A-10 Being Retired

[t4trouble]

Edited November 8, 2013 by t4trouble

[Maverick-X]

A10 will be in service til 2035 or so

[jeproject]

What can the A10 do in the current theaters we have that the Apache can't do?

[Flagrum]

What can the A10 do in the current theaters we have that the Apache can't do?

Level a compound flat with a few JDAMs. :D

 

edit/a bit more serious: it can carry some somewhat heavier ordnance.

and it gets faster to where the action is. to compensate that, you would need more helos closer to the area of operations.

 

all that can be compensated somehow - with proper planning and perhaps more aircraft.

 

edit2: on the other hand, I admit that helos have their strong points, too. they can provide a more "intimate" support as they are slower and lower over the troups they are supporting.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Flagrum

[jeproject]

Level a compound flat with a few JDAMs. :D

 

Yeah this is a good point! Though there are other weapon systems like the F16 which can easily do the same. You don't need a flying tank for that.

[Scrim]

But F16s aren't built for that, which is why they, just like the F22 wouldn't do a good job at it. They carry less ordnance, have a shorter time on station IIRC, can't take as much of a beating, etc. Of all the planes used by the USAF, the A-10 is probably the one least kept in service with what essentially amounts to threats and bribes from politicians and the aircraft industry. So go figure that it's closer to being scrapped than the B52, which has been obsolete for decades but is scheduled to remain in service until it's almost 100 years old. Last time I checked, nukes didn't need super heavy bombers for transport any longer, and neither was carpet bombing something that any self respecting air force in the world would lower themselves to.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Scrim

[NineLine]

Level a compound flat with a few JDAMs. :D

 

edit/a bit more serious: it can carry some somewhat heavier ordnance.

and it gets faster to where the action is. to compensate that, you would need more helos closer to the area of operations.

 

all that can be compensated somehow - with proper planning and perhaps more aircraft.

 

 

And survive this:

 

[SkateZilla]

.. Take a Lickin' and Keeps on Tickin'....

[Exorcet]

What good is stealth for CAS? Won't stop a heater going up your single, afterburning tail pipe.

Well technically, that would fall under stealth. It's not limited to radar.

 

What would a MANPAD's operator prefer to face? A visible A-10, or an invisible stand off weapon?

 

Stealth is always good. If it was free (obviously it's not) it would be everywhere, wouldn't it?

 

I know the A-10C is a single mission jet but it does that job better than a 'jack of all trades' fighter... and for a lot less cash I'd imagine.

Maybe. You would expect, in general, that a specialized airframe would be superior, but a specific specialized aircraft doesn't have to be better than a specific multirole. Technology changes and along with it so does strategy. WWII fighters are better designed for very slow gun fights than many later jet aircraft. It doesn't matter because they would end up obliterated or ignored in a modern conflict.

 

The A-10 is great at flying low and slow, but will that always be needed?

 

Secondly, while the A-10 may bust tanks better, does it win the war as a whole better?

 

Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe when it's decommisioned we'll get that suite 7 upgrade in DCS!

We need more fighters.

 

 

 

And survive this:

You could try avoiding it in the first place.

[tflash]

Dunno anything about the real thing, but in game I find the A-10C way too slow. I'ld prefer flying an F-16 or Hornet.

[WildBillKelsoe]

RIP my dear Hog!!!

[Scrim]

Exorcet: For MANPADs, stealth hardly helps. MANPADs are the last line of defense against planes, and by the time AA radars have gotten the word to the infantry about the incoming plane, it's RTB'ing.

 

Yeah, planes dedicated to CAS will be needed for a long time.

 

And wars involve a lot of shooting, you're bound to take a hit sooner or later. Saying you should avoid enemy AAA would effectively rule out using your air force beyond the territory that is under your control and not contested.

 

No one weapons platform wins a war alone, it about how well they work within their designated areas.

 

 

Re replacing the A-10 with the F22: Stealth for CAS planes isn't a bad idea, what is a bad idea is to expect a JSF to perform even 50% of what a dedicated CAS plane will when it comes to, you guessed it, CAS.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Scrim

[tflash]

The A-10 is not the only aircraft performing CAS nowadays. F-16, Hornet, Super Hornet, F-15, Tornado, Harrier, Rafale, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard, B-1, KC-130 etc. have all been doing this in Irak, Afghanistan etc.

With the targeting pods, advanced radio's, ROVER equipment etc. they have done very well, using GBU-12, GBU-54 etc.

Then count in MQ-9 Reaper UAV, Apache helos, Tiger, AC-130 gunships and the likes.

 

Second, A-10 was a dedicated tankbuster, not a dedicated CAS aircraft originally.

 

Third, why would F-35 be bad at CAS? It has WILDLY superior optics/comms/precision avionics over A-10C with SADL and Litening II. The F-35's computers will have a HUGE computing advantage to programme laser jdam and other precision munitions.

[Scrim]

Except laser guided munitions don't really work when there's a cloud cover. At that point a JSF will have to RTB or go down below the clouds and take large risks. The A-10 is built to withstand damage and could still make do.

[maturin]

Second, A-10 was a dedicated tankbuster, not a dedicated CAS aircraft originally.

Great, now tell me what that means. Can you name a single feature of the A-10s design that privileges 'tank busting' (that's not even a role the airforce actually has) over CAS? Especially when the gun isn't actually any good at killing modern tanks, but excels at low intensity warfare CAS?

 

As for all the fast mover CAS platforms...

 

Loiter time, loiter time, loiter time, loiter time. And payload.

[Cali]

Great, now tell me what that means. Can you name a single feature of the A-10s design that privileges 'tank busting' (that's not even a role the airforce actually has) over CAS? Especially when the gun isn't actually any good at killing modern tanks, but excels at low intensity warfare CAS?

 

As for all the fast mover CAS platforms...

 

Loiter time, loiter time, loiter time, loiter time. And payload.

 

You have to remember when the A-10 actually came out.....that's what it was made to do...kill tanks and lots of them. The A-10 is 30 years old, while new tech keeps being added to it....tech tech is being made for everything else also.

[maturin]

But the A-10's inherent advantages for CAS stem directly from that design, and the tank-busting mission poses no difficulties for CAS (destroying tanks IS CAS, if the infantry is telling the pilot where to look).

 

So pointing out the original role is irrelevant here. None of the upgrades is ultimately that important for CAS. The A-10's role is a result of its speed, armament and payload.

 

No amount of optics or new tech is going to let an F-16 fly tight circles watching the infantry for hours.

 

So really, they should just sell the A-10 to the army and marines.

[CypherGrunyev]

I look at it this way.

The A-10 in general is loved by its Pilots, it's JTAC's, and it's Generals.

 

In 2003 Commanders would ask for the hog by NAME when asking for CAS. You don't really see people doing that for the F-16.

 

Yes, The A-10C is slow. It weighs nearly 20 tons when fully loaded. Most of that is high-durability armor. I mean, you have to admit that cockpit is insanely well protected for an aircraft.

 

Yes, the A-10C can't get to a AO faster than a F-15E Can. F-15E Can drop maybe four or so PGB's and then its time for a flight back home to grab more. A-10C Can drop 6 PGB's, 6 Mavericks, 1170 rounds of 30MM APC Shredders, And then to top it off it can stay on station much longer than that F-15E.

 

So what we're looking at here is a Jet that acts much like a helicopter compared to other Precision Guided Platforms. It has a longer station time, although its slower it can take more hits. Sure, it WILL get hit more. It's designed to take those hits though.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I've been refraining from commenting on this for a while, but 4 pages is too much :P

 

The US Air Force has already chosen EMBRAER's A-29 Super Tucano for CAS roles in the future.

 

Do a little Google for more information, but in short it is a turboprop aircraft made specifically for this role (CAS/COIN) unlike the converted trainers other companies offered.

 

It's flying with a handful of 3rd world air forces, and has already seen combat fighting guerrilas and insurgencies.

 

Operating costs and loitering times are better than jet powered aircraft (including the Hog, which frankly is overkill against the enemies the US armed forces have been facing).

 

It's a pretty robust aircraft and is armoured against the kind of ground fire expected in COIN environments. The systems are very advanced as well.

 

Anyway, there is more information on the web than I can give you, but in short, it was made for this kind of mission, and I'm pretty sure it'll perform well in it. Save more advanced aircraft for more advanced threats.

[Kenan]

The US Air Force has already chosen EMBRAER's A-29 Super Tucano for CAS roles in the future.

 

Somehow I have a really hard time believing that. :megalol:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

AFAIK the LAS drama ended quite a while ago. I am open to corrections of course, but last time I checked the LAS winner would be the one to work in the roles described above.

[JG-1_Vogel]

If they were to build a replacement for the A-10 what could they do differently though? The design of the A-10 is nigh perfect for a dedicated CAS aircraft. It's got high mounted engines for protection, a thick straight wing for excellent lift and stability and low speeds plus a big ass gun on the front.

 

In my eyes, the only thing that can replace the A-10 is, well... another A-10!

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Bad wording on my part there, but to my understandment the LAS requirement was created to introduce a versatile and advanced aircraft capable of deploying PGM, providing CAS/COIN in low intensity conflicts while considerably reducing costs.

 

To me it seems LAS was created to effectively release F-16s, A-10s and other aircraft from this function while providing a suitable replacement for these missions.

 

For COIN, it's a pretty fit aircraft built for the role. Although the A-10 has been doing a great job, it's an old airframe built for a different conflict. I love the Hog, but I believe the A-29 can do the job just as well (in some ways, it reminds me of the Skyraider, maybe it's just me though).

[Rangi]

Its still not a done deal, some want to keep the old girl flying a little longer.

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_19_2013_p0-638556.xml

[Rangi]

Re: the A-29, I certainly would not want to fly this against enemies armed with MANPADS. If the IR seeker is guiding to the exhausts then that missile is going to be tracking to a point much to close to the pilots head for my liking.