Let's make new A10 Warthogs

Ed Haywood said:
And resilience to ground fire. Not a huge factor in COIN, but potentially more of a factor against conventional forces where every combat vehicle has a 12.7 mounted.

There's some history here. The Air Force always wants to spend their money on big strategic war winning stuff. Air Power theorists have loved that story since Giulio Douhet. Then they get in a war and relearn a basic principle: airplanes cannot take or hold ground.
Click to expand...
The ROE in DS (until it turned into a rout) kept the A-10's up fairly high employing guided weapons. I'm not sure the USAF or whoever is willing to put its people and hardware in jeopardy in the environment the A-10 was designed for in 1970. That's an even tougher operating environment now. I look at what Ukraine and Russia are doing with the SU-25. It appears that they are primarily bomb trucks toss-bombing PGM's from behind friendly lines. That's an indicator for me.

An F-35 can do a lot of the things the A-10 can do, but an A-10 can't do most of what an F-35 does. The supposed big picture is that Russia and/or China are the theoretical opponents. Not the common opponents for the last 35 years, but the dangerous ones which could threaten the stability of the West. So the logical* priorities are to buy the weapons to protect the strategic interests of the West, then use whatever is around to deal with secondary threats. Which may mean using an F-35 for CAS.

*If I was a guy on the ground, I'd probably have a different view.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The A-10 pilots I have known had a different mindset than the fast movers. Willing to get down low and take risk. More than willing, eager even. I don't think we want to lose that warrior mindset, even if it's just a few squadrons of weirdos in the ANG.
Click to expand...

As an outsider listening to infantry tall-tails, I get the impression that infantry feels more camaraderie with A-10 pilots than those of other platforms. I'm curious to know how important that camaraderie is to morale.

While I cannot see the A-10 returning to production, I think the AF needs a platform that is lower-cost (both acquisition and upkeep) than the wunderwaffe F-35 and its successors. Much like the new tank (the Booker) that isn't supposed to replace the Abrams, but provide armor where there would be none due to the weight, size, or cost of the Abrams.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It’d probably be faster and cheaper to start from scratch with a new platform.
Click to expand...
You basically would, if you decided to start building A-10s again. All the drawings are on paper. It's not an issue of just "scanning" them, they'd have to be re-drawn using a modern CAD system.

Ron Wanttaja
 
2-Bit Speed said:
As an outsider listening to infantry tall-tails, I get the impression that infantry feels more camaraderie with A-10 pilots than those of other platforms. I'm curious to know how important that camaraderie is to morale.

While I cannot see the A-10 returning to production, I think the AF needs a platform that is lower-cost (both acquisition and upkeep) than the wunderwaffe F-35 and its successors. Much like the new tank (the Booker) that isn't supposed to replace the Abrams, but provide armor where there would be none due to the weight, size, or cost of the Abrams.
Click to expand...
For a long time Hawg squadrons were manned at 2 pilots per jet instead of 1.5 like other single seat fighters. Those 4 extra dudes in a squadron were sent to Battalion (later Brigade) staffs as the Air Liaison Officer. Over time the Air Force transitioned that role to a primarily enlisted role. Then, about a decade into GWOT, big Air Force made a small number of career, non-flying ALOs and the last AF pilots living with the Army for a portion of their careers have been made.

Now, the Marines seem to do just fine with fat Amy in the CAS realm, so a lot of opinions on CAS and the Army/Air Force really is still an old couple bickering of the terms of their 50 year old divorce, specifically from the (in)famous and still quoted in 4-star shouting matches M(emorandum) O(f) U(nderstanding) written in the 1950s that says “Army organic aviation will consist of aircraft primarily utilized by the Army … subject, however, to the limitation that such aircraft will not duplicate the functions of the U.S. Air Force in providing the Army, by fixed-wing and rotary-wing type aircraft, close combat support, assault transport and other troop carrier airlift, aerial photography, tactical reconnaissance and interdiction of enemy land power and communications.”
 
Pugs said:
And that was the point made by learning to fight dissimilar aircraft. Once the F-4's strengths were utilized it did quite well dogfighting but that was done by avoiding getting in a knife fight where the Migs strengths were. Do you actually have any military TAC-Air experience?
Click to expand...
The TOPGUN program was helpful for pilot training. But the US still lost over 600 F-4s. And while numerically the kill ratio went from 2.5:1 to 5.5:1 its still clear the the F-8 (which oddly enough got most of its kill with missiles, not the guns) had a better ratio of 7:1 without any of that. Also TOPGUN never dealt with the SAM threat.

So the F-8 never needed its pilot restrained, unlike the F-4, used the same missiles as the F-4, against the same opponents as the F-4, but still had a significantly better outcome.

So out of the box the F-8 was better, the pilots somehow DIDN'T need TOPGUN, and the same missiles were more effective. But the F-4 was better? We are in some serious fanboi territority.

Seriously, they had to redesign the airplane for a gun, replace the engines because of smoke and then retrain the pilots. That's not a great fighter, that's a failed program that survived due to unlimited gov't money. Not to menion a new AIM-7/9 version every 30 seconds because they sucked, and it had 3 radar systems during development.

That's not a great fighter, that's throwing stuff at a wall and hoping it sticks. It wasn't great by design, it was boondogle that just looks cool.
 
pfarber said:
Seriously, they had to redesign the airplane for a gun...
Click to expand...

Robin Olds achieved success with the sans-gun jet. When presented with the opportunity to install them, he declined because his pilots were not trained in its use.
 
Re: anyone can do CAS, I disagree on the operational view of it all, plus HARD disagree on the notion bombers can do CAS "well". LARPing is a dangerous hobby, I'll just leave it at that. You're gonna have to trust me bro on the latter. Sometimes the doctrine of jack of all trades is but a different euphemism for letting the short bus riders run with scissors.

Using flagship stuff to play donkey kong chasing disparate squads of gophering sandal bandits is exactly how the USAF found itself in the recapitalization nightmare it finds itself in today. The literal reason I'm dealing with the indignitiy after 20 years to still be teaching in my late granfather's century series deathtrap, but can't get replacement touch-compatible gloves...with an NDAA of 900 billion. Amy is fat because she believes in the Twix doctrine: Two for me none for you.

The taliban, ISIS, and the Houthis have all shown us our own arse on that economics front. DoD couldn't spell pyrrhic if you sent them the clickable hyperlink.

The irony is that I support the mothballing of a lot of our legacy ish, A-10 included. I just don't agree with the re-capitalization priorities of the usaf, nor their doctrinal obsession with high end programmes at the expense of everybody else in this indentured slaveship. But I also understand they live under the thumb of congressional pork barrel, so it's not just on the branch secretaries.

All that said, I'm in the sanctuary window, so this is all ballwash for me anymore. Cheers! :biggrin:
 
pfarber said:
The TOPGUN program was helpful for pilot training. But the US still lost over 600 F-4s. And while numerically the kill ratio went from 2.5:1 to 5.5:1 its still clear the the F-8 (which oddly enough got most of its kill with missiles, not the guns) had a better ratio of 7:1 without any of that. Also TOPGUN never dealt with the SAM threat.

So the F-8 never needed its pilot restrained, unlike the F-4, used the same missiles as the F-4, against the same opponents as the F-4, but still had a significantly better outcome.

So out of the box the F-8 was better, the pilots somehow DIDN'T need TOPGUN, and the same missiles were more effective. But the F-4 was better? We are in some serious fanboi territority.

Seriously, they had to redesign the airplane for a gun, replace the engines because of smoke and then retrain the pilots. That's not a great fighter, that's a failed program that survived due to unlimited gov't money. Not to menion a new AIM-7/9 version every 30 seconds because they sucked, and it had 3 radar systems during development.

That's not a great fighter, that's throwing stuff at a wall and hoping it sticks. It wasn't great by design, it was boondogle that just looks cool.
Click to expand...
Agreed, our fighter doctrine/capitalization was dogpoop in Nam. Furthermore, the reason the F-105 was such a deathtrap is because of the hubris of the usaf trying to turn those wagons into de facto conventional multi-role strike. Our bomber doctrine was equally insane/hubristic. We lost a ton of airframes to that war on nothing but misallocation of airframes.

I get it, the whole kerfuffle on the air side was but a proving ground for higher end cold war tech against the USSR, but that serves as little solace to the of airmen we gratuitously lost to KIA/POW/MIA, hundreds of whom we had the honor to fly as part of our tertiary mission at the 560th FTS for the last 40 years (repatriation flights), ending last year.

The F-8 would absolutely have been a better capitalization than the F-4 for that specific A/A task in question. More importantly however, the F-105 had no business being utilized in the way it did. It got mauled and the usaf knew what they were doing. Nothing being discussed here is new though, the shamefulness of that misadventure is stipulated.
 
pfarber said:
The TOPGUN program was helpful for pilot training. But the US still lost over 600 F-4s. And while numerically the kill ratio went from 2.5:1 to 5.5:1 its still clear the the F-8 (which oddly enough got most of its kill with missiles, not the guns) had a better ratio of 7:1 without any of that. Also TOPGUN never dealt with the SAM threat.
Click to expand...
Comparing F8 and F4 losses is apples and oranges. F4's carried a lot of bombs and frequently went into environments where the F8's never ventured. F4's flew many times the sorties of F8's. So their exposure to SA-2's or golden BB's was far more extensive. F8's never faced the challenge of "Do I dump the bombs and fight, or do I continue my assigned mission."
 
hindsight2020 said:
Re: anyone can do CAS, I disagree on the operational view of it all, plus HARD disagree on the notion bombers can do CAS "well". LARPing is a dangerous hobby, I'll just leave it at that. You're gonna have to trust me bro on the latter. Sometimes the doctrine of jack of all trades is but a different euphemism for letting the short bus riders run with scissors.

Using flagship stuff to play donkey kong chasing disparate squads of gophering sandal bandits is exactly how the USAF found itself in the recapitalization nightmare it finds itself in today. The literal reason I'm dealing with the indignitiy after 20 years to still be teaching in my late granfather's century series deathtrap, but can't get replacement touch-compatible gloves...with an NDAA of 900 billion. Amy is fat because she believes in the Twix doctrine: Two for me none for you.

The taliban, ISIS, and the Houthis have all shown us our own arse on that economics front. DoD couldn't spell pyrrhic if you sent them the clickable hyperlink.

The irony is that I support the mothballing of a lot of our legacy ish, A-10 included. I just don't agree with the re-capitalization priorities of the usaf, nor their doctrinal obsession with high end programmes at the expense of everybody else in this indentured slaveship. But I also understand they live under the thumb of congressional pork barrel, so it's not just on the branch secretaries.

All that said, I'm in the sanctuary window, so this is all ballwash for me anymore. Cheers! :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Ground commanders loved B-1s when I was there. In 2010 I took part in the largest operation since Vietnam for the 101st. They had a B-1 overhead for CAS. I think in that op it was overkill since they already had 58s and 64s lighting it up but whatever.

B-1B Lancer's Evolving Mission Includes More Close-Air Support | Military.com

www.military.com www.military.com
 
I used to fly an unmanned version. Too many hard landings did it in.

Freewing A-10 Thunderbolt II V3 Twin 64mm High Performance EDF Jet - PNP [FJ11711P] Motion RC

A-10 Thunderbolt II V3 Twin 64mm High Performance EDF Jet - PNP from Freewing - FJ11711P Based on the famous close air support A-10 Thunderbolt II, also known as the "Warthog" or "Tank Killer" this is the updated version of the Freewing twin 64mm A-10. Featuring a European theatre camouflage...
motionrc.com
 
pfarber said:
The TOPGUN program was helpful for pilot training. But the US still lost over 600 F-4s. And while numerically the kill ratio went from 2.5:1 to 5.5:1 its still clear the the F-8 (which oddly enough got most of its kill with missiles, not the guns) had a better ratio of 7:1 without any of that. Also TOPGUN never dealt with the SAM threat.
Click to expand...

*sigh* Between USAF/USN and USMC we lost 446 Phantoms (not including the RF-4s), there were also 63 non-combat losses. Of those combat losses, 86 were to Migs... The F-4 did a lot more bomb dropping than Mig sweeps and CAP.

Vietnam Air Losses Search Results

www.vietnamairlosses.com www.vietnamairlosses.com

www.historynet.com

The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
www.historynet.com www.historynet.com
 
Velocity173 said:
Ground commanders loved B-1s when I was there.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they did. Still a non-sequitur to my point about economics as part of warfare.
Velocity173 said:
I think in that op it was overkill since they already had 58s and 64s lighting it up but whatever.
Click to expand...
not whatever; to wit, you're making my point.

It'll blow your mind (or not, if you take my more cynical take on what drives our military operational decisions) the state of that MWS today as a consequence of the imprudence of the last 20 years. The PLAAF continues to attain parity by forfeit, we just can't get out of our own way. But hey, people got Air Medals outta the turkey shoot so all's well. /s
 
hindsight2020 said:
….Sometimes the doctrine of jack of all trades is but a different euphemism for letting the short bus riders run with scissors….
Click to expand...

I know some Viper drivers that resemble that remark. Anyhoo, CAS is less platform centric and more about understanding the fires plan and scheme of maneuver.

By definition, CAS requires detailed integration amongst all the players, and I’ll argue a set of GRGs and a 9-line isn’t CAS whether your a FAC(A) qualified HAWG driver or the aformentioned single seat bomber dude.
 
Last edited:
I’m have some personal experience here. Beyond any discussion about cost or production, the bottom
line is it’s not a survival aircraft on the modern battlefield. Look at the Sukhoi SU-25 in the current Ukraine conflict. Without 5th Gen (stealth) air superiority warfare devolves to WWI trench warfare.
 
pfarber said:
"Crusader pilots would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3"

Rate/radius/power don't mean crap. Killing the enemy does. The F-4 never got close to that ratio. Also BVR missiles mean SQUAT when you must visually confirm each target (over Vietnam). I don't have time to list all the F-4 faults. First being don't ask a bomber interceptor to engage in close quarter gunfights... without a gun DOH! All that radar, and another entire human dragged along to operate it... and it still didn't hit much of anything.

ALso my typo's are my superpower. Of course I meant A-7.

I like the look of the F-4, its squat and mean... but it was never a serious match (close quarter) for the Migs on the era.
Click to expand...
Once F4 pilots trained for close in fighting the F4 not only did well but dominated over North Vietnam. The key to being a good dog fighter was always training. Topgun was started for exactly that reason. Missiles were also relatively new in Vietnam and the US crews did not know how to properly employ them. Once trained correctly the missile success rate soared. Post Topgun every missile shot in training is debriefed to determine if it was a valid in the envelope shot.
 
I actually just finished a book about the guy (Dan Pedersen) who essentially founded Top Gun. Amazing it got off the ground with all the road blocks he faced. While he did highlight the flaws of the F-4, once they improved missile reliability and got hands on training (Nellis / Area 51) with MIGs, they turned the F-4 into a potent dogfighter. Good read.

IMG_0714.jpeg
 
I would imagine with the speeds and G forces involved, even a short dogfight between jets at gun range would be brutally exhausting.
 
Most ACM engagements that evolve into a gunfight are at lower speeds. Often near stall. High speed gunshots are typically snap shots. The common term is fighting in the phone booth. A incompetent opponent could allow a gun solution at higher speeds. The Beka valley is an example of this. ACM engagements are in fact draining but the reality of afterburner use keeps them somewhat short.
 
how many SEAD missions were flown during OIF? How many TACs played in Venezuela?

I was brought into the corps by an F4 driver back in 1984, Mr. Lobb, out of El Toro…

When you’re the crayon eater on the ground, and not in a cushy ride with a military power happy button, you have a very different and emotional reaction to the A10. You’re trying to find out what air is on station, the fast drivers had better things to do, and along comes an A10 to save your hide…resulting in a silly grin and breath of fresh air (mostly) by the time things are done- it’s a unique experience.

To look at what happened in Venezuela, to see what happens in Ukraine, and evaluating the least common denominator when things boil down to scrapes with boots on the ground looking for reliable, hardened CAS is a little different than designing madly expensive fast movers for “non permissive environments.”

We keep planning for specific conflicts but by the time your dance card comes up, you never know what you can expect - and I think that’s what keeps the A10 relevant. The best? Heck no. But many times I’d rather have an A10 / OV10 show up than waiting for something else to grace me with their presence…
 
Llk said:
how many SEAD missions were flown during OIF? How many TACs played in Venezuela? …
Click to expand...
For the first question, an absolut **** ton of SEAD was flown in addition to ground-based S/DEAD and that was after a dozen years of prepping the battlespace. OEF even had SEAD missions early on primarily due to Iran and not trusting Pakistan.

As for TACs between JTACs and SOTACs, there were enough to get the missions done. Plenty of FAC(A)s, too.
 
Last edited:
Venezuela... Just came from from Puerto Rico, and they have 6 of these at the BQN airport
1767559036890.png

And 5 large military transports at the west end of the airport, looked like C-130s.
We saw the drones taking off while out to dinner one night, loaded with ordinance.
 
blame autocorrect.
 
Weird how those useless A-10's are still flying sorties.

20260303_121229.jpg

Seriously, A-10 would make a good anti-Shahed weapon. Operates at low level, wicked gun with plenty of ammo, and redundant hardened flight controls. Ukraine lost several fighters from flying through debris clouds of close range drone kills. Bet the hog would shrug that off.

I say get working on prox fuse A2A ammo for the 30mm.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Weird how those useless A-10's are still flying sorties.

View attachment 150452

Seriously, A-10 would make a good anti-Shahed weapon. Operates at low level, wicked gun with plenty of ammo, and redundant hardened flight controls. Ukraine lost several fighters from flying through debris clouds of close range drone kills. Bet the hog would shrug that off.

I say get working on prox fuse A2A ammo for the 30mm.
Click to expand...
Yep.

www.militarytimes.com

Apache helicopters downed drones in air-to-air combat with 30mm proximity ammo

Gunship pilots test-fired APEX munitions, designed to pulverize targets with shrapnel.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep.

www.militarytimes.com

Apache helicopters downed drones in air-to-air combat with 30mm proximity ammo

Gunship pilots test-fired APEX munitions, designed to pulverize targets with shrapnel.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com
Click to expand...

Cool! Is the ammo cross-compatible?

This illustrates the core of my A-10 argument. You just don't know what kind of circumstances will make it handy in the future. Since it is a unique platform with capabilities not provided by other aircraft, it is dumb not to keep a few squadrons on hand as a hedge.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Cool! Is the ammo cross-compatible?

This illustrates the core of my A-10 argument. You just don't know what kind of circumstances will make it handy in the future. Since it is a unique platform with capabilities not provided by other aircraft, it is dumb not to keep a few squadrons on hand as a hedge.
Click to expand...
Both 30mm but not cross compatible.
 
Ed Haywood said:
This illustrates the core of my A-10 argument. You just don't know what kind of circumstances will make it handy in the future. Since it is a unique platform with capabilities not provided by other aircraft, it is dumb not to keep a few squadrons on hand as a hedge.
Click to expand...

And the problem with specialized equipment is you have it waiting for the use case it specializes in to pop up. In the meantime you maintain a logistics train including maintenance (parts and people and facilities) and you keep crews up to speed and have some sort of career track for them. Given the scope and scale of the DoD budget these days there's not enough to go around to keep the big spears sharp so the little knives will suffer. Will they be missed? Yep, but that's life with the federal budget. The U-2 is suffering the same fate.

The reason the USN got rid of the A-6 and F-14 wasn't because the Hornet filled those niches, especially the little Hornet, it was simply money to keep them going.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Weird how those useless A-10's are still flying sorties.

View attachment 150452

Seriously, A-10 would make a good anti-Shahed weapon. Operates at low level, wicked gun with plenty of ammo, and redundant hardened flight controls. Ukraine lost several fighters from flying through debris clouds of close range drone kills. Bet the hog would shrug that off.

I say get working on prox fuse A2A ammo for the 30mm.
Click to expand...
Need to add an A2A sight. Let Boeing do it. Probably a billion dollars and 10 years, with a redesign needed before going into production.
 
kyleb said:
Need to add an A2A sight. Let Boeing do it. Probably a billion dollars and 10 years, with a redesign needed before going into production.
Click to expand...
Or do like the AH-6 Little Bird crews and just mark the windshield with a grease pencil.
 
Or you know, do what the Ukranians are doing. Use an even cheaper drone to counter Shahed's.
688c318a85e81483682f1857.webp

A-10 are simply too fast for the standard Shahed drones, which fly at <190 kph(120mph). If you want to use air-to-air guns, I suspect you would be better off mounting guns to a 70s GA aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top