SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US Air Force has kicked off the procurement for another round of wing replacements for A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, known affectionately by many as the Warthog. With new wings, the A-10s will help fill a gap left by the delayed volume delivery of F-35A fighters, which were intended to take over the A-10's close air support (CAS) role in "contested environments"—places where enemy aircraft or modern air defenses would pose a threat to supporting aircraft. For now, the A-10 is being used largely in uncontested environments, where the greatest danger pilots face is small arms fire or possibly a Stinger-like man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) missile. But the Warthog is also being deployed to Eastern Europe as part of the NATO show of strength in response to Russia.
While the A-10 will keep flying through 2025 under current plans, Air Force leadership has perceived (or was perhaps convinced to see) a need for an aircraft that could take over the A-10's role in low-intensity and uncontested environments—something relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain that could be flown from relatively unimproved airfields to conduct armed reconnaissance, interdiction, and close air support missions. The replacement would also double as advanced trainer aircraft for performing weapons qualifications and keeping pilots' flight-time numbers up.
So, last year the Air Force kicked off the Light Attack Experiment (OA-X), a four-aircraft competition to determine what would best fit that bill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:46AM (7 children)
Could we please get some clarification between when we are talking about the A-10 Warthog ground attack plane that Americans use to kill friendly forces like the Brits in Iraq, and some alleged English highway where British murdering perverts leave their victims? Thank you.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:06AM (1 child)
You're just anti-Brrrt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:12AM
Yes, but I am pro-Brexit! England for Anglo-Saxon invaders, I say!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:34AM
And, oh, my apologies! A French Highway in Britain.
"But you're French! What are you doing in England?"
"Go way, or I will taunt you a second thyme! Pffft! Pffft!"
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:57PM (3 children)
Is there a recent FF incident with British troops I didn't hear about, or are you referring to the discredited USA-Today article that used baked numbers [jqpublicblog.com] to misrepresent the friendly-fire risk of A10 missions?
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:14PM (2 children)
IIRC it was about 10 years ago. I remember that the UK vehicles were marked on the roofs (Orange spot?) and the pilots realised their mistake as they were firing.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:30PM (1 child)
Yeah, fake news with cooked numbers according to revisionist history, then. Remember, the first rule of friendly fire is that it isn't.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:26PM
No, their deaths were not fake news. They were certainly counted among the dead credited to Friendly-Fire from the A-10.
Here are the numbers, in case you care (US and coalition casualties caused by friendly fire, grouped by platform, from 2001 to Feb 2015):
F-18: 98
B-52: 85
F-14: 65
*A-10: 61
F-15E: 53
AC-130: 29
Drones: 17
F-16: 14 (note: retired in 2006)
B-1: 6
Each one of those is a tragedy, and should not be trivialized.
The faked news with cooked numbers was that about 3 years ago the Air Force "leaked" numbers comparing CAS from the A-10 to air support from high-altitude bombers like the B1 in terms of friendly fire and civilian casualties. Its statistics sins included:
* cherry-picking the time period to exclude an egregious civilian casualty incident caused by a high-altitude bomber in 2009
* counting only civilian deaths, and not civilian casualties (bombs throw lots of injury-causing shrapnel, an A10 bullet near-miss generally leaves bystanders unharmed)
* focusing on total number of dead/wounded rather than rate per mission or hours flown (the A10 flies many more CAS missions than the other platforms, and logs more hours in contact per mission)
Amen.
I'd still rather have an A-10 overhead when I call for fire support than a B-52 or an F-18.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]