PDA

View Full Version : A-10 versus B-1 CAS


The Reaper
06-15-2014, 10:34
A-10s Saved the Day in Botched Afghanistan Raid

Low-flying jets better than bombers for supporting ground troops

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.

JJ_BPK
06-15-2014, 12:14
A-10s Saved the Day in Botched Afghanistan Raid

Low-flying jets better than bombers for supporting ground troops

...

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.

Thanks TR,

Old School is better than new school toys, with-out brains..

:munchin

Old Dog New Trick
06-15-2014, 13:16
Not to derail but add a bit of older history to the discussion.

Any of you even older FOGs remember the 1st Special Operations Squadron, flying Douglas A-1 Skyraiders (Sandy)?

Low and slow with ample weapons stations to support ground troops. Or support SAR/CSAR as needed during the Vietnam war.

Concept was a predecessor to the A-10 (Originally an Army Air Corps) proposition the Air Force didn't want. AF generals have always had their heads high in the stratosphere since their inception. Unless you create a fixed wing aircraft then they feel it belongs to them.

From my Infantry days to Group and working SR as primary mission we did a lot of training in CAS and CSAR with everything from A-10s to B-1Bs. About the closest you could get to calling in CAS - Danger Close from a fast mover were F-15Es and some F-16s that wouldn't blow you up simply because they took the time to find you on the ground before plotting their own weapons release.

A-10s are hands down the best fixed wing for CAS, but the AH-64 Apache should if fuel and distance is not a factor in station time/response time be considered a close second.

Smart weapons are only as dumb as the human that programs them, until we can make humans fool proof I still prefer a second set of eyes.

LarryW
06-15-2014, 14:10
It's a matter of Boeing vs Fairchild Aircraft. The mission need is for a close-in support aircraft, and the A-10 has met that requirement better than others.

Low-flying jets better than bombers for supporting ground troops

...

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.

Spot on, TR & Old Dog New Trick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEdy84YGf1k

BMT (RIP)
03-06-2015, 08:22
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/03/air-forces-argument-retiring-10-makes-no-sense/106845/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

BMT

TOMAHAWK9521
03-06-2015, 09:32
Personally,I have yet to see how the B-1 does in the support role for ground troops. We were supposed to have a B-1 support us in Northern Iraq but the bird burst into flames shortly after landing in Qatar for an enroute refusing stop. Thankfully, the aircrew all escaped before the bird went up in flames. We ended up being supported by a sortie of F-18s instead.

Badger52
03-06-2015, 17:20
First things first, to the Spad & Hawg pilots: SHIT HOT guys!
:lifter

Well, it looks like the Marines will finally get the miniaturized bomb they want for their STOL capable variant of the F-35, which would of necessity (I mean these are Marines, right?) be forward and, presumably, doing what mission...? Well, by 2022 anyway. (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/04/new-small-diameter-bomb-doesnt-fit-inside-marines-f-35b/)

Never fear, the F-35 will fix everything & make it all better.


"I don't know that we have a full appreciation of everything we are going to be able to do with the F-35 until we start to actually use it," Pawlikowski said.Did he just steal a line from Pelosi's assessment of ObamaCare?

Hawg: Go Ugly Early!

sefryak
03-06-2015, 20:30
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/03/air-forces-argument-retiring-10-makes-no-sense/106845/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

BMT

I'm honestly shocked that the military was capable of adopting a piece of equipment that so perfectly met the needs of it's end users.

BMT (RIP)
03-09-2015, 07:22
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/09/mccain-vows-to-reverse-a10-retirement-process.html?ESRC=eb.nl

BMT

BMT (RIP)
03-09-2015, 07:24
http://defensetech.org/2015/03/06/general-f-35-will-initially-lag-older-aircraft-in-close-air-support/

BMT

Badger52
03-09-2015, 07:42
So which weapons will the airplane initially carry? The Marine Corps’ F-35B will enter service with Block 2B software, which lets pilots fire a pair of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles, AMRAAMs, or drop a pair of satellite-guided bombs or laser-guided weapons — not exactly the armament of choice for close-in missions.

So... a really expensive derringer.
:rolleyes:

BMT (RIP)
03-27-2015, 14:04
“I can’t wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support,” Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-air-force-quashed-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807

BMT

Combat Diver
03-28-2015, 13:18
If the Air Force doesn't want to abide by the Key West Agreement of 1947, Congress should take that portion of funding away from the USAF and give it back to the USA. I'm sure the Army will build and maintain an adequate CAS fix wing aircraft.


CD

MR2
03-28-2015, 13:59
If the Air Force doesn't want to abide by the Key West Agreement of 1947, Congress should take that portion of funding away from the USAF and give it back to the USA. I'm sure the Army will build and maintain an adequate CAS fix wing aircraft.


CD

Using only transgendered pilots...

BMT (RIP)
04-10-2015, 09:38
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/10/fired-for-treason-comments/25569181/

:lifter

BMT

sinjefe
04-10-2015, 10:05
He just got caught stating what the rest of the USAF "leadership" really believes.

Streck-Fu
04-13-2015, 07:44
Regarding CAS, the retirement of the A-10, a proposed replacement for that capability in the F-35......

Can a F-35 cancellation benefit the AF? Looking at the Army cancellation of the Comanche, yes. LINK (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Pietrucha.pdf)

Commitment to the F-35 makes every one of these issues worse, not
only because the aircraft itself will not fill these gaps but also because
the required funding effectively deprives the Air Force of the resources
demanded to address them. At the heart of the disconnect lie two decades
of vision that emphasizes the “all-fifth-generation” fighter force that consists
solely of advanced low-observable fighter aircraft.

This approach, which concentrates a notional future conflict against a
peer adversary, relies heavily on the assumption that a fighter force
designed for the most intense conflicts is automatically suitable for
any contingency. The pursuit of this vision comes at a very high
opportunity cost and invites a great deal of risk, both programmatic and
operational.
.............................
In 2013, 17 fighter squadrons were grounded for lack of flying hours
while the Air Force simultaneously attempted to increase the production rate of the F-35.

The drive for large numbers of increasingly expensive F-35s has taken its toll on flying
hours and upgrades for both the legacy fleet and the F-22. Hours for fighter aviators
are roughly half of what they were in the Gulf War, placing the service’s aircrews in
the unenviable position of flying less than the Chinese and some European allies.
..............................
Pursuit of an expensive, modern, cutting-edge force has already cost us
in terms of force size, structure, flying hours, and entire areas of
expertise that we no longer have. In its quest of the F-22 and now the F-35,
the Air Force has traded away its dedicated electronic warfare (EW)
fighters, the training programs that supported them, and the EW-savvy
crews who manned them, leaving fighter EW the purview of the Navy
and Marine Corps. In light of the A-10’s impending retirement, CAS is
primed to go the same way as EW.

The Reaper
04-13-2015, 09:15
And they want a new bomber.

Imagine the B-2 as a baseline, and add in the monstrous cost and overruns of the F-22 and F-35 programs.

How many aircraft will have to be grounded if not retired to pay for that, given military budget cuts and sequestration?

And how many can we pay for? We stopped the B-2 and F-22 well-short of their intended buys. How many B-3s can we afford, maybe two?

TR

abc_123
04-13-2015, 10:31
And they want a new bomber.

Imagine the B-2 as a baseline, and add in the monstrous cost and overruns of the F-22 and F-35 programs.

How many aircraft will have to be grounded if not retired to pay for that, given military budget cuts and sequestration?

And how many can we pay for? We stopped the B-2 and F-22 well-short of their intended buys. How many B-3s can we afford, maybe two?

TR

Maybe OSD can re-color all the money that is being saved by not issuing Yarborough knives to SFQC grads and send it to the AF so we could get 3 of them.

Badger52
04-13-2015, 13:17
Maybe OSD can re-color all the money that is being saved by not issuing Yarborough knives to SFQC grads and send it to the AF so we could get 3 of them.Not in their DNA sir. They wouldn't consider that savings; it's a "cost-avoidance" which has a different set of playtime rules & just gets people stars & bonuses (unless their rater has stock in the company).
:rolleyes:

GratefulCitizen
01-13-2016, 19:50
Guessing this is welcome news in this forum.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/01/13/report--10-retirement-indefinitely-delayed/78747114/

Hand
01-14-2016, 09:21
“It appears the administration is finally coming to its senses and recognizing the importance of A-10s to our troops’ lives and national security," Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., said in a statement Wednesday in response to the news reports. McSally is a retired colonel who served 26 years in the Air Force and was the first female pilot to fly in combat.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another A-10 advocate, echoed McSally's sentiments.

"With growing global chaos and turmoil on the rise, we simply cannot afford to prematurely retire the best close air support weapon in our arsenal without fielding a proper replacement," he said in a statement.

People talking sense. I feel strange reading that. I think a chill ran up my leg.

This is very good news.

PSM
01-14-2016, 11:10
McSally is my Rep and has a solid "F" from Conservative Review. The A-10 seems to be her only issue (which is fine with me, but she is hated in the A-10 community and her name is not spoken.

Also, she has never corrected this lie:

and was the first female pilot to fly in combat.

She may have been the first AF fighter pilot to fly in combat, but she was not the first woman. I believe that that was Major Rossi-Cayton, KIA in the 1st Gulf War in '91.

Pat

DIYPatriot
01-14-2016, 12:01
McSally is my Rep and has a solid "F" from Conservative Review. The A-10 seems to be her only issue (which is fine with me, but she is hated in the A-10 community and her name is not spoken.

Also, she has never corrected this lie:



She may have been the first AF fighter pilot to fly in combat, but she was not the first woman. I believe that that was Major Rossi-Cayton, KIA in the 1st Gulf War in '91.

Pat

Admittedly, my USAF history is about as proficient as my understanding of quantum entanglement, but I was curious if any of the WW2 "Wasps" ever flew outside CONUS. I can't easily research at the moment. Do you happen to know?

PSM
01-14-2016, 12:25
Admittedly, my USAF history is about as proficient as my understanding of quantum entanglement, but I was curious if any of the WW2 "Wasps" ever flew outside CONUS. I can't easily research at the moment. Do you happen to know?

They ferried aircraft to England (and probably even to Hawaii and Alaska) but they didn't fly in combat.

Pat

DIYPatriot
01-14-2016, 13:25
They ferried aircraft to England (and probably even to Hawaii and Alaska) but they didn't fly in combat.

Pat

Roger - thanks, Pat!