Let's make new A10 Warthogs

Ventucky Red said:
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.
Click to expand...
Desert storm is an excellent example of the A-10 not using its gun for the thing it was designed for, killing tanks. They used non GAU 8 avenger 80+% of the tank strikes.

Electronics have only gotten smaller, cheaper, and lighter, since 1991, while the price of lead has shot up.


It is important for planners to take the thoughts of people with boots on the ground(or in this case the air) into perspective, but there’s a reason pilots don't set doctrine. It is not you, your cousin, or my full time job to plan for the future Air Force. The Air Force has collectively decided that the A-10 is worth retiring, and I trust there judgment.


Congress wanting to not retire the A-10 is another good reason to retire it.
 
Corin said:
Desert storm is an excellent example of the A-10 not using its gun for the thing it was designed for, killing tanks. They used non GAU 8 avenger 80+% of the tank strikes.

Electronics have only gotten smaller, cheaper, and lighter, since 1991, while the price of lead has shot up.

It is important for planners to take the thoughts of people with boots on the ground(or in this case the air) into perspective, but there’s a reason pilots don't set doctrine. It is not you, your cousin, or my full time job to plan for the future Air Force. The Air Force has collectively decided that the A-10 is worth retiring, and I trust there judgment.
Click to expand...

You really sound like someone with no experience or ability to research.

The gun in the A-10 has been used for a lot more than killing tanks. It's been a significant close air support tool against all sorts of targets in the last 35 years as enemy tanks have been in short supply for quite a while.

There is no lead in the 30mm GAU round. It's primarily Depleted Uranium.

Service doctrine is a team effort and reports from current action and crews are often integrated into developing that doctrine. After all, experience is a key component of future capabilities. The reason the A-10 is going away is simply economics. Not that the service doesn't need it but there are only about 160 A-10s left. To support them creates a giant support tail including multiple levels of Maintenance and personnel. The same reason the A-6 and F-14 went away. The legacy Hornets were not near as capable in the fleet defense or all weather attack missions when it happened but it allowed the Navy to move to two less supply chains.
 
Last edited:
Corin said:
Desert storm is an excellent example of the A-10 not using its gun for the thing it was designed for, killing tanks. They used non GAU 8 avenger 80+% of the tank strikes.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you must’ve flunked shop class after mastering the ancient art of “measure once, and ruin twice.” Or maybe you skipped the pre-lab assignment of asking Mr. Google a question and went straight to “open mouth, insert foot” lab experiment demonstration. :);):p:D

Anyway, that gun you’re trying to sound smart about? It wasn’t built for show and tell; it was made for close air support. In Desert Storm, they dumped over three quarters of a million rounds, blew up two tanks right out of the gate and kept the scrap metal business booming afterward. And for the record, when tanks needed extra encouragement, they brought along Maverick missiles, because nothing says "reach out and touch someone" like 125 pounds of high explosives designed to specifically kill.... or you ready for this... wait for it........................ little more.. that's right TANKS.


 
Ed Haywood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does beg the question as to who takes over the Sandy mission if they retire the A-10.
 
Pugs said:
The reason the A-10 is going away is simply economics.
Click to expand...
Correct. Its not good enough for its cost. If it was cheap, and okay they would have kept it. If it was expensive and excellent at its job, they would have kept it. The Air Force flies plenty of planes that are expensiveeconomical, but worth it for there capabilities(U2).

Lindberg said:
This looks like something AI would say with complete confidence. It makes sense on its face, but it's absurd to anyone who actually knows anything about the subject.
Click to expand...
APKWS II are $22,000 laser guidance kits mounted on Hydra 70 rockets. They entered service in 2012, so you can only imagine newer iterations would have gotten cheaper since than. Granted, they wont kill anything with more then light armor, but it is absurd to pretend that technology has not made precision guidance cheaper. Each A-10 round is at least $100, and they shoot 65 rounds per second. It would be reasonable to infer that they are only shot in 2 second bursts. It very quickly starts to add up, and become comparable to cheap missiles. A-10 and F-16 now use the APKWS II to shoot down drones.

The Russians are doing the same thing by mounting Geran drones onto SU-25's. I know the Department of Defense can make even the cheapest things cost a lot of money, but sometimes they don't. The American Shahed copy, called the Lucas drone costs $35,000. Still likely twice as expensive as the Iranian and Russian variants, but its very reasonably priced for American standards.

Ventucky Red said:
it was made for close air support.
Click to expand...
Correct. The theory was that it would take time for NATO to mobilize in the case of a Soviet invasion. The concept behind the A-10 was that each aircraft should knock out at least 4 tanks, before being knocked out of the fight itself. It was not designed for fighting insurgencies in Afghanistan. If that was the goal, I am sure the aircraft designers would have designed it very differently.


Ventucky Red said:
And for the record, when tanks needed extra encouragement, they brought along Maverick missiles, because nothing says "reach out and touch someone" like 125 pounds of high explosives designed to specifically kill.... or you ready for this... wait for it........................ little more.. that's right TANKS.
Click to expand...
The A-10 gun is excellent. No one is disputing that. The link you posted shows them having killed 16 tanks(12 with mavericks, 4 with the GAU 8, and likely heavily damaged 10 others with the gun). If the A-10 has been designed without a gun, it would have been even more efficient, it would have saved a lot of weight and fuel, that could have been used for more missiles.




The last A-10 was built more then 40 years ago, so it would be unfair to compare it to modern aircraft. Even though its received a major overhaul, the A-10 is still an older airframe no longer in production. This makes it uneconomical to overhaul once more. If you wanted to restart production, it would cost so much you may as well do a clean sheet design. I am not sure it would make much sense to design a CAS/COIN replacement with such a large gun for the reasons stated earlier. Anyway, I know I am not completely rational about the A-10, and don't disagree that its not a useful aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Corin said:
The Air Force flies plenty of planes that are not economical, but worth it for there capabilities(U2).
Click to expand...
How do you define "economical" if not "worth it for [their] capabilities"?
Corin said:
Each A-10 round is at least $100, and they shoot 65 rounds per second. It would be reasonable to infer that they are only shot in 2 second bursts.
Click to expand...
So even if it takes 120 rounds to destroy a tank that could be destroyed with 1? rocket, it's still a deal.
 
Lindberg said:
How do you define "economical" if not "worth it for [their] capabilities"?
Click to expand...
Everything has compromises. The US could not have a Air Force and instead way too many ballistic missiles and drones, like Iran does. If you were to suddenly take away that ballistic missile/drone capability, it would be a problem, as its critical for there defense strategy. Just because something is critical, and we rely on somethings capabilities, does not mean its the best way of doing things, or the best compromise.
I was wrong

Lindberg said:
So even if it takes 120 rounds to destroy a tank that could be destroyed with 1? rocket, it's still a deal.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't factor in the better precision, accuracy and fuel savings from carrying a smaller gun around. Your also less close to small arms fire. Not to mention, it would be stupid to think guidance systems haven't gotten cheaper since 2012. Especially with the Ukraine war funding a bunch of R&D into budget precision guidance.
 
Last edited:
Corin said:
The last A-10 was built more then 40 years ago, so it would be unfair to compare it to modern aircraft. Even though its received a major overhaul, the A-10 is still an older airframe no longer in production. This makes it uneconomical to overhaul once more. If you wanted to restart production, it would cost so much you may as well do a clean sheet design. I am not sure it would make much sense to design a CAS/COIN replacement with such a large gun for the reasons stated earlier. Anyway, I know I am not completely rational about the A-10, and don't disagree that its not a useful aircraft.
Click to expand...

Did you ever hear of the B-52?

You do realize that the grandchildren; maybe even the great-grandchildren, of the original cadre of B-52 pilots are flying those planes today, and probably the same ones. And remind me again, when did the last B-52 roll off the line in Wichita? I’ll give you a hint: someone named JFK was in the White House.

Dude, seriously you’re digging yourself in deeper. Stop now while you still have a few threads of respect left before the clown car comes knocking.
 
Corin said:
Everything has compromises. The US could not have a Air Force and instead way too many ballistic missiles and drones, like Iran does. If you were to suddenly take away that ballistic missile/drone capability, it would be a problem, as its critical for there defense strategy. Just because something is critical, and we rely on somethings capabilities, does not mean its the best way of doing things, or the best compromise.


Only if you don't factor in the better precision, accuracy and fuel savings from carrying a smaller gun around. Your also less close to small arms fire. Not to mention, it would be stupid to think guidance systems haven't gotten cheaper since 2012. Especially with the Ukraine war funding a bunch of R&D into budget precision guidance.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't understand my question. And I know this is the Internet, but if you're not going to put any effort into grammar, spelling, or punctuation, I'm not going to put any more effort into this discussion.
 
Mikey52 said:
They didn't get stuck in the sand there, it was a collision between 2 or more aircraft as i recall.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I implied that, but to set the record straight, as early as 20 April 1980, Maj John 'Coach' Carney was the Special Tactics Officer that infiltrated the Desert One LZ to take soil samples that were used for compaction analysis to ensure the LZ could withstand the weight of the -130s. That is just one of several austere field survey tasks combat controllers are trained to do. A while later, he led the CCT team controlling the assault force infiltration and the horror that ensued.

During this past weekend's rescue, I don't think there was enough time and opportunity to do the same level of austere field survey. If there wasn't, that would have left giant question mark as the the weight bearing capability of the LZ.
 
Lindberg said:
I guess you didn't understand my question. And I know this is the Internet, but if you're not going to put any effort into grammar, spelling, or punctuation, I'm not going to put any more effort into this discussion.
Click to expand...
I am sleep-deprived and wrote economical. I meant expensive. I am sorry about that, was trying to respond quickly and missed that.

Ventucky Red said:
Did you ever hear of the B-52?
Click to expand...
The Air Force decided the Ship of Theseus is worth keeping around. I am not familiar with the B-52s newest modernization program, so I cant say why the Air Force decided not to retire it, like the A-10. If I had to throw out a guess, If I had to hazard a guess, I would assume that multirole fighters can make up for some of the A-10's uses. Other then the B-1B, I don't believe the US has any other aircraft that can carry similar payloads.
 
TCABM said:
I don’t think I implied that, but to set the record straight, as early as 20 April 1980, Maj John 'Coach' Carney was the Special Tactics Officer that infiltrated the Desert One LZ to take soil samples that were used for compaction analysis to ensure the LZ could withstand the weight of the -130s. That is just one of several austere field survey tasks combat controllers are trained to do. A while later, he led the CCT team controlling the assault force infiltration and the horror that ensued.

During this past weekend's rescue, I don't think there was enough time and opportunity to do the same level of austere field survey. If there wasn't, that would have left giant question mark as the the weight bearing capability of the LZ.
Click to expand...

Interesting account of recent exercise of similar package. Maybe next time they'll grab a stretch of highway instead of trusting the sand.

taskandpurpose.com

A 2023 special ops exercise in Wyoming was a preview of the Iran rescue mission

On a highway in Wyoming, special ops planes delivered commandos and folded helicopters in search of a “missing pilot."
taskandpurpose.com taskandpurpose.com
 
So were they actually picked up by DH8s like originally reported? I know the AF has some Dornier 328s.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Pretty cool actually. Hopefully the A-10's utility as Sandy during the recent festivities persuades the Air Force to keep it around.
Click to expand...
Hell of a lot easier when the Boomer is flying the Nozzle into the Receptacle vs trying to hit the floating basket with the probe. Ask any Naval Aviator.
 
Your timing is great! From Google the Skyraider first flew April 18, 1945, 81 years ago tomorrow, as a Navy aircraft.

The A-10 first flew in 1972, about 54 years ago. So roughly, the Air Force is only 25 years behind schedule in coming up with a replacement CAS/Sandy aircraft.

Kinda my recommendation would be to just call it a failure, sweep 25-50% of USAF fixed wing budget to the Army, lift the restriction on US Army fixed wing, and let them come up with a CAS solution. I say that because USAF has made it pretty clear from my perspective that they don't take either role seriously, and that, in my cynical opinion, they're there to support the aerospace industry first and the ground forces and their own people second.

Because the alternative is to just give up on Sandy entirely, and go back to the WW2/WW1 mindset of 80-100 years ago, and if you're shot down you're just a POW. Let's let all the pows and families of pows weigh in on that one. One day military aircraft may all be unmanned, but maybe lets start with the B's rather than the A's on that. Explain to me what a B-x can do that a mix of ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles and drones can't do. (Rhetorical question.)

If I sound harsh it's because they've had decades to sort this out, with zero progress, yet somehow can toss out the words "practical" and "cost effective" with a straight face while the budget for any of the B-x platforms is essentially infinite. For a branch of service who's entire existence is a support role, it's just goofy. Jimmy Stewart is a personal hero, but the SAC and it's descendants did not, could not, and will not ever win a war, contrary to popular believe back when new cars had tail fins.

Ok, I feel better. :) Soapbox down.
 
I’m watching the Iran war with some interest as to whether the IAF and AirPower of the USAF, (including the A-10), USN and USA coupled with SeaPower can win the war without massive ground troop employment. Special case but will certainly be studied for years.
 
The potential A10 replacements. Is it an improvement? Or is it spending money because something is old? Ferry Porsche I think it was who said; 'to change is easy, to improve - is very hard.'

There's no question that improvements in avionics and gadgetry have improved. We have an update for much of that stuff on the A10. Two years ago, we went through a serious upgrade to the A10, so duckduck tells me.

warriormaven.com

Air Force Massively Upgrades Classic A-10 Warthog With Weapons, Cyber & EW

The focus is on ensuring that the A-10C can operate effectively in the increasingly sophisticated electronic and cyber warfare environments
warriormaven.com warriormaven.com

IMNSHO - the platform carries around all the gee-wiz stuff, and I think I like the current survivability of the A10. Of course, there can be improvements in survivability but I don't know if the designed replacement is going to be that much better. I'm a fan of old kinds of stuff. No school like old school. My plane has the same basic HP as an SR20 from 2000, but mine is 50 years older. I can pass the SR20 anytime. Sure, I'd like to have a 'chute. with all the debt we have right now, and there's really no pressing need for a fancy new CAS plane, I'm happy to upgrade the A10s and keep them flying another 10 years or so.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Define "win."
Click to expand...

That's really the key, isn't it?

If "winning" means inflicting enough pain to destroy the ability of the enemy to make war for a period of time, to inflict economic damage that limits the ability to regroup quickly, and to compel them to surrender enriched uranium, air and sea power may be sufficient.

OTOH, if "winning" means regime change (and that's the only real long term solution, frankly), ground forces will be required.

Even then, forcing regime change from outside is really only practical when there is a single forceful individual dictator. It may have worked in Venezuala. It might work in Cuba. It won't work with widely distributed leadership, all of a similar mindset and philosophy. Such change requires that the governed population revolt, and that's much much more challenging to motivate and lead and it requires an armed, courageous populace.

In the present situation, the US has said over and over that regime change is not the goal (though it would be nice), and I think that's wise as it's virtually impossible in the near term. If we truly want regime change, it would require a looooong, slow, subversive process first, to gain the hearts and minds of a sizeable percentage of the population. The US can't stay the course on much of anything that outlasts an election cycle, so we'd best settle for the easier definition of a win.

Or we could nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Define "win."
Click to expand...
Which is why I noted “Special case but will certainly be studied for years.” Primarily to do just that.

The allies “won” WW I (for a few years), again “won” WW II for at least till the present time except with minor exception of Russia becoming the enemy almost immediately in the Cold War. Korea was and is a Draw.

So some will say Iran war is already “won” since the B-2 strike since it apparently prevented another State having Nuclear Weapons. Others will say it has been “lost” since Iran has agreed to nothing. As the WSJ Article points out, if the obsession over eliminating fossil fuel goes to its well deserved grave, the war has now been “won”.

So I suppose we will wait until as many have said in many forms since the 19th Century, History is written by the Victors.
 
"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature."
- Carl von Clausewitz

War aims in a democracy must be crystal clear. Citizens must know exactly what goals we are fighting for and how we intend to achieve them. Previous leaders understood this. It's bonkers that nobody can confidently state our strategic objectives in this war.

Oh, and IBTL. :cool:
 
Ed Haywood said:
"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature."
- Carl von Clausewitz

War aims in a democracy must be crystal clear. Citizens must know exactly what goals we are fighting for and how we intend to achieve them. Previous leaders understood this. It's bonkers that nobody can confidently state our strategic objectives in this war.

Oh, and IBTL. :cool:
Click to expand...
i think you should change your screen name to Carl.
 
Ed Haywood said:
"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature."
- Carl von Clausewitz

War aims in a democracy must be crystal clear. Citizens must know exactly what goals we are fighting for and how we intend to achieve them. Previous leaders understood this. It's bonkers that nobody can confidently state our strategic objectives in this war.

Oh, and IBTL. :cool:
Click to expand...
Counterpoint: I'm actually appreciating this fog of war stuff in the mideast. Enemy has no clue what the Americans are going to do until they/we do it. The other thing is the steadily increasing mass of troops and material indicate there is no bluffing going on.
 
Piperonca said:
Counterpoint: I'm actually appreciating this fog of war stuff in the mideast. Enemy has no clue what the Americans are going to do until they/we do it. The other thing is the steadily increasing mass of troops and material indicate there is no bluffing going on.
Click to expand...

I might buy into that if I were confident we had a clue what we were going to do until we did it.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I might buy into that if I were confident we had a clue what we were going to do until we did it.
Click to expand...
Somewhat related—another retired SF buddy tells me Iran is tailor made for the operators to do their thing. I would add to bring one of our badass generals out of retirement to plan and execute. I can think of several to select from. Anything else I could say would get the thread locked for sure.
 
X3 Skier said:
I’m watching the Iran war with some interest as to whether the IAF and AirPower of the USAF, (including the A-10), USN and USA coupled with SeaPower can win the war without massive ground troop employment. Special case but will certainly be studied for years.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’ll come in the traditional win as in a surrender. We haven’t even declared war yet so m not even sure they know how to surrender at this point. We even had troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and there was no surrender there either. Both were a regime change but the incoming did no better than the previous.

I think the best we could hope for is not a complete regime change but some new leadership willing to work well with others. As of right now that doesn’t seem possible. Really what I’m waiting for are more protests from its citizens. They were protesting before the war but now that we need internal pressure, it’s like they all decided to sit it out.
 
Velocity173 said:
I don’t think it’ll come in the traditional win as in a surrender. We haven’t even declared war yet so m not even sure they know how to surrender at this point. We even had troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and there was no surrender there either. Both were a regime change but the incoming did no better than the previous.

I think the best we could hope for is not a complete regime change but some new leadership willing to work well with others. As of right now that doesn’t seem possible. Really what I’m waiting for are more protests from its citizens. They were protesting before the war but now that we need internal pressure, it’s like they all decided to sit it out.
Click to expand...
Agree on the difficulty of decisively ending this conflict. On protests, Iran has a violent regime. They were not afraid to kill protesters when there there was relative peace. Now that they are in a real shooting war, I think any restraint they had before will disappear.
 
Half Fast said:
... In the present situation, the US has said over and over that regime change is not the goal (though it would be nice), and I think that's wise as it's virtually impossible in the near term. If we truly want regime change, it would require a looooong, slow, subversive process first, to gain the hearts and minds of a sizeable percentage of the population. The US can't stay the course on much of anything that outlasts an election cycle, so we'd best settle for the easier definition of a win.
Click to expand...
I think the majority of the population is already subverted against the current regime. The problem lies with a completely disarmed population and the armed gangs/thugs/irregulars who enforce sharia law on the neighborhood level. Resolving this, will take arming the population. Unfortunately, it seems unwise to throw more weapons into the street level conflict.

Obviously, hope is not a strategy, but at this point, if the U.S. is unwilling to commit ground troops, we are stuck with hoping the population will arise and do it themselves. I would not be surprised if Mossad and/or the U.S. already has undercover operatives in Iran rallying the locals. Over the years Mossad has repeatedly shown they can launch in-country operations.
Half Fast said:
Or we could nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Click to expand...
One of my wife's favorite movies. It often seems she can quote it from start to finish applying snippets to modern life.
 
Domenick said:
. I would not be surprised if Mossad and/or the U.S. already has undercover operatives in Iran rallying the locals.
Click to expand...

Oh, I’d be very surprised if we didn’t. But as you point out, that won’t go far with an unarmed populace, and with the IRGC locking down communication (no internet) it will take a long, long time to sway enough people using clandestine methods to make it safe and worthwhile to arm them.
 
The CIA Director called regime change scenarios "farcical." IMO he was being too generous. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the role of Shia clerics in their society.

Ground troops would make it orders of magnitude worse. Ask any veteran of Iraq what happens when you go into Shia neighborhoods.

Regime change is not going to happen. I do not have enough space to explain all the ways that is delusional.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The CIA Director called regime change scenarios "farcical." IMO he was being too generous. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the role of Shia clerics in their society.

Ground troops would make it orders of magnitude worse. Ask any veteran of Iraq what happens when you go into Shia neighborhoods.

Regime change is not going to happen. I do not have enough space to explain all the ways that is delusional.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The US has said all along that regime change was not an objective. At a bare minimum it would require killing all of the IRGC and the clerics. Not that I’m opposed to that idea, but it would take much longer than anyone would tolerate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top