quote:

---

I would not make much of the Army's silence regarding taking over A-10s. The fixed v. rotary wing split is long & well established. I would take note that the Army seems indifferent to the A-10s fate. AWT & drones do a vastly better job at all the current or (probable) future air support roles.
It serves an unnecessary niche in an era or resource scarcity.

---

If it served an unnecessary niche why are they still deploying it instead of sending F15E's and F16's to do the job? This sounds like the same logic that didn't want to purchase MRAPS.

Mostly because there aren't enough F-15Es and F-16s to cover all of the missions that the AF is tasked with.

But...I've learned on TexAgs that Senator McCain is a liberal RINO who supported the wrong rebels.

Tell me again, who are the "right" rebels in that part of the world?

I'm just repeating what I've learned from various posters on this site.

Defending or supporting McCain can get you thoroughly chewed out by some of our more learned personalities. I've been asked if I was related to the Senator and also been advised to do something which I believe to be physically impossible.

As far as conservatives go, McCain is pretty liberal. I also thought his little show-boating about CAS was trashy and completely self-serving, considering how much Arizona benefits from the A-10 remaining in service.

It may be unpopular to admit on this thread but Welsh wasn't wrong. Just because the A-10 does CAS the best out of every platform in the Air Force doesn't mean any weapons system that can deliver a bomb accurately can't perform CAS. I thought McCain's demeanor was disrespectful toward a sitting service chief who was not being derisive himself.

The video I referred to in an earlier post on this thread, from 2014 where McCain pulled the same act (not so surprising this is posted on his personal YouTube channel...)

edited to add link.

Talking over the CSAF when he was trying to answer a question was not only poor form on McCain's part, but also rife with falsehood. The truth is that the A-10 hasn't pulled most of the weight for CAS in the fight against ISIS. The B-1 has. Guess what's #2? F-16s.

Again, you won't find many in the Air Force (including the CSAF) argue the A-10 isn't the best CAS platform we have. It isn't the only one, though.

Old story, but Gen Welsh's reasoning for cutting the A-10s.

Air Force Chief Explains Why He's Retiring The A-10s

Unfortunately, Welsh has been pretty unimpressive as CSAF. And he's done an AWFUL job of advocating for the Air Force on the Hill. The Air Force has a pretty bad reputation with Congress right now and like it or not, they pay the bills. I believe it's time for him to retire and to let someone new lead the AF.

Think he'll have been there for 4 years this summer. Isn't that the norm?

Yes. I mean he should retire now. Or actually a year ago.

Wonder who the new CSAF will be - has to be a female, though, I reckon.

First bet is on Robinson. Second is Pawlikowski.

quote:

---

Talking over the CSAF when he was trying to answer a question was not only poor form on McCain's part, but also rife with falsehood. The truth is that the A-10 hasn't pulled most of the weight for CAS in the fight against ISIS. The B-1 has. Guess what's #2? F-16s.

Again, you won't find many in the Air Force (including the CSAF) argue the A-10 isn't the best CAS platform we have. It isn't the only one, though.

---

Very true, the B-1 and F-16 have conducted the vast majority of CAS missions over the last decade. CAS is a mission, not an aircraft, and all USAF fighters (except the F-15C) and bombers (except the B-2) have been retrofitted with the coms and sensors to conduct CAS now. Additionally, there's been a revolution in near-precision munitions that allow those aircraft to safely conduct danger-close CAS, as proven by even the B-1 and B-52's effectiveness in that role. Don't get me wrong, the A-10 is a great aircraft, but its 1970's design is not survivable against a modern military anymore, and with today's tight budget it's an expensive single-mission luxury to keep around just for benign air environments. Love it all you want, but its day has passed as eventually happens to even the finest aircraft designs.......

I think Robinson is going to NORTHCOM. The Space Command guy whose name escapes me right now is supposed to be on the short list for CSAF.

Hyten?

quote:

---

Hyten?

---

Yes! I could see his face but couldn't remember his name. I knew you'd probably know. There seems to be some buzz around him but who knows. He's not only not a fighter pilot, he's not a pilot at all. So we'll see if he can get the nod.

Haha. Small world.

Crossed paths with him when we were both 2Lts at Gunter AFS, prior to my finally passing my eye test to head off to UNT. We actually worked together.

The computer guys at Gunter were much smarter than the aviators I was around the rest of my career

This is nothing like MRAPs, Nobelmen is right the A-10 usage has more to do with resource availability than anything else.

There is very little in the current or likely future operating environments which A-10s can do that AH-64s or F-16 can't do better. There are many things Apaches and Falcons can do which Warthogs are completely incapable of. Having personally employed all three air frames (and many others) in theaters of war I will unequivocally say there was never a time I would have preferred six A-10s to two AH-64s. Apaches are that much better. More, in possible future wars most enemies capable of effectively stopping AWT could also stop A-10s; wars where F-16s (and other fast movers) could still readily support the CAS mission. The Warthog has its niche but if you are limited in procurement I would almost always take Apaches and Falcons over Warthogs.

There are plenty of things that Welsh could have done differently but he was also dealt a pretty crappy hand with the budget Congress (and the POTUS' admin) gave him, forcing him to make some pretty tough and unpopular decisions.

quote:

---

This is nothing like MRAPs, Nobelmen is right the A-10 usage has more to do with resource availability than anything else.

There is very little in the current or likely future operating environments which A-10s can do that AH-64s or F-16 can't do better. There are many things Apaches and Falcons can do which Warthogs are completely incapable of. Having personally employed all three air frames (and many others) in theaters of war I will unequivocally say there was never a time I would have preferred six A-10s to two AH-64s. Apaches are that much better. More, in possible future wars most enemies capable of effectively stopping AWT could also stop A-10s; wars where F-16s (and other fast movers) could still readily support the CAS mission. The Warthog has its niche but if you are limited in procurement I would almost always take Apaches and Falcons over Warthogs.

---

I think it's very similar to MRAPS. The service chiefs didn't want MRAPs because they were seen as a niche vehicle that wouldn't be used in future conflicts and they wanted to spend the procurement dollars on other vehicles. Sounds like the same thing to me.

Nobody is comparing a AH64 to an A-10. Apples and Oranges, or rather CAA and CAS. that Apache's don't go very fast and can't stay very long. So if you have them great, but if you don't have them close or are operating an any kind of altitude where they can't carry much fuel and have to burn a lot of it to get to you, you are out of luck.

I think the big difference is in the descriptions of CAS I'm reading on this board. If you need to drop a bomb on a building 1000m away then a B1 is perfect. They can circle at 30,000 and do that all day, literally. But if you are a squad leader and your pinned down and need a gun run on a tree line 200m away that B1 can't do much for you. They are both CAS missions, but very different in nature and execution.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is nothing like MRAPs, Nobelmen is right the A-10 usage has more to do with resource availability than anything else.

There is very little in the current or likely future operating environments which A-10s can do that AH-64s or F-16 can't do better. There are many things Apaches and Falcons can do which Warthogs are completely incapable of. Having personally employed all three air frames (and many others) in theaters of war I will unequivocally say there was never a time I would have preferred six A-10s to two AH-64s. Apaches are that much better. More, in possible future wars most enemies capable of effectively stopping AWT could also stop A-10s; wars where F-16s (and other fast movers) could still readily support the CAS mission. The Warthog has its niche but if you are limited in procurement I would almost always take Apaches and Falcons over Warthogs.

---

I think it's very similar to MRAPS. The service chiefs didn't want MRAPs because they were seen as a niche vehicle that wouldn't be used in future conflicts and they wanted to spend the procurement dollars on other vehicles. Sounds like the same thing to me.

Nobody is comparing a AH64 to an A-10. Apples and Oranges, or rather CAA and CAS. that Apache's don't go very fast and can't stay very long. So if you have them great, but if you don't have them close or are operating an any kind of altitude where they can't carry much fuel and have to burn a lot of it to get to you, you are out of luck.

I think the big difference is in the descriptions of CAS I'm reading on this board. If you need to drop a bomb on a building 1000m away then a B1 is perfect. They can circle at 30,000 and do that all day, literally. But if you are a squad leader and your pinned down and need a gun run on a tree line 200m away that B1 can't do much for you. They are both CAS missions, but very different in nature and execution.

---

The A-10 budget fight is different from the MRAP budget fight in all but the most general and superficial terms. The similarity is early on service chiefs did not want MRAPs because, as you stated, they were seen as a niche vehicle. Early on it was believed the IED threat would be short lived and procurement dollars could be better spent on long term developments. Very quickly (by military standards) it was recognized the IED threat was not going away and MRAPs represented our best protective asset. Moving forward M-ATVs offer the protection and mobility we need. MRAPs offer truly unique and important characteristics absent from Stryker's and Bradley's. The IED threat is a persistent threat we continue to face and will likely see again in future engagements. MRAPs our among our best assets at dealing with them.

A-10s are at the end of their service life, developed for a threat other assets can handle better. Unlike MRAPs which are at the beginning of there life cycle handling threats nothing else can.

As for not comparing AH-64s to A-10s you are right in I seem to be the only one explicitly comparing them. However Warthogs have more mission commonality with Apaches than most other Air Force vics. Thus I think it is an apt comparison. It is true AWT lacks the speed or loiter time (at some altitudes) as A-10s. However I would gladly trade three A-10s for a single AH-64; the solution is to get more AWT. If you have to sacrifice Warthogs for Apaches that is an acceptable sacrifice.

I 100% agree this board is discussing two very different CAS missions. I also 100% agree B-1s (and other air frames) are much better at the precision munition at 1,000+meters CAS mission. However I disagree about the B-1s inablity to help v the A-10. Having been a PL pinned down by a tree line 150m away A-10s were completely ineffective. B-1s provided ISR and allowed us to be successful. More over having directed both A-10s, AH-64s, and fast movers I would gladly trade three A-10s for a single AH-64. Once again if the Apache has limitations then we need to get more of them so we can forward deploy more. I think you are radically over valuing the A-10s usefulness to the guys on the ground, and undervaluing the real world value of AWT, quality ISR, and precision munitions.

All of the above being true I will 100% concede the A-10 can do many things no other Air Force victor can do. I will also 100% acknowledge the Air Force is much better at getting there funding secured than the Army. Having worked in Joint environments those Air Force operations officers had the budget approval process down to a science while in the Army it always felt like we were just guessing at what might work. As such I do not think congress is apt to move Air Force A-10 dollars to buy the Army more AH-64s. I also think there are huge second and third order benefits of having airmen who know and understand the A-10s CAS mission. So in the context of what will actually happen (ie A-10s getting cut for nothing, or more Air Force X) I would say there is value in retaining the A-10.