A-10C Discussion

[Dejjvid]

The hard part would probably incorporate a new SOI. Besides figuring out how to sync head movement with all the symbols.

[Snoopy]

The hard part would probably incorporate a new SOI. Besides figuring out how to sync head movement with all the symbols.

 

Not to mention the correct HUD symbology.

[Zad Fnark]

A-10C Discussion

 

A-10 has had its day.

 

http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/

[rcjonessnp175]

Again it's a arm chair experts. The combat facts in the current mission set that we are engaged in have clearly shown the A10 is the platform that works.. Talk about a so called ww3 scenario all you want, the A10 will still have it place helping us the ground folks close the distance and destroy the enemy. Go ahead and continue spreading your opinions about the topic all you want.n fact is until you come get some combat experience and actually factually know what is what in combat, what you all say is just inexperienced opinions. See this all the time on these forums when real world operators try to set the facts straight but get shot down by wiki what if experts.

Fact, the a10c is the dominate airframe for our current mission set compared to f18, f16, f35. This is factual on the ground truth. The last 13 years of combat has more than proven the capabilities of the hog in the current mission set.

[NineLine]

Again it's a arm chair experts. The combat facts in the current mission set that we are engaged in have clearly shown the A10 is the platform that works.. Talk about a so called ww3 scenario all you want, the A10 will still have it place helping us the ground folks close the distance and destroy the enemy. Go ahead and continue spreading your opinions about the topic all you want.n fact is until you come get some combat experience and actually factually know what is what in combat, what you all say is just inexperienced opinions. See this all the time on these forums when real world operators try to set the facts straight but get shot down by wiki what if experts.

Fact, the a10c is the dominate airframe for our current mission set compared to f18, f16, f35. This is factual on the ground truth. The last 13 years of combat has more than proven the capabilities of the hog in the current mission set.

 

You make it sound like the A-10 fought all recent wars on its own, fact is it is a component of the US military, yes it preformed well, but its but one piece and a larger machine.

[Exorcet]

Again it's a arm chair experts. The combat facts in the current mission set that we are engaged in have clearly shown the A10 is the platform that works.. Talk about a so called ww3 scenario all you want, the A10 will still have it place helping us the ground folks close the distance and destroy the enemy. Go ahead and continue spreading your opinions about the topic all you want.n fact is until you come get some combat experience and actually factually know what is what in combat, what you all say is just inexperienced opinions. See this all the time on these forums when real world operators try to set the facts straight but get shot down by wiki what if experts.

Fact, the a10c is the dominate airframe for our current mission set compared to f18, f16, f35. This is factual on the ground truth. The last 13 years of combat has more than proven the capabilities of the hog in the current mission set.

 

 

Doesn't change the fact that the A-10 hasn't seen combat in a "WWIII" type scenario and has poor performance in some areas that might be very important in such a case.

 

It's not like people are arguing that the A-10 is useless. It's clearly doing well in its current role. That wouldn't help it last more than .00005 seconds against a fighter or high performance SAM.

[rcjonessnp175]

You make it sound like the A-10 fought all recent wars on its own, fact is it is a component of the US military, yes it preformed well, but its but one piece and a larger machine.

 

And your trying to tell me this? I've called in A10s on tgt and have had them provide cas for many of our Oda's. I'm very much aware of the full dynamics of what is what on our current battlefield. A10 is a a piece but it is very big piece of the pie for us in special operations. I could go on about how useful the apaches, spooky, and other assets you know not of. But we are talking about the A10 and f35 I do believe.

People around here should be more open to correction when those with actual experience try to educate and correct incorrect mindsets. Military community within this sim community is quite large. But I'm beginning to see why they avoid the Ed forums. Your loss

[NineLine]

And your trying to tell me this? I've called in A10s on tgt and have had them provide cas for many of our Oda's. I'm very much aware of the full dynamics of what is what on our current battlefield. A10 is a a piece but it is very big piece of the pie for us in special operations. I could go on about how useful the apaches, spooky, and other assets you know not of. But we are talking about the A10 and f35 I do believe.

People around here should be more open to correction when those with actual experience try to educate and correct incorrect mindsets. Military community within this sim community is quite large. But I'm beginning to see why they avoid the Ed forums. Your loss

 

If you cant have a mature discussion and share your vast experience in a mature manner, and appear to be unable to see anything but your point of view based on a biased, then yes... my 'loss'... the fact is that the F-35 isnt a straight 1 for 1 replacement for anything, so a discussion about the F-35 replacing the A-10 is sort of silly and out of context to what is actually going on...

[rcjonessnp175]

No kidding, ya combat experience makes you biased. For a good reason. I'm more than happy to share what I can share. Theirs others out their with more knowledge and experience with the actual aircraft it self. I just know from my experience in combat that the a10c is a very highly regarded airframe amongst our ranks. I can ask any random Oda member on their experience and preference of cas platform and it's always the Hog. So yes we are very much biased due to the mission success and lives saved experiences that we have had. I've always said the f35 is a cool bird. Certain scenarios it will be much weaker in compare to the hog. Current mission set and last 13 years of scenarios on the battlefield the hog has served us well.

[NineLine]

No kidding, ya combat experience makes you biased. For a good reason. I'm more than happy to share what I can share. Theirs others out their with more knowledge and experience with the actual aircraft it self. I just know from my experience in combat that the a10c is a very highly regarded airframe amongst our ranks. I can ask any random Oda member on their experience and preference of cas platform and it's always the Hog. So yes we are very much biased due to the mission success and lives saved experiences that we have had. I've always said the f35 is a cool bird. Certain scenarios it will be much weaker in compare to the hog. Current mission set and last 13 years of scenarios on the battlefield the hog has served us well.

 

No one is really arguing any of that, no one is denying the fact that it did the job it was supposed to do well. But even these hack militaries are going to get more advanced, eventually it wont be viable anymore. Maybe not today... maybe not tomorrow... but sooner or later... Its not wrong for the US and other militaries to start thinking like that, the battlefield is always evolving, and I am sure I dont need to tell you that.

[aaron886]

I can't believe people actually are stating the a10c is an outdated aircraft. The one in dcs world yes. The one currently in real world splitting Isis skulls is not. Wiki commandos dear lord.

 

Great aircraft. Great capabilities and suitably upgraded to last well beyond its expected lifespan. But outdated? Definitely. It was designed when the low altitude SAM threat was nonexistent.

 

If the American military is being gradually reformed as world COIN police then let's change nothing, but I'd rather our military be equipped and trained to fight a matched adversary should the need arise. The A-10 is reaching the limit of its theoretical tactical use. I have no doubt it can continue to be dominant if it is facing tribal barbarians, but I'm more concerned about a modernized force. The priority should be making sure pilots are well trained and have the flight hours to perform the CAS mission in their platform, A-10 or not. I'd love to see the A-10 continue to fly but the Air Force has got to look forward.

Edited April 22, 2015 by aaron886

[rcjonessnp175]

No one is really arguing any of that, no one is denying the fact that it did the job it was supposed to do well. But even these hack militaries are going to get more advanced, eventually it wont be viable anymore. Maybe not today... maybe not tomorrow... but sooner or later... Its not wrong for the US and other militaries to start thinking like that, the battlefield is always evolving, and I am sure I dont need to tell you that.

 

Yes of course and I very much agree. Stuff they where making us due 17 years ago was complete stupidity compared to what we know today. Evolve or die.

[rcjonessnp175]

Great aircraft. Great capabilities and suitably upgraded to last well beyond its expected lifespan. But outdated? Definitely.

 

If the American military is being gradually reformed as world COIN police then let's change nothing, but I'd rather our military be equipped and trained to fight a matched adversary should the need arise. The A-10 is reaching the limit of its theoretical tactical use. I have no doubt it can continue to be dominant if it is facing tribal barbarians, but I'm more concerned about a modernized force. The priority should be making sure pilots are well trained and have the flight hours to perform the CAS mission in their platform, A-10 or not.

 

Agree, but also take into account their is publicly known airframes and well ones people don't know about. Our military strategy is always years ahead of what is publicly displayed guess that's a better way of putting it.

[aaron886]

Our military strategy is always years ahead of what is publicly displayed guess that's a better way of putting it.

 

I sure hope so. I don't always believe that. If that's the case then no one should worry about the A-10 being retired! :smilewink:

[sobek]

The article does raise some good points. The role the A-10 was designed for doesn't exist anymore and the question now is whether planes specifically designed for COIN might be able to do equally well at a fraction of the cost.

[rcjonessnp175]

It's always a hard pill for us active duty folks to swallow. That pill being cost savings. Never a good time to serve. Will be interesting to see what else changes with our air platforms.

[sobek]

Did the USAF evaluate smaller COIN aircraft as possible replacement for the A-10?

[rcjonessnp175]

From my knowledge it's an ongoing process. snoopy would probably know 100 percent but from what I have seen all sorts of various different Aircraft and drone platforms have been talked about. That's all way above our heads in the scheme of things unfortunately.

[tflash]

The A-10 has proven in combat to be less, not more vulnerable to the manpads threat than faster jets like F-16/F-15.

 

What we do know for sure is that the fuel-filled plastic jet F-35, if it ever were to need to go below the clouds to actually see anything on the ground, will be the most vulnerable airframe ever.

 

So really, it will not go below the clouds and so will leave the troops on their own, period. (While currently Marine Harriers are exactly training to do that: go below the clouds when necessary).

 

Airframe design sure evolved since the 70s, but that doesn't mean it is easy to come up with a better design than A-10. It was just the right airframe. Door handles didn't evolve much since ages either, because they simply have the right design.

 

I think the F-35 is a very, very good aircraft that will redefine air combat, and sure it is your better Hornet, Viper and Harrier. But it simply isn't an A-10 replacement. Simply not.

 

Hey, I like Boeing 787 also very much, and my bicycle; they are really super, but just like the F-35, they are not an A-10 replacement.

 

I hope the A-10 will get the chance to retire before it really gets obsolete or simply starts falling apart, and a good solution comes up for the troops.

[NineLine]

Its not a 1 for 1 replacement, so most of what you said doesnt make any sense... unless your goal was to bash the F-35, then I get what you are trying to do...

 

The A-10 has proven in combat to be less, not more vulnerable to the manpads threat than faster jets like F-16/F-15.

 

What we do know for sure is that the fuel-filled plastic jet F-35, if it ever were to need to go below the clouds to actually see anything on the ground, will be the most vulnerable airframe ever.

 

So really, it will not go below the clouds and so will leave the troops on their own, period. (While currently Marine Harriers are exactly training to do that: go below the clouds when necessary).

 

Airframe design sure evolved since the 70s, but that doesn't mean it is easy to come up with a better design than A-10. It was just the right airframe. Door handles didn't evolve much since ages either, because they simply have the right design.

 

I think the F-35 is a very, very good aircraft that will redefine air combat, and sure it is your better Hornet, Viper and Harrier. But it simply isn't an A-10 replacement. Simply not.

 

Hey, I like Boeing 787 also very much, and my bicycle; they are really super, but just like the F-35, they are not an A-10 replacement.

 

I hope the A-10 will get the chance to retire before it really gets obsolete or simply starts falling apart, and a good solution comes up for the troops.

[Snoopy]

Did the USAF evaluate smaller COIN aircraft as possible replacement for the A-10?

 

No, they've "talked" about it recently but it's just talk nothing serious.

[OutOnTheOP]

The A-10 has proven in combat to be less, not more vulnerable to the manpads threat than faster jets like F-16/F-15.

 

That is patently untrue. If you look at Desert Storm data, you will find that more A-10 were shot down than any other aircraft (tied with Tornado, which was doing exceptionally hazardous OCA low-level airfield strikes). 6 total losses for the A-10. The next-highest loss rate was for the Harrier, with 4 losses (funny, another subsonic CAS aircraft? Who would have guessed!), then the F-16 with three losses (which was also operating further north, around Baghdad, in a much more dangerous threat environment). Two each of F-15E, F/A-18, and A-6E. ZERO shoot-downs for the F-111, which killed more tanks than the A-10, while flying less sorties, and oh by the way did it with the kind of high and fast precision ordnance CAS (really BAI) tactics that the F-35 would use.

 

Then compare the raw losses to the actual sorties flown. F-111 flew over 5,000 sorties. F-16 flew 13,340 sorties. A-10 flew 8,000 sorties.

 

So the F-111 had a loss rate of zero (or one per 2,500 sorties if you count pilot error/ controlled flight into terrain). F-16 had a loss rate of one per 4,446 sorties. The A-10 had a loss rate of one per 1,333 sorties; almost four times higher.

 

Please do not make unfounded claims.

 

What we do know for sure is that the fuel-filled plastic jet F-35, if it ever were to need to go below the clouds to actually see anything on the ground, will be the most vulnerable airframe ever.

 

Hyperbole much?

 

Besides, who says it would NEED to go below the clouds? SAR penetrates clouds just fine, and is more than adequate to derive targeting data for PGM delivery onto point targets. If it's good enough for Apache Longbow to hit tanks (incidentally, they say the resolution is so good you can see individual strands on barbwire fencing), it's good enough for F-35 to hit tanks.

Edited April 23, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Dudikoff]

That is patently untrue. If you look at Desert Storm data, you will find that more A-10 were shot down than any other aircraft (tied with Tornado, which was doing exceptionally hazardous OCA low-level airfield strikes). 6 total losses for the A-10. The next-highest loss rate was for the Harrier, with 4 losses (funny, another subsonic CAS aircraft? Who would have guessed!), then the F-16 with three losses (which was also operating further north, around Baghdad, in a much more dangerous threat environment). Two each of F-15E, F/A-18, and A-6E. ZERO shoot-downs for the F-111, which killed more tanks than the A-10, while flying less sorties, and oh by the way did it with the kind of high and fast precision ordnance CAS (really BAI) tactics that the F-35 would use.

 

Then compare the raw losses to the actual sorties flown. F-111 flew over 5,000 sorties. F-16 flew 13,340 sorties. A-10 flew 8,000 sorties.

 

So the F-111 had a loss rate of zero (or one per 2,500 sorties if you count pilot error/ controlled flight into terrain). F-16 had a loss rate of one per 4,446 sorties. The A-10 had a loss rate of one per 1,333 sorties; almost four times higher.

 

Please do not make unfounded claims.

 

I see potential problems here. You can't really compare F-111 and A-10 sorties and losses since they were doing different missions (the F-111's kept at medium heights flying AFTER the IADS was destroyed and thus above the remaining threats). IIRC, the number of tanks destroyed by F-111's was shown to be vastly exaggerated. And Tornado's only flew those dangerous missions during the first few days or so.

[Darkwolf]

Another thing is the doctrine :

 

Do you want to try to blow as much tanks as you can, or do you want to wipe-out bataillons HQ and rear-line, without being detected ?

 

Tanks won't go far is the whole support line is burning. I don't see the A10C capable of doing BAI.

 

 

--> They are updating B-52 to PGM capability.

--> Helos are more than capable of taking CAS missions

--> A10 is unable to do anything else than CAS.

 

You don't need to look at individual stats, making hazardous comparison between the gun caliber of a plane. You need to take the whole picture.

 

The A10 is just overkill for COIN mission (for one A10 you field a squadron of Tucanos) - it's definitively hazardous to deploy on force on force mission.

Remember that Desert Storm was about shooting sitting ducks in the Desert. Not going close and dirty in woodland area.

 

 

I love the A10 and I would prefer it to stay on the air. In the meantime, I don't see where it's still any use.

[OutOnTheOP]

I see potential problems here. You can't really compare F-111 and A-10 sorties and losses since they were doing different missions (the F-111's kept at medium heights flying AFTER the IADS was destroyed and thus above the remaining threats). IIRC, the number of tanks destroyed by F-111's was shown to be vastly exaggerated. And Tornado's only flew those dangerous missions during the first few days or so.

 

If you look at the dates the A-10 losses occurred, it's quite clear that they didn't really kick up operations until after the SEAD campaign was well on it's way. However, they still took more losses, with less sorties, than the F-16s. Full stop.

 

If you want to argue that the airspace the A-10s operated in was somehow less deadly, with lower density of less lethal systems than the airspace around key control nodes like Baghdad, well... good luck coming up with a convincing argument there.

 

As to the argument that "well, the F-111 were at higher altitude, so of course they took less losses", THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT. They flew a higher altitude profile, did the mission as or more effectively, and took less losses.

 

As far as inflating F-111 claims, I'm MUCH more likely to believe the claims coming out of aircraft that are making PGM drops with sensor pods (and can therefore see and RECORD the munition striking the target), over those of a single-seater dropping largely unguided ordnance that they never actually see impact because they're too busy with egress maneuvers. But if you're arguing that F-111 probably counted kills against tanks that were already killed... maybe. The same could be said of the A-10, and considering that the F-111 was killing tanks with munitions with much larger explosive payload, you would expect greater visual evidence of a kill from the F-111 sorties, and lower risk of needless re-attack.

 

If you're seriously arguing that the airspace in which the A-10 operated in Desert Shield/ Desert Storm was more dangerous than that in which the F-111 operated... well, I'm just gonna have to call you a fool.

Edited April 23, 2015 by OutOnTheOP