Why does the Army need the A-10 Warthog?

[Brainonska511]

nice.. but is carpet bombing w/b52s considered close air support?

The B-52 can drop precision-guided bombs.

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

True. I'm not necessarily supporting their new endeavors for that $4 billion. I'm just saying we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss potentially wasteful spending because it amounts to a minuscule percentage.

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

I think the biggest issue is we have this humongous military that doesn't turn on a dime. We also don't have unlimited funds to make specialized platforms for every eventuality. It really boils down to a questions of what we want our military to be able to do and how much are we willing to spend to achieve those goals.

And if the A-10 has taken on more of a counter-insurgency role, maybe something newer would be better suited. I've seen suggestions that Super Tocannos (sp?) could serve as cheap replacements in that role.

 

[vailr]

Retire the F-35 "turkey" now, before it multiplies.
Use the money saved to buy more golf vacations for Obama, ha-ha!
Buy more: F-16's, A-10's, or pick your favorite plane that costs a lot less money than the F-35 to build and operate.

 

[Blackjack200]

Retire the F-35 "turkey" now, before it multiplies.
Use the money saved to buy more golf vacations for Obama, ha-ha!

These two sentences tell you all you need to know about F-35 criticism on the internet.

 

[blankslate]

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

All that doesn't change the fact that the A-10 airframe is still very survivable in the the role. Avionics upgrades are to be expected in any case. As for connectivity that makes sense. All older planes should be getting those upgrades as they provide the pilot with more awareness. Again though that doesn't change the fact that the airframe is still very capable.

It just so happens that the current fighting circumstances do favor using the A-10 against ISIS. No one with a credible air to air capability is shooting at U.S. planes.
For now all those nations are playing nice and attacking ISIS ground troops, not each others' aircraft.

That's not to say that things won't change. But for now the A-10 can be used in the area.


__________________________

 

[sao123]

Retire the F-35 "turkey" now, before it multiplies.
Use the money saved to buy more golf vacations for Obama, ha-ha!
Buy more: F-16's, A-10's, or pick your favorite plane that costs a lot less money than the F-35 to build and operate.

For what we wasted on both the 22 & 35, we could have completely funded the 14D, 15C/D/E, 16C/D, 18E/F, and the A10-C

 

[Blackjack200]

For what we wasted on both the 22 & 35, we could have completely funded the 14D, 15C/D/E, 16C/D, 18E/F, and the A10-C

Wow, you mean we could have had shittier planes for the same money?

 

[LTC8K6]

The AF wants to kill it because it was designed for an era lacking in precision guided munitions and was less vulnerable to MANPADS. Precision guided munitions are much better now than they were 40 years ago, when the A-10 was introduced. MANPADS are also much better than they were 40 years ago, making the A-10 more vulnerable compared to something that can deliver munitions from a much higher altitude.

I don't think so. You still need to be able to pound ground from down low, and that is the nature of the mission. It's always been risky, and it always will be.

The F-35 can't carry much ammo at all, so it really cannot pound the ground like the A-10 can.

Close Air Support has not gone away.

 

[LTC8K6]

The A-10 has been upgraded. It isn't the same as it was 40 years ago.

Modernization
Aircraft in-flight above clouds, banking away from camera, revealing bombs and other weapons suspended underneath wings.
A-10 Thunderbolt II, fully armed

The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program will update 356 A-10/OA-10s to the A-10C variant with a new flight computer, new glass cockpit displays and controls, two new 5.5-inch (140 mm) color displays with moving map function and an integrated digital stores management system.[12][27]

Other funded improvements to the A-10 fleet include a new data link, the ability to employ smart weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser, and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included is the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide sensor data to personnel on the ground.[26]

 

[OverVolt]

If insurgency is the new warfare and the A-10 is doing well at counter insurgency then

???

profit

I actually think the old airframes are more than capable. Physics hasn't changed, but the technology has. Modernizing the current air-force seems the best use of money.

Thrust vectoring doesn't mean much against modern missiles etc.

I really wonder how stealthy the F-22 and F-35 are compared to the old F-117. etc. etc.

You are only ever going to get 9g's out of a pilot. The F-16 can already maneuver beyond human pilot limits.

 

[pauldun170]

If insurgency is the new warfare and the A-10 is doing well at counter insurgency then

???

profit

I actually think the old airframes are more than capable. Physics hasn't changed, but the technology has. Modernizing the current air-force seems the best use of money.

Thrust vectoring doesn't mean much against modern missiles etc.

I really wonder how stealthy the F-22 and F-35 are compared to the old F-117. etc. etc.

You are only ever going to get 9g's out of a pilot. The F-16 can already maneuver beyond human pilot limits.

The F-117 has a very small radar cross section. It's also a limited, primitive aircraft.
The B-2, a much bigger aircraft has a fraction of the RCS of the F-117. It's RCS is significantly smaller than the F-117 (because technological progress)
The F-35 is smaller than the B-2
The F-22 is significantly smaller than the F-35

Too compare the F-117 to the F-22 is like comparing a C4 Corvette to a modern F1 car.

F-35 does have the added benefit of some serious electronic warfare capability.

RCS, ECM and thermal management all the little things that fall under "stealth " make a world of difference against missile systems.

 

[norseamd]

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

This.

 

[norseamd]

The S-400 makes all nonstealth aircraft effectively sitting ducks imploded into shit.

 

[pauldun170]

The A-10 has been upgraded. It isn't the same as it was 40 years ago.

It's been upgraded to handle newer weapons but its no more survivable than it was years ago. The A-10 is one of the first platforms grounded when there is even a hint of genuine anti-air capability in the region.
Fortunately they did good job on the design so its still relevant for its tiny little niche. That niche being CAS in uncontested environments against civilians\militants\insurgents\whatever you want to call poorly trained irregular forces.
The issue is that other aircraft can perform that same niche role up and down the cost scale.

 

[pauldun170]

The S-400 makes all nonstealth aircraft effectively sitting ducks imploded into shit.

Growler says hello

This is coming real soon.
First to Growlers, then you'll see these on just about everything. From F-35's to C-130's

 

[norseamd]

Yes, but America has no respect for electronic warfare, so we have neglected actually developing good electronic and cyber warfare capabilities for a long time now.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Why does the army need ______ ?

The answer is always: Because, why the hell not!

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I want rods from god.

 

[MongGrel]

Redacted, double post.

 

[MongGrel]

Yes, but America has no respect for electronic warfare, so we have neglected actually developing good electronic and cyber warfare capabilities for a long time now.

Your very wrong there I'd say. Electronic warfare is how the US rolls.

It's pretty much the opposite, and spending billions on the F-35 is pretty crazy, but that is just my opinion.

If insurgency is the new warfare and the A-10 is doing well at counter insurgency then

???

profit

I actually think the old airframes are more than capable. Physics hasn't changed, but the technology has. Modernizing the current air-force seems the best use of money.

Thrust vectoring doesn't mean much against modern missiles etc.

I really wonder how stealthy the F-22 and F-35 are compared to the old F-117. etc. etc.

You are only ever going to get 9g's out of a pilot. The F-16 can already maneuver beyond human pilot limits.

I agree.

 

[notposting]

It's been upgraded to handle newer weapons but its no more survivable than it was years ago. The A-10 is one of the first platforms grounded when there is even a hint of genuine anti-air capability in the region.
Fortunately they did good job on the design so its still relevant for its tiny little niche. That niche being CAS in uncontested environments against civilians\militants\insurgents\whatever you want to call poorly trained irregular forces.
The issue is that other aircraft can perform that same niche role up and down the cost scale.

Unless they actually *need* CAS, in which case the jet jockey AF generals will disappear for a bit so the A-10 can get the job done and blow the shit out of everything, and actually come back to base! And fly back the next day to blow em up again! Proven in the Iraq wars - not against some rebel forces in the desert, but against the Soviet supplied Iraqi army, with one of the best AA networks, considered to be one of the better armies of the world...and the Warthog was *dominant*.

Why doesn't the AF want it anymore? Because they never have? It has straight wings. It doesn't fly fast (enough). It's (arguably) ugly. More importantly, it goes where some damn fool ground pounder is telling it to go, because they need help. And most of all for the generals, because it isn't some over budget, years late, shiny new weapons system to hitch a career to and get a sweet consulting gig when they are done servicing the country.

Seriously, you can do a search on this you will find articles detailing this but just change the decade. People really started to get mildly suspicious around 2nd Iraq war or so while it was busy tearing everything up again and the generals were like, "it sucks! The wings don't point back enough and it doesn't have F in the name!"

Moving on, let's see a B-52 or a drone do this:

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx

"We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk," the second A-10 pilot said. "We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy's position and used the 30-mm gun -- 50 meters parallel to ground forces -- ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn't hurt the friendlies.

The engagement lasted two hours that day, and in that time, the A-10s completed 15 gun passes, fired nearly all their 2,300, 30-mm rounds, and dropped three 500-pound bombs on the enemy force.

Doesn't...have...survivability?

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

This horseshit of contested airspace is just that. These jets were made for WORLD WAR THREE, going up against divisions of Red Army tanks and troops pouring into Europe while the airspace above remained unsettled, to put it mildly. Good thing they can get low...evade radar...good thing they are armored redundant-systems-are-go flying tanks themselves...

The budget savings are so miniscule (hey, we could get a squadron worth of F-35's at current costs for a few hundred A-10's) and besides, they do air to air as well:

Look at the top one

 

[MongGrel]

Unless they actually *need* CAS, in which case the jet jockey AF generals will disappear for a bit so the A-10 can get the job done and blow the shit out of everything, and actually come back to base! And fly back the next day to blow em up again! Proven in the Iraq wars - not against some rebel forces in the desert, but against the Soviet supplied Iraqi army, with one of the best AA networks, considered to be one of the better armies of the world...and the Warthog was *dominant*.

Why doesn't the AF want it anymore? Because they never have? It has straight wings. It doesn't fly fast (enough). It's (arguably) ugly. More importantly, it goes where some damn fool ground pounder is telling it to go, because they need help. And most of all for the generals, because it isn't some over budget, years late, shiny new weapons system to hitch a career to and get a sweet consulting gig when they are done servicing the country.

Seriously, you can do a search on this you will find articles detailing this but just change the decade. People really started to get mildly suspicious around 2nd Iraq war or so while it was busy tearing everything up again and the generals were like, "it sucks! The wings don't point back enough and it doesn't have F in the name!"

Moving on, let's see a B-52 or a drone do this:

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx



Doesn't...have...survivability?

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

This horseshit of contested airspace is just that. These jets were made for WORLD WAR THREE, going up against divisions of Red Army tanks and troops pouring into Europe while the airspace above remained unsettled, to put it mildly. Good thing they can get low...evade radar...good thing they are armored redundant-systems-are-go flying tanks themselves...

The budget savings are so miniscule (hey, we could get a squadron worth of F-35's at current costs for a few hundred A-10's) and besides, they do air to air as well:

Look at the top one

I've all ready posted many links to things that would render the majority of your points moot, but obviously no one is reading them.

Why bother reading yours, if you haven't read anything I have linked earlier in the thread, or you would know all ready.

I'm a big fan of F-15's myself, I used to do a lot of work for support on those and BUFFS.

F-35's are stupidly overpriced, there have been what few aces these days in the Air Force have even said so.

 

[John Connor]

A-10's yo! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9k7mGze4I

 

[MongGrel]

A-10's yo! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9k7mGze4I

I was not going to say a word in the Christmas thread.

In here I'll call you a twit though.

Yep, movies and flight sims for the win

Go back to protecting us from Morse code from Cuba would ya.

Maybe we could link some from Battlefield Earth

 

[pauldun170]

I've all ready posted many links to things that would render the majority of your points moot, but obviously no one is reading them.

Why bother reading yours, if you haven't read anything I have linked earlier in the thread, or you would know all ready.

I'm a big fan of F-15's myself, I used to do a lot of work for support on those and BUFFS.

F-35's are stupidly overpriced, there have been what few aces these days in the Air Force have even said so.

The F35a - 90 million
F35b around 120
F35c around 135.

A lot has changed in the program and a lot of misinformation and outdated info is out there .

In comparison, the last f15e cost us 109 back 10 years ago. Rafale and eurofighter are running 170+.
The gripen, a plane that was supposed to be a bargain barely works and cost 130m. At least for the latest version.
Russian offerings are a whole ball of problems.
Block 60 f16 probably run around 60. Super hornets 80-90.

Price per plane on the F35 is pretty decent when you look at the capability it's bringing.

 

[MongGrel]

The F35a - 90 million
F35b around 120
F35c around 135.

A lot has changed in the program and a lot of misinformation and outdated info is out there .

In comparison, the last f15e cost us 109 back 10 years ago. Rafale and eurofighter are running 170+.
The gripen, a plane that was supposed to be a bargain barely works and cost 130m. At least for the latest version.
Russian offerings are a whole ball of problems.
Block 60 f16 probably run around 60. Super hornets 80-90.

Price per plane on the F35 is pretty decent when you look at the capability it's bringing.

Development has been a hell of a lot higher than that cost wise.

What you are quoting does not figure into that I'm sure.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...20/lockheed-martins-f-35-is-costing-taxpayers

Billions come to mind, before one even flew.

But basically, yeah the money has all ready been spent on R&D, like they did with the Osprey years ago, and the manufacturing is in place and they will be be built.