Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Who's Winning Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Hog Of The Forsaken
SYSOP    10/25/2021 5:57:26 AM
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
grumblesa10       10/26/2021 1:06:59 PM
A10 kills in GW1 were over counted. The #1 tank killer was actually the F111 -which the AF also wanted to get rid of; with more justification actually. AFA noise, the A10 is actually fairly quiet due to the location of the turbofans; if noise is useful the F35 has it (and most other platforms) beat hands-down. Strafing's only viable in a low MANPADS environment; and frankly dropping something that makes a loud boom in the midst of bad guys also "intimidates"...
Quote    Reply

Toryu88       10/27/2021 12:11:35 PM
This kind of controversy has been around since WWII. There is nothing glamourous about moving mud around and most fighter jockeys didn't join up to do it. They want to fly high and try and shoot down the other fighter jockeys. It doesn't help that ground support brings greater risk and greater fatalities. There isn't much air beneath a A-10 or for that matter any fast mover doing ground support. Take a hit in a plane not designed specifically for the job, like the A-10 WAS the pilot and his plane is going to end up spread all over the landscape. Why don't the politicians give responsibility for ground support to an Air Arm of the US Army, let them recruit and train warrant officer pilots to do the job, just like they do in the helicopter squadrons operated by the Army. Sure it will threaten the USAF but they are having enough problems retaining pilots period, due to the dual demands of driving real planes and piloting drones. Yeah, they've made reforms in that quarter, but it is obvious that they don't take ground support seriously and in all likelihood don't do much in the way of training with the Army to provide it. If they hand over the A-10s to the Army and the support staff, they won't have to worry about it. Of course their overal budget would take a reduction as the Army would require more funds to take over ground attack support mission. The whole notion of "attack" aircraft was put forward by Gen. Kenney in WWII and it fell on deaf ears until he proved the concept in spades as MacArthur's air forces commander in the pacific. Use of parafrag bombs on Japanese air strips, skip bombing shipping and other very successful techniques were originated and proven under Kenney. None of his methods were used in Europe at least of which I am aware. So you can see there has almost always been some resistance to the ground attack role in the USAF. It just wasn't sexy.
Quote    Reply