A-10 Warthog - possible victim of the sequestration

[tuna]

The A-10 is great as long as you have a permissive environment without modern SAMs below and can maintain Air Dominance above. It won't be for Day 1. It will, again, be in support of the Boots on the Ground after the Eagles/Raptors clear the skies and the IADS is neutralized.

[Operator]

Jimmy, could additional AC-130s or Harvest Hawks fill the gap when the A-10s are finally retired? I'd think one of those in a pylon turn overhead would represent the pinnacle in CAS. Are they too large/slow/vulnerable to be useful if built in larger numbers?

I venture more advanced MQ-9's filling a good portion of the gap.

[Gun Grape]

The reason much of the military wants to keep it is because there simply isn't a viable replacement. Nobody buys the line that the F-35 can take over. That jet won't be any better than the F-16 at the mission, and nobody makes a request for Viper 11 to provide CAS, they want Hawg surface to FL200. Particularly since the C model upgrades, the A-10 is simply the best CAS platform we have. Better than B-1s, better than F-15Es, better than F-16s, better than F/A-18s, and more survivable than helicopters. It's not the perfect solution or the best platform for every situation, but it gets the right results.

As part of a FST, we never got to request what type of bird we wanted. We called the DASC, they told us what birds we had assigned and what type of ord they had available.

Doesn't matter what platform a Maverick, LGB, SDB, ect is released from. Its about the effect that ord has on the target not the bird that releases it.

[Jimmy]

^What timeframe are we talking? ALOs and often TACPs have access to the ATO and sometimes they do make specific requests. I'll admit I'm going on secondhand info here; I used to know a couple of ALOs (once they started pulling them from AWACS) and from what little of the process I could see via other means. There are also non-kinetic taskings...A-10s overhead may have an effect that an F-15E wont.

Jimmy, could additional AC-130s or Harvest Hawks fill the gap when the A-10s are finally retired? I'd think one of those in a pylon turn overhead would represent the pinnacle in CAS. Are they too large/slow/vulnerable to be useful if built in larger numbers?

Depends if we're talking about a permissive environment or not. Everything about the A-10 that poses survivability problems is 10 times worse when we're talking about C-130s. We lost several in Vietnam to AAA and manpads. The modern manpads threat is vastly superior to the POS SA-7s in service in 1972. AC-130s are great in Afghanistan. Not so good in a hostile and functioning Syria, for example.

I'm not near high enough in the chain to know, but isn't it the job of Tomahawks, B-1's, B-2's, F-15E's and the F-22 to suppress the newer systems (at least SAMS sites) that would be targeting the A-10 (in other words the A-10 isn't slotted to be "1st" in)? And as you stated, if Helo's are still a big part of the mission, I don't see why the A-10 is seen so vulnerably. If the combatant commanders feel secure in sending out the Apache or SuperCobra, I don't see why there would hesitation in sending out the A-10.

In theory, sure. But cruise missiles are slow...slower than strike aircraft sometimes. They can be targeted. As far as the other platforms, sure there are capabilities to suppress enemy air defenses. But to suppress them all the time? That's a bit different. SEAD for a limited amount of time is much easier than DEAD (destruction instead of suppression). But the normal threat to the A-10 in a CAS scenario isn't SA-20s, it's SA-14s, 6s, 8s, Rolands, 15s, etc. Those pose very different challenges than a relatively fixed site, and they're unlikely to be smashed by the Day 1 strikes. They'll certainly be targeted but not right off the bat. In the meantime if CAS is needed, well, that's why hazardous duty pay exists.

I've never been a fan of relying on helos as a primary CAS asset. I know everybody would rather use their own organic assets before opening it up to joint forces, but in my opinion that should be pretty far down the list. I personally think rotary wing attack capabilities are overrated, and the attack on Karbala in 03 agrees. Of 30 Apaches, only 1 returned undamaged. Another was brought down. Complete and utter mission failure. Afterwards, they were used as bait to locate targets for other platforms.

[Blademaster]

Curious...

So Jimmy, is the concept of Apaches seen as a failure? Using the Karbala example, would it have survive and done well in its intended role on the German plains during WWIII if war were ever to break out?

[Jimmy]

I'm sure plenty of people would disagree with my opinion on them, but no I doubt they would've survived long in a Fulda Gap scenario. Of course, neither would the A-10s.

[Stitch]

Depends if we're talking about a permissive environment or not. Everything about the A-10 that poses survivability problems is 10 times worse when we're talking about C-130s. We lost several in Vietnam to AAA and manpads. The modern manpads threat is vastly superior to the POS SA-7s in service in 1972. AC-130s are great in Afghanistan. Not so good in a hostile and functioning Syria, for example.

Just finished reading Tom Clancy's Every Man A Tiger: The Gulf War Air Campaign (I know, I know: it's fluff, but it's entertaining fluff; and, yes, I plan on reading Into The Storm next), and I recall they lost an AC-130 at the beginning of the land campaign because the gunship stayed airborne too long (great platforms in the dark when it's using it's IR sensors; a great target after the sun comes up and you can see what you're shooting at).

[Albany Rifles]

Jimmy,

The issue with Karbala was not the aircraft it was shitty tactics and underestiamting your enemy.

11 ATK HELO REGT thoguth they were badass and flying tanks...I was on the log team in Poland the fall prior when they were doing their mission rehearsals. They had planned on fighting against a standard ADA environment. As can be seen from the Wiki posting, it was a screwed up execution from take off. It never had a chance to succeed.

2003 attack on Karbala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The end of the article is misleading in that the AH-64 was only used as a tethered goat from then on. It was used effectively in Iraq & Afghanistan for years after. The AH-64 proved adaptable and provided excellent service at altitudes it was never envisioned.

Like a lot of US Army weapons designed to fight in Central Europe, the AH-64 proves to be a highly effective weapon system (like the M1, M2, MLRS, etc) when used with the proper tactics and in a combined arms environment....just like the A-10.

No single weapon is the answer....it is the combination of combat power employed with effective tactics.

[Jimmy]

As I understand it, Karbala was the last time they were used in a conventional attack (maybe I'm wrong on that, but it's the last time I heard about one). Success in Afghanistan (and post 2005 Iraq) is basically irrelevant if we're talking about survivability in a conventional conflict. There's a big difference between the environment the AH-64 was designed to operate in and the isolated pockets of usually poorly-armed fighters they've been used against recently.

I agree there are a variety of possible situations, and certainly attack helos have value in some of them. But the MANPADS threat is very real, and they're rapidly proliferating. According to that article, those casualties were inflicted with primarily unguided munitions. Throw a handful of modern IR missiles into the mix and it becomes a VERY bad day for the Army, very quickly.

I very much agree with your last sentence, but frankly that's not how we operate when it comes to the low-altitude stuff most of the time.

[Albany Rifles]

Jimmy,

I guess Karbala was the last chance to employ as doctrine would have it....and the Army did not follow its own doctrine.

That was more my point than anything.

That said, very few modern aircraft will survive in a a nonpermissive low altitude which requires linger time....which defines CAS...if proper TTPs are not used. One Passs and Haul Ass may work for BAI or a strike but not for CAS.

A lot of these reasons is why tube artillery is often the best way to go.

[Jimmy]

Jimmy,and the Army did not follow its own doctrine.

It's almost funny how often this bites us in the ass.

I like to think this isn't completely fabricated:

[Albany Rifles]

The US Army....proudly ignoring our doctrine in a long, unbroken line since 1775!

[astralis]

The US Army....proudly ignoring our doctrine in a long, unbroken line since 1775!

[Albany Rifles]

Shek lives!!!!

[Stitch]

As I understand it, Karbala was the last time they were used in a conventional attack (maybe I'm wrong on that, but it's the last time I heard about one). Success in Afghanistan (and post 2005 Iraq) is basically irrelevant if we're talking about survivability in a conventional conflict. There's a big difference between the environment the AH-64 was designed to operate in and the isolated pockets of usually poorly-armed fighters they've been used against recently.

I agree there are a variety of possible situations, and certainly attack helos have value in some of them. But the MANPADS threat is very real, and they're rapidly proliferating. According to that article, those casualties were inflicted with primarily unguided munitions. Throw a handful of modern IR missiles into the mix and it becomes a VERY bad day for the Army, very quickly.

I very much agree with your last sentence, but frankly that's not how we operate when it comes to the low-altitude stuff most of the time.

Did somebody say something about the Apache going back to Iraq?

American Apache Attack Choppers Quietly Join The Fight Against ISIS

Apache attack helicopters deployed to protect U.S. Embassy in Baghdad - Washington Times