Why does the Army need the A-10 Warthog?

[TechBoyJK]

It's cheap as dirt to run and is perfect at dispatching the cave dwelling/stick throwing crowd. No reason to waste expensive missiles on them.

If there comes a time when we're fighting people with actual modern tech, then retire it. But as long as it's cheap and effective there's no reason not to use it.

It should be kept around imho. Even if a modern military threat shows up, the A-10 will always have practical useability in urban environments and smaller pitched battles.

 

[Squeetard]

A10 = freedom dispenser.

 

[Chiropteran]

Bullets themselves may be cheap, but maintaining an entire aircraft platform isn't. It is more efficient to fire a single missile from a multipurpose aircraft to get the job done.

Except the multipurpose aircraft costs 150 million, compared to some 20 million for the A-10. The whole efficiency of replacing specialized aircraft with multi-purpose is lost when a a single multi-purpose aircraft costs more than half a dozen specialized craft.

 

[Blackjack200]

The A-10 is not a viable option in a modern networked and defended airspace scenario. Iraqi SAMs were shooting them down in Desert Storm 25 years ago. If the airspace is not contested or seriously defended an AC-130 can loiter longer and deliver more ordinance. The A-10 is obsolete, and keeping it around is a waste of money that should be spent equipping more squadrons with F-35s.

 

[Beer4Me]

The A-10 also has complete redundant control systems that are NOT electronic (hydraulic and manually operated) which allows it to be flown even after a EMP device is deployed. Another reason to keep it around.

 

[ultimatebob]

The A-10 is not a viable option in a modern networked and defended airspace scenario. Iraqi SAMs were shooting them down in Desert Storm 25 years ago. If the airspace is not contested or seriously defended an AC-130 can loiter longer and deliver more ordinance. The A-10 is obsolete, and keeping it around is a waste of money that should be spent equipping more squadrons with F-35s.

Air Force and Navy F-35's can't fly "low and slow" and decimate ground positions like an A-10 can, though. Maybe an upgraded Apache could, but that's another story.

 

[Blackjack200]

Air Force and Navy F-35's can't fly "low and slow" and decimate ground positions like an A-10 can, though. Maybe an upgraded Apache could, but that's another story.

The F-35 can also fly low and slow although it probably wouldn't since its advanced sensors allow it to perform the CAS mission using different tactics.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

To me everyone who needs support on the battlefield want to keep it and everyone who buys new military hardware or trims budgets wants it gone

 

[pauldun170]

What do mean by "efficiently"? bullets are damn cheap, last time I checked. Missiles, on the other hand, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a piece.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to kill tanks with bullets fired from an A-10, rather than expensive missiles?

Meaning a the GAU-8 is ineffective at destroying modern to semi modern armor. The targets it is effective at destroying can also be destroyed by lesser guns such as those carried by US fighters and helicopters.

As an anti-tank weapon, the GAU-8 has been obsolete for a long time.
The goal is to kill the tank.

 

[Beer4Me]

The F-35 can also fly low and slow although it probably wouldn't since its advanced sensors allow it to perform the CAS mission using different tactics.

JSF is not really meant to be flown low and slow. That would make it a sitting duck since visual target acquisition would allow it to be taken down vs leveraging it's stealth technologies. (see above bolded)

That being said, trials are slated in 2018 (due to numerous F35 delays and problems) to pit it against A10's prior to actual production.

The JSF, much more so than the F22, will be a flying super computer. It will be so dependent upon onboard computer processing. I just hope the Germans had no part with the electric/electronic design/build on this thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-against-the-f-35-in-close-air-support-test/

 

[Chiropteran]

The targets it is effective at destroying can also be destroyed by lesser guns such as those carried by US fighters and helicopters.

For a second there I got excited because I thought you wrote "laser guns".

 

[MarkXIX]

To me everyone who needs support on the battlefield want to keep it and everyone who buys new military hardware or trims budgets wants it gone

Yeah, so who's side are you going to take? The piece of equipment is magnificent.

They kept it quiet, but they rotated in the A-10 and replaced F-16s in ISIS territory recently. Nothing does what this aircraft does as effectively, bottom line.

 

[pauldun170]

For a second there I got excited because I thought you wrote "laser guns".

That's coming soon enough
The 6th generation fighter will be getting "laser guns" in addition to it standard gun. F-35 will probably get a laser as well. Probably start seeing that stuff start to appear in the mid to late 20's.

 

[angminas]

If I remember correctly its primary role is as a tank killer.

That's what it was originally designed for, but it's used primarily for CAS now. It changed roles, and it's much better for its new purpose. Anybody who talks shit about the A-10 by saying it's not good against modern tanks is missing the point.

Bullets themselves may be cheap, but maintaining an entire aircraft platform isn't. It is more efficient to fire a single missile from a multipurpose aircraft to get the job done.

Um, you still have to maintain that multipurpose aircraft, too, and it costs WAAAAAAY more to keep up than the A-10. Additionally, missiles and bombs have a huge blast radius, and they will never be able to do exactly what the A-10 can do with its gun.

The A-10 is not a viable option in a modern networked and defended airspace scenario. Iraqi SAMs were shooting them down in Desert Storm 25 years ago. If the airspace is not contested or seriously defended an AC-130 can loiter longer and deliver more ordinance. The A-10 is obsolete, and keeping it around is a waste of money that should be spent equipping more squadrons with F-35s.

Except not every situation is a modern networked and defended airspace. Against lower-tech targets (which is how we spend most of our time fighting these days), the A-10 is still dirt cheap and supremely effective. The F-35 is not ready to take over CAS...when it is, then we can talk about getting rid of the A-10. And please don't even begin to compare the money between the two planes, as if cutting the A-10 is actually going to make a difference in the defense budget and get us significantly more of those oh-so-desperately needed F-35s. At the moment, we only need them if we get rid of the A-10! Yes, if we go up against Russia, the A-10 will have limited effectiveness, and we should be working on a replacement...but we don't have it yet. Don't sell the car for gas money.

To me everyone who needs support on the battlefield want to keep it and everyone who buys new military hardware or trims budgets wants it gone

That's a pretty easy choice to me, and it should be to any leader. Veteran lives should not be for sale. If we cut the A-10 now before its replacement is ready, we will be trading soldiers' lives for a few billion dollars. And we won't even end up saving money, because losing the A-10 would presumably ramp up production of the wonky and fantastically expensive F-35. The only budget those people are worried about is their own.

 

[pauldun170]

Yeah, so who's side are you going to take? The piece of equipment is magnificent.

They kept it quiet, but they rotated in the A-10 and replaced F-16s in ISIS territory recently. Nothing does what this aircraft does as effectively, bottom line.

They didn't keep it quiet. It's just a standard rotation.
Eventually when they are rotated out and replaced with F-16s again will the argument then be that the F-16 is more effective that's whey they rotated the A-10's out?

 

[Blackjack200]

Except not every situation is a modern networked and defended airspace. Against lower-tech targets (which is how we spend most of our time fighting these days), the A-10 is still dirt cheap and supremely effective. The F-35 is not ready to take over CAS...when it is, then we can talk about getting rid of the A-10. And please don't even begin to compare the money between the two planes, as if cutting the A-10 is actually going to make a difference in the defense budget and get us significantly more of those oh-so-desperately needed F-35s. At the moment, we only need them if we get rid of the A-10! Yes, if we go up against Russia, the A-10 will have limited effectiveness, and we should be working on a replacement...but we don't have it yet. Don't sell the car for gas money.[

If you're not in contested airspace, why do you need anything more than an AC-130? If you're in contested airspace, an F-35 is more survivable than an A-10. Every time.

That's a pretty easy choice to me, and it should be to any leader. Veteran lives should not be for sale. If we cut the A-10 now before its replacement is ready, we will be trading soldiers' lives for a few billion dollars. And we won't even end up saving money, because losing the A-10 would presumably ramp up production of the wonky and fantastically expensive F-35. The only budget those people are worried about is their own.

That's an awful and completely unsupported appeal to emotion. CAS is already performed by numerous airframes that are not the A-10, including the F-16, F-15 SE, and AC-130. The F-35 will bring much more capability and survivability, but it's not like retiring the A-10 leaves a gaping void until the F-35 comes online.

 

[OutHouse]

why do they need close air support from another branch of the military?

doesn't the army have apache and cobra attack helicopters for that role?

(A-10 is Airforce)

because the army has very very very few fixed wing pilots. and i believe that the Army just had its last enlisted pilot retire. I think he just flew generals around in C-12 Kingair, its been a while since i read the news piece. the Army flight school only takes warrant officers.

 

[OutHouse]

If you're not in contested airspace, why do you need anything more than an AC-130?

simple answer for a simpleton. Bombs.

 

[Blackjack200]

simple answer for a simpleton. Bombs.

The AC-130 drops bombs dumbass.

 

[OutHouse]

The F-35 can also fly low and slow although it probably wouldn't since its advanced sensors allow it to perform the CAS mission using different tactics.

you know this how?

what is your background with warplanes?

 

[Blackjack200]

How do I know what? Any plane can fly low and slow.

 

[OutHouse]

The AC-130 drops bombs dumbass.

I spent a lot of time around the spooky II's and they did not drop bombs. looks like there is a new version of the Ac-130 that drops the 105 and adds some pylons to drop small munitions. i stand corrected.

however your stance that the A-10 is a low tech obsolete battlefield weapon is total insanity.

 

[Brainonska511]

Um, you still have to maintain that multipurpose aircraft, too, and it costs WAAAAAAY more to keep up than the A-10. Additionally, missiles and bombs have a huge blast radius, and they will never be able to do exactly what the A-10 can do with its gun.

The USAF would save ~$4 billion if it cut the A-10 completely because it would no longer have to maintain the support structure for the A-10. It may be cheaper to maintain the A-10 in a head-to-head comparison vs a modern, multi-role aircraft, but in terms of resources and the limited uses the A-10 has vs a multi-role aircraft, it may not make financial sense to maintain a fleet of relatively specialized aircraft, especially when their role can easily be filled by other aircraft in the fleet.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I spent a lot of time around the spooky II's and they did not drop bombs. looks like there is a new version of the Ac-130 that drops the 105 and adds some pylons to drop small munitions. i stand corrected.

however your stance that the A-10 is a low tech obsolete battlefield weapon is total insanity.

I recently read the AC-130 gunships will be upgraded with lasers too. They also claimed with its storage space and capacity it will be possible to have close to infinite laser"ammunition" I forgot how it was worded

 

[Blackjack200]

I spent a lot of time around the spooky II's and they did not drop bombs. looks like there is a new version of the Ac-130 that drops the 105 and adds some pylons to drop small munitions. i stand corrected.

however your stance that the A-10 is a low tech obsolete battlefield weapon is total insanity.

Then the Air Force is totally fucking insane because that's their position and they're getting rid of it.

I have no doubt that the A-10s are capable planes that have been and will continue to effectively complete the CAS mission until they're retired, but that's beside the point. pauldun170 pointed out that A-10 squadrons are already rotated out with F-16 squadrons. If the F-16s were not capable of completing the mission, why aren't John McCain and the rest screaming for more A-10 airframes and a commitment to maintain A-10 assets in the theatre at all times?