Cool New Use For the A-10 Thunderbolt, AKA, the Warthog.

[wmenorr67]

http://www.newson6.com/story/28040199/a-10-warthog-to-take-on-oklahomas-thunderstorms

Glad this one won't wind up in the scrap heap.  I remember before DS/DS the military was talking about giving the A-10 to the Army to replace the OV-1 Mohawk for intel gathering.

[Ben]

That's really interesting. I worked on projects with a few of the P-3 pilots out of MacDill during the off-season for hurricanes, and pretty much every single one said that hurricane flights were a piece of cake. The scary stuff was when they had to do thunderstorm work. They all hated it. The A-10 actually seems like a better platform for thunderstorm flights. About the only downside is fewer engines. The P-3s have lost two engines several times in the past.

[KD5NRH]

http://www.newson6.com/story/28040199/a-10-warthog-to-take-on-oklahomas-thunderstorms

I'd rather see them fully armed on border duty, but it's better than being chopped up for scrap.

[Boomhauer]

That's really interesting. I worked on projects with a few of the P-3 pilots out of MacDill during the off-season for hurricanes, and pretty much every single one said that hurricane flights were a piece of cake. The scary stuff was when they had to do thunderstorm work. They all hated it. The A-10 actually seems like a better platform for thunderstorm flights. About the only downside is fewer engines. The P-3s have lost two engines several times in the past.

I hope they leave the ejection seat installed and certified.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I saw a piece in usa today where they tried to use the fact that the warthog has more friendly fire incidents as a rationale, and I use the word loosely, to dump it .
The article was bad. The comments were much worse


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[roo_ster]

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/abolish-the-air-force-and-other-stories/

I also intend to do an essay on why we should abolish the Air Force and return to an Army Air Force which is not a separate service. The purpose of military forces is to win wars. The purpose of the Air Force is—well, they no longer know. When we had SAC we knew – “Our profession is peace” was not just a slogan – but that too is neglected in the Modern Air Force. Deterrence and maintenance of nuclear weapons, being ready to use weapons when your fondest wish is that they will never be used – that does require a different kind of military. We once had that in SAC but the end of the Cold War was the end of SAC, and the nuclear deterrence force is, well not what it once was. It is subject to the Iron Law now.

As to the rest of the Air Force, it is more interested in the Air Force than winning wars, and considers supporting the field army as beneath contempt. A slow old Warthog does a much better job, but there is no glory in that. Best to use fast jets… which of course are imprecise and cause a lot of collateral damage. Everyone knows that a force of propeller driven P-47 fighters of WWII would be more effective for supporting the field army than what we use. And the Army must be crippled, not allowed to have effective air power in taking territory. You must use modern jets at high speed.

Now the Air Force has a mission that the Army at present does not have: Air Supremacy. And that is a different mission from supporting the field army. It involves engagements with Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) as well as strikes against the enemy base of operations. The glory is in air to air combat, but that is not the effective way to air supremacy.

That is the main argument for an “Independent Air Force” and the bitter fights that ended with creation of USAF. It is true, ground army commanders tend to select the wrong targets to sortie against, and endanger air supremacy; thus the argument for independence, which USAAF eventually won (before SAC existed or any but a few knew would be needed.) Hiroshima ended the debate. But now the Cold War ended and USAF killed SAC as not glamorous – not career building any longer. As to the Warthogs, give them to the National Guard! Real pilots don’t need them!

Sure, I exaggerate but not much: the Air Force keeps trying to get rid of the Warthogs, but never by giving them (and the ground support mission) to the War Department. Better that GI’s die tan USAF give up a mission even though it does not want it.

Drones will change all this, but why wait?

[Scout26]

That's a pretty fair summary.

The AF has always hated the CAS mission, despite the fact that they have demanded that the Army not have any aircraft (the great debate in the 1960's was over helicopters and the AF having a snitfit over armed Army spotter aircraft (Bronco's and Mohawks*) in Vietnam.

It's the dumbest thing in the world for the Army to allow that AF to dictate what kind of CAS aircraft it can have for support.




*The reason that the OV-1 had an Indian name is that the Army was trying "hide" it from the AF.   

[vaskidmark]

Wouldn't it be better to keep the guns on the A-10 and let it blow holes in the tornado till it collapsed?

As for the CAS discussion - I refer you to the one going on between the Navy and the Marines.  Lots of exactly the same airframes but outfitted with different attitudes

I'd never turn down CAS from a swab jockey, but they historically have been less inclined to fly between the treetops and the ground than the Marines.  (Although one flying swab jockey once explained it to me as they let the Marines do the crazy CAS stuff and put up with the chest-beating rather than spending all night at the bar picking leaves and sand out of their teeth.)

stay safe.

[MechAg94]

I thought the utility of the A-10 was partly or wholely due to the fact that it was designed from the ground up as a CAS aircraft.  Given the Navy/Marine precedent, it does make a bit of sense to let the Army fly fixed wing aircraft for the CAS role. 

[wmenorr67]

The A-10 is a flying gun, it was literally designed around the gun.

[RevDisk]

The A-10 is a flying gun, it was literally designed around the gun.

Half correct. The gun and aircraft were designed for each other.