It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A-10 Movie time (for fans of the Venerable A-10)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
This isn't about unemployment, so don't bring that into it.

So basically, you're saying it's better to spend $240,000 on a full rack of weapons than it is to spend ~$800 on enough ammo for CAS while still having 10 available hardpoints?

You could have an F-16 go and drop 8 of those SDBs for $240,000 + fuel + maintenence, or you could send in an A-10 with 1,350 rounds (or the what, 1,280 it's usually sent out with?) plus 12 Mk. 82s (total cost: $3,222) and have them wait around in case more armor decides to show up.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
XB70,

>>
This isn't about unemployment, so don't bring that into it.
>>

Of course it is. The armed forces _specifically target_ the lowest of the low, desparate of the poor, farthest back of beyond ruralists in our society. Just like the bloody Arab suicide recruiters do.

They then offer men and women with few alternatives at the _peak_ of max-hormone/min social experience, a chance at roughly 44,000 dollars in community college credits (4X12) with followon credits in higher institutions provided based on scored acumens. Yet the professions they teach these young people have /nothing/ to do with modern real world job skills so they come back from service to find themselves in an even more desparate position of having no job history and thus needing to hold down 2-3 wage-slave positions while they take their chosen-at-random basic college credits. And all too often, they fail, badly.

All this to justify massive militarization solutions to foreign diplomacy and 'homeland security' that includes paying out 100,000 dollar death benefits /at the cost of/ billion dollar system/platform funding. As well as the direct loss of freedoms such as the bill which allows the HSA to dictate to states the kinds of nature of data made available in a biometric ID as cattle-brand institutionalism.

I have great fear of what happens when the lower classes with military service training find themselves in a tumbledown society without any hope of job prospects as the end of the oil fiat currency scam breaks the dollar.

I also am repulsed by the use of Vietnam style tactics which involve "Okay, we'll send out an even /smaller/ unit..." to tempt enemy engagement.

You asked me how much a grunt was worth. To which the only logical answer is he is worth as many of his fellows _or fires_ as it takes to keep the enemy from biting down hard on his bared leg, stuck deep in the high weeds.

Whether you take that to mean 44,000 or 100,000 dollars. That is still more than an SDB per man.

>>
So basically, you're saying it's better to spend $240,000 on a full rack of weapons than it is to spend ~$800 on enough ammo for CAS while still having 10 available hardpoints?
>>
Do you not read what I write?

First off: 4X30=120. 4X30X2=240. That's the difference between TWO racks and one.

Second: the A-10 is a _cavalry force_ it can do all of NOTHING to protect the vehicle convoy which is hit by multiple overlapping IED whose emplacement occured before EITHER arrived on-scene. Items which WILL become 'popular' after the Insurgents and Jihadists lick their wounds in Iraq and are passed through Iran to do the same in AfG.

Nor can an A-10 which is ONE HOUR OUT, stop an overwhelming (combined arms) infantry ambush. When there is all of one gun truck on scene and so it is certain to get the majority of fired-up first rounds.

I also believe that this link-

usmilitary.about.com...

Further disproves your cost theory. Because EACH PGU-14 round costs 26 dollars. And EACH Mk.82 costs 2,082 dollars.

>>
You could have an F-16 go and drop 8 of those SDBs for $240,000 + fuel + maintenence, or you could send in an A-10 with 1,350 rounds (or the what, 1,280 it's usually sent out with?) plus 12 Mk. 82s (total cost: $3,222) and have them wait around in case more armor decides to show up.
>>

It would not be an F-16 which costs an average of 5,000 dollars per flight hour to run. It would not be an A-10 which costs 3,000 dollars per flight hour-

usmilitary.about.com...

It would be a UCAV which runs between 1,200 and 2,000 dollars per flight hour. And has an endurance of up to 10hrs at low radii. This is CRITICAL because:

2X3,0000X5 (1 out plus 4 back as top cover) = 30,000 dollars
2X12X, 2,082 = 49,968 dollars
2X720X26 = 37,440 dollars.

Added up comes to 117,408 dollars per mission for a section of aircraft which must then be _multipled by two_ (replacment aircraft hot cocked back on the ramp) to gain the same station time coverage as a SINGLE drone can achieve (don't go near the trashfire, don't get shot at, don't need a wingman). i.e. For a given equivalent sortie window in time, not counting a hot-contact depletion of munitions, you are looking at 234,816 dollars. Vs. roughly 2,000X10 + 30,000 X 8 = 260,000 dollars IF a UCAV is called on to expend all ordnance. If it is not, then the numbers come up to 20,000 dollars (for 10 hours of flight @ 2,000 dollars per flight hour) vs. the afforementioned 234,816 dollars for a flight of four on the alert pad.

NOW do you get it? We are talking orders of magnitude differences in simple station time. PLUS the abiliy of each young man or woman's college degree to equate to the cost of a GBU-39 used to kill insurgents BEFORE they can attack. Because the REAL definition of a cavalry force is a screening/scout/skirmishing mission ahead of the main van. Not riding to it's rescue.

CONCLUSION:
If you want to make an adequate cheap-is-as-cheap-does argument carry any weight, you REALLY need to compare the cost of a 40mm Mk.19 round and a .50 caliber M2 round and say 10X1,000 rounds worth of 5.56 to the 30mm PGU-13/14 mix alone. Once you do this, you should be able to start building _ground_ force models which are simply so heavy that the threat will not engage them in S&D bait-goat missions. I have a feeling you will still beat the A-10, just on gas consumed.


KPl.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
XB70,
>>This isn't about unemployment, so don't bring that into it.>>
Of course it is.

No it's not. This thread is about A-10s. Unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Stop using straw men.

[...]
You asked me how much a grunt was worth.

No I didn't.

Do you not read what I write?
First off: 4X30=120. 4X30X2=240. That's the difference between TWO racks and one.

It's rather difficult to read what you write. Everything is so incoherent I can't even pick out what I'm SUPPOSED to be reading.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that one rack is still $110,200 more than a full ammo drum for the A-10. Actually, don't correct me, because you'll probably write some five-paragraph essay of amphibology and non-sequitur that concludes with me being wrong.

Second: the A-10 is a _cavalry force_ it can do all of NOTHING to protect the vehicle convoy which is hit by multiple overlapping IED whose emplacement occured before EITHER arrived on-scene. Items which WILL become 'popular' after the Insurgents and Jihadists lick their wounds in Iraq and are passed through Iran to do the same in AfG.

And what will SDBs do against IEDs? Create a magic force field around them?


Nor can an A-10 which is ONE HOUR OUT, stop an overwhelming (combined arms) infantry ambush. When there is all of one gun truck on scene and so it is certain to get the majority of fired-up first rounds.
What?
I can't make heads or tails of that. Could you like, rewrite it or draw a picture or something?

I also believe that this link-
[link]
Further disproves your cost theory. Because EACH PGU-14 round costs 26 dollars. And EACH Mk.82 costs 2,082 dollars.

Each PGU-14/B round costs $24.
www.fas.org...
FAS > About.com.
Even so, that doesn’t disprove my cost “theory”. (The improper use of this word makes me want to kill.) Using the $24/round figure still yields $32,400 for a full drum of 1,350.
That’s only slightly more than the $30,000 unit cost of the GBU-39.
Mk. 82s are $1,706.97 per unit. Once again, that’s still considerably less than the GBU-39. Explain how my “theory” is “disproved”? Oh no, I used incorrect figures, yet my original claims of the A-10’s weapons being cheaper were true! I guess I have no argument.

It would not be an F-16 which costs an average of 5,000 dollars per flight hour to run. It would not be an A-10 which costs 3,000 dollars per flight hour-
[link]
It would be a UCAV which runs between 1,200 and 2,000 dollars per flight hour. And has an endurance of up to 10hrs at low radii. This is CRITICAL because:

What? Where did you get these figures?
May I remind you that the only thing we have even close to a UCAV is the RQ-1 Predator?

2X3,000X5 (1 out plus 4 back as top cover) = 30,000 dollars
2X12X, 2,082 = 49,968 dollars
2X720X26 = 37,440 dollars.
Added up comes to 117,408 dollars per mission for a section of aircraft which must then be _multiplied by two_

As opposed to what? $530,000 per mission for F-16s? Some unnamed UCAVs of the future (the UCAV program was cancelled, by the way) for $512,000 for a 10-hour mission?



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
XB70,

>>
No it's not. This thread is about A-10s. Unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Stop using straw men.
>>

Like your illustration of an AC-130, a C-130 and a MOAB? Highly illustrative Pot.

>>
No I didn't.
>>

>>>
With you talking about the costs of everything, I'd like to know the comparison in costs between a GBU-39 and a couple of bullets. What costs more?
>>>

The implication being that (since your GBU-43 example didn't work) a gun on-scene is better than nothing. Which IMMEDIATELY begs the question, not of how much the munitions are worth. But whether (or why not) the men on the ground don't have better _COP_ or Continuous Overhead Protection options. As an alternative to in-field FSB or more vehicles in the convoy.

IMO, grunts aren't worth much. They can't be and still be viable (spatial) occupation tools on the battlefield. BUT. A gun that is late and is not terribly survivable or employable (due to absent targeting avionics and connectivity with the ground forces if nothing else) is worth less than a robot sentinel whose eyes are the scouting element of a ground force which 'can afford' to have a low-cost asset overhead at all times.

And no manned platform will ever beat a UCAV on DCO variables, just for training alone.

>>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that one rack is still $110,200 more than a full ammo drum for the A-10.
>>

No. Because if the jet is 'known to be there all the time' it /intimidates/ the threat force into _not trying_. While the ability to survivably engage a threat upon immediate contact with OR INDEED BEFORE THE ARRIVAL of the ground force (because the bomb will glide out 22 times as far as even an IFFC equipped A-10C can achieve with the GAU and EOTS can indeed see that far) means that you are preempting their ability to 'make a fight of it'.

Now you see, even though I think muzzle mutts are basically billet-fill for the military bureacracy to 'chain of command' justify it's own bloat in peacetime, I am doing more to keep their skins attached _during war_ than the A-10 which comes an hour late to the party and is so expensive (and inventory limited) can achieve. Which is what COE is about.

DO NOT FIGHT that which you can kill from afar. And if you are /forced/ to fight, make sure you have 'maneuvered' for superior _targeting_ not engagement. Because preregistered fires adds up to vastly higher probability of first-shot=only-shot kills. The vehicle team not only lost unit cohesiveness, they had to -go back- to find their missing people. And while that's nothing shy of tactical incompetence, it is something which a UCAV could have helped out with, while the A-10s can only circle and wonder what kind of fools are wearing our uniforms down there.

>>
Actually, don't correct me, because you'll probably write some five-paragraph essay of amphibology and non-sequitur that concludes with me being wrong.
>>

Every time you are wrong, you deserve to be corrected. The bureaucracy of patriotism is a poisonous organism which costs lives and does not function towards an ultimately achievable goal. Everytime you endorse it as a function of 'good enough' in the status quo, you further the waste and stupidity of needless suffering.

>>
And what will SDBs do against IEDs? Create a magic force field around them?
>>

It's the weapons system to which the GBU-39 is attached that makes the difference. An ultra high resolution radar (XTRA or APY-8) and electrooptics package (EOTS) tied into an AMSTE like ability to steer munitions on the fly means two things:

1. I can LOOK IN from beyond the threat's ability to even hear the jet noise in the distance.
2. I can DROP IN, and correct on the fly, a munition which may need to be blast-centered over a moving group of bounding infantry danger-close to friendlies with a LATE GPS pass of coordinated to protect said friendlies own location from enemy indirect fire or indeed during their own retreat phase.

Now, add to this a ROVER like capability and not only can you see real fighters trying to flank you or dropping mortars on you from 'an otherwise ROE offlimits village'.

But you can monitor the route and chokepoints along it for the approach of an enemy which may have only been made aware of your impending arrival when 'one of their own' (indig AfG troops in an understrength vehicle troop, another major tactical error) told them only hours before. If the drone is THERE, onstation, where the threat is likely to stage from (local builtup areas) because it has the CHEAP LOITER to be so, it is apt to be able to do a better job of catching the IED emplacers in the act.

Whether it blows them to hell on suspicion. Or simply causes an SOF team to be sent out to the village to pick their sorry asses up and go rub their noses in it like a puppies who defecated on the rug is UP TO YOU, the force commander. Which is where initiative should always remain. Controlling a population doesn't have to be about death when humiliation and jurisprudence can force them to acknowledge responsibility for their actions just as well.

>>
What?
>>

Read the damn article. The original request for air support was answered by notification that said airpower would be there in about an hour. If they had /really been/ in a firefight with an 800 man unit. They would have run out of ammo and been overrun or destroyed in place LONG before then.

A guntruck is a Vietnam era description for an uparmored and/or CSW armed _military_ vehicle (that is not already an AFV), thus differentiating it from an indig adhoc 'technical'. From an enemy perspective, if there is one vehicle with a crew served weapon able to fend off or disrupt your ambush said threat MUST die, even before you front and back the the rest of the convoy, if you don't have the fires to do both.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Again, a real threat from '800 ambushers' (divide by 10) translates to the _logistical_ ability to portage heavy weapons into the fight which would have allowed them to carry HMG and mortars and certainly many more RPG shots.

i.e. Everything in the article must be treated as a lie because that's what misinformation and propoganda about 'heroic warriors' is all about.

>>
Even so, that doesn’t disprove my cost “theory”. (The improper use of this word makes me want to kill.) Using the $24/round figure still yields $32,400 for a full drum of 1,350.
>>

And if each saved slaughter dawg is worth between 44,000 dollars (4 year local college tuition) and 100,000 dollars (death benefit) the SDB wins on a factor of 1.3 or 3 times the money lost. But only _by virtue of the aircraft ON STATION to deliver it in a timely fashion_.

>>
Mk. 82s are $1,706.97 per unit. Once again, that’s still considerably less than the GBU-39. Explain how my “theory” is “disproved”? Oh no, I used incorrect figures, yet my original claims of the A-10’s weapons being cheaper were true! I guess I have no argument.
>>

Your argument is deceptively false on numerous levels. The A-10 cannot realistically carry 12 Mk.82 without stripping the outboards of rockets, IRCM pods, ECM pods, AAM, targeting pods and Mavericks. Even then, you would be lucky to lift off in AfG high-hot conditions. A much more common load would be four AIR or Radar on the inboards and even then the Hog driver is going to be looking to dump them quick. Why it would 'wait around for more armor to show up' while carrying weapons that could only be used against a threat without the mechanized sophistication to bring MANPADS and ADV to the fight I don't know either. It was your scenario. Mine would be that the UCAV can standoff beyond any threat from local airdefenses and score upwards of eight kills, which is /at least/ six more than the Hog can slam a Maverick into.

The gun only works if you are willing to bring it to the point where the pilot can differentiate and classify targets with his MOB. Said Sky Knight will then get ONE pass to which every hoary fool with an AK can talk-trashfire back. Before he has to come off and start the process again. Particularly where you are entering into a known (prepositioned) ambush threat in which the enemy controls the battlespace geometries (chosen-ground effect), this is beyond stupid. An A-10 cannot fly higher than the ridgelines in several parts of AfG sir.

Whereas a UCAV (or indeed any asset with the proper avionics package AND THE LOITER TO USE IT) can drop multiple weapons on multiple targets in ONE attack and remain so high (25-30K or more) as to not only guarantee greater lethality because of the volume-airburst effect of a 100lb warhead vs. the few ounces in each linear-fire 30mm. But also NEVER COME UNDER FIRE. Literally.

If the A-10 doesn't arrive in time to save the convoy to begin with (the Indians scalp the settlers and run away) it's 'cavalry as a fast ambulance' mission capabilities are void and null before you even start.

If the enemy knows that they have a window of opportunity before they /have to/ skedaddle, you are guaranteeing that those weapons 'however cheap' WILL BE EMPLOYED. Because the bad guys will risk an attack based on the assumption that they **think** they can get away with it. And you will take casualties every time they do.

Politically, friendly casualties in a long attrition war (South Africa: 1960-1989) are suicide.

The avoidance of which comes down to having a UCAV force present to intimidate an enemy into NOT trying. Because they /know/ any vehicle convoy, however small, has an ATTACHED air component. From which they can neither hide from nor threaten.

>>
What? Where did you get these figures?
>>

www.mirage-jet.com...

They are my best guesses based on the 2,000 dollar per flight hour JAS-39 Gripen. The UCAV doesn't need to maneuver aggressively thus it doesn't fatigue the frame or pop the fastener doing so. It doesn't have any of the 'goo' associated with human lifesupport issues and will never land heavy because the pilot is tired or forgot about density variables on an H&H rough strip. The UCAV and JAS runs on more or less the same core but the UCAV doesn't have a burner with all the acceleration shock loading and high flow stress variables that implies to airframe and plumbing. It is, bluntly, better for not having a man aboard ****BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER****.

And everyone knows it.

>>
May I remind you that the only thing we have even close to a UCAV is the RQ-1 Predator?
>>

May I remind you that the Predator is NOT a UCAV but an A-UAV? Talk about 'killer misuse of terminology'. The difference here actually being one of intensity. An MQ-1 (or even an MQ-9) has more in common with an A-10 than an F-16. Because it can't carry heavyweight munitions, at altitude, at speed, during D1/R1 missioning. An A-45 or 47 (Neuron or or or) CAN. Thus you can INCREASE the force fraction which is doing the loitering COP mission /without/ sacrificing the high intensity campaign strategy.

>>
As opposed to what? $530,000 per mission for F-16s? Some unnamed UCAVs of the future (the UCAV program was cancelled, by the way) for $512,000 for a 10-hour mission.
>>

Quit trying to compare 'systems of your choice' as apples and oranges. As a fruit, the F-16 is only marginally better than the A-10 for while it is faster and has superior avionics, it lacks loiter. And eyes-on beats reaction-launch (base-->out). As such, the UCAV is NOT in the same league as EITHER existing solution. Because it has the speed of the F-16 and it's Avionics package. But it has a tactical loiter closer to a B-52.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
The difference is that of the 'real vs. hollywood' envisionment of the Cavalry concept. Real (military definition) cavalry mission functionality is that of a screening/scout force which PREMAPS the battlefield and thus PREEMPTS the enemy plan of attack. It does this by acting as a SKIRMISHING OR SECURITY force to decisively attrite or speedbump the enemy threat so you don't get into a either a bunching effect with the mainforce elements (leaving them vulnerable to saturation fires) or one whereby a larger force rolls into an exposed flank before said friendly unit can reorient and initate SOP responses as prewired action orders.

UCAVs can be cavalry. Because they are THERE to do so. While, comparitively, if an A-10 (or anything /manned/) launches from a ground alert position, it's already too late to KEEP FROM using weapons. And the only real question is whether, when you get there, it is as heroes or morticians.

Which begs another definition: Real heroes do their job when all other's quit their own.

A UCAV (which remains viable in decoupled-from-JUCAS X-47 Navy form) by virtue of BEING THERE, to do it's mission, is a both a true hero and a true cavalry force. Since it's job is to prevent contacts if possible and to preempt (at least the awareness of) them when necessary. Moreover, this airframe doesn't gain anything from 'wingman support'. And since it can potentially, consistently, narrow the response time lag from 25-55 minutes on a ground alert to a 2-5 minute lag on munition fall from a nearby orbit; said robot is not likely to find many targets /willing/ to start something if they realize they now only have five minutes to _get out from under the sensor footprint_ which tracks them back to whatever rock they hide under. Thus the fact remains that you only pay for the mission fuel. Not the ordnance (unexpended). Nor the 120-200hrs per year that is pilot training.

The latter is what the Hollywood definition of 'Cavalry' and 'Hero' comes down to. Which is to say you only need a hero when something is already gone lethal.

MY definitions of cavalry are thus exactly what the doctor ordered for a GWOT/GSAVE environment where every casualty is a bad one, whether you have Marines butchering 'innocent' Iraqis, post-IED. Or Army pukes getting their heads handed to them by the better part of a battalion worth of (where the heck did they come from?) 'insurgents as conventional fighters'.


KPl.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
You have voted vertol for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


awesome movie

and yes the A-10 is not a fighter however in my book its the #1 tank swatter and for her age she still open the might can of whoop ass every time



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Lol I remember a few years ago we used to go down to my uncle's farm. It had a really big hole in one corner and A-10's would sometimes fly over. Same deal as above, jink around, do a few bomb practice runs but never shoot anything. One day we went out with 3 dozen spray paint bottles and painted a huge red and white target saying "Bomb Me" in the middle. Sure enough, next week there was a crater.


Is that even legal?
Who cares, it was one big crater. Guess they decided the large target was permission for firing practice. It's all good. Apparently they paid my uncle for using that hole/canyon/thing for practice. They wanted to pay HIM to let warthogs fly over every week!? Talk about sweet!



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Lamagraa,

>>
And yes the A-10 is not a fighter however in my book its the #1 tank swatter and for her age she still open the might can of whoop ass every time

>>

An A-10 with wall to wall Hellfire quads (or better yet JCM), an EL-2060 SAR pod and Sniper T-FLIR could do an even better job against tanks. It could even replace the AH-64 as a tank killer with the same PGM count and far better depth-of-field coverage (more targets encountered).

The problems then being two fold:

1. The gun would remain a worthless addition for what could (and indeed no longer needed to) be engaged for the risk (8.8 million dollar airframe, 4 million dollar MBT).

2. As long as the man remained onboard, it would remain an _inferior_ COIN platform. Because the number available and sortie-$$ flyable is simply too few to provide complete COP-coverage and thus every response to an attack is reactive non determinative.

i.e. Pull that GAU and the A-10 is no longer 'all that' as an evoked image of a gunslinger. But even absent the dead weight of that system, it is not /optimized enough/ to be worth employing in either the conventional (high intensity) nor irregular (OOTW) definitions of CAS for which it was originally designed.


KPl.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Lamagraa--- Are you saying that hog drivers are not fighter pilots? Please come with me to the O-Club this Friday; I know a few people who would like to meet you.

CH1446-

What are you credentials? Do you wear wings on your chest or a patch on your shoulder? Were you ever a crew dog on the A-10? Perhaps you were an Intel guy connected to a Hog unit? I can see you read websites well, is that the extent of your knowledge?


Here are my credentials:
I earned my wings the old fashioned way. I graduated UPT from Reese AFB; class 79-04. I spent 27 years in the New York Air National Guard, 174th Fighter Wing, 138th Fighter Squadron. I have over 3800 hours flown the A-37, A-10, and F-16. I went to Fighter Weapons School for the A-10 and graduated number 1 in my class in 1986. I was the Chief Weapons Officer during the 174th's testing of the failed F/A-16 program. I can give you a laundry list of why the F-16 cannot support the CAS mission very well as I was there in Iraq 1 when we had the crew dogs unbolt the 30mm gun pods from our airplanes.

I will leave you with this. There are a few damn good reasons why we will be flying the A-10 in combat through 2028 (at least). The most simple reason of them all is that we have nothing better that can do the job that the Hog does right now. There have been 3 attempts in the Pentagon to retire the Hog, all three have failed because of recent combat performance.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Swanee,

>>
Lamagraa--- Are you saying that hog drivers are not fighter pilots? Please come with me to the O-Club this Friday; I know a few people who would like to meet you.
>>

Count the number of A-10s in 'fighter' HUD trophy tapes. Then invite those F-teen jockeys to the party. The A-10 is an underpowered trainwreck of an airframe that has all of 1 good bat turn in it before it is out of airspeed, altitude and ideas. Anything which takes 5 minutes to climb back out of a 20-10K gun run is NOT a fighter.

Indeed, there was a time when A-10 pilots were proud enough of the job that they _did do_ that they didn't need to pretend otherwise.

>>
What are you credentials? Do you wear wings on your chest or a patch on your shoulder? Were you ever a crew dog on the A-10? Perhaps you were an Intel guy connected to a Hog unit? I can see you read websites well, is that the extent of your knowledge?
>>

My problem with this question is that you come off as an expert while sounding like a shell game shyster. I am not trying to compare the A-10 to the F-16 but rather to the UCAV. The last is superior as a loitering attack platform to either manned aircraft, thus, until you have experience with /something/ closer to it's capabilities (an MQ-1 'patch' on your shoulder) stop trying to pick a fight with an airframe you think you can handle, knowing that your only hope is to avoid ANY comparison with one that you cannot.

IN THE MISSION for which you claim expertise.

Having said that, as long as the F-16 is fully CCIP'd with a LITENING or SNIPER pod and a tanker within 100nm, it too is superior to the A-10. BECAUSE IT IS PRESENT IN THE INVENTORY to cover the roles.

www.fas.org...
www.codeonemagazine.com...
research.airuniv.edu...

As well as-

1. Because it carries more (and more diverse) PGM which can be used from above the threatfloor and indeed, /thru/ a weather one.
2. Because it doesn't divide 'high and low' FAC-A taskings by the number of minutes the airframe requires to get back out of the dirt.
3. Because it has a radar which can coordinate inbound assets with or without an IFDL positioning handoff.
4. Because, with PRISM technology in Gold Strike, it can now pass imagery.
5. Because, in the AAQ-28, it now not only can mark and track zotted targets, it can also electronically magnify and play back.
6. Because, with a two-seater available, it can run with a dedicated WSO AND a 'wide screen' format display system to make the image pop while the guy up front yanks and banks to stay out of the granite cumulus.

Even with EGI/PE, the A-10C is a vaporware platform which will effectively be 'as good as' a radar-down F-16, only in the cockpit (which is getting the same color CUPID displays with the same display area resolution problems). SADL is not ready nor being fully funded to bend the pipe down to the grunts and last I heard, under their service plan, Lockheed Owego was only willing to crack the airframe to install it ONE TIME 'at cost'. The Hog may stay longer onstation but it cannot /get there/ as fast. Which means, as a fast ambulance, it is limited. And when the GBU-39 comes online, the F-16 will be competitive for precision kills in the CAS environment, not least because it can deliver multiples in one pass.

If the A-10 has a single advantage it is that it carries 'just about enough' EXCM to do the job. Yet even with the Terma mod IDAS bus, you still don't have an on-airframe MAWS facility to cue them and you are /not even trying/ to integrate a TADIRCM capability. Comet is a cosmetic aid at best and coming down play in the enemies bryar patch makes the jet vulnerable, even with seeding or ASTE flares.

CONCLUSION:
The day of the A-10 has passed. It doesn't have the inventory numbers or the role mix to do the job, well. The F-16 is little better in some critical areas but 'good enough' until someone in a uniform snaps a salute and decides to _OBEY CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE_ to have a 1/3rd operating inventory of unmanned strike air by 2010 (or as soon thereafter as possible). By not trying to acknowledge any of this, your 'credentials' come off dated and your tactical reasoning archaic. Because you would fight a platform not a war. And in /accepting/ that fight, as a function of endorsing an inferior airframe solution, you assure casualties which, politically, are crippling even in small numbers. Again, 'there was a time' when CAS was all about saving grunts. Not about being a fighter jock wannabe. Nor even pretending to try.

The only reason the Hog has not been butchered and skewered for roasting is because those who should know better insist on making it a battle between 'fighters' rather than a pursuit of excellence _in the mission_ which is CAS-as-COP.


KPl.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
My expertise is outdated, yet my last combat tour was OEF (doing mainly point strike missions and CAS)? I will add that I was a Viper pilot from 1989-2004, much longer than I was a Hog driver. And contrary to what you think, we in the fighter pilot business consider A-10 pilots to be fighter pilots. If you don't think so, I invite you to the Langley O-club on a friday night, and we can ask around. (Maybe some Sierra Hotel F-22 and F-15 drivers may be able to convince you otherwise)

I still didn't get your background in military aviation, yet you presented some more PA websites. I know Jeff "Big Mac" McDaniels. I was the Fighter Capabilities Manager for the F-16 at Air Combat Command when he wrote that paper. Myself and my Weapons and Tactics staff worked together to develop the training program for the F-16 FAC-A program. I am quite serious about this, you talk a big talk, but who are you really in the scheme of air combat?

The F-16 does a lot of things it was never intended to do, and it does them ok. It's a round peg airplane. With the right modifications, it will fit in the square hole. Yet the A-10 is a bit more complicated than that.

In a fast CAS pass in the viper you don't really have a lot of time to take a look around. Yet, if I slow down to a point at which I can see, I open myself up to a lot of trashfire and what not in an unprotected cockpit.
Even with your upgrades, your pods, your JDAMs, when you pickle you are still responsible for what comes off of your wing. AND there is always going to be some type of visual ROE. Technology fails, weather sucks, and sometimes you just need an airplane that can move the mudd.

The engine upgrade program is not anything new. Last time I checked, it was 750 mil for the entire fleet. With the new avionics upgrades, the engines are going to proove more disabling. You just might see a hog reach 450-500 knots in the future. The limiting factor in the A-10 is not the airframe, but the engines.

WSOs aren't really a part in the F-16. In fact, I'm not to sure of an ACC unit that has them. Family models are pretty much for training and incentive rides only, plus, we simply don't have them. WSOs are a mudhen thing.

The A-10 doesn't need a Radar. Sure, that is an advantage in the viper, and mudhen but in the grand scheme of things, it just isn't necessary for what it does. The avionics upgrades in the new "C" model will allow a more diverse payload. You seem hell bent on the Vipers radar capabilities. Have you seen them in person? I have...

UCAVs will take over the Air Force whether we like it or not. the X-45 and X-47 projects are in full swing. The F-35 and F-22 will be the last of the manned fighters in our inventory. One thing you will never have in a UCAV operator is the situational awareness. It isn't possible as they are simply not there.

I am serious about knowing your credentials. There are a lot of good people in the Air Force who have earned their way up the ladders that you are bad mouthing. If the A-10 were no longer necessary it would have gone the way of the Aardvark.

As far as the fighter jock wannabe comment: I'm not sure you were paying attention. I have a bit over 1800 hours in the Viper. I have flown almost every block except for the block 60. I have been part of Desert Storm, Desert Shield, Deny Flight, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I have spent my fair share of stick time in fighters. But I didn't get what you do?

My conclusion: The A-10 has it's place and will not being going away anytime soon. The guys who have made that decision take much experience from the last 30 years. They wear eagles and stars on their shoulders and wings on their chests. The only thing they are concerned with is fighting a war to the best extent that we can. That means having the best people and equipment do the best job that it can.

So I return to my original question that you seemed to dance around: Who are you?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swanee
So I return to my original question that you seemed to dance around: Who are you?


i think that i can answer that.

ch1466 is either a genius who knows far more than anybody else and whom we arent worthy to argue with or he is a retard who knows absolutly nothing and so writes far too much in the hope of confusing us.

i know which one i believe.



Quote " I'd fly the Hog into combat with just the gun and nothing else!" unquote....
US Army Pilot.

Quote " get it in, get your wing man 90 degrees oblique on a run in, and as you are going over to the front, he will be coming in on the side and carving the enemy up whilst their still searching for you over head" unquote.
US Army pilot.

Quote " Never, ever fly into enemy terrotory low and slow unless riding a Hog. Any thing else is just plain stupid" unquote
US Air Force pilot.

Quote " never, ever have i ever been so happy to see an aircraft as I was when the four Hogs blew an entire tank division apart in front of our four light strike vehicles" unquote.
US Navy SEAL Team Leader (First Gulf war)


you still havent replied to these quotes from people who fly the hog.


It would not be an F-16 which costs an average of 5,000 dollars per flight hour to run. It would not be an A-10 which costs 3,000 dollars per flight hour-
[link]
It would be a UCAV which runs between 1,200 and 2,000 dollars per flight hour. And has an endurance of up to 10hrs at low radii. This is CRITICAL because:


likewise where did this UCAv come from??? the only UCAV the us had has been cancelled before production began.
www.air-attack.com...

justin

[edit on 26-5-2006 by justin_barton3]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
EDIT: double post

mods please delete

justin

[edit on 26-5-2006 by justin_barton3]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Now I'm just a knuckle draggin' Ammo troop who worked the Hawg's in the ROK, Pope, and Deseet Strom. The role of CAS(fixed or rotor) is that of force mutliplier. Basically, it's flying artillery. The US Army and USAF may not get along all that well but in the '70 when the A-10 was created they were very open about its capabilities so that the Warsaw Pact would get the idea if they charged their tanks into Fulda Gap that the combination of A-10's and Nato tanks would turn the area into a kill zone. The Warsaw Pact with its now known limited fuel supplies wisely decided against any action in Western Europe. Soviet strategic plans changed to target the Middle East because of its oil reserves. Both sides woo'd Iraq with the Soviet's supplying the weaponry. They however had no inkling of how to fight a war in the desert with tanks. The US Army in a rare moment of wisdom started training for a desert war in the early '80's. It was pure serendipity that the A-10 pilots are all trained in the desert. The Iraqi's never stood a chance after nearly 50 days of uncontested aerial bombardment.
Despite it's shortcomings, the A-10 is still the world's premier fixed wing CAS aircraft. The Soviet era Frogfoot has proven to be a gas guzzler with even less range than some of its faster brethern. Every other fixed wing aircraft used in close air support are fast movers or jet trainer ill-suitedly pressed into the role.
As far as air-to-air, no fast jet pilot is going to waste his fuel on a low-level fight with an A-10. They'll make a pass and hopefully get a lock with a heat seaker and move on before the A10 can bring it's Sidewider's to bear on him.
A last note, the A-10 is/was being heavily used in Afghanistan for really just one main reason. It's the only USAF aircraft with rough field capability.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Ch1466, I think that the largely chicken hawk neo-con's and draft dodgers who currently make up the Congress are all for UCAV deployment for a couple of reasons and they're largely not economic. Firstly, a large portion of the US military have come to the sad conclusion that civilian leadership are very willing to send the military into conflicts like Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo that have little or no strategic or military value to the US. Many of the better qualified leaders in the US military have taken early retirement rather than continue going along with the current plan. Secondly, the politicians want even more centralized control of military force. It only takes a few operators and programmers to run an army/air force of robots. If civil unrest takes place in the US, most of the military are likely not going to fire on civilians unless they are fired upon. Whereas robots will shoot and drop bombs to the politicians' content.
I saw an interview of a high ranking US Army General in the '80's on 60 Minutes about what the military was good at. He bluntly stated the role and purpose of the US military was to destroy the warfighting capability of the enemy which he stated the US military is very good at and anything else was a waste of the taxpayer's money. This has stuck in my mind ever since. Our current military predicament is the result of the corruption of our civilian gov't by the amoral global corporate elite and their insatiable lust for power. Why spend a hundred billion on developing a clean energy infrastructure when you can spend trillions on a global war on terror to keep the things going the way they are.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Swanee,

>>
My expertise is outdated, yet my last combat tour was OEF (doing mainly point strike missions and CAS)?
>>

Average response time for a fragged CAS sortie was 26 minutes in OEF. If you weren't on their Mary K list that day, it could be anywhere from 11 to 17 hours. A typical small ambush is over in less than 2 minutes. If the capability is inadequate in terms of reaching the target zone in time to find engageable enemy to begin with, then doing the mission 'well' from a personal level of hitting what you shoot at means nothing.

Tasking an A-10 to 'point strike' (ala AGM-65G attacks on Iraqi EWRs in 1991) is itself proof of inept doctrine when compared to the previous numbers as well as the performance capabilities of the F-16. F-14 pilots, already almost 30 days late in opening OEF on 10/10, spent upwards of TEN HOURS in the air getting to and from targets in North-Central AfG from launch points off the Pak coastline. This despite nearly zero threats from a non existent AfG IADS and Tomahawks doing all major lead-wave absorption of trashfire. An A-10 cannot match, by a hundred knots an 10,000ft, the cruise capabilities of a Turkey. A UCAV can. A UCAV can be designed to be instantly carqualled (A-45CN) and can maintain loiter on station for 2hrs at 1,100nm. Something neither alternative can do. Once it /reaches/ a given target area in AfG the A-10 frequently cannot muster the altitude performance ot exit the trashfire envelope, thus it's ability to reach an adequate cruise altitude for guaranteed a fast-transit to the target area, safe from desultory fires, is equally questionable, even while operating as an in-country Air Commando type asset.

>>
I will add that I was a Viper pilot from 1989-2004, much longer than I was a Hog driver.
>>

Maybe that's why you think you're a fighter pilot. Certainly it's why you think that 'being a fighter pilot' means diddly dip to the CAS mission. Yet with two pods of 70mm APKWS and two GBU-12 plus ANG LITENING, the F-16 has as many as 16 passes, ALL of which are delivered above the point at which an A-10 can MOB the scene. After the _first_ of which, the enemy will break and disengage. Because they know they cannot gain anything from fighting. As the article indicated. Where you accept intimidation rather than extermination as a function of 'victory on the field as defined by being able to limp off it'; you MUST BE THERE before battle fever and the thrill of the kill makes a fast ambulance into a defacto meatwagon.

>>
And contrary to what you think, we in the fighter pilot business consider A-10 pilots to be fighter pilots.
>>

As if being a fighter pilot mattered. Yet the DOD definition of 'fighter' is an airframe designed primarily for destroying other aircraft /which may also be secondarily configured/ to attack ground targets (_Pentagon Paradox_ for the exact ruling). Not the other way around. A-10s are pure strafe rags, even in a gun fight, where the smart ACM players run double attack or loose deuce from above as altitude dominance is 90% of the fight again a platform like the Hawg. With missiles, it's no contest because the A-10 can't even cage a 'Winder to a radar bore sightline. Which is why, during ODS, they shot down a pair of helos and then lost three aircraft and had the 'right' to use the gun pulled. Since fighter tactics are predominantly dictated by missile envelopes and the A-10 is non-competent in this role alone, it should never be considered an AAW capable aircraft. _EVER_.

>>
If you don't think so, I invite you to the Langley O-club on a friday night, and we can ask around. (Maybe some Sierra Hotel F-22 and F-15 drivers may be able to convince you otherwise).
>>

Ever hear the one about why WSO's wear glasses? Because if they didn't you wouldn't be able to figure out what the blank was wrong with them. Lacking the option to teleport to Virginia and 'take a poll', I would say that the only reason you're called 'fighter pilots' is that by labelling you as one of their own, the rest of the tacair elite don't have to be confused or embarrassed at letting you in the door. Either way, your pathetic efforts to make this an F-16 vs. A-10 debate via the label given the flying monkey inside them does nothing to alter the fact that those who owe their lives to /chance/ because _a piloted airframe was not on station above them_ should not believe in a Cavalry myth as defined by those whose career is at stake in failing to protect them until /long/ after a 'batallion worth' of enemy troops would have overrun their sorry butts and pulled a Rudyard on their shrieking guts.

>>
I still didn't get your background in military aviation, yet you presented some more PA websites. I know Jeff "Big Mac" McDaniels. I was the Fighter Capabilities Manager for the F-16 at Air Combat Command when he wrote that paper. Myself and my Weapons and Tactics staff worked together to develop the training program for the F-16 FAC-A program. I am quite serious about this, you talk a big talk, but who are you really in the scheme of air combat?
>>

Someone who hates seeing taxdollars wasted on an institutionalized boys club where the assurance that it can 'never work' is based on making sure that it's never tried. This revealing an establishmentarian attitude that an entitlement in your own field automatically endows you with the reasoned ability to see it's obsolescence from a detached perspective. It doesn't. It never has. Human Nature combined with elitist trained egos assures that. Such is the basis of Cybernetic vs. Analytic reasoning inherent to a hero complex which everyone here subscribes to, overtly or otherwise. They would rather listen to the hero than the historian who proves him a lucky fool.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
>>
The F-16 does a lot of things it was never intended to do, and it does them ok. It's a round peg airplane. With the right modifications, it will fit in the square hole. Yet the A-10 is a bit more complicated than that.
>>

No. The A-10 is an inventory limited airframe which CANNOT DO THE JOB when it is not present in numbers to do so. An F-16 with third generation thermal well and hirez SAR modes is twice the CAS (CSAR, FAC-A, K-Scout, all the roles the A-10 is a 'specialist' in) platform that the A-10 is, simply because avionics mean more than the airframe does, provided you meet a certain base performance threshold with the right combination of weapons. I have little or no respect for the Viper either, but compared to the A-10 it is an all-doing platform with yards more capability potential. Compared to the UCAV which has the both the avionics and the altitude/cruise performance, neither system is worth a damn. If we want to be sure and remove the 'human factors' ego trip from the equation we must begin by analytically breaking down what the 'CAS Mission' is _regardless of the pilot_ and redefining the means by which it is performed on the basis of whether said mission is itself justified 'as is', preconditionally to deeming whether platform X is appropriate. Unfortunately, this is never going to happen so long as those who have the most to lose use false precepts to justify their job description. Which is why men like you get to decide what shape the hole AND the peg is. And no one should trust you to do so when your career and your egos are on the line.

>>
In a fast CAS pass in the viper you don't really have a lot of time to take a look around. Yet, if I slow down to a point at which I can see, I open myself up to a lot of trashfire and what not in an unprotected cockpit.
>>

Why? If you have a GFAC or ETAC or TACP agency on the ground, he tells you where to look with GPS coordinate accuracy and you LOOK from high and far enough away that you can capture the scene and magnify and designate target points within it, electronically. This doesn't require 'JSF tech'. It is endemic to all the late mod targeting pods out there. Even LANTIRN, with the 2000 mods, has most of this capability. The difference then comes down to hauling armor and a straight wing with massive airfoil sectional penalties in an airframe which, nominally, is only going to have 1 Maverick and 2 LGB _even with_ the LITENING pod aboard.

>>
Even with your upgrades, your pods, your JDAMs, when you pickle you are still responsible for what comes off of your wing. AND there is always going to be some type of visual ROE. Technology fails, weather sucks, and sometimes you just need an airplane that can move the mud.
>>

Blather. Your logic falls down when you INSIST on comparing the F-16 to the A-10 and then you /claim/ that you cannot shoot without V-ROE. You know very well that this wasn't the case with bomber JDAM/Wicmid aircraft dropping without targeting pods from upwards of 8-10 miles away during both OEF and OIF and -despite- two friendly fire incidents; the SOF with the GPS radio terminals loved the capability. Indeed, _WON A WAR WITH THE CAPABILITY_. Because they were riskable (say unacknowledgable) fire support assets 'leading from horseback' a bunch of throwaway mercenary muzzle mutts. And so could go places and die more often than regular U.S. forces could. While achieving more. Now we are back to policing what we've captured in a popup shooting gallery fashion with those self same _regular forces_ and we don't have the assets to cover them. Because pilots insist that they 'have to be there' to do the job. And they never are.

Now, transtion this to a UCAV. If junior slaughter dawg knows where HE is (and, from 40K, you can certainly track his vehicle signature, even if he has lost GPS due to jamming or terrain/constellation variables). And you have a set of PREMAPPED bullseye offsets. ALL HE HAS TO DO is say "Bullseye XX 1,000m @ 60`, 4 targets at 100m separation. Marking code 12345." As a function of a digital message format relative to a lased or even visually estimated threat aimpoint. And the targeting optics will _slew and zoom automatically_ to the adjusted target point using onboard GPS/INS relative position sense. Showing HIM an image of the threat, via ROVER. And the operator back in the MCS, an equivalent as a monkey-holds-down-pickle consent enabler on a weapons system. _Even if Comms go down to the vehicle team_, another big advantage of a modern targeting pod being that not only do they see point targets at 10-15 miles that a Gen-2 pod does at 4-6, they also have independent gyro stabilization which makes geolocation tracking simple. If you can pop the contrasts, you can kill the target. And if it shoots or maneuvers, it will have a thermal contrast. And because the corporal in the operator chair is looking at a 17" or larger monitor. And nobody is SHOOTING at him. He is a better, safer, more situationally aware killer than the high and mighty sky knight just now passing through 10,000ft from a 5 minute hot pad alert launch. 100+ miles away.

THE REAL ADVANTAGE of the UCAV then being not inherent to the (shared) avionics but to the platform loiter and altitude standoff factors. Because if you can stay onstation for 10 hours with an ability to look 20 and dash 50 miles down the road to scout known ambush vulnerability zones. No one can hide from you.

And if your cost per flight hour is under 2 grande. You have the ability to _prevent_ ambushes and mine attacks by SATURATING the airspace to see the setup process. Sure as hell you can stop any BATALLION level threat from preemplacing to bushwack a vehicle team.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
>>
The engine upgrade program is not anything new. Last time I checked, it was 750 mil for the entire fleet. With the new avionics upgrades, the engines are going to proove more disabling. You just might see a hog reach 450-500 knots in the future. The limiting factor in the A-10 is not the airframe, but the engines.
>>

Not a chance. The only thing the TF34 mod does is flat rate to a constant 8,900lbst up through 20-25K or so. When you are flying a 37-42K mission weight, that's still .6 or less. Now throw in that massive, straight, cambered wing and all those pylons and a skin that looks like it was built by Rosie The Riveter. And you cannot expect a high transit at the kinds of speeds which make a difference. Even as you cannot expect an airframe whose TSFCs have almost certainly drooped, to suddenly become easier and more enduring to operate than a robot with half as many engines to feed. Nor can you expect even a 450 knot fast-ambulance to be superior to an ON STATION cavalry van that tripwires the enemy before they can attack the 'main body' of a 10 vehicle convoy.

Lastly, if they won't fund the F136 for a mere billion dollar savings on a 'now guaranteed to enter production' print-money program like the F-35, there is no hope for the TF34 mod.

AND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INVENTORIED A-10S TO COVER ALL TASKINGS.

>>
WSOs aren't really a part in the F-16. In fact, I'm not to sure of an ACC unit that has them. Family models are pretty much for training and incentive rides only, plus, we simply don't have them. WSOs are a mudhen thing.
>>

Tell me, did you even READ the article on 'training up' F-16 FAC-A with an A-10 driver in the backseat? Is it /any wonder/ that you come across as stodgy when you don't see the obvious adapt-and-overcome utility in that?

Institutional stultification is why the FAC-A program failed for the USAF and works for the F-18D equipped Marines. Why the prefered CAS agency in OEF and OIF was always Marine. Why an on-scene BMC2 asset forward was and always will be better than 'MOB overhead' equivalents. Particularly given our penchant for external-everything in terms of auxilliary stores; we could have juryrigged a CAS-D Viper by putting a laptop operator in the rear seat and splicing wires to his computer screen to store snapshot targeting pod memories. Yanking some 600 gallon tank 'experience' from the Israelis. And fast moding a LITENING or Navy LANTIRN equivalent capability for 10 podsets. We chose not to because the Sky Knight 'can do' mentality is too proud to ride double.

How ironic that all the Greek, Israeli and other late-.50 operators are twin-cabbing it.

>>
The A-10 doesn't need a Radar. Sure, that is an advantage in the viper, and mudhen but in the grand scheme of things, it just isn't necessary for what it does. The avionics upgrades in the new "C" model will allow a more diverse payload. You seem hell bent on the Vipers radar capabilities. Have you seen them in person? I have...
>>

Really, have you seen a V(9) or (10)? Have you seen ISAR from a 20" aperture that rivals that of the APG-70? The big question is whether 'what it does' in the direct visual CAS environment is worth the A-10's _not_ being qualified as a netcentric, all weather, all altitude, 24:7 warrior. To which the answer can only be a resounding no. Becasue as a specialist force element, it doesn't do what the F-16 does under D1/R1 conditions. And thus it _can't_ acheive, as a function of inventory numbers, the continual coverage necesary to _prevent_ engagement.

>>
UCAVs will take over the Air Force whether we like it or not. the X-45 and X-47 projects are in full swing. The F-35 and F-22 will be the last of the manned fighters in our inventory. One thing you will never have in a UCAV operator is the situational awareness. It isn't possible as they are simply not there.
>>

No. The X-45 as UDS was sucked up by the AF as soon as they saw DARPA might actually have a workable (i.e. threatening) idea. It was then system bloated until it could not work for cost and 'jointified' with the Navy until the inventory buy numbers threatened followon purchases from any other company. The combination of pilot-bigotry and corporate horror then assured a sufficiently large co-conspiracy (greased wheels and intimidation factor) weighted leverage as to leave little Congressional resistance to the cancellation of J-UCAS. The X-47 is still limping along but only until the USN announces that 'Lot 3 of the Super Horror is good enough!'. At least as to let them wriggle out from under the F-35C at 113 million apop (10 airframes on deck, in a scenario for which the USN has _admitted_ to giving up all longrange strike capability in return for 'supporting the troops'...).

Given we saw how childish and stubborn the services were over the introduction of CM in the 70's, the only way to replace man in a for-pilots-only fraternity is to crush them out of existence on a budgetary and mission incompetence level of 'convenience of government' force structure economics. If there is one saving grace to GWOT and Iraq in particular, it is that we are nearly there in terms of contempt for idiocy in action that is 'experts in their field' screwing up at every opportunity.

>>
I am serious about knowing your credentials. There are a lot of good people in the Air Force who have earned their way up the ladders that you are bad mouthing. If the A-10 were no longer necessary it would have gone the way of the Aardvark.
>>

'The Ladder' is an institutional parochialistic bias designed specifically to exclude new ideas by inculcation of dogma as a precondition to advancing up each rung. There is no required respect endemic to having succumbed to the Pod People ethos of piloted aviation uber alles.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
>>
As far as the fighter jock wannabe comment: I'm not sure you were paying attention. I have a bit over 1800 hours in the Viper. I have flown almost every block except for the block 60. I have been part of Desert Storm, Desert Shield, Deny Flight, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I have spent my fair share of stick time in fighters. But I didn't get what you do?
>>

You lost all chance at respect for your 'time served' when you called the A-10 a fighter. It is not, it never will be and anyone who insists otherwise is a liar and/or incompetent. You further insist on comparing 'what you know' of two platforms without comment for what is obvious in what you know they CANNOT ACHIEVE, relative to a third. This too marks you as too disqualified by bias to have a say. We are selling our futures as an educated, stable, society to listen to tall tales about 'what is needed' to keep a select militarist aristocracy employed as enforcers for a defacto Imperial system that DOES NOT WORK. Because it is not honest about what we need from a tributory state system to make it effective and thus morally acceptable.

>>
My conclusion: The A-10 has it's place and will not being going away anytime soon. The guys who have made that decision take much experience from the last 30 years. They wear eagles and stars on their shoulders and wings on their chests. The only thing they are concerned with is fighting a war to the best extent that we can. That means having the best people and equipment do the best job that it can.
>>

Ask the fox to define what a chicken is and he'll smile at you as he says it has two buck teeth and a lot of hair on it's head. I suggest you read _Illusions Of Choice_ before you try to convince me that a system ruled by ex fighter pilots is ever going to be about anything but maintaining the social norms of their own, closed, caste-order existence. The Japanese had the same problem with the Samurai. It took Admiral Perry and REAL FORCE to show them the error of being intimidated if not terrorized by an antiquated class of 'militant servants'. Yet eventually they saw the light and started to evolve beyond the medieval. We are in the same position of fighting a fourth generation war with third generation mindset, led and prosecuted by deluded, self-interested, fools. And when the doctrinal paradigm is crippled by humanistic inadequacies, the ability to evolve the technology to overcome the shortfall in real warfighter capability will always lose out to what is 'familiar' and thus contemptuous of change in those who have a personal stake in advocating the status quo. We should have been transitioning to the UCAV by the late 70's. Now, thirty years later, we are still '10-15 years out'. And given the unending funding slow-downs and cancellation roadblocks being emplaced today, there will undoubtedly be some new reason given regarding the technology 'not being ready' even then.

>>
So I return to my original question that you seemed to dance around: Who are you?
>>

No one you need to feel threatened by. Yet here you are.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join