A-10 retirement indefinitely delayed

[mhaselden]

Wars are not only won with munitions; if you can change the mindset of the aggressor, that counts for a lot. Seeing what deals death at close quarters does concentrate the mind.

Do agree about the psychological impact of the A-10. However, "seeing what deals death at close quarters" can cut both ways, particularly if the A-10's adversary has something nasty that can shoot it down. For all it's much-vaunted armour plating, it's far from invulnerable.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Didn't fare too badly in Iraq, and they were better armed than today's insurgents. Not invulnerable, certainly, but nor is anything else if you have the tools to do the job. You might have more time for countermeasures at a distance, but that doesn't guarantee your safety.

[mhaselden]

Can't disagree with anything you're saying...but what weapons will our adversaries have in 10 years or 20 years or...etc? Also which adversaries? We can't procure equipment solely by focusing on today's wars, and that's where the A-10 really suffers. As you point out, it's already long in the tooth and, much as I love the beast (remember many happy times on Firepower Demos on Salisbury Plain watching the Hawgs come in with that peculiar "loud zipper" sound when the gun is fired), it's time to put it out to pasture.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[-Neu-]

Didn't fare too badly in Iraq, and they were better armed than today's insurgents. Not invulnerable, certainly, but nor is anything else if you have the tools to do the job. You might have more time for countermeasures at a distance, but that doesn't guarantee your safety.

No, they did fairly badly in the Gulf War. They suffered the second highest loss rate of Tactical fighter aircraft, only exceeded by the Tornado... largely because both were used in low level attack profiles that other aircraft avoided. Its operations had to be restricted to less threatening areas due to its high loss rates. Moroever the majority of A-10 "kills" came from Maverick, not the gun, which could be carried by other aircraft and employed at medium altitude.

[Giorgio N]

The A-10 did not start as a tank killer, it became a tank killer at some point but the original specifications were for a CoIn aircraft based on a number of lessons from the Vietnam war. The original A-10 specifications were for something not too different from a jet powered A-1 but with the end of the war in South East Asia the USAF decided to change specs to build an aircraft capable of taking on tanks.

And speaking of its role in the Central European theatre, the A-10 did not become obsolete with the end of the Soviet Union but became obsolete when Soviet armoured units started to be accompanied by mobile SAM systems capable of shooting the A-10 down at distances exceeding those ot which the A-10 could attack the tanks. This was a few years before the end of the Cold War and already in 1987 a number of Hogs started to move from the antitank mission to FAC. By the collapse of the Soviet Union the A-10 was not considered survivable anymore in the central european theatre. Had the cold war continued, the A-10 would have been retired a long ago.

Until now the A-10 has been saved by the involvement in conflicts where the opposition had marginal or no mobile air defence systems but as CAS evolve there's less and less space for this type. Type that for some reason however seem to have a large number of supporters.

A couple more random comments:

if it works don't change it: well, the Brown Bess worked very well at Waterloo and in previous battles (up to a point at least), yet I don't see the British Army or any other army fielding flintlock muskets today. Besides, A-10 does not work anymore as well as people think it does

Psichological effect: true, this is also important in battle... but if I'm a soldier stuck in front of an enemy position I prefer to have this obliterated by a couple of bombs rather than seeing the enemy scared by a low flying aircraft. Keep in mind that fear can be overcome, the effects of a 1,000 Lbs bomb are longer lasting...

The whole story of the enemies being scared is also something that has never been proven. During the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan there were the same things written about the Mi-24, then the insurgents simply found how to shoot them down. The Su-25 was another type that supposedly induced fear and blah blah, yet some were shot down too and the insurgents were never defeated. Alexander's the Great army was said to have been scared by elephants used in battle, yet after the first encounter they found how to deal with them. The idea that insurgents can simply be scared is one of those racist myths rooted in the XIX Century... speaking of some current enemies, do we really believe that people who have no problem in strapping an explosive belt on their chest and blow themselves up if needed would be scared a low flying A-10 ???

[bentwaters81tfw]

No, they did fairly badly in the Gulf War. They suffered the second highest loss rate of Tactical fighter aircraft, only exceeded by the Tornado... largely because both were used in low level attack profiles that other aircraft avoided. Its operations had to be restricted to less threatening areas due to its high loss rates. Moroever the majority of A-10 "kills" came from Maverick, not the gun, which could be carried by other aircraft and employed at medium altitude.

4 shot down. 3 more written off due to extensive damage, whilst destroying over 4000 pieces of enemy equipment, whilst flying 'down among the weeds'. 'Fairly badly' eh?

We have a retired USAF pilot at our museum.* Quiet chap. Flew F-86s in Korea, F-100s and F-4Es in 'nam, besides F-104s, A-7s and F-16s amongst others. Finished his career on the Hog. When asked which aircraft he would rather go to war in, the answer is the Hog, every time.

Yes it's old, and things have moved on, but it still 'does what it says on the tin.'

*I forgot to add, he won the Gunsmoke competition at Nellis in a Hog with both the gun and bombing, using only free fall bombs against all comers. He put more munitions on a 50 foot target than anyone else.

Edited January 16, 2016 by bentwaters81tfw

[Truro Model Builder]

Remember when the answer to the question 'what can we replace a C-47 with?' was 'another C-47'? Well, seeing as the A-10 was to have been replaced by a ground attack variant of the F-16, the 'A-16' in the 1980s, and it was now to have been replaced by the F-35, I cannot help but smile at the analogy. Let's face it, the A-10 would not be an ideal aircraft to fly in an environment where the opposition has MiG-29s or Flankers, but it is a fine aircraft for CAS in secure airspace. I know one or two ex-British Army squaddies who served in assorted sandpits, and who much preferred to have the Warthog in support over any other aircraft, except perhaps Apaches.

I suspect similar arguments to those against the A-10 were being made during the 1960s when ex-US Navy Skyraiders were being transferred to the USAF for service in Vietnam. It is probably fair to say that the A-1 was rather more vulnerable to what the North Vietnamese could throw against it than what the A-10 faces on today's battlefield.

Edited January 16, 2016 by T7 Models

[Head in the clouds.]

Why not ask a soldier on the front line what he prefers? surely a fast/high CAS is only on the scene for a few moments and then departs, a drone can loiter but can it carry the varied and heavy load an A10 can?

Combat persistance, heavy weapon load and a massive moral booster when it can be called upon quickly, just what you want when Timmy Taliban is emtying his AK47 in your direction, no it is not perfect but neither is an F22, F16 or Reaper and if they do get more complex weapons then why assume the F22, F15,F16 clan will be any safer.

Have many strings to your bow.

[mhaselden]

Fast air like F-16s, F-15Es etc are no less available or persistent than the A-10. All these CAS assets fly missions in the same way - long hours spent on medium-altitude CAP orbits awaiting a call to engage, then they are talked onto the target either by a FAC or other offboard C2 resource. In many respects, faster jets are a better CAS capability because they get to the target area sooner than would the A-10.

Edited January 16, 2016 by mhaselden

[RMP2]

Interesting reading.

The A-10, as I understand it, was liked for its simplicity, manoeuvrability and high survival rate (twin engines, high mounted exhausts above tailplanes, how many control lines?, the titanium tub etc) whilst hitting pinpoint targets with little chance of collateral as well as the ability to carry all sorts of ordinance. Sure, Europe and tanks was perhaps the initial plan, but didnt it fill a rather nice hole in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems that whenever theyre about to kill it, they suddenly find its the aircraft they need.

That gun - the versatility of it and control are surely hard to compare to an LGB/Maverick or Hellfire? Theres also the eyeball factor down low, maybe good for more info for all?

I cant really see how a B-1B or F-16 can do what the A-10 does (remember the F-16 with 30mm gun pods?). All I see the others as are faster aircraft with more sensors but no great big gun. Cant more avionics be added to the A-10? A 2 seater would be an idea perhaps...?I can see how they could all work together and keep a lot of options open though. However, Im just a civvie.

[Giorgio N]

Remember when the answer to the question 'what can we replace a C-47 with?' was 'another C-47'? Well, seeing as the A-10 was to have been replaced by a ground attack variant of the F-16, the 'A-16' in the 1980s, and it was now to have been replaced by the F-35, I cannot help but smile at the analogy. Let's face it, the A-10 would not be an ideal aircraft to fly in an environment where the opposition has MiG-29s or Flankers, but it is a fine aircraft for CAS in secure airspace. I know one or two ex-British Army squaddies who served in assorted sandpits, and who much preferred to have the Warthog in support over any other aircraft, except perhaps Apaches.

I suspect similar arguments to those against the A-10 were being made during the 1960s when ex-US Navy Skyraiders were being transferred to the USAF for service in Vietnam. It is probably fair to say that the A-1 was rather more vulnerable to what the North Vietnamese could throw against it than what the A-10 faces on today's battlefield.

And yet the C-47 was replaced by a number of aircrafts better suited to the need, so much that no air force today use the C-47 as their main transport type. Not only that but no current transport aircraft looks like a C-47 at all.

Regarding the squaddies, the problem with every anecdotal evidence is that at the same time it's possible to find evidence for everything. There is the same kind of evidence for pretty much every aircraft ever used in Afghanistan, there's even plenty of anedoctal evidence that some air strike controllers preferred to have the Tomcat as a CAS asset above any other type. This didn't save the big Cat from retirement though...

Why not ask a soldier on the front line what he prefers? surely a fast/high CAS is only on the scene for a few moments and then departs, a drone can loiter but can it carry the varied and heavy load an A10 can?

Combat persistance, heavy weapon load and a massive moral booster when it can be called upon quickly, just what you want when Timmy Taliban is emtying his AK47 in your direction, no it is not perfect but neither is an F22, F16 or Reaper and if they do get more complex weapons then why assume the F22, F15,F16 clan will be any safer.

Have many strings to your bow.

Does anyone here have any idea of the kind of loitering time of the various aircrafts used for CAS by the USAF ? Not all jets are like the Lightning, some have quite a lot of fuel on board... The idea that the A-10 is the only aircraft capable of stayin on station for a decent time is just another myth

Why are the F-22, F16 or others safer when the enemy has more advanced weapons ? Internal ECM, antiradiation missiles, more advanced avionics... not to mention the different operating principles.

Interesting reading.

The A-10, as I understand it, was liked for its simplicity, manoeuvrability and high survival rate (twin engines, high mounted exhausts above tailplanes, how many control lines?, the titanium tub etc) whilst hitting pinpoint targets with little chance of collateral as well as the ability to carry all sorts of ordinance. Sure, Europe and tanks was perhaps the initial plan, but didnt it fill a rather nice hole in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems that whenever theyre about to kill it, they suddenly find its the aircraft they need.

That gun - the versatility of it and control are surely hard to compare to an LGB/Maverick or Hellfire? Theres also the eyeball factor down low, maybe good for more info for all?

I cant really see how a B-1B or F-16 can do what the A-10 does (remember the F-16 with 30mm gun pods?). All I see the others as are faster aircraft with more sensors but no great big gun. Cant more avionics be added to the A-10? A 2 seater would be an idea perhaps...?I can see how they could all work together and keep a lot of options open though. However, Im just a civvie.

The Hog is liked for its simplicity but it's not well known at all for any capability of hitting pinpoint targets. For point attacks the Maverick missile was the weapon of choice but this missile can be used by many other aircrafts. LGBs allow attacks with very little collateral effects but these can be better employed by other aircrafts. The GAU-8 is a massive gun capable of tremendous damage but compared to other guns is not the best in terms of accuracy (while having more power than any other gun of the same calibre). So if accuracy is needed, then the A-10 is not the right aircraft.

As for the advantages of being down low and being able to see more things, this capacity is debateable. Being close to the targets didn't save the A-10 from being a type involved in a good number of friendly fire incidents, flying low didn't prevent the misidentification of targets in several occasions. Better have an aircraft with a clear presentation to the pilot of the location of friends and foe rather than going down at low level to see a target, identiy it as an Iraqi tank and then discover that it was a British Warrior...

In any case the main problem with the A-10 is that it's a platform that can only be used for one type of mission and only if other assets have cleared the theatre of enemy aircrafts and SAMs. The A-10 would be useless in any other situation. Even assuming that the A-10 is the very best CAS platform (and it's not anymore), it would be able to do nothing else while other platforms can do 90% of what the A-10 does and also do other things that the A-10 can't do. In an era of limited resources there's little room for a type that can only be used in certain conditions, every type must be capable of being used against any potential enemy, retaining the A-10 means tying down resources that could be employed in a better way. When money is plentiful it's possible to keep many types in service, when money is scarce it'necessary to evaluate every asset against any potential threat and choose the ones that tick all boxes.

[Mark]

...Unless, they decide to fund a navalized version.

I knew I'd seen this somewhere! Looks pretty good to me!

[-Neu-]

4 shot down. 3 more written off due to extensive damage, whilst destroying over 4000 pieces of enemy equipment, whilst flying 'down among the weeds'. 'Fairly badly' eh?

No, it was Much worse than that. This is an interview by general Chuck Horner (the boss for the air campaign) in 1992 or so about the A-10 vs F-16.

Q: This conflict has shown?

A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-IO. The [imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Q: At what point did you do that?

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.

Initially, much of the air assets were devoted to strategic targets, to make sure we got those down, while we were also hitting the frontline forces. As we killed off the research and development stuff-storage, those kinds of targets-we brought more and more assets into the Kuwait Theater of Operation. We really started heating the battle up in the KTO.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Basically the A-10 was less survivable than the F-16, and racked up the majority of its kills in less well defended areas. That should tell you something, especially when it was in 1990... and its 16 years later.

We have a retired USAF pilot at our museum. Quiet chap. Flew F-86s in Korea, F-100s and F-4Es in 'nam, besides F-104s, A-7s and F-16s amongst others. Finished his career on the Hog. When asked which aircraft he would rather go to war in, the answer is the Hog, every time.

Yes it's old, and things have moved on, but it still 'does what it says on the tin.'

Thanks for proving my point: You basically are using arguments and viewpoints from the early 1980s that has been conclusively resolved in 1990 and every year since then about why things have changed against the A-10.

[-Neu-]

Interesting reading.

The A-10, as I understand it, was liked for its simplicity, manoeuvrability and high survival rate (twin engines, high mounted exhausts above tailplanes, how many control lines?, the titanium tub etc) whilst hitting pinpoint targets with little chance of collateral as well as the ability to carry all sorts of ordinance. Sure, Europe and tanks was perhaps the initial plan, but didnt it fill a rather nice hole in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems that whenever theyre about to kill it, they suddenly find its the aircraft they need.

That gun - the versatility of it and control are surely hard to compare to an LGB/Maverick or Hellfire? Theres also the eyeball factor down low, maybe good for more info for all?

I cant really see how a B-1B or F-16 can do what the A-10 does (remember the F-16 with 30mm gun pods?). All I see the others as are faster aircraft with more sensors but no great big gun. Cant more avionics be added to the A-10? A 2 seater would be an idea perhaps...?I can see how they could all work together and keep a lot of options open though. However, Im just a civvie.

This is a bit frustrating to read, because I've explained this multiple times in this thread. Please re-read this comment. Going low today is a much rarer event, and will be moreso in future years as our current technologies mature. We use targeting pods, networked sensor capabilities and discussions with people on the ground to get a far superior sense of situational awareness.The reason why the B-1B and F-16 account for more CAS sorties today (other than their numbers), is that the way we do CAS ismuch different than what you're thinking of. That's how we did it in the 1960s and 70s.

[bentwaters81tfw]

No, it was Much worse than that. This is an interview by general Chuck Horner (the boss for the air campaign) in 1992 or so about the A-10 vs F-16.

Where, in that report does it say they lost more than 4 aircraft? Nowhere. Yes he may have had 14 aircraft on the ramp being repaired, but they were not losses and went back into the fight. If they had withdrawn the A-10 and deployed F-16s low level, I wonder what the casualty rate would have been. As he said, they then pulled the aircraft back to medium level. You are being selective with the details to 'prove your point'.

This comes back to post #4. As for the Major of my acquaintance, he could do better with dumb bombs (cheaper and simpler) than F-16s et al with 'Smart (expensive) weapons' There are two sides to every story.

I have said that the A-10 is a 40 year old system, and things move on, but it is still a useful tool in the arsenal.

[RMP2]

This is a bit frustrating to read, because I've explained this multiple times in this thread. Please re-read this comment. Going low today is a much rarer event, and will be moreso in future years as our current technologies mature. We use targeting pods, networked sensor capabilities and discussions with people on the ground to get a far superior sense of situational awareness.The reason why the B-1B and F-16 account for more CAS sorties today (other than their numbers), is that the way we do CAS ismuch different than what you're thinking of. That's how we did it in the 1960s and 70s.

Youve only got to look at youtube to see A-10s flying low in combat in recent years, very recent.

To me a simple system such as the A-10 is useful. Its not the only way to skin a cat, no, but as an option its surely a useful piece of kit when the situation suits. Apologies for not agreeing with you.

[mhaselden]

Nobody is denying that the A-10 is useful. It is. The problem is the breadth of its utility is limited. It's the modern equivalent of a WWII dive bomber. In 1940, it was a great means of delivering munitions as precisely as technology would allow. By 1944, the performance of general fighter types was sufficient to carry a similar load to most dive bombers, so there was no need for a dedicated dive-bomber type.

Folks should read carefully the quotes from General Carlisle. He says the A-10 has utility. He praises the training and skill of the pilots - they are undoubtedly the best at low flying in the USAF. However, he doesn't see the need for the A-10 once sufficient of other types are available, hence his recommendation to delay its retirement by a couple of years.

Bottom line is funding. We live in a constrained funding environment where hard decisions must be made on what grants the most bang for the buck. Once you factor in the need for a dedicated logistics train, particularly for an engine that's unique to the platform, and specialized training for the pilots and maintenance crews, the costs of the A-10 really do start to ramp up. It's simply not cost-effective to continue investing in a one-trick pony when there are types that can do virtually all of the A-10's tasks but also perform other roles too

Edited January 16, 2016 by mhaselden

[RMP2]

I almost contested the B-1Bs role in response to that. But yes, given what a B1 can do, it does make sense to invest in a more expensive but more versatile machine - CAS to nuclear cant be sniffed at.

Til you need to hit a 50x50 yard area on the side of an almost vertical cliff face in a real narrow valley with your men within 100 yards, sorry, metres of that target.

We get quite a few ex Army and Marines at work, and they all speak highly of the relief of the sound of a pair of high mounted turbo fans followed by that certain braaap sound.

I guess each upcoming conflicts geography/typography and type of warfare/anti terrorism the US sees fit in the future will sway opinion for and aft for the A-10, in much the same way as it has for a fair few decades. I dare say there will always be the odd case of it being a perfect scenario for it and its always nice to have an Ace up your sleeve. Until then, hit em with F-16s and B1s, save the cyclic stresses on those A-10 wings for another day.

Or for doing steep gun runs and harsh pull-ups in front of me at Donna Nook.

Edited January 17, 2016 by RMP2

[hairystick]

The A-10 tends to keep above 12k when firing its gun, so genuine down-in-the-weeds stuff is now a bit passe.

The B-1 carries 20 tons of precision guided weapons, loiters in the target area for 4+ hours, and delivers when needed because it can move that load at 700kts at low level. That's why the Bone, and not the A-10, is the premier USAF CAS platform in Iraq.

The Apache is the premier CAS platform.

Also, the bone suffers from the other problem of being based hours away from the theatre of operations. In Afganistan they were based in Diego, so took their time getting on station. Happily, they could cover the entire country from altitude though.

No, they did fairly badly in the Gulf War. They suffered the second highest loss rate of Tactical fighter aircraft, only exceeded by the Tornado... largely because both were used in low level attack profiles that other aircraft avoided.

Sadly, no. The A-10's were re-tasked to a whole raft of different mission profiles during GW1 - due to the weather. The fast-movers couldn't operate in the conditions then, as the same would apply now down low under the weather to get visual ID's.

Then there was the environment. Being re-tasked to Wild Weasel ops wasn't appreciated, but the pilots got on with the job.

General Horner's quote is famous through the Hog community too. Not bad for someone who virtually disowned his boy for flying Hogs.

In many respects, faster jets are a better CAS capability because they get to the target area sooner than would the A-10.

This is their only advantage, the ability to get "there" quickly. Their loiter time is then affected if they use zone 5, and end up diverting to a tanker to get prolonged cover for the grunts who called them.

... the costs of the A-10 really do start to ramp up. It's simply not cost-effective to continue investing in a one-trick pony when there are types that can do virtually all of the A-10's tasks but also perform other roles too

If we look at "bang for your buck" the top two aircraft are the B-52 and the A-10.

A $$'s : flying hour analysis shows that the F-16 is next up the ladder, then we get to the fast-movers with the B-2 and F-22 being the top.

F-22: 44,000

F-15: 30,000

F-16: ~21,000

F-35: Slightly less than the -22

The B-52 is also half the cost of a Bone to fly.

The amount of hours required for servicing each type of aircraft has to be considered too.

I'm wondering why the USAF really needs multiple types of aircraft that do the same thing.

Fighters: -22, -15, -18, -16.

With the operating costs considered, no wonder the -16 is rising in popularity, world wide.

There. Lots of food for thought!

[Alan P]

My original post didn't really add anything to the discussion and sounded a bit snippy, so I've changed it to this

Al

Edited January 18, 2016 by Alan P

[mhaselden]

The Apache is the premier CAS platform.

I would concur with your assessment.

This is their only advantage, the ability to get "there" quickly. Their loiter time is then affected if they use zone 5, and end up diverting to a tanker to get prolonged cover for the grunts who called them.

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. As to your latter point, that's fair if you only have a few CAS assets available but typically that's not the case. There's seldom a situation where all CAS resources are assigned - so even if some assets are being refuelled, others will still be on-call. It's the same problem as for DCA CAPs - no point having so few that you risk leaving a defensive hole during AAR operations.

If we look at "bang for your buck" the top two aircraft are the B-52 and the A-10.

A $$'s : flying hour analysis shows that the F-16 is next up the ladder, then we get to the fast-movers with the B-2 and F-22 being the top.

F-22: 44,000

F-15: 30,000

F-16: ~21,000

F-35: Slightly less than the -22

The B-52 is also half the cost of a Bone to fly.

The amount of hours required for servicing each type of aircraft has to be considered too.

I've seen stats like this before but they aren't particularly germane to the decision to retire the A-10. It doesn't really matter how cheap the A-10 is, if it still needs the other types to clear the enemy air defences before it can take off, then it's an operational liability. If the costs you cite don't include maintenance or the costs of keeping dedicated logistics and training streams then the listed $ values are highly suspect. The A-10 fleet is roughly 30% of the size of the F-16 fleet. Does the A-10 really offer sufficient operational advantages to justify the investment? Clearly, USAF senior leadership thinks not.

Why spend any amount of money on an asset that can only do one thing - kill ground targets in undefended airspace. 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. The RAF went from the Lightning and F-4 for air defence down to the F-3 and now, with Typhoon, it's no longer a dedicated DCA mission - it can also perform ground attack. The USAF is following the same trend - maintaining large fleets of one trick ponies is simply not sustainable.

Edited January 19, 2016 by mhaselden

[wyverns4]

Remember when the answer to the question 'what can we replace a C-47 with?' was 'another C-47'? Well, seeing as the A-10 was to have been replaced by a ground attack variant of the F-16, the 'A-16' in the 1980s, and it was now to have been replaced by the F-35, I cannot help but smile at the analogy. Let's face it, the A-10 would not be an ideal aircraft to fly in an environment where the opposition has MiG-29s or Flankers, but it is a fine aircraft for CAS in secure airspace. I know one or two ex-British Army squaddies who served in assorted sandpits, and who much preferred to have the Warthog in support over any other aircraft, except perhaps Apaches.

+ me! But not Apaches - infernal egg beaters...

Christian, exiled to africa

Edited January 19, 2016 by wyverns4

[mcdonnell]

On a purely selfish note, I'm glad they're being kept. They're one of the most brutal, get the job done machines around, I love 'em! I just wish they'd bring them back to the UK, many happy hours of my youth watching them circle & bank overhead.

Remember boys, go ugly early!

Roger that,Phildagreek - I remember seeing the 'A10's in action at Donna Nook Target Range.It is an awesome and highly capable type and I remember thinking at the time that I would hate to be on the receiving end of its punch! 'Tankbuster' describes it perfectly and fulfils its role second to none. All.the best,Paul.

[raptormodeller]

Oh yes, the VTOL brother of the A-10, a simple, rugged and reliable type capable of loitering for long time at low level while throwing plenty of old fashioned weapons at the enemy... pity that this is what some think while the reality is that the Harrier is an expensive and complex type, with limited range and load, that costs like an F-18 and is today equipped with every sort of sensor in order to employ smart weapons. At the same time the Harrier has an accident rate 3 times higher than the Hornet and its survivability in combat is nothing great, as shown in the Gulf War

No, the Harrier does not perform the same kind of job of the A-10, these aircrafts in USMC service fight exactly like the USAF F-16s, they don't go down low where a single 23mm hit means losing an aircraft but drop smart weapons from higher level.

The USMC never looked at the A-10 but also never looked at funding any similar aircraft. The USMC never attempted to have a similar platform developed because they don't need the features of the A-10 to do CAS.

I'm half-guessing that the marines chose the Harrier for these reasons: -Vietnam (at the time)

- You can't operate an F-18 from an LHD

- It can land and take off pretty much anywhere which is pretty much the definition of the

Harrier

- This means that the Harrier can operate MUCH closer to the troops on the ground (1st gulf

War?)

- British ingenuity