A-10C Discussion

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

Give the man a cigar; he gets it. CAS is great, but if you have to do CAS, you've already screwed up somewhere. The close fight should be the Armys' fight, supported by organic artillery and close combat aviation (IE, Apaches). Fixed wing aircraft should be used to strike targets that rotary-wing and surface fires cannot reach. It should be a no-brainer that killing their vehicles *before* they reach the front is vastly superior to killing them while they're in a shootout with your troops. Put the effort into killing the logistical tail, and disrupting attacks before they even kick off. If you do as little as 10% damage to a unit, it's generally enough to force them to stop and reconsolidate, and that means they're not moving against your forces, and gives your forces the initiative.

 

This is why the Air Force has always "looked down on" CAS: it's really not as useful a mission as BAI. ...COIN operations notwithstanding.

[Sierra99]

The A-10 is a great aircraft, but it is not a strike fighter and thus cannot be compared to such. Everyone knows a dedicated platform is usually better at its function than a MRCA, but if the latter can still perform the job to a good standard it's time to let go.

 

But there lies the rub...the F-35 IS being touted as the replacement for the A-10 and when compared to the Aircraft it is supposed to replace it is a pathetic offering at best. If the latter could perform to a good standard there wouldn't be an argument. It simply can't. In fact, the F-35 can't even perform to the same level as the A-7...the aircraft that came in second to the A-10.

 

If this was truly a conversation about capabilities the A-10 would win ever time. But it's not. It's about wanting New and Shiny vs. slow and effective. The A-10s, F-16s, F-15s were all produced during the same period and after upgrades, share many of the same weapon capabilities...why aren't the F-16s and F-15s being retired if they are just as old and outdated?

 

The F-35 is NOT a CAS aircraft and should never have been touted as such. It is a golden albatross.

[Sierra99]

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.

 

The statement " A-10s are unable to do anything other than CAS" demonstrates exactly how little you know about the capabilities of the A-10C. From the wording of your comments, praise for the Tucano and calling the A-10 overkill for "Coin missions" I suspect you are simply the same Troll who was here a few months back causing problems before getting banned.

 

Please do some research and come up with different arguments...you're bromance with the Tucano is getting tiresome.

[Cornbread]

Is the F-35 the last USN strike fighter?

 

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/15/mabus-f-35c-will-be-last-manned-strike-fighter-the-navy-marines-will-ever-buy-or-fly

 

Is Ray Mabus high or prescient? Discuss.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Cornbread
Spelling

[Dudikoff]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

So, if they only took first losses later on that means they didn't fly missions before? You're discussing this so arrogantly and you have no idea what they actually did.. FYI, on the very first day of operations they flew BAI and some even flew deep strike missions against GCI sites as far as Syrian and Jordanian border (while the Apaches took out the closer GCI sites).

 

They flew at lower altitudes (at the very least when deploying ordnance) since they were using clusters, dumb bombs and Mavericks rather than LGBs from up high so they were more exposed to enemy fire and SAM's. Also, in the relevant context of anti-armor missions, the F-111's flew mostly only night sorties against static tanks (their effect was overestimated also due to Iraqis using decoys) which ended up being pretty harmless even for the two A-10 squadrons which flew night missions exclusively using Mavericks to basically get around and find targets. The same LGB totting F-111's would have been useless against e.g. attacking Iraqi armor like at Al-Khafji which is what the A-10 was designed to do (they fired almost all of the Mavericks used in the DS, something like 4800+ out of 5100 or so expended). An interesting thing to note here is that on doing BDA, F-111 reports counted as 0.5 of a kill while reports from the A-10s counted as 0.33. And let's not go into how much those F-111F strikes cost compared to A-10's.

 

The problem for the A-10 in the Desert Storm was that it was a CAS plane, but the Army didn't really need CAS support since the Iraqi tanks were not considered that much of a threat (even less so after a 40-day pounding) so they got sent to various deep strike/interdiction missions especially targeting artillery positions (since the Army was fearing those), SCUD hunting, even attacks on SAM emplacements, so anything but direct CAS most of the time (as the ground war when it finally came lasted for only about 4 days IIRC) which was not what they were supposed to do, but there was not enough planes in the theater for all of the assigned targets. So, considering all that, their losses were not really high and they did an outstanding job. Somebody thought so at least, since the USAF was just about to retire them all and then after the DS had to keep half of them and further upgrade them (which can't be said for those F-111F's).

 

So, bottom line is, DS is not really a good example since there was little to no need for direct CAS missions even though there were missions where A-10 loitering abilities came in very handy (like e.g. SCUD hunting). OEF and OIF analysis would be much more relevant to determine if there's a niche role for which the F-35 (or e.g. some drones or other light CAS aircraft) can't replace the A-10. For the DS you could say that the A-10 did some of the job of F-111 and F-16 for much less money (albeit with some restrictions like less load and more time to reach the target, etc.) rather than the other way around.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Flagrum]

A-10 has had its day.

 

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

I am no mathematican, but if these figures are correct:

 

then I wonder how relevant - statistically(?) - they really are. Yes, they seem to indicate a rough tendency that the A-10 had more losses. But imo it makes not much sense to directly compare these figures with each other to draw any further conclusions. For example, one or two losses more of an F-15 would have screwed their rating completely. The number of "samples" taken for this statistic seems too low (thank god!) in my eyes to show any significance. And, as was already being discussed, the circumstances these incidents are not really comparable - for whatever the reasons are.

[mvsgas]

I am no mathematican, but if these figures are correct:

 

then I wonder how relevant - statistically(?) - they really are. Yes, they seem to indicate a rough tendency that the A-10 had more losses. But imo it makes not much sense to directly compare these figures with each other to draw any further conclusions. For example, one or two losses more of an F-15 would have screwed their rating completely. The number of "samples" taken for this statistic seems too low (thank god!) in my eyes to show any significance. And, as was already being discussed, the circumstances these incidents are not really comparable - for whatever the reasons are.

 

20 casualties on the A-10? When did this happened? Are we talking about pilots dead? The charts does say A-10 precise data was not available, kind makes it unreliable , no?

Edited April 24, 2015 by mvsgas

[Snoopy]

The statement " A-10s are unable to do anything other than CAS" demonstrates exactly how little you know about the capabilities of the A-10C. arguments.

 

That is why I don't really comment much on this topic. So many people are "experts" but have no first hand knowledge or experience.

 

The F-35 will eventually be a great replacement for the F-16, the A-10 well IMO won't ever be but I've decided to wait and see what the guys on the ground who will need the air support say about it.

 

I know right now, every time I run into someone in the army or marines and they find out I work A-10s the overwhelming majority talk about how it's their support aircraft of choice.

[mvsgas]

For all the guys talking about the A-10 capabilities and its role, I recommend the book Warthog: Flying the A-10 in Desert Storm Granted, the book is not about the A-10C, hell is not even about the A-10A+, but is does show how versatile the A-10 was/ is/ could be.

[Dudikoff]

For all the guys talking about the A-10 capabilities and its role, I recommend the book Warthog: Flying the A-10 in Desert Storm Granted, the book is not about the A-10C, hell is not even about the A-10A+, but is does show how versatile the A-10 was/ is/ could be.

 

I have that book so was writing my post based on what I remember reading there.

 

I wish it was more in-depth on particular missions, though, so was somewhat disappointed by it. I'm sure the author collected much more material than was presented there since it's a pretty short book.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Aginor]

A few thoughts on the topic of CAS how it is now, and F-35 vs. A-10C in that regard:

 

To the people who think "CAS? If you do CAS, you're doing it wrong! BAI all the way, then you never have CAS! You just have to do your recon right!"

You should read the book "Danger Close" by Steve Call. He elaborates on that topic in detail, including statements from Air Force and Army experts.

The conclusion is: Even with all the drones and satellites and similar stuff, you will have to do CAS. You need those missions.

That leaves us the question: CAS by Drones? A-10 (or similar planes)? Or F-16 (or similar planes)? Or maybe only the Army and Marines will do CAS by using Helicopters?

 

That's the one that is hard to tell. Helicopters lack speed, (roughly half the speed of an A-10 is the maximum), range, and loiter time, so they might be suitable for most purposes, but you can't just assign them to a 30x30 miles area and wait for CAS to happen.

Grunts and pilots seem to agree that for attacks with troops in contact a slower plane like the A-10C, and to a lesser degree the AV8-B is better than fast movers. They can attack more frequently because they can line up on a target in shorter time and in a smaller space, and the A-10C even brings a gun with lots of ammo (more than 1100 rounds of 30mm makes great covering fire, especially when you can actually aim the gun).

The fast movers are fast (duh! :D ) so they can be there quickly if needed. So if CAS does not happen often you need less planes for bigger areas. If the targets are tanks or other vehicles that are valuable enough to justify the use of bombs you might really get your CAS for a lower price. But if troops are pretty close you might want to use either precision guided ammunition (which is expensive) or not drop bombs at all. That's where the slower planes are much better. Grunts report that A-10Cs strike targets as close as 100m from troops in contact. An F-16 pilot would hesitate to attack, because you can't drop bombs there, and his gun sucks in comparison. The author of one of my F-16 books describes that, it was either Dan Hampton or Keith Rosenkranz IIRC.

Only a helicopter can provide CAS in such a situation, or an A-10.

I also think that's one of the reason why the grunts love the A-10. Others have done CAS for them as well, but they will remember the really close ones best. And those can be done by Warthog in a very impressive way.

 

So IMO maybe the F-35 will eventually be able to do an F-16's CAS job. Perhaps drones can support it to provide more SA. Mark targets or stream a video of the situation.

 

As for the A-10 being a MANPADS magnet...

That's probably right. It is easier to hit by ground fire by guns or MANPADS than an F-16. Compared to a helicopter... I don't know. I guess a bit less, because since it has been upgraded to A-10C it can just fly above 10,000ft where they aren't likely to hit and use JDAMs or GBUs, just like the F-16 would do it. And it can designate targets from there, so it only comes down to attack, it doesn't have to circle around in low altitude searching for targets.

 

As for the losses:

The book, "Warthog - Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War" describes some of the losses in detail.

All of the numbers is the picture posted earlier are very low. From a statistics point of view those numbers are nonsense. Nothing significant at all. Basically what Flagrum said, there is nothing there to compare.

 

Also: Those are Desert Storm numbers. So they don't represent what is flying around now. in Desert Storm A-10s were doing A LOT of stuff they weren't supposed to do in the first place. And they didn't have TGPs back then. IMO not comparable to the situation now.

 

I wanted to write something else about the F-35. Don't remember it right now.... Perhaps later.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Aginor

[Aginor]

Thanks a lot for splitting this from the F-35 discussion. :)

[rcjonessnp175]

One thing I can add is the user friendly attitude and mentality of the Hog drivers. I've called in various aircraft and guys and gals flying the Hog are very user friendly and just like on of the boys.

[cichlidfan]

One thing I can add is the user friendly attitude and mentality of the Hog drivers. I've called in various aircraft and guys and gals flying the Hog are very user friendly and just like on of the boys.

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft.

[rcjonessnp175]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft.

 

Aircraft is nothing without the pilot. Has everything to do with capabilities of pilot and mentality. A10 pilots are some of the best out their and it has shown on our operations. Their willingness to get their nose bloody far out weighs many other airframe pilots we have worked or should say tried to work with.

[Aginor]

If it is the aircraft that causes that attitude it might really be an important point in favor of the A-10! :)

Perhaps it is the smell of the gun that causes it. :D

[rcjonessnp175]

Pure alpha sex appeal lol. But on serious note they the hog drivers have a much better attitude and relationship and understanding of U.S. ground operators.

[NineLine]

Pure alpha sex appeal lol. But on serious note they the hog drivers have a much better attitude and relationship and understanding of U.S. ground operators.

 

That probably comes with their role though right? I mean a B-52 pilot might not have the same connection with guys on the ground just because they are less connected with them...

[cichlidfan]

Aircraft is nothing without the pilot. Has everything to do with capabilities of pilot and mentality.

 

Put that same pilot in a B-52 and I bet he won't be as willing to get his nose bloody, or be as helpful.

[rcjonessnp175]

Not true in my experience.

[NineLine]

Not true in my experience.

 

That A-10 pilots that come back in a B-52 are just as nice? DO you really get to communicate with them that much in those situations? And do they have time to explain last time they were here they were in an A-10, but they traded it in on a B-52? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

[rcjonessnp175]

Sorry bro got busy work mid stroke. What I was trying to say is generally the a10c pilots are more in simple terms alphas. Put them in an f18 or b52 and ya maybe they would calm down a bit. One thing is true airframes do bring out certain attitudes

In talking to some over seas they are allot like us.

[Flagrum]

What I have read - can't remember where or which book that was - was that A-10 pilots (more) often have a strong infantry background and know from first hand experience how things are on the ground and when the s***t hits the fan. They "think like an infantry man".

[Zad Fnark]

20 casualties on the A-10? When did this happened? Are we talking about pilots dead? The charts does say A-10 precise data was not available, kind makes it unreliable , no?

 

20 Casualties of all types. Don't know how many were total write offs. The precise data thing was in reference to total sortie counts. It may be buried in the GAO document.

 

There was a quote from Gen Horner that the Hogs were pulled from hitting RG units due to the hits they were taking.

[Snoopy]

What I have read - can't remember where or which book that was - was that A-10 pilots (more) often have a strong infantry background and know from first hand experience how things are on the ground and when the s***t hits the fan. They "think like an infantry man".

 

Not really, it's more that our pilots interact with JTAC and army elements more than most airframes.