As board admin of the biggest and greatest A-10 site on the www, i wholeheartedly agree. :)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...thabstract.jpg
"The A-10 Thunderbolt II...It kills tanks dead."
~Old Fairchild Republic ad campaign. :D

The A-10 is actually currently being massively upgraded (new wings, glass cockpit, full precision engagement capability, and eventually new engines) and is scheduled to remain in service until 2028.

Going by attrition rate, the A-10 is one of the most survivable combat aircraft of all time, and it is definitely one of the cheapest. The A-10 has performed every major combat mission type in existance except for air superiority. During Desert Storm they even used Hogs in the Wild-Weasel role. :D

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3.../A10samHit.jpg

Oh, and about that gun:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3.../Gau8a_a-1.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...r/Mvc-002f.jpg

Sounds kind of like the old F-111 program of the 1960's...

The more I think about it the less I can fathom how anyone who has read any history of air combat AT ALL could possibly imagine a fast moving fighter EVER replacing something like the A-10 in a forward air situation. I do not however speak from experience as I am a lowly civilian/military brat who has been captivated by aircraft since my first breath.

The history of air combat has already told this story to our government many times - how often must we use our tax dollars to pay for this class?

None of the A-10 pilots on my board can fathom it either Mike. ;)

Guys, I was around when the aircraft was developed, and have been involved from the Apache side in JAAT exercises, so I'm pretty familiar with the aircraft.

They may be spending money on the aircraft, but from experience, don't let that make you think they won't dump the aircraft as soon as the last mod is done. We had just about halfway finished converting over to AH-1S Cobra modifieds when we received word that we were getting the Apache's. All kinds of training, equipment, and so forth shipped in and shipped right back out.

It won't be the first time the USG has kept a weapons platform around because it was politically expedient to do so either.

And, last, it's not total attrition rate that's important, it's combat survival in a high threat environment. The A-10 is less survivable in projected environments than any other combat aircraft except the AC-130.

There is a massive body of actual combat evidence that states directly otherwise.

In actual combat sorties the A-10's loss rate, despite flying and fighting low and slow against some of the best IADS in the world, including modern Western systems like Roland and the much feared Russian ZSU-23/4, the Hog has a mission survival rate well in excess of 99%.

There are approx. 200 A-10s being upgraded to the A-10C configuration(212 IIRC), they'll be around until they can't get them to fly anymore. Currently the new wings and PE(Precision engagement) are fully funded. The engine program is not currently funded.

They are N/AW JDAM and LGB capable as well. :)

Question - in the past 20 years, how many air-to-air engagements have been resolved with guns (dogfighting)?

Whipped,

The Iranian F-14As were exactly the same as those issued to USN squadrons, including all the Phoenix compatibility radar equipment and IFF as the IIAF was in the middle of a complete upgrade to be compatible with the US equipment....

They have maintained a surprising number of flyable airframes...thro' a combination of reverse engineering of elements and upgrading of electroincs...

What they have not apparently done is resolve the TF30 (engines) issue which means the pilots have to 'fly' the engine more than the airframe. The engine is not the most suitable for ACM ops, with a tendancy to stall in distrupted airflow etc etc.

In physical terms the manoeuvering capability is both well know and quite restricted.

In electronic terms there is debate as to the current ability of the fit. Based on USN reliability figures and spares demand it would appear unlikely that many of the sets remain in full operation, however it is unclear what replacement sets may have been developed or work- arounds using Soviet and other sources parts may have been achieved.

Remember the capabilites of both the radar and Phoenix missiles that were issued to the IIAF are late 70s standard, they did not recieve the AIM54C as used by the USN after 1979 or any of the AWG upgrades either (to say nothing of F14A+, B and D hardware improvements and engine changes.)

In terms of the local airpower the F-14s remain the amongst the most capable regional platforms...except for the F-15C and F-16Cs (and soon Is) operated by the IAF.

Fast,

The issue of exporting both the F-35 and F-22 is soviegnty of the electronic architecture of the FCS and avionics.

The crux of the matter is that all F-35 partners wish to be able to tune both the FCS and avoinics to suit their specific requirements without refering back to Lockheed and USG codes and control. For example in the case of the RN there was initially no possibility of UK control of the source codes. Clearly this meant that whilst the RN operated the airframes, there was a possibility, however remote of a third party, the US, disabling certain aspects of the FCS and avoinics without referal to the operator. This was unacceptable to the UK and others have shared that view point.

In the case of the F-22 to Japan the issue is both financial as well as control. There is no doubt that the previously supplied US materiel was 'fully leaded', however there has been a step change in both US and Japanese outlooks since the F-15J development and this may hinder the future supply of high technology.

M21,

The Hog is ideally suited to the type of engagement that currently preoccupies the US forces. A non existant Air to air threat and a pretty well defined ground threat.

It works very well in this role. Where there is greater doubt in when the A2A threat is increased. Here it does not really stack up as well. But in the short term this tpye of operation is not likley to occur.....and so it has a good period of time for valid service in upgraded terms.

Its not the speed that makes the difference, its the loiter time and proximity to the area of operations that matters...

The F-16 gives the A-10 a very good run for its money in gunnery terms and bombing evals....with the added advantage of speed to and from the area of operations.. but it does not have the persistance or rough field ability.. nor a GAU-8.......hmmmm big guns...

The fundamental issue howver is that the USAF institutionally is reluctant to see its role as support for the US Army (which CAS is) so CAS usually gets the thin end of funding and profile. Airforces tend to perfer fast pointy planes that look good to airlifters etc which in the majority of cases are not 'useful' to the Armed forces overall.....

JYL,

Since Vietnam there have been few gun kills....for a couple of reasons...the IR missiles have improved dramatically as a direct result of the US experience in Vietnam. All sides have realised that improving the maintenance and servicing of these weapons has a step change effect of the PK....and so this has been addressed universally.

The improvement in BVR missiles is far less convincing. The missile themselves are much better but the IFF systems are still the issue. Its pointless having a BVR missile if you are not confident nough of target ID to use it without seeing the damn thing...hence the Phoenix's range as redundant...as visual ID was needed..look under the nose fo an F-14D to see the twim eyed pod.. a TV and IR sensor to 'extend' visual range to get the visual ID beyond the MK 1 eyeball....but still short of the 100nm range of the missile.

There are reports of gun kills during the various battles the the IAF have engaged in against others, and these are deemed to be correct. But as always doubt is relatively easily introduced into these reports. Bur guns and bullets remain a simple method of providing an additional weapon on an aircraft, one which the enemy cannot block, trick or hide from.. it relies totally on the quality of the user's design and maintenance regime...

74..

Hmm.. the F-111 was designed as a fighter bomber (actually a medium bomber) for the USAF and as a long range interceptor for the USN... one designed to fly low, fast and long to drop bombs, the other to fly high, slow and dash to fire missiles....talk about incompatibility.

The F-35 at least manages to focus more on the fighter bomber role with a secondary role as an A2A machine....so its role is broadly going to be the same regardless of the user.

It will replace the F-16 in USAF service, being primarily a bomb truck rather than the fighter that Boyd hoped for...the F-18C/D in USN service.. which is a bomb truck....and the Harrier in US Marine service as well as the odd F-18C.
For the RN it replaces the SHAR which was essentially a fighter.. but it was the STO/VL that was important...

The differences between the A,B and C versions will make it more 'tailored' to the different flavours of the users...the one that really seems in danger is the STO/VL version...the A and C are simple land/sea based variants....but the same mission...



The most likely risk however is its cost. The additional capability is impressive and 'may' be good news. However in the light of the changes in current threats it may not be needed (a good thing). However just as ten years ago we did not think that we would be fighting thetype of wars we are today in 10 years time it will have moved on again and this capability may be ideally suited...

Thank you, MFAFF, well reported.

The A-10 has shot down two aircraft in combat with it's Gun.

MFAFF: There has always been 'doubt' about the A-10s ability to perform in a high threat environment. Just as there has always been doubt of ANY aircraft's ability to operate in said environment. To date, when faced with a high threat environment during ODS and during the second war while operating directly over downtown Baghdad providing CAS it has performed admirably. Some A/C have been lost, but it has been able to get the job done, and usually gets the pilot home in one piece, sometimes despite getting filled with holes.

Compared to an F-16, which is only about 100 knots faster on an attack run(IOW, it is still much slower than any SAM), and which has no armor and only one engine, the A-10 is a much more survivable platform over a modern battlefield IMO. The A-10 will also turn circles around an F-16 at low altitude.

Agreed, and of course the A-10 has a clear advantage in both these roles. :)

Which was proven to be absolutely false during ODS. Remember the A-16? Equipped with a GAU-13 30mm centerline pod the USAF wanted to replace the Hog with? It was a total failure, and they were all re-converted back to F-16C's. The F-16 is a joke as a CAS platform.

VIPER DRIVER: "We flew to the edge of our range and hit the target with our whole payload."

TRANSLATION: We flew 100 miles and dropped both our bombs. One of them might have even hit... :D

Yup.

Yup.

M21,

Despite your assertions the A-10 hasn’t and doesn’t fly into high threat areas. It did not participate any SEAD/DEAD missions against high threat integrated IADS. Over Baghdad at the time was not a high threat environment, the Marines had KC-130 acft lower the A-10s providing support for the CSAR effort.

As far as the A-10 being more survivable over a modern battlefield that is medium to high threat than a teen series you couldn’t be more wrong.

There are problems as the Harrier had in flying into high threat areas. The proliferation of more advanced ManPads is one major stumbling block.

And to conduct CAS one has to understand what CAS really is. In the USAF what they call CAS the Marines call battlefield interdiction. The Marines much prefer to conduct CAS using USMC aviation resources vice USAF ones that ignore radio calls and conduct blue on blue through sheer incompetence at best.

The current question as to whether or not the A-10 is better than an F-16 in mud moving is interesting. What are the transit times to/from base area? What are the altitudes of their holding areas and their tankers and how long are each out of position to provide on call CAS (in other words for their crew day which provides the most actual station time)? The A-10 can carry far more ordnance, but is it usable under the current ROE in either Stan or Iraq? Which has a better chance of evading a modern ManPad (the A-10 obviously takes the hit better)?

FOG

Fighter aircraft are becoming irrelevant...weapons platforms are not..

When you are looking at more than $200 million per copy, it's a self induced irrelevancy in some part. Otherwise, it's like having a $6 million per copy Stryker APC that can be taken out with two $18.00 RPG hits, one of which was redundant.

It has nothing to do with the cost of the air vehicle, rather the concept of stealth...if you can't see it, then when does it have to have have the characteristics of a fighter? The F-117 is an absolute grape 1V1.

What other nation, besides China and possibly India, will we ever fight that requires either an F-22 of a 35 to defeat in the air?

The range of weapons today, their accuracy and their size, in air to ground, ground to air, and air to air is rendering manned fighters obsolete.

I could draw parallels with the Tiger...

I don't see fighting either of those countries, wrong culture types. The exception being if the US government attempts to deny them access to resources or sales of their products through militarism. Otherwise, I couldn't agree more. The need for either aircraft is by Lockheed/Martin et al. One only need to to their web site to see that.

They were used directly in the Wild Weasel role during ODS. One of them was lost doing this as a matter of fact becuase the pilot persisted despite his wingman telling him he'd lost a visual of him. They were attacking an SA-6 site at the time IIRC. It is a pretty famous incident.

Against all that AAA and in the face of Manpads? Baghdad was an extremely high threat environment for any low altitude bird.(Remember what happened to the 11th Av Bde over Karballa? The whole Bde was shot up by HMGs and AAA, and Baghdad had even more guns massed there than Karballa did) In fact one A-10 was shot down providing CAS over Baghdad at that time(MANPADS). He was immediately rescued by an Army Bradley squad, who summoned him by saying, "Hey pilot dude, over here!" LOL.

And any pilot on my board would tell you that you're wrong. I'm not going to get into a pissing match on a Porsche site. You are more than welcome to come tell the A-10 pilots at my site how vulnerable their plane is though. :D

http://www.a-10.org/phpbb2/

Harriers are the most vulnerable CAS platform in US service today because of the location of their hot-air nozzles. They're also short ranged and require much more maintenance than A-10s too. From what all the crew chiefs who served at Bagram with them on the same ramp said, they're leaking hangar queens. I heard you have to pull the whole damned wing off just to change the engine in a Harrier.

Blah, blah, blah. It's reasons like this that Marines irk the rest of the branches. ;)

You think you're better than everyone else, when in reality, you are saddled with obsolete junk and have to take orders from sailors. Save it troop. ;)\

BTW, that Blue on Blue that involved A-10s hitting marines during OIF, you do know the official investigation revealed that those Marines called that CAS right on themselves by accident, right?

Considering an A-10 can be based on a dirt strip with virtually no support, has many times the loiter capability and can make a dozen runs or more on a target with one bomb and gun load, and can take a myriad of small caliber AAA and HMG hits whereas even one or two 23mm hits will down an F-16 or any other single engined F bird....you tell me. ;)

BTW, at low altitude an A-10 is much more manueverable than an F-16, so it's probably also a lot harder to hit. It definitely also has much greater stand-off range with both it's guns and Mavs because of it's decreased turning radius as well.

Those questions seem to me to delve into the realm of OPSEC. If you'd like to present them to the pilots at my board i'm sure they'll answer those of them they feel comfortable with for you though. I do not consider myself an "expert" on the Hog, but i can point you to hundreds of them that i have access too. ;)

The A-10 needs at least as much support as the Apache, the dirt strip base wouldn't be used long before it'd be "White Light Maintenance" time, just like the AH-64.

That's ridiculously untrue pat. And any of the dozens of crew-chiefs at my forum will tell you so.

The A-10 HAS operated extensively from dirt fields in both A-stan and Iraq since the GWoT started, and still does today. The most complex piece of kit in an OA-10A or A-10A is the LASTE system, which is not a complex system at all. Of course that is going to change with the A-10C, but that's apparently the way the USAF wants it.

Some of the pilots on my board have lamented the high-tech changes. I've even had them tell me they'd rather carry an extra bomb than the jamming pod. LOL...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...er/a10sam3.jpg

A-10 that returned to base after taking a prox hit from a Surface to air missile. No F-16 or Harrier would've survived this hit. No way. This hog was back in combat service in a matter of a couple days. :D

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...r/dirtyhog.jpg
Here's a pic of a typical Hog strip. Yep, looks real well supported. All the black on the nose is gun-gas buildup from an operational combat sortie. IIRC this Hog was in A-stan when this pic was taken.