Why does no other country operate the A-10?
- Thread starter AK54
- Start date
This isn't as easy as you might think. Much depends on the particular nation's maintenance, supply and infrastructure arrangements, how contracts are structured and whether these are factored in to the per hour costs.
But for the USAF, here's a link that describes some rough order of magnitudes. Note, these do not represent the complete cost to own and fly each type of aircraft. These are just logistics costs.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/hourcons.htm
So an A-10A in USAF service has a logistics cost of around $1500 (USD) per FH.
An F-15E is anywhere from $4300 to over $5000 per FH.
And an F-16C is around $2000 per FH.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yes, but where's the fun in that? I thought this thread was all about providing an expensive solution for a minimal problem???
So for the current war situation facing the U.S, it is cheaper to operate the A-10 versus all other combat aircraft in our inventory. So for this type of warfare why not keep it around, I am in agreement that with modern fast movers the A-10 is toast, but if you can control the skies and it can take a beating from ground fire it is my opinion to keep it around until all the spare parts are depleted out of inventory.
What are you talking about here? I have never heard of such a weapon. How would they know where a helo is going to be unless they put the sucker right under the landing pad?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Big-E, I remember reading (in AW&ST I think) about IEDs that were targeting helicopters in the Sunni Triangle. From what I remember, they were command detonated. Such an arrangement could be made to work fairly well with proper planning and attention to detail.
By using such IEDs in conjunction with a planned ambush or IED attack on ground troops, supporting or medevac helicopters could be brought down. Also, by observing where the US lands helicopters in the field, it might be possible to anticipate where future lands will be.
Such planning has been used against the US before, in Vietnam, where the NVA/VC would sometimes string cable across an LZ between trees, sometimes with explosives attached as well. The pilots typically couldn't see the cable until it was too late and the helicopter was going down. Granted, in some of the parts of Vietnam where this was done, there were more restrictions on where an LZ could be found due to terrain & vegetation but still...
Thanks for the info... I think trying to plant IEDs to catch a helo is a waste of time but more power to them. Thats several IEDs less that are gauranteed to hit a convoy.
The U.S Army hasn`t lost a helicopter to this type of attack in Iraq, dodging RPG - 7 rounds launched at them is becoming a standard art form though.Thanks for the info... I think trying to plant IEDs to catch a helo is a waste of time but more power to them. Thats several IEDs less that are gauranteed to hit a convoy.
Anti-helicopter IEDs have been used along commonly used routes, particularly near roads when supporting ground forces. So far most have been command detonated and have failed to bring down any aircraft, but several have been damaged.
In an urban area there are lots of hazards near the ground (power cables etc) and unlike on a battlefield in the country Nap of the earth flying and masking are not quite so important.
Deploying anti-helicopter IEDs may just encourage pilots to fly a little higher where they can be more easily seen and engaged with other weapons, such as the RPG.
By itself this does not appear to be an important tactic, but it is another thing the pilots need to watch out for.
I agree with the points made by Todjaeger.
Chris
In an urban area there are lots of hazards near the ground (power cables etc) and unlike on a battlefield in the country Nap of the earth flying and masking are not quite so important.
Deploying anti-helicopter IEDs may just encourage pilots to fly a little higher where they can be more easily seen and engaged with other weapons, such as the RPG.
By itself this does not appear to be an important tactic, but it is another thing the pilots need to watch out for.
I agree with the points made by Todjaeger.
Chris
One often overlooked reason why the A-10A Thunderbolt never found any buyers is because it's 30mm Avenger Cannon shoots uranium depleted ammunition and the U.S. was unwilling to to let this ammunition to be sold to just any country's airforce. It's not the only round it fires, but it's the main one.
"The use of depleated uranium led to predictable (and groundless) howls of anquish from the USSR, which described the shell as an atomic weapon. Their use did put the gun into a special export category, and this is understood to be one of the major factors which prevented a purchase of the A-10 by Thailand."
Source - WORLD AIRPOWER JOURNAL
Volume 16 Spring 1994
Page 46
Two, the A-10 is a single seater only, which is dumb for Close Air Support, Forward Air Control and COIN warfare over the battlefield, i.e., two pairs of human eyes and instrumentation is better than one period. On a side note, being a single seater it's difficult to provide Pilot training for this specific aircraft.
Finally, the nation's airforces around the world (Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Columbia, to name a few) that really have a critical need for a purpose built close air support Jet aircraft have nearly all been sold on the idea that a multi-role Fighter Jet is superior to a slow moving CAS Jet.
In reality all fast burners are lousy for detecting, targeting, and destroying guerrila's located in narly terrain (heavy jungle, rocky mountainous areas and tall tree canopy), as typically found in third world nations around the world that don't have any use for a modern MRF Jet to combat insurgent groups.
Time-on-station or time spent orbiting over the battlefield and maintaining constant communication between the CAS Jet and friendly combat troops on the ground the longer time frame the better.
"The combination of fuel-efficient engines and relatively generous fuel supply allowed the A-10 to spend one hour on station 150-miles from base - 10 times longer than any other aircraft."
"The use of depleated uranium led to predictable (and groundless) howls of anquish from the USSR, which described the shell as an atomic weapon. Their use did put the gun into a special export category, and this is understood to be one of the major factors which prevented a purchase of the A-10 by Thailand."
Source - WORLD AIRPOWER JOURNAL
Volume 16 Spring 1994
Page 46
Two, the A-10 is a single seater only, which is dumb for Close Air Support, Forward Air Control and COIN warfare over the battlefield, i.e., two pairs of human eyes and instrumentation is better than one period. On a side note, being a single seater it's difficult to provide Pilot training for this specific aircraft.
Finally, the nation's airforces around the world (Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Columbia, to name a few) that really have a critical need for a purpose built close air support Jet aircraft have nearly all been sold on the idea that a multi-role Fighter Jet is superior to a slow moving CAS Jet.
In reality all fast burners are lousy for detecting, targeting, and destroying guerrila's located in narly terrain (heavy jungle, rocky mountainous areas and tall tree canopy), as typically found in third world nations around the world that don't have any use for a modern MRF Jet to combat insurgent groups.
Time-on-station or time spent orbiting over the battlefield and maintaining constant communication between the CAS Jet and friendly combat troops on the ground the longer time frame the better.
"The combination of fuel-efficient engines and relatively generous fuel supply allowed the A-10 to spend one hour on station 150-miles from base - 10 times longer than any other aircraft."
The A-10 can do everything a Super Tucano can in the low and medium threat spectrum. However the A-10 comes out alone when the threat level rises higher. This comes at a increased price and operating cost, so for the low threat missions the Super Tucano would be better.
An extreme example. A B-2 would be more effecient bombing a city as once you take into account the 100 Super Tucano's that would get shot down suddenly the B-2 appears quite cheap.
If armoured columns need to be destroyed the A-10 will be able to destroy 10 times as many vehicles based on guns alone. Twice as many missiles and bombs can be carried on the A-10 so its firepower is much greater.
If the aircraft takes enemy fire the A-10 can sustain larger hits than the Super Tucano, making it more survivable.
Also another F-16 was shot down providing low level close air support. If the aircraft was an A-10 it would probably have took the hit and return to base, unlike the F-16 that would have broke into a million pieces.
One B-2 or 100 Super Tucano's. I'll take a hundred Tucano's since it will be cheaper. A Super Tucano is marketed at around 5.5 million dollars, versus the B-2 at some where over a billion dollars. So the B-2 isn't the better deal because you could get close to 200 Super Tucano's for the price of 1 B-2 bomber.
Yes the A-10 is a much better aircraft then the Supper Tucano, but look at the needs of the Latin American countries. They need a cheap, durable, reliable, and capable aircraft to operate from small airfields in dense jungle. The A-10 is designed as tank killer, I would think trying to drive a tank through the dense jungles of Latin America would pretty difficult if not impossible in many places. Thats why the guerillas don't use tanks or heavy APC's. While the cartels do pocess some weapons, they do not have large amounts of SAM's or AAA. So for nations like Colombia or Bolivia they need a big fleet of Super Tucano's is then a smaller fleet of A-10's.
Yes the A-10 is a much better aircraft then the Supper Tucano, but look at the needs of the Latin American countries. They need a cheap, durable, reliable, and capable aircraft to operate from small airfields in dense jungle. The A-10 is designed as tank killer, I would think trying to drive a tank through the dense jungles of Latin America would pretty difficult if not impossible in many places. Thats why the guerillas don't use tanks or heavy APC's. While the cartels do pocess some weapons, they do not have large amounts of SAM's or AAA. So for nations like Colombia or Bolivia they need a big fleet of Super Tucano's is then a smaller fleet of A-10's.
If you believe Wikipedia it's more like
Combat radius:
* On CAS mission: 250 nm (290 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour single-engine loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
And it's hardly "10 times longer than any other aircraft".
A B-52H can loiter for 2 hours at 2000nm with 12 JDAMs and 27 Mk82s with a 2 hour reserve. Or 8 hours at 500nm.
And even a small fighter like the F-16 can loiter longer than 6 minutes at that range with a useful CAS loadout.
LancerMC totally hit the point.
Most of the third or second world countries in Latin America, South East Asia and Africa have no problems with tanks as enemies and low costs are THE main factor for them.
Not just the pure purchase but also the operating costs, how easy they are to maintain, from what bases it can operate, etc.
A-10 really is a plus if it goes against massed armies and not against guerillas. It may be better for anti-rebell CAS missions than a fast movers but in the end a Super Tucano like plane is even better for these countries.
Most of the third or second world countries in Latin America, South East Asia and Africa have no problems with tanks as enemies and low costs are THE main factor for them.
Not just the pure purchase but also the operating costs, how easy they are to maintain, from what bases it can operate, etc.
A-10 really is a plus if it goes against massed armies and not against guerillas. It may be better for anti-rebell CAS missions than a fast movers but in the end a Super Tucano like plane is even better for these countries.
The british used converted Harvard trainers to take on the Mau-Mau. There's plenty of forces like that such as the Lords Resistance Army and the Tamil Tigers which are pure light infantry using civilian trucks for transport.
The A-10 is simply overkill in such a situation. The Avenger would be wasted on that kind of kit, you'd get more bang for your buck from a WW1 Bristol Fighter (or indeed, a converted training aircraft) than from any modern jet.
The A-10 is simply overkill in such a situation. The Avenger would be wasted on that kind of kit, you'd get more bang for your buck from a WW1 Bristol Fighter (or indeed, a converted training aircraft) than from any modern jet.
The best example, the US Navy was still using the A-1 Skyraider during Veitnam for CSAR. It was a much better aircraft providing CAS in those jungle situations then the faster movers. A cheaper, slower, more durable aircraft in those situations then expensive, faster, and weaker aircraft is not right.
Why do u think the USAF gave so many of them to SVAF.
Why do u think the USAF gave so many of them to SVAF.
This may've been true during the Vietnam War, when they didn't have FLIR pods and high-res SAR, but nowadays low and slow is not really necessary.
For COIN work these days, rather than large numbers of turboprop trainers, seems to me the bulk should be comprised of UAVs of various flavors.
RQ-8B Shadows only run around $2.7 million each.
Dragon Eye is sub-$100k per system (two UAVs).
These will give you greater sensor coverage at a far lower life-cycle cost.
Add to this a smaller number of armed aircraft to perform the "Killer" part of the "Hunter-Killer" team, and you're done.
My preference here would be to arm maritime patrol aircraft with LGBs and other small PGMs, rather than turboprop trainers, but that's just me.