Importance of A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog)

[der_Master]

With modern warfare beginning to occur more in urban areas with countries lacking a well equipped air force. For example the US air force has never had a recent problem dominating the skies in recent wars. The major factor then becomes how well the planes can strike ground targets. I think the F-35 JSF reflects this as it is much more popular than the F-22 Raptor. But it is my understanding that the A-10 is the most capable aircraft in the world for destroying tanks and other various enemy ground support. Therefore I think the US government should purchase more (or upgrade the ones it already has) because i think they are getting rather old. Oh I am not trying to say that I don’t like the F-35 or F-22 (best jets in the world imo) but i think the warthog fulfills a unique role in the US military and is not to be underestimated. I think more of them should be used in Afghanistan and Iraq for their close air support roles.

 

[ROCK45]

A-10

There has been a few A-10 upgrade programs carried out and I'm sure more will be performed in the future as well. Sadly the production lines for producing new A-10's has been closed for many years. The USAF doesn't have the money but a new design is needed to fill this task currently and in the future. A platform designed to basically operate in a enemy fighter safe zone but still maintaining the armor and safety. I'm sure it could be done but the money just isn't there not with F-22 cuts and future F-35 series being pushed forward.

I think aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 will have a place on the battle field for years to come. For the A-10 I don't think all there missions will be easily replaced with different F-35 versions but time will tell.

 

[der_Master]

well imo an A-10 can protect ground forces much better than the F-35 JSF. Primarily because of the chain gun, engines on top to reduce heat emissions, and its amazing armour (stealth ability is not really an issue with close air support). The only thing that could fill this role is the apache Longbow, but those are rather vulnerable and a target. The A-10 can provide better covering fire than the apache and is a lot harder to shot down. The only problem is that apaches can hover above the ground forces while the A-10 has to circle them from above and go on strafing runs.

 

[rjmaz1]

der_Master the F-35 will most likely be able to protect ground forces better than the A-10.

The A-10's turn up at low altitude to assist friendly forces and the enemy simply runs away to fight another day so they can plant another roadside bomb. The enemy knows that they can keep fighting without fear of getting bombed until the A-10's turn up.

The F-35 however flies efficiently and silently at medium altitude using its advanced sensors to see all the action on the ground. It then drops a small diameter bomb on the enemy forces before they can run away. The enemy will not want to start fighting as an F-35 could strike at any moment without warning. That is why the F-35 will dominate the battlefield.

Being hard to shoot down only applies to aircraft that operate at low altitude, so this attribute is no longer important. Requiring armour on the aircraft is now ancient history. Sensors allow the aircraft to operate at medium altitude giving a gods eye view of the battle and improving situational awareness. The range and area covered by each aircraft also improves dramatically allowing for increased firepower.

Nothing beats a dozen enemy tanks getting simultaneously destroyed by a single F-35 cruising safely above the battlefield. The A-10 has nothing on that.

However as it will take a long time to produce the F-35 in large numbers the A-10's are being upgraded to the A-10C standard as we speak. This allows the A-10 to operate in a similar fashion to the F-35 at safer higher altitudes. So the A-10 will be extremely valuable for the next decade to come.

 

[the road runner]

Im a big fan of the A-10,one thing that sticks in my mind when they say that the JSF will replace all ground attack aircraft is that the A-10, has a better turning circle and slower speeds for the ground attack missions and also flys at low altitudes,in the weeds and using topography of the land to mask itself from enemy radar.As the A10 dose fly at low altitude im wondering how safe these planes are to manpads and Air Defence systems and networks?Im under the impression that JSF will fly at 40,000 feet in the ground attack role to defeat the manpads threat.

Im not sure if the turning circle of ground attack aircraft is important in the future battlespace?Hoping one of the members can shed some light on this.

The thing that really impresses me about the A10 is the way that it can deploy anywhere in the world,with minimul support equipment,the capability of short take of and landing and able to be deployed on makeshift runways close to the front line of operational troops.It can loiter around the battle field for hours picking of targets. The A10 AWSOME A/A49E-6 ,30 millimeter Gun System that makes mince meat out of tanks and other armoured units has to be an asset when in comes to CAS.:flame

The A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt 2 can take alot of damage from ground attack,and can fly home with half a wing destroyed.This plane is really TONKA TUFF!

I think that the A-10/OA-10 thunderbolt 2 still has a place on the battle field especially in "THE WAR ON TERROR",where terrorists do not have high tech Air defence weapons system,and where troops really need close air support,in the mountains and valleys of Astan.This just seems to be the perfect weapon platform(except it cannot hover like an apache as der-Master has said)for fighting terrorists.

The amazing record of the A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt 2 in the 1991 gulf war of
8100 sorties,with a missions capable rate of 95.7%(OMG!) is just amazing i think.With the destruction of 987 tanks,926 artillery pieces, 1,106 trucks, 51 SCUD missile launchers and a whole lot of support vehicles and bunkers,with the loss of only 5 A-10s.WOW.:splat

Attached is a great link,but it is written in a rather gung ho manner and im sure will bring a few smiles when you read it....but be warned there is swearing

http://www.warthogpen.com/fact_sheet.html

I just think that it is a waste of resources and to a lesser extent a waste of airframe life for modern aircraft like F-18E/F flying of carriers ,the costs associated with that, when a battle group on the ground in Astan should have its own organic CAS.(well Aussie are using dutch apaches for cas in Astan)If i were a soldier i know it would make me feel a whole lot better to look over my sholder,in my forward base , and see an A10/Apache beieng loaded up with missles,ammo,bombs ect

Can anyone answer these questions please?

1.Im not sure if the turning circle of ground attack aircraft is important in the future battlespace?

2.Im under the impression that JSF will fly at 40,000 feet in the ground attack role to defeat the manpads threat.

3.Should A10/OA-10 Thunderbolt 2 be kept in service longer than 2028(if i can be kept longer...IDK?)to be used in sanatised air space to fight terrorists and 3rd world armys? love to see A10 buzzing the skies of the congo now.:splat

4.The threat of manpads is the A-10 worst adversary on the battlefield?

THANX IN ADVANCE

 

[rjmaz1]

1.Im not sure if the turning circle of ground attack aircraft is important in the future battlespace?

No its not. With precision guided weapons the plane no longer has to be agile. The pilot of the F-35 can simply turn his head at the target while cruising at medium altitude which will designate it. He then fires a brimstone or small diameter bomb and he doesn't even have to change direction at all.

2.Im under the impression that JSF will fly at 40,000 feet in the ground attack role to defeat the manpads threat.

All sources point to the F-35 operating between 15,000 and 20,000 feet when conducting close air support. That altitude is high enough to avoid manpads.

3.Should A10/OA-10 Thunderbolt 2 be kept in service longer than 2028(if i can be kept longer...IDK?)to be used in sanatised air space to fight terrorists and 3rd world armys? love to see A10 buzzing the skies of the congo now.:splat

It should be kept in service until the superior F-35 is available to replace it.

4.The threat of manpads is the A-10 worst adversary on the battlefield?

I'd say the A-10 having no element of surprise so that the enemy can simply run away is its worst adversary on the battlefield.

A-10's are also slow to arrive. Flying at low altitude they can see very little area at any moment so more aircraft are required or the friendly forces have to wait longer until close air support arrives. The F-35 for instance operating at medium altitude could destroy any target inside a 10km circle within a minute.





and some of your other points....

also flys at low altitudes,in the weeds and using topography of the land to mask itself from enemy radar.

The F-35 uses stealth which allows it to fly at medium altitude. Medium altitude allows it to fly with greater efficiency and allows it to loiter over the battlefield for longer than the A-10.

The thing that really impresses me about the A10 is the way that it can deploy anywhere in the world,with minimul support equipment,the capability of short take of and landing and able to be deployed on makeshift runways close to the front line of operational troops.

The F-35B can land and operate on a roof of a building if required. The F-35A's far superior range and speed will allow the aircraft to operate from safer airbases. USAF personnel wont have to stretch logistics and risk having aircraft operating from the front line because they are too slow and short ranged like the A-10.

It can loiter around the battle field for hours picking of targets.

The F-35 can loiter for longer while flying at higher altitudes, while being able to pick off more targets at any moment due to its larger sensor footprint and speed.

As icing on the cake the F-35 wont have to have fighter escorts protecting it as the F-35 is also the second best air superiority fighter in the world. So you are replacing multiple aircraft with the F-35 that is also superior in each of the roles.

The A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt 2 can take alot of damage from ground attack,and can fly home with half a wing destroyed.This plane is really TONKA TUFF!

That goes against logic.

Which aircraft would you rather fly, an F-35 that can perform its mission without getting shot at, or the A-10 that gets hit with bullets every mission but has a good chance of surviving?

I know what aircraft any sane person would pick.

The amazing record of the A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt 2 in the 1991 gulf war with the loss of only 5 A-10s.WOW

5 aircraft lost and dozens of aircraft damaged beyond repair is NOT an amazing record.

 

[the road runner]

Thanx for sending me straight rjmaz1........ much appreciated.

But i have to dis agree with your comments on the destruction of iraqi armour................."5 aircraft lost and dozens of aircraft damaged beyond repair is NOT an amazing record."

i still think that is amazing,5 lost aircraft ,and as you say a number damaged,but these damaged aircraft bought the pilots home safe even if the plane was a ride off?:unknown.....but can you elaborate on why you think that its NOT an amazing record rjmaz1?( im sure you are right but convince me please?)

But everythink else after reading your reply i have to agree with your points raised and your knowlage is far superior to mine.:nutkick
Thanx for the great reply rjmaz1
and thankyou in advanced

 

[Falstaff]

Dear rimjaz,

amazingly you're making groupies although your post shows a dire lack of understanding regarding the A-10's role on the battlefield. I don't have the time and I don't know where to start, but still... and just for you:

If your concept of CAS is right then why is there a A-10? Or better, why does the whole western world envy the USAF for the warthog?
Comfortably cruising along at medium altitude using brimstones and precision guided bombs is perfectly possible on today's asymmetric battlefield with today's platforms (even more so with the F-35). Even the A-10 will be able to do so after the latest upgrade. So this definitely is a part of CAS. But: If that was the only thing to do to provide CAS the A-10 would not have the renaissance we've seen. You just wouldn't need it. Neither would you need a AC-130.

The A-10 does have
... a rugged airframe with multiple redundancies built in
... an armoured cockpit
... a hell of a gun
... excellent maneuvering at low and very low altitudes
... the ability to fly and maneuver at very low speeds
... lots of hardpoints and sufficient weapons carrying abilities
... long loiter time
... STOL from rather unprepared airstrips
... low IR signature.

Obviously there are a few "insane" (as you put it) persons in the USAF who think this might be useful after all, esp. after the lessons learned in GW 1+2. Don't you think?

I'd say the A-10 having no element of surprise so that the enemy can simply run away is its worst adversary on the battlefield.

You should tell that to the GW2 Iraqui Army. I'm sure they would have fared much better if they had known they should've simply run away.

A-10's are also slow to arrive. Flying at low altitude they can see very little area at any moment so more aircraft are required or the friendly forces have to wait longer until close air support arrives. The F-35 for instance operating at medium altitude could destroy any target inside a 10km circle within a minute.

and some of your other points....
The F-35 uses stealth which allows it to fly at medium altitude. Medium altitude allows it to fly with greater efficiency and allows it to loiter over the battlefield for longer than the A-10.

Now make a guess what altitude a warthog is loitering at? 50 feet? Wrong. Guess again.
Just because I'm curious: What's the F-35's loiter time in CAS outfit compared to the A-10's loiter time at medium altitude? And don't dare come with your made up supercruise and fuel fraction numbers.

5 aircraft lost and dozens of aircraft damaged beyond repair is NOT an amazing record.

For what they did, it is.

 

[ROCK45]

A-10

5 lost aircraft in 8,000 plus sorties shows just what a great design it is and the high skill of the pilots.

It needs to go slow to carry out it's mission in most cases I can only assume the pilots might want more pull away speed. Getting out of harms way after a pass might be one of the few flaws in the design. I always wondered if new more powerful engines could be installed?

I'm sure the weight and balance would change if this were done thus forcing design changes. I think getting out of the kill zone for a hand held SAM or anti-aircraft fire is worth it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons....

the majority of CAS missions run in the last 12 months have been by B1's.

I'll see if I can get permission to throw the numbers up...

BUT, if it was not an issue of depth of mission, independance of bases etc... they'd be using A-10's

The actual data overwhelmingly supports Falstaff btw....

The argument that the JSF is just as effective as the A-10 is abject nonsense - and the marketers have a hard time making the data sync up with actual mission events. The JSF is not in the same league for CAS as the A-10 - not by a golden mile.

 

[B.Smitty]

The argument that the JSF is just as effective as the A-10 is abject nonsense - and the marketers have a hard time making the data sync up with actual mission events. The JSF is not in the same league for CAS as the A-10 - not by a golden mile.

How so gf? Since there aren't any F-35 mission events available yet, how can we really make a comparison?

IMHO, the A-10's biggest advantages are its modest support costs, and that it is bought-n-paid-for.

If you just look at a the capability a single A-10 brings vs a single F-35, without considering cost, I see a lot going for the F-35.

It will have a vastly superior sensor suite (EODAS, APG-81, EW), superior SA through advanced datalinks and cockpit, and superior survivability. And all models carry a lot of internal fuel.

Much is made of the A-10s impressive loiter times. The problem comes when the A-10 has to transit great distances to get to and from its CAS orbit area. A flight from Kuwait to Baghdad will take an A-10 almost two hours. An F-35 can do it in a bit more than half that time. Since pilot fatigue is the real limiting factor, that extra almost two hours flying back and forth really cuts in to the A-10's ability to loiter. Obviously, if forward airfields are available, this limitation is less pronounced.

If you throw acquisition and operational costs into the picture, things get murkier. And it remains to be seen how well we can support the F-35 in forward airfields, STOVL or not. That big engine is going to be a fuel hog and won't be kind to runways.

 

[B.Smitty]

Just because I'm curious: What's the F-35's loiter time in CAS outfit compared to the A-10's loiter time at medium altitude? And don't dare come with your made up supercruise and fuel fraction numbers.

While I don't know the answer to this, it obviously depends on which F-35 we're talking about, and what loadouts each are carrying.

But what we do know is, the F-35A carries 18,500 lbs of fuel internally vs 10,700 for the A-10. The F-35A can fly a CAS sortie clean, with all internal ordinance. The A-10 requires draggy external stores.

Obviously, the A-10s engines are more miserly and its wing is better suited to loitering.

But, IMHO, it's not clear which these factors will ultimately prove decisive in determining the loiter champ. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[PeterCrisp]

I know this may not mean much if anything from a technical standpoint but the A10 has a rather large fear factor about it that I feel would be a huge advantage.

 

[B.Smitty]

I know this may not mean much if anything from a technical standpoint but the A10 has a rather large fear factor about it that I feel would be a huge advantage.

Does it really? Can most insurgents even tell the difference between it and another fighter aircraft? Or have we built it up in our own minds?

 

[gf0012-aust]

How so gf? Since there aren't any F-35 mission events available yet, how can we really make a comparison?

We can on the basis of the last 12 months of CAS ops - even though JSF is not operational etc... ie the last 12 months of CAS have been long range events where an A-10 or JSF could not have been fielded due to projection issues. (No close territories, so unable to be deployed in an effective manner - let alone response time) Those missions out of necessity have been picked up by B-52's and B1's. A number of specfor support missions have been "saved" by B1's - so again, its context on prev recent history. Take away projection caveats and the CAS variables for smaller aircraft fail. So I'm taking it literally, functionally in context with existing demands. Both smaller platforms cannot/could not deliver (and even if JSF were gold)

IMHO, the A-10's biggest advantages are its modest support costs, and that it is bought-n-paid-for.

Very true - and ditto for the B1's, B-52's

If you just look at a the capability a single A-10 brings vs a single F-35, without considering cost, I see a lot going for the F-35.

True - it's not a specialised plane - it's designed for cross service requirements and has been designed to replace a number of platforms across 3 services. However, I think that the notion that it's an all singing all dancing bear is a little bit of marketing enthusiasm that has to suffer time to bear fruit and prove otherwise.

It will have a vastly superior sensor suite (EODAS, APG-81, EW), superior SA through advanced datalinks and cockpit, and superior survivability. And all models carry a lot of internal fuel.

all positve, but fail the CAS Afghan requests even if the plane was "gold"

Much is made of the A-10s impressive loiter times. The problem comes when the A-10 has to transit great distances to get to and from its CAS orbit area. A flight from Kuwait to Baghdad will take an A-10 almost two hours. An F-35 can do it in a bit more than half that time. Since pilot fatigue is the real limiting factor, that extra almost two hours flying back and forth really cuts in to the A-10's ability to loiter. Obviously, if forward airfields are available, this limitation is less pronounced.

See my comment about projection into Afghanistan

If you throw acquisition and operational costs into the picture, things get murkier. And it remains to be seen how well we can support the F-35 in forward airfields, STOVL or not. That big engine is going to be a fuel hog and won't be kind to runways.

raise, train, sustain, through life are always the bugbears. agree, it needs to suffer time to start generating proper outcomes for analysis. But it is designed to be more flexible across various mission vectors. Thats also a desig/attitude change as the requirements for the development were different.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does it really? Can most insurgents even tell the difference between it and another fighter aircraft? Or have we built it up in our own minds?

They probably couldn't - but it has a fear factor that has been real. I recall a number of events where aust troops have called in heavy CAS to chew up a location - it made negotiation a bit easier.

if professional soldiers are impressed at how much damage those guns can do on an armoured target in such a short time frame - them I'm pretty confident that word of mouth with enemies gets quickly transmitted as well..

eg historically look at planes like the beaughfighter (the ww2 version of the A-10, but also a bit more flexible as it was also used for anti-shipping). The Japanese called the australian gun trucks the "whispering death".

reputation has a quality all of its own. in the case of the beaufighter, they also usually never saw it coming....

 

[B.Smitty]

They probably couldn't - but it has a fear factor that has been real. I recall a number of events where aust troops have called in heavy CAS to chew up a location - it made negotiation a bit easier.

Fear of CAS is certainly real. But whether an A-10 generates more fear than, say, an F-16, an F-15E, or an F-35 (in the future) IMHO, is questionable.

Fear is caused by stuff exploding, and all of the above are good at making that happen.

A low-altitude, high-speed flyby can also be pretty intimidating.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bMet3p_4Q"]YouTube - 2 F-16's in low fly by, afghanistan[/ame]

if professional soldiers are impressed at how much damage those guns can do on an armoured target in such a short time frame - them I'm pretty confident that word of mouth with enemies gets quickly transmitted as well..

Professional soldiers are also impressed with the damage caused by an LGB or JDAM.

 

[B.Smitty]

We can on the basis of the last 12 months of CAS ops - even though JSF is not operational etc... ie the last 12 months of CAS have been long range events where an A-10 or JSF could not have been fielded due to projection issues. (No close territories, so unable to be deployed in an effective manner - let alone response time) Those missions out of necessity have been picked up by B-52's and B1's. A number of specfor support missions have been "saved" by B1's - so again, its context on prev recent history. Take away projection caveats and the CAS variables for smaller aircraft fail. So I'm taking it literally, functionally in context with existing demands. Both smaller platforms cannot/could not deliver (and even if JSF were gold)

Definitely. Neither can do what the bombers are doing in Afghanistan. But I thought we were debating the merits of the A-10 vs F-35.

Very true - and ditto for the B1's, B-52's

Except for the support costs. The heavies are expensive to run (especially the Bone).

True - it's not a specialised plane - it's designed for cross service requirements and has been designed to replace a number of platforms across 3 services. However, I think that the notion that it's an all singing all dancing bear is a little bit of marketing enthusiasm that has to suffer time to bear fruit and prove otherwise.

Multi-role aircraft are not new. The F-16 and F/A-18 are very successful examples. The biggest issue is training - crews can't be great at everything.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

To be honest I think the F-35 should replace the F-16 and F-15 and support the F-22 and keep the A-10 in service beyond 2028. The F-35 like the F-16 are not CAS aircraft they are tactical fighters that primarily do high altitude bombing and ATA, well the A-10 with its 30mm cannon flies low and slow and it can take a lot of damage unlike the F-16/35. The A-10 is one of the best CAS aircrafts out there so why replace it with a fighter?

 

[B.Smitty]

The F-35 like the F-16 are not CAS aircraft they are tactical fighters that primarily do high altitude bombing and ATA, well the A-10 with its 30mm cannon flies low and slow and it can take a lot of damage unlike the F-16/35.

CAS is a mission, not an aircraft type.