Discussion on the A-10

[Vanoi]

Exactly right. I agree and I know bringing out the A-1 is a dirty trick because it's sexy in that old, vintage sort of way. But if it was so successful in Vietnam I don't see an issue with it being extremely effective in a more permissive environment. But the big wigs will always go for the biggest, most high tech stuff that money can buy regardless of whether it works or is all that necessary.

Ironic thing is that it was Vietnam that helped bring about the A-10. Planes like the A-1 were flying low and taking hits because the Vietnamese had the SAMs, AA, MANPADs to hit low-flying aircraft. And American CAS aircraft took some bad losses during that conflict. The entire point of the A-10 was so it could take hits flying low. But i guess with today's tech being even better we can't afford to lose A-10s compared to what we could lose in Vietnam.

[Condottiere 40K]

Make them cheap enough to be disposable, perhaps outsource that to Foxconn, and you can keep feeding UAVs to forward controllers.

[Principe Alessandro]

CAS? Isn't different from COIN? I am pretty much sure that the US Army needs a COIN aircraft, not a CAS one. Besides this if I am right even the A-10 isn't really suited against some ragtag guerrillas, it was designed to fend off the hordes of Soviet armored vehicles, SuperTucano probably is the perfect weapon against the AK and RPG warriors.

[conon394]

SuperTucano probably is the perfect weapon against the AK and RPG warriors.

a new A-1 beats the Super Turcano any day...

Besides this if I am right even the A-10 isn't really suited against some ragtag guerrillas

But its likely better than a F-35

[Town Watch]

A-10, is basically a happy medium, satisfying optimum, for bombing the goatherders. There is the small threat, small, but still legit threat of leftover SAM missiles in hands of afghani fighters. In this case, A-10 is better than super tucano most certainly?

F-15 and such are a little bit overkill admittedly in afghan, are the afghans gonna come up with hidden migs from a mountain cave or something?

I bet the aviation fuel expenditures are horrifying in Afghan theater of operations.

But on a more serious note, I think one positive of the A-10 is definitely the strong cannon. It works even without satellitte guidance from above. This is somewhat of an overreliance to base all your effective CAS operations into satellite guided smart munitions. Of course ground infantry forces could guide with laser also, but it necessitates the boots on the ground force, for any strike operations. Cannon is point-and-shoot, and will kill strongest MBTs somewhat reliably (with repeated hits from depleted uranium)

[Principe Alessandro]

a new A-1 beats the Super Turcano any day...

I don't know how much truth holds your statement since Super Tucano is probably the only modern turboprop to be actually combat ready and proven. If a new A-1 was actually manufactured with modern avionics, electronics and armaments you may have a point but for now Super Tucano is the only aircraft dedicated for COIN.

But its likely better than a F-35

Well yes, my point is that even the A-10 isn't the best optimized COIN aircraft, you really need something as much slow is possible with a wide range of different ordinances from rockets, precision bombs and high caliber MGs, a turboprop aircraft.

A-10, is basically a happy medium, satisfying optimum, for bombing the goatherders. There is the small threat, small, but still legit threat of leftover SAM missiles in hands of afghani fighters. In this case, A-10 is better than super tucano most certainly?

Not really, the A-10 is meant to endure high caliber AA rounds, SAMs are too deadly for this aircraft, the fact is that the likes of the Talibans don't have even high caliber AA guns.

[Captain Jin]

CAS? Isn't different from COIN? I am pretty much sure that the US Army needs a COIN aircraft, not a CAS one. Besides this if I am right even the A-10 isn't really suited against some ragtag guerrillas, it was designed to fend off the hordes of Soviet armored vehicles, SuperTucano probably is the perfect weapon against the AK and RPG warriors.

What are you talking about? CAS is close air-support, COIN means counter insurgency. CAS is CAS regardless of the type of conflict the plane is being flown in. You have light aircraft that are suitable for providing CAS in a COIN environment, but I don't know why you're saying the Army (which doesn't fly CAS btw) needs a COIN aircraft and not a CAS one. A COIN aircraft would still be flying predominately CAS missions!

Ironic thing is that it was Vietnam that helped bring about the A-10. Planes like the A-1 were flying low and taking hits because the Vietnamese had the SAMs, AA, MANPADs to hit low-flying aircraft. And American CAS aircraft took some bad losses during that conflict. The entire point of the A-10 was so it could take hits flying low. But i guess with today's tech being even better we can't afford to lose A-10s compared to what we could lose in Vietnam.

That's true. But just consider the nature of the conflict. We lost 17 B-52s in combat during the Vietnam War. When have we lost a high altitude bomber since? The point I'm making is simply that the concern is about the performance of a given aircraft in a non-permissive or contested environment. That just really hasn't been an issue for us since Vietnam, which is why even if A-10s struggled a little bit in the Gulf War they were still immensely successful. We attained air superiority before that and the ground based threat isn't THAT significant in a lot of cases.

But on a more serious note, I think one positive of the A-10 is definitely the strong cannon. It works even without satellitte guidance from above. This is somewhat of an overreliance to base all your effective CAS operations into satellite guided smart munitions. Of course ground infantry forces could guide with laser also, but it necessitates the boots on the ground force, for any strike operations. Cannon is point-and-shoot, and will kill strongest MBTs somewhat reliably (with repeated hits from depleted uranium)

In the case of providing CAS aircraft almost always use a ground based observer whether or not they are using PGMs or a cannon. For a pilot to fly in at high speeds and high altitude and spot a ground target is very, very, very difficult. If they don't have a ground based observer then they might use some kind of proxy like a drone that is feeding them GPS coordinates for their PGMs, or something like Aerostat. For a gun run you're definitely going to have on the deck observers because they're going to give you your attack heading, most likely, and your exit vector. Or at the very least they will give the pilot the necessary information about the presence of enemies in order for him to do that on his own.

Not really, the A-10 is meant to endure high caliber AA rounds, SAMs are too deadly for this aircraft, the fact is that the likes of the Talibans don't have even high caliber AA guns.

WRONG. What does this look like to you?



That WAS mounted on the back of a pick up truck and a pack of hooligans were laying waste to an Afghan police checkpoint with it. We saw them on our blimp, called in a Harrier and dropped a GBU on their asses. Disintegrated all the dudes and leveled the truck but you can still see the toy they were playing with. Not to mention they still have high caliber weapons like DsHKs. I don't know why you think they are badly equipped, probably because you're not very well informed. In my company's AO alone we had to deal with guys that the above mentioned items plus an AGS-30 and at least one 81mm mortar tube and plenty of RPGs to go around. And in one particular area we hit out in Kajaki district they had NVG capability. There are plenty of well equipped guys running around still. There were a lot more before we killed them.

[Adar]

Another post that loosely addresses the strafing concern of the F-35 by a current USMC pilot (He flew harriers I believe)

If that is a genuine quote, then I don't think it is "high tech" that should be blamed for inefficient CAS in Afghanistan.

1) A 25 mm shell is not equivalent just because it is a "rip off". The GAU-8 and GAU-12 fire high explosive ammunition, the power of the explosion is proportional to the weight of the explosives and the 30mm HEI projectile fired from the GAU-8 is roughly twice as heavy (378g to 184 g) as the 25 mm projectile fired from the GAU-12. Translated into normal English this mean that you blow up a lot more when using the GAU-8 than the GAU-12.

2) As Captain Jin said, just because they wear cloth around their head doesn't mean that they don't have access to some serious equipment.

3) He is wrong about the carriage capacity of the F-35B versus A-10. The A-10 got a potential payload of 7 250 kg (16000 lb) while the F-35B got an internal payload of 910 kg (2000 lb) and a maximum total payload of 6 800 kg (15 000 lb). Even in a clean configuration the F-35 B/C got major issues with buffeting so with external carriage you will end with an aircraft stuck below the transonic region, no stealth and a shorter range than the A-10.

4) The whole idea of being stealthy while using the cannon. Exposing the engines RCS when strafing doesn't matter as even MK1 eyeballs are sufficient to detect an aircraft at those ranges. If you are worried about enemy anti aircraft fire, then you shouldn't be strafing. The difference between the A-10 and the F-35/Harrier is that with the A-10 the enemy need to carry much heavier stuff to become a worry (Jin do you have any experience of encountering a Tunguska turret bolted onto the top of a Toyota Land Cruiser? ).

[Condottiere 40K]

Part of the problem is that the F35 controversy tends to obscure the need for a successor platform. I certainly don't feel it's the ideal follow on.

But using the Rumsfeld Doctrine, you go to war with what you have, not what you'd like to have.

[Principe Alessandro]

What are you talking about? CAS is close air-support, COIN means counter insurgency. CAS is CAS regardless of the type of conflict the plane is being flown in. You have light aircraft that are suitable for providing CAS in a COIN environment, but I don't know why you're saying the Army (which doesn't fly CAS btw) needs a COIN aircraft and not a CAS one. A COIN aircraft would still be flying predominately CAS missions!

I thought that COIN was simply a lighter version of CAS, I don't remember where I have learned this notion, regardless of this I was trying to point that the US army needs a dedicated aircraft for its tactical missions, the fact that it cannot fly CAS sorties is a political or legal problem but theoretically since the air force has become at this point a strategic branch then I think that leaving to the army the autonomy to deploy its own aircraft dedicated for tactical purposes I think is the best way to solve this problem. In every country with a sizable different branches you see the attempt by the AF to own everything that can fly, armies are lucky that at least are left with helicopters.

WRONG. What does this look like to you?



That WAS mounted on the back of a pick up truck and a pack of hooligans were laying waste to an Afghan police checkpoint with it. We saw them on our blimp, called in a Harrier and dropped a GBU on their asses. Disintegrated all the dudes and leveled the truck but you can still see the toy they were playing with. Not to mention they still have high caliber weapons like DsHKs. I don't know why you think they are badly equipped, probably because you're not very well informed. In my company's AO alone we had to deal with guys that the above mentioned items plus an AGS-30 and at least one 81mm mortar tube and plenty of RPGs to go around. And in one particular area we hit out in Kajaki district they had NVG capability. There are plenty of well equipped guys running around still. There were a lot more before we killed them.

Wow, frankly I have never seen a ZPU in Taliban hands, I thought that this thing was something special only to the Libyan rebels. So probably yes, I don't know how much armored is the Super Tucano, probably it can avoid those rounds going at high altitude but then nothing changes, so A-10 steps in again.

But using the Rumsfeld Doctrine, you go to war with what you have, not what you'd like to have.

Well wars are always fought with what you have, you will never be sure what kind of war you are going to face, you don't need Rumsfeld to understand this concept, just having a good knowledge of past wars.

EDIT

I have found an article of a SuperTucano that the FARC has claimed to shot down, probably with a .50 machine gun, most certainly an M2 then.
http://colombiareports.co/new-farc-m...ed-army-plane/

The Colombians have dismissed those claims but not the fact that the SuperTucano can be shot down with a .50 caliber MG, if we take in consideration this fact and that the average Soviet era heavy machine gun has much bigger and powerful caliber then probably it's not the best choice for low level strafing of beardies with soviet equipment.

[Condottiere 40K]

Counter insurgency has always seemed to me a cost versus benefit analysis. It seems pointless to bankrupt yourself, unless you perceive the threat as existential.

So CAS-lite may be a case of finding the cheapest way of delivering ordnance.

[Captain Jin]

I thought that COIN was simply a lighter version of CAS, I don't remember where I have learned this notion, regardless of this I was trying to point that the US army needs a dedicated aircraft for its tactical missions, the fact that it cannot fly CAS sorties is a political or legal problem but theoretically since the air force has become at this point a strategic branch then I think that leaving to the army the autonomy to deploy its own aircraft dedicated for tactical purposes I think is the best way to solve this problem.

Yes a COIN style aircraft is a lighter aircraft than what is common use in our military today, usually a turbo prop like you said, but it's still used for CAS.

Wow, frankly I have never seen a ZPU in Taliban hands, I thought that this thing was something special only to the Libyan rebels. So probably yes, I don't know how much armored is the Super Tucano, probably it can avoid those rounds going at high altitude but then nothing changes, so A-10 steps in again.

Yeah and that thing was brand new before we blasted it. When we recovered it we blew the barrel and sent the gun back to the US. It's sitting outside our battalion headquarters now lol. They aren't so widespread that they are a serious concern, but they are floating around out there and we run into/destroy them from time to time.

I have found an article of a SuperTucano that the FARC has claimed to shot down, probably with a .50 machine gun, most certainly an M2 then.
http://colombiareports.co/new-farc-m...ed-army-plane/

The Colombians have dismissed those claims but not the fact that the SuperTucano can be shot down with a .50 caliber MG, if we take in consideration this fact and that the average Soviet era heavy machine gun has much bigger and powerful caliber then probably it's not the best choice for low level strafing of beardies with soviet equipment.

Actually the American .50 BMG and the cartridge used by Soviet DShKs are very similar in size. The American round is 12.7x99mm versus the DShKs 12.7x108mm. So the Soviet casing is 9mm longer which makes the rounds quite similar. Obviously if you step it up to what that ZPU fires you're talking about a 14.5x114mm and that's where you're getting a big increase in ballistic performance. But the ZPU is pretty much an anti-aircraft platform whereas the DShK is a Soviet heavy Machine Gun that is used similarly to our M2. Obviously both can act in anti-air capabilities as well, but the DShK doesn't fire a much bigger and powerful caliber. They are close to the same size.

(Jin do you have any experience of encountering a Tunguska turret bolted onto the top of a Toyota Land Cruiser? ).

Haha no. But one of my buddy's in weapons company was on a dismounted patrol in Iraq when we were there in 07 and his squad came under fire from a ZPU-4. Not a very pleasant experience I'm sure.

[Col. Tartleton]

If they announce they're phasing out the A-10 I think TWC should raise money to buy one before it goes to the bone yard.

I want to strafe suburbs with blanks and smoke bombs.

[Condottiere 40K]

Some Canadians considered buying the lot in lieu of shelling out for the F-35, though the view was that a Hornet would be more sensible.

[Town Watch]

well yeah, if you start puttin Super Tucanos in the field, I can only wonder how well they can hold up against ZSU-23s (the 23mm cannon), and the like? (Incidentally, my father was actually assigned into a 23mm gun platform back in the day....)

The targets of my father's guncrew, should the war ever have become reality between Finland and USSR in the 60s, would have been Migs instead of Super Tucanos, so there you go...

I guess Finnish army used to be pretty poor in its own military equipment in those days hehe...

[Sphere]

Most of the A-10 airframes are at the end of their service life. To keep them flying you'd need to tear them apart to inspect/repair all the fatigue cracks.

It can be done, but it is not cheap.

[Adar]

Most of the A-10 airframes are at the end of their service life. To keep them flying you'd need to tear them apart to inspect/repair all the fatigue cracks.

It can be done, but it is not cheap.

It can be done, and it is already being paid for.

oeing to Build 56 Additional A-10 Wings for US Air Force Will keep aircraft operating through 2035

• Photos(1)

CLOSE


ST. LOUIS, Sept. 4, 2013 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will continue improving U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II mission readiness, and decreasing maintenance costs, through a follow-on order for 56 replacement wings for that aircraft.
Boeing is on contract to build up to 242 wings, including these, at its plant in Macon, Ga. Refitting the fleet with new wings will improve the mission availability of A-10s by an estimated 4 percent and will help save the Air Force an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs during the next 30 years.
This latest order is valued at $212 million. Including this agreement, the Air Force has ordered 173 wings. The efforts of Boeing, its suppliers, and the Air Force will allow the A-10 fleet to operate into 2035.
The A-10 is a twin-engine jet designed for close air support of ground forces. It can be used against all ground targets, including tanks and other armored vehicles.

[Principe Alessandro]

well yeah, if you start puttin Super Tucanos in the field, I can only wonder how well they can hold up against ZSU-23s (the 23mm cannon), and the like? (Incidentally, my father was actually assigned into a 23mm gun platform back in the day....)

The targets of my father's guncrew, should the war ever have become reality between Finland and USSR in the 60s, would have been Migs instead of Super Tucanos, so there you go...

I guess Finnish army used to be pretty poor in its own military equipment in those days hehe...

SuperTucano can fly high as 10,000 m, most of those AA guns cannot reach this altitude, unless you bring back heavier AA guns like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_mm_gun.

The problem of the SuperTucano is that it becomes suddenly vulnerable at low altitude for the lack of armor where the A-10 can soak a lot of bullets.

[Pielstick]

Wowaweewa! Some stuff to reply to here....

You think Daddy here would have had any problems getting good effects on target?

Actually it might. What's the average elevation above sea level in Afghanistan? A piston engined aircraft like the A-1 might very well struggle to operate effectively at the altitudes required, certainly with all that stuff hanging from the wings.

For effective CAS you need to be able to loiter for many hours at low speeds. Carry large payloads and take significant small arms fire while still being able to operate.

The F-35 will not offer any of this. It has to fly fast to stay up, it has poor endurance, it has a rather tiny payload (and no internal gun), and there are not many spots in the fuselage where it can be hit by even a 7.62mm without being in trouble.

The only reason the F-35 is slated to replace the A-10 is the USAAF doesn't like the CAS mission, and so blended it into the F-35 program where it will die.

I'd love to see how many 7.62mm rounds make it all the way to 25,000 ft. That's where your argument falls over. An F-35 wouldn't need to get down low.

Another post that loosely addresses the strafing concern of the F-35 by a current USMC pilot (He flew harriers I believe)

Thanks, confirms a lot of what I've already been saying.

Ironic thing is that it was Vietnam that helped bring about the A-10. Planes like the A-1 were flying low and taking hits because the Vietnamese had the SAMs, AA, MANPADs to hit low-flying aircraft. And American CAS aircraft took some bad losses during that conflict. The entire point of the A-10 was so it could take hits flying low. But i guess with today's tech being even better we can't afford to lose A-10s compared to what we could lose in Vietnam.

The genesis of the A-10 came about because of the shortcomings of the Century Series fighters like the F-100 and F-105, and later on the F-4 in the ground attack role. They were simply too fast. The low altitude SAM threat in Vietnam only came very late in the war and even then only accounted for a very small fraction of aircraft lost.

But on a more serious note, I think one positive of the A-10 is definitely the strong cannon. It works even without satellitte guidance from above. This is somewhat of an overreliance to base all your effective CAS operations into satellite guided smart munitions. Of course ground infantry forces could guide with laser also, but it necessitates the boots on the ground force, for any strike operations. Cannon is point-and-shoot, and will kill strongest MBTs somewhat reliably (with repeated hits from depleted uranium)

The cannon is indeed a simple weapon, but there are caveats when it comes to its effectiveness against MBTs. Remember most armour kills in Desert Storm were with the AGM-65. The problem with the gun is the aircraft has to get low and slow to use it, in a diving attack profile that basically puts the aircraft right down the throat of modern battlefield air defences. Not good.

As for reliance on satellite guided munitions... the kind of stuff being toted around today often has inertial, satellite and laser guidance, and that's not counting electro-optically or radar guided weapons.

Another perhaps related thing to consider is the political viability of using DU munitions. If cluster munitions have proven controversial enough for a lot of countries to stop using them then you can bet DU won't be far behind.

That's true. But just consider the nature of the conflict. We lost 17 B-52s in combat during the Vietnam War. When have we lost a high altitude bomber since? The point I'm making is simply that the concern is about the performance of a given aircraft in a non-permissive or contested environment. That just really hasn't been an issue for us since Vietnam, which is why even if A-10s struggled a little bit in the Gulf War they were still immensely successful. We attained air superiority before that and the ground based threat isn't THAT significant in a lot of cases.

One of the reasons 17 B-52s were lost in Vietnam is because the Soviets supplied a modern weapon that was specifically designed to counter such aircraft (S-75 or SA-2). Since then the US has never put aircraft up against anybody with anything like modern air defence systems.

Unfortunately we get to hear all about the success stories of modern western air power, but we don't hear a lot about how the JNA withdrew from Kosovo with over 90% of its armour still intact, or how well Package Q did in Desert Storm when it tried to go downtown with the Iraqi air defence system still intact, or how many A-10s ended up sitting on the ramp busted up when they tried to go toe to toe with the Republican Guard.

Can you honestly say hand on heart you'd be totally ok with sitting in an A-10 cockpit making a gun run against enemy forces embedded with Tunguska, Tor and Pantsir air defence systems? I sure as hell wouldn't.

For a pilot to fly in at high speeds and high altitude and spot a ground target is very, very, very difficult. If they don't have a ground based observer then they might use some kind of proxy like a drone that is feeding them GPS coordinates for their PGMs, or something like Aerostat.

Was ROVER in use when you were in Afghanistan? That's a pretty serious game changer when it comes to CAS.

As I outlined earlier, back in 1999 NATO bounced a hell of a lot of ordnance around Kosovo without actually destroying much in the way of real targets. This didn't go unnoticed by the planners and aircraft designers. Even the "get down low and slow and eyeball the bad guys" approach of the A-10 comes up against problems when your target is camouflaged or a decoy or, heaven forbid somebody should call for CAS at night. Lots of people forget that a pilot flying around at low altitude is just as worried about flying into the ground as he is about trying to find the bad guys. I'm not much of a fan of the F-35, but one of the design goals was to make an aircraft with the kind of sensors and sensor fusion that would allow it to fly safely at medium altitude and reliably detect, locate, classify and identify ground targets autonomously.

If we accept the advances in capability between the F-16A and F-22 then why can't we accept the same might hold true for the advances between the A-10A and the F-35? If technology has changed the air-air mission so much in the last 40 odd years then why can't we even countenance the possibility it might have also changed the air-ground mission as well? I'm not commenting specifically on anyone here, but a lot of people arguing why the A-10 should be kept in service would choke on their coffee if we then suggested the USAF should still be flying the F-16A in the air superiority mission.

Most of the A-10 airframes are at the end of their service life. To keep them flying you'd need to tear them apart to inspect/repair all the fatigue cracks.

It can be done, but it is not cheap.

As Adar pointed out, much of the A-10 fleet has been re-winged. This effectively zero hours the airframe. A-10s are still being cycled throught his process right now.

Which brings me on to my final point.

The A-10 is not being retired - it's merely proposed to cut numbers further. I understand from talking to a guy who is an A-10 maintainer that the A-10 is protected by congressional act until at least 2016. The way defence is a political football in the US there's not much danger of the A-10 being withdrawn from service any time soon.

Oh yeah, and for all the people out there still spouting the mantra that the USAF only cares about super sexy fighters and the air-air mission....... ask yourself why they've also proposed cutting an additional 50 F-15C and have just scrapped plans to upgrade 300 F-16s with AESA radars.

[Sphere]

I'd love to see how many 7.62mm rounds make it all the way to 25,000 ft. That's where your argument falls over. An F-35 wouldn't need to get down low.

The F-35 won't be much more than a bomb truck, I agree. It won't offer much more than the F-16 does in terms of CAS. A-10's on the other hand have put down strafing runs within 50m of ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

Oh yeah, and for all the people out there still spouting the mantra that the USAF only cares about super sexy fighters and the air-air mission....... ask yourself why they've also proposed cutting an additional 50 F-15C and have just scrapped plans to upgrade 300 F-16s with AESA radars.

To pay for the F-35 program...