Below are the links to two video clips from PBS. The first is their
News Hour piece on the A-10 from last evening. It shows some of the
arguments for and against the Air Force's plan to send every existing A-10 close
air support aircraft to the boneyard, and museums, as soon as the Air Force can
do so.
It's is an interesting piece, but I direct your attention especially to the
second video link. It is an extraordinary interview by PBS's Dan Sagalyn
of Pierre Sprey on the origin and specific design characteristics of the
A-10. I urge you to watch that second video and then consider if there is
another aircraft that can even begin to bring to the modern battlefield the
characteristics that the A-10 brings. The Air Force position is that the F-35
will pick up the close support mission in a few years and that other
fighter-bomber designs can do it in the interim. That position dismisses
the specialized, focused training close air support pilots must have (and
will not get in a multi-role aircraft), and it provides only the most
superficial reassurance that the physical aircraft characteristics essential for
the close air support mission are somewhere present in F-16s, F-15s, B-1Bs and
B-52s, and their air to ground munitions, including precision munitions.
To claim the F-35 can perform the mission is especially pathetic.
See the two links below:
(These two videos did not play in my MSN browser, but they do
play in Google and others.)
If you care to read more on the close support mission, the A-10,
and why the F-35 and other multi-role aircraft are so much less effective in
that role, even with precision munitions, see the summary and notes on two
recent seminars that the Straus Military Reform Project and POGO sponsored in
late 2013. See that material at http://www.pogo.org/our-work/ straus-military-reform- project/military-reform/2013/ a-10-warthog-a-core-defense- issue.html.
Finally, the Air Force and others contend that the A-10 cannot
survive on the modern battlefield against sophisticated air defenses. That
conventional wisdom is also unsupported by the facts; more on that
later.
No comments:
Post a Comment