The truth about the A-10

[rich2010]

A national air force retires an unglamorous, but effective aeroplane to replace it with a shiny new, but arguably less effective model.

Been there...

[upnorth]

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.

Do the Marines not require their fast jet pilots to be carrier qualified? I know that Marine Hornet units have embarked for carrier cruises as did USMC Intruder units before them. The A-10's lack of carrier compatibility would certainly have been a big point against it if such were the case.

Also, how much actual say do the USMC have over what aircraft they use? Do they or the USN have final say on such matters?

[LeVi Tophatter]

Do the Marines not require their fast jet pilots to be carrier qualified? I know that Marine Hornet units have embarked for carrier cruises as did USMC Intruder units before them. The A-10's lack of carrier compatibility would certainly have been a big point against it if such were the case.

Also, how much actual say do the USMC have over what aircraft they use? Do they or the USN have final say on such matters?

Good point, the USMC regularly operates fixed and rotary winged aircraft from both U.S. Navy 'Amphibious Assault' (AV-8B, AH-1, UH-1, CH-46, CH-53, even OV-10's for trials) and conventional Aircraft Carriers (F/A-18A+,F/A-18C). The A-10 needs a fairly long 'run-up' and can't be catapulted (much to the dismay of some Generals...)

[Viper15]

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

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

Cheers,

Haydn.

1/48 is exactly what I wanted. many thanks for the heads up.

[Slater]

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...

[ig[/img]

A trivia point. The test team required the captive AIM-9P's to match the Forest Green shade of the aircraft, so the munitions crews were given a couple cases of "rattlecans "in the proper shade. At least one officer wasn't happy that the 34088 (?) of the TGM-65 Mavericks wasn't an exact match either, but he was talked out of a repaint on those.

[hacker]

l been sitting here reading with some interest the debate about the effectiveness and the usefulness of the A-10. A lot argued that other aircraft can preform the same functions just as well or better. I also read about the down low modern battle field environment today and how some A-10s were lost during the gulf war. Pretty good arguments but l have to point one thing out

The fighter element of the US military has had it easy the last few years. The have not had any real effective fighter opposition since Vietnam. They pretty much had it their own way for decades. In fact all three major powers really have not had any real combat in decades, The Russian come second in that as they did have pilots as we all now know flying combat in Nam. The Chinese fare worst as they really haven't had to fight any real wars since Korea. Now having said that lets say US was to fight air battle in an opening stage of a major conflict with say Russia or China or both. l feel three months into such war all sides will have major losses in aircraft and unlike past fighter that are easily build today's aircraft are not that easily build quickly to replace losses. It will soon become apparent that in order to try to keep fighters in the air to protect assets the ground forces would suffer ( history has show it has happened) . With aircraft like the A-10 or the Su-25 would end up providing much of the ground attack work in order for jets like the F-15 to continue with other work and the same goes for the Mig 29 or Su 27. Will these ground attack planes suffer large amount of damage or losses, yes! even during WW2 and wars since it has happened. No one can keep that from happening but in order to succeed on the battle field and give troops the support they need it will become necessary as losses of other aircraft at the opening stages would force it. In fact l feel the losses of all these fast fighters would end up being so huge that aircraft like the A-10 and attack helicopters would be the only assest flying in order to provide air coverage for the troops. LIke the eastern front during WW2 most battles would be fought at low altitude. l also feel there maybe even A-10/Su-25 air battles and Helicopter vs helicopter battles as well. They may practice in war games and fighter competitions but when the real deal comes along it can be not what they expected or thought it would be

[Alan P]

That's not an obvious conclusion to draw in light of the various opinions and points illustrated in the earlier discussions.

The main argument against that conclusion is that all modern combat jets are designed from the drawing board to be multi role. The idea that the last type standing will be a single-role, limited warfare, obsolete ground attack aircraft is a bit like saying that the only aircraft fighting at the end of WW2 should have been the Stuka. Obviously that was not the case, as the Stuka was found out very quickly as soon as it was pitched against organised modern fighter opposition. In that respect the A-10 is no different. It would be a complete liability in a modern air war, and as that is the prospect on the European horizon, unlikely to gain much support from a cash-strapped air force with a massive new modernisation in progress towards 2020.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Brokenedge

[Murph]

Also, how much actual say do the USMC have over what aircraft they use? Do they or the USN have final say on such matters?

The Marines continued to operate and buy new versions of the A-4 after the Navy had retired it in favor of the A-7 and were the only U.S. service to operate the Harrier. They have plenty of say.

Regards,

Murph

[hacker]

yet the Stuka, ju 88 and the Hs 129 accounted for a lot of Russian tanks killed. Meanwhile the air battle above how many 109s ,190s, and soviet aircraft duked it out and how many where lost? l am not talking a single type here but over all battle field attrition rate. Those planes back then were easily manufactured quickly as they were simple to manufacture compared to today's aircraft. What would the attrition vs replacement rate would be today? I am not an expert nor l pretend to be but all l am saying is it depends on how the air battle goes for both side and whether or not there are huge losses including multi role aircraft. The point is if worse case scenario should present it's self the A-10 and the Su-25 might be called upon to take over the ground attack role to alleviate some of the pressure on those other aircraft "IF" things should comes to that

[Alan P]

Ok hacker, sorry I hear what you're saying now, older reserve and obsolete aircraft playing the major attack role due to attrition?

The point remains that air power is such an elementary foundation of modern warfare planning that the stereotypical attritional war will not be waged in future state vs state scenarios.

In today's combat skies we will likely see more stalemate engagements as combat aircraft pit their superior weaponry and targeting sensors against an enemy's superior stealth and countermeasures. Air forces are far more likely to run out of weapons before they run out of aircraft!

[Slater]

Should the balloon have ever gone up, RAF Bentwaters (81st TFW) was reasonably well stocked with A-10's.

[Hook]

The idea that the last type standing will be a single-role, limited warfare, obsolete ground attack aircraft is a bit like saying that the only aircraft fighting at the end of WW2 should have been the Stuka.

The Il-2 seemed to be doing quite okay right up until 1945.

Cheers,

Andre

[upnorth]

The Il-2 seemed to be doing quite okay right up until 1945.

Cheers,

Andre

The Il-2 had numbers on its side though. over 36,000 were made during the war and it still holds the record as one of history's most produced aircraft.

How many Il-2s actually survived the war? How old were the ones serving at the end of hostilities?

It had the highest loss rate of any Soviet combat aircraft in the war and of the 36,000 or so built, less than a handful of originals are left in the world.

It was a very vulnerable aircraft despite it's guns and armor. Had they not made so many as they did, the type might have been completely out of service through attrition before the war ended.

[Giorgio N]

Do the Marines not require their fast jet pilots to be carrier qualified? I know that Marine Hornet units have embarked for carrier cruises as did USMC Intruder units before them. The A-10's lack of carrier compatibility would certainly have been a big point against it if such were the case.

Also, how much actual say do the USMC have over what aircraft they use? Do they or the USN have final say on such matters?

I did not suggest that the USMC would have looked at the A-10 as an aircraft, what I mentioned is that the USMC never looked at the A-10 concept for CAS, that is a simple heavily armoured and armed aircraft designed for low level operations at low speeds. On the contrary, the USMC always tried to introduce the latest sensors and weapons on their CAS aircrafts: the AV-8B may have started as a relatively simple type but the USMC soon asked for more and more sensors and today these aircrafts make wide use of smart bombs. The F/A-18D attack configuration was specifically requested by the USMC. The A-4M too was the most sophisticated of the Skyhawk family. All this from an air component that has always made CAS its priority

l been sitting here reading with some interest the debate about the effectiveness and the usefulness of the A-10. A lot argued that other aircraft can preform the same functions just as well or better. I also read about the down low modern battle field environment today and how some A-10s were lost during the gulf war. Pretty good arguments but l have to point one thing out

The fighter element of the US military has had it easy the last few years. The have not had any real effective fighter opposition since Vietnam. They pretty much had it their own way for decades. In fact all three major powers really have not had any real combat in decades, The Russian come second in that as they did have pilots as we all now know flying combat in Nam. The Chinese fare worst as they really haven't had to fight any real wars since Korea. Now having said that lets say US was to fight air battle in an opening stage of a major conflict with say Russia or China or both. l feel three months into such war all sides will have major losses in aircraft and unlike past fighter that are easily build today's aircraft are not that easily build quickly to replace losses. It will soon become apparent that in order to try to keep fighters in the air to protect assets the ground forces would suffer ( history has show it has happened) . With aircraft like the A-10 or the Su-25 would end up providing much of the ground attack work in order for jets like the F-15 to continue with other work and the same goes for the Mig 29 or Su 27. Will these ground attack planes suffer large amount of damage or losses, yes! even during WW2 and wars since it has happened. No one can keep that from happening but in order to succeed on the battle field and give troops the support they need it will become necessary as losses of other aircraft at the opening stages would force it. In fact l feel the losses of all these fast fighters would end up being so huge that aircraft like the A-10 and attack helicopters would be the only assest flying in order to provide air coverage for the troops. LIke the eastern front during WW2 most battles would be fought at low altitude. l also feel there maybe even A-10/Su-25 air battles and Helicopter vs helicopter battles as well. They may practice in war games and fighter competitions but when the real deal comes along it can be not what they expected or thought it would be

I can't see how the simpler aircrafts would be able to survive while the better equipped wouldn't. A-10s and Su-25s can only survive in environments where both the air threat and the SAM threat have been eliminated by other assets. Even in the unlikely events that Raptors, F-15s and Su-27s all destroy each other, there other weapon systems that can wipe the simple aircrafts out of the sky with no problem. In the wars that followed the end of the Cold War, the A-10s had it easy too, they never had to meet the more sophisticated air defence systems that accompany a modern Russian armoured unit. Having a structure capable to absorb 23mm rounds is of no use when the opposition is now made of 30mm guns and missiles that can easily break an aircraft in two. Without the neutralisation of the mobile SAM units, the A-10 (or the Su-25) can't expect to survive much. The introduction of these weapons is one of the reasons why the future of the A-10 was already discussed just before the end of the cold war. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the involvement in a number of "low intensity" conflicts brought back the A-10, but had the Cold War kept going, the A-10 would have been retired many years ago.

As for the Su-25, during the various operations the type was involved in, a number were lost to SAM systems much less capable than the ones available today and at the hands of relatively little trained personnel.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Giorgio N

[Don McIntyre]

To answer an earlier question, yes, Marine Corps Tactical Jet (TACAIR) pilots have to keep their CARQUALS (Carrier Qualifications) current, as do all other Naval Aviators flying tactical jets (and E-2s and C-2s). Yes, USMC pilots are considered Naval Aviators.

[thomastmcc]

interesting points gents...

[rossm]

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.

And who's to say that scenario isn't becoming a possibility again ? Not all the way to the Atlantic but far enough to create a buffer zone like the old Eastern Bloc.

Edited March 2, 2015 by rossm

[Tim Moff]

saved my bottom (bottom!) a few times in Helmand along with the GR7/9's......and the spellcheck is changing it from++anotherwordforbottom++

Edited March 14, 2015 by Mike
It's the profanity filter - please don't try to circumvent it

[Jinxman]

.. I think I would rather have these babies backing me up than not - (taken from Spangdahlem earlier this week)..

[bentwaters81tfw]

Nice! Real aeroplanes. If the USAF don't want them, we'll have them back here where they belong.

[sailorboy61]

I know it doesn't come into the financial equation, but I'm sure the moral boost to the feet on the ground of a hog close by who they can talk too is far greater than hoping there might be something out there and waiting for the whistle / bang. ?????