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

[Ravenman]

“The only way in which x is better than y is…” cannot be read as saying that y is “useless.” That just isn’t logical at all.

[lazybratsche]

@GusNSpot

What information or experience are you using to make your absolute statement above?

My knowledge comes from reading things on the internet, being an Air Force brat, reading every book on planes and tanks that the library had when I was a kid, and playing armchair-general games. Probably like most of the people in this thread. If you have superior information sources I am happy to be corrected. (It’s how good scientists roll!)

That is how I read/understood this statement Ravenman… How do you interpret it?

I have no idea how you misunderstood such a straightforward statement. I’ll try to parse it for you.

You asked about the **cannon **carried by attack helicopters.

I responded that both had 30 mm cannons, but the A-10’s is better against armor.

However, I then argued that the superiority of the A-10’s tank busting cannon was not as relevant versus modern enemies.

Both the AH-64 and the A-10 have **cannons **that can destroy lightly armored vehicles.

The A-10’s cannon can destroy old tanks. It did that very well in Iraq and Libya.

The A-10’s cannon is not as effective at destroying modern tanks like the T-90, which has improved armor on the top where tanks have been traditionally most vulnerable.

And really the cannon is the only **unique **capability that the A-10 has. Other aircraft are not be as good at close air support, but the difference is a matter of degree rather than kind.

[dofe]

@Alessan

True, but in in that game of hide-and-seek, an Apache still has an advantage over a Warthog.

The Warthog is good on chessboard battlefield like the Fulda Gap. It’s lost in 3-dimensional terrain.

Definitely.

[Little_Nemo]

@lazybratsche

The only job where the A-10’s cannon is superior is at destroying battalions of obsolete Soviet tanks. Lighter vehicles are vulnerable to the AH-64’s cannon, while IIRC the A-10’s cannon would have a hard time killing modern tanks.

I’m not disputing this point. I’m just wondering if it’s as important as it appears.

After all, who is the A-10 going to be fighting? It won’t be facing American or NATO tanks. Do countries like Iran or North Korea or Syria have the kind of state-of-the-art tanks that are proof against an A-10? Iran, for example, is still using T-72’s as its main battle tank - these literally are battalions of obsolete Soviet tanks.

[lazybratsche]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not disputing this point. I’m just wondering if it’s as important as it appears.

After all, who is the A-10 going to be fighting? It won’t be facing American or NATO tanks. Do countries like Iran or North Korea or Syria have the kind of state-of-the-art tanks that are proof against an A-10? Iran, for example, is still using T-72’s as its main battle tank - these literally are battalions of obsolete Soviet tanks.

True, but obsolete Soviet tanks are fairly easily dispatched in a lot of other ways. Iraqi armor was demolished every time they encountered the US military, whether or not any A-10s were involved in a particular battle.

[Ranchoth]

Heh. All this kinda reminds me of another Air Force procurement plan that’s underway, but not getting as much attention—several aircraft for the Light Air Support role, the A-29B.

Better known as the Super Tucano.

[Ravenman]

@Ranchoth

Heh. All this kinda reminds me of another Air Force procurement plan that’s underway, but not getting as much attention—several aircraft for the Light Air Support role, the A-29B.

Better known as the Super Tucano.

It isn’t being discussed much because the Air Force LAAR program was cancelled two years ago. What remains is a program to equip the Afghan military with a small attack aircraft, which will never be used by the U.S. armed forces.

[Deeg]

Have civilians ever fought so hard for a plane being phased out of service like the A-10?

[Ravenman]

There was definitely a hue and cry over the retirement of the SR-71. Congress added funds in 1997 to continue operations for that aircraft, and President Clinton used his line item veto authority (which existed for only a short time before it was struck down by the Supreme Court) to eliminate those funds.

[Sailboat]

@Ranchoth

Heh. All this kinda reminds me of another Air Force procurement plan that’s underway, but not getting as much attention—several aircraft for the Light Air Support role:D

What the hell is Light Air Support? “Bob, we’re sending you into the most dangerous place in something cheap and vulnerable.”

[lazybratsche]

It’s more that a front-line strike fighter is a ridiculously expensive and excessive way to drop a bomb on a mud hut where a half dozen insurgents are hiding. It’s a great idea for the war in Afghanistan… but the US is pulling out and “light air support” is useless against any enemy that can afford a few heavy machine guns for air defense.

[mhendo]

Andrew Cockburn wrote an interesting article about the A-10 in the February issue of Harper’s Magazine. I’m no military expert, and I didn’t know anything about the aircraft before reading the article, but his piece certainly makes it sound like getting rid of it might be a bad idea.

The opening story of the article was pretty depressing. I’ll quote the important parts here. This is a longish quote, but it’s still less than 10% of the article, and i think it qualifies as fair use. The article itself can be found here, but i think that you might have to be a Harper’s subscriber to read the whole thing.

Reaching the designated spot, however, the [A-10] pilots reported “no joy” — i.e., no sign of action. They were directed to another grid, and then to a third, with the same result. At the fourth location, the flight leader reported the presence of a farm building. People and animals were visible, he said, but no one with a weapon, nor was there any sign of military activity.

The JTAC [Joint Terminal Attack Controller] refused to accept this conclusion. According to one listener, he told the pilots that the ground commander, who was most likely sitting in the same room, “has determined that everybody down there is hostile.” He then ordered them to prepare for a bombing or strafing run for the A-10, whose 30mm cannon is capable of firing 4,200 rounds per minute.

The pilots continued to insist that they could see nothing out of the ordinary, reporting “normal patterns of life.” The JTAC had at least a rough means of confirming this situation: like many other aircraft, the A-10 carries a “targeting pod” under one wing, which in daylight transmits video images of the ground below, and infrared images at night. This video feed is displayed on the plane’s instrument panel and is relayed to the JTAC’s array of LCD screens in his operations center, and frequently to other intelligence centers around the globe.

The pilots, who could fly low and slow close to the target and study it through binoculars, had a much more detailed view. Circling above the mud-brick farm building, they affirmed it to be a “bad target.” Now, however, there was a new voice on the frequency. A B-1 bomber, cruising high above the clouds, was checking in and reporting its position to the JTAC. Originally developed to deliver nuclear bombs to Moscow at supersonic speeds, the 150-ton plane with its four-man crew lacks the A-10’s low-level maneuverability and detailed views from the cockpit. It relies instead on what I am told are crude video displays and instructions from the ground to hit its targets. Yet it is now commonly employed for the same purpose as the A-10: close air support.

As the B-1 broke in with offers to take over the mission, the controller’s voice grew increasingly frustrated. He continued to insist that the farm was a hostile target. Finally, his patience snapped, and as other listeners recall, he again asked the A-10 flight leader if he was willing to prepare for an attack.

“No,” replied the pilot. “No, we’re not.”

The controller addressed the same question to the B-1, which had been privy to the A-10’s ongoing reports.

“Ready to copy,” came the quick, affirmative reply.

The upshot was that the B-1 destroyed the farmhouse and its surroundings, which were later found to be populated by (surprise! surprise!) a family of farmers. The man and his wife, and five of their seven kids, were killed.

Cockburn has a shorter piece on the Warthog available for non-subscribers. The third paragraph provides a condensed version of the incident described above.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@mhendo

Andrew Cockburn wrote an interesting article about the A-10 in the February issue of Harper’s Magazine…

Thanks for that. How terrible - talk about SNAFU.

[Sailboat]

Sickening. But perhaps the greater irony is that the B-1 Lancer is, IMHO, much more an expensive plane whose mission has been overtaken by events than the A-10. If using an A-10 to hunt terrorists is an expensive waste, how much moreso is using a supersonic intercontinental bomber to bomb farmhouses?

[Ravenman]

@Sailboat

But perhaps the greater irony is that the B-1 Lancer is, IMHO, much more an expensive plane whose mission has been overtaken by events than the A-10. If using an A-10 to hunt terrorists is an expensive waste, how much moreso is using a supersonic intercontinental bomber to bomb farmhouses?

Without weighing in on the merits, the argument is that the B-1 could do a range of missions from close air support to strategic bombing (and several missions in between) sufficiently well to replace the A-10, which principally only does close air support.

The debate breaks down to this: do you want to spend $35 on a multitool that does 12 things adequately, or $18 on an absolutely awesome knife (and have some other plan for how to do the 11 other things that a knife doesn’t do). Simply arguing that $35 is more than $18 isn’t the key point.

[mhendo]

@Sailboat

Sickening. But perhaps the greater irony is that the B-1 Lancer is, IMHO, much more an expensive plane whose mission has been overtaken by events than the A-10. If using an A-10 to hunt terrorists is an expensive waste, how much moreso is using a supersonic intercontinental bomber to bomb farmhouses?

That’s one of the points that Cockburn makes in his piece. The B-1 simply isn’t designed for close air support, while the A-10 is, and close air support is precisely what is most needed if you’re actually serious about defeating the enemy while also avoiding the destruction of farmers and other civilians. If you really don’t give a flying fuck who you kill, the B-1 is perfectly acceptable.

Cockburn writes, referring to the same incident:

The A-10 pilots were able to make a detailed, independent judgment about the target because their aircraft was designed for that very purpose. Its bulletproof armor, along with other features such as reinforced fuel tanks, meant the plane could fly low without fear of enemy ground fire. On the other hand, no one was going to risk a lumbering, $300 million B-1 within easy range of rifles and machine guns, let alone thread it through narrow mountain valleys. (By contrast, the inflation-adjusted price tag for an A-10 is about $20 million.) Confined to high altitudes, and limited by its huge wingspan and turning radius, the B-1 is precluded from close observation of the ground below. Like our fleet of thin-skinned supersonic fighter jets — and like drone operators — it must rely largely on video.

@Ravenman

Without weighing in on the merits, the argument is that the B-1 could do a range of missions from close air support to strategic bombing (and several missions in between) sufficiently well to replace the A-10, which principally only does close air support.

If by “sufficiently well” you mean “incredibly poorly,” you are correct.

@Ravenman

The debate breaks down to this: do you want to spend $35 on a multitool that does 12 things adequately, or $18 on an absolutely awesome knife (and have some other plan for how to do the 11 other things that a knife doesn’t do). Simply arguing that $35 is more than $18 isn’t the key point.

As the figures given by Cockburn show, your knife analogy is waaaaaay off the mark when comparing the B-1 and the A-10. Instead of a $35 knife and an $18 knife, it would be more like a $35 knife and a $2.33 knife.

[Ravenman]

@mhendo

If by “sufficiently well” you mean “incredibly poorly,” you are correct.

I’m not weighing in on the merits of the argument, I’m simply saying that the argument should be portrayed accurately.

As the figures given by Cockburn show, your knife analogy is waaaaaay off the mark when comparing the B-1 and the A-10. Instead of a $35 knife and an $18 knife, it would be more like a $35 knife and a $2.33 knife.

You can make it a $35 multitool (not a knife) versus a 10 cent awesome knife if you prefer; that doesn’t change the basis of the argument that the B-1 does more things than the A-10, which is undeniable. The question is both how well the B-1 (or many other aircraft, including multirole fighters) do the CAS mission, and what it would cost to do the other missions that the A-10 cannot do.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@dofe

Definitely.

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.

[Ranger_Jeff]

I remember a time when I was in an absolute world of shit. All they said they had for air support was B-52s so I told them I’d pop a smoke and if they could not hit within 15 meters of the smoke…

They managed to find a flight of F-4s and F-100s then.

[Ranchoth]

@Ravenman

It isn’t being discussed much because the Air Force LAAR program was cancelled two years ago. What remains is a program to equip the Afghan military with a small attack aircraft, which will never be used by the U.S. armed forces.

Interesting—do you have a cite for the “cancelled” bit? All the info and press releases I’m finding note the program being delayed and scaled back, but not cancelled outright, or that the planes are going straight to the Afghans without entering US service.

(Incidentally, I want to thank this thread for, if for no other reason, finally giving me the excuse to go snooping around for data on Soviet/Russian tank topside armor thicknesses. I love a good technical tidbit hunt—especially when it pays off. )