A-10 Program Discontinued

[AuH20]

Such a reliable platform is no more...

https://medium.com/@warisboring/congressional-committee-just-voted-to-kill-the-a-10-and-endanger-troops-lives-4f8dcef540a0


On June 10, the House Appropriations Committee made clear the way many on Capitol Hill view national defense. By a raised-hands vote of 13 to 23, the Committee rejected an amendment from Congressman Jack Kingston—a Georgia Republican—to redirect $339 million from operation and maintenance funds, deemed excess, to retain 234 A-10 close air support aircraft in the U.S. Air Force inventory.

Even though the committee found $1.6 billion to increase the Obama Administration’s budget to buy hardware, it could not find a penny to retain one of the most extraordinarily effective weapons in the U.S. arsenal—and one of the cheapest to operate.


The Air Force claims it must get rid of the A-10 to save money. In fact, the A-10 is less expensive to operate than any other combat aircraft in the Air Force inventory. The B-1B is three times more expensive to operate per hour.

The Air Force claims the A-10 can only do one mission, close air support. In fact, in the four wars since 1990, the A-10 has been effective in combat search and rescue, interdiction, air-defense suppression, armed reconnaissance, forward air control and air-to-air against helicopters—a larger spread of combat operations in these wars than several of the so-called multi-role platforms.

The Air Force claims the A-10 only does 20 percent of close air support in Afghanistan. To contrive such a number, the Air Force had to count missions flown by other aircraft that attacked nothing—and it counted up to 15 strikes on separate targets on one A-10 sortie as no different from one-strike missions by other aircraft.

The Air Force claims the A-10 is too old, but the service just spent $2.85 billion to extend airframe life by 15 years and to modernize it with the most advanced close support avionics and countermeasures in the force.

The Air Force claims the A-10 cannot survive over modern battlefields, but the A-10 is built to survive gun- and missile-hits far better than any previous or current aircraft in the Air Force. The Government Accountability Office found it to be at least as survivable, statistically and otherwise, as the F-117 stealth fighter in the first Iraq War. The A-10 suffered fewer casualties than the F-117 in the Kosovo air war in 1999.

[eduardo89]

Stupid decision.

[Danke]

The Government Accountability Office found it to be at least as survivable, statistically and otherwise, as the F-117 stealth fighter in the first Iraq War. The A-10 suffered fewer casualties than the F-117 in the Kosovo air war in 1999.

What a bizarre statement. The F-117s were the first in during Desert Storm, none lost during that campaign either.

As for Kosovo, the only F-117 ever lost in combat.

[eduardo89]

Does the A-10 have the highest mission capable rate of any USAF combat aircraft?

[jkr]

I mean, i HATE war
but if you have to do it id want one of those
what a machine
http://wingsoveriraq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/a-10.jpg
the OFFICIAL warplane of cheech & chong

but dont worry, im sure theyll make a robot version...

[eduardo89]

but dont worry, im sure theyll make a robot version...

I'm all for unmanned aircraft to keep pilots (operators as Danke has reminded me before) out of harm's way, as long as they are as effective as the manned aircraft they are replacing. However, in the case of something for close air support, I think you need the human factor and the A-10 has proven for decades that it is the best machine for this.

[AuH20]

The A-10 was virtually indestructible considering it was relatively slow-moving.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5319/5888543266_a61c4cbe14_b.jpg

http://i493.photobucket.com/albums/rr293/TrailDust_2008/A10missledamage.jpg

[AuH20]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qU7hWVBAwss/UCEe15WioiI/AAAAAAAAMZA/DXKT9XsVTDk/s1600/a10.jpg

[alucard13mm]

Maybe the marines or army can get it for cheap.

they should make a new version of the a10 if they wanna spend money so badly.

[eduardo89]

The A-10 was virtually indestructible considering it was relatively slow-moving.

The A-10's airframe was designed for survivability, with measures such as 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of titanium armour for protection of the cockpit and aircraft systems that enables the aircraft to continue flying after taking significant damage.

[AuH20]

An article from a few weeks back..

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-15/soldiers-fight-to-save-a-10-warthog-jet


The Air Force says that newer, faster aircraft, such as the F-16, F-15E, and, eventually, Lockheed Martin’s (LMT) new F-35 fighter, can perform the A-10’s principal mission of “close air support,” striking targets on the ground to help soldiers in a land battle. “We’ll figure out how to do it better than it’s ever been done before,” General Mark Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, said at an April 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Warthog was routinely sent to protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its supporters question whether the military would risk doing the same with the costly F-35. “You really think they’re going to allow a $200 million airplane to get down in the weeds, where it’s extremely vulnerable?” says retired Lieutenant Colonel William Smith, an airline pilot who flew the A-10 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Danke]

Maybe the marines or army can get it for cheap.



Or your local police department...

[jkr]

http://mlm-s1-p.mlstatic.com/gijoe-1984-cobra-rattler-pilot-wild-weasel-2855-MLM3622805006_012013-O.jpg

wild weasel does NOT APPROVE
http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090318010556/gijoe/images/0/03/Rattler.jpg

[acptulsa]

I think I see a pattern here. Neither the battleship (nor the gun cruiser) nor the B-52 heavy bomber was replaced because of all the kinds of ordnance the armed forces could use to destroy a target missiles and torpedoes are the most expensive. So, the MIC tends to like platforms that launch them. There was even a concerted effort to discredit gunships after WWII, which involved certain 'journalists' out-and-out lying about whether battleships ever sunk an enemy ship with gunfire.

They both, however, had their uses. We still have nothing that can do to a large target what a B-52 can. And Vietnam vets have often said that, big as they were, nothing was better at close support than battleships. They had a unique blend of deadliness and pinpoint accuracy.

I wonder if the existing A-10s will be kept alive for half a century--at no small risk to the crews who must fly antiques in combat--like the Iowa-class battleships and B-52s just because the missile lovers in the MIC refuse to replace it and close support is still no job for missles?

As for doing close air support with transonic and supersonic aircraft, as the Air Force Chief of Staff suggested will be done, all I can say is the B-1B was recently used in such a role and five of our people died...

[Cleaner44]

Can there be any doubt that this is all about generating more sales for the MIC, instead of providing for a quality national defense?

[eduardo89]

“We’ll figure out how to do it better than it’s ever been done before,” General Mark Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, said at an April 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And if we can't figure it out, just give us a $50 billion to develop another aircraft.

[acptulsa]

Can there be any doubt that this is all about generating more sales for the MIC, instead of providing for a quality national defense?

Well, let's see.

It ain't broke.

They're fixing it.

No, not much...

[Philhelm]

The A-10 was always my favorite airplane. I remember playing a 90's video game, A-10 Tank Hunter (or something like that), which had some awesome music playing while you were flying.

[Lucille]

Why the ‘Warthog’ Matters
Will military turf battles cost combat troops their best friend in the sky?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-the-warthog-matters/


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/A-10-gatling-gun.jpg
[...]
Sprey, who has been around to criticize the Air Force since becoming one of Robert McNamara’s “whiz kids”-turned-rogue at the Pentagon in the 1960’s, said the F-35 program is just another example of how the Pentagon continues to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into programs that don’t work, while sacrificing ones that do. He takes it a step further: “in a microcosm, this is about how the military industrial complex has basically betrayed the soldier and ruined national defense.”

He and others charge that instead of keeping the A-10, which has support among soldiers, Marines, and the Air Force pilots who fly them, the services want to develop their own super-expensive alternatives. That’s the way it goes in Washington—high-end all the way. This hits the sweet spot with contractors, politicians, and the services themselves, which build their pride and identities around big, elaborate programs, even if they are inefficient and underperforming.
[...]
Emerging as well is the drone lobby, which sees the future of close air support in drones like the M-Q Reaper. While even A-10 proponents—let’s call them the Grunts (including Marines and other land war-centric constituencies)—recognize some virtue in drones for reconnaissance, they believe they would never have the vantage, maneuverability, and combat capabilities of manned aircraft like the A-10.

[Danke]

Circle the Hogs. A classic:

https://myspace.com/xsicariusx/video/a10-circle-the-hogs-comedy/1068420

[KCIndy]

An article from a few weeks back..

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-15/soldiers-fight-to-save-a-10-warthog-jet


The Air Force says that newer, faster aircraft, such as the F-16, F-15E, and, eventually, Lockheed Martin’s (LMT) new F-35 fighter, can perform the A-10’s principal mission of “close air support,” striking targets on the ground to help soldiers in a land battle. “We’ll figure out how to do it better than it’s ever been done before,” General Mark Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, said at an April 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Warthog was routinely sent to protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its supporters question whether the military would risk doing the same with the costly F-35. “You really think they’re going to allow a $200 million airplane to get down in the weeds, where it’s extremely vulnerable?” says retired Lieutenant Colonel William Smith, an airline pilot who flew the A-10 in Iraq and Afghanistan.




Wow! That is truly insane.

Like others here have mentioned, I don't like the idea of war or the U.S. meddling around overseas. I *ALSO* don't like getting gouged as a taxpayer to pay for a $200 million dollar aircraft that can't do the job as effectively or as safely (for the pilot) as the A-10, which probably costs about 10% of what an F-35 costs.

The F-35 isn't designed to take the kind of beating an A-10 can routinely take flying low and slow.

This is like going out and buying a brand new Corvette to enter in the local demolition derby. :mad:

[eduardo89]

The real reason it is being cancelled: it's not cost efficient...for the MIC.

[fisharmor]

The A-10 was always my favorite airplane. I remember playing a 90's video game, A-10 Tank Hunter (or something like that), which had some awesome music playing while you were flying.

The Air Force has been actively campaigning to get rid of the A-10 since at least that time.
The institution has always hated it, practically from the beginning.


This is like going out and buying a brand new Corvette to enter in the local demolition derby. :mad:

No, it's more like buying a brand new Aston-Martin.


Food for thought: The Air Force didn't exist before 1947.
Prior to that, we won every war we fought.
After that, we've lost every war we fought.

I second the idea of giving these planes to the Marines or Army.
But then let's follow that up.
The Air Force should be the very first branch of the military to be cut in its entirety.

[eduardo89]

Food for thought: The Air Force didn't exist before 1947.
Prior to that, we won every war we fought.
After that, we've lost every war we fought.

The US hasn't lost a single war since the Air Force was created. But that's just because there hasn't been a single declaration of war since WWII.

[Henry Rogue]

Air Force brass hated A-10s from the get go. A-10s went directly to National Guard units, when they were brand new. The Air Force didn't want the close air Support, anti tank role, they considered that the Army's role, but the Army is prohibited from operating armed fixed wing aircraft The Air Force warmed up to the A -10s after the old brass retired and A-10 pilots advanced in rank.

[loveshiscountry]

The A-10 was beautiful. It protected our military personnel. Which is a lot more than I can say for Congress.

[alucard13mm]

So how come they don't design and build a new aircraft to use the GAU 8 if the MIC wanted to spend bunch of money? If we gonna spend boat load of money to design a new combat aircraft, might as well design it based on something that works. Shit, I'd make the whole aircraft out of tWolverine's indestructable Adamantium metal alloy.

There are no counter measures or any way to fool a bullet... but many ways to fool a guided missile.

[Pericles]

Maybe the marines or army can get it for cheap.

they should make a new version of the a10 if they wanna spend money so badly.

The Army is not allowed to have fixed wing aircraft mounting weapons - the AF won that food fight at the Pentagon.

[Victor Grey]

The darned F-35 nonsense is sucking up more money than it'll ever be worth. At that from the whole western world.

We already have the F-22 for a massive money sink. Least it's role makes sense and seems to have few problems. Wouldn't say getting our money's worth, because good gracious, but it's darn impressive. Even if it is made by hand of gold for all it matters.

I've never seen an argument, cost-wise, to support that F-35 program, particularly to the sheer scale it's been.

After air superiority is gained in a conflict, why need the f-35? Anything above a Cessna can drop bombs and rounds on a target.
A-10 and assorted bombers do the job well. So why spend multiple billions, creating something that (if some of the things I've read that aren't advertizements/propaganda have any truth) is at best an average jack of all trades, and very much a master of none?

[phill4paul]

Dumb fucks. For close-in air support the A-10 has no match. "Antiquated" platform means there is no billion dollars in new contracts in it. SMDH.

[CaptUSA]

The A-10 was beautiful. It protected our military personnel. Which is a lot more than I can say for Congress.

Actually...
https://www.flightlineinsignia.com/secure/images/products/769.jpg

I used to have this on a t-shirt. The A-10 is my favorite aircraft ever.

[AuH20]

The darned F-35 nonsense is sucking up more money than it'll ever be worth. At that from the whole western world.

We already have the F-22 for a massive money sink. Least it's role makes sense and seems to have few problems. Wouldn't say getting our money's worth, because good gracious, but it's darn impressive. Even if it is made by hand of gold for all it matters.

I've never seen an argument, cost-wise, to support that F-35 program, particularly to the sheer scale it's been.

After air superiority is gained in a conflict, why need the f-35? Anything above a Cessna can drop bombs and rounds on a target.
A-10 and assorted bombers do the job well. So why spend multiple billions, creating something that (if some of the things I've read that aren't advertizements/propaganda have any truth) is at best an average jack of all trades, and very much a master of none?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI

[Henry Rogue]

Why the ‘Warthog’ Matters
Will military turf battles cost combat troops their best friend in the sky?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-the-warthog-matters/Sprey, who has been around to criticize the Air Force since becoming one of Robert McNamara’s “whiz kids”-turned-rogue at the Pentagon in the 1960’s, said the F-35 program is just another example of how the Pentagon continues to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into programs that don’t work, while sacrificing ones that do. He takes it a step further: “in a microcosm, this is about how the military industrial complex has basically betrayed the soldier and ruined national defense.”

He and others charge that instead of keeping the A-10, which has support among soldiers, Marines, and the Air Force pilots who fly them, the services want
to develop their own super-expensive alternatives. That’s the way it goes in Washington—high-end all the way. This hits the sweet spot with contractors,
politicians, and the services themselves, which build their pride and identities around big, elaborate programs, even if they are inefficient and underperforming.
[...]
Emerging as well is the drone lobby, which sees the future of close air support in drones like the M-Q Reaper. While even A-10 proponents—let’s call them the Grunts (including Marines and other land war-centric constituencies)—recognize some virtue in drones for reconnaissance, they believe they would never have the vantage, maneuverability, and combat capabilities of manned aircraft like the A-10.
There is the creator of the A-10 right there, Pierre Sprey. One of the original members of The Fighter Mafia.

[presence]

Cost effective weapon that the US already owns...


or


...new multi billion dollar weapon system with high maintainance costs





MIC choice is obvious here, expect only more of this.

[alucard13mm]

Seems we are making the same mistake as the Germans did in WW2, except worse.

German tigers were expensive to build and maintain, but was pretty good when it did not break down. US Shermans were cheaper to make, easier to maintain, can produce more of them and does its job reasonably well.

Isn't this how Al Qaeda is bankrupting USA in war? Expendable jihadist with AK's and RPG's occasionally destroying expensive US military hardware?

[Pericles]

Dumb fucks. For close-in air support the A-10 has no match. "Antiquated" platform means there is no billion dollars in new contracts in it. SMDH.

The Air Force is about missiles and satellites in outer space and really fast and stealthy fighters. Who wants to fuck with a bunch of guys rolling around in the mud?

[acptulsa]

The Air Force is about missiles and satellites in outer space and really fast and stealthy fighters. Who wants to fuck with a bunch of guys rolling around in the mud?

Obviously they do or they wouldn't be continuing to support the Army ban on fixed wing aircraft that was put in place when the Air Force was created in 1947.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The real reason it is being cancelled: it's not cost efficient...for the MIC.Yep, no profit, though the MIC does design USAF/USN aircraft for profitable sustaining engineering contracts... until you get the next new design sold off through Congress.

[Pericles]

Obviously they do or they wouldn't be continuing to support the Army ban on fixed wing aircraft that was put in place when the Air Force was created in 1947.

Why the Army built helicopters - not covered by the Key West "agreement".

[devil21]

The real reason it is being cancelled: it's not cost efficient...for the MIC.

Why not just build a newer, upgraded version of the A-10 then? If they're so determined to piss away billions on planes, at least piss it away on something that we know works and could actually use a refresh. We have enough bomber-this and stealth-that already and these new plane programs are turning into money pits. They could design a new Warthog and it would probably be the most kick-ass thing with wings in the world.

[56ktarget]

Lol more morons who think they know more about the military than you know, the actual generals. LOL!!!

[Danke]

Lol more morons who think they know more about the military than you know, the actual generals. LOL!!!

I flew CAS and have to say most of what has been posted here is true.

[oyarde]

I flew CAS and have to say most of what has been posted here is true.

Yah , I see nothing here that is not correct.

[devil21]

Lol more morons who think they know more about the military than you know, the actual generals. LOL!!!

Always funny to see liberal posters now support military spending and intervention. Doesn't take very long to completely flip your reality, does it 56k?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17qjx16iWDQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwvqAQdNQG8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MBr8d2HcE

It's sad. I don't care what label you apply to yourself if you're against this crap. But now the anti-war movement from the left is completely gone and folks like you are talking about trusting generals :rolleyes:. sheesh

[XNavyNuke]

I'll be holding my breath waiting for the White House to set up a War Assets Administration to divest themselves of this property. Then we can have retired Hog pilots setting up their crowd funding pages.

XNN

[acptulsa]

Lol more morons who think they know more about the military than you know, the actual generals. LOL!!!

You act like your favorite Democratic Congresspeople ever--ever--listen to the generals when the generals say, 'You know, that so-called 'defense system' that is built in your district and employs five dozen of your constituents is completely worthless in combat.' Come earmark time, somehow funding always continues. Warehouses are full of crap like that.

This is your welfare state. I think this is your welfare state on drugs, but I'm not sure.

You really should educate yourself. You might then be able to take a principled position once in a while.

[osan]

The Air Force claims it must get rid of the A-10 to save money. In fact, the A-10 is less expensive to operate than any other combat aircraft in the Air Force inventory. The B-1B is three times more expensive to operate per hour.



I don't believe that for a moment. TEN or TWENTY times I would readily believe. Three? No way. B1 is a supersonic aircraft with a large crew, large fuel consumption, and a far larger and more complicated airframe to maintain. The variable wing geometry system alone, I would bet, costs more to maintain than an entire A10.

[presence]

I don't believe that for a moment. TEN or TWENTY times I would readily believe. Three? No way. B1 is a supersonic aircraft with a large crew, large fuel consumption, and a far larger and more complicated airframe to maintain. The variable wing geometry system alone, I would bet, costs more to maintain than an entire A10.


MIC/BTC to da moon? Does wisdom have live charts?

[Pericles]

I'll be holding my breath waiting for the White House to set up a War Assets Administration to divest themselves of this property. Then we can have retired Hog pilots setting up their crowd funding pages.

XNN

Which, combined with my Armored Cavalry Troop project, could be a credible deterrent to mischief for the defense any freedom oriented entity.

[XNavyNuke]

Which, combined with my Armored Cavalry Troop project, could be a credible deterrent to mischief for the defense any freedom oriented entity.

Then I suppose that you've seen this vehicle auction coming up next month.

The Littlefield Collection (http://auctionsamerica.com/events/all-lots.cfm?SaleCode=LC14&search=&category=Cars&year=&make=&model=&collection=&day=&order=runorder&noreserve=&feature=&stillforsale=&grouping=&page=3)

XNN

[HOLLYWOOD]

Actually...
https://www.flightlineinsignia.com/secure/images/products/769.jpg

I used to have this on a t-shirt. The A-10 is my favorite aircraft ever.My RINO aircraft was AKA "DOUBLE UGLY" one up'd yah! PS: AKA The Flying fucking brick

http://www.pcfubar.com/alconbury/f4-2.gif

[idiom]

an airline pilot who flew the A-10 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Airforce is using Airline pilots now?

[Pericles]

Then I suppose that you've seen this vehicle auction coming up next month.

The Littlefield Collection (http://auctionsamerica.com/events/all-lots.cfm?SaleCode=LC14&search=&category=Cars&year=&make=&model=&collection=&day=&order=runorder&noreserve=&feature=&stillforsale=&grouping=&page=3)

XNN

Need more current stuff.

[jbauer]

Maybe the marines or army can get it for cheap.

they should make a new version of the a10 if they wanna spend money so badly.

Don't give 'em any ideas. Or we'll soon see sheriff/police departments picking them up to "protect and serve"

[Pericles]

I flew CAS and have to say most of what has been posted here is true.

Posted elsewhere, and reposted here because it contains the important teaching point that smart weapons are only as smart as the dumbest person in the mission.

A-10s Saved the Day in Botched Afghanistan Raid

Low-flying jets better than bombers for supporting ground troops

https://medium.com/@warisboring/a-10...d-b78367f4fd0e (https://medium.com/@warisboring/a-10s-saved-the-day-in-botched-afghanistan-raid-b78367f4fd0e)

On June 9, five U.S. Special Operations Forces commandos died when a U.S. Air Force B-1 bomber mistakenly attacked their position in southern Afghanistan-presumably dropping JDAM satellite-guided bombs on the commandos from high altitude.

The accidental bombing comes as the Air Force is trying-with some success-to convince Congress to allow the flying branch to retire all 230 of its remaining A-10 Warthog attack jets, which specialize in low, slow attacks in close proximity to friendly troops.

The Air Force insists the high-flying B-1 and other warplanes can adequately replace the A-10. But the June 9 incident undermines the Air Force's case. Likewise, a similar incident seven years ago involving a B-1-"Bone" to the ground troops-and A-10s highlights the yawning differences between the two plane types and their pilots.

On Jan. 15, 2007, a force of 200 British Royal Marines and other troops including a Joint Terminal Air Controller, or JTAC, crossed a canal of the Helmand River in southern Afghanistan and attacked Jugroom Fort, a walled complex that was a key Taliban strongpoint.

The assault was a fiasco for the Brits. "The besieged Taliban fighters proved resilient, and sprayed the Z Company Marines with gunfire," The Guardianreported. "Within minutes the British force suffered four casualties, mostly gunshot wounds."

The British troops retreated. They were back across the river when the realized they had left behind a wounded man-30-year-old Lance Corporal Matthew Ford. The Brits radioed for help. Two A-10 pilots were flying nearby.
"Suddenly, our flight was re-tasked to support an allied commando unit and their JTAC," one of the A-10 pilots recalled in a widely-circulated written account. War is Boring agreed not to print the pilot's name, as his opinions contradict Air Force policy.

"We quickly checked in with the JTAC and received a standard situation update," the pilot recalled. "Using our old-school 1:50 paper maps, we hastily plotted the factor locations with grease pencil and quickly developed visual target reference points for us to use within our own flight."

We were given several known enemy firing positions to target north of the canal and we began hitting them with 30-millimeter [guns]. A B-1 bomber checked in with a full load of GBU-38 and GBU-31 JDAMs.

After we conducted the initial strikes, my flight lead sent me to the tanker to get gas first. While en route to the tanker, the JTAC gave the preparatory call for all players to receive the recovery game plan. I was forced off frequency to facilitate my tanker rejoin.

Once plugged on the tanker, I had the tanker pipe the frequency through the boom interphone so I could at least listen to the communications while getting gas.

The Royal Marines came up with a desperate and daring plan. Marines would strap themselves to the outsides of two British Army Apache gunship helicopters and dart back across the river to pick up Ford. They wanted the A-10s and B-1 to cover them.

"This is going to be a timed strike to cover the helicopter ingress," the British commander radioed. "The B-1 is going to drop four GBU-31s on the [Taliban positions] just prior to the helicopters crossing the canal. The A-10s will escort the Apaches in and lay suppressing fire on the enemy firing positions."
"Once dismounted from the helicopters, A-10s have overwatch," the commander continued. "Once we get our guy, we're gonna load him up, egress the area, and Bone and Hawgs are going to smash the place to bits."
"Jesus Christ," the tanker's boom operator muttered on overhearing the plan.
"The B-1 was now rushing to get the targeting solutions for the JDAMs," the A-10 pilot wrote. "The JTAC ordered a bomb-on-coordinate nine-line"-a detailed attack order in standardized format-"and the B-1 was frantically attempting to repeat the coordinates while plugging them into his targeting system."

"At the same time I was attempting to visualize where the coordinates were plotted, using just the verbal data alone-a skill set I learned from some experienced A-10 pilots," the Warthog flier recalled.

The more experienced A-10 flight lead was frantically doing the same-in essence, checking the JTAC and B-1 crew's work. The Taliban and the British troops-to say nothing of their madcap rescue force-were in very close proximity.
The B-1 is a high-flying, sluggish aircraft. Rather than maneuvering to attack down low based on visual cues, it lobs satellite-guided bombs to hit pre-designated coordinates. For a B-1 to hit the bad guys and avoid the good guys, the numbers have to be perfect.

"One set of coordinates made the hair on the back of my neck stand up," the A-10 pilot wrote. "I glanced at my canopy, where I had very similar coordinates written in grease pencil and circled with 'FDLY'"-code for friendly troops-"written on top. Before I could put two and two together, I heard the JTAC clear the B-1 hot for the four JDAMs."

"Immediately after the 'cleared hot,' I heard my flight lead interject."

"Abort! Abort! Abort!" the flight lead barked into the radio.

"State reason!" the B-1 crew demanded.

"Screw reason!" the A-10 leader responded. "God damn it, abort-you're about to kill friendlies!"

The B-1 waved off. Irritated, the British JTAC asked why his bomber had aborted.

"You passed your own coordinates!" the A-10 flight lead shot back.

"The JTAC disagreed with that assessment," the junior A-10 pilot wrote. "What I heard on the radio next still impresses me to this day. My flight lead asked the JTAC what GPS system he was using, then walked him through the page menus to confirm he was reading the system correctly."

"This took an amazing amount of prior self-study and composure during paramount stress."

The JTAC followed the senior Warthog pilot's directives. "Holy shit, mate," the air controller said. "You're right. We're spinning everything and we're re-setting this."

"Jesus Christ," the boom operator said again.

"Countless friendly lives were saved by a laminated Russian 1:50 map, a five-cent grease pencil and a dedicated and professional ... pilot with the experience and training to sift through the fog of both air and ground war," the A-10 pilot wrote.

The ground troops and their air support regrouped. The B-1 crew plugged in fresh-and this time correct-GPS coordinates and dropped four 2,000-pound bombs on the fortress.

The two A-10s, their gas tanks full, angled in to cover the Apaches. "We set up a close, low escort pattern to provide immediate firepower in defense of the helicopters," the pilot remembered.

As soon as they crossed the canal, all Hell broke loose from the canal banks and village. The Apaches began firing, we were calling out firing positions and shooting alongside them [via] close-range, low-angle strafe.

As I passed abeam one Apache, I glanced high left to see a man, leaning over the stubby helicopter wing, unloading his rifle on the enemy. We matched with 30-millimeter and rockets.

The B-1 held high as he was useless during this close attack phase. The Apaches, usually the escort birds, now found themselves requiring escort to make it in and out alive. Only an A-10 could have done that.

The Brits found Ford. He was already dead. The A-10s covered the Apaches on their return flight then helped the B-1 pulverize the fortress. "This time the JTAC had deferred coordinate generation to my flight lead."

"Ever since this mission I have fully embraced the unique and highly specialized skill of battlefield tracking," the pilot concluded. "It is a skill unique to the A-10 community, as we realize that [close air support] is more than simply dialing up a bomb for the ground commander."

The A-10 fliers-plus some very traumatized Royal Marines and B-1 crew members-may realize that. But Air Force generals apparently do not. They persist in believing a B-1 can replace an A-10.

[Acala]

I live in A-10 territory. They operate out of Davis-Monthan AFB here in Tucson. I see a pair of them overhead daily. My Senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, and my rep, Ron Barber, pushed to keep funding for the A-10 because losing the A-10 might mean losing D-M AFB and many jobs. Does this mean that John McCain is losing clout?

[HOLLYWOOD]

I don't believe that for a moment. TEN or TWENTY times I would readily believe. Three? No way. B1 is a supersonic aircraft with a large crew, large fuel consumption, and a far larger and more complicated airframe to maintain. The variable wing geometry system alone, I would bet, costs more to maintain than an entire A10.

Here's a quicky piece from TIME mag, costs are not confirmed, and I think the B-1B operating costs are far higher than reported. You can see some of the USAF cost analysis searching the RAND Corp docs: http://www.rand.org/paf.html

U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and Modernization: Background and Issues (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R43049.pdf)for Congress JUNE 2014 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R43049.pdf)

http://kwout.com/cutout/f/cx/88/pmv_bor.jpg (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R43049.pdf)


The B-1 bomber has been used for combat missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. The B-1 has been criticized in some circles over its high maintenance fees. The aircraft requires about $720,000 of repairs and upkeep for every 12 hours of flight time. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/bomberaircraft/a/b1bomber.htm


A-10C: $17,716

B-1B: $57,807

http://kwout.com/cutout/h/j2/pz/8pm_bor.jpg (http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/)

Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com


http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140318/NEWS/303180067/B-1B-F-16s-could-next-Congress-blocks-Air-Force-plan-retire-10 (http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/)

[Danke]

The B-1 was originally slated to be a nuclear bomber. Not for tactical missions.

Also, the pilots don't get a lot of flying hours in them, at least that used to be the case. So expensive to operate. And it was kind of a joke (and true) that they always came back to base with something wrong, many times declaring an emergency. But they have a lot of counter measures, can egress low and fast, making it difficult for fighters to get a shot at them.

[acptulsa]

The B-1 was originally slated to be a nuclear bomber. Not for tactical missions.

Also, the pilots don't get a lot of flying hours in them, at least that used to be the case. So expensive to operate. And it was kind of a joke (and true) that they always came back to base with something wrong, many times declaring an emergency.

Indeed it was. They decided it wasn't stealthy enough, or not expensive enough, or something, and dropped it in favor of the B-2. The only reason operational examples were ever built is because Reagan never met a defense program he wouldn't fund.

It was designed to be the wrong tool for any job the B-2 can't do better. That's what your $57,087/hour gets you, folks.

[eduardo89]

The B-1 was originally slated to be a nuclear bomber. Not for tactical missions.

Also, the pilots don't get a lot of flying hours in them, at least that used to be the case. So expensive to operate. And it was kind of a joke (and true) that they always came back to base with something wrong, many times declaring an emergency. But they have a lot of counter measures, can egress low and fast, making it difficult for fighters to get a shot at them.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/B1_fire.jpg

[acptulsa]

Lol more morons who think they know more about the military than you know, the actual generals. LOL!!!

This post is just too funny to me.

So, give people titles then make it illegal--or at least a thing to blindly ridicule--if anyone questions them.

'Cause, you know, that's how democracy works, see? It's called 'public oversight' don'tcha know?