Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "WarLeaks - Military Blog" channel.

@nerome619 US is a net oil exporter and has been for a while. The US doesn't rely on Middle East oil. The Middle East relies on the US to refine much of its oil since the US has more refining capacity than anyone else. US uses US oil and NG, which are easily extracted from thousands of sites around the US. The US has so much excess NG, that it flashes it off because there's too much to pipe away, as it's a byproduct of shale extraction.
19
The A-10 is pretty much useless with the gun. F-35's gun comes into play more for A2A with VLO approach.
17
A-10C even is no longer survivable even in semi-permissive environments, especially looking at IRGC improvised SAMs being supplied to the Houthis. A-10C would get wrecked in that part of the world, as F-15S and Tornados have already been shot down.
16
I forgot about the YA-10 Test Program where they trained battle damage on the airframes with sledge hammers back in the 1970s at Edwards, when we were there? It's not a good sign when the design philosophy of the aircraft is to intentionally take enemy fire. If you plan on getting shot, you're off to a bad start. The reason for that was the weapons systems limitations of that era with the AGM-65A, which required you to get in really close in order to have parameters. That hasn't been a reality since the AGM-65G in 1988. AGM-65A/B basically was a suicide Maverick. The A-10's intended primary weapon was the AGM-65A for the anti-armor mission profile in Fulda. The F-111E and F-111F killed more armor in Desert Storm, especially with night capabilities. It also did serious damage on Iraqi airfields and hardened shelters. Anyone looking for a replacement for the A-10 is not up-to-speed on USAF A2G mission profiles or capabilities even from the 1980s generation.
9
The A-10 was forced upon the USAF when they never wanted it, but it and the new LWF YF-16 or YF-17 was going to give them 5 new Air Wings, so AF CoS went with it at the time.
2
@olympia5758 US military technology has changed dramatically since the 1990s, mainly due to AARs from ODS combined with planned long-term programs already in existence. Examples: Radios went from open channel FM encrypted to VHSC Frequency-Hopping encrypted, now to the 3rd generation of net-centric systems. Navigation went from INS for air, map and compass for ground, to GPS integrated with better INS for air power, and multiple tiny GPS units for ground forces integrated with net-centric displays and data link comms. Radars went from Mechanically-scanned Arrays to Active Electronically Scanned Arrays. Missiles got tiny guidance units with far superior processing power and memory, with programmable functions, better rocket propellant, superior sensors, and thousands of more test iterations on moving targets. We’ve gone through 2 generations or more of updates to vehicles, from 1st Gen HMMWV to 2nd and 3rd Gen, now to JLTV. 1980s-era fighters were timed-out and replaced with mid-1990s to early 2000s built fighters, now with 20teens to 2020s-build 5.5 Gen fighters. We’ve been through 4 or 5 combat uniform changes since the 1990s. BDUs, DCUs, MCUs, ACUs, MC, Scorpion. Patriot missile Defense has evolved to PAC-3 already. Body armor went from PASGT to Interceptor/IBA, E-SAPI, IOTV, SPCS, and now the Modular Scalable Vest. Helmets went from the PASGT to MICH/ACH, then the Lightweight Advanced Combat Helmet Gen II and Lightweight Helmet. Night Vision went from PVS-4s and PVS-4s to PVS-7, PVS-14s, PVS-15s, PVS-31s, PSQ-20s, and PSQ-42s. Laser Aiming Modules went from the AIM-1 to PAQ-4A, PAQ-4C, PEQ-2A, PEQ-15, PEQ-16, DBAL Weapons went from M16A2 to M4A1 and M4 Gen I, M4A1 SOPMOD Block I, SOPMOD Block II, URGI, Big Army M4A1 PIP. Rifle Sights went from Iron to several ACOG variants, various Aimpoint RDSs, and now LPVOs. The boots have changed multiple times as well. Nothing is the same. There isn’t much left over from the 1990s in US inventory when you go down the list of aircraft, equipment, weapons, radios, vehicles, medical equipment, and uniforms. If you showed up with 1990s gear on in any operational US military unit, they would stare at you like some kind of anachronism and you wouldn’t be able to integrate well with anyone left and right of you until you were issued new weapons and equipment.
1
@ironroad18 The primary area where the A-10 was anticipated to be used extensively was in USAFE, where it would target Soviet armored units. Soviet armored units had plenty of organic ADA, SAMs, and MANPADS. Pilots who flew the A-10 in USAFE said they expected to go fly a mission profile, get hosed by a SAM, maybe eject and get recovered ideally, be taken back, strap into another A-10 and repeat. Their primary weapon for that mission profile was the AGM-65A/B suicide maverick. It was basically a mission up against mobile armored units with mobile Surface-to-Air threats as a critical lever in their defenses.
1
@AvengerII We were there for most of that, then came back after West Germany. I saw some reports from a former A-37 and A-7D USAF pilot, who then converted to F-16A/B in the late 1970s. He said the tests they did for CAS and A2G comping the A-7D and A-10 were rigged, not allowing the A-7D to use its most potent tool for low altitude bombing, where it was really good at it. The A-7D apparently had a nice HUD, moving map display, and bombing computer that were all ahead of their time. Yes, early F100-PW-100 and PW-200 motors suffered from compressor stalls, AB flame outs, fire shooting out the front of the F-15's intakes, and several total losses related to engine failure. YF-16 and any new prototype aircraft is flown within divert emergency landing of the dry lake bed at Edwards, which is why Edwards is Edwards. The Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 is a different engine with the highest reliability rate in the F-16C/D, even compared to the GE motor. Thunderbirds and Stateside units use the F100-PW-229s, whereas most (if not all) OCONUS units use the GE engine. Pilots like the excess thrust of the GE motor in the low speed flight regime, but maintainers are split between preferences of the two, with most saying the -229 will just run and run, even when things fail. The GE engine is either worky or no worky. Singapore got GE motors in the F-15S if I recall correctly.
1
@maverickM249 A-10 is past end of service life, with the prime contractor having been out of existence for decades. An F-35C ate parts of a refueling basket and still was able to land aboard the carrier. The F-35 brings so many capabilities to the table, that it's a misplaced conversation to really mention the A-10 in the discussion, including CAS. Look at the recent video of an F-35 dropping 5 Paveway IV PGMs on 5 TGTs simultaneously, one of which was a mover.
1
@shepherdoffire8788 F-15Es and Saudi F-15s have been shot down from SAMs. The F-15 has never been shot down by another fighter, but we lost 2 Strike Eagles to ground fire in Desert Storm, and the Houthis shot down a Saudi F-15 with a SAM recently, with photographic evidence clearly showing Saudi Strike Eagle airframe & components on the ground. There's YouTube video of it even.
1
@snowwhite7677 Congress never asked for the F-35. Those retards don't know the difference between a Sopwith Camel and an F-106. The USMC knew they would eventually need replacements for the Harrier & Hornet. So did the Brits (Harrier). USAF knew it was going to need something to follow the F-16 and A-10 as airframes expire. One of the key requirements was a penetrating jet that incorporated next generation stealth abilities that were proven with F-117A, B-2A, & F-22A. Because threat IADS are the main problem for us, stealth and enhanced sensor capabilities were needed to survive in a modern air defense network. Congress is generally clueless about any of this. The members of the Armed Services Committees are lucky to have reserve or NG experience, none of them having served in Combat Arms aside from McCain, and he was even more clueless, acting as one of the chief enemies within who killed the F-22 in its early production, 600 units short of what we need.
1
@الفارس-ل9ف The A-10 can't get anywhere near 700mph. It's really limited to about 285kts cruising speed with combat stores. If you cleaned it up of all its necessary combat systems, it would be able to do 450 kts max in a dive, but has always been very gutless. The Su-25 has much better speed to dash to emergency CAS calls, with the ability to do over 520kts.
1
@Opiumlable I hope not, since I was the one calling them in, but it's a concern especially when they use the gun. I would much prefer them to drop SDBs with a precise GPS location and not use the GAU-8. When we called them in, they were far enough away and shooting oblique away from us so that fratricide was mitigated to a very minimum.
1
This is one of the best analyses I’ve seen about that. Trump is the only US President to have authorized direct attacks on Russian forces in Syria when they launched a battle group operation against US forces at Khasham in Feb 2018. The US forces annihilated them for 6 hours of relentless precision guided munitions deliveries.
1
@saintsuniverse I've been studying this topic for decades based on a National security perspective, and everything I stated is factual. You can even see the Bakken flash-off from space. It makes North Dakota look like it's heavily populated at night. An engineer alone (didn't mention whether ME, EE, PE, AeroE, etc.) has no relevance unless a PE, and anyone with an engineering education should have demonstrated mastery of English before getting near their later-year courses specific to the program. I put myself through the NATO AeroE coursework back in the 1980s, for example, while immersed in the developmental & test community at the AFFTC. Your lack of capitalization or specificity indicates that your comment isn't serious, and is very likely fabricated.
1
@extraordinarilybasic3250 At one time, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Soviets, and Egypt decided to attack Israel. Saudis said they couldn't get there due to a dust storm. Only the Egyptians and Syrians ended up showing up to the fight with some Soviet advisors there to show them "how it's done". Israel curb-checked them all, including the Soviet MiG pilots.
1
@AgentSmith911 It's more complicated than a simple produce/import metric, but in 2023, the US imported more than 8.5mbpd, while exporting more than 10mbpd. The US imports foreign thick sour crude, mixes it with our light sweet, and refines that mix through various refineries around the Nation. This works out for the better because if we had refineries only configured for light sweet or thick sour, it would limit refining capacity to those precursor chemical processes. By blending everyone's into a mid grade, we can run optimum refining efficiency. It especially helps our allies and regional partners like Canada, who have mostly thick crude.
1