A-10C Discussion

[rcjonessnp175]

Amen!

[Diemos]

The major problem is: It's an effective piece of equipment, which does the job it was designed to do. Our government simply can't accept that...

[PiedDroit]

The major problem is: It's an effective piece of equipment, which does the job it was designed to do. Our government simply can't accept that...

No, the issue is that no company will offer a golden retirement plan to the brass for keeping it. It's all about money in the end...

[aaron886]

The major problem is: Pierre Sprey is in that video. Glad I was warned...

[shagrat]

As far as I understood the problems (yes, it's more than one) are:

-The A-10 fleet is currently nearing an age, where the airframe starts to degrade, so as much as we lobe the planes they might have structural problems in the near future that will make it impossible to fly them on prolonged sorties or on edge of flight envelopes without certain risks to the pilots and troops on the ground (Sorry guys my left engine failed, I need to RTB call 911 for CAS?)

 

-until that happens the A-10 maintenance is getting more and more expensive, as additional systems were fixed to the old airframe, spare parts are not exactly lying in a shelter in the dozens, but getting rare and overall effort and costs get an issue. Yes, I know it is the "money" argument, but you have to face the fact that money means taxes and taxes means it's paid by the taxpayer, which is you guys. If you would except a save the A-10 10% income tax it shouldn't be an issue, but unless it needs to be paid.

 

-to replace the A-10 you need new aircraft! Either you need to build brand new A-10s or a modern plane that is designed exactly around the role and concept of the A-10. CAS and Ground support by design.

If the F-35 is or is not a feasible replacement for the A-10 is debatable, but unfortunately it seems to be the only plane available for the job?

To have a modern alternative you would need to develop a "new A-10" from scratch and that takes time, sure more than the current A-10 airframes have left.

 

So in the end, it is a matter of time and resources. There will be the day where all A-10s are grounded as they are no longer airworthy, until then you could invest a lot of man and money into maintenance or invest these resources in a brand new, dedicated CAS plane/drone system and until then the F-35 jack of all trade needs to keep up with the demands and save the day as best as it can manage and hope its systems work as promised.

 

Speaking of UAV / Drone systems, my guess is, in a few years we have ground commanders have a war room with something like augmented reality glasses that give them a life feed and tactical overview of the complete AOR. They will control ground troops, unmanned reconnaissance systems on the ground and in the air to support the Commander-buddy on the ground and give him advise and support in a way no plane can ever do.

The ones of you who know what the Battle of Tukkayid is may remember the scene that pictures Anastasius Focht in his command center guiding the Comstar divisions through a holographic map where he had the overview and merge of all information from the ground, satellites and air.

We may not have holographics, but the availability of realtime datafeeds and merging them into a near omnipotent picture of the battlefield is not so far away. That will do much more for the grunts on the ground than anything else before. Now picture a swarm of armed UAV at the hand of the support commander, on call of the commander on the ground. A scene like: "I see a group of enemy fighters armed with RPGs and small arms about 20m around the right corner of the building. The building across the street shows vague heat sources from the drone scans, I advise caution and inserting an autonomous surveillance buggy to check that house, before you move. I have the guys around the corner covered with Hellfires!" - "OK, I can see smoke behind the building on my IR, can you check that?" + " Positive! I see a small cooking fire and a donkey, no people visual nor any immediate threats"...and so on.

As much as I love the A-10 and wish to have it flying and supporting ground troops in the long run it will be replaced by other systems.

Let's hope until then either the military has the funds to keep it operational if required or the F-35 performs better in its roles as it is rumored today.

 

Just my thoughts on the topic, no more insight then most of you may have.

And I may be totally wrong! :D

[rcjonessnp175]

The major problem is: Pierre Sprey is in that video. Glad I was warned...

 

Nothing wrong with him in my opinion. Most of what he says in video makes perfect sense.

[rcjonessnp175]

As far as I understood the problems (yes, it's more than one) are:

-The A-10 fleet is currently nearing an age, where the airframe starts to degrade, so as much as we lobe the planes they might have structural problems in the near future that will make it impossible to fly them on prolonged sorties or on edge of flight envelopes without certain risks to the pilots and troops on the ground (Sorry guys my left engine failed, I need to RTB call 911 for CAS?)

 

-until that happens the A-10 maintenance is getting more and more expensive, as additional systems were fixed to the old airframe, spare parts are not exactly lying in a shelter in the dozens, but getting rare and overall effort and costs get an issue. Yes, I know it is the "money" argument, but you have to face the fact that money means taxes and taxes means it's paid by the taxpayer, which is you guys. If you would except a save the A-10 10% income tax it shouldn't be an issue, but unless it needs to be paid.

 

-to replace the A-10 you need new aircraft! Either you need to build brand new A-10s or a modern plane that is designed exactly around the role and concept of the A-10. CAS and Ground support by design.

If the F-35 is or is not a feasible replacement for the A-10 is debatable, but unfortunately it seems to be the only plane available for the job?

To have a modern alternative you would need to develop a "new A-10" from scratch and that takes time, sure more than the current A-10 airframes have left.

 

So in the end, it is a matter of time and resources. There will be the day where all A-10s are grounded as they are no longer airworthy, until then you could invest a lot of man and money into maintenance or invest these resources in a brand new, dedicated CAS plane/drone system and until then the F-35 jack of all trade needs to keep up with the demands and save the day as best as it can manage and hope its systems work as promised.

 

Speaking of UAV / Drone systems, my guess is, in a few years we have ground commanders have a war room with something like augmented reality glasses that give them a life feed and tactical overview of the complete AOR. They will control ground troops, unmanned reconnaissance systems on the ground and in the air to support the Commander-buddy on the ground and give him advise and support in a way no plane can ever do.

The ones of you who know what the Battle of Tukkayid is may remember the scene that pictures Anastasius Focht in his command center guiding the Comstar divisions through a holographic map where he had the overview and merge of all information from the ground, satellites and air.

We may not have holographics, but the availability of realtime datafeeds and merging them into a near omnipotent picture of the battlefield is not so far away. That will do much more for the grunts on the ground than anything else before. Now picture a swarm of armed UAV at the hand of the support commander, on call of the commander on the ground. A scene like: "I see a group of enemy fighters armed with RPGs and small arms about 20m around the right corner of the building. The building across the street shows vague heat sources from the drone scans, I advise caution and inserting an autonomous surveillance buggy to check that house, before you move. I have the guys around the corner covered with Hellfires!" - "OK, I can see smoke behind the building on my IR, can you check that?" + " Positive! I see a small cooking fire and a donkey, no people visual nor any immediate threats"...and so on.

As much as I love the A-10 and wish to have it flying and supporting ground troops in the long run it will be replaced by other systems.

Let's hope until then either the military has the funds to keep it operational if required or the F-35 performs better in its roles as it is rumored today.

 

Just my thoughts on the topic, no more insight then most of you may have.

And I may be totally wrong! :D

 

LOL In response to the Uav and us ground guys those capabilities have been around for years... and yes that would be cool the whole vr type command room...

[shagrat]

LOL In response to the Uav and us ground guys those capabilities have been around for years...

Yes, but currently the UAV operators see only a small window of the action. Looking through the straw doesn't help with situational awareness. The game changer will be the merge of multiple sources from a swarm of UAVs, headcams of you guys on the ground and autonomous reconnaissance vehicles... Imagine to see through a wall or building with your glasses switched to virtual mode and see what the satellite, UAVs, IR scans etc. see corrected, merged and presented as if you could actually see through it.

Add a quick birds eye glance (think of it like a much, much better 'Raven') and you get what I mean. Most of it is already there. The problem is availability and priorisation! If a lowly platoon commander or average grunt would ask for a satellite live feed, no way. Or direct access to a Reaper UAV... Now, with cheap mass produced small surveillance drones, we may have the means to merge all this information and send it directly to EVERY soldier on the ground or at least a platoon commander or group leader. Not next year, but I guess it will be available faster than we think today.

And this kind of situational awareness on the ground, would be a real game changer.

 

The biggest problem I personally see is the chain of command. The brass tends to interfere with minor decisions in the field as soon as they get the life feeds and visuals, up to a point where they try to command piss breaks for individual soldiers... This is not good when decisions are drawn from 5.000miles away! Operational, direct decisions are always a responsibility of the commander on-scene! Whatever has changed there in the last decades is utterly bad. Ultimate decisions about life and death shall not be taken by guys not on the ground in the middle of the shit.

Every support and intelligence they can get is fine, but the commander on the ground, responsible for his men, the guy with eyes on the target makes the decisions.

Generals set objectives, decide what needs to be done, but the "how" is up to the trained specialists who can see if the supposed target is a child or an old man in a wheelchair, and if he is an old man in a wheel chair if he might have an AK under the blanket or not.

 

Again, just my point of view. I know reality is often pretty much the opposite.

Edited May 13, 2015 by shagrat

[rcjonessnp175]

You are exactly right. I dont know how many times my self and fellow team members have Been "guided" by the brass watching us on the dam feed back at the talk. Sometimes it helps but most of the time it breaks concentration of the tactical situation on the ground. The future looks interesting with the tech in the works. Heck im a firm believer in the not to distant future everything will be drones from ground to air and no longer will humans be on the battlefield in the numbers it currently is. Will be way past my time but i see a future like that.

[wilky510]

Nothing wrong with him in my opinion. Most of what he says in video makes perfect sense.

The guy thought the F-15 was a total failure when it was being brought in IOC.

 

The guy thought the F-16 would be better without a radar and no BVR missiles, when on the other side of the coin you got an F-16 pilot that has flown from the F-15 to MiG-29 said he would rather they would upgrade the F-16 with a bigger radar than what is currently on the aircraft.

 

The guy wanted the F-16 never to be what it became today... an 'everything' fighter.

 

It's hard for people to take him seriously. Especially when his comments about 'stealth' being useless. I beg to differ, especially against tactical fighters (their radars i'm talking about).

 

I see the Maryland A-10's fly every other day over my house, (they were the first ones to transition to the C version) and still see them to this day, but i think their time has come, it's time to let go. I mean honestly, do you guys think an A-10 would be survivable in any modern environment?

[aaron886]

Yeah there's a reason why he was let out to pasture.

[tflash]

I mean honestly, do you guys think an A-10 would be survivable in any modern environment?

 

I follow you on Pierre Sprey, but where do you guys keep imagining this "modern environment" in which the A-10C would not be survivable?

In fact, it has proven to be survivable in ANY real conflict zone today. Faster fighters have proven to be just as vulnerable (certainly when you would add the so-called "mechanical failures" to the tally, which I won't).

 

No, really indeed the A-10C will not participate in a South-Asian sea battle. And no, it will not be tasked with suppressing the air defense network over Tehran nor Moskou. But while we all hope these conflicts will not materialise, unfortunately the 21st century has been populated with conflict all over. Sacrificing the protection of troops in real, present "danger close" in the realities of today to be better prepared for Armageddon is a false choice. You must be prepared for both types of conflict. Ditching a proven solution for a real problem doesn't seem smart to me.

[rcjonessnp175]

A10c can easily survive in an modern battlefield. It has its role just like every other aircraft. You don't win conflicts with Air power you win it with troops on the ground. That will never change. As long as that is the case we don't care about your perception of future conflicts. The A10 works best for us now, and the current mission set we are engaged in is going to last until we get an administration that is willing to take the gloves off and end the califate.

[wilky510]

I follow you on Pierre Sprey, but where do you guys keep imagining this "modern environment" in which the A-10C would not be survivable?

In fact, it has proven to be survivable in ANY real conflict zone today. Faster fighters have proven to be just as vulnerable (certainly when you would add the so-called "mechanical failures" to the tally, which I won't).

 

No, really indeed the A-10C will not participate in a South-Asian sea battle. And no, it will not be tasked with suppressing the air defense network over Tehran nor Moskou. But while we all hope these conflicts will not materialise, unfortunately the 21st century has been populated with conflict all over. Sacrificing the protection of troops in real, present "danger close" in the realities of today to be better prepared for Armageddon is a false choice. You must be prepared for both types of conflict. Ditching a proven solution for a real problem doesn't seem smart to me.

I respect your opinion and see where you're coming from. But from what i've read and heard in Kosovo with the A-10's being stuck at 30,000 feet the whole conflict makes the aircraft seem pretty dim when you could have an f-16, or even an F-35 at the same altitude flying faster and further.

 

Maybe i'm just misunderstanding you guys, but i honestly don't see the A-10 being on any frontlines in a modern battlefield, i think MANPAD's are more frightening for aircraft than anything today.

[shagrat]

. I mean honestly, do you guys think an A-10 would be survivable in any modern environment?

Let me ask a question in return.

Do you think an M1 AbramsTank stands a chance in the modern COIN battlefield? Or that the M-16A4 or SCAR-H Mk 17 assault rifles are utterly useless and not up to the task in a modern environment?

I haven't heard much about the new laser rifles or automatic homing gun ammunition lately, nor did I see anything that indicates an M1 battletank doesn't have a chance of survival against the new ISIS homemade IEDs... It's more that nobody is willing to allow MBTs to support ground troops against terrorists.

 

And the M-16 as well as the M1 Abrams is as old or new as the A-10 if I remember correct?

[shagrat]

I respect your opinion and see where you're coming from. But from what i've read and heard in Kosovo with the A-10's being stuck at 30,000 feet the whole conflict makes the aircraft seem pretty dim when you could have an f-16, or even an F-35 at the same altitude flying faster and further.

 

Maybe i'm just misunderstanding you guys, but i honestly don't see the A-10 being on any frontlines in a modern battlefield, i think MANPAD's are more frightening for aircraft than anything today.

The typical misconception of CAS. Loitertime vs speed, the A-10 performs brilliantly in its role as a CAS plane! When you stick it into a high altitude Bomber role without a targeting pod it gets useless.

Same if you use F-16 or F-22 as CAS.

Quick to be over the battlefield, quick to RTB... The talibs wait an hour or two lying low and the F-shit is RTB for sure. Another 30minutes pounding the troops with mortar and small arms until the next F-whatever arrives... Unless you can afford triple to quadruple the amount of F-xy than A-10s to pull off a release on station every 15-20 minutes.

 

Its how you make use of assets that make them shine: a drill CAN be used to punch a nail into a wall, but if you would use a hammer instead... :D

[Tirak]

Most A-10 ops are performed from high altitude to avoid MANPADs, when fighting from up there, it serves no real advantage. When down low to employ its gun, it is horrifically vulnerable to rather primative and cheap weapons. After all, recall what happened to the big, tough Russian Hinds when the US started providing the Mujaheddin with Stingers?

 

Seems to me it makes more sense to pinpoint target the enemy using your advanced integrated targeting system, then drop a guided glidebomb like the SDBII directly on top of them without ever having to put yourself in the position of having to risk a MANPAD up the tailpipe.

[shagrat]

Read my post above yours. It is not about high or low it is about being able to stay with the troops.

According to your argument there would never have been any need for an A-10, a AH-1 Cobra or the AH-64 Apache... F-104 Starfighters and F-16 as the "perfect" ground support... OK, at least for 15 to 20 minutes.

Now if you consider the costs of an A-10 flight supporting a ground platoon in bad guy territory vs. 4 flights of F-16 going to and fro we can see the real advantage of the A-10.

Not that you are alone with your perception, until Iraq even the USAF brass thought the A-10 to be a waste of money they could have better invested in another F-16. After Iraq the same guys had high praise for the "useless" plane, as it killed most of the armor alone, survived in SAM infested areas and even took on deep strike missions. And that was an A-10A! No TGP, no GPS, no TADS etc.

Edit: and if you read a bit about the Afghanistan part of the war on terror you quickly realize it doesn't matter if "theoretically" there may be a MANPAD around if you go to war. Flying in a conflict zone requires guts!

Last but not least, following your argument why did F-15E, F-16 and even B-1B Bombers fly "show-of-force" at 60ft over Taliban positions? You know the strike bombers that only fly at 30k feet and drop guided bombs?

 

That is the whole argument, reality and it's necessities is utterly different from doctrine and theoretical requirements in conflicts.

The A-10 did prove its worth in that specific role multiple times and currently the US have no other aircraft that could step into its shoes. In theory may be the F-35 but that needs to be seen for real first.

Edited May 14, 2015 by shagrat

[Tirak]

Read my post above yours. It is not about high or low it is about being able to stay with the troops.

According to your argument there would never have been any need for an A-10, a AH-1 Cobra or the AH-64 Apache... F-104 Starfighters and F-16 as the "perfect" ground support... OK, at least for 15 to 20 minutes.

Now if you consider the costs of an A-10 flight supporting a ground platoon in bad guy territory vs. 4 flights of F-16 going to and fro we can see the real advantage of the A-10.

Not that you are alone with your perception, until Iraq even the USAF brass thought the A-10 to be a waste of money they could have better invested in another F-16. After Iraq the same guys had high praise for the "useless" plane, as it killed most of the armor alone, survived in SAM infested areas and even took on deep strike missions. And that was an A-10A! No TGP, no GPS, no TADS etc.

Edit: and if you read a bit about the Afghanistan part of the war on terror you quickly realize it doesn't matter if "theoretically" there may be a MANPAD around if you go to war. Flying in a conflict zone requires guts!

Last but not least, following your argument why did F-15E, F-16 and even B-1B Bombers fly "show-of-force" at 60ft over Taliban positions? You know the strike bombers that only fly at 30k feet and drop guided bombs?

 

That is the whole argument, reality and it's necessities is utterly different from doctrine and theoretical requirements in conflicts.

The A-10 did prove its worth in that specific role multiple times and currently the US have no other aircraft that could step into its shoes. In theory may be the F-35 but that needs to be seen for real first.

 

If loiter time is your primary reason for keeping the A-10 around, then frankly your logic falls apart. Lighter, cheaper COIN aircraft can loiter longer, but I'll go to the extreme like you did and say that since Loiter time is the only stat that really matters, it's time to replace the A-10 with the B-52. It's a solid reliable proven aircraft with a loiter time that outstrips the smaller twin engine A-10, it's 8 engines offer better redundancy and its armament puts the A-10 to shame :noexpression:

 

Furthermore, Gulf War 1, when the A-10 was asked to operate in an environment where it faced actual SAMs, its combat losses were so high they were pulled from the front line. Also during that conflict, greatest armor kills were provided by the F-111 at 1500, not the A-10, which lagged behind by a third of that value.

[OutOnTheOP]

Read my post above yours. It is not about high or low it is about being able to stay with the troops.

According to your argument there would never have been any need for an A-10, a AH-1 Cobra or the AH-64 Apache... F-104 Starfighters and F-16 as the "perfect" ground support... OK, at least for 15 to 20 minutes.

 

Absolute rubbish, and a deliberate strawman. F-104 had no avionics or delivery systems for AG stores delivery. I believe the Germans equipped it for Mk80 series, but manual-release Mk80 versus SDBII is night and day. You might as well be comparing a crossbow to a minigun.

 

Something tells me the F-35 will have a ridiculously long loiter time at cruise speeds. The fuel fraction is enormous, and it has zero stores drag. It doesn't have to dash around at full throttle all the time.

 

Unlike the A-10, which falls out of the sky UNLESS kept damn near full throttle; particularly if carrying any kind of ordnance

 

Now if you consider the costs of an A-10 flight supporting a ground platoon in bad guy territory vs. 4 flights of F-16 going to and fro we can see the real advantage of the A-10.

 

Until you consider that the A-10s will be shot down at a higher rate. And at that point, you're losing the cost of not only the aircraft, but the pilot (his training investment) and an AWFUL lot of sorties to attempt CSAR.

 

Not that you are alone with your perception, until Iraq even the USAF brass thought the A-10 to be a waste of money they could have better invested in another F-16. After Iraq the same guys had high praise for the "useless" plane, as it killed most of the armor alone, survived in SAM infested areas and even took on deep strike missions. And that was an A-10A! No TGP, no GPS, no TADS etc.

 

Not true, the F-111 killed more armor, with less sorties, and that wasn't even the primary mission of the F-111 in Desert Shield/ Desert Storm. The A-10 did NOT survive in SAM areas; it took significant losses to quite low-performance SA-9/SA-13 and SA-7 in low-IADS-density areas over tactical positions. Against modern systems (or even higher-performance '60s era systems like SA6 or later-model SA2), it would be meat on the table.

 

Also, it was not the USAF that suddenly realized the A-10 was a tits machine and decided to keep it: it was under pressure from Congress, who were themselves pressured by popular opinion. Just like now, it had nothing to do with actual capabilities, and had everything to do with Congress critters seeking public approval ratings.

Edited May 14, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[rcjonessnp175]

The Hogs days are far from over. With its current suite it's far more capable than its first entrance into the Middle East. People who say it's time for it to go away obviously don't serve with it flying over head. Nothing on the battlefield brings more fear with just the sound of an over flight. It's what we need currently and will continue to need even if the mission set flexes.

[OutOnTheOP]

The Hogs days are far from over. With its current suite it's far more capable than its first entrance into the Middle East. People who say it's time for it to go away obviously don't serve with it flying over head. Nothing on the battlefield brings more fear with just the sound of an over flight. It's what we need currently and will continue to need even if the mission set flexes.

 

Bollocks, I do, and I think it's not half the machine it's made out to be. It has much the same strengths and weaknesses as the AC-130, and, as I'm sure you know, the reasonable scenarios for application of an AC-130 are somewhat limited.

[shagrat]

If loiter time is your primary reason for keeping the A-10 around, then frankly your logic falls apart. Lighter, cheaper COIN aircraft can loiter longer, but I'll go to the extreme like you did and say that since Loiter time is the only stat that really matters, it's time to replace the A-10 with the B-52. It's a solid reliable proven aircraft with a loiter time that outstrips the smaller twin engine A-10, it's 8 engines offer better redundancy and its armament puts the A-10 to shame :noexpression:

 

Furthermore, Gulf War 1, when the A-10 was asked to operate in an environment where it faced actual SAMs, its combat losses were so high they were pulled from the front line. Also during that conflict, greatest armor kills were provided by the F-111 at 1500, not the A-10, which lagged behind by a third of that value.

Of course it is not "just" loiter time, from that point of view a Zeppelin or Balloon would be ideal...

Yep, the F-111 was first, but the argument was that F-16 or similar fast jets could do the job of an A-10, as good as an A-10, so we don't need it anymore. I cannot say if the F-35 can actually replace the A-10 and do its job proper, today. From what I've seen and read the F-35 is a jack of all trades, specialist at nothing, which often isn't a good idea...

 

And about the B-52, yep I had to smile there. I guess we both know why a B-52 isn't going to be a CAS aircraft soon.

At least not by today's ROE and regulations ;)

 

The thing is, the A-10 is getting old in terms of airworthiness, maintenance and spare parts. That is why it will be retired sooner than later, yet it is not that the A-10 is not up to its task, can't do the job proper or there are lots of planes available that perform better in that role.

 

Unfortunately that will sooner than later leave a gap in the support capabilities for grunts on the ground, that can't be filled by UAVs easily.

In the end soldiers on the ground will pay for that gap in blood. Sad, but that's how it is.

Edited May 14, 2015 by shagrat

[rcjonessnp175]

Bollocks, I do, and I think it's not half the machine it's made out to be. It has much the same strengths and weaknesses as the AC-130, and, as I'm sure you know, the reasonable scenarios for application of an AC-130 are somewhat limited.

 

Well like I mentioned to you before, your experiences are much different than mine. I can tell you from my perspective it is what it's made out to be and more. Truth is nobody cares anymore, for most think the war is over when it's just beginning.

Edited May 14, 2015 by rcjonessnp175

[NineLine]

Lets try and steer it back towards news and info about the A-10 guys....