Retiring the A-10

[Mushroom]

Wow. You spew a LOT of crap. But crap it is. The M48 had plenty of armor. They took multiple hits from the T-62 and continued to fight during Yom Kippur.

NO tank on Earth can survive a burst from the GAU 8. None. The best a challenger or Abrams can hope for is a simple mobility kill. Odds are they are finished.

You make me laugh with your tanks shooting back at an A-10 fantasy horse poo.

DEDICATED anti aircraft platforms have a hard time tracking the A-10, and you think a tank is going to be able to do it!

Have you ever even looked through the gunners sight on a tank?

Methinks the answer is no.

Here is an artist recreation of a modern tank fighting off an A-10 with their 12.7mm or .50 cal machine gun.

 

[Vrenn]

And an AC-130 can be a Spooky, a Stinger II, or a Ghostrider.

They are all still C-130 Hercules, no matter what other name is added to it.

And no matter what they call the newest AH-1, it is still an AH-1.

You are obsessing over names, and not even looking at what the aircraft is.

Or are you going to tell me those are so radically different, they are not the same aircraft? Of the same direct line lineage?

the AH-1A had a single engine until the AG-1Js were introduced with 2 engines. It was still essentially a stripped and slimmed UH-1 and still is although the AH is still in production but the UH isn't. Although it killed off a superior attack chopper it was exactly what what needed at the time.While the Army decided with the AH-64, the Marines stuck with the lady that they brought to the dance.

 

[Vrenn]

Here is an artist recreation of a modern tank fighting off an A-10 with their 12.7mm or .50 cal machine gun.

You bar flies sure do like to play with the lives of others, don't you. No A-10 in the right mind will try and take on any MBT with his gun when he has too many other weapons that can it better hung under his wing. And that Mouse might be one mean SOB.

 

[Stryder50]

For reference;
...
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single-seat, twin-turbofan, straight-wing, subsonic attack aircraft developed by Fairchild Republic for the United States Air Force (USAF). In service since 1976, it is named for the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, but is commonly referred to as the "Warthog" or simply "Hog".[4] The A-10 was designed to provide close air support (CAS) to friendly ground troops by attacking armored vehicles, tanks, and other enemy ground forces; it is the only production-built aircraft designed solely for CAS to have served with the U.S. Air Force.[5] Its secondary mission is to direct other aircraft in attacks on ground targets, a role called forward air controller-airborne; aircraft used primarily in this role are designated OA-10.

The A-10 was intended to improve on the performance and firepower of the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The Thunderbolt II's airframe was designed around the high power 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary autocannon. The airframe was designed for durability, with measures such as 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of titanium armor to protect the cockpit and aircraft systems, enabling it to absorb damage and continue flying. Its ability to take off and land from relatively short runways permits operation from airstrips close to the front lines, and its simple design enables maintenance with minimal facilities.

It served in the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), the American-led intervention against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, where the aircraft distinguished itself. The A-10 also participated in other conflicts such as in Grenada, the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and against the Islamic State in the Middle East.

The A-10A single-seat variant was the only version produced, though one pre-production airframe was modified into the YA-10B twin-seat prototype to test an all-weather night-capable version. In 2005, a program was started to upgrade the remaining A-10A aircraft to the A-10C configuration, with modern avionics for use with precision weaponry. The U.S. Air Force had stated the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II would replace the A-10 as it entered service, but this remains highly contentious within the USAF and in political circles. With a variety of upgrades and wing replacements, the A-10's service life can be extended to 2040; the service has no planned retirement date as of June 2017.[6]
...
Plans to develop a replacement aircraft were announced by the US Air Combat Command in August 2015.[138][139] In 2016, the USAF began studying future CAS aircraft to succeed the A-10 in low-intensity "permissive conflicts" like counterterrorism and regional stability operations, noting the F-35 to be too expensive to operate in day-to-day roles. Various platforms were considered, including low-end AT-6 Wolverine and A-29 Super Tucano turboprops and the Textron AirLand Scorpion as more basic off-the-shelf options to more sophisticated clean-sheet attack aircraft or "AT-X" derivatives of the T-X next-generation trainer as wholly new attack platforms.[136][140][141]

In January 2016, the USAF was "indefinitely freezing" plans to retire the A-10. Beyond congressional opposition, its use in anti-ISIS operations, deployments to Eastern Europe as a response to Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, and reevaluation of F-35 numbers necessitated its retention.[142][143] In February 2016, the USAF deferred the final retirement date until 2022 after F-35s replace it on a squadron-by-squadron basis.[144][145] In October 2016, the USAF Materiel Command brought the depot maintenance line back to full capacity in preparation for re-winging the fleet.[146] In June 2017, it was announced that the A-10 retained indefinitely.[147][6]

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine led to some observers pushing for A-10s to be loaned to Ukraine while critics noted the diplomatic and tactical complications involved.[148][149] In an interview in December 2022, Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov said that in late March he asked the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin for 100 surplus A-10s, noting their value against Russian tank columns. However, Secretary Austin reportedly told Minister Reznikov that the plan was "impossible", and that the "old-fashioned and slow" A-10 would be a "squeaky target" for Russian air defenses.[150]
...

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

Never hurts to have more than a couple of tools in one's toolbelt, especially when some can do a better job for specific roles/tasks than more general ones could.

A challenge with some aircraft that "could" do CAS is they may not be cost effective, or best for that purpose, not to mention they may be needed for other roles and hence have limited availability when you want/need them. The B-52 is one that comes to mind, being large and expensive to get in the air, needing to operate from rather long runways, and is like using a semi-trailer rig when all you might need is a large pickup truck.

Yes, F-15, F-16, F-35 can do CAS missions, but how many will be available for that task, how far away do you base them, are they needed for other missions at the time, and are they any less at risk on CAS than the A-10, not to mention they may be a more expensive system if lost to AA defenses. So some of the asset of the A-10;
...

The A-10 is retiring and the Air Force has no close air support replacement​

...
The Air Force plans to retire its legendary A-10 Warthogs within the next five years and it’s still not clear how the service will be able to provide troops on the ground with the level of close air support that the A-10 brings to the fight.

Although Congress has prevented the Air Force from retiring all or part of its A-10 fleet five times since 2014, the opposition from lawmakers appears to be softening. The House version of the Fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act would allow the Air Force to retire 42 A-10s, but it would pause further cuts to the A-10 fleet until the service tells Congress how it plans to keep aircrews proficient in close air support using other aircraft.
...
However, the Project on Government Oversight, or POGO, has uncovered an Air Force memorandum that the service does not require any active-duty, Reserve, or National Guard F-35 pilots to conduct close air support training.

In fact, the Air Force’s most recent Ready Aircrew Program Tasking Memorandum, which tells commanders which missions pilots should be trained to do and how many training sorties they need to fly to be proficient in them, describes close air support as a secondary mission that F-35 pilots must merely be familiar with, according to POGO, a non-partisan watchdog group.

“Just to drive home the point: No F-35 pilot of any experience level in any component of the Air Force is required to fly a single close air support training mission in 2023 or 2024,” POGO senior defense policy fellow Dan Grazier wrote in a February report.

Outside of its fleet of A-10s, the Air Force does not have a single squadron dedicated solely to providing troops with close air support, said retired Air Force Col. Derek Oaks, who led an A-10 squadron in Afghanistan.

The A-10’s 30mm cannon allows it to attack targets within 100 meters of U.S. troops, much closer and more effectively than other Air Force aircraft, said Oaks, who has nearly 3,000 flight hours in the Warthog.

While F-15s, F-16s, and other multirole aircraft can fly several types of missions that include close air support, they are not as effective as single-mission aircraft, such as the A-10, he said.
....
As the reddish highlights show, it's more than just a dedicated aircraft type, but also sufficient and competent training that is of critical matter ~ concern.
...
Despite the Air Force’s concern that the A-10 is too old and slow to survive against advanced Chinese air defenses, Oaks argues that the Warthog would have some advantages over other U.S. aircraft in a war against China.

Not only can A-10s carry many more weapons than other U.S. Air Force combat aircraft, but they also burn fuel much slower than more modern fighters, so they would be much less reliant on aerial refueling tankers than F-15Es, F-16s, or F-35s, Oaks said. A-10s also can take off and land from small runways, and that would become invaluable if China destroyed large U.S. Air Force installations.

With its large cannon, the A-10 could potentially be used to destroy Chinese ships, he said.

“We could do CAS in a contested environment, we would just have to approach it differently,” Oaks said. “You have to worry about electronic warfare, you have to worry about air threats, and you have experts who know how to do that. It’s the same thing as Afghanistan, you’re just employing different experts.”

...

MSN

...............
Another question to ask/consider is if the Army or Marines would want to take over the care and use of the A-10 in their inventories if the USAF doesn't want to?

An A-10 Thunderbolt II, assigned to the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES) takes off for a test mission with 16 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, April 19, 2023. (U.S. Air Force photo by William R. Lewis)

 

[Vrenn]

No, it can't. The AC-130 is only viable if there is complete air supremacy. And, no MANPADS. Hell, a good 85mm AA gun will bring one down.

CAS from a B-52 is awesome if you want to recreate an Arc Light strike. Sucks if your troops are in close contact though.

You play too much Call of Duty.

Just sayin...

Two things. Anything that can hit an AC at 20,000 feet will also be able to hit an A-10 at 200 feet. Both have the same requirement where total or near total air supremacy is needed to operate. The AC is less susceptible to man pads because it can go above the hit range and still fire and consistently hit a target within 2 meters. The A-10 can't even fight the fight in Ukraine much less a direct confrontation between Russia and the US. Better to send something else other than either the AC or the A-10. But the AC has a higher survivability rate.

BTW, the 85mm cannon has a range of up to 34,000 feet if you shoot it straight up. The AC can set off 20 miles and take it out without fear of reprisal. And, believe it or not, the A-10 can elect to use weapons other than his gun and do the same thing.

You must be a Call to Action player.

 

[westwall]

Two things. Anything that can hit an AC at 20,000 feet will also be able to hit an A-10 at 200 feet. Both have the same requirement where total or near total air supremacy is needed to operate. The AC is less susceptible to man pads because it can go above the hit range and still fire and consistently hit a target within 2 meters. The A-10 can't even fight the fight in Ukraine much less a direct confrontation between Russia and the US. Better to send something else other than either the AC or the A-10. But the AC has a higher survivability rate.

BTW, the 85mm cannon has a range of up to 34,000 feet if you shoot it straight up. The AC can set off 20 miles and take it out without fear of reprisal. And, believe it or not, the A-10 can elect to use weapons other than his gun and do the same thing.

You must be a Call to Action player.

There you go with your call of duty bullshit. The subject is CLOSE AIR SUPPORT. Not 20 mile away support. Dumbass. The CEP at 20,000 feet is much, much, much larger than the CEP at 500 feet.

The AC has no survivability in a contested airspace. None at all. The Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 because they claim it can't survive either, so you want to replace the A-10 with an aircraft that is larger, slower, and far less agile.

You got hit by every stupid branch on the tree, didn't you.

 

[para bellum]

Anything that can hit an AC at 20,000 feet will also be able to hit an A-10 at 200 feet.

Well, no. The A-10 flying at 200 feet can be detected by SAM radar about 25 miles out. At 20,000 feet, it's in the radar's line of sight over 200 miles away. That's if the earth is a cue ball, and the SAM radar is 30 feet above the ground.

Reality is there is terrain, and the A-10 at 200' AGL is hidden if there is even a low hill or ridge somewhere between the SAM and the plane.

Btw, Ukrainian pilots are routinely flying Mi-8's and Su-25's at 50-100' AGL. They terrain-mask always, and only pop-up when they fire their rockets.

 

[westwall]

Well, no. The A-10 flying at 200 feet can be detected by SAM radar about 25 miles out. At 20,000 feet, it's in the radar's line of sight over 200 miles away. That's if the earth is a cue ball, and the SAM radar is 30 feet above the ground.

Reality is there is terrain, and the A-10 at 200' AGL is hidden if there is even a low hill or ridge somewhere between the SAM and the plane.

Btw, Ukrainian pilots are routinely flying Mi-8's and Su-25's at 50-100' AGL. They terrain-mask always, and only pop-up when they fire their rockets.

vrenn doesn't do tactics, or facts. Just sayin....

 

[para bellum]

vrenn doesn't do tactics, or facts. Just sayin....

Yeah, I think I caught that some time ago- I forgot myself. Normally I just move along, lol.

 

[Mushroom]

Well, no. The A-10 flying at 200 feet can be detected by SAM radar about 25 miles out. At 20,000 feet, it's in the radar's line of sight over 200 miles away. That's if the earth is a cue ball, and the SAM radar is 30 feet above the ground.

Actually, air defense RADAR is rarely more than a few meters off of the ground. And nothing close to 30 feet.

And then you get to the very reason why the US has concentrated on flying as low as possible. The lower you are, the harder the aircraft is to detect. This is especially true as all air defense RADAR systems have what is known as "Visual Search Lower Boundary". In other words, the operators mask off the bottom part of the signal so they are not detecting things like flocks of birds, trucks, buildings, mountains, and the like. And that can be a key thing as literally anything flying below that point is invisible to the system (the system still sees it, but anything detected is not reported back to the operator)

I have seen operators who forgot that step freak out when they started to see dozens of objects moving across their screen. Only to have the other operator laugh at them because they were literally seeing semi trucks on the freeway a dozen miles or so away.

However, that is why in Air Defense we always considered helicopters to be our biggest threat. They can easily operate in the area that we can not detect, and their slow speed can even cause the operators if they do detect a signal coming and going to ignore it as a flock of birds (yes, large flocks of birds do appear as a target).

That is why as old as the TOMAHAWK system is, it is still highly effective. It flies so low that almost no air defense system has a chance to acquire, lock on, and fire at it before it is already gone.



Ignore the explosion somebody tacked on at the end, this is actually a rare video of a TOMAHAWK from the ground in Iraqi in 1991, Even if their was an air defense site right in front of it, they likely would never see it on RADAR until the last second as that part of their screen would have been electronically blocked off because of the clutter and backscatter. And flying on average at around 500 mph, that simply does not give much time to fire before it has already gone by.

And that is the same kind of flight profile an A-10 would use in a high threat environment.

 

[Oddball]

There you go with your call of duty bullshit. The subject is CLOSE AIR SUPPORT. Not 20 mile away support. Dumbass. The CEP at 20,000 feet is much, much, much larger than the CEP at 500 feet.

The AC has no survivability in a contested airspace. None at all. The Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 because they claim it can't survive either, so you want to replace the A-10 with an aircraft that is larger, slower, and far less agile.

You got hit by every stupid branch on the tree, didn't you.

The solution is so easy and relatively inexpensive that the MIC won't do it.

1) Re-issue the spec for the original Fairchild design to the remaining bilders, with updated materials, processes, avionics, etcetera.

or

2) Issue a new spec for a purpose-built next generation CAS, that will butt-fuck the enemy even better than before.

You get to choose!

 

[Vrenn]

Actually, air defense RADAR is rarely more than a few meters off of the ground. And nothing close to 30 feet.

And then you get to the very reason why the US has concentrated on flying as low as possible. The lower you are, the harder the aircraft is to detect. This is especially true as all air defense RADAR systems have what is known as "Visual Search Lower Boundary". In other words, the operators mask off the bottom part of the signal so they are not detecting things like flocks of birds, trucks, buildings, mountains, and the like. And that can be a key thing as literally anything flying below that point is invisible to the system (the system still sees it, but anything detected is not reported back to the operator)

I have seen operators who forgot that step freak out when they started to see dozens of objects moving across their screen. Only to have the other operator laugh at them because they were literally seeing semi trucks on the freeway a dozen miles or so away.

However, that is why in Air Defense we always considered helicopters to be our biggest threat. They can easily operate in the area that we can not detect, and their slow speed can even cause the operators if they do detect a signal coming and going to ignore it as a flock of birds (yes, large flocks of birds do appear as a target).

That is why as old as the TOMAHAWK system is, it is still highly effective. It flies so low that almost no air defense system has a chance to acquire, lock on, and fire at it before it is already gone.



Ignore the explosion somebody tacked on at the end, this is actually a rare video of a TOMAHAWK from the ground in Iraqi in 1991, Even if their was an air defense site right in front of it, they likely would never see it on RADAR until the last second as that part of their screen would have been electronically blocked off because of the clutter and backscatter. And flying on average at around 500 mph, that simply does not give much time to fire before it has already gone by.

And that is the same kind of flight profile an A-10 would use in a high threat environment.

Operating at 30 feet on a piloted bird for any extended time usually means a 50 foot hole in the ground from impact. to date, there has only been two fighters that could operate that close to the ground but even they didn't go below 50 feet. They had TFR installed and that was the F-111 and certain models of the F-4. And at 50 feet going up and down avoiding hills and buildings is a very hairy ride. I did a 200 foot Buff flight at night down a canyon and the Air Crew had sweat on them I can't even imagine the training it took to get a pilot to fly using TFR at 50 feet.

 

[DudleySmith]

And AC-130's are great, but they won't fly under a cloud deck and neither will F-35's, so your troops on the ground are SOL if they need CAS and it's not a sunny day...

^^^ This.

 

[DudleySmith]

Not as cheaply as the A-10.
And the A-10 is extremely effective in covering our troops on the ground and we have a lot of A-10's as in 281 of them. While we only have 47 AC-130 Gunships.

I read somewhere that the A-10 costs around $11,500 an hour to operate, which sounds cheap compared to many aircraft in the field. F-22's run over $70,000 per hour. The AH-64 runs around $5,200 an hour, and the Navy's Seahawk version runs over $11, 200 an hour, for comparison.


But, recent experiments with possible replacements for the A-10 show some promise.

Last week, Congress agreed to replace the A-10 with any aircraft capable of out-performing it in a strict series of close-air-support tests and trials. Many aircraft were submitted and tested, with the clear winner being the United States Army’s submission of an infantryman partially duct-taped to a predator drone.

Air Force Replaces A-10 With Infantryman Duct-Taped to Drone

United States Air Force brass have long sought to replace the beloved A-10 Thunderbolt II. However, they’ve faced significant pushback from Congress, as well as from combat veterans who’ve seen firsthand just how valuable the bird is.

coffeeordie.com

 

[Vrenn]

The A-10 is being retired very soon no matter what the A-10 follower do or say. It doesn't have a war it's going to excel at anymore. And as simple as the bird is, it actually is cost prohibitive to operate. Yes, there are higher birds that can operate but the new Turboprop Attacks operate at less than a third of what the A-10 does and they have more range and loiter time.

The original idea was to find a replacement for the A-1E and that is a tough bird to replace. The A-10 did replace it as long as it didn't have to go very far or hang out so long. The A-1E was 2/3rds the speed but it could fly for hours on end and then orbit for a few hours on top of that. But, like most Recips, it had a high operation cost. While it impressed the hell out of everyone, it could only do it one flight per day and it spend the next few hours with the Mechs combing over it especially the engine. Believe it or not, for the low tech fights of Iraq and Afhanistan, the A-1E would have been an improvement over the A-10 except the cost to operate it would have been high. Then they got the idea of using it against armor. Works pretty good for t-55s and early t-62s but when they uparmored, that big 30mm gun could only do damage from the rear. Plus, the Tanks from Modified T-62s and up could shoot back with the cannons because they had the optics to do so. So the A-10 was now just used for Coin and Ground Suppression and against lighter armor and vehicles. All of a sudden, the turboprop attack birds could actually do a better job at the job that the A-10 was relegated to.


It's days are numbered just as soon as congress stops protecting it. The USAF would have never had it in the inventory in the first place as the A-7E was actually a far superior bird when the A-10 was adopted. They rigged the flyoff against the A-7E to favor the A-10.

 

[Mushroom]

1) Re-issue the spec for the original Fairchild design to the remaining bilders, with updated materials, processes, avionics, etcetera.

What, all 3 of them? The original company has been gone now for 20 years. Now we have Northrup-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and only Boeing and Lockheed are still making fighters, so that means a competition between two manufacturers.

And what "updated materials"? The main materials used in it were aluminum and titanium. They really can't do anything better than those, and if they did the cost would go up dramatically.

And part of the beauty of it is the simplistic design. "Modern Avionics" would likely be detrimental, as it was designed as "old school" as possible without a lot f the modern avionics that were available even when it was manufactured. The very simplicity resulted in an aircraft that could survive a hell of a lot of damage and still return to base. Trying to upgrade it to fly by wire avionics and composite materials would actually make it more prone to failure if it takes damage.

 

[Vrenn]

What, all 3 of them? The original company has been gone now for 20 years. Now we have Northrup-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and only Boeing and Lockheed are still making fighters, so that means a competition between two manufacturers.

And what "updated materials"? The main materials used in it were aluminum and titanium. They really can't do anything better than those, and if they did the cost would go up dramatically.

And part of the beauty of it is the simplistic design. "Modern Avionics" would likely be detrimental, as it was designed as "old school" as possible without a lot f the modern avionics that were available even when it was manufactured. The very simplicity resulted in an aircraft that could survive a hell of a lot of damage and still return to base. Trying to upgrade it to fly by wire avionics and composite materials would actually make it more prone to failure if it takes damage.

That also would mean that a whole new bird would come out of it driven by the job they need it to do. And that has already been done with the AT-6 for a fraction of the cost to build.

A-10 Cost 1993, 13 million. The F-16A cost 8.2 million in 1980s dollars. Making the F-16 cost about the 12.7 million in 1993. The F-16C cost 18 million in 1998 meaning it would have been the same cost as the A-10 had they continued to make them.

If the A-10 were to be made (in it's current level) it would cost as much as either a F-16E or a F-18E. Meanwhile, the AT-6E (in testing and already in production) costs less than 10 million and it carries the same avionics as the A-10s most recent mod. The AT-6E Wolverine doesn't carry a 30 mil gun. But it does carry 50 cal and 20mm pods. I imagine that the old 30mm A-7Pod might even make a comeback if it shows more than a 20mil M61A2 is needed. But since it probably won't be trying to knock out Main Battle Tanks, the 50 cal and 20mil would be adequate for just about anything else needing to be gunned. Plus, the range is more even though the Wolverine is about 100 mph slower using internal fuel. It has a 4.5 hour combat range. Meaning, it can reach over 600 mile combat radius versus the 390 for the A-10. The A-10, for combat, will only fly about 200 miles and then have to come home. The A-10 is used for much closer range because it doesn't have any range.

 

[22lcidw]

Perhaps if we were not lied to over and over about newer defense projects and the potential costs, there would be no A 10 discussions on retirement. The A 10 is line drawn in the expensive defense budget sand. There are massive cost overruns and trillions of dollars over decades not accounted for and defense projects with massive resources that ere failures. This is ineptitude, massive corruption, resources shoveled into other spending with the government, or we are paying for other projects none of us know about.

 

[Vrenn]

Perhaps if we were not lied to over and over about newer defense projects and the potential costs, there would be no A 10 discussions on retirement. The A 10 is line drawn in the expensive defense budget sand. There are massive cost overruns and trillions of dollars over decades not accounted for and defense projects with massive resources that ere failures. This is ineptitude, massive corruption, resources shoveled into other spending with the government, or we are paying for other projects none of us know about.

Considering that the A-10 cannot do the mission it was originally intended to do and the AT-6E can do the rest of the jobs for a fraction of the cost and do it better, it sounds like someone is trying to block sending the A-10 to DM. I can talk about the real history instead of what was handed down but that won't change anything today. The A-10 is now an albatross. And worth hundreds of millions to get rid of that can be spent on other weapon systems like the AT-6E Wolverine and the replacement for the F-22.