Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
From the A-7 Corsair to the A-10 Warthog
Sometimes speed is overrated.
I met someone who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. He gave me his list of aircraft when he needed air support. The AC-130 gunship was number one on the list for a night fight. The A-10 and Marine Corps pilots were next on his list.
Extended range and the ability to loiter is one advantage that subsonic aircraft have over the battlefield to provide ground support for troops on the ground.
An old-school aircraft, or at least what we would call old-school today, was the A-7 Corsair.
.
Published in Military
My admiration for the A-10 notwithstanding, the point @skyler and @bryangstephens are making is 100% valid: the Warthog is vulnerable to attack by contemporary man-portable air defense missile systems like the Stinger. The Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 1980’s proved it doesn’t take much training to equip a local insurgency with effective anti-air capabilities.
The whole question of “Pro Warthog” vs. “Anti Warthog” is fun to argue about over drinks at the Officer’s Club, but it misses the real problem at hand: Where are we going to use the A-10, and against what likely enemy, and at what cost benefit?
These questions lead to even more significant (and I argue way more important) questions: just what are the US’s vital national interests, and do we have a coherent national military strategy aligned to achieve those interests? Based on what I’ve observed since at least 2009 (maybe even as far back as 1993), I’d say the answer is “no.”
Even so, I still LOVE the A-10! I wish the Army would just take the whole platform over from the USAF: lock, stock, and eight smoking’ barrels!
It is more survivable than the Army’s Apaches. Same general types of targets.
The idea that the F-35 is capable in any way of providing the support that A-10s supply is based on two things: wishful thinking and what was perhaps the most bogus “fly-off” in USAF history.
Strange, I never made a any statement abouth the F35.
Key West Agreement.
Parts of the A-10 design, such as shielding the engines with side-rudders etc, were meant specifically to protect from heat-seeking missiles. It may not be 100% effective, but what is?
As I recall, the problem is the Army by law is not allowed to have fixed-wing aircraft. Stupid law.
That’s not saying much at all. The Apache was a dumb idea and is still a dumb idea.
I’ve always said that air power and especially air support is too important to have been taken away from the army. Now they’ve doubled down and made an absurd space force. We should have two services, an army and a Navy with a Marine Corps, and everyone should have rifles and everyone should have aircraft.
I don’t have a problem with three service branches, but each should have the equipment suitable to its larger purpose/mission including aircraft. The Navy needs aircraft to defend and supply their ships etc, and the Army needs aircraft to support and supply and defend their other forces… But neither the Navy nor the Air Force should be deciding what kind of aircraft the Army needs.
Amen, brother…a-fricken’-men!
It is known as the Key West Agreement.
And a rose by any other name is just as stupid.
The Army has fixed wing aircraft. They are either utility or EW. They don’t have armed fixed wing aircraft.
Ah, need to spell it out then.
The Army is not allowed Armed Fixed Wing Aircraft because of the Key West Agreement.
How many divisions does Key West have?
Bazooka Charlie was one of ours.
Do the pilots of the Fixed Wing Aircraft carry pistols? In my book that makes them Armed…
Bazooka Charlie.
Any relation to 5 O’Clock Charlie?