Patrick R | 11 Mar 2016 3:06 a.m. PST |
Watching a video on the A-10 demonstrating the impressive firepower of the GAU-8, but it was a comment that caught my eye. It said that the GAU-8 is very rarely used in actual combat, that the A-10 mostly drops bombs either from high altitude or uses missiles to stand off. Right now A-10's operating in places like Afghanistan have the luxury of going for strafing runs, but they are more cautious in places like Syria where AA is more readily available and strafing runs are so few, the ammo on board is considered dead weight and some pilots prefer to fly with an empty gun for more fuel and ordinance. Then there is the claim that the A-10 is a deeply flawed plane. The idea of sustaining damage is the wrong approach. It may have worked three or four decades ago when most armies still used classic AA guns with a rather limited ability to damage planes. Modern missiles use much more effective warheads than a few years ago, some of which are specifically designed to take down planes like the A-10, even if your plane is heavily armoured the warhead is more than likely to cause major structural damage. An A-10 might survive a hit, but it would probably be considered a write-off anyway. The claim is that more modern planes avoid being hit using better counter-measures and vitally a much higher speed to avoid being hit. To be fair the commenter also said that mistakes were made with the F-35 that compromised its ability to survive such weapons, but once the kinks were ironed out it would have a much higher survivability rate than the A-10. I haven't had the time to check this out, but feel free to add your $0.02 USD |
Rich Bliss | 11 Mar 2016 3:42 a.m. PST |
I always pay the most attention to enemy testimonials. Ask the Iraqi army what they think? |
Mute Bystander | 11 Mar 2016 4:05 a.m. PST |
Over-rated, No. Obsolescent, perhaps. Right now it is doing the job – more than you can say for the F-35. When it has a viable replacement than it can be retired. |
FABET01 | 11 Mar 2016 4:20 a.m. PST |
Who wrote the comments? If it was the Air Force, then no explanation is needed as to why the A10 is portrayed as flawed, but the F35 is good to go. |
79thPA | 11 Mar 2016 4:52 a.m. PST |
|
Major Mike | 11 Mar 2016 5:10 a.m. PST |
Heck, they are also using OV-10 Broncos for support. |
Mako11 | 11 Mar 2016 5:24 a.m. PST |
Perhaps you should look at some of the photos of the A-10s hit by SAMs and other enemy fire, and brought their pilots back home. There is no better CAS aircraft in the world that can do the things the Warthog does. |
Cosmic Reset | 11 Mar 2016 5:37 a.m. PST |
I think the answer is simple. Are they failing to complete their missions? If they are successful, they work. If they are failing, they don't work, and need replaced. Obviously, they will eventually need replaced, but it looks like they still work, and no functioning replacement is currently in service. Over-rated? A subjective and undefined term. Surely they are over-rated by some, and under-rated by others. But, either way, they work. |
Kelly Armstrong | 11 Mar 2016 5:52 a.m. PST |
"Mistakes" in design are rare and usually a flag that the speaker has a programmatic or political axe to grind. Mostly there are "compromises" in design, by necessity. You can't have everything, you can't have most things at peak performance, and you will have some things that show up as a poor compromise. "Mistakes" though? I'm an engineer, we don't make mistakes. :-) Like irishserb says, in the case of the A-10 if it delivers ordnance and returns for more, it is a success. DoD Program Exec Officers are very good setting up programs and spending dollars. Likely too good for our own civil good. When it is cost effective and mission effective and budget effective, you'll get your A-10 replacement. |
cosmicbank | 11 Mar 2016 6:00 a.m. PST |
It is designed for only one thing killing stuff on the ground. The Air Force likes things that shoot planes down thats how aces are made. Big aces big budget. "NO Bucks, no Buck Rogers" Thats why the Air Force gave up rotor aircraft at Key West. The A-10 is not important to the Air Force. |
wminsing | 11 Mar 2016 6:55 a.m. PST |
Yep, agree with Mute Bystander. The plane needs to be replaced; eventually, when an actual viable replacement is designed. For now it's good enough. The claim is that more modern planes avoid being hit using better counter-measures and vitally a much higher speed to avoid being hit. High-speed platforms will always be a poor match for the CAS mission. This has been demonstrated over and over again. It's 1960's speed fetishism all over again. -Will |
Mick the Metalsmith | 11 Mar 2016 7:44 a.m. PST |
I would rather have a dozen RPV hellfire armed drones dedicated to CAS with greater loiter time than a single A10 sortie. Much more cost effective, more likely to be there when needed, and there is no risk at all to the pilots to worry about. Semi disposable compared to any piloted aircraft. |
jowady | 11 Mar 2016 8:02 a.m. PST |
I know a lot of Infantrymen who are alive today because the A-10s came in Danger Close and kept them alive. I wonder if they should be associated with the dismissive term "Fanboys"? It's pretty well known that the USAF never wanted the A-10, in part because they don't like it's mission. They would rather be flying strategic strikes and Mach 2 fighters. But ask the men on the ground. Everybody loves to get CAS from the USMC. Why you ask? Because the USMC believes that everybody starts out as a riflemen, that Marine pilot in the cockpit knows what it's like for a man on the ground and he's going to do whatever he can to help. Everybody on the ground loves Cobras and Apaches for the same reason but they know that there's a limitation, Helos are slow compared to jets, even the A-10, they can't be called in on a moments notice from far away. Now if you ask USAF pilots what missions they think are most important, and this has been true since WW2, they'll tell you it's supporting the men on the ground. But again, that's not how the guys with the brass on their hats see it. And what's the best way to kill the mission? Kill the aircraft that does it. The A-10 is decidedly low tech. It isn't fast. It doesn't fly a glamorous mission. But it flies that mission and it flies it well, much better than the F-35 ever will. And it's already in the inventory. |
Tgerritsen | 11 Mar 2016 8:03 a.m. PST |
Of course it doesn't use the guns much. The gun was designed for blasting vehicles- namely tanks. It was designed for the kind of spraying of infantry you see in WWII movies. Also, against enemies that don't have any kind of air defenses, why would you ever go low? The gun doesn't have infinite range, so for the safety of the pilot, you would fly high and drop bombs. That's why B1s are being used as loitering bomb trucks- if there's no danger to them, they will fly around all day in the clouds waiting for a call to drop ordinance. In Iraq, where there were lots of vehicles to destroy, the gun was used plenty, and quite effectively. The only down side they discovered was that killing a tank with the gun usually killed the tank, but very rarely resulted in anything catastrophic. The gun kills by penetrating the armor, and then sending shrapnel around the inside of the tank killing the crew. This resulted in tanks being hit time after time because the pilots couldn't tell from altitude if the tank was still active or not, since it looked fine. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 11 Mar 2016 8:09 a.m. PST |
The A-10 is only sticking around because we've been fighting low-tech COIN warfare against terrorists who don't even have MANPADS for the last 10 years. Against near-peer adversaries like China and Russia they are hopelessly obsolete. |
Andrew Walters | 11 Mar 2016 9:40 a.m. PST |
Even if that's so, there's still a lot of COIN coming down the road. |
kallman | 11 Mar 2016 12:10 p.m. PST |
I have to disagree 28mm Fanatik. The A-10 is still a robust Close Combat Aircraft and other than the Russians there are few nations that have anything that is its peer. Agreed modern SAM systems and man portable systems are more sophisticated and deadly than ever but for most current missions the A-10 is just fine. The US Air Force has never liked the A-10 because as mentioned it is not sexy. Well screw that. I think it was a failure of civilian and military leadership when back in I believe the 1980s the idea was pushed to have the Army take over the A-10s. Of course the Air Force could not have that as it would mean giving up the ground crews, pilots oh and funding that went into having the Warthogs. Whatever the reason was for splitting the Airforce from the Army needs to be reviewed and the two merged back together. You will notice the Navy did not split off its air component once air power became a major force in combined arms doctrine. Now granted instead of the money wasted on the super fighter F-35 which has been a right disaster in cost overruns and a weapon system that really is in its twilight (drones can take more g's and cost less and carry just as a much payload) the better use of those funds would be to design and plan for the next modern war. Sadly we always plan and prepare for the ones that took place in the past. |
Lion in the Stars | 11 Mar 2016 12:20 p.m. PST |
Obviously, they will eventually need replaced, but it looks like they still work, and no functioning replacement is currently in service. But right now, the best "replacement" for the A10 is a new production run of them! I'm halfway expecting the USAF to surrender armed propeller-driven aircraft to the Army, just so that the Army can foot the bill for CAS/COIN birds. Drones are good, but they are obscenely slow and highly vulnerable to AA. Put up 10 Predators in a high AAA environment and all 10 will be blown out of the sky before they fire 4 Hellfires. And 5 Predators cost more than a single Warthog. Predator unit cost is ~$4million, Warthog unit cost is ~$19million. |
raylev3 | 11 Mar 2016 1:03 p.m. PST |
The A-10 is only sticking around because we've been fighting low-tech COIN warfare against terrorists who don't even have MANPADS for the last 10 years. True, but the reality is, and one often ignored by traditional Air Force types, is that these are the kind of wars we're going to be involved in for the foreseeable future. The F35 will not be able to provide the same Close Air Support, and certainly it would be too expensive a platform to use in this role. I've said it once, and I'll say it again…give the CAS mission to the Army. The Air Force doesn't want it, never has, and never will, but they still fight against the Army flying armed, fixed wing aircraft. |
14Bore | 11 Mar 2016 2:25 p.m. PST |
|
Mako11 | 11 Mar 2016 2:51 p.m. PST |
"I would rather have a dozen RPV hellfire armed drones dedicated to CAS with greater loiter time than a single A10 sortie. Much more cost effective, more likely to be there when needed, and there is no risk at all to the pilots to worry about". You're forgetting to factor in the cost of all those extra drone pilots too. An A-10 can carry a lot more ordnance than any armed drones are currently equipped with. There is no aircraft proven better at CAS currently in the world's inventory, or on the drawing boards either, I suspect, for that matter. |
Mardaddy | 11 Mar 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
I know I've seen side by side comparisons between the Warthog and the Frogfoot, but the comparisons I've seen are all "potential/loadout/specs," etc, and not real life examples side by side performing their similar missions. I'm sure (my opinion) the A-10 has a more openly documented history due to our nature of being more open (again, my opinion) but the USSR/Russians should have accrued enough sorties throughout their various *adventures* to have some, "real life stats," to compare apples and apples… (Though yes, the A-10 on paper out-performs and out-carries the Frogfoot "stat-wise.") |
Mute Bystander | 11 Mar 2016 3:59 p.m. PST |
I do not see Russia selling us any to do comparison testing. |
14Bore | 11 Mar 2016 4:19 p.m. PST |
Been reminiscing of my RAF Bentwaters days recently, A-10's carry a lot of payload and can take a bit of punishment I remember from the Iraq war. And the GAU-8 is one awesome weapon, there is no replacing that. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 12 Mar 2016 4:15 p.m. PST |
Drone pilots are a lot cheaper than aircrew pilots, you don't even have to have officers flying them. Especially since they can't get shot down, and therefore are not subject to needing to be replaced. Okay, so maybe 5 drones vs a single A10, which has more ordinance in total? Greater total loitering time? Which is more survivable or better yet easier to replace if lost? Which can press a difficult attack without fear of the pilot being KIA? even 5 drones with smaller profiles might not be so subject to AAD and certainly can overwhelm the defending AA ability to engage multiple targets compared to a single A10. It really comes down to, what is the pilot bringing to the table that the drone cannot? If the x47b is a near equal to the A10 (or any other piloted aircraft of your choice) as a weapons platform, maybe the real question is not whether you need F35's or A10's but retrofitted drone controls for the A10. |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Mar 2016 4:36 p.m. PST |
Drone pilots are a lot cheaper than aircrew pilots, you don't even have to have officers flying them. Especially since they can't get shot down, and therefore are not subject to needing to be replaced. The USAF doesn't do enlisted drone pilots. All pilots are officers or warrants, if flying helos. Drone Operators are enlisted, the Army and Marines have lots of them. Often on the same systems that have USAF officers flying them. Okay, so maybe 5 drones vs a single A10, which has more ordinance in total? Greater total loitering time? Which is more survivable or better yet easier to replace if lost? Which can press a difficult attack without fear of the pilot being KIA? even 5 drones with smaller profiles might not be so subject to AAD and certainly can overwhelm the defending AA ability to engage multiple targets compared to a single A10. 5x MQ1B Predators can carry 10 Hellfires, a total of ~1000lbs of boom. 5x MQ1C Gray Eagles can carry 20 Hellfires or GBU44 Viper Strike (or a mix), ~2000lbs of boom. 5x MQ9 Reapers can carry 15,000lbs. The A10 carries 16,000lbs externally, plus the gun's ammunition. The Predators do have better endurance, but a single MQ1C costs more than an A10, and a single MQ9 Reaper costs nearly as much. So it's nowhere near the capabilities for lots more money. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 14 Mar 2016 10:36 a.m. PST |
Until the pilot gets shot down. How much does that cost? |
Mick the Metalsmith | 14 Mar 2016 10:51 a.m. PST |
I also wonder if the A10 sortie having so much ordinance on onlyone aircraft is not actually able to use it all up in an effective fashion. If the loiter time is much shorter than a predator and the pilot is predisposed to drop all of his ordinance before landing, won't this result in many of the bombs being dropped superficially unless in the rare target rich environment? I know Vietnam had a lot of bombs just dropped in unpopulated jungle. It comes down akin to the panther/Sherman choice of ww2. Scarce but better aircraft are not necessarily as valuable to the grunt on the ground as the readily available less powerful but adequate asset. |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Mar 2016 12:07 p.m. PST |
Granted, rescue missions get expensive, to say nothing of the political costs. Pilots are always predisposed to unload their aircraft before returning to base, and with US forces can usually hit a tanker multiple times before they're out of fuel. Manned aircraft that have midair refueling capabilities are limited by the pilot's endurance, not their onboard fuel supplies. None of the current Predator family can refuel in midair, so their onboard fuel supply is much larger than even a B52s, as a % of loaded weight. A flight of 4 A10s and a tanker costs about as much as 10 Reapers, has more endurance, and has more attack options. GBUs, missiles, AND the gun. While the gun isn't used often, it has more uses than just opening tin cans. A friend of mine called in an A10 strike on an area that was suspected to be loaded with IEDs, along a riverbank and between the river and a compound. A10 rolled in with the gun and chewed up the ground, got a couple secondary explosions. Route cleared. Also, the gun is precise enough to be used within 100 yards of friendly troops in combat. The peacetime separation distance is under 200 yards… |
Mick the Metalsmith | 14 Mar 2016 5:31 p.m. PST |
I'm sorry but an aircraft such as the Predator can stay aloft for 18 hours, about 10 times the capability of an A10 without refueling. Even if they refueled 10 times, there is no A10 crew capable of doing remaining in a combat station for 18 hours for more than a very brief campaign, personal fatigue is going to enter the picture. I don't know where you get the idea that it can equal the endurance of an RPV no matter how many tankers it can access. As for survivability, I look to the Avenger and X47B to show that the airframe of an RPV can approach a manned aircraft'S capabilities with none of the disadvantages. Price is high but only because of the novelty of the technology. Soon the price per unit of the aircraft will come down. Not every aircraft has to have all the fancy sensors, some of them could easily be tagalong weapons carriers tied to a master targeting aircraft. I will agree that the A10 is a good cost effecitve plane for what it is designed to do at the moment, but that the pilot probably is no longer necessarily valuable for the CAS mission. He will be replaced by an RPV piloted by a very safe ground controller (or one that is in hands of a "bear" (the guy in back) in the backseat of a T38 or another two-seater) and you have a better solution. Using F35s to replace an A10 is silly, but that doesn't mean the aircraft will stick around long. Then again I can see even RPV's taking on the air superiority roles soon enough. If not by themselves, but as cheap and disposable "wing" aircraft augmenting the manned lead aircraft, as decoys, scouts and distant weapon launch platforms. |
Echoco | 17 Mar 2016 12:51 p.m. PST |
The thing here is, are A10s the platform most suited to CAS or just the platform the US have that is best for CAS? It's a trade off, I'll agree A-10s would be great against a massive armored offensive but it doesn't have the same cost efficiency when flying COIN. Which one does the USAF NEED in the foreseeable future? If we're keeping aircraft in service for nostalgic reasons alone I'm going for P47s, they were pretty tough too back in WWII. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 18 Mar 2016 8:30 a.m. PST |
Mustangs got used even in the 'Nam era. |
Lion in the Stars | 18 Mar 2016 12:16 p.m. PST |
Actually, the A10 is about the best COIN option we have right now. It's the cheapest jet to operate, and the whole fleet has fresh wings for additional service life. The drones have endurance, but don't have the ordnance capacity. COIN ops in Vietnam showed that ordnance capacity is more important than endurance, but ~4 hours of endurance is good. The USAF (or US Army) needs a COIN bird, and a CAS bird. Whether those are the same or different we can argue over, but both missions are required. Vietnam had the advantage of lots of WW2 leftovers that still had service life left in them. Today, we don't have that luxury, so we need to build from scratch. My recommendation for a COIN bird is a re-designed A1 Skyraider using the engine from a C130 (lots of those in service and the US still has people trained to work on them). This bird would have a bomb capacity of 10-15klbs, and I'd use two M230 chain guns plus two GAU-19/A .50cal gatlings for guns. The challenge would be teaching pilots how to fly a 4500hp tail-dragger. Between the smaller engine diameter and huge prop needed, it'd really look a lot like a Stuka or Super Corsair with bent wings, retractable landing gear and a big bubble canopy. I'd give it two seats, for an observer/FAC in the back seat. The pilot is going to be busy keeping his bird out of the rocks. You can arm up a trainer to create a COIN bird, but you run into the same problem as the drones: Limited payload. The Super Tucano has 2x .50cals and a total bombload of 3300lbs. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 18 Mar 2016 9:57 p.m. PST |
Ya got no room for a drone in your scenario? What about putting drone controls onto a10. |
Echoco | 19 Mar 2016 5:11 a.m. PST |
What about an AC-130? I'd think those things can stay around longer than an A-10 with more firing time. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 Mar 2016 11:33 a.m. PST |
Ya got no room for a drone in your scenario? What about putting drone controls onto a10. We'd need a two-seat A10 for incorporating drone controls, the pilot is a little too busy to be driving a second airplane. I think there was a total of ONE two-seat A10 built. But I suppose we could modify a few into two-seaters if adding a drone controller proved to be a good idea. Make no mistake, there are jobs that I think drones can do well (deep interdiction or penetration missions, for example). I just don't think CAS or COIN is one of them. What about an AC-130? AC130s are highly vulnerable to AA guns and MANPADS during the day, same as all the other side-firing gunships. Every AC130 lost in combat was hit because it stayed past local sunrise. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 19 Mar 2016 3:50 p.m. PST |
Plenty of 2 seat helicopters or even non-combat type aircraft that could act as the drone master in remote standoff mode (my guess is that a grounded controller would be just as adequate.) Not sure why you think it has to be a manned aircraft of the same type. Do you think the idea of drone A10 vs a manned A10 is feasible? Doesn't the x47b experiments indicate that possibility is nearly upon us if not already? |
Irregular | 20 Mar 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
Forgive the new guy butting in but as someone who has directed CAS assets in the last few years I thought I'd offer my 2p! The A-10 is highly effective at what it does, provided you have a favourable air situation and a limited S-A threat. However it has only this role. Even the USAF has to rationalise its fleet and single role airframes are just not financially viable. Secondly, I saw someone above mention the obsession with speed. Speed is key. I can think of countless occasions where a JTAC was requesting specifically an A-10, when due to transit times it would never get there in time. Whereas F-18/GR4 in similar orbits could transit to a TIC and have an effect. Thirdly, I think there is a 'cool' factor to the A-10. There was more than one occasion when the JTAC would be requesting the asset and not the effect he actually needed. What I mean is what he might actually want it a 500lb on target that almost any coalition asset could provide but specifically requesting A-10 as its the 'cool' one. I hope my ramblings make a modicum of sense! |