PDA

View Full Version : A-10s go to Iraq


tartare
26th Nov 2014, 21:27
Finally.
Peace through superior firepower (http://www.stripes.com/news/a-10s-deployed-to-take-on-the-islamic-state-1.316187).

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th Nov 2014, 21:36
Took 'em long enough.

Looking forward to GAU-8 vs ISIL pick-up!

http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=tumblr_m69fkwbzFQ1r3fbyfo1_400.jpg

It seems we have belatedly joined the Not-F#cking-About Club.

OldCessna
26th Nov 2014, 21:54
Cant believe it took so long to move them there.

Oh wait. The Air Farce wants to use super tech fighters at 100 times the cost.

Could it not be that the big defense contractors make more money on new equipment than keeping tried and proven equipment at the front?

Now let me see, where do old Air Farce generals go when they retire?

Mechta
26th Nov 2014, 23:11
Perhaps even the A-10's Avenger gatling gun is a trifle overkill in this instance? Against the majority of targets that ISIS are fielding, a 7.62mm bullet should be more than enough. Maybe a few miniguns on the 11 pylons would be the answer against soft targets?

Glad to see the A-10 going out there as its proving once again that you can't beat time on station.

The A-10 Thunderbolt, the aeroplane every air force needs, but none wants...

Just noticed that the video says the stalling speed is 345mph. :eek: Just how much ammunition are they carrying??? :ugh:

West Coast
26th Nov 2014, 23:15
How is that 7.62 gonna get to the fight and stay there? What's going to fire the small caliber weapons?

Mechta
26th Nov 2014, 23:29
How is that 7.62 gonna get to the fight and stay there? What's going to fire the small caliber weapons?

The same way they did it on the Skyraider perhaps? In an SUU-11 pod.

RatherBeFlying
26th Nov 2014, 23:45
IS/IS/IL/Da'ish must still have some of that fine US taxpayer provided equipment supplied to the Iraq "army":p

The A-10s will revoke that generous provision while the defense tools up to supply replacements to whatever succeeds the Iraqi "army":}

If the Turks wouldn't put up an awful fuss, I'd just ship the weaponry to the Kurds;)

fitliker
26th Nov 2014, 23:48
In the dictionary under AWESOME is a picture of an A-10 :)




AWESOME and then SOME


ps: if I did not have such a problem with my bowels when people are shooting at me, I might volunteer :)

West Coast
26th Nov 2014, 23:49
Pretty sure the curators won't take kindly to their museums being raided.

My point is what's active in the US mil at least would require getting a lot closer with 7.62, would risk not as effectively eliminating the threat and would endanger the crew. First time a vid of a helo pilot being decapiated is aired, the lukewarm support this op enjoys domestically would be gone.

This also plays to keeping the A-10 in the fleet past the date the AF wants,

I'll pay a few more bucks in taxes, keep firing the big stuff. Bounce the rubble if you want.

mad_jock
26th Nov 2014, 23:52
I don't know from my limited experience in Otterburn just the look at one of them doing a run in on my OP was enough to invoke a fart which carried a bit of a risk factor.

They don't need to fire that gun of theirs to have an effect.

It looks like a killer, it is a killer, and they don't like it up them.

Mechta
26th Nov 2014, 23:52
I wonder if anyone predicted the Iraqi army vehicles might get in the wrong hands and thought of equipping them with remotely activated trackers and/or something in the engine management to remotely disable them?

prospector
26th Nov 2014, 23:55
ps: if I did not have such a problem with my bowels when people are shooting at me, I might volunteer

Very good, truth be known, it is amazing anybody volunteers.

rh200
27th Nov 2014, 00:09
if I did not have such a problem with my bowels when people are shooting at me, I might volunteer

Actually I thought was study done on the results of what actually happened under fire with large groups of soldiers. I believe a not insignificant percentage did what a lot of us think is unmanly. I believe it was in relation to WW11 or 1.

Empty ones bowl I believe when you think you may be in mortal danger is a survival reflex. Though I don't know how much we have gotten past that with conditioning.

Not the best information to have floating around when your trying to recruit.

11Fan
27th Nov 2014, 00:14
First you say it, then you do it.

obgraham
27th Nov 2014, 00:20
Seems to me Puff the Magic Dragon would cure most of those constipated ISIS scumballs pretty quickly.

mad_jock
27th Nov 2014, 00:37
http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.290139.1403475841!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/image.jpg

They don't even bother to nock the dings out.

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 00:48
Just noticed that the video says the stalling speed is 345mph.
Yes. I noticed that, and I have seen them cruising around the brickwork chimneys in Bedfordshire (now long gone - the chimneys, not Bedfordshire) at speeds much slower than that.
According to Wiki:-
Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean
Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h)

tartare
27th Nov 2014, 03:34
Love that shot Jock.
Beaten up, butt-ugly and deadly.
Col. John Boyd would be proud, and I'm sure Mr Sprey is having a quiet laugh to himself somewhere.
I wonder if they carry IR pods which can see through the hail of lead and dust to record the disintegrating ISIL body parts.
That's one piece of gore I would have no problem watching.

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 03:47
Every time the leadership of the US Air Force thinks they've rid themselves of this troublesome beast, another job pops up that only it can do.

I'd love it if the A-10 ended up lasting as long as the B-52. :ok:

Solar
27th Nov 2014, 03:57
MJ
If ever a picture trumphed a thousand words.

mikedreamer787
27th Nov 2014, 05:00
About bloody time they got the Hogs
in there - must've been chomping at
the bit till now.

Now we'll see some very tiny bits n
pieces of Daish littering the desert
after a few bursts of 30mm. But I
wouldn't mind seeing a bit of Nape
being dropped either just to burn
off the mess.

Solid Rust Twotter
27th Nov 2014, 07:30
One is prepared to sacrifice major body parts to fly that beastie with a full war load.

Onya guys!:ok:

CISTRS
27th Nov 2014, 07:58
glaRhUoE9aA

mad_jock
27th Nov 2014, 09:08
Its one of the very small list of mil hardware that I have a real feeling of want to fly it just once.

Lightning
Spitfire
Lancaster
Herk
A10

meadowrun
27th Nov 2014, 09:33
Other than rudder counter-weights, not too much other use for depleted uranium.

Flyingmac
27th Nov 2014, 10:15
I have personal experience of mis-identification by A-10 pilots.
Thankfully it wasn't this instance. If I was on the ground, on either side, I'd be nervous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4

cattletruck
27th Nov 2014, 10:59
I'd love it if the A-10 ended up lasting as long as the B-52.

As long as there are [email protected] despots using low tech weapons to kill off their own kind to seize control of their country and then jump up and down like a spoilt child making worldwide threats then there will always be a perfect role for the A-10.

We can all sleep in peace knowing it does its job well.

er340790
27th Nov 2014, 14:54
As a nipper, I recall watching the NATO introduction of the Warthog on John Craven's Newsround! That dates me.

Last year I finally got up close to one in a museum in Connecticut - that :mad: HUGE Gatling Gun would certainly be enough to make me re-question my loyalties in any conflict!!!


[This has probably been said before, but I still laugh at how one A-10 pilot got his call-sign 'Sniper'. The name has to sound cool to outsiders, but be a source of amusement to those who know how it was 'earned'. On this guy's first live-fire sortie, the Gatling Gun went off with such a huge bang, his finger slipped in shocked response - and the armorers reckoned he only managed to get off ONE ROUND! :} :D ;) :D]

Stanwell
27th Nov 2014, 15:35
Can't we just use up some of the leftover CBUs as well?
They're just going to go to waste, otherwise.

Solid Rust Twotter
27th Nov 2014, 18:02
Other than rudder counter-weights, not too much other use for depleted uranium.


Platypus on a C130? Always had to fight the urge to cover my wedding tackle when walking about on the tail section.

mad_jock
27th Nov 2014, 18:13
Depleted isn't radioactive very much.

In fact they use it as shielding to transport radioactive sources in.

It is though a highly toxic metal. Which you certainly wouldn't want to digest

West Coast
27th Nov 2014, 18:14
Seems iffin it's wedding tackle, you likely don't need it anymore. Now a single man might be well advised to cover up.

mad_jock
27th Nov 2014, 18:34
you really wouldn't.

You can sit in a room full of the stuff and lined walls and you would get less dose than standing outside in the rain.

Solid Rust Twotter
27th Nov 2014, 18:46
Geiger counters get pretty excited on the ramp of a Herc. I'll stick to the tinfoil lined shreddies, thanks....:}

mad_jock
27th Nov 2014, 19:08
It isn't the depleted that's doing that.


U238 is an Alpha emitter so a coat of paint will block most of it. If not 5cm of air.

An normal pair of pants would stop it.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 19:10
Exactly - it's a facemask you need to stop the inhalation of U-238 dust.

..or perhaps tinfoil panties are his thing? ;)

airship
27th Nov 2014, 19:12
I thought that mad_jock's photo looked a little strange:

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.290139.1403475841!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/image.jpg

Spot the difference:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/A10WarthogFront.jpg/800px-A10WarthogFront.jpg

And here's some real evidence of the Warthog's survivability:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg

West Coast
27th Nov 2014, 19:51
One is in the air, the other isn't?

airship
27th Nov 2014, 20:02
Getting warmer WC. Another hint: my photo doesn't show a pilot in the cockpit.

mad_jock
27th Nov 2014, 20:15
And your one isnt getting refueled.

I can see what the problem is

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 21:02
2:25 to 4:15:- 7tRzDse5h7Y

con-pilot
27th Nov 2014, 21:28
my photo doesn't show a pilot in the cockpit.

Neither did the first, as one cannot see the cockpit in that photo.

So I fail to see what you are talking about either, except one is in the air yours is sitting on the ground.

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 21:44
I fail to see what you are talking about either, except one is in the air yours is sitting on the ground.
Question:-
How would you get a close-up photograph of an aircraft 'flying?

Answer:-
During A2A refuelling.

Notice the 'door' on the nose (which is closed on the ground shot).
On the A2A shot the door is 'open' and the probe is 'in the hole'.

Watch the video to see what happens.

rjtjrt
27th Nov 2014, 22:00
Interesting that it looks like they have partial flap during refuelling.

BenThere
27th Nov 2014, 22:47
The problem with A-10 refueling is that at its maximum speed it is barely able to hang on the boom at the tanker's minimum speed. Often the tanker must "toboggan", that is, refuel in a descent so the A-10 can keep up by use of gravity assist, and/or lower some flaps to enter the A-10s envelope.

That has nothing to do with the A-10's magnificence in CAS or low altitude attack roles. We need a few hundred more of them in today's world.

tdracer
27th Nov 2014, 23:03
I never cease to be amazed at how the USAF brass continue to deny the usefulness of an aircraft that has continually demonstrated how extremely useful it is. :ugh:

John Hill
27th Nov 2014, 23:07
Has the A-10 been used to win any wars yet?

West Coast
27th Nov 2014, 23:20
Just think John, the A-10 in the pic is more powerful than the entire ground attack force NZ has to offer. Why not get rid of your army as well?

Bet you supported Helen didn't you?

John Hill
27th Nov 2014, 23:24
I guess that would be a 'NO' from you then eh?:p

West Coast
27th Nov 2014, 23:29
Airplanes don't win wars. Peoplle do.

Did you support Helen as she demolished the NZ AF?

rh200
28th Nov 2014, 00:01
Has the A-10 been used to win any wars yet?

Winning wars, is a multi pronged approach, not usually a result of a single weapons system. Though Nukes would come close.

Wasn't the A10 one of the systems that help win the war in Iraqi. And in doing so pulled of the shackles of fear and repression for 2/3 of the population, and enabled them to have democracy. From which then the current president destroyed by supporting terrorists in Syria

Matari
28th Nov 2014, 00:08
History lesson for Jong Hill: the A-10 helped win the most important war of the late 20th century. You don't always have to fire a weapon system to make the other guy think twice.

The current war, the one against the bearded fanatics instead of the red-star variety, is going to be a long and difficult one, too. The A-10 is back on station, serving well as always. You're welcome.

fitliker
28th Nov 2014, 00:13
Time to crank up the volume on the AC/DC track Highway to Hell :)

Windy Militant
28th Nov 2014, 00:15
Judging by the dents in the nose of the A 10 in MJs Photo I guess it's the one they use to train the boom jockeys on before they let them loose on the more delicate toys. ;)

BenThere
28th Nov 2014, 00:25
Has the A-10 been used to win any wars yet?

Yes, several times.

brickhistory
28th Nov 2014, 00:26
The shot of the A-10 refueling shows the results of some ham-fisted boom operators banging on the nose trying to fly the boom into the receptacle.

Not a slight on the boomers, everyone needs to start somewhere and needs practice. It speaks volumes of how cavalierly we speak about the near-miracle of AAR.

BenT wrote about the tobogganing needed to have the A-10 stay up with the tanker in order to get gas. Related was controlling A-10 refuelings was one of the few receivers that required the tanker to make the turn to place itself in front of the receiver as the A-10 would lose too much speed if you tried to turn him onto the tankers. Instead, the tanker had to roll-out just above the A-10 and directly on-speed or else the Warthog was never gonna stay fast enough to begin the process which now turned into the toboggan.

A-10s winning wars? By itself no. But starring roles in:

Desert Storm - especially the Highway of Death, liberal news footage of which helped call that war off (before it was finished).

Allied Force - A-10s taking out Serbs in wooden-lined bunkers, on tractors, and around artillery pieces were a major factor in getting ol' Milosh to call it off.

Lots and lots of Allied troops came home thanks to the A-10, both in kinetic roles and by its mere presence to bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Including Kiwis. Whom I respect much more than I do a certain moss-covered hobbit.

Is it a super-war-winning-all by itself platform? No, but that's not how the game is played.

Our resident military hardware expert wants to name a weapons system that, by itself, has won a war.

Fat Man and Little Boy certainly ended on conflict by themselves.
I wouldn't mind seeing their descendents used a couple more times to end various wanna-be caliphates.

Didn't a recent U.S. President win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Just thought I'd mention that ironic fact in a thread about a potent warplane being sent into harm's way by that same President.

G-CPTN
28th Nov 2014, 00:34
From the interweb:-
During the first Gulf War, the A-10s destroyed more than half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks knocked out by air strikes. A-10s also took out about 300 armored personnel carriers and artillery sites.

BenThere
28th Nov 2014, 00:58
When the A-10 appeared in the late 70's, it changed the calculus of the envisioned tank battle for Western Europe in the West's favor.

Later, the A-10 proved itself a key component of the victory in Gulf War 1.

It was a key factor in the Kosovo War, taking out enemy ground forces, convoys, and infrastructure, and helping to show that under the right circumstances, wars could indeed be won from the air.

In Gulf War II and Afghanistan, the A-10 (along with the B-52) again was a key component in the routing of Iraqi and Taliban forces and their capitulation. The enemy couldn't stand up to it for a sustained campaign.

The A-10 remains unsurpassed, even unique, for its mission. That USAF never really embraced it is a poor reflection on USAF, not the A-10, which in my opinion is the best bang for the buck we ever got out of a weapon system.

Andu
28th Nov 2014, 01:30
For me, the most interesting thing about the A10 is the USAF hierarchy's almost absolute resistance to its acceptance, and after it was forced on to them, their equally unremitting campaign to have it scrapped or consigned to National Guard or Reserve units.

John Boyd's excellent biography gives a really disturbing view of what went on - and, it would appear, continues to go on to this day.

tartare
28th Nov 2014, 01:40
Exactly Andu - bloody good book that.
The A-10 - Stuka of the jet age.

con-pilot
28th Nov 2014, 01:41
Just think John, the A-10 in the pic is more powerful than the entire ground attack force NZ has to offer. Why not get rid of your army as well?


Hell, that US one (1) privately owned P-51 with the working .50 Cal. machine guns out numbers the fighters that New Zealand has. :p

prospector
28th Nov 2014, 01:50
Why not get rid of your army as well?

We do not need that either, We have got a massive fleet of Waka, and all the occupants are armed with very sharp sticks, you lot better be careful!!.

Hempy
28th Nov 2014, 10:18
Best Kiwi movie ever :ok: :}

0gEDUDmZkyc

The enemy within....:suspect::ooh:

radeng
28th Nov 2014, 10:45
When it comes to military philosophy, is there any better than Teddy Roosevelt's maxim?

What does the USAF have that can replace the A10 in its specialised role?

(I'm not sure about calling it a 'warthog' - 'porky' would be better because, like the little girl's dog in the joke, it f***s pigs!)

rgbrock1
28th Nov 2014, 13:17
Mechta wrote:

Perhaps even the A-10's Avenger gatling gun is a trifle overkill in this instance?

No it is not overkill. ISIL, or whatever the name of the week for that group of thugs is, also have tanks i.e., armor, as well as light artillery pieces. Both very good targets for the wrath of the Warthog.

Mechta
28th Nov 2014, 15:17
RGB, Did you read what I wrote?

Perhaps even the A-10's Avenger gatling gun is a trifle overkill in this instance? Against the majority of targets that ISIS are fielding, a 7.62mm bullet should be more than enough. Maybe a few miniguns on the 11 pylons would be the answer against soft targets?

Like everyone else, I've seen the pictures of ISIS in captured armoured vehicles. What I was advocating is to use the rest of the aircraft's capability to carry weapons appropriate to the range of targets encountered. The Avenger gun magazine has a finite capacity. Why not use some of the pylon capacity too? If there are still targets to engage, you don't want to be going home to reload before you have run out of fuel.

Stanwell
28th Nov 2014, 17:25
A memo to certain prolific posters on this thread...

What started off as a pretty interesting discussion about the virtues of the 'Hog' has degenerated into a kiddies' schoolyard spat.

In particular, the otherwise sensible member that suggested that another get off his 'crack pipe'.
To you sir, may I suggest that you get stuck into your bourbon AFTER you post, rather than before.

As we say here in OZ, "PULL YER HEAD IN !".

Carry on, gentlemen.

Matari
28th Nov 2014, 17:29
Did you notice who took it off track?

Stanwell
28th Nov 2014, 17:38
Yeah, but there are limits - even amongst us ratbags.

rgbrock1
28th Nov 2014, 17:59
I actually had the fortune, if you will, of working with a few Warthogs a number of years ago at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, CA.

As mechanized infantrymen, our unit took part in a "combined arms" exercise which included, naturally, infantry, armor, artillery and air support. During one part of the exercise we witnessed several A-10's, after being called in for a fire mission by our attached FACs (Forward Air Controllers), laying waste to some targets.

It was awesome to witness the A-10s basically obliterating the targets which were set up for their destructive pleasures! (Old APC's, tanks, self-propelled artillery pieces, etc.) And boy were they loud, and slow, coming in over a not-too-distant ridge line. :eek:

The A-10's were followed by about 1/2 dozen Apache helos who also took part in the fun. Equally awesome to behold.

airship
28th Nov 2014, 18:18
If you take a closer look at mad_jock's photo again:

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.290139.1403475841!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/image.jpg

One might be mistaken for confusing the 'IFR probe' with an admittedly midget-sized pilot wearing a flight-helmet and sitting in a canopyless cockpit where one shouldn't be. It didn't catch me or anyone else out I'm glad to note... :O

rgbrock1
28th Nov 2014, 18:20
airship:

That apparent midget-sized pilot in the canopy-less cockpit wearing the equally midget-sized flight helmet is, indeed, a Teletubby. How could you not know that? :}:E

Matari
28th Nov 2014, 18:21
Now what was that about a crack pipe again?

rgbrock1
28th Nov 2014, 18:22
Not crack*, Matari, too many beers last night. Mea culpa. :}:E



*who, in their right mind, would do a drug with a name which is the same as a part of one's ass anyway?

Stanwell
28th Nov 2014, 18:25
Matari,
It seems the relevant post has been deleted.

con-pilot
28th Nov 2014, 18:30
It seems the relevant posts has been deleted.

As they should have been.

But;

"He started it, he started it Miss! :E

airship
28th Nov 2014, 18:51
Of course, the A-10 operating in a theatre without air-superiority or in a SAM-rich environment would be almost useless. I wonder how it would fare in a dogfight against a WWII-era fighter like the ME-262? Or even a Spitfire / Mustang? 'Cannon against cannon' as it were... ;)

con-pilot
28th Nov 2014, 19:02
Of course, the A-10 operating in a theatre without air-superiority or in a SAM-rich environment would be almost useless.

I don't think the A-10 would be allowed to operate in any theater where we did not have nearly total air superiority. As the A-1s were in Viet Nam, only used when there was a high expectation of US air superiority.

As for SAMs, it depends on the type of SAMs., as the A-10operates at very low levels. They did fine in the two wars in Iraq, where there was a high risk of SAMS.

rgbrock1
28th Nov 2014, 19:05
The Warthog has some AA counter-measures available for use, just in case. Not much but better than nothing.

RatherBeFlying
29th Nov 2014, 04:18
The A-10 would not be helpless. It can stay low and turn inside a fast jet which then has to make a pass staring down a gun barrel spitting out DU:uhoh:

Low down makes it hard for a missile to acquire and hold a lock.

Then again the missile seeker might get distracted by a hot cloud of DU:E

Fast jets have a tough time taking on helicopters. One suggestion is hitting the ground below with a bomb, but an A-10 can get away.

BenThere
29th Nov 2014, 04:30
I have limited observation of an A-10 from the ground, one encounter, but the approach was very quiet, and I didn't realize it was there until it flew over my head at 500-1000 feet.

So far, air superiority has been a given for US and allied forces post-ColdWar. I think the A-10 needs that, though I think it could operate without it under some circumstances. It does fly below the radar, and has great low altitude night terrain-hugging radar.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
29th Nov 2014, 11:46
Fighter-Helo affil could be very tricky, but I never had the slightest problem against the A-10. Too slow to run away, too fast to hide.
As said though, it's good against ground threats and we do have air superiority.
Good luck chaps!

con-pilot
29th Nov 2014, 17:49
The only thing I know for an absolute fact about the A-10 was told to me by a guy I used to fly with who was an A-10 pilot in GW I.

They had to fly the whole group of them to Saudi Araba from the US, non-stop.

He said he never was the same after that flight. :(

mad_jock
29th Nov 2014, 17:58
how long a flight time was that?

con-pilot
29th Nov 2014, 18:15
how long a flight time was that?

About two months. :p


I really can't remember now, but it was a long time. Guess you could figure it out, say a GS of around 280 kts from Florida (or some place on the US East Coast) to Saudi Arabia.

John Hill
29th Nov 2014, 18:36
Double sunrise, at least.

BenThere
29th Nov 2014, 18:54
I had to dig out my old logbook from the basement archives, but the most flying I ever did in one day on active duty, in a KC-135, was in 1979 dragging four A-10s from Pease AFB, New Hampshire to Europe with a fuel stop at Lajes.

As I recall, they were going to Sembach AB, GE and we recovered at Mildenhall. 13.6 hours flight time, unaugmented. They were unaugmented, too, of course. Maybe they had some of those go pills.

mad_jock
29th Nov 2014, 19:45
Sod that, poor sods no wonder they were altered for life.

con-pilot
29th Nov 2014, 20:01
Sod that, poor sods no wonder they were altered for life.

More like their backsides were altered for life. :p

mad_jock
29th Nov 2014, 20:06
Aye sitting in a nappy that long isn't going to do much for you in the bollock rot stakes.

galaxy flyer
29th Nov 2014, 21:39
BenThere,

Are you sure it wasn't an overnight in Lajes? I did 5 trans-Atlantics in the A-10, we always overnighted, had dinner at Pescador's and flew on to RAF Bentwaters or to Turkey. I flew the C-5 a long time before I beat my 10.2, Yenisheir, Turkey to Lajes.

GF

con-pilot
29th Nov 2014, 22:11
flew on to RAF Bentwaters

Bentwaters? That was my hometown when I lived in England.

Well that and Woodbridge.

Oh, no A-10s back then, F-100s and F-101s.

SHornet
29th Nov 2014, 23:06
Oh wait. The Air Farce wants to use super tech fighters at 100 times the cost.

Not really. A-10's are a very good aircraft, but they are absolutely useless at evading SAMs. It is common sense to send something in that is capable of high speed and agility to ascertain that there is no SAM threat, or at least, the SAM threat is minimal.

The A-10 might be able to survive with multiple holes in it from gunfire, but when a missile takes out half of its fuselage and breaks off a wing, the bird's going down.

con-pilot
29th Nov 2014, 23:31
Not really. A-10's are a very good aircraft, but they are absolutely useless at evading SAMs.

Mostly correct I guess, but the A-1 in Viet Nam and the A-10 in Iraq survived SAMs.

Never the less, the way I look at it, to operate A-10s with any chance of success, we have to have near total air superiority. I would be very happy to be proved wrong.

This does bring up a question, I wonder what the plan was to operate A-10s in Europe against the Soviet Union, after all, the A-10 was designed and built to kill tanks in Europe if the flag ever came up?

SHornet
29th Nov 2014, 23:37
I've never doubted its possibility to survive a hit from SAMs, it's called the Warthog for a good reason. Although yes, operating that aircraft without at least air superiority is a dumb move, especially in Iraq right now where the 'bad guys' like to cut the heads off of their hostages, and they would just love to catch a U.S Air Force pilot who banged out of his A-10. I reckon such an incident would have drained public support for this campaign very quickly, the general public don't like it when their politicians put the military in unacceptable danger.

Solid Rust Twotter
30th Nov 2014, 05:11
...the general public don't like it when their politicians put the military in unacceptable danger.


Yet those same lowlife politicians send them into areas of extreme danger with ROE which effectively hobble them and tie their hands. Time that little cesspool was cleaned out. The low lifes obviously have no spine for doing their jobs but are willing to sacrifice the lives of better men than they for personal political ends.

Andu
30th Nov 2014, 05:38
Surely we've reached the point where the ridiculously restrictive ROE that have hobbled Western armies since 1945 - and more importantly, have guaranteed that each of those wars have lasted far longer and resulted in many more deaths than they would have if pursued without those restrictions - should be unceremoniously dumped?

A disinterested observer could be forgiven for reaching the rather unpalatable conclusion that the only reason that makes any sense that these ROE are allowed to continue is that there is more money to be made from these small wars that go on forever until they are lost than would be made if a war was fought with vigor and therefore won quickly.

rh200
30th Nov 2014, 07:33
Surely we've reached the point where the ridiculously restrictive ROE that have hobbled Western armies since 1945

In the lefts eyes its our punishment for using nuke's. You can bet your @rse in the future there will be a concerted campaign to beat that up as an unbridled act of terror on our part.

John Hill
30th Nov 2014, 07:40
ROEs cannot be used as an excuse for military forces 'failing to perform'.

BenThere
30th Nov 2014, 08:55
BenThere,

Are you sure it wasn't an overnight in Lajes?

I have it logged as:

Pease-Lajes 0224-0952 7.5 hours
Lajes-Mildenhall 2259-0504 6.1 hours

So we flew overnight to Lajes, rested during the day, and launched that night. I recorded my times in zulu, so I treated it as all in one day in the logbook, though it was a 27 hour day.

Crew duty days and required rest were different back then.

John Hill:

ROEs cannot be used as an excuse for military forces 'failing to perform'.

Sez who?

SHornet
30th Nov 2014, 09:50
Yet those same lowlife politicians send them into areas of extreme danger with ROE which effectively hobble them and tie their hands. Time that little cesspool was cleaned out. The low lifes obviously have no spine for doing their jobs but are willing to sacrifice the lives of better men than they for personal political ends.

SRT, the problem is, is that the general public simply don't know the full details of the ROE. They only really know of what little gets reported.

In the case of the UK, the Rules of Engagement issued by the Ministry of Defence are, for the most part, classified because it "could endanger troops on the ground". Well in the case of Afghanistan, it didn't take very long for the Taliban to figure out exactly what the ROE were and how to manipulate the rules to leave troops sitting on their arses, unable to do anything when they really needed to.

The politicians knew that legally, the general public couldn't know about this so they didn't change tactics, despite being asked to on many occasions by senior military commanders.

rh200
30th Nov 2014, 11:27
ROEs cannot be used as an excuse for military forces 'failing to perform'.

Absolutely correct John. But thats why the forces make sure that they have checks and balances to ensure every one does their job as ordered to the standard expected.

ROE can however be blamed when the military can't fight the war the way they would like to, another words tying their hands behind their back.

Stanwell
30th Nov 2014, 14:14
SRT,
Agree!

JH,
Would you care to expand on that?

Boudreaux Bob
30th Nov 2014, 15:09
What were the ROE's during WWII?

Solid Rust Twotter
30th Nov 2014, 18:52
...the problem is, is that the general public simply don't know the full details of the ROE. They only really know of what little gets reported.


Nothing to do with the general public, except as pawns of the shit sucking politicians. Hobble the guy on the ground and take cheap shots at him when he screws up, but expect him to do things that exceed the authority given him. Doesn't work that way.

Politicians? I shit 'em!

con-pilot
30th Nov 2014, 19:18
Politicians? I shit 'em!

So that's where they come from, you! :suspect:

Two's in
30th Nov 2014, 20:07
When the politicians have decided to win the conflict by "winning hearts and minds", it gets tricky for the military commanders to win battles through the delivery of superior firepower. Sudden and violent destruction of enemy forces with overwhelming strength is in every tactical manual ever written, but it does not play well with lying, stinking politicians trying to figure out (a) who the good guys are, (b) where the next votes are, and (c) did anyone film this?

That is why there must be clear military objectives that are achievable to the commander on the ground using military means. Soldiers and bombs have a clear purpose, they are not effective when used for policing, or "peacekeeping or "being seen to be doing something" - our new favorite activity in the military realm.

The net result is military intervention will always be shackled and hobbled by illogical ROE that are designed to protect shiny suits and careers in Washington and London, while the "warfighters" are hung out to dry from a tactical perspective.

This is not news or even new. It is the story of modern warfare and it is why we are destined to repeat history with monotonous regularity.

Andu
30th Nov 2014, 20:58
Someone asked about ROE in WW2. Let me give you an example, told to me by an elderly Englishman.

But first, how many of you have seen the Ross Kemp/History Channel documentaries of British and American troops oh so carefully approaching Afghan compounds and, after triple checking they're actually taking fire from a particular building in the compound, maybe launching a Milan rocket into said building before asking very brave young troopers to clear the rest of the compound step by painful (and all too often fatal) step with little more than their SA80s or M4s?

Back to my elderly Englishman, a long retired General who was an either teenage or just past teenage second lieutenant with the British army in Germany in the closing weeks of WW2.

He started his story by telling me that in the 1950s and later decades, the Americans were very popular with the locals in northern Germany but the British not quite so, because it had been the British army that had had taken the towns and cities in that part of the country. In the south, he said, it was more or less the other way around - Brits, popular, Yanks, not quite so - because George Patton's 3rd Army had 'liberated' the south.

He said this could be easily explained. In those last few weeks of the war, everyone on the Allied side knew the war was won and no one was interested in being among the last to die. So if they (the Brits - and he assumed the Americans did something similar down south) approached a town, they'd find a German civilian and send him in to tell the mayor that if there was no resistance, the town would be left undamaged, but if there was any - stress any resistance, the town would be destroyed.

He said that in most cases, the locals would be happy to oblige - but all too often, some 14 year old Hitler Youth would not get the message and would let off a round from the church steeple - and the Brits would withdraw and call in the Typhoons or the arty. And after the village centre was destroyed and fifty or more townspeople were dead, the whole 'resistance' would prove to have been that one kid. He said that happened a lot.

Six months earlier, the attacking Allied armies were operating under rules not a lot more sensible than we see today. Anyone who saw 'A Bridge Too Far' will remember the scene (before things go pear-shaped for the Allies) where a Dutchman tells the leading Brit tankie there's a Tiger panzer in the building ahead waiting in ambush and the Brit replies that he's not allowed to damage civilian buildings unnecessarily. Fifteen minutes later, he and his crew are dead and half the town's in ruins.

The politicians and politics have always been involved, if not to the extent they are today.

tdracer
30th Nov 2014, 22:54
Six months earlier, the attacking Allied armies were operating under rules not a lot more sensible than we see today. Anyone who saw 'A Bridge Too Far' will remember the scene (before things go pear-shaped for the Allies) where a Dutchman tells the leading Brit tankie there's a Tiger panzer in the building ahead waiting in ambush and the Brit replies that he's not allowed to damage civilian buildings unnecessarily. Fifteen minutes later, he and his crew are dead and half the town's in ruins.


Minor correction Andu, that scene is from "Band of Brothers", not "A Bridge Too Far", and the guy warning him us a US Paratrooper (I was watching that episode of BoB yesterday). But point well taken.

Lonewolf_50
1st Dec 2014, 22:16
Back to the A-10.

The Warthog pilots I worked with were not keen on trying to defeat a modern hand held SAM with defensive maneuvering.
Granted, one might take a hit and be able to get home, but one also might have to perform the Silk One departure.

radeng
2nd Dec 2014, 09:54
Lonewolf,

earlier in this thread, it was said the A-10 are being moved to ANG units and withdrawn from USAF service. What have the air force got to replace them in that ground attack role? My understanding is that something fairly heavily armed, heavily armoured and capable of a low stalling speed is required. I remember reading that in the Korean war, quite slow aircraft were used for that role. After all, at 300 or so knots, you don't have long get the DU bullets on target.....and a missile is much more expensive.

rgbrock1
2nd Dec 2014, 14:14
John Hill wrote:

ROEs cannot be used as an excuse for military forces 'failing to perform'.

What utter bullshit. Obviously written by someone who has never donned a uniform in his life.

rgbrock1
2nd Dec 2014, 14:19
SHornet wrote:

Well in the case of Afghanistan, it didn't take very long for the Taliban to figure out exactly what the ROE were and how to manipulate the rules to leave troops sitting on their arses, unable to do anything when they really needed to.

Holds true for American troops equally so. Case in point: US Army infantry platoon giving chase to a bunch of Taliban near the Paki border. Platoon comes under fire not from the chased Taliban but from Paki border troops who were using missile launchers, mortars and artillery on the platoon. By ROE the platoon was not authorized to return fire against the "friendlies."

rgbrock1
2nd Dec 2014, 14:21
B Bob wrote:

What were the ROE's during WWII?

Kill the enemy.

SHornet
2nd Dec 2014, 16:24
Holds true for American troops equally so. Case in point: US Army infantry platoon giving chase to a bunch of Taliban near the Paki border. Platoon comes under fire not from the chased Taliban but from Paki border troops who were using missile launchers, mortars and artillery on the platoon. By ROE the platoon was not authorized to return fire against the "friendlies."

I'm not military (yet) however I have heard of similar stories from those who I know who saw active service in Afghan.

The Taliban favourite were Mosques. They knew they could set up a firing position from there and neither troops nor aircraft were allowed to engage the position, the Western leaders don't want to be seen to be anti-Islam.

My argument: if British and American troops built a Church and used it as a firing position, the Taliban wouldn't have been so kind as to refuse to engage it. They would try their utmost to turn it to dust!

Rwy in Sight
2nd Dec 2014, 17:03
rgbrock1,

Friendly fire or blue on blue comes to mind.

Rwy in Sight

rgbrock1
2nd Dec 2014, 17:54
Rway

Blue on blue or friendly fire: I don't understand what that has to do with what I wrote. Please elaborate.

John Hill
2nd Dec 2014, 18:11
What utter bullshit. Obviously written by someone who has never donned a uniform in his life.

Wrong on both counts.

Rwy in Sight
2nd Dec 2014, 19:10
I'd rather do it via PM, one is sent.

rgbrock1
2nd Dec 2014, 19:28
Rwy:

Roger. Received.

Lonewolf_50
3rd Dec 2014, 18:08
Lonewolf,

earlier in this thread, it was said the A-10 are being moved to ANG units and withdrawn from USAF service. What have the air force got to replace them in that ground attack role?
There are a variety of airborne and land based fires that can be directed at a target. The A-10 has the distinct advantage of being purpose built for CAS, and having that lovely gun, but other platforms, depending on how you wish to engage the target, can do nicely.

Apache
Cobra
F-16
Harrier
etcetera