The truth about the A-10

[hacker]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179

This is just for your information and in no way meant to get political. If the mods deem necessary please lock it. It just some interesting facts about it just came to light

[Duncan B]

Interesting.

Duncan B

[Slater]

The USAF is bound and determined that nothing get in the way of the F-35A. Retiring an entire type along with it's accompanying logistic and support framework will (theoretically) save billions.

In the 1980's the USAF attempted to replace the A-10 with a modified F-16 called the "F/A-16", or something like that. Didn't quite work out either.

[hacker]

well they been caught lying, fudging the stats etc and now its out in the open. We will see what happens next. But to order men to lie to congress that is a huge no no

[bentwaters81tfw]

This is what I have been saying for a while, but I keep getting told the B-1 does most of the work.

As a matter of interest we had a 'show and tell' at our BCWM meeting the other night. One guy there is a retired USAF Major, who cut his teeth on the F-86, with a WWII gunsight. He transitioned through the early F-100, the F-4 and the A-7 before being given an A-10.

Amongst his 'show' items was a decommissioned 30mm AP shell, he said he also used HEAT shells, but they never loaded DU. An AP was enough to take out a tank with the Avenger cannon. The A-10 also uses a bog standard gunsight akin to the WWII unit in the F-86.

'There were no fancy electronics to help you in an A-10'. This guy flew in combat, he also won outright the 'Gunsmoke' competition at Nellis against all comers, with just the Avenger cannon and the ability to repeatedly place a 500lb free fall bomb within 1.5 metres of target centre. He brought the trophy to show us.

He is disparaging about the F-4, says in reality it's a POS. Is he an advocate of the A-10 in combat? Yes. Does he like combat where guys shoot back at him? No. If he had to go to war again, his choice would be the A-10.

[dazinio]

Couldn't they be transferred to the Army? It's mission profile is pretty much the same as a Helicopter gunship anyway.

[Giorgio N]

Now the article linkes says "If the investigation shows that the event in question did in fact happen, and coercion, intimidation and the possibility of reprisal was part of the Air Combat Command's A-10 killing strategy"

So the writer does not even know if this is true, yet the title of the post says "the Truth"... so maybe what's linked is not the truth but the author's view and no more

In any case, get over it ! The A-10 is an aircraft that in order to be considered effective had to go through a refurbushment that guess what ? Added thise capablities that the supporters of the type say are useless !

Now the USAF pilot could achieve incredible accuracy with the gun and dumb bombs and what's happened with the A-10C ? They introduced smart bomb compatibility ! Oh dear, if the gun is so accurate what's the point of adding this capability ?

Not only, the A-10C also introduced compatibility with a number of targeting devices... but supporters keep telling that the advantage of the Hog is that by flying low and slow it's possible to target visually with great accuracy, so what's the point of these targeting systems ?

They have also added new Data-Link systems and a revised cockpit to increase situational awareness... and again, the supporters used to say that the Hog didn't need any of this electronic wizardries.

So in a nutshell, the A-10C is from many point of view the opposite of what the armchair supporters of the Hog claim as the main advantages of this type... interesting...

[upnorth]

Couldn't they be transferred to the Army? It's mission profile is pretty much the same as a Helicopter gunship anyway.

That would be very unlikely. The division of American air assets between the services set forth by the Key West Agreement severely curtailed the Army's aviation end, particularly in the way of fixed wing assets.

While the Navy was allowed to keep its combat ability and USAF got a near monopoly on all non naval US military aviation activities, the Army was restricted to aviation activities focusing on reccon and medevac.

While there have been some adjustments made to the agreement over the years, it still is in effect and US Army aviation is still quite restricted by it.

If the A-10 was transfered to the Army, it would still be in US service. That would take it outside of USAF control and thus beyond their ability to say when it gets retired, which is something they've seemingly wanted to do for ages.

While it would make sense to give the Army control of the A-10 given its role, if the USAF truly want the thing gone then the last thing they'll do is willingly hand it over to another service to possibly prolong its life.

[-Neu-]

Sigh... another Tyler Rogoway article... citing data from POGO, probably one of the most reviled think tanks in the U.S. on defence issues, and not because of their effectiveness.

The reality is that most tactical fighters can do the CAS role significantly better than the Warthog can. The Warthog has accounted for less than 1 in 5 CAS sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan; and there hasn't been a national crisis on supporting the ground troops until now. The B-1 comparison was made I believe by the Air Force Chief in congressional testimony as an example of an aircraft that has undertaken CAS effectively... it wasn't a statement that said that B-1s were the only source of CAS at all. In reality the vast majority of strikes have been conducted by the AF's and Navy's the workhorses; the F-16 and F/A-18A/C/D/E/F)

Why so few A-10 sorties? Because the way that CAS occurs has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. CAS isn't really about going low and gunning down targets with the Avenger for extended periods of time. Rather its mission that employs a variety of systems and platforms, from starting with the JTAC on the ground, UAV sensors in the air, artillery, and aircraft. Within current doctrine, aircraft typically deliver precision guided munitions at medium to high altitudes utilizing advanced targeting pods like Litening or Sniper. The combination of the two make for a far more lethal capability than in previous generation. We now have bombs with a wide variety of effects, from the 250lbs Small diameter bombs, 500lbs cement LJDAM, up to 2,000 lbs JDAMs... CAS is conducted with a precision now that was never dreamt of before. The last series of upgrades to the A-10 would basically allow it to operate more like its brethren, the F-16 and F/A-18, not vice versa. I would submit that the reason why the A-10 has so few friendly fire incidents is because it has limited ability to identify and prosecute targets due to limited sensor capabilities.

In the 1980's the USAF attempted to replace the A-10 with a modified F-16 called the "F/A-16", or something like that. Didn't quite work out either.

Ironically, while many believe that Desert Storm was the turning point where the USAF changed its views on the necessity of the A-10 and its low level CAS mission, the reality was quite the opposite. DS made it painfully evident that low level strikes were not survivable by any aircraft, particularly the "armoured" A-10. It suffered disproportionate losses to any other ground type, due to its low level attack profile. After eight or so A-10s were downed or heavily damaged, it was placed under heavy restrictions that basically limited its operational utility. In reality the A-10's most effective weapon was not the GAU, but the AGM-65, a weapon almost every other fighter could carry. The A-10 was further handicapped by the fact it did not have a infrared targeting pod like LANTIRN; pilots were forced to use their Mavericks as a ersatz IR sensor as a result.

Times have changed significantly. Now almost every bomb is guided and the platform doesn't really matter. The USAF reasonably believes that it can undertake the CAS with other assets, as it has been doing since 2001. And as you note, the budgetary environment requires the USAF to scrape together as much resources in order to get the F-35 transition up and running.

That's basically the lay of the land. I think within the Service and its perspective, there isn't much dispute about whether the A-10 can be effectively replaced by other aircraft: it already has. Rather the A-10 replacement is really a political battle that any serviceman or woman will be wading into if they make a statement. The congressional authorities perspectives are not entirely motivated by a reasonable difference on what mix of capabilities are required. Rather, it is motivated in part to keep bases open in their home districts, which further hamstrings the USAF's ability to make rational decisions about its future force structure in a period of growing instability and austerity. AF officials speaking on this topic are basically operating against the best interests of the service.

[Slater]

Where the A-10 would shine is a low-intensity COIN conflict with no MANPADS in the equation (think Vietnam before SA-7 made it's appearance). Similar to the old A-1 Skyraider in that respect, I suppose. Whether that sort of conflict comes along again is best left to the crystal ball, but unpleasantries do tend to pop up out of nowhere.

[LeVi Tophatter]

I like the A-10 very much but I must concede that it's usefulness is somewhat fading... Fast. I just can't see where it fit's in with the post cold war Air Force, low or medium altitude.

On a slight tangent, B-1's seem to hang around for ages like some kind of marauding Vulture. Surely one of those 'Joint operations' ground teams plus a B-1 with a big belly full of little bombs/missiles could do the job of several 'low and slow' gunrunning Warthogs?

Just a laypersons perspective, I know nothing of how this actually works.

[-Neu-]

Where the A-10 would shine is a low-intensity COIN conflict with no MANPADS in the equation (think Vietnam before SA-7 made it's appearance). Similar to the old A-1 Skyraider in that respect, I suppose. Whether that sort of conflict comes along again is best left to the crystal ball, but unpleasantries do tend to pop up out of nowhere.

Certainly the aircraft is very well designed to absorb AAA punishment. But technology allows aircraft to avoid that mess altogether. Even in low intensity operations, SAMs are a threat due to widespread proliferation. Last month an A-10 was nearly hit in Iraq by an advanced Strela... low and slow isn't really how it does things are done anymore. We have sensors like LITENING that basically allows the same visual ability at medium altitude as at low. Moreover the recent upgrades have increased the hourly cost of the A-10 to levels approaching the F-16 and other aircraft. CSAR is probably one area where the A-10's advantages may be most valuable, however.

I would suggest that if we're talking about real low intensity like , the aircraft that is needed is probably in the Tucano kind of range. Something like the Tweet in vietnam would be good, which can maintain very high tempo from austere forward locations.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/legends-of-vietnam-super-tweet-8974282/?no-ist=

[-Neu-]

On a slight tangent, B-1's seem to hang around for ages like some kind of marauding Vulture. Surely one of those 'Joint operations' ground teams plus a B-1 with a big belly full of little bombs/missiles could do the job of several 'low and slow' gunrunning Warthogs?

Just a laypersons perspective, I know nothing of how this actually works.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp31.pdf

Enjoy.

[bentwaters81tfw]

One other point the Major made about the A-10. It was slow. He said over the ranges in the UK, they were continually being bounced by Tucanos. He said the A-10 was the only aircraft in the inventory to get bird strikes from behind.

The old girl is nearly 40 now, and that's a long time in front line service considering it's original task and the advances that have been made elsewhere.

Stealth and electronics aside, pound for pound, do any of the other types carry as much ordnance per sortie?

[-Neu-]

One other point the Major made about the A-10. It was slow. He said over the ranges in the UK, they were continually being bounced by Tucanos. He said the A-10 was the only aircraft in the inventory to get bird strikes from behind.

The old girl is nearly 40 now, and that's a long time in front line service considering it's original task and the advances that have been made elsewhere.

Stealth and electronics aside, pound for pound, do any of the other types carry as much ordnance per sortie?

AFAIK the only aircrafts that can out carry the A-10 (15,000lbs) are the B-1/2/52, the F-15E (21,000lbs) and the F-35(18,000lbs). For the F-35 and A-10 I would argue the maximum will never be realistically operated with as range/persistance and speed are more critical than the carrying weight. Massive amounts of carrying weight matters less in the age of PGMs. Most aircraft tasked for CAS carried an average of 2 to 3 piece of ordnance: a maverick and or JDAM. The GBU-39/53 Small diameter bomb (250lbs), is typical of the weapon the US Military wants to be used for CAS. An aircraft can carry 4 of them instead of a 2000lbs bomb.

[Slater]

Hard to imagine that the A-10's original concept was to fly into the teeth of a massed Soviet offensive into Western Europe and knock out armor.

As far as draggy ordnance, the three-round Maverick launcher (LAU-88) was pretty draggy and is no longer used. Plus it couldn't handle three of the heavier AGM-65G's.

[Murph]

Where the A-10 would shine is a low-intensity COIN conflict with no MANPADS in the equation (think Vietnam before SA-7 made it's appearance). Similar to the old A-1 Skyraider in that respect, I suppose. Whether that sort of conflict comes along again is best left to the crystal ball, but unpleasantries do tend to pop up out of nowhere.

Its a single purpose, 35 year old airframe that can only survive in a permissive environment. In Desert Storm, with total air supremacy and where Iraqi SAM operators were met with a barrage of Shrike, HARM, and ALARM missiles when they turned on a radar, it still had the highest amount of losses of any USAF aircraft type, all to AAA and MANPADS. According to a report by the 2951 Combat Logistics Support Squadron the A-10 "was the most heavily damaged aircraft of the campaign" with 70 A-10s suffering some form of battle damage, including 6 that were lost. LINK And here's another link listing the aircraft losses and what caused them on page 94 LINK to GAO report

Couldn't they be transferred to the Army? It's mission profile is pretty much the same as a Helicopter gunship anyway.

The reason the Air Force is looking to retire the A-10 is funding. The situation is only going to get worse if sequestration hits again, and the Army is looking at the same reductions. The Army would not have the money to set up the infrastructure and then operate a totally new to them fixed wing aircraft even in a better funding environment, now it's a zero sum game. What systems are they going to give up to operate the A-10? Besides the Army already has over 700 aircraft which can perform CAS, it's called the Apache; although, they neglected the CAS mission in lieu of the fantasy of deep strike with the Apache, till that idea met with disaster during an Iraqi Freedom mission in 2003, when an entire regiment of Apaches (31 aircraft) were rendered combat ineffective in an attack on Karbala. They also have over 2,000 UH-60s and OH-58s which can be armed to perform the mission too.

Regards,

Murph

Edited February 16, 2015 by Murph

[LeVi Tophatter]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp31.pdf

Enjoy.

Thanks very much. Makes total sense even though I got bored after page 3 and started playing Farm Heroes Saga... . I will read it in full one day.

Going off topic slightly, I always thought it odd that despite not being very well loved by the powers that be, the A-10 was never sold/exported to compete with the Su-25 on the 'global market'.

[Julien]

Times have changed significantly. Now almost every bomb is guided and the platform doesn't really matter. The USAF reasonably believes that it can undertake the CAS with other assets, as it has been doing since 2001.

Try telling that to a friend of mine when A-10's were peeling terry taliban of the front of his position in Afghanistan while at the same time smart weapons were being dropped on the wrong compund killing other British troops.

[-Neu-]

Try telling that to a friend of mine when A-10's were peeling terry taliban of the front of his position in Afghanistan while at the same time smart weapons were being dropped on the wrong compund killing other British troops.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I also have a personal stake in this debate. In 2006 the Canadian Forces participated in Operation Medusa near Kandahar in order to blunt a Taliban offensive. Early one morning, two A-10s mistakenly identified a Canadian encampment as a Taliban strong point and undertook a strafing run. They decimated a RCR company, wounding over 40 Canadian soldiers (five seriously)and killed one. It effectively crippled the offensive and was a major tragedy for the CF. For a smallish military like ours, everybody knows someone who was there.

While Canadian forces training and procedures were largely at fault, certainly the A-10's lack of a SNIPER/LITENING with a ROVER at the time or other systems contributed to the pilot's difficulty in identifying friendly forces. It certainly couldn't have ended worse than it did.Had another aircraft been available it may have changed the outcome as well.

The thing is, these are anecdotes. We should not make decisions on what happened on this date or that one, but on the overall trends. There have been over 25,000 weapon releases in the past 13 years... most of which were successful at their aims, and with extremely few casualties. I think that understanding the trends are critical in order to make an informed decision on this topic. If we want to provide the best capability to our soldiers.

[Max Headroom]

I have nothing to add about the A-10 itself other than the comment about exports and age. There was a story aboit 20 years ago that some were to be transferred to Turkey. As for age, just look at the B-52! A-10's have been rewinged and some updates, so someone has been spending tax dollars on them.

With regard to the Army taking them, as related above they have their own problems. Sure they have the OH-58 but they have been trying for years to get a replacement. The last attempt was the RAH-66 which was nixed. An up gunned UH-72 is now being tentativly touted.

Trevor

[Giorgio N]

Hard to imagine that the A-10's original concept was to fly into the teeth of a massed Soviet offensive into Western Europe and knock out armor.

As far as draggy ordnance, the three-round Maverick launcher (LAU-88) was pretty draggy and is no longer used. Plus it couldn't handle three of the heavier AGM-65G's.

Actually the original concept was more similar to the kind of mission performed today in Afghanistan as the A-X project (from which the A-10 emerged) was initially the answer to the request for a "Super Skyraider" capable of being used against guerilla forces in low intensity conflicts. While the A-10 is known for its slow speed, the original specifications were for an even slower aircraft and were altered at a later stage. It was as a result of events in Vietnam that the requirement to be able to destroy tanks was introduced and later the USAF started to see the A-X more and more as a tank killer. When the two competing prototypes A-9 and A-10 were flown, many believed that the original A-X concept had been betrayed and that the USAF was trying to complicate things. I wonder what would have been written had the internet been around back then.... more so as the choice of the A-10 over Northrop's A-9 was at the time quite controversial. Both designs had pros and cons, the A-10 prototype had the big advantage of being closer to production standards but politics also played a part as pressure came from the Congress to help NY based Fairchild at a time when the local aerospace industry was not in good shape, while California based Northrop had plenty of contracts.

Thanks very much. Makes total sense even though I got bored after page 3 and started playing Farm Heroes Saga... . I will read it in full one day.

Going off topic slightly, I always thought it odd that despite not being very well loved by the powers that be, the A-10 was never sold/exported to compete with the Su-25 on the 'global market'.

There have been talks with a number of countries in the past, Turkey has been mentioned but at least Korea should be added. The reality is that the A-10 was and still is a single mission aircraft and no air force can afford to introduce a type for one mission only. The Su-25 is different as it is a bit more flexible and it's cheaper. It can make sense as a single type to operate for a small air force, is a decent attack aricraft and can in an emergency be used to intercept other attack aircrafts (but nothing with any higher performance).

Speaking of users, it should be noted how one air force that have always made CAS a priority has never been interested in the A-10 concept. the USMC considers every asset to exist primarily to support the troops on the ground and yet they've never considered any design with the A-10 characteristics. They used the A-4 and later the Harriers but their view of the Harrier is not of a simple aircraft that flies low over the battlefield. They like the forward deployability of the Harrier but operate them as conventional aircrafts in the same way the USAF does with the F-16s.

[Viper15]

The USAF is bound and determined that nothing get in the way of the F-35A. Retiring an entire type along with it's accompanying logistic and support framework will (theoretically) save billions.

In the 1980's the USAF attempted to replace the A-10 with a modified F-16 called the "F/A-16", or something like that. Didn't quite work out either.

I think it was to be named the A-16, with a very fetching paint scheme, I wonder if there are decals out there for the two seat version...

[Alex Gordon]

Esci did it many moons ago.http://modelingmadness.com/scott/mod/us/f16bpreview.htm

[Haydn]

I think it was to be named the A-16, with a very fetching paint scheme, I wonder if there are decals out there for the two seat versionmg]

Decals available here in 1/72 and 1/48...

http://www.caracalmodels.com/cd72031.html

Cheers,

Haydn.