A-10 vs B1
- Thread starter gliderboy
- Start date
There's a lot more to the story, and to Close Air Support in general, than the article covers. The B-1 is a fine CAS platform for certain kinds of CAS. The A-10 is a fine CAS platform for other kinds of CAS. Many airframes do the mission of dropping bombs in direct support of ground forces.
Sadly, the tactical aircraft with the most incidents of hitting friendlies, and with the most numbers of friendlies killed between Desert Storm and now? The A-10.
Sadly, the tactical aircraft with the most incidents of hitting friendlies, and with the most numbers of friendlies killed between Desert Storm and now? The A-10.
H46Bubba
Well-Known Member
Is that due to pilot error, weapons issues, or bad instructions from CAC or ground forces?
The fact that A-10s have the most? That is due to them having a lot of exposure more than most airplanes had, at least at the time. And the causes were mis-ID of targets, one was an AGM-65 that went stupid on launch, but many were errors from air unfortunately.
Wasn't the first, won't be the last.
B-1, B-52, A-10, F-16......all are tools in the CAS toolbox, used for specific purposes or situations, OR if nothing else is available.
Want to drop tonnage in support of friendlies, but aren't danger close? A B-1 does just fine. A-10 would do fine, but it doesn't carry the load the B-1 can. So if hitting friendlies is a lowered probability with the attack you're doing, a B-1 is fine.
Conversely, when danger close, you want the A-10....or even a trained/experienced pilot in an F-16; something that can get low and see the battlefield (A-10 better than F-16, mind you...but the F-16 can get low if need be); and you sacrifice ordnance tonnage for accuracy. Accuracy which is critical in this situation.
So, different tools for different situations.
AC-130 is great too. But it also has its limits as when that tool can be used. As does any aircraft.
They're all part of the toolbox. Mudhen wasn't omitted for any reason, I just didn't list out any and all players who make a contribution, UAVs included. Just listed a smattering of widely varied types to make my basic point. I'd include F-4 too if they were still around.
So no, you haven't been in the matrix.
Useful for various geographic areas, supporting certain situations, and against certain threats. A very viable aircraft. Not very cost effective these days, but very capable.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
I read the article. My take is that the author is unduly harsh against airpower advocates whose promises he claims were unkept. He doesn't take into account that airpower advocates have always had their hands tied on targeting. Everything from poliical decisions, political will, humanitarian concerns, and even international law have always conspired against a true demonstration as to the capabilities of airpower to bend the will of an adversary, and those considerations always will. Unfortunately, it's the boots on the ground that ultimately pay the price for such decisions rather than the politicians who make them.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Good god we are gonna do this again....
Is it just me or does every 5 years involve a new military plane topic of choice for every aviation forum. Early 2000s it was the Tomcat retirement and how the E/F Hornet couldnt do its job. Then it was the Raptor/35 vs Flanker arguments. Now its the A-10 retirement vs of all things the B-1
The Argument is simple... do you want a 3/4 ton Pick Up Truck or a 71 Camaro SS. No Im not telling you what you will have to do with them in the coming years or where you get to live with them but you only get to pick 1 so do it. Thats essentially what we are doing here with B-1 vs A-10 vs every other aircraft we could retire. The question isnt which one does job X better, because there will always be something somebody is better at than you. Its a question of if I only let you pick between X number of tools which one cant have its job replicated with some level of capability by another tool.
Is it just me or does every 5 years involve a new military plane topic of choice for every aviation forum. Early 2000s it was the Tomcat retirement and how the E/F Hornet couldnt do its job. Then it was the Raptor/35 vs Flanker arguments. Now its the A-10 retirement vs of all things the B-1
The Argument is simple... do you want a 3/4 ton Pick Up Truck or a 71 Camaro SS. No Im not telling you what you will have to do with them in the coming years or where you get to live with them but you only get to pick 1 so do it. Thats essentially what we are doing here with B-1 vs A-10 vs every other aircraft we could retire. The question isnt which one does job X better, because there will always be something somebody is better at than you. Its a question of if I only let you pick between X number of tools which one cant have its job replicated with some level of capability by another tool.
Yeah, unfortunaetly it's an argument that seems to rear its ugly head every X number of years, as you state.
As I've said before and I'll say again, life will go on without the A-10.
When the F-111 was retired, it was "OMG, what are we going to do for interdiction?!?"
When the EF-111 was retired, it was same question regarding SEAD. When the RF-4 was retired, it was "who's going to take pictures", and so on and so forth. Life went on.
As I've said before and I'll say again, life will go on without the A-10.
When the F-111 was retired, it was "OMG, what are we going to do for interdiction?!?"
When the EF-111 was retired, it was same question regarding SEAD. When the RF-4 was retired, it was "who's going to take pictures", and so on and so forth. Life went on.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Always got my dad home.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Thats been my argument as well.
We did CAS before the A-10, we do CAS in the time of the A-10 with other aircraft very effectively, we can do CAS after the A-10 as well. Key thing will be having money to train those aircraft doing that mission for proficiency.
The other side of it is that it would be inherently cheaper to make an aircraft that replaces the A-10 directly than it would be to build a new Bomber (and yes I know the Air Force is trying to build a new bomber anyway). So should we decide to go back to the direct role attack aircraft there are a lot more options available cheaper and faster than just going ground up on a B-1 replacement.
We did CAS before the A-10, we do CAS in the time of the A-10 with other aircraft very effectively, we can do CAS after the A-10 as well. Key thing will be having money to train those aircraft doing that mission for proficiency.
The other side of it is that it would be inherently cheaper to make an aircraft that replaces the A-10 directly than it would be to build a new Bomber (and yes I know the Air Force is trying to build a new bomber anyway). So should we decide to go back to the direct role attack aircraft there are a lot more options available cheaper and faster than just going ground up on a B-1 replacement.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
CAS covers so much territory that the acronym has almost no meaning without context.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I get the "tool for the job" argument, and of course I'm sure it's accurate. But it seems like funding the B1 and disposing of the A-10 is kind of like buying a laser-stabilized lathe but selling your hammer.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
In the case of the A-10 though we have 4 or 5 other "Hammers" available.
The only other aircraft that can do the B-1s job is a 52 and there simply arent enough of those to say "Yeah we can do this, and the Nuclear mission no problem."
Just another tool in the CAS toolbox. Certain things they can provide, other things they can't. I think their best showing in that regard was Khe Sanh '68, where they were dropping 108 x Mk82s in lines running within about 1200 yards...or about 1km....from the Marines outpost, on NVA troop/equipment concentrations. Now, was this CAS in the classic sense? That's of talking to an air/ground FAC and being directed in or under any type of positive conrol? No. These were moreso preplanned interdiction strikes on geographic areas that just so happened to be dropping near-danger close to friendlies; the BUFFs never talked to anyone on the ground or in the air controlling. But in terms of effects and what they were doing at the time with those strikes, they were still CAS. Ultimate CAS machine? Ha!.....hardly. Can they bring something to certain fights that involve dropping ordnance in support of troops, or otherwise perform certain types of CAS? Sure. They just have their place.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I guess I'm curious as to what mission the B1 can perform that couldn't be performed equally well by strapping a bunch of ordinance on to whatever aerial dumptruck is available. Like, yes, it's very COOL, but what's it FOR? Is it really survivable enough to do low level penetration against modern air defense?