"The A-10 Thunderbolt, Saved By Congress, Joins Airstrikes " Topic

…Against ISIS In Syria.

"As the U.S. begins bombing ISIS targets in Syria with a campaign of airstrikes that started Monday, a venerable airplane that was almost sent to the scrapyard joins the fight. The Pentagon will send a dozen A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft and up to 300 airmen to the Middle East in early October, to help in the conflict against the Islamic State group, the Indiana National Guard said.

The deployment of the 40-year-old aircraft comes just four months after it was controversially saved from defense cuts by Congress, whose rationale for saving it was simple: Cutting it would lead to the deaths of U.S. servicemen on the ground. Built originally by now-defunct Fairchild to destroy Soviet tanks in Europe, the A-10 survived the end of the Cold War thanks to its ability to fly low, carry lots of bombs and a large cannon, and help troops with close air support, which made it often invaluable in Afghanistan. But with defense cuts looming and the Afghan war winding down, the Thunderbolt seemed on the way out…"

link

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I don't understand why the Airforce doesn't just "sell"/offload it on the Army or Marines, you know, the guys who want the thing to keep going "brrrrrrrpppppppptttttttt" at the enemy. I guess its probably some political nonsense.

Are the airframes close to falling apart?

Key West Agreement of 1948

link

The Air Force have been using it to keep aircraft out of the hands of the Army for fear they would drain funds away should they ever have their own air force.

The KWA 1948 agreement rings hollow now The Army has its own AF (sort of), the Branches seem to play well with certain Airframes but not others. The Army and Marines need some types of AC. Tactical ISTAR (Think OV1)ABEW (quickfix)and CAS like A10 but not limited to Just that Air Frame there is also a need For non Jet Airframes Like an OV10 type. There is room for Long range troop transport and tankers that the AF seems no longer interested in. Tactical resupply is another area thats hurting There are only 3 Carribu still flying and they are in the hands of civilian contractors.

Pete, surely "BRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTT!!!!!" should be in all-caps, followed by a few exclamation marks.

Pete, surely "BRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTT!!!!!" should be in all-caps, followed by a few exclamation marks.

How remiss of me, I do apologise. I hope I didn't offend any A-10 pilots that may be preseBRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTT!!!!!

Like the bird, called them in a couple of times … They should find some good hunting against ISIS/AQ/ etc. … Mikey, I flew in a C-7 when working with SF, training "Salvos" at the Ranger Camp at Aux Field 6, Eglin AFB, waaay back in the day …

I guess its probably some political nonsense.

It is. It's the same reason the USAF took over the C27Js and immediately put them in the boneyard. I'm talking flying them from the factory straight to Davis-Mothan.

The USAF doesn't want the Army having any fixed wing aircraft, because it calls into question the separate existence of the USAF. Even though the US Army should probably own the vast majority of the cargo planes, the USAF won't allow the Army to fly them.

The last time the USAF tried to retire the A10, the US Army said, "we will take it. All of it. All the officers, all the ground equipment, all the training schools." Not 48 hours after the Army announcement, the USAF withdrew the proposal to retire the A10.

Are the airframes close to falling apart?

Not now that the wings have been replaced in the A10C upgrade.

But the A10s are 40 years old now. At some point in time, the A10s are going to wear out. Probably within the next 15 years, the A10 is going to need a replacement. Not an upgunned F16 with a GAU13 30mm or a GAU22 25mm. Not an F35 (which has the GAU22).

Something highly maneuverable that can carry a big bombload, with a good-sized gun, and significant loiter time. Something that can take a large number of hits from AA guns and/or missiles, too.

Or maybe just some fresh-production A10s that have more composite in their structures for less airframe weight and bigger engines like the P&W1215G, which makes 15,000lbs thrust and has a much higher bypass ratio than the A10's TF34. So it actually has a lower IR signature and burns less fuel. Though "bigger" is a relative term, as the PW1215G is only 6" larger in diameter than the TF34.

Is there any technical reason a new set of A 10s built to modern tech standards could not be built, other than political will/money?

Is there any technical reason a new set of A 10s built to modern tech standards could not be built, other than political will/money?

No reason at all, except the only way the USAF will possess a new fleet of airframes is if congress shoves it down their throats.

The last A-10 was built in 1984 by Fairchild Republic, which no longer exists. Now it's owned by Israel's Elbit Systems according to Wikipedia. So if we are to build a new generation of A-10's, the USAF will have to issue a RFP for a new ground attack aircraft and Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman will compete for the new contract. But they won't since the F-35 will perform ground attack and CAS in the USAF. So when the current fleet's airframes fall apart the A-10 will be forced into retirement.

Funny – every time they try and scrap the A10 they have to roll it out for "one last go" and then find that it is really, really, really good at what it was designed to do.

Go, and indeed, figure.

(Wanders off shaking head at the stupidity of others)

I have heard that the F-35's survivability is quite a bit less than the A-10's. Is this an accurate statement?

the F-35's survivability is quite a bit less than the A-10's

Yes, since the A-10 is very rugged. One flew back to base even with one of its wings shot off. The pilot's cockpit is also surrounded by a titanium tub.

But the USAF will say that the F-35 is faster and hence more 'survivable,' and it has 'stealth' characteristics which the slow and bulky A-10 lacks.

So I guess it depends on how you look at it.

The A10 was purpose built while the F35 is meant to be a jack of all trades. The F35 will be able to do the same kind of CAS missions as the F16 now and will be about as survivable with the added ability of stealth (which to be honest, in a low and slow combat zone isn't that much of an addition). It will be able to come in fast, blow up something with much precision, and then leave.

What makes the A10 so good as a purpose built aircraft is that it can loiter for a long time with a lot of weapons. This means it can sit on station for a long time and hit targets within a few minutes of a call for help. If it is hit, it has been built with so many redundancies that it has a fair chance of surviving.

An F35, like the F16, hopes that it won't be hit during its pass. Both have to leave after dropping their ordinance. They won't stick around for multiple passes.

The army is looking to drones to take on this role while the air force has been using strategic assets in the loiter cas role (which is a fancy way of saying B1B bombers hovering around at high altitude and dropping bombs when asked from high altitude). The latter is great when there are no enemy aircraft or SAMs to worry about, but probably not practical in a war between protagonists on a more equal footing.

Is there any technical reason a new set of A 10s built to modern tech standards could not be built, other than political will/money?

Well, someone would have to rebuild all the tooling from scratch. The tooling was destroyed back in the late 1980s or early 1990s because it was costing Fairchild $$ to keep the tooling on-hand with no new aircraft orders.

But that is just money, really. The blueprints still exist.

Absolutely no reason other than political will.

The USAF does not want ground-attack planes unless said ground-attack planes are carrying nukes into hostile airspace.

The idea of supporting the US Army makes the single-seater pilot community gag. After all, you can't shoot down MiGs if you're shooting up tanks!

That's not entirely true. Most of the A10 pilots I have met grew up watching WWII movies with P47's shooting up trains and the like. The typical A10 pilot lives for air to ground.

In a high threat, SAM infested environment, there is no way that the A-10 is more survivable than the stealthy F-35 and it's advanced avionics.

Most of the A10 pilots I have met grew up watching WWII movies with P47's shooting up trains and the like. The typical A10 pilot lives for air to ground.

That's true. Way back when A-10s were still stationed at Myrtle Beach AFB (good grief, has it really been closed for more than 20 years?) I knew an A-10 pilot. Even as a kid, he absolutely loved the scene in Kelly's Heroes with the P-47 T'bolt (actually a Yugoslavian Soko 522 trainer in US markings) attacking Kelly's vehicles on the hilltop: YouTube link (Warning: Turn the volume OFF until the actual clip begins. The intro is really irritating.)

Interestingly enough, the main reason MB AFB closed was because the Cold War was over and the USAF planned to . . . scrap all of the A-10s.

In a high threat, SAM infested environment, there is no way that the A-10 is more survivable than the stealthy F-35 and it's advanced avionics.

US has never faced such an opponent. Only Israel did in 1973.

Iraq's 1991 defences were outdated, especially in terms of medium-high altitude systems. The actual network was French designed which meant it was completely compromised from the onset.

Serbia's Air Defences in 1999 was also obsolete, with latest systems being 1970s vintage.

Afghanistan and Libya had no functioning ADs (Libya's was rubbish in 1986 (El Dorado Canyon).

The only potential enemy countries that maintain any meaningful number of advanced SAMs are:

1. Algeria
2. China
3. Russia.

And even they operate lots of outdated junk ala S125, 2K12 Kub, HQ2 and other systems that were obsolete by 1982, let alone 2014!

F-35 was designed around Iraq 1991 but that kind of threat has diminised considerably with fall of USSR and thus loss of subsidised air defence systems to client states.

The average air defence equipment of most countries these days is low altitude MANPADS and AAA.

That's not entirely true. Most of the A10 pilots I have met grew up watching WWII movies with P47's shooting up trains and the like. The typical A10 pilot lives for air to ground.

I've read a few similar reports from ground pounders. Basically A-10 pilots were did things differently from other pilots in terms of CAS. It was far more tailored to meeting needs of ground troops than say F-15/-16/-18.

They also acted as CAS coordinators (hence some A-10s were given OA-10 designation).

The army is looking to drones to take on this role

Theres another question then: Is an "A-10-type" drone possible? An armoured RC bathtub with wings and extra BRRRRPPPPTTTTT!!

Would the Su-25, or Su-34, with western radar etc., be useful to the US or allied forces?

The Su-34 is still in production.

I am not sure if the Su-25 is still being produced (as the Su-39 or something else). The upgrade program seems to be going on. Iraq recently took delivery of some Su-25s from Iran which had fled the 1991 conflict.

"The USAF does not want ground-attack planes unless said ground-attack planes are carrying nukes into hostile airspace.

The idea of supporting the US Army makes the single-seater pilot community gag. After all, you can't shoot down MiGs if you're shooting up tanks!"

Utter nonsense.

I remember when I was in the 101. Standing in the back of a truck bed seeing an A-10 fly by low enough. That the pilot and I were waving at each other …

Legion 4, that has to be a good feeling, when it hits the fan.

Indeed it was … I still remember the Flight Lead's name of one of the A-10's I called in during a later op, "Duke 6" …

US has never faced such an opponent. Only Israel did in 1973.

That's true, but unfortunatley the USAF always plan for and base their acquisition strategies on "potential equal footing" adversaries like Russia and China rather than low tech opponents they're much more likely to face in reality.

Too bad we can't give the Ukrainians a few A-10s and see what happens. Russian separatists (FSB agents probably – thats how Putin thinks – there is no such thing as an EX KGB agent) have the modern weapons and training, so it would be a challenge.

US has never faced such an opponent. Only Israel did in 1973.

Give the devil his due … the US has very capable air assets, in both pilots and tech …

This must be a mistake, since clearly using 1/4 Billion dollar jets with anemic ground-attack armament are far superior to using a dedicated CAS aircraft, that can take a beating and still return to base, and costs 1/10th that of a stealth aircraft.

When will the madness stop???!!!

[And yes, I did intend to use over the top, sarcasm].

Would the Su-25, or Su-34, with western radar etc., be useful to the US or allied forces?

Su34? The Strike Flanker?

That's top of the line Russian hardware, I'm not seeing that getting sold abroad.

However, the Su25 Frogfoot would be pretty good. (Ever seen a picture of the YA9 competitor to the A10? Looks almost exactly like the Su25!) Su25 only has half the bombload, but the gun is comparable to the GAU8. Personally, I'd consider a modest redesign to allow the US Frogfoot to pack a GAU13, the 4-barrel version of the GAU8.

Another huge advantage for ordering a bunch of Su25s is that they're only $11 USDmil each!

Give the devil his due … the US has very capable air assets, in both pilots and tech …

Never said they didn't.

However they are untried in peer or even high tier combat as is just about everyone else.

There's only a handful of airforces that have been involved in peer or near peer level high tech warfare:

1. Israel in 1973.
2. Iran and Iraq in 1980-88.

Falklands War, Eritrea-Ethiopia, Peru-Ecuador, Ogaden War, Angolan bush war etc were peer or near peer level but without advanced systems ala IADS or fought on massive scale.

Would the Su-25, or Su-34, with western radar etc., be useful to the US or allied forces?

The Su-34 is still in production.

Su-34 is equivalent to F-15E Strike Eagle so probably not.

I am not sure if the Su-25 is still being produced (as the Su-39 or something else). The upgrade program seems to be going on. Iraq recently took delivery of some Su-25s from Iran which had fled the 1991 conflict

I don't think Su-25 is still in production. All current exports are Soviet era airframes.

In any case it's not even close to an A-10 in terms of resilience and ruggedness. Look at their atttrition rates in any war they fight in – most are to MANPADS that wouldn't stop an A-10.

However they are untried in peer or even high tier combat as is just about everyone else.

We'll just have to wait and see, but based on current events … it may be quite awhile before we know for sure … But my $$$ is on the USAF & USN … I'm baised of course …

But my $$$ is on the USAF & USN

As is mine.

If USA went to war against Russia or China, the technical and quantitative advantages of US forces makes the scenario similar to Iraq in 1991.

The US airforces massively outnumber Russia and China, have more intensive training, are more advanced technologically and have absolute dominance in force projection multipliers (tankers, electronic warfare, C3, ISTAR etc etc).

Hence stands to reason they will dominate. To what degree is the question!

The only problem the US would have is that of geography and especially large size of China/Russia.

No doubt if it came down to it in an air war with either or both of those countries' AFs it would be a challenging match. But my bet stands …

I don't think it would be challenging in the same way Luftwaffe was challenging or even North Vietnamese air force.

I really do think it would 1991 repeated. Some US casualties but generally overwhelming annihilation of PLA/VVS assets, often on the ground and complete US dominance in critical electronic warfare field.

The US got a massive boost with fall of USSR:

- They got a hold of top of the line Soviet equipment.

- The Russians were stalled in development of systems for at least 10 years and they were already lagging behind. And given increases in computing since 1990, that 10+ year gap is huge.

- The Russian military deteriorated and has never fully recovered. It's potent compared to most of it's neighbours but it's still third rate overall.

- The PLA was still stuck in a late 1950s technological, tactical and strategic doctrine right up to mid-1990s.

They've made massive technological progress but most of it has been driven by 1980s Russian and Israeli technology, both of which the USA have access to.

Yes, I generally agree …