Well, there's a fun new acronym I just learned.
Possible export market for used A-10 Warthogs
- Thread starter Mr.V
- Start date
The problem with this argument (and this isn't on you, by the way) is that if we're in a new Cold War against a near-peer adversary, the survivability of the A-10 starts to go down real quick against modern GBAD, especially the SHORAD/DIVAD roles.
And depending on who you want that threat to be, the effectiveness of the A-10 is also in question, especially its much beloved cannon. That gun was undoubtedly lethal to older T-types (eg 54s/55s/62s etc), and even lots of baseline -72s, IIRC. Newer mods may not be as susceptible.
shanes_world_05
Member
I don't really know a lot about it but when the F-117 was shot down over Bosnia the rescue package I am pretty sure was covered with A-10's while I think the F-16's were some distance away for deconfliction and top cover issues. I think it was either SA-2's or 3's that the Serbs threw at the F-117. If I am right in that, there was confidence in sending A-10's against SAM systems of that era. Has that much changed (Genuine question) in terms of the more modern SAM systems that the A-10 would be that unsurvivable?
I would probably favour munitions myself than a aerial platform to hang them off anyway but I do like systems like Gripen than can be operated with little technical support like I believe the A-10 to have been intended.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The SA-2 and SA-3 have been around since the early 60s, so not really a SAM of the 1990s. They are a long way from modern Russian SAM systems.
I wouldn't trust any publicly released info on how the F-117 was destroyed, the Americans certainly aren't going to tell us how a LO fighter was brought down, probably the biggest fluke in history. The sheer amount of AA the F-117s faced in both Iraq and the Balkans meant that the chances of an aircraft hitting something sooner or later was pretty good.
I understand the all aircraft are getting involved in the CAS role, What Im curious is to the scenario's that they are being involved in.
ie: 1 - Are they being used against ambushes where the enemy force is almost right on top of them?
or
2 - Are they being used against enemy forces where there is some distance between them?
From my reading's around the internet while all aircraft are getting better and better it still takes a bloody long time for the F-15's/16's etc and B-1's to drop there bomb's accurately, (I've read figures around the 20 minute mark, if any one on here can give a more accurate time frame please do).
The CAS debate really need's to be broken down because it's not all black and white, There is a grey area between how soon the troop's on the ground need it and how quickly the aircraft in the air can deliver it. To date the only fixed wing aircraft that I know of that can act quickly and effectively is the AC-130 and A-10, the others can act effectively but take time.
In regards to collateral damage and friendly fire, Why we keep picking on the A-10 I don't know considering I pointed out in another topic (i'll search for it) that the A-10 is only second the the AC-130, With all other aircraft being worse off.
As for which aircraft has been more effective in CAS roles in places like Afghanistan, Well that is a view only taking into account two factors (Total amount of sorties conducted and there range) which naturally stack up in there favor. When you consider the combined F-15, F-16, F-18, B-1 and AC-130's have vastly more aircraft deployed there then the A-10's then naturally the A-10 would appear as a marginal aircraft. (ie: it skew's the results), A more accurate assessment would be the number of sorties taken by a particular platform and not lobbing every platform in together against the A-10. Range hands down the A-10 loses, But there are the other factors that need to be accounted to define which is the most effective, Civilian and military casualties per 100 sorties? Well the F-15, 16, 18, B-1 and Harrier lose in this department, Cost to keep the aircraft operational per an hour? Every fixed wing CAS aircraft loses out to the A-10, Response time? Based on current knowledge (Please do correct me) the A-10 is only second to the AC-130 with other aircraft not even in the same ball park as them.
In regards to MANPADS and the A-10, That threat has been sprouted out for something like a decade and how many A-10's have been shot down by them? 1 back in 2003? The MANPAD proliferation threat has being going on since the Russians where in Afghanistan and in that time it has resulted in a single A-10 downed which the pilot survived.. The MANPAD threat is starting to sound more and more like the Iran will have a nuke threat.. West German intelligence said they would have one in a few years.. in 1984! 32 years and still no nuke...
I'm not against retiring the A-10 if it is made for sound reasons based off of actual fact, But so far it has not been as everything against the A-10 is made out of context or presented in such a way to make it seem like a marginal capability. Break it all down and they are all marginal capabilities even the B-1, Some of them just cost a hell of a lot more to field.
ie: 1 - Are they being used against ambushes where the enemy force is almost right on top of them?
or
2 - Are they being used against enemy forces where there is some distance between them?
From my reading's around the internet while all aircraft are getting better and better it still takes a bloody long time for the F-15's/16's etc and B-1's to drop there bomb's accurately, (I've read figures around the 20 minute mark, if any one on here can give a more accurate time frame please do).
The CAS debate really need's to be broken down because it's not all black and white, There is a grey area between how soon the troop's on the ground need it and how quickly the aircraft in the air can deliver it. To date the only fixed wing aircraft that I know of that can act quickly and effectively is the AC-130 and A-10, the others can act effectively but take time.
In regards to collateral damage and friendly fire, Why we keep picking on the A-10 I don't know considering I pointed out in another topic (i'll search for it) that the A-10 is only second the the AC-130, With all other aircraft being worse off.
As for which aircraft has been more effective in CAS roles in places like Afghanistan, Well that is a view only taking into account two factors (Total amount of sorties conducted and there range) which naturally stack up in there favor. When you consider the combined F-15, F-16, F-18, B-1 and AC-130's have vastly more aircraft deployed there then the A-10's then naturally the A-10 would appear as a marginal aircraft. (ie: it skew's the results), A more accurate assessment would be the number of sorties taken by a particular platform and not lobbing every platform in together against the A-10. Range hands down the A-10 loses, But there are the other factors that need to be accounted to define which is the most effective, Civilian and military casualties per 100 sorties? Well the F-15, 16, 18, B-1 and Harrier lose in this department, Cost to keep the aircraft operational per an hour? Every fixed wing CAS aircraft loses out to the A-10, Response time? Based on current knowledge (Please do correct me) the A-10 is only second to the AC-130 with other aircraft not even in the same ball park as them.
In regards to MANPADS and the A-10, That threat has been sprouted out for something like a decade and how many A-10's have been shot down by them? 1 back in 2003? The MANPAD proliferation threat has being going on since the Russians where in Afghanistan and in that time it has resulted in a single A-10 downed which the pilot survived.. The MANPAD threat is starting to sound more and more like the Iran will have a nuke threat.. West German intelligence said they would have one in a few years.. in 1984! 32 years and still no nuke...
I'm not against retiring the A-10 if it is made for sound reasons based off of actual fact, But so far it has not been as everything against the A-10 is made out of context or presented in such a way to make it seem like a marginal capability. Break it all down and they are all marginal capabilities even the B-1, Some of them just cost a hell of a lot more to field.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The requirement for all strike missions laid down by any military is the ability to penetrate a modern integrated AD system including enemy fighters,jammers and GBAD. The A-10 is no longer able to do this or launch weapons from outside the reach of enemy AD. Yes in the current theatre of ops in Syria and Iraq where no real AD exists that big gun is very useful. But the US and her Allies can't fork out 10s of billions of dollars to maintain a capability that is only useful in such a low level conflict. CAS is relitivley easy when there is no AD.
10's of billion's? No, That is pure fiction if not complete lies. The service life of the aircraft has been intended in the past up to 2028, Possibly later, Even if we kept them for the 15 years the USAF says it will take to develop a replacement you are looking at around $11.1 billion total (based on the $3.7 billion in savings over 5 years).
As for conflict conditions how many have we had in the last two decades that have required massive amounts of air to air combat and how many have we have that have required CAS? Statistically there is a greater argument to be made for CAS aircraft then fighters.
Unless the US is getting into a conflict with China or Russia then there is really no air force in the world (probable enemy, Not allies) that would require the vast fleet's of combat fighters (F-15's,16's,18's etc) compared to the minor amount of dedicated CAS aircraft (A-10's, AC-130's etc).
In 41 years only 7 A-10's have been shot down with 6 of those being in 1991, Through out most of that time MANPAD proliferation has been a concern.
A new variant of the A10, the A10-LM has been photographed.
I want one!