View Full Version : Great read on A10 support of SF team
I ran search on MacKay and did not find this, so I hope this is not a repeat. Great story of a Pilot's ingenuity in support of a SF team in A-Stan.
"Spangdahlem A-10 pilot takes top merit prize
An A-10 Thunderbolt pilot who came to the rescue of a Special Forces team in Afghanistan last year has been honored with the MacKay Trophy for flying the most meritorious Air Force flight of 2006.
Taking the honor is Capt. Scott L. Markle, of the 81st Fighter Squadron, Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany.
According to the award citation, Markle was directed to back up a 15-man Special Forces team battling Taliban fighters along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
“Markle arrived on scene to find the team engaged in hand-to-hand combat and expecting to be overrun by the enemy,” the citation said. “Unable to employ weapons due to the close proximity of the team, he flew a dangerously low pass over the enemy while dispensing self protection flares. After the ground controller noted the effectiveness of the pass in momentarily ceasing the enemy’s fire, Markle performed three additional passes, allowing the team to pull back farther each time.”
Markle also fired the jet’s 30mm Gatling gun, destroying three machine-gun nests and killing 40 Taliban fighters.
Despite being outnumbered by three to one, the Special Forces team fought their way out of the kill zone without suffering casualties.
The MacKay Trophy was created in 1912. Past recipients include Chuck Yeager, Hap Arnold, James Doolittle and Eddie Rickenbacker.
Markle will receive a gold medal at the MacKay Trophy presentation ceremony Oct. 29 at the National Aeronautic Association’s Fall Awards Banquet in the Washington, D.C., area. The trophy is on permanent display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...trophy_070628/"
Markle will receive a gold medal at the MacKay Trophy presentation ceremony Oct. 29 at the National Aeronautic Association’s Fall Awards Banquet in the Washington, D.C., area. The trophy is on permanent display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington.
He probably won't have to pay for beer for a while....
The Reaper
06-29-2007, 11:47
Gotta love the Warthog, and the pilots who fly them.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
06-29-2007, 12:11
Gotta love the Warthog, and the pilots who fly them.
TR
I would like to understand why we aren't making more of them, or a new version designed to do the same job even better. Instead of the F-22.
magician
06-29-2007, 12:20
Holy shit.
incommin
06-29-2007, 12:24
I would like to understand why we aren't making more of them, or a new version designed to do the same job even better. Instead of the F-22.
It doesn't look "cool".
It doesn't fly at two or three time the seed of sound.
It has old technology.
It doesn't cost enough.
Jim
The Reaper
06-29-2007, 12:24
I would like to understand why we aren't making more of them, or a new version designed to do the same job even better. Instead of the F-22.
CAS, particularly from low and slow aircraft, is not an AF priority.
A-10 pilots are not normally at the top of their class, nor are they destined to become AF leadership, but they get low enough to see what they are shooting at, suck up lead, and save a lot of SF brothers.
God Bless them.
TR
Wasnt there some idle chit chat a while back about the A10's (ACFT and Mission) going to the Army?
Monsoon65
06-29-2007, 15:12
It doesn't look "cool".
It doesn't fly at two or three time the seed of sound.
It has old technology.
It doesn't cost enough.
Or drop a ton of bombs.
Seems like the AF has wanted to get rid of the A-10 since we got the frame. Most of us never understood that. I was told by an A-10 pilot once that doing CAS with an F-16 is like trying to toss a golfball into a teacup while driving over an highway overpass at 60 MPH.
They're sort of like helicopters. During a war, everyone likes them in the AF, but as soon as the shooting stops, they say, "Hey, why do we have these? Let's get rid of 'em!!"
The Reaper
06-29-2007, 15:31
Wasnt there some idle chit chat a while back about the A10's (ACFT and Mission) going to the Army?
As a spotter aircraft, minus the CAS mission, the gun, the hardpoints, the pilots, the ordnance, the crews, and the funding.
Funny, but the Army said "no, thanks."
TR
Typical Blue suiters. They do not want the equipment or mission but do not want any one else to have it either. Hell we should not have let them leave the army.....
x SF med
06-29-2007, 17:01
Best CAS platform in the inventory - hard hitting and accurate. Ugly, slow, and will take a beating, yet oh so lovely when it's on your side... The guys that fly them love them, even if they aren't F22 'cool'.
Best CAS platform in the inventory - hard hitting and accurate. Ugly, slow, and will take a beating, yet oh so lovely when it's on your side... The guys that fly them love them, even if they aren't F22 'cool'.
It is amazing, the A10.......... I have been wanting one for Christmas for a long time, but the wife won't budge. From my perspective that has got to be the greatest plane going. Then, I had to walk for a living.
incommin
06-29-2007, 18:07
The A-10 is the best CAS platform today. What do you think was the best during Vietnam? A1E Skyraider??????
Jim
I think the AF did come around to the A10 a little after its performance in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The record it racked up managed to open at least a few eyes, otherwise they would have been gone 10 years ago.
Cobra642
06-29-2007, 19:42
Not being an Air Force guy, but unfortunately working around a lot of ex-AF guys in my current profession, I know that the A-10 pilots come out of the "fighter" community, so they are not the bottom of the class by any means, but the A-10 is not usually high on the list of pilots that don't typically like to get their hands dirty. The A-10 guys I would work with in Germany and at NTC running JAAT (old term-Joint Air Attack Team) were top notch guys you wouldn't mine sharing the foxhole with.
---rant follows--- The CAS mission, and the A-10, should have been given back to the Army years ago, and the argument that the Apache is the Army's CAS aircraft is BS given its inherent vulnerability on a "dynamic" battlefield. No balls at the senior levels to confront the AF on this is part of the problem, as well as a lack of luv for Army aviation, and its cost, in general. I'm sure many of you have seen what it takes to request AF CAS for operations against essentially static targets. I think in an extended force on force operation over a period of time that AF CAS would be very unresponsive to the ground force commander's needs. One of the A-10's greatest assets is its ability to loiter near the battlefield and fill the "hey you" requirements in real time. The AF doesn't like that idea at all...
IIRC, back in the late 80's the Army was going to get about 40 A-10's as a stop gap replacement for the Mohawk for tactical intelligence gathering. One of the AF requirements was that the 30mm gun had to come out, and I think the hard points as well. The story only gets worse, as it was supposedly shot down (pun intended) at the Army 4-star level because the A-10 airframe didn't meet the exact requirements for flying in icing conditions as the original requirements written for the Mohawk back in the late 50's! ---rant ends---
Monsoon65
06-29-2007, 19:55
I think the AF did come around to the A10 a little after its performance in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The record it racked up managed to open at least a few eyes, otherwise they would have been gone 10 years ago.
You're right. They were getting ready to send them to the boneyard before Desert Storm.
Incommin: I think you're right. The Skyraider was the shit when used as a Sandy or CAS during Vietnam.
Ambush Master
06-29-2007, 20:05
Incommin: I think you're right. The Skyraider was the shit when used as a Sandy or CAS during Vietnam.
I always liked it when we had them on station, and they were VNAF!! Those guys had MANY years of experience and would put it in close and where you needed it!!! I would have given anything for something like the A-10!!
The Reaper
06-29-2007, 20:26
Whatever replaces it needs to be able to fly low, slow, loiter for a long time, able to suck up punishment, operate out of remote airfields, easy to maintain, carry everything but the kitchen sink, and have a big honkin' gun with plenty of ammo.
I don't see the AF developing anything but extremely expensive, fast and high flying.
TR
Trip_Wire (RIP)
06-30-2007, 12:49
Yes, TR I agree it will have to do all of those things. I doubt that the Air Force will ever develope what the Army and/or Marines need for CAS.
IMHO, the Army & Marines need a fixed wing asset, to provide CAS a combo of the A-10 & Sky Raider (Spad) would be great!
I was always impressed in Korea when Marines in WWII Corsairs, provided CAS. The South Africans in P-51's were very good as well.
None of the AF's jets of that era, was worth a damn at CAS.
Whatever replaces it needs to be able to fly low, slow, loiter for a long time, able to suck up punishment, operate out of remote airfields, easy to maintain, carry everything but the kitchen sink, and have a big honkin' gun with plenty of ammo.
I don't see the AF developing anything but extremely expensive, fast and high flying.
TR
The good news is the A10 is currently scheduled to stay on until 2028. The bad news, the replacement is none of the above. Right now its supposed to be the F35, Joint Strike Fighter that takes over the CAS role.
I always liked it when we had them on station, and they were VNAF!! Those guys had MANY years of experience and would put it in close and where you needed it!!! I would have given anything for something like the A-10!!
My choice for CAS in Vietnam:
1. Marine A-4's or A-7's
2. Navy F-4's
3. VNAF A-1E's, AT-38's, F-5's
4. Anything from USAF
USAF idea of close air support was to roll in from 40,000', dive down to 20,000', pickle off some 2000 pounders (dropping them danger close), then pulling out by 10,000' and heading back to the bar to brag about their body count.
x-factor
06-30-2007, 16:36
Whatever replaces it needs to be able to fly low, slow, loiter for a long time, able to suck up punishment, operate out of remote airfields, easy to maintain, carry everything but the kitchen sink, and have a big honkin' gun with plenty of ammo.
I don't see the AF developing anything but extremely expensive, fast and high flying.
TR
The combination of UAV armed reconnaissance and the VSTOL version of the JSF armed with the new small diameter bomb may be able to satisfy your criteria (except the big gun and the punishment ones, which would arguably become obsolete).
At least on paper...we'll see how it actually works out.
The Reaper
06-30-2007, 16:37
The combination of UAV armed reconnaissance and the VSTOL version of the JSF armed with the new small diameter bomb may be able to satisfy your criteria (except the punishment one, which would arguably become obsolete).
At least on paper...we'll see how it actually works out.
Sorry, but I do not want a robot, or a guy in Nebraska dropping Danger Close on me or my people.
Hmm, ONE very expensive F-35 with a smaller cannon, less loiter time, extremely complicated systems, and less ordnance, or 20 A-10s? Not much of a choice there.:rolleyes:
TR
x-factor
06-30-2007, 17:12
The thing about the A-10 is that it can't really do anything else but CAS. So its the old question of multi-role vs specialty aircraft. So the cost issue becomes a squadron of JSFs or a squadron of Harriers, a squadron of F-16s, and a squadron of A-10s?
In anycase, I understand your hesitation and certainly can't blame you for skepticism. Until the JSF actually proves itself (if it ever does), the question and the common sense of retaining the A-10 is 100% valid.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if (in five, ten years or so) some Congressman eventually decides to make this a personal crusade and drives the USAF into developing some next generation CAS platform.
Who knows though, directed energy weapons might make the whole argument moot anyway.
The first time a JSF gets a scratch in action they will be barred from flying below 10,000 feet over hostile territory. The one thing missing from everything proposed to replace the A10 has been the armor, a key factor in the pilots being willing to get in so close is thinking they are indestructible. The A10 is about as close to that as you can get, nothing else even comes close. The A10 could do more than "just" CAS if the AF wanted it to, but if it started doing other missions as well as it does CAS how would the AF justify the cost of those purty planes? The A10 only does CAS, but what else does the B2 do? Which do you see more of a need for in the wars we are fighting now, and the type we are most likely to continue fighting for the foreseeable future?
Sorry, but I do not want a robot, or a guy in Nebraska dropping Danger Close on me or my people.
TR
The army needs to make its own CAS robot, I could see having a armed UAV used in a CAS role, 2 hellfires and a minigun pod would do nicely, but in order for it to work the FOB would have to set up a UAV FARP, in country, you call the FOB they start one up and send it to your location grid, once in the area you upload to the UAV and take control of it with a remote station, Do your mission and hit the HOME key it flys home and lands at the FOB to get refueled and armed.
x-factor
06-30-2007, 19:51
The armor and slow speed characteristics that make the A-10 so perfect for case make it poor for other fighter-bomber missions. And I'm not even talking about air-to-air or deep strike stuff. I'm talking about battlefield missions like interdiction which require a combination of speed, range, and ability to survive in a non-permissive air defense environment.
You can only have an A-10 if you've got the Air Force to create the environment that makes its use possible. The B-2 is great because it does just about every air-to-ground mission but CAS.
Which do we need more of today? A-10 of course. Which will we need more of over the next 20 years? Thats a much more complex question.
Peregrino
06-30-2007, 20:50
Lets see if I've got this right ------ One JSF (unrealized AF pipedream) is approximately as expensive as one SQUADRON of A-10s (take out pilot/support sallaries then ammortize R&D + training & support and it might be even worse) and not as survivable in the CAS role. And let's ask the Argentinians what they thought about tangling with the Brit's "inferior" Harriers in air to air combat. Don't give me a line about single role A/C - the A-10s hardpoints will mount the same missiles as any other USAF asset. The Russians had it right - Front Air Forces that belonged to the ground commander (commanders/pilots that could be shot on the spot or "just" sent to Siberia with their entire family in tow as an example to ensure the rest knew their place). In all seriousness - the A-10 has no peer and the pilots that fly them will never need to buy if I'm in the bar. Peregrino
The Reaper
06-30-2007, 21:09
You can only have an A-10 if you've got the Air Force to create the environment that makes its use possible. The B-2 is great because it does just about every air-to-ground mission but CAS.
Which do we need more of today? A-10 of course. Which will we need more of over the next 20 years? Thats a much more complex question.
BS. Only a few nations around the world have the ability to shoot down an A-10. When shooting CAS, you are usually under the friendly ADA umbrella.
You have to have an aircraft that meets the most likely threat. If we fight the Russians, in their country, we MIGHT need the F-22. If we fight them outside of Russia, or one of the other top ten defense spenders, we need F-15s and F-16s. If we plan to fight in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Oceania, or pretty much anywhere outside Europe or Asia minus China, we could do it with F-4s. It isn't just a matter of having the aircraft. No one else but Israel has the pilot skills that we do because of the lack of a threat, cost, and limited flight hours. No one else can forward deploy them, launch high performance aircraft from flat deck carriers, or sustain their force for more than a couple of weeks.
S, AFAIK, the A-10 will only mount Stingers for air to air, and has no air to air radar for anything larger. Not sure if they can use the Sidewinder. Also unsure off the top of my head if it has the link packages for the JDAM and other GPS guided precision munitions, since it is normally delivering at too low a level for those guidance packages to work. Regardless, I want the 20 aircraft that cannot be apportioned away to deep strike, interdiction, air to air, etc. during the Air Tasking Order Process. If one (or ten) get shot down, we are not out of cover.
TR
Peregrino
06-30-2007, 21:59
I cheated - Wikipedia is convenient and usually accurate with tech specs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II
Interesting excerpts include:
The A-10 is scheduled to stay in service with the USAF until 2028 , when it may be replaced by the F-35 Lightning II. The entire A-10 fleet is currently undergoing upgrades. The A-10 could stay in service longer due to its low cost and its unique capabilities which the F-35 simply cannot incorporate — such as its cannon, ruggedness, and slow flying capabilities.
Armament
Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger gatling gun with 1,350 rounds
Hardpoints: 8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 16,000 lb (7,200 kg) and accommodating:
Mark 82, Mark 83, and Mark 84 general-purpose bombs or
Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL755[citation needed] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C) or
GBU-10 Paveway II, GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-16 Paveway II and GBU-24 Paveway III laser-guided bombs or
Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C)[11] or
AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles or
LAU-68 Hydra 70 mm (2.76 in) and 127 mm (5.0 in) rocket pods or
Illumination flares, ECM and chaff pods or
ALQ-131 ECM pod or
LITENING AT/Sniper XR targeting pods (A-10C)
x-factor
06-30-2007, 22:20
Without getting into classified, I think we're living at the end of the days of cheap air superiority. The Russian S-300 series of air defense systems is on the world market and that is not anything to sneeze at. Add to that the continued proliferation of more and more effective MANPADs and the speed/stealth/sensors advantages of the JSF start to hold up a little better in the analysis.
Second, multi-mission capability is about more than what weapons you can put on the hardpoints. Its more about range and survivability vs air defenses than weapons capacity. There's more to supporting ground troops than just CAS: SEAD, interdiction, killer-scout, etc. (Ideally, if you do you killer scout and interdiction right, you may be able to kill the threat as it moves to contact and you won't even need to do CAS.)
Just as a point of comparison, according to the USAF's website, the F-16's range is more than twice the A-10s and, of course, it gets to the target much quicker too. Thats not a big deal when you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan because the birds are already in country, but not every battle we fight is going to be on territory we've already conquered (all the moreso with SF missions) with forward basing options.
I'm not making any argument about the A-10 being a superior pure CAS platform than any other existing aircraft or that A-10 pilots are a lesser breed. The evidence on both of those points is overwhelming. And I'm not in any hurry to get rid of the A-10. By all means, lets keep them as long as we can. My point though is that there's a need for capability balance and the air defense environment is only going to get harder, potentially a lot harder.
If I were king, I'd like to see them optimize the Marine Corps VSTOL variant of the JSF for CAS and then have USAF buy some of those for pure CAS squadrons (maybe even put them under AFSOC so they can train closely with the Combat Controllers) as the A-10 is phased out.
The CAS disconnect between the USA and the USAF, by my assessment (which I admit is far more academic than real world, as yours is) is about mindset far more than hardware. If USAF squadrons were tied to USA formations to the same degree that USMC air elements are organically part of a MEF, then it wouldn't matter what they were flying. What sets A-10 pilots apart from the rest of the USAF, just as much as their airframe, is the simple fact that they have CAS as their #1 priority in their minds.
X-factor hit the nail on the head:
"If USAF squadrons were tied to USA formations to the same degree that USMC air elements are organically part of a MEF, then it wouldn't matter what they were flying. What sets A-10 pilots apart from the rest of the USAF, just as much as their airframe, is the simple fact that they have CAS as their #1 priority in their minds."
I have a picture of an Marine A-4 Skyhawk with a dent in the leading edge of the left wing where the pilot went through the tops of some trees on a strafing run. When troops on the ground need CAS, they need someone with the balls to get down in the dirt. Most USAF types want to be at 500 kts IAS and Angels 20+. It's tough to put bombs on target at that speed and altitude.
To me, the A-10 is the Airplane equivalent of the Ma' Deuce. How long has that been around?
When I was a pup, in a rifle squad in Desert Storm/Shield, I saw something I will never forget. I was on guard duty at King Fahd, where the A10's lived. I saw one returning from a mission, flying on approach to land. It approached my guard shack and flew right over the top of me, low and slow, I looked up and saw daylight right through that left wing. A VERY large portion of that wing was missing. But the ACFT was flying as if it were conducting some sort of air show flyby, slow, low, straight and steady. That wasn't the last time I saw chunks missing from A10's while they flew along. I've always been in awe of them.
Some things, are the epitome of efficiency, and are not easily improved on.
What other airplane compares, the SU-25 Frogfoot? When was that in combat?
x-factor
07-01-2007, 21:13
What other airplane compares, the SU-25 Frogfoot? When was that in combat?
Ask the Chechens. I bet they see way more of the FROGFOOT than they'd like.
Ret10Echo
07-02-2007, 05:03
X-factor hit the nail on the head:
"If USAF squadrons were tied to USA formations to the same degree that USMC air elements are organically part of a MEF, then it wouldn't matter what they were flying. What sets A-10 pilots apart from the rest of the USAF, just as much as their airframe, is the simple fact that they have CAS as their #1 priority in their minds."
I have a picture of an Marine A-4 Skyhawk with a dent in the leading edge of the left wing where the pilot went through the tops of some trees on a strafing run. When troops on the ground need CAS, they need someone with the balls to get down in the dirt. Most USAF types want to be at 500 kts IAS and Angels 20+. It's tough to put bombs on target at that speed and altitude.
What better time to bring this up than on the anniversary of the Army Air Corp....
Concur with the comments concerning how the MAG supports the ground fight. They aren't in it to win it from the nosebleed seats. Put the A-10 in with the ground forces and supplement with rotary wing assets.
The Reaper
07-02-2007, 08:05
Well, the closest we came to doing that was at Bragg, where the A-10s are right next door on Pope, but I guess BRAC thought that was a bad idea, so that scheme is going away.
They did think that moving 7th Group to Eglin was a good idea though. Must be better jointness there with a unit that commonly works as part of a JTF or something.:rolleyes:
TR
Trip_Wire (RIP)
07-02-2007, 13:06
A couple of info sites on the SU 25 and the Updated SU25SM.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25
SU25SM.:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/attack/su25sm.html