A-10 Warthogs for the CF ??

[jrhume]

A not entirely tongue-in-cheek post

Whatever the near future holds for the CF, it will need ground support aircraft.  Strangely enough, there are bunches of A-10s sitting in the desert sun, classed as 'not pretty enough' -- I mean -- 'not modern enough' for the USAF.  Why couldn't these be bought at scrap prices, run through the modernization regime at the factory and put into CF service?

I'm sure the depleted uranium munitions would be a no-no for Canadian forces, but I figure compressed moose turds would work as well, if not better. (the preceeding has been identified in certain lowbrow circles as 'humor')

Okay, I'm kidding.  But only a little.  What about Warthogs with a maple leaf on the fins?

You could even rename it.  There must be a Canadian beastie that could supply a fitting moniker for the revamped A-10s. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Wolverines 8)

 

[Garbageman]

We don't have enough:
a. pilots
b. techs
c. $$$
to support another airframe.  We seem to be having some trouble even keeping our current fleet up and running.  Besides, the CF-18 is already there for ground support (if we could afford any ordinance for it).

 

[condor888000]

The wart hog is good, reliable and effective, yet, they were retired because they are extremely vunerable to missles. Poor manouverability, porr speed, these add up to a huge number of loses if the enemy has any radar-guided missles. Heat seekers have a tough time locking on since the twin tails helps to hide the exhaust..but still they're tough, but too easy to hit.

 

[Garbageman]

The wart hog is good, reliable and effective, yet, they were retired because they are extremely vunerable to missles. Poor manouverability, porr speed, these add up to a huge number of loses if the enemy has any radar-guided missles. Heat seekers have a tough time locking on since the twin tails helps to hide the exhaust..but still they're tough, but too easy to hit.

They're using them in Iraq right now.  How many have been hit?  I've heard of only one hit, and it returned safely to base.  Maybe they're only using them on less vulnerable taskings though?

 

[jrhume]

They used them in Iraq in high-threat environments with mimimal problems.  I don't know about them being 'easy to hit'.  They were designed for Western Europe and to operate against Soviet armored forces.  Their electronic suite is out of date, but that's what the upgrade packages are for.

Remember, the Air Force has never, ever been happy with having to operate mud moving aircraft, especially if they're ugly.

I don't want to see the A-10 go out of service completely, because I think they do a job no other US aircraft can do -- at least not with the loiter time and toughness of the Warthog.  It appears that the USAF has been forced to admit they can't replace it and that some (I don't know how many) will undergo modernization over the next couple of years.  I can tell you this -- if the US Army had control of the A-10s, there wouldn't be any talk of scrapping them.  Tankers and infantry love 'em.

As I said, the suggestion was at least partly for humor.  Wolverines, eh?  Tough, smelly, ugly.  It fits.   

 

[Da_man]

We don't have enough:
a. pilots

Well im planing on staying in the army reserve for 7 years including one tour.  In the same time, im getting a Bachelor of Education majoring in Physical and Health Education.  When all this is done, im applying at the Air Force as a pilot.  Hows that for a plan?

 

[Infanteer]

Although in my ideal Army I would love to add the flying tank to the inventory, I think the A-10 is a bit to "niche roll" for our Forces; it would be something I would add along with an AC-130, but both are a bit out our league right now.   We have to work on getting our rotary platforms sorted out in terms of attack and medium lift.

As for CF-18's providing ground support, I thought the air-to-mud (CAS) had been nixed from the doctrine a few years ago?

 

[Garbageman]

Well im planing on staying in the army reserve for 7 years including one tour.   In the same time, im getting a Bachelor of Education majoring in Physical and Health Education.   When all this is done, im applying at the Air Force as a pilot.   Hows that for a plan?

Good on ya.  Welcome to the dark side! 

Just a heads-up; the recruiting process for pilots is pretty painstaking and long.  But if you can get through it, I think it's definitely worth it.

 

[ags281]

Ugly? What are you talking about? Except for when they put that stupid fang painting on the nose A-10's look sweet! They actually look like a real plane; none of this spaceage junk. If we had A-10's - especially if none of the flyboys wanted to touch them - I'd be back in the recruiting centre trying to switch to 32 so fast.

It's a flying tank... :tank: how can anyone not like it?
It's always been a bit of a fantasy of mine to get my own for personal use. Can you imagine one of those things with the armour stripped off? It would climb like a homesick angel and look badass doing it   :evil: However, as you said, the CF can't afford them right now, and sadly, neither can I. :'(

 

[Garbageman]

As for CF-18's providing ground support, I thought the air-to-mud (CAS) had been nixed from the doctrine a few years ago?

They were used for both air to air and air to ground (both precision guided and dumb bombs) in Yugo in 99.  Unless things have changed since then?

I know this isn't strictly the true definition of close air support, but it's the most recent example I could think of.

 

[ags281]

They were used for both air to air and air to ground (both precision guided and dumb bombs) in Yugo in 99.   Unless things have changed since then?

I can't recall the details exactly, but I remember a pilot telling me a couple years ago that they had stopped practicing one of the bombing methods   (wish I could remember details about what maneuver exactly). Reason he gave was that they couldn't keep enough planes up and running, due to airframe life concerns, long enough for the pilots to maintain currency on all their roles, so that one was written off as nonessential. Don't know if that was just a temporary thing or if it's continued up until now... damn, I'd almost forgotten about that, but now I'm curious.

 

[jrhume]

I dug around for some up to date info on the A-10.  All in the inventory are undergoing a major upgrade.  The inventory is supposed to remain at around 250 planes for the next few years.  However, the Air Force made another attempt to get rid of it within the last couple of years.  Only the bright light of publicity made them back down.

I agree.  It's a lovely airplane. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

In the states some warthogs were buzzing us doing low fly by's. probably showing off. Amazing aircraft. I would dig in pretty fast if i knew someone was throwing those suckers at me.

Due to Canada's lack of resources and personal on the ground (especially to make, maintain and run a runway etc..) wouldn't a harrier be a better choice of support aircraft?

That or the seaking of the plane community, the ospray

 

[scm77]

The Harriers Ghost speaks of would go perfect with Steven Harpers hybrid helicopter carriers.

 

[Garbageman]

Due to Canada's lack of resources and personal on the ground (especially to make, maintain and run a runway etc..) wouldn't a harrier be a better choice of support aircraft?

That or the seaking of the plane community, the ospray

Harriers can't pack the same amount of armour as an A-10 since they already require so much fuel to take off and land vertically.  That and the A-10's got a sweet chain gun that's pretty effective.  Ospray's?  Shudder.  Those things are nothing but problems. 

Still, the '18s will have to be replaced eventually, and it doesn't look like the incoming '22s will have much of a ground support role.  I must admit, our ground support role seems to be shrinking by the moment.  Griffons provide nowhere near the same capability as the airframes they replaced (Chinooks, Kiowas, and Hueys).

Maybe the Sperwer & Silver Fox is the fleet of the future?!  :evil:

 

[Da_man]

Why dont we get attack helos instead?   I think the US is replacing the AH-64  with RAH-66 in the near future, so why not buy them?

 

[Garbageman]

Why dont we get attack helos instead?   I think the US is replacing the AH-64   with RAH-66 in the near future, so why not buy them?

If it happens, I think it'll be a long, long way down the road.  The Air Force has too many other priorities to deal with first (replacing the Sea Kings, replacing the Hercs & Buffalos, bringing air-to-air refueling back online with the Airbus, modernizing the CF-18s & Auroras, and bringing in some heavy lift capability).

 

[rdschultz]

The RAH-66 was cancelled in February.

 

[Bert]

I think the Garbageman is realistic. But, if you look at how efficiently the A-10s and apaches obiterated iraqi armour in both gulf conflicts, the acquisition of attack helos
or fixed wings is quite the bag for the buck especially when co-ordinated with AWACS.  The challenge is not only the money, the techs, and the $$$, its also how
attack helos or fixed wings would be useful or integrate into the context of the candian army and armour regiments.  A post in another thread suggested modifying
a small standard military class helo with a missles and other armament.  With more toys running and flying around, the Canadian military may have to adopt integrated
battlefield IS platforms like the US marines use.  Interesting topic.