"A-10 Performing 11 Percent of Anti-ISIS Sorties" Topic

"The A-10 Warthog jet has performed 11 percent of US Air Force sorties against the Islamic State militant group, also known as ISIS, according to service figures.

That number was first mentioned by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James during a Jan. 15 address, and confirmed by Air Force press affairs. The 11 percent figure refers to the total number of manned sorties launched by the US Air Force in Iraq and Syria against IS forces since operations began in August.

The Air Force has carried out around 60 percent of the 16,000 total strikes against IS forces. The remaining 40 percent has been carried out by the US Navy and allied nations…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

And yet they want to retire it!

I'd liek to see the Battle Damage assements of those missions vs the other 89%

^^^ this.

I know many of us have a fondness for it, but it would be good to see actual data.

If we had nothing but A-10s, they would be doing 100% of the sorties.
If we had no A-10s, they would be doing 0% of the sorties.

the A-10 to have hit 11 percent of overall sorties in half the time of the F-16 indicates a high usage rate of the Warthog.

What they need is the percent numbers that only count the missions done in the time the A-10 was being used.

So 89% of the missions are being done by other aircraft. Plus it is a low threat environment with respect to AAA and anti-air missiles.

I was under the impression that there were an obscene number of 23mm-and-smaller AA guns in the area. Sure, they're not radar controlled, but smaller caliber guns don't need to be.

Question also should be are the "powers that be" assigning A-10's lower sortie numbers so they are not used as much to create a false impression of their usefulness.

If I recall correctly, the Warthog was designed to survive 23mm hits.

I was under the impression that there were an obscene number of 23mm-and-smaller AA guns in the area.

An irrelevance when you're using medium-high altitude tactics which is where F-15/-16/-18s play.

Also these stats are not proof of anything. This isn't some high tempo operation that requires large number of squadrons and where the opponent is fielding any kind of IADS. In fact it's pitifully small by previous efforts in Iraq or Kosovo.

Hence utilisation is irrelevent when aircraft numbers deployed are less than squadron strength. Compare that to say Kosovo where there was 250 aircraft in the sky on the first night and 5 squadrons contributed about 40 A-10s in a much more hostile environment.

Those 12 A-10s could've been replaced by same number of F-16s without any real impact on capability (in fact F-16s faster speed makes it more responsive).

In reality it would actually make sense to send more A-10s to chew up flight hours and preserve the lifespans on more valuable multirole F-15s/F-16s.

Also anyone notice the 3% for F-22? Seems it flew a couple of missions to justify it's existence and that was it.

ANd finally Aviationist has just reported of A-10s being shot at by MANPADS.

theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq

You don't get this with high flying F-15/16s.

Captured pilots having their heads chopped off is worth far more in publicity than any actual military value of A-10 tactics.

And how many times has an A10 actually been shot down by MANPADS?

And how many times has an A10 actually been shot down by MANPADS?

Not sure I understand the relevance of this question. How many times has a F-22 been shot down by MANPADS?

It's not helpful unless you have:

# of times A10s have been shot at with MANPADS
# of times A10s have been damaged by MANPADS
# of times A10s have been downed by MANPADS (I think that's currently zero)
# of times other A/C in CAS roles have been shot at with MANPADS
# of times other A/C in CAS roles have been damaged by MANPADS
# of times other A/C in CAS roles have been downed by MANPADS

Then you can start getting somewhere with the numbers.

Oh. And I chuckle every time I read "MANPADS".

At least one A-10 was lost to an SA-16 in 1991.

IIRC, vehicle-mounted SA-9 and SA-13 got the other A-10 kills.

How is the loss rate of A10s to MANPADS relevant? Given that the Warthog never operates outside of reach of MANPADS, and the other planes pretty much never operate within reach of MANPADS, it's kinda tough to compare loss rates directly.

However, every air force regards the MANPADS threat as the most dangerous flight environment.

So the question of how many A10s have been shot down by MANPADS is an important one, though Darthfozzywig does correctly note that you need a whole lot of data before you can make a meaningful analysis.

@Jemima Fawr: While wiki shows pics of a damaged A10 from an SA16, it doesn't sat that the plane was written off after flying back to base, let alone shot down.

Because it looks like that damage could be repaired in about 30 minutes: Hang new rudders, new elevators, and replace the tail cone.

"However, every air force regards the MANPADS threat as the most dangerous flight environment."

And if you play in the mid to high altitude (where all the other birds play.. and are just as effective as the A-10) you wouldn't be HIT by MANPADS.

Face it: If the A-10 had to fight in any kind of real, modern AAD environment, it'd be dead meat. Just because ISIS has next to zip in the way of decent AAD (thankfully!) doesn't make the A-10 all conquering…

And just pray none of them get downed….

Lion,

I think we're both thinking of different incidents. In 1991 I read a briefing regarding Allied aircraft losses. One A10 was lost to an SA-16 and the pilot was one of those captured by the Iraqis. As I said, others were downed by regimental-level SAMs – SA-9 & SA-13, IIRC – but that one was noteworthy, as it was downed by MANPADS. It came up in the briefing, as SA-16 (and SA-18) was still pretty new and represented a considerable increase in capability over SA-7 & SA-14, hence it's interest to us.

I agree entirely that it's statsictically insignificant – I was just answering your question re how many times A10 has been shot down by MANPADS.

Given that the Warthog never operates outside of reach of MANPADS, and the other planes pretty much never operate within reach of MANPADS

Incorrect. A-10 operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were often outside of MANPADS range.

ROE initially specified engagement at 17,500 feet and then due to weather progressively reduced to 15,000 feet and then 10,000 feet.

Eventually CAS(S)/AFACs were allowed to go as low as 5,000 feet and any fighter could go as low as 8,000 feet. However even the A-10 guys generally didn't go lower than 10,000 feet in order to avoid enemy fire.

Most MANPADS can reach 15,000 feet but that's dependent on launch point and distance between firer and aircraft. Also whilst Kosovo terrain hindered allies, it also hindered Serbian AD (not much response time).

Bare in mind virtually all combat ops flown by A-10s in Balkans were interdiction missions or FAC(A)/AFAC and not CAS. (There were also some Sandy CSAR flights.)

, it's kinda tough to compare loss rates directly.

The real reason comparisons are difficult is because the USA has not faced any major MANPADS threats since 2003 and it was only spasmodic before then.

No A-10s were used in Libya where there were some modern MANPADS. Afghanistan is largely MANPADS free. And currently main MANPADS of IS is Sudanese supplied Chinese FN-6, most of which have proven to be faulty. The ones that have worked have splatted MiGs and helicopters alike,

However last US fighter shot down was an A-10 in 2003 to an Iraqi Roland SAM. Last British fighter shot down was a Tornado GR.4 in Iraq in 2003 to a US Patriot (fratricide). The Jordanian F-16 went down over Iraq is not confirmed as shot down.

US etc have lost helcopters and at least 1 RAF Hercules to MANPADS and small arms though.

There's a real risk of IS obtaining ex-Libyan 9K38 Igla "SA-24 Grinch." Lots of ex-Libyan weapons are ending up in Syria and some SA-24s have already ended up in jihadi hands in Libya (an Egyptian Mi-17 was shot down with one in 2014).

Face it: If the A-10 had to fight in any kind of real, modern AAD environment, it'd be dead meat. Just because ISIS has next to zip in the way of decent AAD (thankfully!) doesn't make the A-10 all conquering…

Yup. There's other issues to consider too e.g. A-10 isn't designed for high-altitude refuelling and lacks thrust to respond quickly on defence or attack.

The Ukrainians have lost quite a few jets against reasonably advanced rebel IADS. Most losses have been of slow flying Su-25s to MANPADS(though some Su-24s and MiG-29S have also been lost).

In Georgia again, the main aircraft the Russians lost were slow and low Su-25s including a couple to friendly fire MANPADS.

And the Syrians and Libyans lost quite a few aircraft to MANPADS as well as low level AAA. They were flying low level tactics ala those people think the A-10 should be doing (e.g. strafing runs). The Syrians learned their lessons and now just focus on medium-high altitude bombing (lack of PGMs is a problem here).

Even if a MANPADS doesn't destroy an A-10, a hit means an aircraft out of action and possibly a wounded pilot as well.

Even if a MANPADS doesn't destroy an A-10, a hit means an aircraft out of action and possibly a wounded pilot as well.

You mean like the A10 pictured on Wiki as having taken an SA18 hit? That flew all the way back to base and was probably fixed in less than an hour because all that was chewed up was the rudders, elevators, and the non-structural tailcone?

A bird that was probably being repaired while it was being rearmed, and probably spent more time getting re-armed than repaired?

I won't deny that the A10 is grossly underpowered by today's standards. I'm oddly tempted to hang a pair of CFM56s on one (same engines as on 737s), which would totally fix the power problem. Unfortunately, it would play holy hell with weight and balance, since the CFM56s are better than twice the weight of the TF34s currently installed. Probably have to mount the new engines about 4 feet further forward and hang a couple hundred pounds of ballast in the nose to keep the center of gravity within limits.

You mean like the A10 pictured on Wiki as having taken an SA18 hit? That flew all the way back to base and was probably fixed in less than an hour because all that was chewed up was the rudders, elevators, and the non-structural tailcone?

Cause they'll all get hit in the same place with the same damage?

I didn't know real life combat was as predictable as video games. There you go.

And shoving new engines that are twice the weight and pushing them forward over the wings does all kind of wierd things to aerodynamics and flight performance.

Aerodynamics are extremely finnicky and even small changes such as putting strakes on a pitot tube can completely change the flight profile of an aircraft for better or worse.

Indeed shoving giant engines above the A-10's wings (4 feet forward) would probably have massive changes on flight profile and could also require the complete redesign of the middle and rear fuselage as well as wing spares.

An A-10 lest people have forgotten what we're discussing!