B5 Systems

Some A10 Knowledge For You

(null)

The US Air Force has adopted a dishonorable policy of publicly misrepresenting the capabilities of the A-10 in order to remove it from service. The goal is to use the funding to pay for the F-35. Unfortunately, estimates are that the F-35’s gun will not be mission capable until at least 2020. As a retired Air Force officer, I am quite unimpressed by these actions. They undermine confidence in the Air Force’s ability to support ground forces with Close Air Support as well as the word of its leaders.

Join me in supporting the A-10.

47 Responses to “Some A10 Knowledge For You”

  1. Chris W says:

    As with so many AF-isms, if it isn’t a fighter, it isn’t sexy, so it gets 2nd-rate funding; if you weren’t a fighter pilot, your opinions matter naught and you can only do so much. F-35 “capabilities” aside, these birds go too fast and fly too high to do what the Warthog does. Every aesthetically ugly thing about the A-10 is what makes it the saving grace of the ground fighter. And EVEN IF tech & tactics allow these JSFs to get in low, slow, and close to the ground, IGNORING that they can’t take the amount of abuse (bullets) the A-10 can handle, if ALL those hurdles were overcame (which they won’t)….I bet it’ll still be eons before a commander has the balls to commit these to any sort of up-close ground support mission. Because they’re too career-minded, and don’t want to be ‘that guy’ that lost the first F-35 to hostile ground fire. Y’know, while doing that CAS mission all the big cheeses said it could do.

  2. Simon L says:

    My ass was saved on multiple occasion by A-10s. Never by a figther. Choice is easy for me!

    • Chuck says:

      +1000. We called them in many times and loved that sound. I’m done now, but my boys are still out there and still NEED those planes.

    • Airborne_fister says:

      I can’t tell you how many times we had fighters over head but they couldn’t do anything due to highth. But then the A10 shows up and save the Day

  3. Dellis says:

    If it ain’t broke…..why try and fix it?

    Nuthin sexier then the this Warthog IMHO! A marine friend said he loved the sound they made when coming in for support…he felt like everything was gonna be all right then.

    He said the enemy knew the sound also and they trembled.

    I am not military but why on earth do they want to get rid of something that by all accouns has worked so well?

    • Patrick says:

      The saying in the Army was: if it ain’t broke, fix it till it is.
      And I imagine it’s the same across the other branches.

    • Andrew says:

      AF thinks CAS mission should be provided by Army/USMC/Navy for their troops from rotary aircraft.

      It’s a maintenance hog and has two relevantly inefficient engines. Definitely needs upgrades but the powers that be would rather have new and fast.

  4. Jayson says:

    4 of them sitting on the deck at the St. Augustine airport in Florida. What’s Northrop Grumman up to?

  5. Chuck says:

    BBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP.

  6. Ronald W. McVan says:

    The F-16 has had 4 or 5 engine upgrades while the A-10 has not had a single engine upgrade and the GAU-8 gun should be upgraded to 40 Super Shot with programmable air-burst rounds for soft targets and APFSDS to penetrate the top turret armor of modern tanks. Look how long it took the AF to qualify it for a friggin combat drop tank. There are some Air Force Generals who should be in Leavenworth right now.

  7. ghost930 says:

    Apparently the only people that hate the A-10 more than the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the Secretary of the Air Force (a woman who has never served a day in the military, much less the AF) and a bunch of AF General Officers who apparently value their careers (and retirement jobs with large aircraft companies) over the troops.

  8. air2mud says:

    The good news is, by 2019, the F-35 will be nearly as capable of a CAS platform as the F-16 was in 2001.

  9. PNW_Tree_Octopus says:

    http://www.amazon.com/Warthog-Flying-Potomac-Books-Warriors/dp/1574888862

    ^^^^ All the evidence one needs. Fantastic book.

  10. Lcon says:

    Just to nit pick but the M102 Howitzer on the AC130 is bigger

  11. Uniform223 says:

    I am going to be the only one that won’t support this.

    I am a proud US Army vet. I still love the A-10 for what it is and what it does. I am also a fan of modern western military aviation. I used to believe that only the A-10 was good enough for the needs of CAS. After looking what is out there now and what will be out there I believe the A-10 wont be the star performer that it once was and is now. In an ever decreasing budget you need to spend more wisely. We already have the capabilities we need now ( for the most part ) what we need are the capabilities for the next 10-20 years.

    • SSD says:

      And what would that capability be?

      • Uniform223 says:

        PGMs, stand off weapon capability, advanced SDBs, smaller high kinetic low yield munitions, enhanced avionics/SA, better targeting/identification, low observables ( Stealth ), advancing engine technology, and so on.

        • AbnMedOps says:

          All that stuff is nice, but it’s strike stuff and interdiction stuff, NOT Close Air Support stuff. CAS requires long loiter time, eye-ball visibility and simple low-workload “you-are-there” situational awareness and comms, instantaneous flexibility as the situation evolves, a LOT of useable ordnace ranging from big to small, battle damage survivability, and sufficient operational quantities to BE PRESENT ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

          These traits are not what the F-22 or F-35 brings. I don’t think ANY of these uber fighters will ever be committed to CAS in support of a conventional unit’s fight – other than as a carefully selected dog-and-pony style publicity stunt to justify the enormous cost of these jets and the horrendously bad decision to retire the A-10.

          • Eric B says:

            Well said. Strike and interdiction are not the same as CAS and you nailed it with the ability to loiter. CAS requirements aren’t sexy for the Air Force, or perhaps not even cost effective, but neither is our nuclear missile force. That said, both have their place and our forces deserve the best equipment FOR THAT JOB. Until the A-10 is replaced with another well suited CAS platform, hoping and wishing another multi-role fighter will do the trick is short-sighted. I recall years ago when the A-10 was first slated for the chopping block and AF was pushing the F-16 as a perfect replacement to adopt the CAS role. Of course, no light fighter can loiter or get in the weeds to really perform CAS, and I don’t believe the F-35 will be any better that the F-16 or F-15E in this mission. Technology can enhance this mission, but you still need a rugged airframe to get in this fight. And, at $148 million per airframe (and rising), how willing will the AF be to send them in hot zones? Seems chicken shit, but it will be a consideration.

        • majrod says:

          “PGMs, stand off weapon capability, advanced SDBs, smaller high kinetic low yield munitions” can all be mounted on the A10, an aircraft with superior survivability to enemy air defense systems if hit than anything projected to fly in the next decade or two. It’s no accident the Air Force talks precision munitions when it comes to the F35 and forgets they also fit on an A10.

          “enhanced avionics/SA, better targeting/identification, low observables ( Stealth ), advancing engine technology, and so on” are largely things that can be incorporated onto the A10 or dare I say a committed CAS specific aircraft.

          Two additional thoughts.

          PGM’s are great but even with their precision they are much more limited than gunfire in their capability to be delivered close to friendly troops not to mention the duration of gun fire vs. bombs that can be delivered and its impact in suppressing enemy troops allowing friendlies to break contact or maneuver on them. This is a unique requirement to CAS that the USAF often fails to realize (intentionally or not). One is not concerned with danger close when the mission is interdiction and friendly troops aren’t around.

          Finally, the F35 surrenders stealth when it has to carry more than half a dozen bombs than can fit in its internal bomb bay that has less than a 5000 lb “bomb” payload. Remember the 5000 lb payload applies to ALL F35 internal weapon stations. Two of the four stations can only carry air to air missiles. Too small for bombs and something that would likely carry air to air anyway because of self defense.

          When compared to the A10’s 18k payload and its superior loiter time the amount of CAS the two aircraft can actually deliver is starkly different.

          • Uniform223 says:

            I feel I won’t have any support either direct or peripheral. I also see that I will be going up this river by myself. This is will be rather lengthy and hope you have the patience not just to read but to understand where I am coming from. I respect all views and hope that mine will be respected also and not just rebuffed.

            This is my response to the following. majrod, Eric B, AbnMedOps.

            First to say that the USAF isn’t in any way committed to CAS missions or roles are utter bovine fecal matter. For part of 10+ years CAS has been an everyday USAF mission and profile. To simply say that “The USAF doesn’t support troops on the ground because they want to get rid of the A-10”, is very very wrong. The USAF will still have the AC-130 gunship and that by all (or most) means is perhaps the best type of CAS dedicated aircraft out there.

            2nd 148million per air frame and rising is also false. Per successive F-35 lot, the price for the aircraft has been dropping. Since LOT 1 of LRIP, the price for the aircraft has dropped closed to 22% last I read. From lot 7 to lot 8 the price alone has dropped some 3.6%. 3.6% for Low Rate Initial Production doesn’t sound like much now. Yet try to remember that the aircraft itself is still in LRIP. Also remember that the US military alone (USAF, USN, and USMC) plans to operate a little over 2000 of those aircraft, not including other NATO or allied nations who plan to have the F-35 also. Needless to say the 143million is what it is now, not what it will be.

            CAS is a mission and capability, not an airframe. CAS capability is much broader to the fleet now than it ever was before thanks to things like PGMs and targeting pods. Are all CAS missions done the same way? no. Do they all need to be flown the traditional way (Low and slow) No. The USAF, USMC, and USN have all proved it. I am not going to argue or debate that the A-10 is good for its intended role now but it won’t be in high threat environments ( peer or near peer adversaries ).

            Precision Guided Munitions aren’t just used for air-to-ground interdiction and strike; they have been used and have evolved to be able to be effective in CAS roles. Best example is the GBU-39 SDB. Before pilots had to worry about 500lbs HE iron dropping too close to friendly positions or creating too much collateral damage to the surrounding area. The GBU-39 effectively doubles the aircraft’s weapons payload and offers more flexibility as the GBU-39 is a dual purpose munitions (Impact, airburst, and limited hardened penetration). The SDB has been used to great success in Iraq and Afghanistan in close proximity to US, NATO, and allied troops. Recently the SDB II offers greater mission flexibility as it has a tri-seeker mode seeker capability. The SDB is a PGM that are high kinetic and low yield

            I don’t want to make this into a A-10 F-35 debate/argument which all the tall tell signs are pointing to. I used to believe that only the A-10 is good enough for CAS roles. Then I started to look around. All the writing on the wall that I am seeing and reading is telling me that the A-10 is passed it prime and isn’t what we need. The A-10 or something like it is what we want but its not what we need. I respect the views and stance of others, I hope mine are respected too.

            • SSD says:

              We’ll just stop right at the beginning of your comment. The Air Force doesn’t have the AC130, SOCOM does, and it’s primary mission is support of SOF elements.
              Furthermore, it’s not a daytime asset reserved for nighttime operations. Finally, the AC 130 is not anywhere near as survivable as the A10 when confronted with anti-aircraft systems.

            • majrod says:

              “First to say that the USAF isn’t in any way committed to CAS missions or roles are utter bovine fecal matter. For part of 10+ years CAS has been an everyday USAF mission and profile.”

              When CAS is the only show in town one could expect the USAF to be flying that mission daily.

              That said, history goes a lot farther back than the last ten years. Read the USAF requested Rand Study, “Army-Air Force Relations: The Close Air Support Issue” by Goldberg & Smith to get a deeper historical understanding of the USAF’s ambivalence towards CAS. It’s available for free through Google. The bottom line is the USAF is committed to CAS to keep the funding going and keep the Army from owning armed fixed wing to meet its immediate needs.

              SSD addresses the AC130 points I was going to make. I’ll add I doubt you can document more than five occasions where AC130’s supported conventional troops in the last decade.

              The F35 may come down in cost though historically this is quite rare. Even if it does, it’s still going to be five times or more expensive than an A10.

              “CAS is a mission and capability, not an airframe.” True to a point. Suppression in the small arms world can be done by a pistol but a machinegun is much better at it.

              Precision munitions are awesome. A10’s can carry them also. That said there are cases where precision munitions are not the solution. The A10 has a honker of a solution in its nose.

              “Then I started to look around. All the writing on the wall that I am seeing and reading is telling me that the A-10 is passed it prime and isn’t what we need.” Again history goes a lot farther back than just the last decade. Don’t fall victim to the age old error of planning to fight the next war like the last one. The enemy rarely listens.

  12. reverend says:

    I remember walking by an A-10, and I could stick my WHOLE THUMB in one of those barrels, WITH a glove on, and the pilot goes, “…and a crapton of thumbs reigns down on the bad guys”.

    That made me love that plane more than any other plane made.

  13. Rob371 says:

    Am I mistaken in believing that the A-10 is the AF’s only Type 1 CAS platform?

    • Chris W says:

      Yes, you are mistaken. Type 1 is a designator of a type of CAS mission, of which there are 3 types. The terminology refers to how much eyes-on the JTAC has of the target and the supporting aircraft. Type 1 is not restricted to A-10s. Refer to this reg, do a word search for ‘type 1’ for more info >> https://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

      • Rob371 says:

        My bad Chris. What I meant was, isn’t the A-10 the only platform the AF has that performs in the type 1 class? I don’t know if RPA’s and faster birds can fall into that roll in their normal mission. Then again I’ve seen bone drop ordinance that seemed pretty much ‘eyes on’. Guess I answered my own question. Thanks for the redirect.

  14. Dellis says:

    So……the remaining A10’s will be used for?

    Oh hey, maybe Obama can trade them to the Taliban or ISIS for some Afghan coffee, Cuban cigars and opium?? Knowing him he will include flight lessons and call it “shovel ready” jobs for the poor misguided terrorists who are just down on their luck.

    Once again I am not military but I want our military to have the best equipment possible when they go in harms way and from all accounts, even talking with an A10 pilot at my shop, this baby was a work horse so I am sad to see it go. I pray that what replaces it is even greater at protecting you guys on the ground.

    God Bless

  15. CapnTroy says:

    Hey USMC! Can you please take over the A-10 program before the AF brass fucks it up for good…?

    • majrod says:

      The USMC would be a great place for them but they already have armed fixed wing. The Army does not. The best and most lasting solution is for the A10, its support staff and budget be transferred to the Army.

      That would create a modern precedent for the Army to have armed fixed wing CAS aircraft, the most economical way to deliver CAS. The Army could also avoid the current manner of having to request CAS days before its needed and negotiate with the air commander how many aircraft can be committed to the task.

      The Air Force could still provide additional CAS when its needed (like it presently does for the Marines) but we’d no longer have a service repeatedly trying to can the only CAS specific designed aircraft in its inventory. We’d also open up the door for the Army to create and operate the A10’s replacement. The CAS mission is not going away.

  16. majrod says:

    For those interested in the subject there was a very heated A10 debate going on in DoDBuzz especially after General Post the Deputy Air Combat Command Commander told Air Force officers in “jest” that passing info to Congress is “committing treason.”

    http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/16/general-praising-the-a-10-to-lawmakers-is-treason/

    The Air section on DoDBuzz has several relatively recent dust ups over the same issue. http://www.dodbuzz.com/category/air-warfare/

    The discussion and facts surrounding the USAF’s efforts to mothball the A10 are as fascinating as they are insidious.

  17. bloke_from_ohio says:

    Make no mistake, the F35 is not the answer to the close air support question. It will do many of the things that make the A10 so well loved. But, if the A10 cannot get to where the troops need it because it got nailed by a bunch of SAMs on the way in, it is not either. The Warthog is still crazy useful and should not be retired without a better replacement than the F35. But the problem is not as simple as a lot of folks make it out to be.

    There is more behind USAF doctrine and strategy than just fighter pilots going fast and pulling Gs. The USAF brass is wetting the bed worried about fighting in denied areas. Fighting an enemy with an even remotely modern integrated air defense system will change how we use air power (again).

    In Afghanistan and Iraq we have had practically uncontested air superiority for 13+ years. As long as you stay above the altitude that MANPADs and AAA guns can reach, you can do almost whatever you want there. If that changes, expect to see a lot more restrictions on how we can use the sky. At a minimum some assets that currently get used for close air support, or strike missions will have to be diverted to suppressing enemy air defenses to enable the afore mentioned close air support and strike missions. More likely some of the assets that do CAS and strikes simply will have to sit missions out do to advanced ground or air based threats.

    The A10 probably cannot fly higher than many SAMs can reach. If it did, then its major appeal as a “mud fighter” would be lost. It certainly cannot outrun SAMs. And it is about as subtle as a 400 lbs. gorilla in a road guard vest from a radar perspective. SAMs and enemy fighter can see it, and it is a sitting duck. Its armor is great, and it can really take a wupping. But, all the armor in the world won’t save you against a bunch of missiles that can see and guide to you with very little effort. Americans are not the only people who believe anything worth shooting is worth shooting more than once. If you shoot something enough it will eventually be destroyed.

    Remember IADs are better, cheaper, and more common than they were in the 70’s when we designed the warthog. And the A10 viewed through a radar scope is like looking at a guy in UCP through a spotting scope. You just can’t give the A10 an OCP paint job like you can issue new fatigues.

    • bloke_from_ohio says:

      The first paragraph should say the F35 will not do many of the things the A10 is so lived for.

    • majrod says:

      “But, if the A10 cannot get to where the troops need it because it got nailed by a bunch of SAMs on the way in, it is not either.”

      How does the enemy’s SAM umbrella get behind friendly troops? The F35 is just as susceptible to the advanced SAM systems that can range past the friendly line of troops especially when it tries to carry more than a third of what the A10’s payload is.

      “The A10 probably cannot fly higher than many SAMs can reach… And it is about as subtle as a 400 lbs. gorilla in a road guard vest from a radar perspective. SAMs and enemy fighter can see it, and it is a sitting duck.” Again, that applies to the F35 also.

      Why do you not apply the same threats to the F35 when it’s in a CAS role that you ding the A10 for? This is exactly the same slanted arguments the USAF uses to try and justify mothballing the A10.