OBama tries to kill the A-10

[GIThruster]

http://candicemiller.house.gov/press-re ... t-keep-10s

Eventually it will be a thing of the past. Though it is better at hunting and killing tanks than any other weapons system, tanks are on their way out too. Unless the new plasma sintered ceramic armors enable armor to make a comeback by making them able to survive shoulder mounted missile attacks, tanks are doomed and with them, the need to kill them with planes. Too its good to note that we have choppers and multi-mission craft able to replace the A-10, but it is such a good system, and cheap compared to everything else, it would be foolish to rush to retire it, IMHO.

And they are just cool as can be. They fly overhead here every week and I always stop to watch.

[ltgbrown]

If I could fly any plane, it would be the A-10. Unfortunately, its time is over and we can't afford everything.

[Skipjack]

http://candicemiller.house.gov/press-re ... t-keep-10s

Fixed the link.
I agree that the A10 is a great plane.

[Tom Ligon]

Let's see, when was the first time I saw news of an attempt to kill the A-10? Must have been around 1985?

The Air Force has never particularly liked the mission, which they consider to be Army work, tank-busting.

The A-10 is a remarkable aircraft. So is the DC-3, the P-51, the F-4U, the F-86, the F-4, the F-14, and the inspiration for the A-10, the P-47 Thunderbolt.

The last major combat for the A-10, it was the source of most of our friendly-fire casualties. It would take a huge upgrade to bring the avionics up to modern standards.

The question is more, is the mission for which it was designed one that only it does well, and still vital? Do we need an Air Force tank-buster? Or is this better done by Army and Marine aircraft (primarily helicopters or VTOLs?) Is a weapons platform designed for close-in line-of-sight firing the way to go in this modern age? Or would we do this from 20 miles away with missiles, as we do with guided bombs?

Age is not necessarily a reason to kill a design if it still does its mission well, and the mission is vital. The C-130 continues to serve well for good reasons. The B-52 continues to serve ... the goodness of the reasons are a bit murkier but the replacements are so costly as to be prohibitive, and the Buff does well enough if, as usual, we own the sky.

[ladajo]

I think it would be great as an overwater FAC/FIAC killer. Could probably even take on small corvettes with standoff wing mounted systems.

[Tom Ligon]

Pretty rugged airplane. Think it could be fitted with a tailhook?

[ladajo]

I think it could take it. It was built for un-improved fields and heavy shock loading.

I am excited!

I should call NAVAIR...

[Skipjack]

I think it could take it. It was built for un-improved fields and heavy shock loading.

I am excited!

I should call NAVAIR...

How well would it work in a sea battle scenario though? Out there the visibility is unrestricted and the A10 would probably have trouble approaching a naval vessel close enough to use its main gun without terrain to protect it. I admit that I don't know much about that, I am asking an honest question.

[ladajo]

Near surface visibility at a distance is crap in certain regions, the Arabian Gulf being one of them. Lots of haze. The near surface ducting layer predominant there also makes certain radar operations sporty and interesting. It can help or hurt. An interesting dynamic. Also, if you look in all the public photos of unnamed country little boats zipping around, you'll be hard pressed to find any credible air defense systems, to include shoulder fired (which is hard from a little boat at speed by the way) types. Something like the A-10 fully loaded for ground support would chew them up and spit them out. Even if it took some ground fire, it really wouldn't notice much given the calibers involved. And I would buy a case of beer and the appropriate number of virgins for the Haji that hits an A-10 on a gun run with an RPG. That would be sumthin'...
Little known fact is that most ships/boats sunk in WWII was from aircraft .50 cal fire. The 30mm on an A-10 would literally eat a modern warship. And that is not counting wing loaded standoff possibilities.
Think of an A-10 coming in with a brace or three of wing mounted Norweigan Naval Strike Missiles, plus gun and maybe some rockets to clean up afterwards. I shudder.
The A-10 can get right down in the sea spray, motor along, and pop a couple of leader weapons to clear the way of defensive systems and then make the destruction run. Anti-Ship missiles have to work at destruction. They are great for mission kill or suppression for a time period. But, that 30mm ship can opener would probably only need one pass to end the vessel that otherwise might have gone home to get fixed. Replacing a ship is harder than fixing a broke one.

When you care to send the very best...

[Skipjack]

Near surface visibility at a distance is crap in certain regions, the Arabian Gulf being one of them. Lots of haze. The near surface ducting layer predominant there also makes certain radar operations sporty and interesting. It can help or hurt. An interesting dynamic. Also, if you look in all the public photos of unnamed country little boats zipping around, you'll be hard pressed to find any credible air defense systems, to include shoulder fired (which is hard from a little boat at speed by the way) types. Something like the A-10 fully loaded for ground support would chew them up and spit them out. Even if it took some ground fire, it really wouldn't notice much given the calibers involved. And I would buy a case of beer and the appropriate number of virgins for the Haji that hits an A-10 on a gun run with an RPG. That would be sumthin'...
Little known fact is that most ships/boats sunk in WWII was from aircraft .50 cal fire. The 30mm on an A-10 would literally eat a modern warship. And that is not counting wing loaded standoff possibilities.
Think of an A-10 coming in with a brace or three of wing mounted Norweigan Naval Strike Missiles, plus gun and maybe some rockets to clean up afterwards. I shudder.
The A-10 can get right down in the sea spray, motor along, and pop a couple of leader weapons to clear the way of defensive systems and then make the destruction run. Anti-Ship missiles have to work at destruction. They are great for mission kill or suppression for a time period. But, that 30mm ship can opener would probably only need one pass to end the vessel that otherwise might have gone home to get fixed. Replacing a ship is harder than fixing a broke one.

When you care to send the very best...

Makes sense! Very cool!

[Tom Ligon]

It is interesting to compare the specs of WWII aircraft versus modern.

The B-17 and B-24 were our "heavy" bombers. Actual bomb load varied with model, guns, fuel, etc, but apparently both the -17 and -24 maximum bomb loads during WWII were 8000 lbs. And it took a crew of 10 to deliver them.

This link lists the Warthog as having a payload capacity of 16,000 pounds (although if you add up the numbers you can't carry that as weapons payload with full fuel). Still, that's a B-17 and a B-24 combined, flown by a crew of 1. It has always been clear to anyone who as seen film of one of these in action that you really want them on YOUR side.

I do think the 30 mm is a bit of overkill for speedboats.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... tions.aspx

[palladin9479]

The A-10 is an amazing aircraft for close ground support. Designed primary as a tank killer it also can chew through enemy defensive positions and cut through enemy formations in open warfare. The only reason it's not more common is that we've been involved in asymmetric battles that involve enemies who don't build fortifications or fight in open force on force battles but instead use guerrilla tactics that the A-10 really has no place in.

Thing is, we don't know what the next war will bring and we can't keep designing the force around the "previous" war. A-10s are much faster and fly higher then AH-64's which are the other close combat support aircraft. Theoretically an AC-130 could do the job, but it's a whole helluva lot more vulnerable to ground fire and the very definition of "over-kill".

[GIThruster]

I think it could take it. It was built for un-improved fields and heavy shock loading.

I am excited!

I should call NAVAIR...

Maybe you should.

The wiki piece is very enlightening and I highly recommend it. Especially that the upgrades to the avionics were already designed and planned so the plane could fly until 2040. We've been replacing the wings toward that end. It is really the need to rationalize more missions for the F-35 that is killing the A-10, which everyone agrees is far better at its job than any other aircraft in the world. If it can be improved and flown for another two decades, why not? Just as you say, those guns can eat anything. They killed more than 900 tanks and 2,000 other military vehicles during Desert Storm. I once spent a couple hours with an A-10 pilot who flew in DS and he said it was the best job anyone could possibly have, flying the best aircraft the world had ever seen. If you read the wiki piece you'll see why. The durability of the aircraft is far beyond anything else that has ever flown. It's pretty amazing.

Its designer wants to see a replacement of course, with more powerful engines and tighter turning radius, and who can blame him. It was designed in the late 60's. But for cheap we can see it fly another 2 1/2 decades and if the real driving force to retire it is the need to rationalize the F-35 costs, I say screw F-35. Lets fly what's cheaper and far better. And think of how cheap it would be to give it the tighter turning radius, just by adding thrust vectoring to those exposed engine nacelles. Change out the whole nacelle and put new engines with vectoring and you have a whole new aircraft that could fly several decades, and most importantly, you still have those big flying guns.

Air National Guard wants the A-10's as they retire, and so does the Army, so if the Navy is to get anything, seems you might want to put a word in with NAVAIR pretty soon. The pressure from the F-35 folks will win out eventually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_ ... derbolt_II

[kunkmiester]

THey've been saying the tank is dead since guided anti-tank missiles first came out in the 60s, even before. Even a small RPG is a heavy load for an infantryman, and there's a fine balance between being forced to carry the extra weight and being vulnerable to an opponent that has armor in his formation.

[GIThruster]

Its important to note with the third generation fire and forget missiles, that have a secondary guidance in case they're jammed, and use plasma to burn through anything, that no matter the cost of the missile, it will always be more effective than the tank itself. Some hack in Somalia can buy a missile for a couple million bucks and destroy an Abrams. That changes the game. Most military planners think the tank should have been retired a decade ago or more and that we only build them because that's what the military industrial complex wants. That's probably true. If you have a choice between two guys in a Jeep Renegade with some missiles in back who have read the instructions, and a professional tank crew crossing a field in an Abrams or Challenger, you'd be silly to bet on the tank. But in Desert Storm, we only lost 4 A-10's and they destroyed 900 tanks. That's an amazing feat and one has to wonder just how many ground troops would have been lost without the air support.