Author Topic: The Case for the A-10C  (Read 378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 166,903
The Case for the A-10C
« on: June 22, 2023, 02:19:50 pm »

The Case for the A-10C
June 21, 2023 by Special Guest

by Ivan F. Ingraham

The United States Air Force’s decision to divest the A-10C “Warthog” has larger ramifications for future wars than just an airframe. The service plans to drastically reduce its capability and capacity to provide Close Air Support (CAS) to ground forces, leaving the sons and daughters of America and her allies to fight without a dedicated CAS aircraft for the first time since Vietnam. 

History First
The venerable “Warthog” is viewed by some as a Cold War relic that only exists as a jobs program for congressional representatives. This is myopic.

With nearly four decades in service, the A-10C stems from the lessons (re)learned after Vietnam. From inception, the A-10C was a purpose-built CAS platform with demonstrated battlefield survivability. Because of its rugged design paired with heavy and diverse payloads of modern stand-off decoys and weapons, each A-10C delivers more firepower to support ground forces than its fighter counterparts. Further, its AAR-47 missile warning system is especially effective at defeating nearly all Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS).

I spent a 24-year career as a Marine Infantry Officer, later transitioning to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), commanding at the Team, Platoon, and Company levels in both Joint and Combined combat environments.

https://havokjournal.com/culture/military/the-case-for-the-a-10c/
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson

Offline DefiantMassRINO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,494
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Case for the A-10C
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2023, 02:38:14 pm »
The Air Force doesn't want to be bogged down supporting terrestrial tactical engagements.

For the Air Force top brass, the glory and the new shiny things exist in strategic programs.

Where's the sexiness in maintaining or updating the A-10?  All the cool kids want shiny new satellites, missiles, missile defense systems, strategic long-rang stealth aircraft, and Black Budget double secret probabation projects.

Why should the Air Force waste its budget to protect Army and Marine forces?  The Army and Marines should be using their own budgets for their own close air support.  Isn't that what Marine and Army attack helicopters are supposed to do?

If the Marines and Army want A-10 close air support, why don't they setup their own tactical close air support wings with A-10's?  If they had their own A-10 units and budgets, they wouldn't have to quabble with the Air Force.  It's obvious the Air Force wants to vacate the tactical close air support space, making it available for other services.
"It doesn't matter what temperature the room is, it's always room temperature." - Steven Wright

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: The Case for the A-10C
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2023, 05:33:16 am »
Fine. If the Air Force doesn't want it, give 'em to the Army or the Marines, along with the budget to support 'em. They will be supporting their own, without interservice snobbery fro the zoomies.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: The Case for the A-10C
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2023, 08:48:09 am »
The Air Force doesn't want to be bogged down supporting terrestrial tactical engagements.

For the Air Force top brass, the glory and the new shiny things exist in strategic programs.

Where's the sexiness in maintaining or updating the A-10?  All the cool kids want shiny new satellites, missiles, missile defense systems, strategic long-rang stealth aircraft, and Black Budget double secret probabation projects.

Why should the Air Force waste its budget to protect Army and Marine forces?  The Army and Marines should be using their own budgets for their own close air support.  Isn't that what Marine and Army attack helicopters are supposed to do?

If the Marines and Army want A-10 close air support, why don't they setup their own tactical close air support wings with A-10's?  If they had their own A-10 units and budgets, they wouldn't have to quabble with the Air Force.  It's obvious the Air Force wants to vacate the tactical close air support space, making it available for other services.

@DefiantMassRINO

Because the USAF brass won't let them. I am not old enough to have been in the army when this  hissy-fit was going on between the army and the zoomies,but I heard about it.

The zoomies were outraged when the Army wanted to outfit and command their own close-support fighter-bomber programs. Somehow or another,a compromise was reached when the army was ALLOWED to have helicopter flight squadrons,which the USAF didn't want to start with.

So Army Aviation was born,and it wasn't long before the helicopter "troop transport helicopters" started getting fitted with things like gatling guns,rocket pods,chain guns in the noses,etc,etc,etc,and the USAF started having hissy-fits again.

IIRC,the USAF response was to bring back the old WW-2 and Korean War propeller fighter bombers and configure them for ground support. Stuff like A1E Skyraiders. Stuff that could take a LOT of damage and still fly,like the old folding wing carrier fighter/bombers that could carry an amazing amount of ordinance,and fly slow enough to put it where you needed it.

The irony here is from what I have been told,the competition between young pilots to fly these old prop airplanes was unbelievable,and these pilots were indeed some bold young men. I do not mind admitting that I  wouldn't be here today if it weren't for these brave young men in their flying machines laying down the "Damn-Damn" at altitudes so low when they would do a barrel roll over the SOG teams that were pined down and in danger of being overran,you could look up and see them smiling at you.

Plus,those old radial engines made the best sounds you ever heard in your life.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2023, 08:50:02 am by sneakypete »
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,168
Re: The Case for the A-10C
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2023, 09:36:50 am »
Fine. If the Air Force doesn't want it, give 'em to the Army or the Marines, along with the budget to support 'em. They will be supporting their own, without interservice snobbery fro the zoomies.

:thumbsup: