Importance of A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog)

[Scott]

A-10 has shown it's value in a number of missions & environments, especially open plains & deserts against tank batallions.

Not claiming any expertise & may have missed something earlier in thread, but F-35B will be able to fly low & slow. Mission is to perform CAS for Marines. Don't know how it compares to A-10 in armament & survivability.

However, also concur with someone's previous comment about a low altitude, high speed pass. Equipped with cluster bombs & new weapons under development, F-35 could be very effective at CAS.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The A-10 is servery limited by its lack of night sensors and target geo-location equipment. This really limits it to day missions and further restricts it under evolving RoEs. The current op mission in Iraq and Afghanistan does require a high endurance but tactical gunship.

The best option for replacing both A-10s, AC-130s and many AH-64 and strike fighter missions is the Cal Poly Firefox. It can loiter overhead for four hours from a base 500 NM away and fly tactical approaches or over target circles. It carries over 4,000 rounds of 40mm with three trainable guns (for simultaneous engagement of different targets and redundancy) and 100 rounds of 105mm high velocity. The low cost of these munitions provides precise capability against structures without having to use high cost guided missiles or bombs. With four crew, AESA and two MTS-Bs it is a high level ISR platform in its own right. With the high level of armour, structural strength and EWSP it has a very low pK from AAA and MANPADS (under 0.1). In COIN it is by far the best CAS platform and would be lethal in a range of medium and high intensity situations as well.

http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/files/Firefox/Firefox_AIAA_Final.pdf
Exactly what is needed now and tomorrow.

Some pictures:

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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

You can't use these weapons in many engagements because the effect is to high (even SDB). A burst of 20-40mm shells is what is needed for most CAS, followed by an area effect (2.75" flechettes) and then an anti-building (missile, 105mm or LGB/JDAM). You can have a strike fighter or B-1B overhead and not be able to use them because all their shots are too big for the battle.

 

[B.Smitty]

You can't use these weapons in many engagements because the effect is to high (even SDB). A burst of 20-40mm shells is what is needed for most CAS, followed by an area effect (2.75" flechettes) and then an anti-building (missile, 105mm or LGB/JDAM). You can have a strike fighter or B-1B overhead and not be able to use them because all their shots are too big for the battle.

Of course. Effects should be appropriate to the target.

Fortunately the F-35A carries a 25mm GAU-12.

APKWS, JAGM and other missiles may (some day) provide a middle ground between the gun and SDB.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Of course. Effects should be appropriate to the target.

Fortunately the F-35A carries a 25mm GAU-12.

APKWS, JAGM and other missiles may (some day) provide a middle ground between the gun and SDB.

The gun only has around 180 rounds and while that's enough for over 20 bursts (thanks to the accuracy of the 25mm round) it's going to be eaten up well within an hour of typical CAS support.

Though because it is a fast mover and won't be flying in lazy circles above the target it will take some time to set up for each strafing attack. Which is part of the problem of using fast jets, even A-10s, for strafing support. Much better to have an aircraft with a trainable gun that can just circuit over the target and provide burst without concern for vector.

 

[der_Master]

ok so basically everyone agrees that the A-10 is unique and has a place in the US army for a long time. I like the F-35, it is going to be a great jet. But I don’t think it can replace the A-10 in the role of protecting ground forces. Also as far as I know it is only in use with the US air force. I was just wondering if more should be created as an export version (if any countries were interested in purchasing them). I think their ability to use lower quality airfields and ground support role would be excellent for many countries. As right now and in the near future I do not really see that much of a need for air superiority fighters (though they are always good to have...just in case).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

ok so basically everyone agrees that the A-10 is unique and has a place in the US army for a long time.

Well its not in the US Army its in the USAF and I don't agree that it is unique and has a long service period ahead of it. The A-10 has been offered for export for 30 years and only come close once, to Turkey. The rough field capability is over-rated as there are a lot more things that need to be done to operate from a forward location rather than just take off from grass.

The F-35 will be more capable than the A-10 in CAS for the simple fact that it can do it 24-7. The A-10 is not much use to you at night in the middle of a sandstorm when the Jihadis are coming for you.

 

[der_Master]

The F-35 will be more capable than the A-10 in CAS for the simple fact that it can do it 24-7. The A-10 is not much use to you at night in the middle of a sandstorm when the Jihadis are coming for you.

Ok well I don't agree with that. First of all I would not want to be the pilot flying the JSF for 24 hours straight (you still need air refuelling). Furthermore if your saying that the JSF is a more capable airplane because a squadron can operate for 24-7 that is not much of an argument. You put the same funding into the A-10 (with ground crews, supplies, and enough planes) and you will see the same result.

Furthermore in the middle of the night with Jihadis attacking through a sandstorm (almost feel sorry for the poor Jihadis) I doubt the F-35 would fare much better. Although the A-10 does have bad equipment and avionics at night that could be upgraded fairly easy if the air force thought it was an important issue (although FF would become an issue with any ground support mission at night, A-10 or F-35).

Hey, don't get me wrong I think the F-35 is an amazing plane and I support it 100% (I’m Canadian and we are involved in the project). Its just that I think the A-10 can perform the role of supporting ground forces on the ground to a better degree (this is its sole combat purpose, unlike that of the F-35).

 

[gf0012-aust]

The end game is how it (JSF) achieves CAS - that doesn't mean that the mission has to be comparatively done (ie against the A-10) - but whether its achieved.

I'm reserving my judgement until I see more coming out of the uniform side of the house rather than the suits.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

I was debating CAS in general

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

thats true - but they are the only ones (B1's and B52's) able to provide PGM CAS due to reach issues - and the fact that the smaller fixed wing USAF/USN are not co-located enough to effect and prosecute CAS in that region.

So, the mission is being achieved within a results expectation - but not with the expected platforms normally associated with the task

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.

Probably why over 90% of F-117 pilots were ex-A10 drivers. The skillset demands leaned towards "close and personal" strike pilots.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ok well I don't agree with that. First of all I would not want to be the pilot flying the JSF for 24 hours straight (you still need air refuelling). Furthermore if your saying that the JSF is a more capable airplane because a squadron can operate for 24-7 that is not much of an argument. You put the same funding into the A-10 (with ground crews, supplies, and enough planes) and you will see the same result.

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that a single F-35 aircraft would stay aloft for 24 hours. What I meant is the F-35 can provide CAS across night and day and in heavy weather. The A-10 can't do this. Talk about upgrades and so on are not enough. The all weather A-10 was to be a two seater because it needed to fly low for the gun to be effective and without the kind of FCS in an F-35 you need two people to do that without sudden and irreversible contact with the ground.

 

[B.Smitty]

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that a single F-35 aircraft would stay aloft for 24 hours. What I meant is the F-35 can provide CAS across night and day and in heavy weather. The A-10 can't do this. Talk about upgrades and so on are not enough. The all weather A-10 was to be a two seater because it needed to fly low for the gun to be effective and without the kind of FCS in an F-35 you need two people to do that without sudden and irreversible contact with the ground.

Don't discount the A-10C upgrades for night strikes with a Sniper pod.

But the F-35 will have better integrated avionics and cockpit, and DAS plus HMS should help a lot with low-level flight at night.

In bad weather, the F-35 will have the edge. APG-81 vs no radar at all on the A-10 means no contest.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Don't discount the A-10C upgrades for night strikes with a Sniper pod.

Thanks for the heads up. I had heard about an A-10 upgrade but didn't realise the scope of the Precision Engagement mod. Will certainly make the A-10C far more effective and allow it to stay in the battlespace with more restrictive rules of engagement (digital geo-location of all targets).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Don't discount the A-10C upgrades for night strikes with a Sniper pod.

Bones were equiped with Sniper and conducted their first Sniper CAS mission Aug 4th.

The pod conversion was done (and certified) in under 45 days. (regarded as a record)

On another note - A-10's have just gone through VSTARs

 

[gf0012-aust]

another cat amongst the pigeons....

I'm part of a strategy discussion group and we've been having debates about CAS and JSF since early 2006. It gets quite heated between the army guys and the airforce guys

a snippet:

"I doubt the morale has anything to do with it. the A-10 is more accurate and has fewer friendly fire problems due to the close proximity to the fight and actual visual contact with the troops on the ground. It makes communication better and thus makes the CAS more accurate and more deadly. The F-16s etc do not want to slow down for fear of being targeted where as the A-10 is a slow moving aircraft and is a tank, it can take some severe hits and still not be phased at all. This will free up the F-16s and F-35s for better roles such as deep bombing runs etc...

As a former ground troop I'll take an A-10 or AC-130 over an F-16 or F-35 anyday."

There have been a number of problems with small fast movers providing CAS - and including incidents with JTACs attached to Aust forces where they called up a fast mover in theatre and blew the opportunity.

 

[der_Master]

"I doubt the morale has anything to do with it. the A-10 is more accurate and has fewer friendly fire problems due to the close proximity to the fight and actual visual contact with the troops on the ground. It makes communication better and thus makes the CAS more accurate and more deadly. The F-16s etc do not want to slow down for fear of being targeted where as the A-10 is a slow moving aircraft and is a tank, it can take some severe hits and still not be phased at all. This will free up the F-16s and F-35s for better roles such as deep bombing runs etc...

As a former ground troop I'll take an A-10 or AC-130 over an F-16 or F-35 anyday."

I agree with this 100%. imo (and i guess the experts) every point is accurate. Being right their on the spot is huge. I think this is an excellent aircraft and is needed to fulfill the crucial role of supporting the ground forces (not sure what CAS stands for, but i imagine something similar). I see this plane as being rather cheap and very effective for its intended purpose. I like the JSF and will be happy to see it replace the F-15, F/A-16, F/A-18 and maybe others, however I do not think it is more capable of overtaking the A-10s role.

 

[B.Smitty]

There have been a number of problems with small fast movers providing CAS - and including incidents with JTACs attached to Aust forces where they called up a fast mover in theatre and blew the opportunity.

Are these problems because they are fast movers? Or because they don't train as much for CAS?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are these problems because they are fast movers? Or because they don't train as much for CAS?

Multiple concurrent issues from my understanding.

• slot about to expire
• opportunity lost on one available pass

really couldn't say on the experience issue - but the "common" autorespond is an overshoot. maybe thats a trg issue.

on the training for CAS issue, I wouldn't think its as valid though as UCAVs, A-10's, F15's, B1's have all had similar electronic upgrades in the last 2 years... it's now supposed to be simpler..... (ground jockeys have done oK with UCAVs)

but, to be frank, I'd have to ask

 

[gf0012-aust]

I agree with this 100%. imo (and i guess the experts) every point is accurate. Being right their on the spot is huge. I think this is an excellent aircraft and is needed to fulfill the crucial role of supporting the ground forces (not sure what CAS stands for, but i imagine something similar). I see this plane as being rather cheap and very effective for its intended purpose. I like the JSF and will be happy to see it replace the F-15, F/A-16, F/A-18 and maybe others, however I do not think it is more capable of overtaking the A-10s role.

thats why this example is a cat amongst the pigeons.

this bloke has not worked with any PG systems and is unaware of how accurate the standoff PG capability is now.

needless to say, the USAF TAC planners in the group clearly disagree with his view of the world.

 

[der_Master]

thats why this example is a cat amongst the pigeons.

this bloke has not worked with any PG systems and is unaware of how accurate the standoff PG capability is now.

needless to say, the USAF TAC planners in the group clearly disagree with his view of the world.

I am not so sure what you mean by this. Nonetheless, sure I doubt I know as much about this as you do. However I have always had an interest in the armed forces and consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject. I know much more about all military subjects than my friends and I like to talk to them about and inform them if they are interested. I do this as opposed to saying your wrong, everyone in the world thinks this, I will not explain why (this is what i felt you did).
One last point, the person you originally quoted seems to have first hand military experience which should not be overlooked when reaching your conclusion (something I do not have and I assume neither do you). Basically what I am saying is that I would like to know your reasoning when stating that person was wrong, I am not just going to take your word for it because you said so.