Why does the Army need the A-10 Warthog?

[pauldun170]

pauldun170 pointed out that A-10 squadrons are already rotated out with F-16 squadrons.

Just to jump in real quick...
I said that "When the A-10's are rotated back out..."
I didn't say they were rotated out already.


also

Q: Hi, colonel. Tolga.

As a follow-up to this question, given the different tactical capabilities of the F-16s and A-10s, is this deployment indicating a tactical change in the mission as well?

Or will they do exactly the same thing that the F-16 did?

And secondly, you mentioned about the Syrian-Iraq coalition. It -- was is your understanding about the Syrian Democratic Forces? You -- Patrick was asked this question. Last weekend, he said would look at it, but what is your understanding about this new form, and is this indicating the same thing or different group, or -- can I get your assessment?

COL. WARREN: So, on the A-10s, the same -- no adjustment to the tactical situation. No additional requirement for capabilities or drop in capabilities.

I mean, this is -- some F-16s had to go home; what we had available to replace them was A-10s. It's really that simple. I mean, this is one of those cases where it is where it appears to be.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to imply that you said F-16s were currently flying CAS in Syria and Iraq, just that they are routinely rotated in and out for each other.

 

[pauldun170]

Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to imply that you said F-16s were currently flying CAS in Syria and Iraq, just that they are routinely rotated in and out for each other.

F-16s\F15E\B1bs\Drones and AC130's having been doing the mission since 2014
Eventually, folks want a change of scenery. A-10's have their turn now.

Slightly out of date on some of the munitions but gets the point across

Note for those who look at the cost,
One B1b or B52 can do the job multiple A-10's just as one A-10 can do the job of multiple drones.

So if you are paying 54K for one B1b sortie vs 4 A10 sorties then math and stuff

 

[Imp]

Time for some orbital defense... Can't weaponize space and it would be a bitch to reload, so super high flying blimps!

 

[ultimatebob]

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

Heh.. Some are better at it than others

You wouldn't use a plane meant for high speed and high altitude like an F-22 for ground support.

 

[blankslate]

I'm sure any pilot who wants visual confirmation of the targets and is flying slow enough to accomplish that want the protection that the A-10 offers to its pilot.

____________________

 

[VtPC83]

You want a reason why the Army needs to keep the A-10? It is the only name in the game that matters when it comes to unconventional warfare that nations face today.

It can loiter at low altitude and low speed for extended periods of time (whereas fast movers cannot). It can drop ordnance on a target immediately rather than having to spend time getting into a run.

It is loved by all ground pounders because it is the only aircraft that can perform CAS in a manner that keeps troops alive.

Bottom line, vets love it (both air and ground vets). That alone makes it a tool that should be kept.

 

[Blackjack200]

Heh.. Some are better at it than others

You wouldn't use a plane meant for high speed and high altitude like an F-22 for ground support.

I'm sure any pilot who wants visual confirmation of the targets and is flying slow enough to accomplish that want the protection that the A-10 offers to its pilot.

You want a reason why the Army needs to keep the A-10? It is the only name in the game that matters when it comes to unconventional warfare that nations face today.

It can loiter at low altitude and low speed for extended periods of time (whereas fast movers cannot). It can drop ordnance on a target immediately rather than having to spend time getting into a run.

It is loved by all ground pounders because it is the only aircraft that can perform CAS in a manner that keeps troops alive.

Bottom line, vets love it (both air and ground vets). That alone makes it a tool that should be kept.

arguing the A-10s 30mm, ability to get down low-slow, put eyeballs on target, and loiter in a target area for an extended time are the main reasons for keeping the 'Hog. Of course, that's not the way CAS is done any more, not even by the A-10. All these whiz bang toys that bring the 'Hog up to C-model standard are designed to improve its connectivity, better network the aircraft into battlefield SA and C2 tools, carry much improved/modern targeting pods, and increase its ability to use smart and standoff munitions. In short, the C-model upgrades help give the A-10 a bunch of capabilities that other fighters have had for a long time, and bring it up to speed for the modern CAS battle.

Don't confuse COIN with CAS. They are different animals. Do we provide CAS while doing COIN? yes. But is it the kind of CAS where we are dodging SAMs, jamming radars, etc in highly contested IADs environments? No. Hell no. So whenever someone uses OIF II and what followed along with Afganistan as to why we "need the A-10" I roll my eyes.

A-10 pilots don't like using the gun unless they have to. Its not a weapon of first resort by any stretch. Have we noticed A-10s getting upgrades so they can pitch smart bombs from a distance? Advocating the "but the gun can better!" isn't really helping the A-10 because no one is really interested in the gun anyway.

I once had a lively internet debate with someone determined to create a perfect scenario where only an A-10 could do the job, it was fun to watch because its he had to keep continually narrowing the scenario and moving the goal posts to make it work. which was kind of proving my point. Don't keep this aircraft around for the 00.01 percent of missions that "only it can do." Don't keep it around for its cannon. The A-10 was created for WWIII over europe, the attrition was expected to be intense. The Gun was to kill tanks, after you ran out of TV guided Mavericks, A lot has changed since then, including our aversion to casualties.

A lot of people don't understand the tactics the A-10 employs, modern CAS, or the JTAC doctrine. They think its still flying at tree top level, identifying its own targets and strafing with guns at will like a P-47 over France.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&sid=f71cd2777a81f14d2d427d9da48e8fba

 

[MongGrel]

I've always loved the A-10 just for the fact the gun will have anyone near the receiving end shitting bricks, but in practicality the F-16 is almost the same cost and can do the same operations.

 

[BUTCH1]

I like that they consulted with Hans Rudel when designing the A-10 and this is why, in a Stuka he compiled this record,

"Hans Rudel is credited with destroying over 500 tanks, 2,000 ground targets, the Russian battleship Marat, two cruisers and a destroyer, and was so successful against Russian forces that Joseph Stalin put up a 100,000 rouble ransom on his head. His flying record of over 2,500 missions remains unmatched by any pilot since."

Guy knew his shit about low-level engagement, this was his weapon of choice, notice anything odd?.

 

[BUTCH1]

F-16s\F15E\B1bs\Drones and AC130's having been doing the mission since 2014
Eventually, folks want a change of scenery. A-10's have their turn now.

Slightly out of date on some of the munitions but gets the point across

Note for those who look at the cost,
One B1b or B52 can do the job multiple A-10's just as one A-10 can do the job of multiple drones.

So if you are paying 54K for one B1b sortie vs 4 A10 sorties then math and stuff

Yea, but isn't risking the high-dollar asset like a B1 not real smart in low-level ground support?.

 

[Brainonska511]

I like that they consulted with Hans Rudel when designing the A-10 and this is why, in a Stuka he compiled this record,

"Hans Rudel is credited with destroying over 500 tanks, 2,000 ground targets, the Russian battleship Marat, two cruisers and a destroyer, and was so successful against Russian forces that Joseph Stalin put up a 100,000 rouble ransom on his head. His flying record of over 2,500 missions remains unmatched by any pilot since."

Guy knew his shit about low-level engagement, this was his weapon of choice, notice anything odd?.

Warfare has changed a fair amount in the last 75 years. In WW2, precision guided munitions simply did not exist. Even when the A-10 was designed, they were still mainly on the drawing board.

Yea, but isn't risking the high-dollar asset like a B1 not real smart in low-level ground support?.

That's not the only cost to consider. Each aircraft system carries a support cost as well - maintaining training, spare parts, maintenance, logistics, etc... that may not be accounted for in that cost per hour operations cost. For such a specialized mission that other aircraft can already do just as well, it seems pointless to keep dumping a few billion a year into an antiquated weapons system.

And are you really "risking" a B-1 or B-52 when you send it up? If you already have high-altitude air superiority, where is the danger to those platforms beyond mechanical failure or accident?

 

[IronWing]

Yea, but isn't risking the high-dollar asset like a B1 not real smart in low-level ground support?.

We need to put the cannons on B-52s. Four under each wing. It would be like Sharknado on steroids. Cool as hell.

 

[angminas]

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.

The USA defense budget is over $600 billion a year. $4 billion is pocket change. It's a completely elective amount of money. There is no *need* to cut it, so cost should be a strictly secondary factor. When I stop seeing overwhelmingly positive support for the A-10 from the very people it is protecting, then I might begin to give the tiniest of shits about whether that 0.67% of the budget is something I should prioritize cutting. We need to get a replacement platform ready in case of a peer state engagement, certainly; but we're not in that war yet, we don't have that platform ready yet, and even when we do, it probably will not be as good as the A-10 in what the A-10 is currently used for.

 

[Brainonska511]

The USA defense budget is over $600 billion a year. $4 billion is pocket change. It's a completely elective amount of money. There is no *need* to cut it, so cost should be a strictly secondary factor. When I stop seeing overwhelmingly positive support for the A-10 from the very people it is protecting, then I might begin to give the tiniest of shits about whether that 0.67% of the budget is something I should prioritize cutting. We need to get a replacement platform ready in case of a peer state engagement, certainly; but we're not in that war yet, we don't have that platform ready yet, and even when we do, it probably will not be as good as the A-10 in what the A-10 is currently used for.

Just because we spend $600 billion on defense doesn't mean we should spend like drunken sailors because it's only a few billion. Lots of little cuts can lead to big savings without sacrificing what we want to be able to do with our military. Plus, considering that 80% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were flown by aircraft other than A-10s, it seems like a redundant weapons platform with little modern use, especially in a peer state engagement. We don't build battleships anymore, despite the psychological impact that some 16" guns could have - sometimes, weapons systems, as awesome as they might be, become relatively obsolete thanks to advances in defensive capabilities of our enemies.

 

[crashtech]

Aside from opinions, do we have any hard evidence that the A-10 is getting its ass kicked on the battlefield? I'd like to trust the people in charge, but too many of these types of decisions are driven by politics. Just because the plane is old doesn't really mean anything, BUFFs are still useful. A-10 fills a niche between the AC-130 and other close air support solutions. How is it known for sure that the decision to retire the A-10 is 100% in the best interests of the guys on the ground?

 

[MongGrel]

Aside from opinions, do we have any hard evidence that the A-10 is getting its ass kicked on the battlefield?

Not sure anyone said that.

Bit older link here, but still. Ignore most of the friendly fire things, not what I really posted it for. Considering the amount of sorties, it's low anyway.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/

 

[Blackjack200]

Aside from opinions, do we have any hard evidence that the A-10 is getting its ass kicked on the battlefield? I'd like to trust the people in charge, but too many of these types of decisions are driven by politics. Just because the plane is old doesn't really mean anything, BUFFs are still useful. A-10 fills a niche between the AC-130 and other close air support solutions. How is it known for sure that the decision to retire the A-10 is 100% in the best interests of the guys on the ground?

Who the fuck said that? The A-10 is not a survivable platform in a modern integrated air defense system. ISIL does not have a modern integrated air defense system, they don't seem to have any AA capability at all FFS. Thus the A-10 is not getting its ass kicked. What niche does it fill? What mission is it completing that AC-130s, F-16s, F-15Es, Bones, BUFFs and drones can't? Should we assume that every conflict we fight from here on out will be against opponents that can't defend themselves from air attacks?

 

[crashtech]

There doesn't seem to be an objective way to measure the value of the A-10 at this moment in time. Clearly it can be used effectively in many 4GW conflicts, and on that basis alone it may be able to justify its continued existence. But that must be tempered with foresight regarding who the future enemy will be, and that is really the rub, is it not? We need to be prepared for a day when air superiority is not assured, and that's an uncomfortable thought.

 

[OverVolt]

I think its the uneasy-ness that the A10 requires air superiority to even take off.

Its great at CAS when we already own the skies. I don't think anything can replace low and slow with an actual human pilot.

 

[JEDI]

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.

f35?
The joint strike fighter that's billions over budget, 10years late, and still isn't considered combat ready?

that f35?

 

[JEDI]

F-16s\F15E\B1bs\Drones and AC130's having been doing the mission since 2014
Eventually, folks want a change of scenery. A-10's have their turn now.

Slightly out of date on some of the munitions but gets the point across

Note for those who look at the cost,
One B1b or B52 can do the job multiple A-10's just as one A-10 can do the job of multiple drones.

So if you are paying 54K for one B1b sortie vs 4 A10 sorties then math and stuff

nice.. but is carpet bombing w/b52s considered close air support?
and holy.. the f22 costs almost as much as the b52 to operate per hr?! wtf?

shouldn't modern tech make it CHEAPER to build/fly the next gen planes?

 

[Childs]

survivability. The warthog's armor and redundant systems can sustain damage that no helicopter can.

Plus, its what Cobra uses, so you know its badass.

 

[VtPC83]

One thing stands out regarding this airframe, over and over you have boots on the ground defending it. You don't get that with other airframes that perform CAS.

 

[Exterous]

The A-10 is not a survivable platform in a modern integrated air defense system. ISIL does not have a modern integrated air defense system, they don't seem to have any AA capability at all FFS.

Not saying the A-10 should or should not be retired but given that we've spent the last 14 years fighting people without modern integrated air defense systems thats not really the strongest point esp since I don't see that changing any time soon

Plus, considering that 80% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were flown by aircraft other than A-10s

There is some debate about that 80% number - most notably the date range chosen. From 2002 to the end of 2006 the only fixed wing aircraft flying out of Afghanistan was the A-10. The 80% comes from 2006-2013. It would be interesting to know what % of munitions drop missions the A-10 was involved in since 93% of the CAS missions listed by the AF didn't include a munitions drop

Would also be interesting to know if the mission reclassification complaints are warranted or if thats just pilots being pilots.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/critics-accuse-air-force-manipulating-data-support-10-retirement/

Just because we spend $600 billion on defense doesn't mean we should spend like drunken sailors because it's only a few billion.

A quick note on cost: Retiring ~300 A-10s will let the AF buy another ~35 F-35s. Given the tainted reputation the F35 still has getting rid of 10 A-10s to get a single F-35 is going to be a tough sell