"Why the A-10 Warthog Needs to be Kept" Topic

This is a superb article on why the A-10 Warthog needs to be retained by the USAF, or better yet, transferred to the US Army, since the zoomies keep trying to kill it:

link

It is a very detailed, well thought out, and convincing argument as to why the tank-buster should be retained, and what else it can do better than most other aircraft, for lower cost, with more survivability, with a few minor upgrades.

Dogfighting Warthog with an Aim-9X anyone?

Granted, probably the most out there example given, but still, it would be very good, close-in, if it is called to protect itself from enemy fighters in a "knife-fight in a phone booth" (e.g. in really close quarters, down low, which is where you want to be, if stealth doesn't pan out to be as good as the marketing people claim in a shooting war).

Nice Editorial article but really, the cost of maintenance plus the physical, bureaucratic, and technological realities make not a matter of if, but when, it is put out to pasture. Saving it in places like "the Boneyard" at Davis Monthan AFB might be short term wise (unlike the way we apparently destroyed/salvaged a lot of aircraft post WW2) but it isn't "free"and then eventually you still need to dispose of aircraft that no longer has a role in the real world.

Any Congressman/Senator trying to keep the A-10 as a key part of the inventory until 2050 almost certainly has a political objective (along with any personal or patriotic goals) for sucha position – that is the nature of professional politicians because people like having power and feeling important.

Congress/budget realities drive much of "The Air force and Navy have long been on a mission to reduce the number of different aircraft in the inventory and replace them with a few multirole aircraft." and it isn't going away.

Whether we need to "be engaged" in the world like we currently are is a political discussion – Monroe might have been a lot smarter than we give him credit for – that I would prefer not ot have on a miniatures forum is a policy decision. How such engagement is carried out should be a military decision but it never is completely, never has been, and never will be as long as retired military officers like the ODNI's General Clapper (ret.) want the thrill of being in charge and being paid big bucks by either the government/industry.

Rear guard actions are majestic but they are a matter of defending a bad position and the A-10, much as I love it, is not the way of the future. Now a replacement aircraft would be good but then you know what the definition of a camel is,right? A horse designed by committee. Any "new" A-10 would be hobbled by the process today. Not until it is forced on people by the realities will such a thing happen and maybe, just maybe, the new aircraft, flown by dedicated crew will actually work well enough to do the job. The only reality that counts is the "Beta Testing" of actual combat.

Deep breath, let it go.

What other ground attack options that are equal to the A-10 are there?

Surely it would be better to keep them but build new ones up-specced to modern tech? I realise that the facilities to build them are probably long gone but considering how good it is at its job and how much money is washing around in the US military they could be rebuilt.

Or what about an A-10 type drone? No pilot, more room for additional BRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPTTTTTTT!!!

Wow.

I got a cracking shoulder patch of the A-10 back in the day.

It said "Ugly but well hung!"

I just want to get one at the surplus sale. Kids keep off my lawn.

Where did that ammo drum fit?

No longer has a role in the "real world"- are there unicorns in your real world? With the wars we will be fighting in the next 10 years there is not another aircraft that boots on the ground would rather have over head.

Where did that ammo drum fit?

From the Air Force perspective this is an aircraft that only supports the Army. They don't like that. The Air Force didn't want the A-10 to start with and has tried to kill it several times. They didn't even try to develop a replacement.

At the same time they won't let the Army take it over. Per legislation that established the Air Force, the Army can not fly armed fixed wing aircraft. In Vietnam they were forced to remove .50 cals from the Mohawk. This is the reason the Army (CAS) focuses so heavily on helicopters for Close Air Support – the Air Force won't do it.

So now the Air Force is developing a one-size fits all F35. The return on investment for the A10 (or an appropriate replacement if it existed) vs. the F35 in a CAS role makes a lot more sense.

The plane is bigger than I thought, the photo of the Volkswagen really puts in perspective :)

Nice cut away pic!

To be fair the VW pic is very artfully staged to exaggerate the size too – the positioning of the car, the angle it's taken from, and especially having the camera right down at ground level, all add up to really make it a looming presence. That said, the whole assembly, from tip of the muzzle to back of the ammo drum, is only a few inches shy of 20 feet…. ;-)

Even the models of this plane are impressive!

When the local National Guard guys let civilians out to the flight line for events, they have a couple guys from the A10 weapons and maintenance lines out there, often with the full GAU8 on a trailer. They also have dummy 30mm rounds for people to handle, things are the size of 20oz soda bottles and *heavy*!

Personally, I think that the USAF's authorizing law needs to be changed to allow the Army to fly fixed-wing birds, armed or not.

Then the Army can and will take over the A10 (or a newer replacement) and get the USAF to shut up about wanting to cancel it. But we are going to need to build a replacement for the A10 pretty soon. Low altitude is a rough environment on planes, and most of the A10s are older than their pilots. I'm thinking composite wings and fuselage, bigger engines (but still high-bypass turbofans).

Does the Air Force even have standards for ground attack? or will they "fudge" the standards so that their airframe of choice meets them?

Does anyone other than SAC consider how the Air Force influences the battlefeild?

for more: link

The B-52s are still flying, and we have decent replacements for them (though very few in number).

There is nothing able to replace the A-10, for close-in ground work, and nothing that will be able to do so in the next 10 – 20 years, with anything near the same capabilities, so they need to find something else to cut.

There is plenty of low-hanging fruit to choose from.

Clearly, given how much the USAF dislikes the aircraft, it and its support structure needs to be transferred to the army, where it will be appreciated by those most likely to be saved by the jet. If it is mothballed/scrapped, we'll pay for that in lives of US soldiers lost, needlessly.

Would think there's at least some sort of export market for it too, for countries looking for something heavier than the L-CAS a/c that have been developed recently.

Just about any aircraft can do the role of the A10 with modern guided munitions. The A10 can not do the role of other aircraft. In a world of shrinking budgets (and that means number of pilots) the A10 is the one that has to go.

None of them can do it, for the same low cost (already paid for), with the same level of survivability, down in the weeds, and flying low and slow, to avoid/minimize friendly fire, and civilian casualties.

It is just stupid to use a $150 USD – $200 USD+ million a copy stealth aircraft to move mud, or to destroy a used, $10,000 USD Toyota truck, with a couple of Jihadis riding in it.

However, that does seem to be the USAF's strategy going forward, in order to justify their very expensive aircraft projects. It's the same reason the stealth air-superiority jets were given a ground attack capability in the first place, since opponents either don't have the jets to oppose us, or won't get off the ground to fight our fighters in the air.

I just read that the Air Force is not only going to use the F35 as a fighter, a bomber, a recon aircraft, an AWACS, a UAV, and a close air support aircraft, but they're going to use it as a troop transport.

The restriction on the army flying fixed wing aircraft is silly. The army isn't going to try and build their own fighters or bombers, they want to build close air support aircraft, something the Air Force is loathe to do.

It makes good sense for the army to control aircraft that primarily support army units on the ground from both a logistical and tactical standpoint. Let the Air Force do what it wants to do, build strategic bombers and interceptors, and control the nations strategic missile force. Inter-service rivalry and jealously have been poisoning our military almost since the founding of the separate services. Throw in the military-industrial complex with it's massive lobbying capability and you have the overly-expensive and un-optimized system our military has to suffer, not to mention the taxpayers.

> None of them can do it, for the same low cost (already paid for)

Pilots are never "already paid for", neither is maintenance. though it may be "silly" to have a stealthy fighter do ground support it IS impossible to have an A10 do air superiority. If something has to go (and something does or the budget has to be increased) than the A10 is the only choice.

though it may be "silly" to have a stealthy fighter do ground support it IS impossible to have an A10 do air superiority.

The A10 drivers out here love bushwhacking F15s and F16s. The fast-jet drivers lose about 3 of 4.

The A10 is probably one of the few birds that could dance with an F22. It just doesn't have the speed or excess power that the F22 does, which is why the A10 "can't" do Air Superiority.

So any upgraded A10 needs new engines to fix the Specific Excess Power problem, and an A10 replacement needs to have bigger engines as part of the design spec. There's even a TF34 variant that makes twice the thrust, but it weighs about twice as much as the original TF34 on the A10 (which makes retrofitting it a bit problematic from a weight-and-balance point of view).

When was the last time we had to worry about air-superiority in a war?

Most opponents refuse to come up and "play".

I suspect the maintenance on an A-10 will cost a lot less than on a $200 USD million dollar bird.

When was the last time we had to worry about a horde of tanks coming over the hill (the A-10s ONLY reason for existing)?

The A-10s one big thing is that honking huge, tank busting gun. Everything else is an afterthought. And in the current budget state, its a luxury that is not sustainable.

And as for the Army taking it over: Get real. The Army doesn't have the organization to slot in an asset like the A-10. It would need a whole new branch (and budget). And the Army (which is already stretched) doesn't want the added headache of an over aged bird whose maintenance budget alone will only get worse.

@Coastal: The army is willing to eat the entire half-billion-dollars-a-year that the A10 needs. Even now, when they're stretched obscenely tight with all the vehicles worn out from the war.

I figure that the A10 could be stuffed into the attack squadrons with the Apaches (or new squadrons stood up for the A10s).

And as for the Army taking it over: Get real. The Army doesn't have the organization to slot in an asset like the A-10. It would need a whole new branch (and budget). And the Army (which is already stretched) doesn't want the added headache of an over aged bird whose maintenance budget alone will only get worse.

Bullcrap…the Army already has its own close air support (helicopters) since the freakin Air Force only takes on this mission under duress. Allow the Army to used fixed-wing aircraft…it's currently against the law; change the law. Since the AF won't take on the mission, congress could easily transfer the money from the AF to the Army to pay for it.

Or perhaps disband all the branches' organizational tables, can dozens of generals and admirals, and reform the United States Armed Forces as the United States Armed Forces, Naval Branch, Land Branch, and Air Branch?

Something needs to be done at some point. We're adrift and when it gets to the point where one branch is actively refusing to support other branches, though each are comprised of the same citizen soldiers as the others, something needs to be done.

Plus, it would be nice to see the USMC get to be Marines again, and not a one-stop-do-it-all-plug-and-play Army/Navy/Air Force hybrid.

The reason the USMC is a "one-stop-do-it-all-plug-and-play Army/Navy/Air Force hybrid" is because all that is necessary for their mission as Marines. Amphibious Assault requires landing craft of various types, close air support, and boots/tanks on the ground.

Or do you want to go back to the days when a small number of Marines led large parties of sailors into battle on land?

Coastal2 – I have to disagree. There is nothing that says you can only shoot the 30 at tanks. I hear they can do a number on building and anyone in them. I think that, unless Putin or the Chinese are REALLY stupid, there aren't going to be any major wars for the forseeable future (but if anyone is stupid enough its Putin). The wars will be small and usually fought by proxies or against terrorists. You need something cheap and flexible. The A-10 fits that bill almost exactly. And you can teach our "allies" how to use it without it taking years to bring someone up to par. I would think the Marines would chomp at the bit to get a squadron of A-10s.

When was the last time we had to worry about air-superiority in a war?

Most opponents refuse to come up and "play".

It's more like the US doesn't pick fights with anyone with an air force. Look at Iran. When it comes to WMD, Iraq got invaded for much less.

The US prefers extremely low lying fruit whilst the true dastardly types get away with murder.

The reason the USMC is a "one-stop-do-it-all-plug-and-play Army/Navy/Air Force hybrid" is because all that is necessary for their mission as Marines. Amphibious Assault requires landing craft of various types, close air support, and boots/tanks on the ground.

I always find this one a funny one.

1. The largest amphibious assaults in human history didn't involve the Marines, but rather the Army (Overlord and Husky).

2. The Army still maintains amphibious capability and indeed controls all large landing craft.

3. Since the 1950s USMC fast jet airpower has not been conducive to "supporting amphibious assaults":

a. Most of the fast jets used required a full fledged fleet carrier (F-4, F/A-18) and are not LHA/LHD capable (Harrier and now F-35B is an exception).

b. A lot of the large jets were never operated off carriers anyhow (e.g. F/A-18D All Weather Attack Jets) but rather land based. They would as such be completely useless in a lot of situations.

Hence in most situations, USMC would require extensive USN carrier support which includes tactical naval fighter aviation.

Or the USAF can support for land based operations.

4. The USMC has not done a large amphibious assault that has required it's own fighter fleet since WWII.

In Grenada and Panama cover was provided by USAF and in Iraq 2003 USN.

5. Last time USMC did an actual large amphibious landing was Inchon in Korea and the US Army and US Navy was there too.

In my opinion, the need for USMC fighter aviation and especially land based fighter aviation is dubious.

I can understand the use of F-35B/AV-8Bs as fighter cover for heliborne assaults but surely this could be handled by USN units equipped with these types.

Von Ted: "Where did that ammo drum fit?"

Why, in the front of the car--that's where the Bug's trunk is, ya know.

Raylev,

Evidence? That twaddle is regularly trotted out here, but nobody ever produces evidence… I've never met any USAF chaps who didn't absolutely love the A10.

Hoop/Verbiage interface?

Coastal2 – I have to disagree. There is nothing that says you can only shoot the 30 at tanks. I hear they can do a number on building and anyone in them. I think that, unless Putin or the Chinese are REALLY stupid, there aren't going to be any major wars for the forseeable future (but if anyone is stupid enough its Putin). The wars will be small and usually fought by proxies or against terrorists. You need something cheap and flexible. The A-10 fits that bill almost exactly. And you can teach our "allies" how to use it without it taking years to bring someone up to par. I would think the Marines would chomp at the bit to get a squadron of A-10s.

I'm not so sure. The Warthog isn't catapult capable (the big gun puts the nose gear in the wrong spot), nor is it capable of flying off an LHA (I think).

And the Marines demand that all their equipment is carrier-capable or VSTOL/STOVL.

If I wanted to provide an aircraft to our (low-tech) allies, I'd use a Super Tucano. Might swap the .50cals for 20mm, but there's a LOT of .50cal ammo out there.

If I was going to build a COIN plane from scratch, I'd use the same engine as a C130. 4500hp, so it would be able to carry one hell of a bombload.

I agree with EMB314 – these things are selling like hotcakes.

Cheap but with PGM capability and decent protection package.

Or jetpowered UCAVs ala General Atomics Avenger:

I do think for US, the F-16 and F/A-18 (and in future F-35) offer best bang for buck as they retain conventional capability and are quite speedy (response time is critical in CAS).

Combo them up with AH-64s and UCAVs and CAS is sorted.

A-10 is awesome at it, but at some point it's got to go.