End of the line for the A-10 Warthog?

[RDMcG]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/air...

Ugly but pretty effective aircraft by all accounts...

[mybrainhurts]

That's not an aircraft, it's a gun with wings....

[Magog]

Given that they were designed specifically to stop T-72s rolling westwards across the plains of Northern Europe now probably isn't the ideal time to be getting rid of them.

[doosht]

So ugly that they are beautiful.

[williredale]

I'll just leave this here:

[RobDickinson]

I'm assuming this is just the US military way of scaring congress into a bigger paycheck

[Mave]

Nope, this is the US trying to avoid spending (more) money it doesn't have. I love the A-10, but it was designed based on lessons learned in Vietnam, and outdated by the first gulf war :-(

[RobDickinson]

Mave said:

Nope, this is the US trying to avoid spending (more) money it doesn't have. I love the A-10, but it was designed based on lessons learned in Vietnam, and outdated by the first gulf war :-(

I dont think so, once you have air superiority its a nightmare for ground troops and does a lot drones still cant.

[yellowjack]

The Washington Post said:

"...a slow-flying airplane designed to fly close enough to the ground so that pilots can distinguish friend from foe, often with their own eyes.

The A-10 has saved dozens of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Sadly, for nine Fusiliers in 1991, it flew neither slow enough, nor low enough, to distinguish friend from foe, and certainly in Iraq, it had a reputation for creating British war widows...

It is a truly awesome machine, and having witnessed close up the destructive power it wields, against both friend and foe, I'll not be celebrating it's retirement, but neither will I be all that sad to see it grounded forever.

I have very mixed emotions regarding the A10 - from watching them firing over Pembrey ranges as a boy, and being so relieved that they were on our side when arriving at Dhahran and seeing them lined up under their sunshades, to deliberately avoiding any airshow that features one ever since the Gulf War.

[dudleybloke]

Magog said:

Given that they were designed specifically to stop T-72s rolling westwards across the plains of Northern Europe now probably isn't the ideal time to be getting rid of them.

my thought too.

[gruffalo]

One of those bloody things nearly killed me 25 years ago, I wasn't even in a war zone or shagging the pilots wife!

[Eric Mc]

When first demonstrated to NATO commanders in the late 1970s, a Luftwaffe officer was heard to say "Ach, it is very pleasing to see ze Stuka back in service".

[Mojocvh]

yellowjack said:

The Washington Post said:

"...a slow-flying airplane designed to fly close enough to the ground so that pilots can distinguish friend from foe, often with their own eyes.

The A-10 has saved dozens of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Sadly, for nine Fusiliers in 1991, it flew neither slow enough, nor low enough, to distinguish friend from foe, and certainly in Iraq, it had a reputation for creating British war widows...

Try venting your ire at the operators....

I think we should snap these airframes up [and the munitions ]get the best 50 and cannibalise the rest of the fleet for spares.....

Beats the crap out of a puffer jet anyday.

[yellowjack]

Mojocvh said:

yellowjack said:

The Washington Post said:

"...a slow-flying airplane designed to fly close enough to the ground so that pilots can distinguish friend from foe, often with their own eyes.

The A-10 has saved dozens of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Sadly, for nine Fusiliers in 1991, it flew neither slow enough, nor low enough, to distinguish friend from foe, and certainly in Iraq, it had a reputation for creating British war widows...

Try venting your ire at the operators....

I think we should snap these airframes up [and the munitions ]get the best 50 and cannibalise the rest of the fleet for spares.....

Beats the crap out of a puffer jet anyday.

I've never vented any ire at anyone or anything over that incident. What I meant by my comments was that, if they are scrapped, then I won't have to see or hear one fly over me again, and the sight and sound of them is what triggers difficult memories.

As I had no involvement in the 2003 Iraq war, I'll make no comment on what happened then. However, for what it's worth, I have some sympathy for the pilots who zapped those two Warriors in '91. When we were sent in to recover the remains of the deceased, we weren't initially told what the job was. Just that it was an 'unpleasant job' for the Engineers. I expected something like a minefield, something risky for us as a section to be engaged in. As we approached the location, and the Warriors came into view, with smoke still pouring from the front one, my first thoughts were "great, another couple of the bds out of the battle then" - because I too misidentified the vehicles, and presumed they were Iraqi tanks, and I was closer to them, and travelling far slower than those pilots. When my commander ordered us to turn toward the two vehicles, and my view changed, I realised my mistake. I remembered the earlier 'contact' reports on the battle group radio net, and put two and two together. When the extent of the losses became apparent, I was physically sick.

However. st happens when you go to war. Modern weapon systems have hugely reduced the number of friendly fire casualties over WWII. The issue now is that casualties are lower across the board, and modern techniques identify mistakes more readily, so 'friendly fire' or 'Blue on Blue' losses now stand out more when the losses are assessed after the shooting stops. Does anyone honestly believe that all casualties in WWII were the result of direct, or indirect enemy fire? Many hundreds, probably thousands of soldiers in the past were killed by weapons systems operated by their own side, or by close allies, hundreds more in accidents too. All that has changed is the fact that we, in our sanitised modern world, no longer accept so readily the loss of members of our Armed Forces from what are perceived as 'avoidable' incidents. And on that note, I'll leave it there. Back to the Warthog discussion, eh, chaps?

[Mave]

RobDickinson said:

I dont think so, once you have air superiority its a nightmare for ground troops and does a lot drones still cant.

..but after the heavy losses in the first week of GW1 it was used in the same way as B52s and B1Bs- iron and LGB delivery from >15k feet...

[Mr Will]

I hear that the US Airforce top-brass hate the A10. Too specialised or not fast & pointy enough (depending what side of the fence you sit on). The army on the other hand love it and are trying to get permission to buy them all off the airforce rather than see them decommisioned. The problem with that is that the airforce can't stand the idea of the army having their own fixed-wing squadons.

If it does go, I think it will be a big mistake. Dedicated CAS aircraft have proven very useful in almost every major conflict since the second world war and I'm not sure there is anything in the US inventory that can do quite the same job.

[Godalmighty83]

It's OK everyone, at least the A-10 is getting replaced by the F-35, an aircraft in no possible way suited for close in ground support roles...

Wait a minute...

[Mr E]

Mave said:

..but after the heavy losses in the first week of GW1

4 airframes is heavy losses?

[aeropilot]

yellowjack said:

I have very mixed emotions regarding the A10 - from watching them firing over Pembrey ranges as a boy, and being so relieved that they were on our side when arriving at Dhahran and seeing them lined up under their sunshades, to deliberately avoiding any airshow that features one ever since the Gulf War.

Well avoiding them at airshows (pressume you mean the UK) ever since the Gulf War has been a pretty easy thing to do really, seeing as there haven't been many airshows featuring an A-10 for the best part of 20 years......

There have been no A-10's in the UK since Bentwaters/Woodbridge closed in early 1993.

I think maybe there might have been a display at Mildenhall by a mainland Europe based A-10 in the late 90's, but I certainley can't recall any A-10 displays for at least 15+ years.

[Mave]

Mr E said:

4 airframes is heavy losses?

Not sure if it was 4, but it was enough to change the operational tasking away from the mission it was specifically designed for.