Let's make new A10 Warthogs

If the AF is dismantling the enemy, and the A10 recently entered the fray... One may draw some inference from that. Hoping the Hormuz will open fully in the near future with the Hogs on station above.
 
X3 Skier said:
It does a nice job on the armed Toyota pickups favored by the ISIS types.

The Rooskies still have “some tanks” they are using in Ukraine so the threat in Europe still exists. Until the DoD gets their drone anti-tank strategy together, the GAU-8 is still useful. I did some work on gun gas ingestion problems on the TF34 powering the A-10 back in the day.
Click to expand...
For a while, the Mackay trophy for the most outstanding military aviation feat in a year kept going to A-10 pilots doing close air support.
 
In the Millionaire lobby at KAEX yesterday (the repurposed England AFB).
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2616.jpeg
    IMG_2616.jpeg
    4.1 MB · Views: 24
F-15E shot down, as well as A-10.

A-10 pilot rescued

No official updates on the F-15E shot down.


Edit: at least one crew member rescued from the F-15E according to AP news
 
Last edited:
Mahneuvers said:
A-10 made it back to base from what I just heard. More evidence I guess of the survivability of the platform.
Click to expand...

No kidding, if the A-10 made it back to base after the pilot ejected.

According to CNN,...

A second US military plane — an A-10 Thunderbolt II — was struck by Iran on Friday, forcing the pilot to eject, according to a US official familiar with the matter.​
​
The pilot of the A-10, also known as a Warthog, was able to navigate the plane out of Iranian territory before ejecting from the aircraft and was subsequently rescued, the official said.​
​
Iran’s military claimed to have hit the aircraft, saying it crashed into the Persian Gulf after Iran’s air defense systems targeted it near the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian state media reported, citing a statement from the army’s public relations office.​

I must admit that I find all these conflicting reports to be terribly conflicting.
 
Based on where combat and priorities are going I’d rather the existing ones be passed down to USCBP air ops for a quick reaction type deal on the southern border, just re arm with non DU rounds since major armor isn’t a factor so much
 
Piperonca said:
Last aviator rescued. All out safe. Two MC-130Js abandoned then destroyed. Massive air cover and hundreds of special operators on the ground.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-news-2026
Click to expand...

Apparently 4x MH6 blown in place also. The MC130's carried the little birds in. A little bird grabbed the WSO pretty quickly, but then the MC130's got stuck in the dirt and they had to hang around for several hours while they put together an extraction package for the extraction package. I read on rumint the aircraft that got everyone out were Dash 8's.

Looks like STS need to work on their soil analysis and carry some shovels.
 
Reminds me of Abbottabad.
 
wanttaja said:
Didn't that happen the *last* time we tried to land C-130s covertly in Iran?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Sort of. At Eagle Claw, several helicopters had mechanical failures on the ingress to the FLS. They did not have enough lift to pull everyone out of Tehran, so they aborted. During ground refueling in preparation for the return flight, a helo hovered into a C130, destroying both.
 
I'm strictly armchair, but what I've heard from people who used to do that sort of thing is that one thing that they can't tell from photos and high tech recon is how soft the ground is. In the cases I heard it was trying to sort out if you could drive or even walk out of the sand on a beach.

Anyway, with this, sounds like they had a backup plan to the backup plan, so nice job on that. I was about 13 at the time of Eagle Claw, and remember it as a giant embarrassment and sign of weakness at the time. Led to how many tens of billions on the Osprey program, maybe was partly responsible for re-org of special ops groups (no idea), etc.
 
Albany Tom said:
I'm strictly armchair, but what I've heard from people who used to do that sort of thing is that one thing that they can't tell from photos and high tech recon is how soft the ground is.
Click to expand...

Very true, but STS are specifically trained and equipped to survey and operate FLS.
 
Jim K said:
Well, they certainly did a thorough job of demiling them.

Would they carry charges for something like that, or does an f35 just swing by after they're gone and light it up?
Click to expand...

The ground combat force will usually carry extra charges, but they are relatively small and would be used on the most sensitive parts of the aircraft. For something this big, I would imagine they dropped enough ordinance to make the rubble bounce. P for Plenty.
 
From CJCS Dan Caine remarks at press conference today:

Again, this came to the President and the secretary for approval, this time with a much larger force package based on the time that the enemy had to prepare to find Four Four Bravo. Again, this force was protected by A-10 Warthogs using the Sandy call sign. And this force had one single mission: do everything they can to bring an American home.​
​
Weird how those useless unsurvivable aircraft keep finding themselves in the middle of things.
 
Ed Haywood said:
​
Weird how those useless unsurvivable aircraft keep finding themselves in the middle of things.
Click to expand...
I don't know that anyone has called 'em useless. I know I have said they are extremely vulnerable in contested environments. And we lost one, so...
 
The H-60s and C-130s that were used for the PR op are even more vulnerable but yet here we are. They all have excellent ASE suites but at some point you’re gonna be in range of things that can’t be jammed. Acceptable risk.
 
kyleb said:
I don't know that anyone has called 'em useless. I know I have said they are extremely vulnerable in contested environments. And we lost one, so...
Click to expand...

Time for the F-15 to go, too? I mean, we did lose one...
 
Do we know what shot down the F15 or A10 was it a SA-19 SHORAD or SA-18 MANPADS.
 
squincher said:
Time for the F-15 to go, too? I mean, we did lose one...
Click to expand...
Aah, gotcha question.

The point is A-10’s are vulnerable in their original use case today. The low altitude threats are serious. Which is why the USAF pivoted in the middle of DS1 to not using them at low level in contested space. The USAF after-action from DS1 is available online.

What did we see in this situation? We saw the A-10 used in an emergency situation where it was at severe risk and we lost one. That happens in emergencies -you make do with what you have. But that doesn’t mean you’d choose to send A-10’s or helicopters or c-130’s into those situations unless the circumstances were dire.
 
kyleb said:
Aah, gotcha question.

The point is A-10’s are vulnerable in their original use case today. The low altitude threats are serious. Which is why the USAF pivoted in the middle of DS1 to not using them at low level in contested space. The USAF after-action from DS1 is available online.

What did we see in this situation? We saw the A-10 used in an emergency situation where it was at severe risk and we lost one. That happens in emergencies -you make do with what you have. But that doesn’t mean you’d choose to send A-10’s or helicopters or c-130’s into those situations unless the circumstances were dire.
Click to expand...

And there won't be any emergency situations or dire circumstances in the future where we need hardened platforms that can take a hit, so we totally should get rid of them.
 
kyleb said:
Aah, gotcha question.

The point is A-10’s are vulnerable in their original use case today. The low altitude threats are serious. Which is why the USAF pivoted in the middle of DS1 to not using them at low level in contested space. The USAF after-action from DS1 is available online.

What did we see in this situation? We saw the A-10 used in an emergency situation where it was at severe risk and we lost one. That happens in emergencies -you make do with what you have. But that doesn’t mean you’d choose to send A-10’s or helicopters or c-130’s into those situations unless the circumstances were dire.
Click to expand...

A-10's were vulnerable in their original use case the first day they existed because low altitude threats have always been serious. That's why they were built the way they were. AF leadership has been trying to get rid of them for as long as they have existed because they aren't fast and pointy. There are no new arguments.
 
Not everything in our arsenal needs to be a super-weapon. The problem is that its harder to convince people to fund 'cost-effective' non-glamorous weapon systems.

How did they fund the new rifle project? By demanding it have a bunch of shiny new features (like a scope with ballistic calculator). That way it becomes a propaganda piece. Never mind the fact that most of those features could be added to the AR platform rifles already in service.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
How did they fund the new rifle project? By demanding it have a bunch of shiny new features (like a scope with ballistic calculator). That way it becomes a propaganda piece. Never mind the fact that most of those features could be added to the AR platform rifles already in service.
Click to expand...

thread drift alert: Is it an entirely new rifle or just a new caliber with more punch?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Very true, but STS are specifically trained and equipped to survey and operate FLS.
Click to expand...
I read a pretty in depth history of the CCT infil and prep for Eagle Claw; I seem to recall they were there a early to do some austere conditions load bearing analysis at more than one location. I’ve forgotten the book title, but I think it’s on my shelf still.

I’m not sure there were enough periods of darkness to support that same level of effort for this op.
 
TCABM said:
I read a pretty in depth history of the CCT infil and prep for Eagle Claw; I seem to recall they were there a early to do some austere conditions load bearing analysis at more than one location. I’ve forgotten the book title, but I think it’s on my shelf still.

I’m not sure there were enough periods of darkness to support that same level of effort for this op.
Click to expand...

Probably "The Guts to Try".

I know 3 guys who were on the ground at Desert One, one of them a good friend. Big brass ones, all of them.

You are of course right that there was not sufficient time to do a clandestine site survey, so they had to risk it. Once the full story on enstuckedness comes out, either officially or via bar SCIF, we'll know more about whether it could have been avoided. In my minds eye, I picture a bunch of guys standing around arguing about who was supposed to bring the shovels and matting.
 
TCABM said:
I read a pretty in depth history of the CCT infil and prep for Eagle Claw; I seem to recall they were there a early to do some austere conditions load bearing analysis at more than one location. I’ve forgotten the book title, but I think it’s on my shelf still.

I’m not sure there were enough periods of darkness to support that same level of effort for this op.
Click to expand...

They didn't get stuck in the sand there, it was a collision between 2 or more aircraft as i recall.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
en.wikipedia.org

M7 rifle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Uggh, don't get me started.

The Army has a long history of abortive replacements for the M16/M4. It appears the main criteria for being on the design committee is having never carried a weapon in combat.

The M7 hews to that tradition, weighing about twice as much as the M4. That's gonna get real old when carrying at the ready.

The main driver for the M7 was improvements in Russian and Chinese body armor. Personally I think being able punch through the chest plate at range is a dumb requirement. Most hits in combat aren't COM anyways, because people under fire don't stand up to get shot in the chest. A hole in your arm, leg, shoulder, head, neck, etc is going to put you out of the fight.

The big problems with the the M7 are A) weight B) recoil C) cost of ammo. Give soldiers a rifle that is harder to shoot, and budget for less ammo to train with, and the guaranteed outcome is less effective fire.

Notice that the Marines and SOCOM want nothing to do with the M7. SOCOM is procuring a 6.5CM rifle, which makes tons more sense to me.

See, you got me started!
 
Ed Haywood said:
Weird how those useless unsurvivable aircraft keep finding themselves in the middle of things.
Click to expand...
It was designed around the GAU-8/A avenger. The gun is never used. They had to make sacrifices, to fit the gun in the airframe.

They could have chosen more speed, more survivability, or maneuverability, but instead they are stuck with a gun they never use. It could have been more useful. As the fleet ages, it will make a lot more sense to replace it with something else, that does A-10 things better, without the gun.
 
Ed Haywood said:
And there won't be any emergency situations or dire circumstances in the future where we need hardened platforms that can take a hit, so we totally should get rid of them.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can infer that from anything I have said or posted re the A-10. My point has been that it cannot survive in anything but a permissive environment today.
 
kyleb said:
I don’t think you can infer that from anything I have said or posted re the A-10. My point has been that it cannot survive in anything but a permissive environment today.
Click to expand...

I'm not inferring anything from you, I am criticising what I perceive to be the basis of the Air Force's decision.
 
Corin said:
It was designed around the GAU-8/A avenger. The gun is never used. They had to make sacrifices, to fit the gun in the airframe.

They could have chosen more speed, more survivability, or maneuverability, but instead they are stuck with a gun they never use. It could have been more useful. As the fleet ages, it will make a lot more sense to replace it with something else, that does A-10 things better, without the gun.
Click to expand...

My cousin flew these with the PA ANG and got shipped back to "the sandbox" more than once after running Harriers for the USMC during Desert Storm. And instead of repeating his response verbatim in full military fashion, after reading this, I’ll just say he laughed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top