Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Real Engineering"
channel.
-
7
-
7
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dickmelsonlupot7697 You must be really stupid to start an argument by calling me stupid. Wow, that really put me in my place. You and all the fanboys who go around stupidly saying "bbrrt" to each other after learning about air warfare from video games think you are the experts. Right . . .
The A-10A was cheap to maintain. The A-10C is not your father's Oldsmobile and has almost as many systems as an F-16. I doubt it is actually all that much cheaper to maintain, and given that it can't perform half the roles of an F-16, it provides less bang for the buck.
You call me stupid, but your automotive analogy is really stupid. The purpose of CAS is to deliver ordnance on targets in close proximity to friendly forces. Precision guided munitions have become the weapons of choice, and they are now delivered by almost any fighter or bomber in the inventory. It's now 2020, not 1951, 1967, or even 1991; it's 2020. You think we should keep doing CAS the way we did it in 1951.
The only ordnance an A-10 can deliver that an F-16 can't is a 30mm anti tank round. These days strafing with the gun is restricted to dire circumstances, even in relatively permissive environments. It will not be a viable tactic in a battle near the combined arms formations of a major world power. The F-111 killed at least as many tanks as the A-10 in the Persian Gulf war, and technology has improved in the last 30 years. The future of interdicting armor is not strafing with a gun, it is guided anti-armor munitions delivered by multi-role aircraft.
Loitering low and slow is something you do in low intensity war against goat herders who do not have modern anti aircraft defenses. It will get you killed in a war against a major power. But if you can loiter high, nothing does it better than a B-1 or B-52, which can carry enough ordnance to keep goat herders at bay all day long.
As far back as Vietnam, USAF began withdrawing the A-1 Skyraider from CAS in high threat areas because it became increasingly vulnerable as anti aircraft defenses moved south. The Air Force replaced O-2 and OV-10 FAC aircraft with two seat F-100 and F-4 fast movers over the higher threat areas. USAF even bit the bullet and rushed out to buy a version of the Navy A-7 because it needed faster less vulnerable aircraft for interdiction and CAS.
By the 1980s USAF already realized the A-10 was not going to be survivable if the Soviets came across the Fulda Gap and north German plain. I knew a few A-10 pilots who trained and exercised to deter that war. They did not plan to loiter over the battlefield. They approached known targets behind masking by terrain, and when they unmasked to attack they had the throttles to the stops wishing the airplane could go faster. They did not expect to survive if war broke out. Yet you want the air force to keep flying this airplane against even more lethal air defenses of the 21st century. You must think keeping the "bbrrt" sound is worth pilots dying over.
Funny, nobody demands that the Navy or Marines use a low, slow, and vulnerable airplane, even though all they've done since Vietnam is deliver CAS with fast moving jets. Why not? Politics. People like you who think you are smarter than USAF are the problem. You are ignorant and you call me stupid. You are living in the past Bubba.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wartornforester1868 Again a very long run-on comment, which is hard to break down and follow, but I will address a couple of you points because you presented your views with civility and I appreciate that very much in this venue.
You said: "My problem is that it [the A-10] did have success and should not be disgarded and ignored completely." Actually I don't see that it has had all that much success, if we define success as employing unique capabilities to do things other systems could not do to change the course of battle. When you built a single purpose airplane, it has to do that single thing better than any other airplane you have available. If you remove flying low and slow over the enemy to shoot a 30mm gun from your list of essential missions, it is clear that the A-10 is no longer essential. All other ordnance can be delivered by other aircraft, usually more safely without overflying the enemy. Low and slow is old fashioned CAS, and anybody who follows this stuff should be aware that aircraft employing those high risk tactics will not survive long in the face of serious anti aircraft defenses. The bottom line is that we do not keep airplanes for what they have done for us in the past, we keep them for what they can do in the future. USAF needs desperately needs to modernize.
One should not generally think of helicopters like fixed wing close air support. The US Army doesn't. Close air support is basically a form of off board inorganic indirect fire. Unless doctrine has changed recently, helicopters are considered high speed organic maneuver elements that quickly bring direct fires to where they are needed on the battlefield. U.S. forces have become dependent on close air support because they have been travelling light, both to get downrange quickly and to not have to drag artillery all over the theater while responding to insurgent militias. In a war against a major power artillery would have to return as the largest component of indirect fires used against front line enemy formations. Aircraft will be busy carrying out air superiority and interdiction missions to protect friendly maneuver formations from air attack and follow-on forces.
Obviously my opinions are my own, but I share many of the views held by senior commanders and other experts that are available in open source documents. I am former military, but more relevant is that I have followed this stuff for a long time. I don't believe in playing a credentials game on this incognito forum, and people here should look at the facts presented rather than try to rely on ad-hominem support for their positions. I'm getting a kick out of all the people telling me I have to watch Greg's video on the bomber mafia's "deceit and treachery"; it must be true because he made a video expressing that position. Greg's channel is my favorite on YouTube, but that doesn't make me a blind follower. Too many YouTube viewers seem to be uncritical followers of anything they see that strikes their fancy, which is really scary.
Again, I appreciate your civil comments, to which I have no problem responding.
2
-
@Jason-fm4my
I'm getting tired of being called an idiot by ignorant fanboys, and your comments seemed like more of same. Perhaps I gave them short attention due to their arriving along with Lupot's and starting with “lol”. I’ll probably be sorry, but if you want me to address them:
“lol, the Russians and most other countries use the su-25(still in production) that fulfills the same role. The Chinese use the Q-5 and are building the L-15B for this.”
--The SU-25 is another fairly unique airplane, but even it not equivalent to an A-10. It outperforms the A-10 in speed and climb and is closer to the A-7 in performance. Any dedicated attack plane USAF buys to replace the A-10 is more likely to perform more like something between an SU-25 and an A-7 than the A-10.
--The Q-5 is not even close to an A-10, it’s as supersonic capable strike fighter. If you think this airplane can do CAS, an F-16 certainly can. You don’t seem to realize that this airplane makes my argument instead of yours.
--The L-15B is an advanced trainer that can perform ground attack, much like the KAI T-50 and maybe the coming T-7A Red hawk. None of those airplanes resemble an A-10, they more closely resemble a light fighter like an F-16. They hardly make the case that the unique A-10 is needed for the same role.
“Only the embarrassingly weak NATO airforces don't have dedicated CAS anymore. I don't know if you are using Germany who can barely scrape 6 working planes together as your example of military brilliance.”
--This impertinent and antagonistic comment was one reason I did not respond. Badmouthing NATO and Germany doesn’t convince me of anything. It implies I made some vague comment on “military brilliance” which I did not. It also implies that all non-NATO countries in the world have dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10, which is not true. Many countries around the world do have light close air support aircraft, but they cannot be compared to the A-10. They also have fast jet strike or multirole fighters that cannot be compared to the A-10. What IS interesting is that those countries believe their various aircraft are adequate to perform CAS, and they don’t have an A-10 equivalent.
“Even the U.S. Airforce is wishy washy on keeping or replacing the A-10 with the Super Tacano.”
--USAF tried multiple times to retire the A-10 and apply the funding to more modern aircraft; they have hardly been “wishy washy” about that desire. The Tucano type light attack aircraft concept began as study for a light attack aircraft for our allies battling insurgent forces, not for an aircraft that would be used by USAF in a major conflict against a near peer world power. A less capable aircraft than the A-10 would be even less useful in a major conflict. The USAF does not need a dedicated COIN aircraft for use against insurgent goat herders, but the Afghani air force could use one.
“None of the other commenters here have brought up any examples or sources detailing significant combat loses that might precipitate dropping the dedicated CAS role altogether as you are suggesting.”
--The A-10 has never fought a major war, so its combat loss rate is irrelevant. This is where you guys completely miss the point. The A-10 has been fighting goat herders, so of course it hasn’t suffered losses. Almost any airplane can do that, hence the idea of using a cheaper plan like a Tucano. But we already have F-16s and others that can also do it, so we don’t need an A-10 or a Tucano to fight the goat herders unless we plan to continue doing it for a very long time. The U.S. is trying to get out of that war, so now is not the time to invest in staying there.
“Even the US Airforce is only basing this decision on cost.”
--“Even” USAF? Listen carefully now: The whole point of the argument is about cost, as force composition is always about cost. The fanboys either think cost is irrelevant, or they don’t know how to really measure it. USAF knows how to measure cost, because they actually fight with airplanes, but all the armchair keyboard warriors think they understand costs better than USAF. It’s amazingly ludicrous.
--If it cost the same or less to keep all the A-10s AND still buy the multi-role fighters USAF really needs, they would be happy to hang on to the A-10 in case it can be used in a low threat environment somewhere. The problem is that USAF can’t afford that, so keeping it cuts into readiness for a real war. Where is the Navy and Marine version of the A-10? They can’t afford it either--but they have a better lobby and are not forced to have it.
“That's why we would be the only country to try and drop dedicated CAS while actively successfully using it. If we completely dropped dedicated CAS NATO, South Korea, and Japan would likely have to develop their own to replace our lost capability.”
--Stop comparing CAS against desert goat herders with CAS in a major conflict, where the A-10 would not be a success.
--But if those countries thought they needed dedicated CAS aircraft, they could spend their hard earned cash on them. If you pay attention you can see that are voting with their wallets and buying multi-role aircraft, not A-10 equivalents.
--Fighters have always performed CAS, and modern multi-role aircraft can perform CAS even better, as well as other mission that must be successful prosecuted before CAS can become viable. The P-47 video is what started all these comments, but ignorant fanboys raving about the P-47 as the grandfather of the A-10 don’t realize it was actually more akin to an F-100 or an F-16.
“While I support the U.S. Airforce, they aren't infallible and civilians are entitled to criticize how their tax dollars are spent even if they turn out to be wrong.”
--Most civilians don’t seem to understand the fundamental arithmetic of preparedness. USAF is trying to field the most combat power it can for the money, because it is preparing to fight a war with a major power, not goat herders in the desert. You all think you know more about CAS than USAF does, but you don’t.
(Note: I mean no disrespect toward the majority of the goat herders of the world. It is just a convenient shorthand for the insurgent militias that lack sophisticated anti-aircraft defense systems.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anydaynow01 I agree with some of your comments, but not: "The whole A-10 gets shot down argument is a moot point since you don't send in ground forces (including their loitering air support) until you have attained air superiority (air force's job)!".
A primary argument of many A-10 fanboys is that it is a 'flying tank' that can take punishment like no other plane, allowing it to operate low and slow despite anti-aircraft defenses. Early dominance may allow CAP to protect CAS sorties from fighter intervention, but the large numbers of mobile AAA guns and SAMs that travel with mechanized forces will remain a constant threat. It would be a different than war the A-10 has been fighting.
There's a reason Chuck Horner initially didn't plan to use the A-10 in the Gulf War. Medium altitude was the battle plan for the Gulf War, and deployment of aircraft that could execute the new battle plan was the priority. They had scary figures on the expected A-10 loss rate against Warsaw Pact forces. Due to popular demand, and the fact that that we increased the size of the expeditionary force, the A-10 was ultimately deployed, but I think it spent more hours Scud hunting and vehicle plinking from medium altitude than it did hitting enemy forces in close proximity to friendly troops (AKA CAS). Those were useful tasks, but other aircraft could have performed them as well if they had not been needed more badly for other missions the A-10 could not do.
Even after most of the Iraqi air force and radar SAMs were destroyed, USAF aircraft were still kept above the threat envelope of AAA and small SAM systems. The A-10 doesn't have real advantages over multi-role aircraft in dropping ordnance from these higher altitudes. It not that it's bad at it, it's just not appreciably better than aircraft that can also perform other missions the A-10 cannot. When you can only have a limited number of airplanes, you cannot afford planes that specialize in a single role that can also be performed by your other more versatile airplanes. USAF could afford that back when it was very large, when there was extra funding to be awarded by procuring a dedicated CAS airplane. That extra funding is long gone. The USAF is now smaller than it has ever been, and it cannot afford to retain luxuries like the A-10 that now serve to reduce the overall combat power of the force.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1