A-10 retirement indefinitely delayed

[raptormodeller]

If it works why change it?

Technology moves on..

[bentwaters81tfw]

You could say that about the AK-47. Still a weapon of choice, but it has disadvantages.

[Giorgio N]

You could say that about the AK-47. Still a weapon of choice, but it has disadvantages.

The weapon of choice for those who can't afford anything better or for those who wouldn't be capable of using anything better

[mhaselden]

You could say that about the AK-47. Still a weapon of choice, but it has disadvantages.

Actually that's a good analogy to the A-10. Yes, the AK-47 fires bullets but it doesn't have an underslung grenade launcher or a night sight, which limits its utility for different functions/roles or operational environments.

[bentwaters81tfw]

I remember reading after the Gulf War, the Hogs flying at night used the cameras in the Mavericks to give a picture on the 4 inch square screen in the cockpit. The only way they could operate successfully in the dark. Crude, basic, but it worked.

[Giorgio N]

Actually that's a good analogy to the A-10. Yes, the AK-47 fires bullets but it doesn't have an underslung grenade launcher or a night sight, which limits its utility for different functions/roles or operational environments.

The ones you mention are small details, there are a lot of other things that I'd worry about before them... bad sights, no flash hider, not brilliant ergonomics, can't be fired with heavy gloves, no hold open, questionable accuracy (although most of this depends on the sights)...

The AK47 has only two big advantages: it's built to work reliably even without proper maintenance and it's easy to use even for untrained soldiers. The AKM and following are also cheap to build.

In the end (and unsurprisingly) the famous AK is the perfect weapon for an army based on large numbers of little trained soldiers capable of winning a firefight through sheer volume of fire. This kind of army however is the consequence of a society where men are plentiful, must cost little to train and equip and are in the end expendeable. Are today's Western society like this ? Don't think so, reason for which the weapons used by Western armies are a bit different in philosophy, be they rifles or aircrafts

P.S. actually there are underslung grenade launchers for the Ak series..

Edited January 28, 2016 by Giorgio N

[mhaselden]

Giorgio,

I was being a bit flippant but you caught the general thrust of my point, even if my specific examples weren't great. Yes, the AK-47 works and it's great for low-skilled soldiers. But it has significant limitations in terms of wider utility compared to more modern and more expensive weapons.

Just 'cos something can do "a job" doesn't mean it should be retained in preference for something more expensive that can do more jobs.

Cheers,

Mark

[Giorgio N]

Mark

I've added a few more on the AK to raise a point often forgotten when talking of weapons (and not only..): every piece of equipment has to fit within a certain system, if the system changes for some reason it's not necessarily said that the weapon that worked fine before will keep working that well.

The AK example also highlights one aspect of today's Western air forces (and Western societies in general): manpower is today expensive and is not likely to become cheaper. The number of aircrafts in service in many air forces is today dictated by the maximum number of pilots and bases that can be maintened more than by the cost of the aircrafts themselves. If the number of aircrafts is limited in that way, keeping in service a type suited to one single mission means less assets available for all other missions. It's like buying a snow-trac in a place like most of Britain: it may be the best vehicle with heavy snow, but is it worth to keep one in the garage to use it only in that couple of days a year ? It's fine for someone with plenty of money but when money becomes scarce it's better having a single car that may not be the best on snow but can travel every other day of the year.

Back to the AK and your example, the huge availability of accessories is actually one of the main reasons why today more and more military units are using M4s or their clones, even if the basic M4 may not be as good a rifle as others on the market. Today certain accessories have become vital, if a rifle can't be "accessorised" it doesn't fit with today's needs. Not too different from what's happened to combat aircrafts in a sense..

[RMP2]

AK-47s are also very easy and relatively cheap to manufacture. Bit like MiG 21s.

Im not liking this talk though. Comparing an A-10 to an AK? Theres something so very, very wrong there. Accuracy, finesse and effectiveness be damned - Wheres the soul, guys?

FN FAL would be a bit better. At least it shoots straight.

Edited January 29, 2016 by RMP2

[bentwaters81tfw]

My point was it's cheap and effective, compared to lots of expensive 'hi tech'.

[Ascoteer]

AK-47s are also very easy and relatively cheap to manufacture. Bit like MiG 21s.

Im not liking this talk though. Comparing an A-10 to an AK? Theres something so very, very wrong there. Accuracy, finesse and effectiveness be damned - Wheres the soul, guys?

FN FAL would be a bit better. At least it shoots straight.

Have you fired an AK?

What makes you think it doesn't shoot straight?

[hairystick]

First of all, I'm wondering why the site isn't updating notification of members quoting me? Perplexing, but "technology", eh?

The whole contention that the USAF doesn't do CAS is an incredibly ignorant statement. I say that with strongest words possible because CAS has been the primary mission of the USAF for the past 15 years. Want to know why the USAF only got 189 F-22s for air superiority, despite calls from almost everywhere that this was insufficient? Money earmarked for the Raptor was diverted to CAS focused assets. Plain and simple.

Quite true, the CAS arena is very prominent. We haven't seen too many air superiority battles recently, to take away that focus though. A lot of training but no fighting, unless your aircraft has a 6-pointed star on the side.

The air force forgets that boots on the ground win battles. Their job is always to support that end. I will quantify that those wearing a zoombag will be happily doing whatever tasking is asked of their specialty, but those fighting budgetary wars in political airspace are driven by "higher altitude" stuff.

The Hog is liked for its simplicity but it's not well known at all for any capability of hitting pinpoint targets.

What?

As Alan has noted, getting to the target faster than the A-10 isn't the only advantage of the types you mentioned. However, even if it were, it's still a pretty big deal if you're the grunt on the ground taking incoming rounds. The faster the enemy is neutralized, the better.

Why spend any amount of money on an asset that can only do one thing. That's simply not a justifiable cost when other assets can carry the same weapons as the A-10 but can also perform other roles. The USAF has reached the tipping point that the RAF hit in the 1980s - budget constraints and the costs of technology simply preclude any desire to have single-speciality combat aircraft being purchased in large numbers. Maintaining large fleets of one trick ponies is simply not sustainable.

Much like the F-22. Over-priced to do one mission. So over-priced it sucks budget funding and gets a lower than intended production order.

Yes, it is the bleeding-edge of technology which is needed to beat Vasilly and Mr Hong, but how many airframes like these are required? Take the B-2 and F-117 as examples. Not many of those were built to be able to perform their duties, then it comes down to "older" airframes like the -15, -16 and -18 to do the grunt work for the rest of the battle. The boneyard has a resource of these...

Leaving us with "supporting the grunts", boots-on-the-ground approach.

Yes, equipment will be phased-out eventually. Others will soldier-on for many years well past their intended life, just like the B-52, the AIM-9, UH-1Y & the F-16, because they work.

[mhaselden]

The air force forgets that boots on the ground win battles. Their job is always to support that end. I will quantify that those wearing a zoombag will be happily doing whatever tasking is asked of their specialty, but those fighting budgetary wars in political airspace are driven by "higher altitude" stuff.

Your first sentence is contradicted by the emphasis placed on CAS. Your second sentence is plain wrong. The Air Force mission is not solely to support grunts. The Air Force mission is to conduct the entire spectrum of air operations including OCA, DCA, deep strike/attack, SEAD, ISR (which may, or may not, be related to the ground battle), ASW/ASUW (in the case of the RAF), and a host of MACP tasks like humanitarian relief. It should also be noted that troops can't win battles on the ground if the airspace hasn't been secured first.

Your disdain of senior officers working in the Pentagon or MoD is clear but I'd be interested to learn how many of them you've actually met or seen working in those spaces? In my experience, most are entirely focused on the needs of the mission, whether the decision is related to in-year funding decisions to support ongoing operations or future allocations to support perceived mission needs in the future. The key problem many armchair critics keep forgetting is that strategic planning must look forward decades from now, not just at today's fight. It's a hard task to do but that's what is expected of these "political" senior officers. They aren't perfect. They make mistakes. But it's easy to be a critic when you're not in the hot seat making the decisions each day, often when placed under constraints that you can't control.

I entirely agree the F-22 started out as a one-trick pony, hence why production was cut to provide more CAS capabilities (which, itself, contradicts your statement that "The Air Force forgets that boots on the ground win battles"). However, it's now capable of dropping bombs, although the argument could be made that it was little more than a political gesture to demonstrate some bang for all the bucks spent on it. That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the F-22 evolve into a true multi-mission platform rather like the F-15 before it.

One final point to consider...although many types will have to soldier on, is it sensible to expect an agile combat aircraft that's already 40 years old to still be operating in another 40 years? Yes, the B-52 is very long-lived but it's not an agile combat airframe. There is a need to replace assets like the F-15 and F-16, planning for which must start decades before they expire...which, eventually, they will. Which takes us back to the needed foresight of "political" senior officers.

[raptormodeller]

B-1R anyone?

[SleeperService]

I've been following this with interest and congratulate you all on a well balanced discussion, however I will comment on a couple of things;

'The only thing to replace a C-47 is another C-47' this is true as a conditional statement if you add - at a comparable level of technology. I believe they are still operating in their designed cargo/passenger role in S. America to this day. There is a niche which is C-47 shaped so still a 'need' until there are no more left.

A-10 Vs New Kids on the Block. Some aircraft become obsolete rapidly as technology progresses others have adaptability and can be re-tasked. IMHO the B-52 and A-10 both come into this category. They are strong enough that fatigue isn't an issue and newer systems reduce weight and volume which is then available for other things. As mentioned above the A-10 is very manoeuvrable a very good weapons platform and there is a niche for it. Ditto the B-52 and in earlier times the Hurricane. As an example look at the Phantom replaced in USN service by the F-14 replaced by the F/A-18 1st generation replaced by the F/A-18 2nd generation. Some roles/aircraft have the potential for long life others don't.

AK-47 I've owned one and fired it many times, also fired SLR and SMLE and SA-80. On single shot it's pretty bloody accurate if you get hit you will know it. It's a fairly heavy round and does a lot of damage. On automatic like any other hand held weapon accuracy is a joke. It's simple to make, repair and operate in a low-tech environment (that's most of the world) and has a niche.

Despite all the above everything listed WILL be replaced completely at some point, some much sooner than others. At Mildenhall I talked to a B-52 pilot who was flying the same airframe his father flew in Vietnam and his nephew was due to enter the conversion programme shortly. I'll bet there are a few Hog drivers the same before it's retired.

[RMP2]

Have you fired an AK?

What makes you think it doesn't shoot straight?

I have, Ive had a go with rather a lot of things over the years.

But it was a tongue in cheek comment, some are better than others, I was just being mean and preying on its stereotype.

Still, Id take a Belgian built rifle over a Russian one any day. Maybe thats just me.

[Alan P]

I'm not sure if I'm following the "A-10 still vital to modern combat needs" argument here. It mainly seem to consist of appeals to a misty-eyed vision of "CAS" as seen on WW2 or Vietnam documentaries. So far no-one has proved that the A-10 fulfils a vital combat role that cannot be completely met by a combination of other, more versatile platforms (AH-64D, F-16C, F/A-18E/F, F-15E, B-1B).

I also think the F-22 comparison is very spurious. The stealth and other vastly adaptable capabilities fielded by the F-22 makes it a force multiplier in a way that dwarfs the combat effectiveness of the A-10. They're not on the same page, or even in the same library.

You have to remember that the A-10 was designed, demonstrated and built to meet a very narrow and limited requirement - a low-cost, easily maintained, low-altitude, anti-armour weapon delivery platform that could operate in a dispersed, unsupported post-EMP environment. It was supposed to be a survivable, low-tech defensive weapon to be utilised against massed Warsaw Pact combined arms and armour attacks following limited tactical nuclear strikes. The only threat it was expected to withstand was MANPAD weapons, Shilka AA platforms and small-arms fire. It has always been incredibly vulnerable to aerial opposition - the assumption made was that enemy air assets would be likewise grounded through strategic and tactical NBC strikes on fixed airfields. The only reason it has found prolonged support is that it is still useful as a COIN close-support aircraft against entrenched, low-tech opponents, but it has as much utility in tomorrow's information technology-driven battlefield as the previous generation A-1 Skyraider, whose role and utility it resembles in every way.

Putting ordnance on target in close proximity to ground troops is no longer enough to merit continued development and funding (or even deployment) when the current tech capability can service that need faster and more efficiently every time.

[RMP2]

Well put, Alan.

The only thing I would like to add is that it can also hit a fair bit of armour (or anything else) on a single trip, more so when air superiority is gained - as often happens when beating up countries less well equipped than perhaps a great big super power. Which comes down to that gun most of all but also to its lack of worries with "small fire". I cant see an F-16 or 18 being able to hit so many things effectively and with no worries, least of all with its wee 20mm (and single engine concerns re F1-16s) and what can they carry bomb wise - 4 or 6 LGBs to ensure a kill? Seems an excessive way to kill a tank, APC, truck, mortar/machine gun squad or sniper post.

Given what the US has for air superiority stuff, wouldnt the A-10 then be ideal in a "mop up" role?

All for arguments sake. Sort of. But not really given recent past "conflicts" and Id expect future ones too. Not meaning to be political, just realistic given recent history.

Point being - its still of use to the US and will be for quite a while given their choices and threat levels of targets. I see no hostile Su-27s-34s in Iraq or Syria and we are friends with Iran now.

Please delete this post rather than kill the thread if Ive spoken bad stuff, not too sure where the line is yet.

[Alan P]

Fair comment, but 60% of all ordnance dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan was dropped by a Bone. The A-10 simply can't do what a Bone does. It's fast, can defend itself and carries waaaaay more bang for waaaaay longer than an A-10. Once again, they're not even in the same league.

[Ascoteer]

Forgetting entirely that the enemy in Afghanistan had no integrated air defence ground environment and no air capability.

[RMP2]

Isnt a countries defence/attack system based on the threats that it will encounter?

Anything above that sniffs at arms/military technology profit. They didnt need B1s for Afghanistan did they? Not really. And it didnt do much good anyway.

[Alan P]

They didnt need B1s for Afghanistan did they? Not really. And it didnt do much good anyway.

I'm surprised you still think that. At least let the facts speak for themselves.

[RMP2]

I meant the Afghan episode as a whole. Even a few A-10s wouldnt have made a difference there.

Despite that, theres many a video which shows A-10s doing things there which a B1 couldnt have done - precision without collateral and again down to that gun.

Im not saying something else couldnt do it, but as Vietnam proved (albeit in the air) theres little to compare to a gun for versatility and thats quite possibly whats kept the A-10 going for so long.