Possible export market for used A-10 Warthogs

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Weren't South Korea interested in some S-3s at some point with - i think - P-3 systems fitted?

swerve could I be so bold as to ask you to express your thoughts on the P-1 in the RAF thread? I read so much about the P-8 i'd be interested in your thoughts .

As for the A-10's, ship them to Iraq. But even then, AT-6 could arguably be a better solution.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
The USAF has shut this chain of events down, an AF representative states firstly that there was no anticipated sales of the A-10 to anyone. When asked to clarify, they said that the USAF has no intention of selling the A-10 to anyone.

USAF rules out international A-10 sales - 7/24/2015 - Flight Global

While Congress is opposing the retirement (as we know), they've allowed the transfer of 'some' aircraft to be put into storage at Davis-Monthan AFB.

Shame really, was interested to see some A-10's in Iraqi AF colours :p
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Can't see any point in anyone buying or running them - they're either way too much or not close to enough. If you want to fire rockets and drop PGM's at blokes in flip flops then there some LIFT A/C out there that are fine, if you have to take on an IADS, then the A10 will be shredded so..

There's a comment on F16.net where a guy with bags of experience in Vietnam doing CAS points out that the A10 never got half the precision bombing kit that the A7 did etc and you never saw the A10 at any exercise where they'd face A/A opposition because it'd be a blood bath. I dunno, he sounded convincing..
 

Redrighthand

New Member
Can't see any point in anyone buying or running them - they're either way too much or not close to enough. If you want to fire rockets and drop PGM's at blokes in flip flops then there some LIFT A/C out there that are fine, if you have to take on an IADS, then the A10 will be shredded so..

There's a comment on F16.net where a guy with bags of experience in Vietnam doing CAS points out that the A10 never got half the precision bombing kit that the A7 did etc and you never saw the A10 at any exercise where they'd face A/A opposition because it'd be a blood bath. I dunno, he sounded convincing..
To be fair, the A10 they're fielding now is somewhat upgraded from Vietnam days. Both in accuracy upgrades and air self defence.
Having said that, in this day and age, especially with some of the data connectivity being developed for CAS and calling strikes (see the article here on defencetalk regarding the Marines and KILSWITCH), it may be that a combination of multi role aircraft and UAV's will fill the hole left by the outgoing A10s. Nobody seems that much interested in dedicated strike aircraft any more.
 

Toblerone

Banned Member
Heh, it never even crossed my mind that someone would consider getting used A-10s as its only operator is getting rid of them and moving on.

I wouldn't get them even if the airframes were free, that's a white elephant if I've ever seen one. That plane has no commonality with anything and a very strict role.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Heh, it never even crossed my mind that someone would consider getting used A-10s as its only operator is getting rid of them and moving on.

I wouldn't get them even if the airframes were free, that's a white elephant if I've ever seen one. That plane has no commonality with anything and a very strict role.
Cheap and has two engines, well that's enough to fool our idiot PM!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I can see the russians reacting well to any of the ex warpac countries buying them..... not :)
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I can see the russians reacting well to any of the ex warpac countries buying them..... not :)
But that's exactly the environment that they wouldn't be very useful in. Gratuitous enemy GBAD. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the A-10 strikes me as rather fragile under those circumstances. If anything, they'd be better off getting upgraded F-16s, no?

Nobody seems that much interested in dedicated strike aircraft any more.
When those F-16IQs got delayed, the Iraqis came running to Russia for the closest equivalent of the A-10, the Su-25. Interestingly enough not only has the Su-25 seen surprising exports, but it's also done very well in most conflicts. Part of it might be the fact that the Su-25 is heavily armored (for an aircraft) and the other part that it's easy to maintain, but it still seems like dedicated CAS planes still have a role, in some countries at least. And, unless I'm mistaken, the A-10 features titanium armor as well, including a similar "bathtub" setup where the pilot and avionics are sitting in a titanium tub.

I never really understood why the A-10 never seemed to be regarded quite as the Russian Su-25s which are loved by the VVS and the ground troops they support, alike. And on the subject of dedicated dive bombers, Russia is currently working on a future dive-bomber project. Whether it reaches fruition or remains a paper study, remains to be seen (finances will be the key issue) but they seem to want the type.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
But that's exactly the environment that they wouldn't be very useful in. Gratuitous enemy GBAD. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the A-10 strikes me as rather fragile under those circumstances. If anything, they'd be better off getting upgraded F-16s, no?
basic warfighting. kill the SAM structure, own the box, kill whats on the ground

And, unless I'm mistaken, the A-10 features titanium armor as well, including a similar "bathtub" setup where the pilot and avionics are sitting in a titanium tub.

I never really understood why the A-10 never seemed to be regarded quite as the Russian Su-25s which are loved by the VVS and the ground troops they support, alike.
depends who you have the discussion with.... those on the ground are quite attached to them. Theres some generational service rivalry which can cloud the debate
 

Toblerone

Banned Member
If the russians were trying to save money to produce some hightech stealth strike fighter (in some variants for the branches and to massively export it) ..... there would be pressure to drop the su-25 :D

And when I say pressure I mean it would have been dropped outright when the big man gave the order.
 

Haavarla

Active Member
If the russians were trying to save money to produce some hightech stealth strike fighter (in some variants for the branches and to massively export it) ..... there would be pressure to drop the su-25 :D

And when I say pressure I mean it would have been dropped outright when the big man gave the order.
Sure, but at this Stage it is all moot points.
The Su-25SM3 still have a function in most conflict regions today.

The fact that Russia allways is dependent to find some Middle way out of their force structure, and it shows very clearly in VKS, they heavily stick to upgrade Package on well proved platforms.

This is practical for quick induced units and $$$ saving.

US has yet to find their Middle way, and some People does not understand what Pentagon sequestration really involve.
Also the F-35's is heavily delayed and will be much more costly to operate than previously planned.

Only now do we see upgrades package for F-16/15 being started.
Better late than later..

http://www.defensenews.com/videos/defense-news/tv/2016/02/14/80374780/

The Marines will have to stick with A-10 for several more years.
After that, it will be put on reserve/maintenance depot.
 
Last edited:

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Upgrade packages for the F-15 and F-16 have been on the books for years. Off-topic, anyway...

As for the Marines, they don't operate A-10s. So I don't know why they're in the conversation. Do they receive a disproportionately high amount of CAS from the platform? I would have thought they get CAS from whatever is on station, from the B-1 to the Harrier, as any deployment would be integrated with the rest of the force structure. They only operate Hornets and Harriers in terms of their own CAS capability...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I would have thought they get CAS from whatever is on station, from the B-1 to the Harrier, as any deployment would be integrated with the rest of the force structure. They only operate Hornets and Harriers in terms of their own CAS capability...
exactly

a number of years ago it was determined that CAS wasa capability for all and not platform centric

the majority of CAS is now PGM and has been a cross platform capability. All of the "danger close" CAS has been via PGM, something that the A-10's can't do with the same level of impunity

quite frankly the notion of having platform centric combat air assets is almost gone with the dodo... the overlap to delivery cross capability within a platforms profile is high.

Its only when you start looking at the conops of heavy air that discretionary capability in a platform might be required or is advantageous

unfortunately there is a heavy weighting of pet rock theory and bias injected into the A-10 debate, it clearly ignores the force wide advances in CAS made in the last 15 years - some of it's idealogical which means that reason just goes out the window
 

Redrighthand

New Member
exactly

a number of years ago it was determined that CAS wasa capability for all and not platform centric

the majority of CAS is now PGM and has been a cross platform capability. All of the "danger close" CAS has been via PGM, something that the A-10's can't do with the same level of impunity

<snipped>

unfortunately there is a heavy weighting of pet rock theory and bias injected into the A-10 debate, it clearly ignores the force wide advances in CAS made in the last 15 years - some of it's idealogical which means that reason just goes out the window
I'd recently been reading some (to a newbie) well argued cases for maintaining the A10 fleet further - not just because of the delays with the F35 but because we may be entering another cold war, which is just what the A10 was originally designed for. Really close support with cannon may be safer for friendly troops than missiles or bombs (or not, I don't know). Also, low level armed recon in poor weather is something that it can do better than any other jet.

It's getting off topic somewhat, however, but I wonder if a combination of new air superiority stealth fighters and a more modern dedicated strike aircraft might not have been cheaper and more effective than the current "everyone can do a bit of everything" approach...

From a pet rock perspective, though, I'd love to see A10's in the RAAF. :cool:
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
From a pet rock perspective, though, I'd love to see A10's in the RAAF. :cool:
emotionally I've got a soft spot for the A-10

pragmatically - its about precision of weapons on target in a timely and effective manner

most people don't realise that the absolute majority of danger close delivery events have been undertaken by fast movers and mainly B1's and B52's

The latter are often tasked with sitting upstairs doing laps and getting called in as needed. They can not only deliver that strike but also have the advantage of being able to repeat that strike due to carriage advantages

short legged niche "smalls" just don't have the capability to do that

precision strike is of little use if you don't have stamina, persistence and projection
 

rjtjrt

Member
Is there a case for RAAF to replace the 4 PC-9 (soon to be PC-21) with A-10's, if A-10's were available?
To my mind A-10 is a much better aircraft to use for FAC - more survivable at the very least.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Is there a case for RAAF to replace the 4 PC-9 (soon to be PC-21) with A-10's, if A-10's were available?
To my mind A-10 is a much better aircraft to use for FAC - more survivable at the very least.
none, absolute woftam
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Is there a case for RAAF to replace the 4 PC-9 (soon to be PC-21) with A-10's, if A-10's were available?
To my mind A-10 is a much better aircraft to use for FAC - more survivable at the very least.
The PC-9 replaced the canceled A -10 project in 1985 so I've got no idea what every one is talking about, bit late now to bring that project back after 30 years.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'd recently been reading some (to a newbie) well argued cases for maintaining the A10 fleet further - not just because of the delays with the F35 but because we may be entering another cold war, which is just what the A10 was originally designed for. Really close support with cannon may be safer for friendly troops than missiles or bombs (or not, I don't know). Also, low level armed recon in poor weather is something that it can do better than any other jet.

It's getting off topic somewhat, however, but I wonder if a combination of new air superiority stealth fighters and a more modern dedicated strike aircraft might not have been cheaper and more effective than the current "everyone can do a bit of everything" approach...

From a pet rock perspective, though, I'd love to see A10's in the RAAF. :cool:
The design of the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb is specifically aimed at increasing effective payloads of precision guided munitions while minimising collateral damage, particularly the Focused Lethality Munition variant. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find it safer for nearby ground units than a strafing run from an A-10. Your gun run is going to be subject to at least some dispersion and the concept of "danger close" relative to a cannon the size of the GAU-8 would be no laughing matter...

While the F-35 program has had issues arising from its attempt to engineer three disparate variants into a single airframe, there is ample evidence that modern multirole fighters can indeed "do a bit of everything". If you look at most 4th generation US airframes, the trend has been towards expanding capabilities to fill multiple war-fighting roles. The proliferation of smaller, more accurate and more numerous munitions only serves to expand the air-to-ground capability further.

As GF rightly points out it has actually been strategic platforms that have served the CAS role most effectively in places like Afghanistan - they can not only carry substantially larger amounts of munitions than tactical platforms, they can match their payload in endurance due to massive fuel reserves, and the new generation of guided weapons means they aren't limited to littering an area with rackfuls of dumb bombs.

There's a pattern in guided munitions at the moment where they are increasingly being miniaturised. This follows several trends - a desire to arm small UAVs, the ability to engage targets very specifically within counter-insurgency conditions where civilian targets are likely to be nearby, and making use of this increased precision to allow a smaller warhead to achieve a similar effect to larger previous generation weapons. Take a look at the Viper Strike glide bomb or AGM-176 Griffin missile. Both of these weapons are even smaller than the GBU-39 mentioned above and are being integrated into close air support variants of the C-130, along with the Hellfire missile and SDB. If you have a look on youtube you'll find some videos of Viper Strike testing - the weapon is sufficiently focused in effect to blow up the occupants of a car with minimal collateral effect outside of the vehicle chassis. These are the chosen replacements of the 25mm rotary cannon, 40mm Bofors gun and 105mm howitzer of the earlier AC-130 variants. While a 30mm Bushmaster cannon is retained, the trend is quite clearly towards precision targeted effects over sheer broadside power.

In effect these small munitions afford larger payloads for tactical and selected strategic platforms while also enabling more distributed deployment of the weapons - such as onboard UAVs and less conventional CAS platforms like the C-130. With their increased precision, weapon effects on target are more lethal while also limiting the danger of fratricides amongst ground units. Compared to this, the A-10 is just a machine of a different era, limited to weapons that are larger and/or less accurate than their modern counterparts. Given its specialised role, the altitudes at which it operates (and its correspondingly greater risk from MANPADS or even radar-directed gunnery), and with its precision limited by its payload, it's hard to envision a situation in which the overall benefit would be worth the investment cost. Particularly when the USAF wishes to divest itself of airframes - no air force of the RAAF's size wants to be caught out operating an orphan platform if it can help it; it already got a taste of that with the F-111, and I suspect there is zero desire to repeat the experience...
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
emotionally I've got a soft spot for the A-10

pragmatically - its about precision of weapons on target in a timely and effective manner

most people don't realise that the absolute majority of danger close delivery events have been undertaken by fast movers and mainly B1's and B52's

The latter are often tasked with sitting upstairs doing laps and getting called in as needed. They can not only deliver that strike but also have the advantage of being able to repeat that strike due to carriage advantages

short legged niche "smalls" just don't have the capability to do that

precision strike is of little use if you don't have stamina, persistence and projection
As do I, great airframe for Infantry support.

That said, yes, most danger close missions are now PGM for various Reasons. The B1 has been the leading CAS/PGM aircraft in station for years due to its large layout
Load and long loiter times.

I also see the growth and dependence on UAVs (new Predator can loiter 40'hrs) armed with PGMs as a growing component of CAS. Even in non permissive environments I believe the thought would be to send unmanned Drones prior to manned flights.
 
Top