10 is history.

Jgreen

What could go wrong with that?

Mike C.

"The ability of Germany to produce armaments was barely affected until the last months of the war."

...not sure that is historically accurate...the Germans continued to produce armaments until the last months of the war to be sure--but at the same time our bombing campaigns in particular degraded that production capability significantly...

"UAV's do have eyes, probably more capable eyes than manned aircraft. Only the eyes are not on the battle field, but likely in Kansas, safe from destruction. That is already true today. Most of the drones used to attack and kill terrorists targets are piloted my men sitting at controllers in the United States. In fact, there is a big push by the military to deal with the emotional stress caused by sitting at a computer screen, killing people five thousand miles away and then going home to normalcy."

...agreed that the UAVs serve a purpose and their role will become even more significant in the future...but be careful not to overstate their effectiveness--their current use have significant restrictions and can easily be countered by the bad guys...not to mention that in a CAS scenario there is no current substitute for an actual pilot on station communicating with the troops on the ground in the fight and actually working with them to shape the battlefield

...and in your analysis, you need to address the real world communication problems that would exist between the guys and the ground and the drone operators in their Kansas cubicle...in challenging terrain and environmental conditions esp. much more effective to communicate with the pilots on station...

"advantage to UAV's is almost without limit. They have, as a % of their gross weight, a larger ability to carry armaments since they do not have to be equipped with the support systems needed by human pilots."

...examples please of UAVs being able to carry more ordinance than the A-10 for example?

"It is highly likely that in the few remaining years I have on this earth, that human manned combat aircraft will cease to exist in technologically advanced military systems."

...doubt that...but even if true such philosophizing--while interesting--doesn't do much for our troops/marines in the fight presently...and that's a large part of the problem with the AF...they keep talking/planning about fighting the "next war" (primarily high intensity)--which is prudent and what we expect of them...but not at the expense of fulfilling current mission requirements...

"One thing you can bet on; the A-10 is history."

...says who?

...define "history"? ...certainly all aircraft have a life expectancy...but if the Senate and House Armed Forces Committees have any influence--and it is obvious that they do--the A-10 will be in the fight for many more years my friend...

The only reasons drones have been of much use in the current war:

Permissive air environment
No need for EMCON (emission control, aka radio noise)
US bases close by (most drones get their endurance by virtue of being outrun by a C150)

Take away the permissive environment, or add the need to transit more than 150nm from base on a regular basis, and their effectiveness drops rapidly.

Persistent short range, they are great. If the environment allows.

But there is also a reason we fly manned MC-12Ws in the same stacks over the same targets. Some things you just need a human there for, not on a time lagged sat link that goes bad at the worst time possible on an op.

There are other reasons that drones aren't the be-all end-all answer, but those start getting classified real fast.

The biggest pushers of them are those who made their career upon them. When you are the football coach, you don't want soccer stealing any of your budget.

Donald,

I will address only one point of your last post as it relates to objective facts and not your subjective opinion.

I wrote: "The ability of Germany to produce armaments was barely affected until the last months of the war."

Your response: ...not sure that is historically accurate...the Germans continued to produce armaments until the last months of the war to be sure--but at the same time our bombing campaigns in particular degraded that production capability significantly...

German production of aircraft was as follows:

1940: 7,829
1941: 9,422
1942: 12,822
1943: 20,599
1944: 35,076
1945: 7,052

It should be noted that the 1945 numbers would be for a maximum of 127 days as the war ended on May 7. That would be a daily production greater than that of 1943.

Donald, with all due respect, if you are "not sure that is historically accurate" of such commonly known and easily verified historical data I must evoke this icon as to your opinions on the future of an aircraft designed in the early 1970's,

At any rate, I'll recount an old adage from my grandmother pertaining to debates such as this and bow out.



Have a great Thanksgiving.
Jgreen

"I will address only one point of your last post as it relates to objective facts and not your subjective opinion.
I wrote: "The ability of Germany to produce armaments was barely affected until the last months of the war."
Your response: ...not sure that is historically accurate...the Germans continued to produce armaments until the last months of the war to be sure--but at the same time our bombing campaigns in particular degraded that production capability significantly...
German production of aircraft was as follows:

1940: 7,829
1941: 9,422
1942: 12,822
1943: 20,599
1944: 35,076
1945: 7,052"

...interesting data JGG...but your citing aircraft production only, and I don't see a reference to verify the accuracy or put these numbers in perspective in the context of the history of the war

...but assuming your aircraft numbers to be accurate, in any event, I'm talking "armaments" as a whole as it pertains to the Germans war making production being able to equip and maintain their armies in the field...not to mention the devasting effects our bombing had on the Germans' transportation networks, oil industry, and economy as a whole...

...indeed, a large contribution to the Russians success in their counter offensive operations against the Germans was the Allied bombing raids against the German homeland that severely weakened their ability to refit and resupply the German Army on the Eastern Front, as well as in the West

...the German General you paraphrased about their armament production undoubtedly didn't serve on the ground in the Eastern Front fighting against the Russians...as a result of Allied Bombing Campaigns German units in the East (and West) were routinely running short of essential items to include tank and vehicle replacements, ammo, oil, and gasoline...

...interesting your reading about the Luftwaffe...I have been doing the same...reconfirming that like many other areas of the German WWII military machine they were overrated in many aspects as well...particularly in their strategic planning in that the world was fortunate that they lacked the foresight to develop heavy bombers as the U.S. did...

"Donald, with all due respect, if you are "not sure that is historically accurate" of such commonly known and easily verified historical data I must evoke this icon as to your opinions on the future of an aircraft designed in the early 1970's, "

...and with all due respect why are you so hung up on the year the aircraft was designed?...with that reasoning I guess you would deduce that the B-52 and the C-130 and the Chinooks are no longer viable aircraft contributing to our defense...which of course would be inaccurate

"At any rate, I'll recount an old adage from my grandmother pertaining to debates such as this and bow out."

...debates such as what? ... if you don't want to debate, then don't...but pls don't play the grandmother adage card

...if you do want to debate--then feel free to add any pertinent contributions you may have to add to the topic of A-10s and their capabilities in providing CAS? ...and the AF's historical neglect of the CAS mission? ...and the AF's current campaign chocked full of misinformation to prematurely dump the A-10 which has not fooled the Congressional leadership? ...and the AF's assertion that the F35 is a suitable replacement for the CAS mission? ...and the AF's utilization of supersonic nuclear capable strategic bombers for CAS with ill-trained crews for the mission in a low intensity environment? ...and the AF's failure to properly plan and develop a replacement CAS platform given the life expectancy of the A-10?

UAV's may be the ultimate mission goal, but that is just an unofficial policy/opinion (Not just yours, JGreen. Many "higher-ups" say that in my line of work). I would agree with Donald, but I'm biased. Having been paired with UAVs, I see them as an INCREDIBLE combat multiplier. I could have used 1 or 2 or 3 more on every combat mission I flew. However, I don't see them as a combat REPLACEMENT for manned aircraft (see Casey's points for starters). Email is a similar technology: Email has enabled humans with some incredible capabilities, but has not directly replaced snail-mail/UPS/Fedex/DHL. Both have their role, and co-exist quite well.

Not to stray too far off the A-10, but look at what the Army just did to the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior in the past two years. They effectively retired a VERY capable scout/recon aircraft that was the #1 loved RW asset of Army soldiers on the ground. More combat flight hours than every other Army airframe combined in OIF & OEF (despite being only ~15% of the Army RW fleet), highest airframe OPTEMPO, and cheapest RW asset to operate. It was also the #1 requested CAS aircraft in OIF/OEF.

Now, the $4.78-million OH-58D is in the process of being replaced by a $40-million AH-64E paired with a $1-million RQ-7 Shadow. I only have a Master's degree, but last time I checked $5-million was less than $41-million. Somehow, it is argued we (taxpayers) are saving money with this initiative?

Circling back to the A10: my point is I'm also not surprised decisions are being based on either "cherry-picked" numbers or just a small, connected/powerful group's strange hatred for a particular aircraft. I'm watching the Army going through a similiar situation right now too.

CAS/HCAS isn't sexy, unless it is. Meaning... you don't need the capability, until you REALLY need the capability.

"Circling back to the A10: my point is I'm also not surprised decisions are being based on either "cherry-picked" numbers or just a small, connected/powerful group's strange hatred for a particular aircraft. I'm watching the Army going through a similiar situation right now too."

...of course what Dan says is historically accurate as to how some good weapon systems sometimes get quashed or survive in the D.C. Puzzle Palace, irrespective of the merits...

...but the A-10 is actually unique in our history in this regard...can't think of another aircraft/weapon system that an entire branch of service has undertaken such a treacherous campaign to deactivate...with the A-10 you not only have the usual cast of senior uniformed AF characters at the top echelons in D.C.--but also active AF Senior Commanders in leadership positions in active units, as well as junior AF F35 pilots all involved in the insidious campaign to dump the A-10

...and all because they aren't fond of their assigned CAS Mission

...an AF campaign to dump the A-10 mind you--not based on the merits because it wouldn't be successful using that methodology...but rather an active campaign (as confirmed by the GAO, leading and reputable defense commentators and publications, and other government watchdog groups) that is based on lies, deceptions, and otherwise a general lack of integrity in discussing the Warthog's capabilities vis a via the fast movers and supersonic bombers...hard to imagine, but the AF personnel are actively campaigning to have the otherwise unsuspecting public to believe that the fast movers and bombers are adequate replacements for the A-10...that the AF is being actively deceptive by implying that the F35 will be utilized to perform traditional CAS missions, when it is obvious to even the casual observer that the aircraft (in addition to being entirely ill-suited to replace the Warthog in a CAS role) will never be flown down in the weeds where it is necessary to adequately perform the task...that the AF is is also deceptive in proclaiming what type of threat scenarios we will likely face in the decades to come and what aircraft could be potentially utilized in likely CAS missions that will be required...

...and to give credit where credit is due, the AF is good at their marketing campaign and no doubt would make some of our country's best advertising agencies take note...they have fooled many in Congress to be sure, and you see it played out in smaller scales across the country where people say to the effect that --well, if the AF thinks this is best then it must be best

...even in our own virtual hangar you have for instance JGG (otherwise intelligent, and knowledgeable of aviation) basically telling guys like me who have spent a large part of my adult life in the dirt and not in the air to be quite because some of our resident Fighter Pilots have said it to be so as to all things pertaining to the A-10--so it must be so:

"JGG says: Donald, Personally, I thought that Ben's comments put an end to this "debate" quite a few posts back. His credentials as an Air Force pilot and his direct association with pilots of the A-10 seem to lend an enormous amount of credibility to his position. With all due respect, you fly a 172. Perhaps you can educate me and others as to why we should pay any mote of attention to your opinion. "

...fortunate for our guys on the ground is that the key leadership in the Congress has not been fooled and sees the AF's deception for what it is......and the thing is, is it is what it is...the AF's logic is illogical by definition and you don't have to be jet qualified to figure it out--despite how many of their pilots and leaders say otherwise--because their tactics defies logic... it's illogical by definition to have our country's supersonic nuclear capable strategic bombers with crews not properly trained on their CAS related equipment or tactics dropping ordinance from the flight levels in support of small infantry units on the ground in a low intensity environment...our troops/marines in the fight certainly deserve much better...

...and, not only is there the (insert your own adjective) campaign to divest the A-10, on a practical basis the AF is essentially attempting to unilaterally rewrite our military's CAS doctrine by not planning on fielding an A-10 equivalent to perform the CAS role as we now define it...so the AF is banking on that by not fielding a suitable aircraft to perform the traditional CAS mission--there will be no capability to perform the mission so the tactics will have to be overhauled by necessity...

EXTENDED UNTIL 2022--good news out of D.C. for our Troops and Marines on the ground as noted in the excerpts from the referenced article below...well done Congress...Salute

...but as the article points out regrettably the AF still dragging its heels on plans for an actual CAS replacement...no doubt the AF has designs for future fighters and bombers for eons to come-- but can't seem to get around to the drawing board for a new CAS platform

...if you have followed the debate closely in past Bills extending the A-10 the past couple of years Congress has called for independent studies outside normal developmental processes re an A-10 replacement and the feasibility of transferring it to the Army as well...will be interesting to watch these developments along the way

...interesting article below that parallels some of our own discussions on the A-10 in our virtual hangar...one observation in the article that kinda sums things up: "The Air Force has been itching to junk the plane for years, with some speculating that top brass believes the A-10 bucks the embraced strategy of high-altitude strategic bombing"

__________________________
Legendary 'A-10 Wins Another Fight Against The Budget Ax'
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/22/le ... et-ax.html

" The Air Force's venerable A-10 Thunderbolt II is proving as impervious to Pentagon cuts as it is to the bullets of the ISIS terrorists who scatter like roaches when the fighter plane known as the "Warthog" bears down on them.

Once again, the deadline for retiring the versatile plane has been pushed back, this time to 2022, when it would be replaced by F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. While the F-35 rollout has been less than smooth, the real reason the Warthog keeps avoiding mothballs is that it is perfect for raining fire down on desert-dwelling Islamic extremists.

“It has consistently proven its worth in the past decade and a half,” said Omare Lamrani, a military analyst with global intelligence firm Stratfor.

...

Given that most of the U.S. air power is currently used in the Middle East, the A-10 -- which has not been manufactured for decades -- is the right aircraft for the job, say experts.

“It’s a very old plane, but definitely one of the most capable,” Lamrani said. “The U.S. Air Force has been moving toward multi-mission aircraft, but when it comes to this particular mission this plane is unrivaled in its ability."

“There is no weapon in our arsenal that offers more effective close-air support to American ground troops serving in harm’s way than the A-10 aircraft,”
- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

First designated for retirement in 2011, a planning document the Air Force published in mid-February reveals that 2022 is the flying branch's newest deadline for the last A-10 flight.
...

The venerable plane, first built for destroying Soviet tanks, has been on the chopping block since the sequester of 2011 mandated steep cuts in the Pentagon budget. Although the planes haven't been built in more than 30 years, the Department of Defense believes it can save maintenance costs by phasing them out.

Air Force brass believes newer, faster aircraft like the F-16, F-15E, and, eventually, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 can do a better job of the Warthog’s mission of providing close air support to soldiers on the ground. But the Pentagon disagrees and has pushed back, leading to Air Force brass to extend the end date for a phase out.

The plane has survived year-to-year, with powerful lawmakers such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., fighting to keep it alive.

“There is no weapon in our arsenal that offers more effective close-air support to American ground troops serving in harm’s way than the A-10 aircraft,” McCain said in a statement released earlier this month. “I look forward to seeing our A-10 pilots continue to make important advances in the fight against ISIL in the Middle East, boosting NATO’s efforts to deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and supporting vital missions for U.S. national security wherever they are needed.”

The Air Force has been itching to junk the plane for years, with some speculating that top brass believes the A-10 bucks the embraced strategy of high-altitude strategic bombing. The Pentagon believes it can save $4.2 billion in operation and maintenance costs over five years by retiring all 283 of the Air Force’s A-10s, the last of which rolled off Fairchild Republic’s assembly line in 1984.

Lamrani points out that the replacement could actually prove to be more costly.

The F-35 is very expensive,” he said. “They need to work toward a strong replacement, but they do not have any strong plans in place."

When I was a little boy, we only lived two blocks from the movie house. Every Saturday afternoon, I would get twenty five cents from my grandmother and go to the movie; fifteen cents to get in, a nickel for popcorn and a nickel for a Coke.

Horror movies were all the rage, and I still remember a preview of one. I forget the name, but the teaser was "JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO OUT."

This thread reminds me of that movie preview.



Jgreen

Well, the A10 is a twin, the F35 is a single...

Jim,

Are you starting another single vs. twin debate?

Jgreen