A-10 The ground pounders friend

[Donald J Conti]

I think the A-10 is the best friend our troops could ever have. To get rid of them because they are slow and not the super stealth machine the USAF wants is not the point. If our nation is going to put our troops in harms way then the A-10 should be the force behind them to protect them and pave the way for the forces on the ground. Ask any of our troops and they will tell you that the A-10 is a Gods preyed for back up in a fight. They are far better than attack copters and not that easy to bring down. Instead of getting rid of them get more of them and more up to date A=10s. Give them to the Marines. F-18s are fast and sexy but the A-10 is the street fighter and can stay on station much longer. Build new ones and put them on carriers. It would not take that much to have folding wings designed for the A-10. It would also make a very good anti sub platform. A copter is slow and an easy target. An A-10 low over the ocean would be hard to bring down and could cover much more ocean that the Seahawk. Our troops deserve the best air cover we can give them or keep them home. We have not won a war since WW-II

 

[StobieWan]

I think the A-10 is the best friend our troops could ever have. To get rid of them because they are slow and not the super stealth machine the USAF wants is not the point. If our nation is going to put our troops in harms way then the A-10 should be the force behind them to protect them and pave the way for the forces on the ground. Ask any of our troops and they will tell you that the A-10 is a Gods preyed for back up in a fight. They are far better than attack copters and not that easy to bring down. Instead of getting rid of them get more of them and more up to date A=10s. Give them to the Marines. F-18s are fast and sexy but the A-10 is the street fighter and can stay on station much longer. Build new ones and put them on carriers. It would not take that much to have folding wings designed for the A-10. It would also make a very good anti sub platform. A copter is slow and an easy target. An A-10 low over the ocean would be hard to bring down and could cover much more ocean that the Seahawk. Our troops deserve the best air cover we can give them or keep them home. We have not won a war since WW-II

A10's were marginal in the 1990's - the only reason they're not at BOMARC, awaiting disposal, is that the US hasn't fought a war in contested air space in two decades. Have a look at the air support being delivered in Afghanistan today - most of it is precision guided weapons from several miles away - cannon is often not precise enough to bring in close enough to friendly forces when they're fighting people in the next street or ditch.

An ASW variant of the A10 is a total nonstarter - if the US wanted fixed wing ASW, they could bring the SA-3's back. Where in an A10 would you locate the sensors and crew to intepret them? How many sonar buoys and torpedoes could you get on an A10?

 

[Bonza]

I think the A-10 is the best friend our troops could ever have. To get rid of them because they are slow and not the super stealth machine the USAF wants is not the point. If our nation is going to put our troops in harms way then the A-10 should be the force behind them to protect them and pave the way for the forces on the ground. Ask any of our troops and they will tell you that the A-10 is a Gods preyed for back up in a fight. They are far better than attack copters and not that easy to bring down. Instead of getting rid of them get more of them and more up to date A=10s. Give them to the Marines. F-18s are fast and sexy but the A-10 is the street fighter and can stay on station much longer. Build new ones and put them on carriers. It would not take that much to have folding wings designed for the A-10. It would also make a very good anti sub platform. A copter is slow and an easy target. An A-10 low over the ocean would be hard to bring down and could cover much more ocean that the Seahawk. Our troops deserve the best air cover we can give them or keep them home. We have not won a war since WW-II

There are so many assumptions in this post I can't bring myself to refute them point by point, but in brief, they're getting rid of them not because they're "slow" but because they're ageing airframes and because technology has progressed to the point where there are better ways of delivering CAS (among other reasons). There's no more Fulda Gap scenarios where the target is massed AFVs, and the A-10 hasn't changed quite enough to keep up with the times. You say the A-10 is a "street fighter", I don't know what you mean by that, it sounds like a very sentimental term that has no real meaning behind it.

And the A-10 would make a terrible ASW platform. Just awful. If you don't understand why, google the P-8 and read what you can, then look at the differences between it and the A-10. You should be able to figure out why the A-10 would not do well in this role.

Precision guided munitions and their continued proliferation and dropping costs (see the various programs to fit laser guidance onto 70mm rockets) have made great strides to produce CAS capabilities that don't require a low and slow aircraft like the A-10. I understand the A-10 is a beautiful aircraft, and a very rugged and one of a kind machine, but that does not make it worth keeping. Just remember it for what it was instead of trying to shoehorn it into the future battlefield for its own sake. I love, absolutely adore, the F-4 Phantom - but I don't want it in my air force.

 

[ADMk2]

I think the A-10 is the best friend our troops could ever have. To get rid of them because they are slow and not the super stealth machine the USAF wants is not the point. If our nation is going to put our troops in harms way then the A-10 should be the force behind them to protect them and pave the way for the forces on the ground. Ask any of our troops and they will tell you that the A-10 is a Gods preyed for back up in a fight. They are far better than attack copters and not that easy to bring down. Instead of getting rid of them get more of them and more up to date A=10s. Give them to the Marines. F-18s are fast and sexy but the A-10 is the street fighter and can stay on station much longer. Build new ones and put them on carriers. It would not take that much to have folding wings designed for the A-10. It would also make a very good anti sub platform. A copter is slow and an easy target. An A-10 low over the ocean would be hard to bring down and could cover much more ocean that the Seahawk. Our troops deserve the best air cover we can give them or keep them home. We have not won a war since WW-II

Absolutely. Desert Storm was a crushing defeat. All hail the mighty A-10 the only platform that er, allowed the Iraqis victory?

Derp springs to mind...

http://tinyurl.com/ycwslmu

 

[Feanor]

Well it's interesting how different the experience of the US military with the A-10 and the Russian military with the Su-25 has been. The US is looking to get rid of the A-10, replacing it with the F-35, while Russia is working on restarting production of an upgraded Su-25 variant. The commentary I have encountered vis-a-vis the A-10 has been that it's less effective then many other options, while all the commentary on the Su-25 is that it's absolutely essential and no other asset can do its job.

Now I understand that the Russian military is a long way from where the US is in terms of being able to provide CAS to ground troops, but this makes me wonder about the rest of the world. At the end of the day most of the world is nowhere near where the US is with regards to PGMs, and modern air-to-ground platforms. So would not, the A-10 (or Su-25) be a good choice for dedicated CAS for those countries?

 

[Gremlin29]

The problem the A10 runs into for the US is that despite common beliefs, it's not the preferred CAS platform. I've worked with JTAC's extensively and my unit does alot of joint training with a tennant JTAC unit. They brief us annually and always compare contrast platforms as part of their brief. If you are fighting a HIC the A10 is probably more useful, but in the LIC's of the past and future they bring very little to the table. That's alot of platform to put ordenance on one or two individuals in the middle of nowhere. I say in the middle of nowhere because that's about the only place you can use A10's in LIC's because collateral damage makes them impossible to employ in the cities, where the majority of the battles occur.

 

[Feanor]

The problem the A10 runs into for the US is that despite common beliefs, it's not the preferred CAS platform. I've worked with JTAC's extensively and my unit does alot of joint training with a tennant JTAC unit. They brief us annually and always compare contrast platforms as part of their brief. If you are fighting a HIC the A10 is probably more useful, but in the LIC's of the past and future they bring very little to the table. That's alot of platform to put ordenance on one or two individuals in the middle of nowhere. I say in the middle of nowhere because that's about the only place you can use A10's in LIC's because collateral damage makes them impossible to employ in the cities, where the majority of the battles occur.

Interesting. What makes it possible to use the Su-25 in cities, where the A-10 apparently can't be used? Looser RoEs? Because there is some spectacular footage of Su-25s flying between two rows of apartment blocks in Grozny. What you say makes a lot of sense, but I suppose it also depends on what kind of opponent you are dealing with. For example those same Chechens were able to put together groups of hundreds, and even thousands of fighters. I don't know how the Taliban operate today, but it's not inconceivable to deal with irregulars that can field quite large formations.

I suspect that a lot of this experience comes from a very specific sort of conflict fought in Iraq and Afghan over the last decade and a half.

I'm also still wondering about my question. Plenty of third world operators get good use out of their Su-25s. What stops the A-10 from being a similar asset?

 

[Gremlin29]

Yes Feanor ROE prevents the use of the A10 for most operations the US has been experiencing. Although it's utility becomes more apparent during actual operations against an actual army, again experience has been these operations are now very short in duration. The question that then comes to mind is did the platform contribute in a way that was not otherwise possible? I think the answer is likely no. Not to take away from what it can do, just that what it can do can be replaced with a platform that can perform other missions.

I think Russia's ability to employ the Su-25 is unique to it's own formations and experience. I can't imagine the USAF flying A10's through the proverbial valley of high rises, that contravenes current TTP's. In fact, that's one of the big problems with using fixed wing in urban area's, you are shooting into a canyon and the ability to acquire, fix and neutralize specific targets is measured in nano seconds. I will agree that the A10 could be used as others are using the Su-25, it may be there's little or no interest in it or the US isn't interested in supplying/supporting an aircraft that has left the inventory for good.

 

[Waylander]

IMHO not only the ability of other fast movers right up to strategic bombers to deliver pinpoint CAS has risen considerably but also the ability to take out large numbers of enemy vehicles.

In Lybia a pair of Tornados employed 20+ Brimstones in one run and killed a target with every missile. Thats potentially half a bn of T-80s killed in one run by two fast movers.

A pair of Longbows can nearly whack a whole bn of tanks if they get all their shots of.

A Strike Eagle may waste another bn with a full load of SDB IIs.

So it's also not very specialy in it's original role anymore. If you really want to a cheap plane on station in a LIC environment use a Super Tucano with a pod and some PGMs.

 

[Donald J Conti]

A10

At what cost? If you have not noticed our nation is broke. Each missile cost more than an average home and the fighters themselves are at least three times as much as an A-10. Plus they use three times as much fuel and need tanker support costing even more. The men on the ground need air support when they need it not waiting around until a 30 year old F-16 or F-15s get into the air and on scene. I guess nothing is ever learned from past mistakes. Benghazi comes to mind plus the air support that never arrived to help that Navy Seal Unit. Men die waiting for air support. That's the deal. An A-10 can stay on station for a long time. Not so with fast movers.The A-10 was developed after Viet Nam because it was needed then. Many a supersonic fighter was brought down by Russian missiles and anti aircraft guns along with noisy copters. A real war fought against Russia or China would not give us air superiority as we see now. And besides we have not won a war since WW-II. And if it were not for mass bombing of German factories and cities plus a certain bomb over Japan we may have lost that war. Massive air power with all kinds of platforms win wars. The a-10 is just one of those tools. Remember to get that new high priced weapon we probably have to borrow money from China to build it and they are not our friends.

 

[Gremlin29]

If airpower wins wars, what happened in Korea and Vietnam? We certainly owned the sky and dropped plenty of bombs.

 

[STURM]

F-18s are fast and sexy but the A-10 is the street fighter and can stay on station much longer.

But if those on the receiving end of 30mm shells and Mavericks had newer generation MANPADs - or even older generation functioning ones - and alerting devices, would A-10s be able to loiter at medium to low altitude? A lot also depends on the threat level; lets not draw the wrong lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and assume that things willl be the same elsewhere.

And if it were not for mass bombing of German factories and cities plus a certain bomb over Japan we may have lost that war.

German production actually peaked in 1944 when the Allied bombing campaign was at it's height and the point to take note is that until the every end - mid 1945 - the German were still able to produce fighters, U-Boats, etc, in dribs and drabs and of lesser build quality but they were still able to. At the end of the day the Germans were very overstretched/over extended and American industrial might ensured Allied victory in the long run but if the Germans weren't bogged down on the Ostfront, the war might have dragged on longer irrespective of Allied control of the skies. It was a combination of many factors that led to the eventual German defeat, Aliied power played an extremely vital role but wasn't the only factor.

One can argue that even if the bomb had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the Japanese would have had to surrender anyway due to Amercan control of the seas surrounding Japan.

Anyway, it might interest you to know that back in the 1980's Pakistan asked to buy A-10s due to fears the Soviets might come calling but didn't get an export clearance [I remember reading this somewhere years ago]. The question I'm interested in is whether any other countries - NATO and non-NATO - ever expressed an interest in acquiring A-10s?

 

[CB90]

At what cost? If you have not noticed our nation is broke.

False. In debt does not equal broke.

Each missile cost more than an average home and the fighters themselves are at least three times as much as an A-10.

False. There have been no new procurement A-10s so there's no worthwhile baseline to compare against. Don't know what kind of "average" home you're talking about, but your typical Hellfire or APKWS is a lot cheaper than your "average home" unless you're including Afghan huts into you homebuying survey.

Plus they use three times as much fuel and need tanker support costing even more.

Eh, maybe. Can't be bothered to look. Doesn't matter if you take forever to get there, if you need to have a local airfield, can't survive in the battlespace, etc.

The men on the ground need air support when they need it not waiting around until a 30 year old F-16 or F-15s get into the air and on scene.

Umm...yeah. That's why the F-15s/F-16s are already in the air and orbiting. If anything, if I were a ground pounder, I'd be more interested in having more UAVs, so you could assign small UASs to direct control by small ground units. Also, Gremlin is an Army aviator. Read his point on the opinions of current JTACs. Look up what JTACs do.

Benghazi comes to mind plus the air support that never arrived to help that Navy Seal Unit.

What SEAL unit? Why the #### would A-10s have been on station at Benghazi? F-18s off a CVN would have been the quickest platform to get on station if getting aircraft overhead had been identified as a requirement.

Men die waiting for air support. That's the deal. An A-10 can stay on station for a long time. Not so with fast movers.

That's why we have things like drones, that can loiter far longer than any manned aircraft. Or aerial refueling. B-1s in Afghanistan loiter all freaking day.

The A-10 was developed after Viet Nam because it was needed then.

No, it was developed to defeat Soviet armor en masse. That wasn't really a problem in Vietnam.

Many a supersonic fighter was brought down by Russian missiles and anti aircraft guns along with noisy copters.

Umm...yeah. Again, things moved on. That's why they developed ARMs, PGMs, standoff weapons, etc. to operate out of the threat envelope.

A real war fought against Russia or China would not give us air superiority as we see now.

So your solution is to drop an aircraft completely unsuited to air to air combat or designed to penetrate/survive in a modern IADS? Care to explain that one?

Not sure why we'd operate the A-10 against either Russia or China either. Is Russia attacking NATO? Is China going to engage in a land war against any of our allies? Boy that would be dumb.

And besides we have not won a war since WW-II. And if it were not for mass bombing of German factories and cities plus a certain bomb over Japan we may have lost that war. Massive air power with all kinds of platforms win wars.

What? I literally don't even know where to start with this one.

The a-10 is just one of those tools.

Again...what? You're putting a Cold War era version of the P-47 in the same category as city bombing and nuclear weapons?

Remember to get that new high priced weapon we probably have to borrow money from China to build it and they are not our friends.

Realities of federal budgeting aside, the vast majority of the US debt is actually owed to the American people. But even if that were the case, you're saying they'd be loaning us the money to buy weapons to be used against them? Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make with that.

 

[Volkodav]

The thing many seem to forget is technology moves on and the basic design is 40 years old. The mission is was designed for no longer exists, if it did the A-10 likely would not be survivable and for the missions it now conducts there are now more effective ways to get the job done.

 

[Bonza]

At what cost? If you have not noticed our nation is broke. Each missile cost more than an average home and the fighters themselves are at least three times as much as an A-10. Plus they use three times as much fuel and need tanker support costing even more. The men on the ground need air support when they need it not waiting around until a 30 year old F-16 or F-15s get into the air and on scene. I guess nothing is ever learned from past mistakes. Benghazi comes to mind plus the air support that never arrived to help that Navy Seal Unit. Men die waiting for air support. That's the deal. An A-10 can stay on station for a long time. Not so with fast movers.The A-10 was developed after Viet Nam because it was needed then. Many a supersonic fighter was brought down by Russian missiles and anti aircraft guns along with noisy copters. A real war fought against Russia or China would not give us air superiority as we see now. And besides we have not won a war since WW-II. And if it were not for mass bombing of German factories and cities plus a certain bomb over Japan we may have lost that war. Massive air power with all kinds of platforms win wars. The a-10 is just one of those tools. Remember to get that new high priced weapon we probably have to borrow money from China to build it and they are not our friends.

There are so many bad assumptions and assertions in your post that I'm surprised CB90 had the patience to go through them one by one. Really I think you need to go out and research more about air power and how it's used. I don't mean that in a dismissive sense - but you could benefit from even just an hour of reading legitimate materials. Here, start with this thread:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/

I promise you that if you take the time to understand these things, you'll understand the decision not to further modernise existing A-10s, and the decision not to produce any additional airframes (and as CB90 said, using the cost of an A-10 isn't a particularly well thought out argument unless you can tell me the costs of restarting the production line and all the other costs associated with actually producing aircraft).

And just to mention it again as an example of why you need to read some more, you say the A-10 was designed post-Vietnam for wars like Vietnam. This couldn't be further from the truth and makes me wonder how serious you are about understanding the platform you evidently support with all your heart. Where did you get the info that it was designed for Vietnam? It was designed for blowing up columns of Soviet armour pouring out of Eastern Europe, which is a totally different kind of warfare to Vietnam.

 

[King Wally]

Anyway, it might interest you to know that back in the 1980's Pakistan asked to buy A-10s due to fears the Soviets might come calling but didn't get an export clearance [I remember reading this somewhere years ago]. The question I'm interested in is whether any other countries - NATO and non-NATO - ever expressed an interest in acquiring A-10s?

I would be surprised if many nations looked at it seriously. Not because it wasn't a good plane but because it was simply to specialised in it's own niche. Few nations have the budget the USAF does to delve into highly specialised roles (such as heavy bombers, or true air superiority fighters etc) and most really are forced to spend their precious budgets on buying (and maintaining/training for) true Multi-role fighter bombers that can rotate between all missions, from CAS to strategic strike to air to air to SEAD to ISR as required. It's why aircraft like the F-16 and F-18 sold so fantastically over the last couple decades. The world at large runs on a tight budget and with tight limitations, the jack of all trades tends to win in such a environment. Given the current climate in the US it really doesn't surprise me a call was made to consolidate a little and retire the A-10.

 

[Todjaeger]

And just to mention it again as an example of why you need to read some more, you say the A-10 was designed post-Vietnam for wars like Vietnam. This couldn't be further from the truth and makes me wonder how serious you are about understanding the platform you evidently support with all your heart. Where did you get the info that it was designed for Vietnam? It was designed for blowing up columns of Soviet armour pouring out of Eastern Europe, which is a totally different kind of warfare to Vietnam.

A bit of correction and historical perspective. The programme which ultimately became the A-10 was initiated in the mid-60's following criticism of the USAF about providing CAS to ground forces. As a side note, I recall coming across some commentary made by USMC officers about USAF abilities and interest in CAS, prior to start of the Korean Conflict. The commentary was anything but flattering.

During the Vietnam War the primary USAF aircraft for CAS was the piston-powered Korean-era Douglas A-1 (and other letter/number combinations) Skyraider, since other aircraft in the USAF inventory like the F-4 Phantom II and F-105 Thunderchief were not suitable. Issues which made the Phantom and Thunderchief unsuitable were their comparatively limited loiter time, and high speed without the benefit of modern E/O systems and targeting pods. These two issues made it very difficult for fast jets to deliver accurate CAS when and where needed. Especially since CAS was not a role the USAF considered important, instead devoting more resources into fighter aircraft, strategic bombers, a supporting tanker fleet, and ballistic missiles.

The A-X programme, which was to develop a CAS aircraft to replace the Skyraider got started in ~1966 with the involvement of Pierre Sprey (yeah...) with the goal of providing an improved aircraft capable of delivering a large amount of ordnance or target, high loiter time, and better ability to engage armoured targets vs. the machine guns and dumb rockets of the then current attack helicopters and CAS assets. In 1970, the requirements for the A-X programme were changed as the threat of Soviet armoured columns was considered to have grown, so an even greater emphasis was made on the A-X to have an anti-armour capability, with a RFP being issued for a cannon able to penetrate a tank's top armour.

The first flight of the prototype occurred in 1972, with the YA-10 being selected as the design for the A-X programme in 1973 (vs. the YA-9). By this time US involvement in Vietnam had been diminishing and a significantly greater importance was placed upon a potential Soviet-Warsaw Pact v. NATO conflict in Europe. The first production A-10 was delivered IIRC in 1975, nearly a decade after the programme started and after the US had exited Vietnam.

In short, while the programme did initiate as a result of CAS needs during Vietnam, like many defence programmes (across many nations) the time between programme initiation and initial delivery was so long, that the beginning programme requirements and final objectives had changed significantly.

Incidentally, in many respects, a modernized A-1 Skyraider would provide an excellent CAS aircraft for use in LIC.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/

I definitely second the advice to read the above thread. The battlespace of today is quite a bit different in some ways from what it was in yesteryear. In Afghanistan for instance, CAS has been provided by loitering B-1 strategic bombers using PGM's. There is no way that a single A-10 can compete with a B-1 in terms of loiter time, time to reach target, or quantity of munitions available to deliver. We shant talk of what the future potentially will be like.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

If airpower wins wars, what happened in Korea and Vietnam? We certainly owned the sky and dropped plenty of bombs.

I don't know about owning the skies over Korea. The Soviet airforce took quite an active part in that conflict (iirc 2 fighter divisions and 1 bomber division at the peak). That having been said your overall point is quite accurate. Air power doesn't necessarily win wars. It depends on what the objectives of the conflict are.

Yes Feanor ROE prevents the use of the A10 for most operations the US has been experiencing. Although it's utility becomes more apparent during actual operations against an actual army, again experience has been these operations are now very short in duration. The question that then comes to mind is did the platform contribute in a way that was not otherwise possible? I think the answer is likely no. Not to take away from what it can do, just that what it can do can be replaced with a platform that can perform other missions.

That makes sense, thanks.

I think Russia's ability to employ the Su-25 is unique to it's own formations and experience.

There's a surprising number of third world Su-25 operators in the third world for example Africa (Sudan, Congo, etc.). So it's certainly not that unique. Though I'm not sure how effective they are in using it, but they do keep buying them. There was a sale of used Su-25s to the Congo quite recently from Ukraine.

I can't imagine the USAF flying A10's through the proverbial valley of high rises, that contravenes current TTP's. In fact, that's one of the big problems with using fixed wing in urban area's, you are shooting into a canyon and the ability to acquire, fix and neutralize specific targets is measured in nano seconds.

The Su-25 got it's nickname "rook" in Afghan during the Soviet campaign there, for doing exactly that. Diving into canyons and picking the mujahadeen off out of their caves, and fortified positions, in many cases taking obscene amounts of damage but staying in the fight. There were many instances where even after using up all of its payload (including cannon rounds) the planes would continue to imitate attack runs, to scatter enemy forces, or force them to seek cover.

I will agree that the A10 could be used as others are using the Su-25, it may be there's little or no interest in it or the US isn't interested in supplying/supporting an aircraft that has left the inventory for good.

So there's no money to be made doing that? Strange. How maintenance intensive is the A-10? Would a third world operator be able to keep them flying, provided spares were available?

 

[ngatimozart]

When my country looked at replacing the A4K Skyhawks, the A10 was discounted because of its limited versatility. It might have had limited use in maritime strike but it is basically a single role platform and of no use to a small air force with limited means. We chose the F16 because it met the requirements of the then defence policy. However politics intervened and the F16 deal was overturned by an incoming government. Now if we wanted to have something in a CAS role we could use rotary wing instead of fixed wing because it is a more cost effective option for us. The A10 is a one trick pony and it has passed its use by date. It has been superseded by newer and far more efficient platforms.

 

[STURM]

Since we're discussing CAS issues and platforms, just to get some opinions. For countries that have a requirement for a prop powered CAS platform, what would be the determining factor in choosing either a Super Tucano or a gunship configured CN-235 or a CN-295; apart from factors like procurement cost, hourly operating cost, endurance, range, payload, commonality, operational requirements and threat level?

http://defensetech.org/2011/10/19/atks-light-gunship-package/

Airbus Military | Missions