US did not sell A-10s and AC-130s?

[Hermitian]

So I was reading this CNN article about the US pulling back some of our forces and planes from the Libya. Specifically the portion:

But a NATO official said that, weather aside, only the United States has the ability from the air to strike at mobile troops and equipment.

NATO needed that from the United States, the NATO official said.

"Specifically the A10s and the AC-130s nobody else but the U.S. has," the official noted.

I looked on Wikipedia, and it doesn't list any other operators besides US forces.

The A-10 and AC-130 gunships are not cutting edge planes. Is there a reason we did not sell them? Did one one want them?

[Johnny L.A.]

Heck, the USAF didn't really want the A-10 (or rather, its mission) when it was introduced.

Sometimes it's good to keep some things proprietary. We wouldn't want someone to buy an AC-130 and turn it against us. There was some concern in 1979 about the F-14s and Phoenix missiles we sold to Iran. Typically, we keep the best systems to ourselves and let the buyers fit out the platform or else sell them systems that are 'almost as good'.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

They're not cutting edge planes? They certainly are. Their capabilities are unparalleled, even 40-50 years later.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

They're not cutting edge planes? They certainly are. Their capabilities are unparalleled, even 40-50 years later.

The C-130 is an old design, and there are a ton of operators worldwide. They're constantly being upgraded to keep them fresh. (In another life I drew wiring diagrams for them on CADAM.) I'm sure the more advanced users could make an AC-130 gunship if they wanted to, but AFAIK we don't sell them the systems we put in them.

[Hermitian]

It just seems strange the things we sell and do not sell. We sell F-16s like they are going out of style. We sell Black Hawks. We sell M1 Abrams tanks. Heck, we even sell the UK our Trident II submarine launched ballistic missiles.

I don't mean that the A-10 or AC-130 are out of date or anything, they are obviously needed and they work well. I just don't think of them as having any super advanced technologies that we want to only keep to ourselves.

Maybe there is a demand side component also. Maybe no one thought they needed them.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

The A-10 and AC-130 gunships are not cutting edge planes. Is there a reason we did not sell them? Did one one want them?

They Russians were afraid of the A10. It fires 4200 armor piercing shells a minute from a rifled gattling gun accurate to 3 miles and can hang 8 tons of weapons from the wing. A 130 gunship can circle an area and essentially put a bullet in every square foot of covered area.

[Mr. Excellent]

Other planes are faster, stealthier, or have longer ranges. Or more sophisticated avionics. But if I had to choose which airplane, in all the world, I did *not* want to see flying towards my house, it would be the A-10. (An AC-130 would be flying *around* my house. Though I doubt it would need to bother for very long.)

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Mr. Excellent

Other planes are faster, stealthier, or have longer ranges. Or more sophisticated avionics. But if I had to choose which airplane, in all the world, I did *not* want to see flying towards my house, it would be the A-10. (An AC-130 would be flying *around* my house. Though I doubt it would need to bother for very long.)

You just have to watch it fly to understand why an A-10 fulfills it's mission design so well. It flies over 400 mph and is far more maneuverable than a helicopter. It's designed to take a pounding and the engines are above the tail plane so the infrared signature is blocked.

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

The A-10 and AC-130 gunships are not cutting edge planes. Is there a reason we did not sell them? Did one one want them?

Not every airforce is big enough or rich enough to have dedicated aircraft, so they generally want more bang for their buck and go with a multi-role. Or they go with the cheapest and improvise.

You could probably make a reasonable facimile of the A-10, the russians do it with the Frogfoot, but with a more standard cannon, but I would think most air forces that operate the C-130 probably need the cargo version more than a nice to have plane that may or may not get used as often.

Declan

[thirdname]

I was surprised to see a video of Iraqi Army soldiers training in M1A1 tanks that we have apparently sold them. I thought the details of the armor were secret.

[Patch]

Originally Posted by thirdname

I was surprised to see a video of Iraqi Army soldiers training in M1A1 tanks that we have apparently sold them. I thought the details of the armor were secret.

Egypt has M1s as well. Because the tank armor can be custom modified, I'm more than certain what we export is not up to the same protection as that fielded by US troops.

[Alessan]

Only the largest and richest air forces can afford a specialized system like the A-10, because after all, fighter jets like the F-15 and F-16 can also take out tanks and fortifications. Can they do that was well as the A-10 can? Of course not - but they can also help achieve air superiority, take out anti-aircraft batteries and perform long-range bombing raids, and when you're working with a limited budget (and unless you're the USAF, you are), you need that flexibility.

[EvilTOJ]

If we sold the A-10 then Cobra could get their hands on some, and we just can't have that!

[awldune]

The A-10 uses depleted uranium munitions. Don't know if that could be a factor in our ability to export.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

[i]But a NATO official said that, weather aside, only the United States has the ability from the air to strike at mobile troops and equipment.

Is that NATO official new to his job, cause striking from air on mobile troops or equipments seems to be one of the roles of any airforce in the world.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Excellent

Other planes are faster, stealthier, or have longer ranges. Or more sophisticated avionics. But if I had to choose which airplane, in all the world, I did *not* want to see flying towards my house, it would be the A-10. (An AC-130 would be flying *around* my house. Though I doubt it would need to bother for very long.)

During training exercises I've been "killed" by A-10s. They are scary. You kind of expect to see a plane coming. A-10's just pop out from behind some trees and you're dead. They don't just go screaming past. It's like they can stop and look right at you, just to mess with you.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Capitaine Zombie

Is that NATO official new to his job, cause striking from air on mobile troops or equipments seems to be one of the roles of any airforce in the world.

I am not familiar with modern European air tactics. The one aircraft I think of when I think of European fighter-bombers is the Tornado. That seems like a good platform for attacking relatively small areas, much as the A-7 Corsair II was. But I don't know of the European Air Forces have anything equivalent to the A-10, which is designed for taking out specific, fairly small, targets. Of course they have helicopters.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

During training exercises I've been "killed" by A-10s. They are scary. You kind of expect to see a plane coming. A-10's just pop out from behind some trees and you're dead. They don't just go screaming past. It's like they can stop and look right at you, just to mess with you.

A friend said he's heard them when he was on exercises. The gun sounds like a zipper. He said he'd hate to be on the receiving end.

[Alessan]

You can take out tanks with F-15s, F-16s and their European equivalents.

[The_Raven]

I was in the White Mountains one afternoon when a couple of NHANG A-10s just materialized from the hillside below us, flashed by overhead and were gone. Startled the crap out of me. An aircraft amazingly well-suited for its role.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

A friend said he's heard them when he was on exercises. The gun sounds like a zipper. He said he'd hate to be on the receiving end.

I'd say more like a buzzsaw than a zipper. Here's a short video for anyone that hasn't heard it. The first sound is the rounds impacting the ground, the second sound is the gun firing.

[Reply]

Originally Posted by Capitaine Zombie

Is that NATO official new to his job, cause striking from air on mobile troops or equipments seems to be one of the roles of any airforce in the world.

I'm no expert, but maybe he meant sustained ground attack in a small area?

The A-10 and AC-130 are basically flying heavy weapon turrets that can stay in an area and pound armored targets / buildings without using up all their ammunition quickly.

Fighter jets are usually limited to their ordinance of missiles/bombs/rockets; their guns (if they have 'em) are useful against other aircraft, but not necessarily tanks and buildings. They also fly fast, potentially requiring repeated back-and-forth flights over an area. They're also, for the most part, not shielded against ground fire.

Helicopters are more maneuverable and can hover in an area, but they too are limited to their missiles/rockets against armored targets. They're also a lot slower and more vulnerable than an A-10.

The A-10 has a huge gatling gun that can very well obliterate tanks on its own in ADDITION to its loadout of missiles/rockets/bombs. It can strafe columns/convoys of ground targets like nothing else (at least not for the same price of ammunition). It's also a rather solidly-built plane and the pilot is shielded by a titanium bathtub under the cockpit.

The AC-130 has an even huger howitzer.

[Nadir]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

The A-10 and AC-130 gunships are not cutting edge planes. Is there a reason we did not sell them? Did one one want them?

A-10s and most 130 variants with the exception of the very oldest airframes in the inventory which are scheduled for retirement, are all in various stages of received/receiving/or scheduled to receive various combinations of newer more efficient/powerful engines, the latest glass cockpit, GPS and laser-guided nav-targeting and AESA radar upgrades, giving them service life extensions and/or incredibly effective modern attack capabilities never seen before.

The C-130J is a totally new version of the C-130. Lockheed is building brand new ones and selling them all over the world.

[bump]

It's not that the A-10 or AC-130 aircraft have any technological advantages over the multirole fighter-bombers such as the British Tornadoes and Typhoons or US F/A-18E/Fs and F-16s.

It's that they're completely and only optimized for ground attack roles. In other words, the A-10 and AC-130 do what they do better than the other planes. The other planes can do it, and do a lot of other things, but the dedicated attack planes do it a little bit better.

And like Alessan said, only the most affluent air forces can afford dedicated ground-attack planes, so it's pretty much only the US who has them in the west, although many former Soviet and former Soviet satellite states still operate Su-25 Frogfoot attack planes.

[Nadir]

Originally Posted by bump

It's not that the A-10 or AC-130 aircraft have any technological advantages over the multirole fighter-bombers such as the British Tornadoes and Typhoons or US F/A-18E/Fs and F-16s.

That would be false. They are technologically equipped to do it far better - more effectively, more efficiently, and more of it for longer periods of time on station.

Originally Posted by bump

... but the dedicated attack planes do it a little bit better.

See above. They do it much, much better.

Originally Posted by bump

And like Alessan said, only the most affluent air forces can afford dedicated ground-attack planes, so it's pretty much only the US who has them in the west, although many former Soviet and former Soviet satellite states still operate Su-25 Frogfoot attack planes.

Have you seen Saudi Arabia's milair budget? Quatar bought some C-17s a few years ago. They are not cheap. Japan has the latest F-15s with greater capabilities than our most current models of that particular fighter. It's not about money, it's about requirements. They don't view dedicated close air support as a priority or high level requirement because they simply don't engage in those type military activities.

[Ravenman]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing so sensitive about the A-10 and the AC-130 that they couldn't be sold to foreign countries (in contrast to the F-22, which law specifically prohibits foreign sales due to the incredible sensitivity of the technology involved).

Just look at the AC-130: the airframes are like forty years old, the weapons were designed more than half a century ago, the sensors are from the late 1980s, and it takes quite a large crew by current standards to operate the thing. There just isn't anything terribly secret or magical about the aircraft, other than we are willing to operate an old aircraft to do a very specific mission, which it does very well.

In fact, the current fleet of AC-130s are planned to be replaced over the next several years because they are so damned old. They will be replaced by AC-130Js which have modern cockpits, airframes, weapons, and sensors; but even still, it isn't like there is some reason why some other country can't get their hands on similar technology -- it's just there probably is no interest in paying for such a niche aircraft.

[Nadir]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing so sensitive about the A-10 and the AC-130 that they couldn't be sold to foreign countries (in contrast to the F-22, which law specifically prohibits foreign sales due to the incredible sensitivity of the technology involved).

But the F-35, which is a multinational joint venture building off the F-22, will carry an even greater order of technological sophistication in terms of the advanced electronics, stealth, sensor integration, software, materials, etc.

The F-22 export restriction was a political deal, and has in fact been questioned for this very reason. It likely will be exported in some reduced functional version at some point.

[GreasyJack]

Originally Posted by Capitaine Zombie

Is that NATO official new to his job, cause striking from air on mobile troops or equipments seems to be one of the roles of any airforce in the world.

The issue is that NATO is very sensitive about civilian causalities and the A-10 and AC-130 are the only two aircraft that can safely do the really close-in air support role within cities where the fighting is actually going on. The European multi-role aircraft can pound the supply lines and such, but are simply not designed for such a close-in role.

[kombatminipig]

Originally Posted by awldune

The A-10 uses depleted uranium munitions. Don't know if that could be a factor in our ability to export.

Depleted uranium is exactly that, depleted. It's entirely inert. The only reason for its use is that it's darn heavy.

[Mk VII]

We have few aircraft of any description (and even fewer now) because we're not prepared to spend very much on defence. They have to be made to do many things moderately well, not one big thing very well. The Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) concept back in the '70s (which eventually emerged as the Tornado) was an international project which was highly political and which had to placate the various using factions in England, West Germany and Italy. Various other nations were supposed to participate, but all dropped out citing various reasons and the number of a/c manufactured ended up being cut sharply from the original order.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Nadir

The F-22 export restriction was a political deal, and has in fact been questioned for this very reason. It likely will be exported in some reduced functional version at some point.

What you phrase "political deal" is what others might call an act of Congress.

The chances of an F-22 ever being exported are slim and none, and slim is on its way out of town. The production line will be completely closed down within a year, it will be prohibitively expensive to reopen it, and even the one real potential customer -- the Japanese government -- seems to have completely dropped their interest in the F-22 due to the extremely high cost of restarting the line -- and the prospects of changing US law on the matter.

Japan is now looking at the F-35, among other aircraft.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by The_Raven

I was in the White Mountains one afternoon when a couple of NHANG A-10s just materialized from the hillside below us, flashed by overhead and were gone. Startled the crap out of me. An aircraft amazingly well-suited for its role.

If you're up on Osceola or Carrigain or even Sandwich Dome they sometimes swoop below you. I've stared out from rock cliffs straight across into the pilot's eyes as they go by. Gotta love that.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by kombatminipig

Depleted uranium is exactly that, depleted. It's entirely inert. The only reason for its use is that it's darn heavy.

It's dense, it's very hard yet doesn't shatter like some other hard but brittle metals. It's pyrophoric. Shards and scrapings as the projectile penetrates the target burst into flame igniting ammunition, fuels, hydraulics, and batteries.

The Air Force also has HEI (high explosive incendiary) 30mm rounds. These may be a solid load (all HEI) or mixed with TP (target practice) rounds. The TP rounds are high quality steel and will do similiar damage to vehicles as the DU round would. Useful for training and also to avoid the "stigma" of DU.

Note that while US DU rounds are for all intents and purposes inert (you can't get a reading above backgound radiation levels from them); some foreign "DU" rounds are a fair amount more active.

[Prox]

Originally Posted by kombatminipig

Depleted uranium is exactly that, depleted. It's entirely inert. The only reason for its use is that it's darn heavy.

Depleted uranium is still radioactive - about 60% as much as natural occurring uranium. You right though that it's mass is why it's used as ammo. As an added bonus, uranium also catches fire pretty easily when exposed to air, if the round happens to hit the targets ammo supply, it'll set it off.

According to Wikipedia, somewhere between 17 to 20 countries use depleted uranium in their arsenals and 18 countries manufacture it, so I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not the A-10 and AC-130 are sold.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by smithsb

It's pyrophoric. Shards and scrapings as the projectile penetrates the target burst into flame igniting ammunition, fuels, hydraulics, and batteries.

Also people. Another of the many very, very good reasons not to be a tank driver in a military that we aren't on exceptionally good terms with.

[Nadir]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

What you phrase "political deal" is what others might call an act of Congress. ...Japan is now looking at the F-35, among other aircraft.

Since when was an act of congress not a political deal?

And what makes you think Lockheed wouldn't jump at the chance to gen up that line? Do you think they just scrap the tooling? Do you know how much it cost that congress in it's infinite wisdom to repeatedly cut the F22 buys and ultimately shut it down?

That would be termed an act of stupidity by some.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

The issue is that NATO is very sensitive about civilian causalities and the A-10 and AC-130 are the only two aircraft that can safely do the really close-in air support role within cities where the fighting is actually going on. The European multi-role aircraft can pound the supply lines and such, but are simply not designed for such a close-in role.

Thanks, that seems like the correct answer.

So basically the A-10 does the job of an helicopter (they're VTOL?)? Is why they are being used? The parameters of the UN missions say no copters, only planes?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Nadir

And what makes you think Lockheed wouldn't jump at the chance to gen up that line? Do you think they just scrap the tooling?

There are no customers.

Do you know how much it cost that congress in it's infinite wisdom to repeatedly cut the F22 buys and ultimately shut it down?

Yes, I do.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Capitaine Zombie

So basically the A-10 does the job of an helicopter (they're VTOL?)? Is why they are being used? The parameters of the UN missions say no copters, only planes?

No, the A-10 is not V/STOL. It does, however, fly low and slow and can turn on a dime. Well, maybe a quarter. It's better armed and armoured than helicopters. Helicopters fly low and slow, and are also very maneuverable. However they are limited in the arms and ordnance they can carry. They can also be more vulnerable to ground fire. There are some fine tank-busting helicopters out there.

[lazybratsche]

No, that's not quite it. An A-10 (and AC-130) can do a sort of sustained close air support -- fly in, drop bombs on primary targets, and then fly around the battlefield strafing any reasonable target. Or just loiter, waiting for ground forces to identify targets. Other strike fighters can fly in and drop bombs in a similar manner, but then they're done. The A-10, after dropping it's tons of ordinance, can still do a lot of damage with its cannon. And the cannon is more suited for attacking smaller individual targets -- a truck, an artillery tube, an armored personnel carrier. For these, you don't want to waste expensive smart bombs and missiles.

Helicopters are also very good at close air support, but they don't have the range to reach Libya from bases in Italy.

(Also the A-10 isn't VTOL. But it can fly very slowly, which is very helpful when shooting at the ground.)

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by me

Yes, I do.

I should have added that it was not Congress, but the Air Force and the Defense Department that proposed the end the F-22 buys. Congress rejected the proposal several times before acquiescing, so I think your facts are a little off.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by lazybratsche

No, that's not quite it. An A-10 (and AC-130) can do a sort of sustained close air support -- fly in, drop bombs on primary targets, and then fly around the battlefield strafing any reasonable target. Or just loiter, waiting for ground forces to identify targets.

Sounds a lot like the old AD Skyraider. I've heard that there was still a demand for them into the '70s, but the existing stocks were just plain worn out and it was decided that it would be too expensive to build new ones. Dad used to say that Skyraider had 'the instantaneous firepower of a light cruiser.'

[silenus]

A-10 and A-1 side by side.

Not to mention that the A-1 could carry more bomb tonnage than a B-17.

[Johnny L.A.]

Sweet!

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by lazybratsche

expensive smart bombs and missiles.

Helicopters are also very good at close air support, but they don't have the range to reach Libya from bases in Italy.

(Also the A-10 isn't VTOL. But it can fly very slowly, which is very helpful when shooting at the ground.)

I would also guess that an A-10 is a bit more robust than a helicopter. I've always had the impression a helicopter can be brought down just by looking at it wrong

[Nadir]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I should have added that it was not Congress, but the Air Force and the Defense Department that proposed the end the F-22 buys. Congress rejected the proposal several times before acquiescing, so I think your facts are a little off.

You should amplify/correct your statement to include the whole story about how Gates (SECDEF) was forced to cut the F22 and many other high dollar programs under Congressional budget pressure. The Air Force NEVER wanted less F22s, under any of the myriad sets of flawed fiscal reasoning that were presented over the years.

Maye since you "do" claim know these figures, you can enlighten us on what the initial vs. mid term 384 vs. final 183 flyaway numbers buys actually ended up costing the American taxpayer, when it was all said and done?

Then we'll see whose facts are are either off, misleading or just lacking any substantive information whatsoever.

[bump]

Originally Posted by Nadir

Gates (SECDEF) was forced to cut the F22 and many other high dollar programs under Congressional budget pressure.

You've got that backwards, dude. Gates told Congress to cut funding.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...710944,00.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aj694ju69myQ

http://defensetech.org/2009/04/15/se...e-f-22-raptor/

[gravitycrash]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

During training exercises I've been "killed" by A-10s. They are scary. You kind of expect to see a plane coming. A-10's just pop out from behind some trees and you're dead. They don't just go screaming past. It's like they can stop and look right at you, just to mess with you.

Ha, our whole platoon was killed by an A-10 at 29 palms during CAX 85. It sucked to be us that day.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Nadir

You should amplify/correct your statement to include the whole story about how Gates (SECDEF) was forced to cut the F22 and many other high dollar programs under Congressional budget pressure. The Air Force NEVER wanted less F22s, under any of the myriad sets of flawed fiscal reasoning that were presented over the years.

You are wrong. In 2009, Gates proposed termination, and Secretary Donley and General Schwartz both supported the proposal. Their view was that they would like more F-22s, but they had higher budget priorities that made further purchases inadvisable.

Maye since you "do" claim know these figures, you can enlighten us on what the initial vs. mid term 384 vs. final 183 flyaway numbers buys actually ended up costing the American taxpayer, when it was all said and done?

That isn't the question you asked. You asked how much it cost to shut down production. That number is approximately $400 million. You are asking a somewhat nonsensical question that assigns a cost to buying items on a low rate initial procurement versus a mature full rate production line. It boils down to comparing points on a learning curve: every time production doubles, cost is reduced by a fairly predictable rate.

If the learning curve in the F-22 were 85% (for example), the second aircraft would be 15% cheaper than the first, the fourth would be 15% cheaper than the second, etc. While the 256th would be cheaper than the first by a considerable amount, the idea that funds are saved by buying more aircraft makes about as much sense as a spoiled housewife claiming that she saved her husband $100,000 because the diamond ring she just bought was on sale for 20% off.

Out of curiosity, do you know the difference between flyaway cost, average procurement unit cost, and program acquisition unit cost? Because by most estimates, the flyaway cost for restarting the line would be a roughly 40% increase, which means it isn't very likely that any other country is going to pay that premium to buy F-22s, even in the unlikely event that the export prohibition were repealed.

[GreedySmurf]

As a little more bit of info relating to the OP, there is another consideration in that to effectively use the AC-130, and to a far lesser extent the A-10, you need airspace dominance.

It's obviously part of the doctrine of the US Air Force, to obtain uncontested skies as early in the piece of any war as possible. Thus they're happy to have aircraft like the AC-130 ready to use.

Whereas smaller Airforces, (eg Australia) have no illusions that they have the inherent combat power to obtain air dominance in anything but situations like Afghanistan. So could never forsee using something like the AC-130. Also it is a formal part of our strategy, and influences our militaries buying decisions, to have maximum inter-operability with US forces. So why bother with an AC-130, when 9 out of 10 warzones we'll be in will be alongside US Air Forces anyway, who will bring them with them!

[Uniform_Delta]

Actually it has very little to do with technology and everything to do with the cold war and levels of training. First the O/A-10 was designed to break up waves of Soviet Armor and thin skinned vehicles in a European theater. That push never came and many people in the USAF wanted (and still do) to get rid of it because it is slow and has very limited capabilities outside of CAS and Combat Search and Rescue. The AC-130 s primary cold war mission was rear area CAS. The AC-130 was basicly able to linger and provide support against insurgents and enemy SOF units like the Spetsnaz in Europe, or North Korean units busting out of tunnels, it’s secondary mission was friendly SOF support. It now primarily does SOF support with limited over-watch/perimeter defense work in Iraq and other theaters. Most countries have little to no “white SOF” ability and those that have a “black SOF” capability lack the ability to project them, and thus have no need of an AC-130 like platform. As another poster mentioned the O/A-10 and AC-130 need complete air dominace to operate… none of the NATO countries have the ability to establish air dominance on their own, the UK and France come close but lack the numbers to maintain it for very long.

A additional issue is that the US military has a robust Close Air Support (CAS) capability, in most countries forward air control is a auxiliary duty of artillery troops or forward observers, the US has dedicated CAS controllers who receive extensive training compared to our NATO allies. The US is still the only military that can pull of a Joint Air Attack Team style attack, this is procedure where O/A-10s, Attack Rotary Wing Assets and Artillery do a coordinated strike on a moving target. It requires intensive training, communications and equipment other countries simply don’t have. This tactic set resulted in the “Road of Death” in DS1. So bottom line is even if a country had O/A-10s and AC-130s they currently lack the personnel required to properly use them.

“It is not the object of war to annihilate those who have given provocation for it, but to cause them to mend their ways.”
-Polybius, Greek Historian (2nd Century B.C.)