Let's make new A10 Warthogs

Ed Haywood said:
Weird how those useless A-10's are still flying sorties.
Click to expand...
It's what they have...not necessarily what they need, or best for their tasking. If the Air Force's CAS was in A-1 Skyraiders, they'd be flying Skyraiders. If the Navy had A-7s instead of F/A-18s, they'd be flying them.

Ron Wanttaja
 
3 Billion for 75 modified Air Tractors. How many A-10s could be refurbished for that 3 billion? Would the A-10s need to be refurbished or just maintained to provide the same function?
 
Domenick said:
3 Billion for 75 modified Air Tractors. How many A-10s could be refurbished for that 3 billion? Would the A-10s need to be refurbished or just maintained to provide the same function?
Click to expand...

A-10 does not provide the same function, which is deployable CAS with minimal support infrastructure.
 
Velocity173 said:
Back in the day when the Army was looking at organic CAS. The old Iron Eagle ME-263! I think low intensity stuff would have been pretty effective.

en.wikipedia.org

Scaled Composites ARES - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Do you think they could get away with a pure turbofan or turbojet for off-field op's? I'd think turboprop would be the way to go for fuel consumption and short field op's.
 
kyleb said:
Do you think they could get away with a pure turbofan or turbojet for off-field op's? I'd think turboprop would be the way to go for fuel consumption and short field op's.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don’t see it doing well in austere locations that require STOL. But here’s the thing, when have we needed that capability? Even in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan we didn’t need that. We take over 10,000 ft runways and set up shop for the next X number of years.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah I don’t see it doing well in austere locations that require STOL. But here’s the thing, when have we needed that capability? Even in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan we didn’t need that. We take over 10,000 ft runways and set up shop for the next X number of years.
Click to expand...
I know, but the glorified crop duster is targeted at guys like Ed who hide a truck in a ravine and support their own airpower off of a dirt road.
 
kyleb said:
Dirt runways and a couple of guys and a fuel/ordnance truck at a remote base?
Click to expand...

That's the theory. The requirement was driven by SOCOM after we lost part of a special forces team in Africa in 2017. They were in the middle of nowhere with some indig troops and got ambushed by a large force of the local Al Qaeda affiliate. One of the big questions afterwards was why we put them out in a hostile area without CAS. The uncomfortable answer was the Air Force wasn't going to deploy an expeditionary airfield to support a few dozen guys for long term presence. Tongo Tongo is 500 miles from the nearest airfield or ocean.

Screenshot 2026-03-05 16.22.19.png

That's a fundamental strategic challenge for the US. You may only need a handful of trigger pullers. Certain SOF units are designed to be highly self reliant in order to keep a very small signature and footprint. For instance, the medic on a 12 man A-team is trained to perform surgery and keep casualties alive for up to 72 hours, whereas medics in every other military unit focus on the golden hour. SF medics are also trained on veterinary medicine and dentistry.

But then the slippery slope begins. First, you need a few mechanics for the vehicles. Then you need logistics for the fuel and parts. Then you need cooks. Now we have a base so we need an infantry platoon for security. Add some drone operators and joint C2 and commo infrastructure. Now we need some aircraft, so that's pilots, maintainers, and sustainers, plus security and logistics, and material handling for the cargo aircraft. Before you know it, you have an infantry brigade, an air expeditionary wing, and a PX with Burger King and Starbucks.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
That's the theory. The requirement was driven by SOCOM after we lost part of a special forces team in Africa in 2017. They were in the middle of nowhere with some indig troops and got ambushed by a large force of the local Al Qaeda affiliate. One of the big questions afterwards was why we put them out in a hostile area without CAS. The uncomfortable answer was the Air Force wasn't going to deploy an expeditionary airfield to support 50 guys on a long term presence.
Click to expand...
I remember that. But I wonder if having your own air assets just draws more fire/attention/etc. to most (?) situations where nobody's likely to come at you in force. And when the poop does hit the fan, would a Bradley be a better option? Seems like you could really discourage the locals. Would that be better or worse than a couple of armed air tractors?
 
Ed Haywood said:
That's the theory. The requirement was driven by SOCOM after we lost part of a special forces team in Africa in 2017. They were in the middle of nowhere with some indig troops and got ambushed by a large force of the local Al Qaeda affiliate. One of the big questions afterwards was why we put them out in a hostile area without CAS. The uncomfortable answer was the Air Force wasn't going to deploy an expeditionary airfield to support a few dozen guys for long term presence. Tongo Tongo is 500 miles from the nearest airfield or ocean.

View attachment 150557

That's a fundamental strategic challenge for the US. You may only need a handful of trigger pullers. Certain SOF units are designed to be highly self reliant in order to keep a very small signature and footprint. For instance, the medic on a 12 man A-team is trained to perform surgery and keep casualties alive for up to 72 hours, whereas medics in every other military unit focus on the golden hour. SF medics are also trained on veterinary medicine and dentistry.

But then the slippery slope begins. First, you need a few mechanics for the vehicles. Then you need logistics for the fuel and parts. Then you need cooks. Now we have a base so we need an infantry platoon for security. Add some drone operators and joint C2 and commo infrastructure. Now we need some aircraft, so that's pilots, maintainers, and sustainers, plus security and logistics, and material handling for the cargo aircraft. Before you know it, you have an infantry brigade, an air expeditionary wing, and a PX with Burger King and Starbucks.
Click to expand...
Lol! Base SGM shutdown our Pizza Hut and BK at Bagram. Those luxuries were making us weak!
 
kyleb said:
And when the poop does hit the fan, would a Bradley be a better option? Seems like you could really discourage the locals. Would that be better or worse than a couple of armed air tractors?
Click to expand...

Worse. Doesn't fit the situation.

Picture an SF company. 5 ten man teams plus a 10 man HQ and a 20 man support element. They go into some **** hole country in Africa with a mission to prevent Al Shabaab or Boko Haram from building up strength there. The company sets up a support base in a regional capital and the teams scatter across the country, each pairing up with a host nation partner force. They start driving around the bush with the partner force in SUVs, visiting small villages to talk to the locals, gather Intel, and develop the situation. As bad guys are identified, they help the partner forces plan and conduct operations to roll them up. This goes on for 4 or 5 years.

The trick is our guys may not make contact for years. But the bad guys are watching and waiting and planning. When you least expect it, in some crap hole 100 miles from anywhere, you get jumped. Half the partner force runs away, leaving the 10 of you and a few ballsy partner guys to duke it out with 50 terrorists. That's exactly what happened in Tongo Tongo.

If the company HQ has an AFSOF element with a pair of Skyraider II's, that gives you a way to get some eyes in the air to support the team quickly. That firefight isn't going to last more than 15 or 30 minutes. So ideally you identified that particular trip as high risk and had an aircraft loitering, or on strip alert. Combat vehicles aren't going to get there in time, but the Skyraiders might. A couple of SDBs or gun runs break up the ambush, allowing the guys to get out of the kill zone.

That's the concept. Like I said, as a guy whose job was once wandering around in **** hole countries in small teams, I'm a fan.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Worse. Doesn't fit the situation.

Picture an SF company. 5 ten man teams plus a 10 man HQ and a 20 man support element. They go into some **** hole country in Africa with a mission to prevent Al Shabaab or Boko Haram from building up strength there. The company sets up a support base in a regional capital and the teams scatter across the country, each pairing up with a host nation partner force. They start driving around the bush with the partner force in SUVs, visiting small villages to talk to the locals, gather Intel, and develop the situation. As bad guys are identified, they help the partner forces plan and conduct operations to roll them up. This goes on for 4 or 5 years.

The trick is our guys may not make contact for years. But the bad guys are watching and waiting and planning. When you least expect it, in some crap hole 100 miles from anywhere, you get jumped. Half the partner force runs away, leaving the 10 of you and a few ballsy partner guys to duke it out with 50 terrorists. That's exactly what happened in Tongo Tongo.

If the company HQ has an AFSOF element with a pair of Skyraider II's, that gives you a way to get some eyes in the air to support the team quickly. That firefight isn't going to last more than 15 or 30 minutes. So ideally you identified that particular trip as high risk and had an aircraft loitering, or on strip alert. Combat vehicles aren't going to get there in time, but the Skyraiders might. A couple of SDBs or gun runs break up the ambush, allowing the guys to get out of the kill zone.

That's the concept. Like I said, as a guy whose job was once wandering around in **** hole countries in small teams, I'm a fan.
Click to expand...
Sounds like some sort of long endurance loitering drone with an AI danger warning might be very beneficial. (Hey, 20 guys in Technical Toyotas are 5 miles out and inbound!) If you get surprised 100 miles from the alert aircraft, it's gonna take a LONG time for that alert aircraft to enter the fight.
 
kyleb said:
Sounds like some sort of long endurance loitering drone with an AI danger warning might be very beneficial. (Hey, 20 guys in Technical Toyotas are 5 miles out and inbound!) If you get surprised 100 miles from the alert aircraft, it's gonna take a LONG time for that alert aircraft to enter the fight.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But there are limits to drone capability.
 
From my interpretation of discussions with a friend who used to work kind of adjacent to that stuff, it sounds like something that could be done by hiring people from a different country, supporting them, and then when they're ambushed you pretend like you don't know who they are. I'm not in any way suggesting that that's a good plan, only that it wouldn't surprise me if we did that.
 
Albany Tom said:
From my interpretation of discussions with a friend who used to work kind of adjacent to that stuff, it sounds like something that could be done by hiring people from a different country, supporting them, and then when they're ambushed you pretend like you don't know who they are. I'm not in any way suggesting that that's a good plan, only that it wouldn't surprise me if we did that.
Click to expand...

There is a place for things like that. But more often the goal is to shore up the stability of failing states, so legitimacy is important.
 
Last edited:
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...
Warthog got some screen time on Jesse Watters tonight. I got the impression it's being used for anything that needs to be shot at close range. Makes sense to me. Also, General Caine did a superb job briefing.
 
Now it kills drones and fast attack boats? I'll bet the AF leadership hates this.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
My belief is that in anything other than a permissive environment, the A-10's will be mission killed (if not brought down) early in the battle. I'm not sure it makes sense to hold onto an asset (pilot training, logistics, support network) for something that is likely to be unusable after the first day of the war. Now, if we're fighting insurgents or the like, I believe the A-10 is a great answer with its loiter time, weaponry, etc. Maybe we keep 50 of 'em in service for that eventuality. I much prefer that solution over an armored 150 knot crop duster supporting ground forces against insurgents. I said it somewhere recently: I'd hate to be the USAF general who has to tell momma that her little boy was sent into battle in a crop duster.
Click to expand...
I kinda think it's the opposite. The A10 is not a day one aircraft, it does prefer a somewhat mitigated ADA environment. But for the foreseeable future I think we'll be able to achieve air superiority and eliminate much of the advanced ADA very quickly. And as others have said, there is nothing in the inventory more suited to air-to-ground than the A10 (well maybe the AC-130). We need a full toolbox of capabilities.
 
squincher said:
I've noticed something kicks off every time the A-10 is going to be retired and it ends up in new starring role. Maybe we would have world peace if the AF would just embrace the A-10?
Click to expand...
:) Maybe it's just time everybody acknowledge that traditional AF leadership is excellent at picking the absolute opposite of what they need, and has been since the days of the Army Air Corps. Random examples:

"We're fine with the biplane fighters, because we don't need them anyway because our bombers are faster than fighters and well armed, too."

In many people's view, the best American fighter of WW2? P-51 Mustang. Who was it designed for? England. Who figured out how to make it better with an engine swap? England.

Arguably the best air superiority fighter, ever? F-15. How'd it happen? Near mutiny of traditional AF command, because they wanted something bigger.

I'm sure there are more and better examples.

It kinda reminds me of an episode of a TV show, where they're defusing a device and need to figure out whether to cut the red or white wire. The guy doing the work asks another guy, then cuts the opposite wire. The other guy asks "If you knew which one to cut, why did you ask me?" He replies "I didn't know. But I was certain that you'd pick the wrong one."
 
squincher said:
Now it kills drones and fast attack boats? I'll bet the AF leadership hates this.
Click to expand...
Kills whatever gets in front of it. Yup, I would like to know who in leadership picked the A10 for ddployment - cuz fairly sure it wasnt a guy in a BLUE uniform(USAF). Snark

Edit to add:lotta public political pressure right now to move boats through Hormuz. Gas $4.23... know what Im sayin'? Go A10!
 
squincher said:
I've noticed something kicks off every time the A-10 is going to be retired and it ends up in new starring role. Maybe we would have world peace if the AF would just embrace the A-10?
Click to expand...

I wonder what it would have taken to make the A-10 carrier operational. Then the Marines could have adopted over the Harrier..
 
Albany Tom said:
:) Maybe it's just time everybody acknowledge that traditional AF leadership is excellent at picking the absolute opposite of what they need, and has been since the days of the Army Air Corps.
Click to expand...

Kinda hard to say that without irony when the Air Force is currently engaged in comprehensively dismantling an opponent.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Kinda hard to say that without irony when the Air Force is currently engaged in comprehensively dismantling an opponent.
Click to expand...
Maybe... I can separate purchasing decisions that were entirely theirs from what they have now, and their ability to use what they have from both. Fly guys? Check. Strategy guys? Check. Tactical guys? Check. Purchasing team? I'm not convinced.

Taking it out of context, Marines are going to do Marine stuff regardless of what tools you give them.
 
Albany Tom said:
Taking it out of context, Marines are going to do Marine stuff regardless of what tools you give them.
Click to expand...

many many many years ago I was looking at software maintenance costs, especially why the Army, USAF, and Navy spent waaaay more on software maintenance than the Marines. What was their secret?

It was simple: the Marines took the fielded software as is and didn't bother to tweak it. They simply made it work for them.
 
Ventucky Red said:
I wonder what it would have taken to make the A-10 carrier operational. Then the Marines could have adopted over the Harrier..
Click to expand...
Is the A-10's wingspan short enough to go down a carrier elevator without having to fold?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Is the A-10's wingspan short enough to go down a carrier elevator without having to fold?
Click to expand...
Well shoot, son, if yer gonna open her up to put in a tailhook and launch bar, might as well throw in a coupla wing folds while you're at it.

Nauga,
and his spot factor
 
nauga said:
Well shoot, son, if yer gonna open her up to put in a tailhook and launch bar, might as well throw in a coupla wing folds while you're at it.
Click to expand...
Well, hay-ell, dude, don't need a tailhook. Just add a hatch in the bottom of the cockpit and issue the Gyrenes with steel-soled boots.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top