A-10C Discussion

[NineLine]

[Sierra99]

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.

 

The first statement simply isn't supported by facts. The A-10 flew over 8,100 sorties with total of 6 losses during Desert Storm. 3 to AAA, 3 to SAMs. (1 MANPAD, 2 Radar systems) saying the A-10 was pulled from service because of these incidents is simply ludicrous.

 

The second statistic was driven more by operational conciderations than aircraft capabilities. Since the majority of the Iraqi tank force were half buried in earthen berms...they were static targets easy targets for F-111s and GBU-12s. Using F-111s to kill non maneuvering static targets, released the A-10s to other mission such as CAS and hunting scuds being shuffled around in the desert with F-15s.

 

Finally, compare sortie rates and mission capable rates, the A-10 flew almost twice as many sorties as the Ardvarks with maintained a higher mission capable rate.

[Sierra99]

Huh...well whadya know...

 

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/Air-Force-to-delay-a-10/125105/

[Sweep]

The first statement simply isn't supported by facts. The A-10 flew over 8,100 sorties with total of 6 losses during Desert Storm. 3 to AAA, 3 to SAMs. (1 MANPAD, 2 Radar systems) saying the A-10 was pulled from service because of these incidents is simply ludicrous.

 

The second statistic was driven more by operational conciderations than aircraft capabilities. Since the majority of the Iraqi tank force were half buried in earthen berms...they were static targets easy targets for F-111s and GBU-12s. Using F-111s to kill non maneuvering static targets, released the A-10s to other mission such as CAS and hunting scuds being shuffled around in the desert with F-15s.

 

Finally, compare sortie rates and mission capable rates, the A-10 flew almost twice as many sorties as the Ardvarks with maintained a higher mission capable rate.

 

The A-10 was pulled back a bit in GW1 because they were taking a lot of hits, not to mention mission creep...

 

Source for that is General Horner, from 'Every Man a Tiger', Tom Clancy.

[shagrat]

Huh...well whadya know...

 

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/Air-Force-to-delay-a-10/125105/

Anbody really surprised? ...what I don't understand is, why don't they use the "superior" F-35 against ISIS? It should have better loitertimes, systems, everything according to some posts.

Or isn't it still not available in larger numbers?

 

I especially love the "...is key to the war against ISIS" part.

So the totally outdated, obsolete, useless A-10s will once more save the day? :D :D :D

[Basher54321]

The A-10 was pulled back a bit in GW1 because they were taking a lot of hits, not to mention mission creep...

 

Source for that is General Horner, from 'Every Man a Tiger', Tom Clancy.

 

Yes there is a direct quote somewhere from AirForceMag - seemed to imply it was due to amount getting damaged and sitting on the ramp - Smallwood also mentions this in "Warthog" IIRC.

[Sweep]

Anbody really surprised? ...what I don't understand is, why don't they use the "superior" F-35 against ISIS? It should have better loitertimes, systems, everything according to some posts.

Or isn't it still not available in larger numbers?

 

I especially love the "...is key to the war against ISIS" part.

So the totally outdated, obsolete, useless A-10s will once more save the day? :D :D :D

 

The F-35 isn't needed to go bomb undefended crap in the middle of nowhere (in US service, anyway). Not to mention all of them are still in testing/development, yeah yeah the B is IOC and whatever...still not needed. I think the loiter time is a non-factor, mostly, because of tanking...Its the transit time that usually hurts.

 

BTW, who says the A-10 is useless? Its simply not something one'd like to defend an SA-20 in. :)

[Griffon26]

also found a Tornado one but dont know which type.

 

http://pano.dynamicms.de/tornado/

[SharpeXB]

Air Force to keep A-10 flying

 

(CNN) The Warthog will continue to fly.

 

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter this week confirmed what had been rumored for months: The Air Force's ground attack jet, the inelegant but well-armed and well-armored A-10 Thunderbolt, nicknamed the "Warthog," will not face retirement until at least at least six years. :thumbup:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/air-force-to-keep-a-10-flying/index.html

[SkateZilla]

its been confirmed for several weeks now.

 

How many airframes have 6 years of life left in them?

[hansangb]

I'm sure they will kill it once Syria cools down. The bottom line is that AF considers supporting the Army/Marines as a job that's beneath them. And the sad thing is that AF has *no* interest in developing a new platform for CAS.

[Tirak]

I'm sure they will kill it once Syria cools down. The bottom line is that AF considers supporting the Army/Marines as a job that's beneath them. And the sad thing is that AF has *no* interest in developing a new platform for CAS.

 

Oh come on, not this again. :doh:

 

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part.html

Edited February 5, 2016 by NineLine
Edited for 1.1

[hansangb]

Tirak,

Have you ever had to call for CAS? I have. Not in combat, but in training. The difference between a slow flying aircraft and fast movers is *startling*. I don't buy into the argument about AF/Army splitting etc. Don't care, don't know.

 

All I care about is physics. Slow moving air craft is preferred when you're danger close. I don't care if they shelf the A10. All I care is that they have a capable plane that is designed for CAS. A10 *is* old. A10 *should* be shelved. Every aging aircraft gets shelved. F14's, A6's, you name it. The problem is that AF does not, will not develop the next generation CAS plane.

 

And really, (IMHO) it's just chance that A10's became such capable CAS plane. It was only designed to kill tanks. And most tank battles were not meant to be fought danger close. After the Fulda Gap became a non factor, it became *the* CAS platform.

 

What the AF Master Sergeant wrote in the blog you posted is laughable. To Wit:

 

1. Israeli successes with the F-16 in the Osirak Reactor Strike (air-to-ground) and the Bekaa Valley (air-to-air) “reenergized proponents of fast multi-role fighters”.

 

WHAT?!? When is bombing a reactor CAS? Where were the friendlies danger close to the reactor? No one is arguing that bombs can hit dams. What I'm arguing is do it when Infantry is danger close, and the fast mover is going fast - like they are wont to do.

 

2. The emergence of the Army’s Air-Land Battle doctrine which “envisioned a faster and freer-flowing battlespace without a traditional battle line”. This was a doctrine that clearly favored use of a faster aircraft and operations that were less reliant on air-ground coordination.

 

WHAT!?! Do you know how fast Bradley's and M1 MBTs travel? Slower than stall speed of *any* aircraft. And light Infantry can move about 4MPH. BTW, this is the argument for AH64 "Apache's can do everything A10's can do" Well, Apache's can't fly 700KMH. If *you* were waiting for CAS, 300 vs 700KMH will matter. Also, by that logic, who needs artillery support if the Army can move "so fast"

 

 

3. The discovery that the A-10’s structural design life was significantly less-than-specified, and that would require remedy either via an extensive and expensive modification program and/or replacement of much of the A-10’s structure or the development of a replacement aircraft far earlier than anticipated.

 

 

What!?! You mean like they had to strengthen F15's (The darling of the AF) landing gear? Name one aircraft that didn't have a defect in one way shape or form?

 

My preference is to field a newer CAS platform. But if you ask the AF, the seemingly insane, answer is...F16's, F15's and F35s are multi-roled AC and is capable of CAS. Just calling it multi-roled doesn't make it so. Not when you're on the receiving end of harms way. This is one of the reasons why A10 pilots use natural TRPs to avoid friendly fire. Things that fast movers cannot see because they aren't designed to fly close to the ground.

 

Making aspersions that the Air Force ‘doesn’t want to do Close Air Support’ because it has sought (and seeks) to perform the mission using resources more survivable than a relatively ‘low and slow’ platform such as the A-10 says more about the ignorance of what is necessary in performing the CAS mission by those making such accusations than anything else.

 

 

The ignorance is an AF NCO that never had to low crawl making statements like this. Low and Slow is EXACTLY the reason why it's perfect for CAS when TIC is danger close. A10 Pilots use rivers, walls, fences, houses, streets, to find out where *not* to shoot. You can't do that when you're a fast mover.

 

 

And finally. "General Chuck Horner, the 'Air Boss' in Desert Storm, gets to have the last word on whether the A-10 or an A-10 'like' platform qualifies as the 'best' CAS tool in the future (LINK):"

 

What!?! AF general who never faced danger close situation gets to have the last word? Wrong Answer. It's the Infantry platoon leaders and company commanders who get to decide. It's the squad and team leaders who decide. It's the A-Team leader that decides. Not even Army battalion commanders should make the call because they can be too far removed from the FEBA.

Edited February 5, 2016 by hansangb

[Bullfrog_]

Oh come on, not this again. :doh:

 

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part.html

 

 

Surprise to see an ELP post from you

Edited February 5, 2016 by NineLine
edit for 1.1 quote

[Sweep]

Oh the great "CAS means aircraft is close to ground" arguments.

 

Obviously the A-10 PE upgrades are just oh so unnecessary if the mk1 eyeball is the worlds best targeting pod! And you get two of them per jet!!!!!!

 

:doh:

[hansangb]

Surprise to see an ELP post from you

 

Emerson, Lake and Palmer? :helpsmilie: What's ELP?

[Tirak]

Tirak,

Have you ever had to call for CAS? I have. Not in combat, but in training. The difference between a slow flying aircraft and fast movers is *startling*. I don't buy into the argument about AF/Army splitting etc. Don't care, don't know.

 

All I care about is physics. Slow moving air craft is preferred when you're danger close. I don't care if they shelf the A10. All I care is that they have a capable plane that is designed for CAS. A10 *is* old. A10 *should* be shelved. Every aging aircraft gets shelved. F14's, A6's, you name it. The problem is that AF does not, will not develop the next generation CAS plane.

 

This is a load of bollocks. The only reason why a slow platform was preferred was because it gave more time to understand the situation as you came in. This argument worked back when the primary instrument to identify targets was the human eye, this is no longer the case. Future aircraft, and yes in this case the F-35 have gone to great lengths to improve situational and focused awareness using technology. The idea that the Air Force does not care about CAS is a laughable assertion that relies on the emotion of the speaker, and not fact. The F-16 series of fighters was constantly upgraded and changed, against the advice of certain 'analysts' in order to make it a more capable ground attack platform to support the troops. The entire F-15E program represents a conscious effort on the part of the Air Force to give a tactical bomber that could support the troops, in addition to other missions. And do you possibly think that the F-35's DAS system is there for Air to Air combat primarily? In an aircraft with an AESA radar you think DAS was included because we needed to see what we were shooting at in high definition infrared? No, it was specifically built in so that the F-35 would have a powerful sensor system to ensure it could provide pin point support on the battlefield with weapons such as the SDB, a weapon that if you believe the Air Force is only interested in strategic targets makes absolutely zero sense, or with its 25mm cannon, which will have in the near future laser guided bullets, without lighting up friendly infantry columns.

 

The idea of the A-10 or some other slow mud mover being the ideal aircraft for CAS survives only as long as it takes for the person to understand the changes in sensor technology and the progression of weapons systems that the Air Force uses that moves towards smaller, less collateral damage and more precise weapons, that exist. Fun fact for you. The A-10, the slowest combat aircraft in our arsenal, is also responsible for the most friendly deaths because its out of date design doesn't lend itself to the latest in information gaining sensors. Out of date technology costs lives. On the battlefield, Information saves lives and kills enemies, not your Mach number.

 

And really, (IMHO) it's just chance that A10's became such capable CAS plane. It was only designed to kill tanks. And most tank battles were not meant to be fought danger close. After the Fulda Gap became a non factor, it became *the* CAS platform.

The A-10 was out of date for anti tank work since the day it rolled out of the factory in the 70s. That point was ruthlessly driven home by the fact that during ODS, it was the F-111 that killed the most tanks.

 

CAS is a mission, not a platform, and technology has changed the way we accomplish that mission.

[hansangb]

On paper, you are absolutely right (well, except the laser guided bullets). In reality, it's never that clean cut. Technology is never that fail safe. The proof is this thread. Why did they bring back the A10? Because fanboys clamored for it? Or because it's effective weapon system within the confines of its given mission?

[aaron886]

If you don't at least think it's both, you're crazy. Funding is politics.

[Enduro14]

Tirak,

Have you ever had to call for CAS? I have. Not in combat, but in training. The difference between a slow flying aircraft and fast movers is *startling*. I don't buy into the argument about AF/Army splitting etc. Don't care, don't know.

 

All I care about is physics. Slow moving air craft is preferred when you're danger close. I don't care if they shelf the A10. All I care is that they have a capable plane that is designed for CAS. A10 *is* old. A10 *should* be shelved. Every aging aircraft gets shelved. F14's, A6's, you name it. The problem is that AF does not, will not develop the next generation CAS plane.

 

And really, (IMHO) it's just chance that A10's became such capable CAS plane. It was only designed to kill tanks. And most tank battles were not meant to be fought danger close. After the Fulda Gap became a non factor, it became *the* CAS platform.

 

What the AF Master Sergeant wrote in the blog you posted is laughable. To Wit:

 

1. Israeli successes with the F-16 in the Osirak Reactor Strike (air-to-ground) and the Bekaa Valley (air-to-air) “reenergized proponents of fast multi-role fighters”.

 

WHAT?!? When is bombing a reactor CAS? Where were the friendlies danger close to the reactor? No one is arguing that bombs can hit dams. What I'm arguing is do it when Infantry is danger close, and the fast mover is going fast - like they are wont to do.

 

2. The emergence of the Army’s Air-Land Battle doctrine which “envisioned a faster and freer-flowing battlespace without a traditional battle line”. This was a doctrine that clearly favored use of a faster aircraft and operations that were less reliant on air-ground coordination.

 

WHAT!?! Do you know how fast Bradley's and M1 MBTs travel? Slower than stall speed of *any* aircraft. And light Infantry can move about 4MPH. BTW, this is the argument for AH64 "Apache's can do everything A10's can do" Well, Apache's can't fly 700KMH. If *you* were waiting for CAS, 300 vs 700KMH will matter. Also, by that logic, who needs artillery support if the Army can move "so fast"

 

 

3. The discovery that the A-10’s structural design life was significantly less-than-specified, and that would require remedy either via an extensive and expensive modification program and/or replacement of much of the A-10’s structure or the development of a replacement aircraft far earlier than anticipated.

 

 

What!?! You mean like they had to strengthen F15's (The darling of the AF) landing gear? Name one aircraft that didn't have a defect in one way shape or form?

 

My preference is to field a newer CAS platform. But if you ask the AF, the seemingly insane, answer is...F16's, F15's and F35s are multi-roled AC and is capable of CAS. Just calling it multi-roled doesn't make it so. Not when you're on the receiving end of harms way. This is one of the reasons why A10 pilots use natural TRPs to avoid friendly fire. Things that fast movers cannot see because they aren't designed to fly close to the ground.

 

Making aspersions that the Air Force ‘doesn’t want to do Close Air Support’ because it has sought (and seeks) to perform the mission using resources more survivable than a relatively ‘low and slow’ platform such as the A-10 says more about the ignorance of what is necessary in performing the CAS mission by those making such accusations than anything else.

 

 

The ignorance is an AF NCO that never had to low crawl making statements like this. Low and Slow is EXACTLY the reason why it's perfect for CAS when TIC is danger close. A10 Pilots use rivers, walls, fences, houses, streets, to find out where *not* to shoot. You can't do that when you're a fast mover.

 

 

And finally. "General Chuck Horner, the 'Air Boss' in Desert Storm, gets to have the last word on whether the A-10 or an A-10 'like' platform qualifies as the 'best' CAS tool in the future (LINK):"

 

What!?! AF general who never faced danger close situation gets to have the last word? Wrong Answer. It's the Infantry platoon leaders and company commanders who get to decide. It's the squad and team leaders who decide. It's the A-Team leader that decides. Not even Army battalion commanders should make the call because they can be too far removed from the FEBA.

 

 

Brother you are speaking my language! Is ridiculous that fat politicians aka the brass are the ones that make these fundamentally important decisions for us on the ground. I have been fortunate enough to experience the epicness that is the hog in combat. This really makes my blood boil the Airforce is so blinded by their shiny object thank god the hog fellas are such a different breed to their brass.

All that said yes the hog is coming of age and probally needs a rebuild if she is to stay in the fight. I hope a good slow mover design comes about that has that same gun as that has been the most useful tool for us on the ground.

The Apaches are great they are always over head for a unit like mine and so is Spooky but in the ever changing dynamics of the conflict we are in the need for the Hog will always be their in my mind. I have a personal attachment to it and so does my fellow team mates. On a daily basis i hear stories of hogs and gun runs in Afghanistan from fellow Team members.

 

It is what it is these days. Ill die knowing the Hog as done amazing things for us and will hopefully continue until their is a VALID replacement, not a BAND AID fix.

[NineLine]

This is drifting too far to the political side, discuss the A-10, not the politics for or against it.

[Tirak]

This really makes my blood boil the Airforce is so blinded by their shiny object thank god the hog fellas are such a different breed to their brass.

 

This right here is what makes my blood boil, this completely separated from reality argument that people make, thinking the Air Force doesn't care. It hearkens back to WWII at the battle of Dunkirk, where ground troops who didn't understand what was happening in the air, blamed the RAF for the bombings. It was wrong then, and it's still wrong now. The Air Force has aggressively pursued a policy of supporting the man on the ground, to say otherwise is either willful ignorance, or a flat out lie, and anyone who takes the time to understand the weapons and techniques now being developed by the Air Force can see that the number one goal of the Air Force, is to support the war in every way they can. Strategic targets? The bomber fleet shrinks every year, yet the tactical fighters that perform CAS get billions thrown into them to ensure that when CAS is called for, it shows up, pin point every time.

 

To add to that, you spit on the honor of the Air Force for the cross Congress gave to them. The Air Force cannot afford single mission aircraft anymore, they don't have the budget. They have to perform an ever widening array of missions with a steadily shrinking budget, and you have the gall to say they're blinded and uncaring. They're so desperately pursuing these technologies, such as milimetric radar, and small diameter bombs, and laser guided cannon shells, and stealth, and EO-DAS so that they can keep to the front and support the troops no matter how thick the enemy coverage is, and no matter how small the budget shrinks, that it is flat out insulting for you to imply that their goal is not to support the man on the ground.

 

If you want to question the effectiveness of oncoming platforms, if you want to claim that legacy platforms are superior because they have armor that can't actually protect it from a real threat and weapons that fell short of being effective when they were introduced 40 years ago, so be it. But don't you dare try to spit on the Air Force and call them uninterested or uncaring of the well being of their brothers and sisters fighting on the ground.:mad:

[Enduro14]

You and i have much different experiences my friend. I dont operate on paper theories not even going to waste my time countering what you said because blah its your opinion. I know from my operational experience you are wrong. Their priorities are not correct, AND i am not spitting in anybodies faces. Its a difference in Tactical and Strategic philosophies which we actually live with on the ground, and my personal feelings are based on what i have actually experienced and continue to experience. Separated from reality you got to be kidding me.

[Basher54321]

Very recent article has just gone up on this very subject:

 

This is important to point out because people seem to think that only A-10s can do CAS. This is patently false. While the A-10 may be damned good at CAS, it’s not the only aircraft capable of doing so. In fact, it accounts for only a small number of CAS sorties in theater today.

 

https://fightersweep.com/3855/what-close-air-support-is-and-isnt-part-one/

[Enduro14]

Depends on your definition and certain needs in reference to cas. A Cessna can do cas depending on the requirements of said cas. You'll find throughout the services the definition is generally the same but the actual mindset of what it actually is and how it should transpire on the battlefield very much differs.