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

Factual Questions
201

Because drones are many years away from operating in such a complex environment. There are basically two ways you can think of drones operating: remotely piloted, where a pilot is just sitting somewhere other than in a cockpit; or autonomous, where the drone executes a programmed plan, either a very simple one that is scripted or one with increasing degrees of judgment exercised by the drone itself.

Right now, the state of the technology is that we can do really simple autonomy (drone, you are directed to fly this pattern, do this simple thing, and return home) and totally unable to do anything complex (drone, fly in this region, but if you see something suspicious, go and investigate it and make a call whether to use a weapon). Therefore, anything that is even a little complex right now falls into the remotely piloted bin.

We can reasonably expect that over the next 10-20 years, our technology and confidence in autonomy will increase so that a drone can fly a mission to drop a bomb on a predetermined target, or maybe even a moving target under strict parameters, but this is really, really hard stuff. What if the drone gets to the munitions factory it is supposed to bomb, and there’s a school bus of 5th graders taking a tour? Can computers make the judgment not to deploy the weapon?

Okay, you’re asking, so why don’t we just have pilots fly those missions? Why not have a remotely piloted drone replace the A-10? Because remotely piloted vehicles depend on radio signals, typically from satellites, to command them. It is trivial to jam these signals. Every significant military has enough electronic warfare capability to put out signals strong enough to create real problems in satellite communications near the battlefield. For example, the idea of Predator-like UAVs operating anywhere near, say, hostile Russian forces today or in the near future is just a joke. Those Predators would be mincemeat.

We will surely get there some day, but the ideas of either having a drone operate autonomously with weapons near friendly troops, or having a drone with weapons have assured communications near enemy troops, is a really, really difficult problem.

202

I suspect a combination of big, robust ROV and virtual reality for the pilot, safe on a base somewhere, will be “the next A-10.”

203

But as we are talking a few years out anyway, it seems inevitable that we won’t be talking about a piloted aircraft. I think you’re right that it won’t be completely autonomous. But there is a big middle ground between completely autonomous and completely remote controlled. It seems that kind of in that time scale you will have aircraft that are still controlled by an operator, but their controls will be “fly over there”, “drop a bomb on that”, not “move your flaps up 1.23 degrees”.

204

What I’m saying is that it is almost certain that the next ground attack aircraft will be manned, so long as development starts in the next ten years.

Right now, the Air Force is in the earliest stages of designing new sixth generation fighters, to replace the F-22 and F/A-18. Both concepts are generally expected to be manned, though optional manning is being examined. These aircraft would be projected to enter service around 2030 or so, and probably have a service life of 30+ years.

There’s just no way that these high end fighters would basically avoid autonomy, and think that the Air Force is going to invest huge dollars for autonomy in a ground attack aircraft. The rumors of A-10 successors include things like the Scorpion, not the most advanced aircraft the world has ever known.

205

They don’t need an air-frame successor to the A-10. It would be cost effective to buy more of the same. whether they rewing them in a D check or buy new ones outright. The plane can sustain more punishment than any other plane and serves as a financial buffer to airplanes costing 2 or 3 times as much.

206

“world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft.” does not sound promising.

207

As a factual matter, there hasn’t been any evidence of any consideration of restarting the A-10 line. There has been a rewinging program ongoing - but since the news reports indicate that the retirement of the last A-10 has simply been delayed to 2022 under the Air Force plan, there’s no need to spend something just shy of a billion dollars to rewing planes that are now planned for retirement 5 years from now, instead of 3 years which the Air Force proposed last year.

208

A billion dollars? How many A-10s are there?

209

Wiki says 716 built. So if none have been shot down, crashed, etc. then that’s just under 1.4 million each.
Original unit cost was 18.8 million.

210

There have been some losses, including this puzzling incident: Craig D. Button - Wikipedia

211

From my memory, I believe there’s about 240 still in service.

212

Oh, and one other point: the unit cost of an A-10 thirty years ago is meaningless today. Yes, it cost ±$18 million per back in the day, but even if the A-10 line were restarted, the cost of an A-10 would NOT be $18 million per plus inflation.

To use a comparison, an F-16 back around 1980 cost around $18 million, give or take. Today a modern F-16 probably costs somewhere between $60-90 million, depending on what you put on it. That’s because there’s been thirty years of development of better radars, engines, avionics, sensors, etc. Similarly, the A-10 has received upgrades over the years - those cost real money, and it would be senseless to trade in an A-10 with 2013 avionics and equipment for a brand-new A-10 with 1979 model avionics and stuff – which probably couldn’t even be built today.

213

Why would you think we would order a 1979 A-10?

the design cost on the plane’s frame and engine is already sunk. there is nothing in our inventory that matches what it can do. An F-35 simply can’t do what an A-10 does. It means removing the functionality of an A-10 and using different tactics.

Avionics are always a constant upgrade item and should be looked at as a separate program. All aircraft go through that process.

214

Do we still need an A-10? B-52’s and B-1’s can loiter circling above a battle field for hours, ground spotters can call in laser guided strikes. Then we still have Apaches and F-35’s and the AC-130 spooky. We also have Predator drones that can also loiter for hours and perform hellfire strikes called in by ground troops.

As far as I know A-10’s don’t get sent cruising for targets of opportunity, so genuine question isn’t the job of close air support better now done by high fliers or fast movers that can lob laser guided munitions from out of reach of ground return fire?

215

Again, you miss my point. People, including in this thread, often tout the cost of an A-10 as what was paid 30 plus years ago - $18 million or so. That is a misleading figure to cite, because the replacement cost of an A-10 is surely several times that figure, even if one disregards that the tooling is probably long gone.

And avionics are not a separate program. They are part of the flyaway cost of any military airplane.

216

The cost of the plane 30 years ago included the development cost. that cost no longer exists. It’s now a pure production cost.

As for the avionics that really is a separate cost shared among other aircraft. If the plane were purchased today the development costs of avionics would no longer exist. .

Yes production costs go up over time but buying an existing plane does come with design savings. It’s literally a case of not paying to invent the wheel all over again.

217

While loitering on target is one of the assets of the plane it is not what makes it unique. It’s the close support of a Vulcan Cannon and it’s hardened design that no other aircraft has that makes it unique.

This is the plane that makes it possible for B-52’s, Apaches and AC-130 gunships possible. It’s one of a series of aircraft that are mission specific to a well developed method of warfare. It cannot be replaced with any of the aircraft you mentioned.

If it wasn’t needed for the close support you claim isn’t done anymore then it would have been retired years ago.

218

The A-10 uses a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger cannon. The Vulcan, also originally made by General Electric (now made by General Dynamics), is 20 mm.

219

Here is an excellent video on the design of the A-10.

220

You didn’t really address my issue. low and slow is no longer a viable strategy for CAS since the proliferation of shoulder mounted SAM’s. Also the A-10 is no longer viable for its primary design task as a tank killer since it can’t penetrate the front armour of a modern Russian tank.

CAS is better done by a combination of high flier bombers with laser guided munitions and human operated drones with vulcans and JDAMs. CAS in the low and slow role is too dangerous for a manned plane nowadays. The A-10 has not been used much in the fight against ISIS because of the risk of shoulder mounted SAM’s. If a drone gets shot down it doesn’t require a dangerous and potentially political disaster of a search and rescue mission using special forces.

To be fair I think the CAS drones should be Army not air force, let the Army cover their own forces.