"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

Yeah....like our Pilots are so scared considering the record of anyone using even top of the line Soviet or Russian Equipment! LOL!!!!!

Hey DAD!!! Isn't that an MiG-31 flying toward us!!??

Gee SON....your right! OK....get your sling shot loaded and ready and 1....2......awww.....it got mechanical failure and burt into flames before we could hit it with a rock......bummmer.

AboveAlpha

 

Whatever you want to believe pal.

I have to just post hi to people who have a brain now as I am packing out so keep trying and don't remember....you are SPECIAL! OK? Don't let ANYOINE tell you different.

AboveAlpha

 

And I was correcting that statement of his. Remember, I really have no "axe to grind" here, only wanting correct information. Nothing more, nothing less. He made a wrong statement, I corrected it. As simple as that.

Yes they can, as long as they stay out of known danger areas.

All pilots are given areas they are to avoid. Or to only be entered with prior permission. Think of it as "rules of the road" for those in the air. When going to the air base, only take this route. When leaving the air base, only take this route. Those are common sense, mostly to avoid colliding with other aircraft. If the ATC announces all flights taking off and landing are to fly East to West, you do not decide to try and land in the opposite direction just because you want to.

And it is left up to the CO. However, it is at a much higher level then say a squadron commander. This is a Corps level decision, under the advisement of the Corps level ADAFCO - the Air Defense Artillery Fire Control Officer.

And this is not the name of an individual, but a position with multiple people who oversee all Air Defense assets in the theatre. They tell the Air Defense units where to go, and what areas of the sky they are to watch for threats, and what assets they are to protect. And they also pass along to the allied pilots in the area what areas to avoid, so they can helpfully not become friendly fire.

The problem happens here is twofold. First, when the RADAR is on it is always seeking targets. And the PATRIOT RADAR can lock onto hundreds of targets at the same time. At Fort Bliss we often "locked onto" commercial aircraft landing at the civilian airport, for practice. The OIC might even designate one airplane in the holding pattern as an "enemy target", and a simulated engagement will be done to attempt to "kill" that one aircraft out of all in range. But we had no missiles at all, this is just training.

In modern warfare, with the speeds of aircraft and also of missiles, there is simply not much time to make sure an inbound aircraft is friend or foe. If the IFF responds not friendly, and it is flying in an area that allied aircraft are not supposed to be in, you shoot it down. It is just that simple.

For the Brits in the Hurricane, that squadron was known to have their IFF turned off. It was approaching the defended asset, and was coming from the direction of an Iraqi air base. So it was shot down. Sucks, but the Brits stopped flying with IFF turned off after that.

For the F-16, it was being painted by the Air Defense RADAR. It was in an area it was not supposed to be flying, but gave a positive IFF response. The PATRIOT unit did not try to fire anything, but it also was not going to turn off it's RADAR, simply because a friendly aircraft is in the area.

Yo can try wading through this document, it might help you understand a bit more how Air Defense is integrated into the overall battle plan.

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/fm44-100fd/ch5.htm

However, I think most would find it pretty dry reading, and maybe only barely comprehensible.

 

What you stated is correct....however we have a system...and I am sure you KNOW what I am talking about if you are a Patriot Crew Member.....that through U.S. Satellite Recon...once a SAM or AAA Mobile Battery turns on ONCE....we will know where it is a YEAR LATER....as long as it does not enter for longer than a month a shielded area.

Get it?

AboveAlpha

 

In English please.

 

Special Person requires special spelling! LOL!!!

I am HAPPY!!!!

I am out of here in 24 hours so even your remarks can't hold down my rising spirit!!!

I even hope YOU have a good...let's see...how many hours to U.K. difference....Good Night!!

AboveAlpha

 

Fair enough.

Ok I've read the rest of your post and I understand what you mean.

Hurricane? I don't understand, we haven't used those in very long while.

I had a brief look. Good god you've got more acronyms than we do.
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/fm44-100fd/ch5.htm

No contest to that one.

 

My bad, should have verified my memory before posting. It was a Tornado.

Oh, you do not know the half of it! We have acronyms coming out the A.S.S. in that field. The actual most relevant part of that entire document is probably the following:

That is typical "militaryese" for saying that they handle coordination between the ground forces (Air Defense units) and the Air Forces (Army, Air Force, Naval Air, and Allies) to tell them what areas to avoid because we have air defense assets in place.

All pilots are familiar with charts. They often include areas shaded and designated "no fly zones". It may be an airport (where only flights going to and from are allowed in the airspace), it may be a military base, or for some other reason they do not want aircraft in the area.

 

No worries.

I can understand using acronyms in the field because it saves time but there's got to be a limit.
I find it irritating when civil authorities use it like county councils for example.

Ok. I understand what you've written.

 

MANPAD's are SAM's, and there is plenty of mobile SAM systems fielded around the world.

It already has been happening. One specialized type that USAF should retain IMO is air supremacy platforms for offensive counter air, and so leaving the multiroles for defensive counter air. The benefit of playing that game is you can support the offense and be able to retask in the air to get muddy.

In a war, UCAV's would be used as expandable - basically ordnance which can launch ordnance or run systems and RTB if able. You dont seem to be up with current trends, so the idea is to use them to swarm for effect. What we are seeing in theatre now is field testing and not how they'd be fielded and used in war. If they survive that is great, but its not the purpose. A aircraft needs to survive else we'd run out of pilots.

Enerfgy weapons are coming along in development and working, so we are not talking science fiction.

Your just being argumentative and not really referencing any real organized concepts arent you? You cannot stick with 40 year old strategy and expect to win when technology is changing how wars are fought. Air supremacy requires depth and therefore specialization, but perfect CAS can be summed up in 9 lines or so.

I knew that when I was 12 years old, which was more then one decade ago. I think your holding on very tightly to the little you do know, and it is shading your capacity to look beyond it. Accurate and relevant context is great, but dont get drunk on it that you miss out on the other flavors. The point you seem to be trying to skate around is that the operating environment of the A10 in a proper war is very much more deadlier a place then it was 30 or even 20 years ago. But importantly is that we are talking about near future wars, not 'todays' full on war. We have to think of the next 10-20 years, because that is how long these decisions will influence and also during war we often see a huge increase in the pace of war technology advancements - and those wars are going to be even less survivable for the A10 or some other piloted subsonic truck which would probably not even survive contact with modern/future attack helicopters.

 

That doesn't make any sense even if you're using the vernacular
And which hat? I've got a Russian Ushanka and a beanie cap but I wouldn't eat those either and especially not the beret.

So have I. I'm not even a Yorkshireman.

I've just told you I've no interest in meeting strangers off the internet.

No. And daylight tends to be when things are done so I don't know why you'd care to mention that.

What does that mean?
Do you speak English?

I don't think that you've been in the forces because this kind of behaviour is something that's screened out at selection.
If you've got all your marbles together you still have to take abuse from the CSM and even an RSM during basic training.
Those that do pass, you could throw all the abuse you want and they wouldn't budge.
I expect that the US military has something similar.

So why are you behaving like this? You're clearly very agitated.

 

No...not agitated.....Happy and Amused!!! WE ARE GOING HOME!!!

Have you never watched the movie....SILENCE OF THE LAMBS!!???

Oh...and for the 100th time it would seem....I AM NOT MILITARY!!!

I am..."CIVILIAN"....in the manner the quotes denote.

I do not salute....I do not take orders....I am...ASKED...very nicely in fact....whether I will accept a JOB or not.

My Team Members are hand picked by me and right now all are U.S. Military but I have had SAS Members before.

I am a BIG FAN of Yorkshire Pudding as I grow a rather large organic Garden with many Herbs.

So Thyme, Sage, Rosemary and Parsley mixed in with the batter with Beef Fat in Mufin Tin at about 425 degrees F.

Good Stuff.

Everything else besides Fish and Chips in the U.K. is CRAP!!!

Worse cuisine on Planet Earth!!!

AboveAlpha

 

OK, can I laugh now?

"(H)olding on very tightly to the little you do know"?

Well, actually in case you missed it, Air Defense was my first specialty in the Army. So yea, I am quite knowledgeable in this. As well as the tactics we would use to deploy and operate against a wide variety of enemies, I also studied the tactics that they would try to use against us. So yea, I think I am pretty damned knowledgeable in this area.

And sorry, I actually think that the risk to the A-10 20-30 years ago was much higher then it is today, because our most likely adversary then and now (USSR/Russia) in a full-scale war is much weaker and less likely. And if we did, it would not be facing an enemy streaming from East to West Germany through the Fulda Gap, with secure bases in East Germany and controlling all of the countries from half a continent away. It would be facing an enemy more then likely in Poland, with the secure bases at our back.

This is the difference between looking up charts and statistics on pieces of paper and saying "Well, aircraft A has the longer range and goes faster, so it is superior to aircraft B" (while ignoring that A also has a longer turning radius, a less steep climb rate, and inferior avionics). You are looking at a little bit of information, completely ignoring everything else that is of critical importance to how it is used, where, and why.

This is why so many are failing in this discussion. They are dilettantes, and not experts.

And what many of these dilettantes ever avoid thinking about is that if the A-10 with it's ability to take punishing damage is no longer safe in a modern battlefield environment would not survive, what would happen to the more fragile multi-role fighters with little to no armor in such a battlefield?

 

OK I'll explain it for you, that is actually what I was referring too. Specialization in one area can limit ones awareness of others. Perhaps you read ignorance into others because you yourself do not understand what people are saying... so you fall back on your limited set of knowledge (which might be vast in certain areas) and try to claim some high ground - if your going to laugh, you might as well do it hysterically.

Comparisons are full on wars then and now, not likely current wars now versus possible wars then. It further shows that your argument is biasing your view, if you think like that.

Already addressed in prior posts. Its stupid to put manned aircraft into that airspace now, well more stupid then it was before but in the Cold War the huge numerical advantage of the Soviet bloc required desperate measures. No-one is suggesting flying an F35 like an A10 in a full on current or future war - that would be stupid, nearly as stupid as flying an A10 in there.

With all your baseless failed pokes at what you misintepret as my argument, I've forgotten what your position on it is... so I'll assume your pro-modernisation of the A10 and putting pilots into the FEBA at low level. One thing to consider is that conventional ground units outside of indirect fire support must be under some serious air threats and that is exactly the environment an A10 will not survive within. The reason the A10 was suitable for the Fulda Gap is that it could shift its influence quickly across a dynamic armored onslaught while air superiority was assumed. Technology means more indirect fire support should be able to be tasked to support ground forces. Indeed the Cold War probably ended when USSR strategists realized that tactical nukes meant the best outcome they could hope for was a nuclear wasteland in Eastern Europe, no remaining Soviet forces, and imminent resupply from the US - which meant the only way for the USSR to survive was to go MAD. So the A10 served its purpose in ensuring rogue Soviet elements didnt try anything in Europe, but advancing weapons tech meant the whole Soviet strategy become null and void. Weapons tech has only gotten better since then. I think you need to look at the influence of all weapon systems into the battlespace, and not just radar guided, land based surface to air.

 

Seen Warthog Jockeys come back with half a wing gone and holes everywhere but the pilot is encased in a Titanium Cage and that damn plane is tough!! I mean...REAL TOUGH!!

I still think we should keep em anyways!!

AboveAlpha

 

Personally, I do think it is growing past time to retire them.

But that does not mean that I think the time for a dedicated CAS airplane is history. I simply think we need to do some serious look into acquiring a next generation one, making it a bit more modular and taking advantage of the last 40 years of "stealth" technology to make it harder to kill (primarily noise and temperature abatement to make them less vulnerable to missiles).

If the A-10 was being retired for a replacement CAS dedicated aircraft, I would not have an issue with it. But retiring it with no CAS at all is simply stupid in my mind. That is like some idiot trying to say they were going to retire the M-60/M-240, because the M-16 and M-249 can do the same thing.

 

They have the Drones all set to go....they can be built quickly and cheaply.

An A-10 with that cannon is expensive to maintain and it's resupply is HEAV-VY!!!

Still....I like the idea of having a guy IN THE CRAFT that is shooting at enemies close to me...rather than some Video Game Guru playing war operating them.

They have Fully Autonomous Robotic one's....and THAT,,,scares the HELL out of me.

AboveAlpha

 

Great

Horror films don't interest me

Doesn't matter because you're still in the same environment and certain standards are expected irrespective of whether you're support staff or actually in the forces.

Sure

I doubt that you've had members of 22 with you and the funny thing is that 23 happen to be my neighbours.

What the hell has this got to do with anything?

Also home to some of the best restaurants in the world.
Do you even know what "English cuisine" consists of?

Only if you put the Greek alphabet upside down.

 

Consider two things as well


1. An unmanned aircraft can pull Gs that a manned aircraft can't, even with the pilot wearing an anti-G suit. Computers don't "black out" or "red out".


2. If an unmanned aircraft is shot down over enemy territory?.....there is no POW that has to be negotiated for or can be forced to do propaganda films or be tortured. No more "Hanoi Hiltons".

 

To a degree. Not all that "quickly" however, building a combat drone is not much different then building a combat aircraft. They are not just rolled off of a factory in a couple of days.

*shrugs* I fail to see the issue here. That cannon is the main weapon of this aircraft. It punches through tanks, ship hulls, bunkers, concrete buildings, foxholes, trucks, and just about anything else. This cannon is what puts the pucker into the enemy and more often then not causes them to break contact and try and melt away. Exactly because they know of it's power and accuracy.

If that cannon saves lives, then I could not give a damn how heavy it is, or how much it costs to maintain.

However, go back and re-read my post again, and notice where I said it should be "modular". I see no reason why they can't make the main gun a module. The current 30mm gun for combating tanks and hardened bunkers, maybe something closer to a 20mm for when the expected enemy is going to be light trucks or troops in the open.

Most US troops do not want drones operating anywhere near them. And this is for many reasons.

First of all, if you are on the ground, you know an A-10 is in the area. Generally you are the one who called it in. Your communicate with it (directly or indirectly) so you can tell each other what you see. If it is buzzing your area, you can also set up such communications. It has a real live thinking pilot inside, who can see everything with his own eyes in real time.

With a drone, it is some kid who is hundreds or even thousands of miles away, only looking at things through a TV tube. He can not see things in "real time", his field of view is very limited. And often times you never know they are there.

So say if your patrol is off-track, you are 2 klicks east of where you should be. You then hear an A-10 and see it moving towards your position. Well, there are visual recognition signals we use, and your radio operator immediately gets on the radio, screaming to any FAC that it is a friendly unit. A-10 wags it's wings and moves on.

Now same thing if it is a drone. You never see it, you never hear it, some 22 year old kid back home in the US is driving it. He sees unexpected troop movement on the ground, identifies the force as locals (because your force is assisting and training Afghan locals), and opens fire.

You can only be thankful I guess that the drone will have no more then 2 missiles, but it is going to mess up your day by them, big time. Then when you are picking up the pieces and getting medical support for your fallen and killed, the drone operator is about to get off the night shift, and go back to his room to play more video games before he goes to sleep.