The A-10 Thunderbolt/Warthog: Air Force: "We don't want it" Army: We'll take it

[MichaelEmouse]

@swampspruce

It is really unlikely you’ll even see an S-300 or S-400 anywhere near the battle front. Assets like that are reserved for deep behind the lines, and so far as I know, the Russians aren’t exporting them. Even something like a Kub (Sa-6) or Buk (Sa-11), which are two of the most deployed SAMs in the world, can be relatively easily defeated at low level

@swampspruce

Stealth pretty much goes out the window once you’re in an optical regime, for that matter, and as we’ve discussed the theatres most CAS aircraft are going to be in for the foreseeable future are going to be filled with MANPADs, RPGs and some AAA, not S-400s.

@Ravenman

I have no idea where you get your information, but the S-300 has been sold to something like 20 countries, and the first sale of the S-400 was just approved for China.

And let’s also clarify one thing again. Though it wasn’t directly stated in your post, many people believe that the A-10 was built for close air support. In actuality, its main purpose was interdiction - to strike in enemy territory against masses of armor long before the armor was in contract with friendly forces. As you say, the A-10 is no longer up to that job against a modern opponent with integrated air defense systems. It has adopted the CAS mission, which it is good at, but we’re glossing over the stuff that it can no longer do. Like interdiction against a near-peer competitor.

Yes, it is rather strange to say that a plane designed for interdiction won’t have to deal with missiles because those missiles aren’t near the battlefront.

Also, I wonder if the Kub (Sa-6) or Buk (Sa-11) are easy to defeat at low level by the A-10 or only by F, E or E/F planes using the more sophisticated forms of ECM.

The bit about stealth going out the window when you’re in eyesight makes me wonder: How much do low radar observability features degrade tracking/fire control radar in the X, Ku and K bands when only a few KMs away? Do common manpad missiles tend to be smart enough to have a good chance against flares and DIRCM?

It doesn’t seem that the A-10 would do well against the 2K22 Tunguska or the Pantsir-S1. It isn’t designed for their 30mm autocannons and their missile warheads go from 9kg to 20kg which is significantly more than the SA-7 or SA-16 while admittedly well short of the S-300/S-400.

Overall, it seems rather easy for enemies to switch to 30 to 40mm autocannons and 10 to 20kg warhead-missiles. Plus, those autocannons could be quite useful as infantry support, especially in urban warfare. The missiles might, perhaps, have some use against non-MBT armor at ranges of several KMs.

A lot of the enthusiasm for the A-10 reminds me of the fondness for battleships; Highly specialized big guns on platforms which have an obsolescent reputation for survivability against sophisticated enemies and which can be easily replaced by multirole platforms against unsophisticated enemies.

Also, easy to engage in Top-Gun-shower-scene-level, macho swagger about. Of course, nobody would engage in macho swagger about weapons, especially not on Internet.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the aesthetics of battleships and the A-10 too; I like big guns and I cannot lie. But it doesn’t make much sense to argue that they shouldn’t be replaced by nimbler, lower observability multirole platforms. Don’t worry, you can still geek out about weapons; Just learn about EW like I (obviously, because I keep bringing it up) did.

[swampspruce]

First of all, my apologies wrt to the export error. My sources were a little outdated and I should have looked more deeply. The fact remains that assets like the S-300/400 are going to be defending targets better dealt with by things like B-1/B-2 or deep strike aircraft and if they are at the battlefront, things are not looking good for the enemy.

Ravenman:
From the FAS website (emphasis mine),

"The A-10 and OA-10 Thunderbolt IIs are the first Air Force aircraft specially designed for close air support of ground forces. They are simple, effective and survivable twin-engine jet aircraft that can be used against all ground targets, including tanks and other armored vehicles.

The primary mission of the A-10 is to provide day and night close air combat support for friendly land forces and to act as forward air controller (FAC) to coordinate and direct friendly air forces in support of land forces. The A-10 has a secondary mission of supporting search and rescue and Special Forces operations. It also possesses a limited capability to perform certain types of interdiction. All of these missions may take place in a high or low threat environment.

The A/OA-10 aircraft was specifically developed as a close air support aircraft with reliability and maintainability as major design considerations. The Air Force requirements documents emphasized payload, low altitude flying capability, range and loiter capability, low speed maneuverability and weapons delivery accuracy. The aircraft is capable of worldwide deployment and operation from austere bases with minimal support equipment."

So, you’re flat out wrong unless you disagree with FAS as well.

MichealEMouse:
I didn’t say they are easy to defeat, I said relatively easy at low level. The combination of tactics,EW, and terrain are going to define any SAM/AC encounter, and EA/EP (Electronic Attack/Electronic Protect) isn’t necessarily going to help on its own, especially when most semi or active seekers can use Home On Jam,. or fire passively in an optical mode that doesn’t emit rf at all.

A lot of manpads are optically guided so that depends on how smart the operator is.

I suspect it would have issues with Tunguska or the Pantsir; but so would everything else, especially slow movers like helicopters or AC-130s. Approach and terrain would be critical going against a threat like that. They would also make mincemeat out of pretty much anything short of a MBT as far as ground forces go.

The fact is, the A-10 is still the best all rounder for CAS on the battlefront. It has never been a deep strike interdiction bomber and likely never will be. That role was for things like the F-111 or F-117. It is also the role that the F-35 is supposed to fill.

It’s faster than an Apache, can deliver a much more varied ordinance, can take a hit from small arms and mid caliber AA that would shred an F-16 or other fast mover, can operate in near proximity to the battlefront from unimproved runways, and still participate in the increasingly net centric warfare due to the recent upgrades that give it access to things like Link-16 and the impressive sensor fusion that planes like the 5 gen fighters offer.

Final thought, if the enemy is alert to your presence, chances are stealth is now less a factor. You really want stealth to deliver the first blow, it’s not a panacea to all things once the lead starts flying.

BTW, EW related equipment is what I do for a living so again, my lapse with the S-300/400 is inexcusable.

[MichaelEmouse]

@swampspruce

Final thought, if the enemy is alert to your presence, chances are stealth is now less a factor. You really want stealth to deliver the first blow, it’s not a panacea to all things once the lead starts flying.

Why would the enemy being alert to one’s presence make stealth matter less? Note that by “stealth” I mean low observability in the IR, microwave and radio spectra.

[swampspruce]

Mostly because stealth is a trade-off and an aware enemy is going to be paying attention to the minutia they might normally ignore at other times. No pilot wants to be flying into a fuly awake IAD if they can possibly avoid it. You can only be stealthy in certain bands, at certain angles, against certain energy spectra. An F-35 is pretty stealthy (at least in radar energy) from the front and does feature some IR suppression from the rear, but it is decidedly unstealthy from below and behind besides being really loud sonically, a factor that can have repercussions in some circumstances.

[Kobal2]

@JRDelirious

In French and Spanish a jet engine is a “reaction engine” a.k.a. “reactor”. Kobal2’s mother tongue is French.

Ah, yes :smack:. My mistake. “Engine” it is, then !

(and thanks **JRDelirious **for providing the clarification, of course)

[Magiver]

I’m going on record as saying the A-10 flies better than an F-35 with one engine out.

[swampspruce]

:). Better than an F-16 too.

[Raguleader]

Not as well as the AC-130, however, and even less so than the B-52.

[Leo_Bloom]

Perhaps this is germane :):

US Airforce Shelves Plan to Retire A-10 Warthogs

US Air Force Shelves Plan to Retire A-10 Warthogs

[Leo_Bloom]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I think one of the things being overlooked here with the argument of the A-10’s role versus that of attack helicopters like the Apache is the ability of the Apache to not only hug terrain better than the A-10, but they can hover…and coupling that with the modern rotor wash quieting kits now used on these attack helicopters, they can get very, very close to enemy combatants (particularly at night) and the enemy has no idea they are even there until they are dead.

Watch the video I quoted from dofe’s link…and there are several more instances like it out there. Look for the instances where the pilot is being given the order to engage people on the ground with the 30mm cannon…look how close some of those images are!

In other words, the A-10 cannot quietly hover in position at night to await orders to deliver ordnance to unsuspecting bad guys…the Apache can. The A-10 will never be quiet or stealthy.

Plus the Apache can coordinate with ground troops better and faster…heck, ground troops often give the attack helicopter an assist with lasing targets.

Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about…look at the patience on the part of the pilots, confirming weapons, etc…just having a nice conversation while hovering nearby.

That said, I love the A-10 and will be sorry to see it go. I've had the privilege of watching them do strafing runs on a range I was adjacent to and it was...impressive.

FYI and (more important) FTR: That video you cite has been removed by YouTube for “violating its guidelines regarding violence.”

[40below]

@gnoitall

Yeah, they did. But let’s not hold that fiasco up as an example of how anything is supposed to work.

The basic C-130 is hella rugged and pretty capable of ops from garbage ground conditions. If I were to speculate, I’d say that the sensitivity of the AC-130 is the sensor hardware, not the airframe.

I haven’t seen many landing strips that a Herc can’t use, and when the pilots tell you they could land across a runway if they had to, they probably could. I haven’t flown in any sexy gunned-up variants, just the boot-issue H and the J, but they’re tough, capable planes designed for unimproved dirt strips, with heavy duty landing gear and engines up high where they are less likely to suck up debris. They do tend to turn into hanger pigs as they age, that’s why they keep spinning out variants.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Leo_Bloom

Perhaps this is germane :):

US Airforce Shelves Plan to Retire A-10 Warthogs
US Air Force Shelves Plan to Retire A-10 Warthogs

VERY good news - thanks!

[coremelt]

@40below

I haven’t seen many landing strips that a Herc can’t use, and when the pilots tell you they could land across a runway if they had to, they probably could.

Relevant. Herc landing on an aircraft carrier. Didn’t even need the arresting hook.

USS Forrestal C-130 Hercules Carrier Landing Trials

[Raguleader]

@coremelt

Relevant. Herc landing on an aircraft carrier. Didn’t even need the arresting hook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

Or VTOL rocket add-ons, which is fortunate.

[swampspruce]

another take on the non-retirement…

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirms the A-10 will keep flying for at least another six years: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/air-force-to-keep-a-10-flying/index.html

[running_coach]

@swampspruce

another take on the non-retirement…

Top Air Force officials acknowledged that the A-10 flies these so-called close air support missions better than any other plane in the arsenal. But officials said other aircraft could fly these missions, albeit not as well as the Warthog. Retirement, they said, would free up money to pay for newer planes,

It appears we have true idiots in the Pentagon.

[silenus]

@running_coach

It appears we have true idiots in the Pentagon.

This is news?

[griffin1977]

I’ve been reading up on this recently (including this article: What Will the Next A-10 Warthog Look Like?).

It seems pretty obvious to me that, the next A-10 Warthog will be drone, as all the things that make it good at what it does(slow, maneuverable, and able to operate close to the troops), seem to be better suited to a plane the doesn’t have a pilot to put in harms way. But no one seems to be talking about that, and I was wondering why that is.

[carnivorousplant]

@griffin1977

IBut no one seems to be talking about that, and I was wondering why that is.

Are pilots more aware of their aircraft, and better at flying them than drone operators are at flying drones?