The A-10 Warthog gets a life extension/upgrades

Domenick

Domenick

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
1,811
Display Name
Display name:
Domenick
Woo Hoo!

I've had a sweet spot in my heart for the A-10 for years.
I love the way the whisky compass reacts to the GAU-8.
 
That was too long for too little, even at 2x speed.

I at least got a chuckle out of "Raytheon's T-X aircraft" while showing *Boeing's* T-X aircraft (the contract awardee), Boeing logo and all.

Nauga,
and speculative fiction
 
The A10 is a fantastic aircraft as long as you have absolute air superiority. Failing that it sits on the ramp.
 
Air superiority in the next war will not be a given. At best we can probably hope to establish local zones of Air superiority . If you refuse to ground pound without it the proper term is surrender. It’s one of the biggest concerns for future wars. How will the US operate when ground units are under air attack and assets like the AC130 and A10 can’t be employed. The last major battle the US fought without air superiority was Guadalcanal.
 
As a career ground pounder, it depends on what you mean by the term. That's a very broad category. As a general principle from history, you can defend without air superiority or at least parity, but you cannot attack successfully. Patton did not ask his chaplain to pray for good weather in December 1944 because he wanted to sunbathe.

However, drones and guided missiles are rendering the concept of total air superiority moot. US troops on the Syrian border routinely come under drone attack from Iranian-backed militia. Chinese missiles can threaten F22 bases and US carriers beyond the operating radius of those platforms. Nobody knows what to do about Russian hypersonic missile tech.

There are plenty of platforms that can provide CAS to dismounted troops, but only a few platforms which can engage armored ground forces on the move and survive ground fire. A10 and attack helos, thats about it. F35's are sexy until a single bullet from an 18 year old private with a rifle causes a 100 million dollar loss. So until our potential adversaries decide to stop building tanks, we need to hedge our bets and keep those platforms operational, and the Air Force is going to have to fly CAP to protect them while they do their job.
 
The A10 is obsolete in the modern battle field. Too many ANG units with them and governors wanting to support an obsolete airplane.
 
Last edited:
Jeff767 said:
The A10 is a fantastic aircraft as long as you have absolute air superiority. Failing that it sits on the ramp.
Click to expand...

I agree with that statement but it applies to a lot of aircraft. Flying a Black Hawk around Iraq in 2004, I got a radar spike “fixed wing! Fixed wing! Lock!” For a split second, I almost went into actions on contact mode, then I realized there isn’t a hostile fixed wing left in this country. Air superiority gave me that comfort. Whether it be rotor or FW transport, we didn’t have to worry about any air to air threat. I could also thank blue air for eliminating the ADA threat. No ZSU-23-4s to give me nightmares at night. Well, still had SAFIRE to worry about though.

So yeah, I agree in future wars we might not have that luxury. It’ll be a completely different scenario when we come up against a formidable Air Force, or ADA for that matter. Reading about how effective the S-300 / 400 is gives me goose pimples. :(
 
Last edited:
The single bullet from a riflemen is so unlikely as to be nonsensical. Not to mention that if a rifleman could hit a F35 it would probably take a thousand rounds to find that one spot that would cause the loss of the aircraft. If rifleman are the threat the F35’s will ignore it. Better small arms such as 50 cal or larger machine guns or much worse the ZSU’s someone else mention still have many threat mitigation options. The F35 is beyond superb at threat mitigation and more importantly detecting the threat.
 
Jeff767 said:
The single bullet from a riflemen is so unlikely as to be nonsensical. Not to mention that if a rifleman could hit a F35 it would probably take a thousand rounds to find that one spot that would cause the loss of the aircraft. If rifleman are the threat the F35’s will ignore it. Better small arms such as 50 cal or larger machine guns or much worse the ZSU’s someone else mention still have many threat mitigation options. The F35 is beyond superb at threat mitigation and more importantly detecting the threat.
Click to expand...

It's not a single rifleman. It's EVERY rifleman, thousands of them, all firing their AK's and light machine guns full auto at a point in the sky. And EVERY armored and most soft-skinned vehicles in a column, hundreds of them, all firing 12.7mm (.50 cal) machine guns at air threats. Not to mention dedicated Air Defense weapons such as MANPADS, automatic cannon, and larger systems.

The Soviets took frightful losses from ground attack aircraft in WWII. They responded to that lesson with a lasting bias in their doctrine and force structure towards organic air defense capability at every level of ground forces. The Russian military has inherited that bias, as have the Chinese to a lesser extent. Any aircraft who attacks those forces, or forces of their client states, is going to face a high volume of ground fire.

That is exactly the environment the A-10 was built for, with several thousand pounds of titanium armor around the pilot and aircraft systems.

The F35 will avoid ground fire by staying too high to get hit. That works in a static battlefield where you can lob JDAMs and other PGMs at stationary targets. It does not work against mobile armored forces in mixed terrain, which is the kind of fight we will face in a near-peer battlefield of the future.
 
It’s a lot more complex than your picture. You can avoid almost all small arms by staying above 3000 feet. No ground commander is going to allow his troops to fire full auto at every aircraft that comes by. His command will be out of Ammo in minutes. The thousand rounds to bring down a F35 referred to rounds hitting the aircraft. You would need to fire millions of rounds to get that many hits on a 500 knot aircraft. A 250 knot aircraft including the A10 would be highly vulnerable to 50 cal or bigger antiaircraft guns. It would not survive. Those threats have to be identified and suppressed. That’s where the F35 is without peer.
 
Jeff767 said:
Air superiority in the next war will not be a given. At best we can probably hope to establish local zones of Air superiority . If you refuse to ground pound without it the proper term is surrender. It’s one of the biggest concerns for future wars. How will the US operate when ground units are under air attack and assets like the AC130 and A10 can’t be employed. The last major battle the US fought without air superiority was Guadalcanal.
Click to expand...

Will those aircraft be effective against whatever the near-peer adversaries bring? Who knows. But for the wars we have actually engaged in, A-10's, Apache's, and AC-130's have been pretty much ideal. I don't see the F-35/F-22/B-2/B-21/etc. being the answer for those situations.
 
over and over history shows us aircraft designs that supposedly don't need armor because they can't get hit by small arms fire.

Somehow I think I'd go with the aircraft designed to sustain damage from small arms fire and repeatedly shown to get the pilot home even when taking hits...
 
Jeff767 said:
It’s a lot more complex than your picture. You can avoid almost all small arms by staying above 3000 feet. No ground commander is going to allow his troops to fire full auto at every aircraft that comes by. His command will be out of Ammo in minutes. The thousand rounds to bring down a F35 referred to rounds hitting the aircraft. You would need to fire millions of rounds to get that many hits on a 500 knot aircraft. A 250 knot aircraft including the A10 would be highly vulnerable to 50 cal or bigger antiaircraft guns. It would not survive. Those threats have to be identified and suppressed. That’s where the F35 is without peer.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been a ground commander? I have.

You do realize that EVERY tank has a 12.7mm (.50 Cal) anti-aircraft machinegun, don't you? Every single one. See that thing sticking up on the T-90 below? It sticks up for a reason. Most armored combat support vehicles and many logistics vehicles are similarly armed. A Russian tank brigade has 124 tanks and at least as many supporting vehicles. That means 200+ heavy anti-aircraft machineguns, dispersed throughout the force being attacked. No radar, no tracking, no electronic emissions, just gunners with iron sights. How is the F35 going to suppress them?

russian tank.jpg

You are correct that infantry will not engage every passing aircraft. They will rely on passive air defense, eg they will hide. But when engaged, it is absolutely standard doctrine to return fire with all available weapons, and troops are trained accordingly. From the most recent US Army field manual for Infantry Platoon and Squad:

Capture.PNG
 
The gun on the tank is pointed up because that is its stowed position. It can’t actually be aimed or fired like that. They are a not threat for a high speed aircraft. Maybe a A10 at 250 knots out in front and extremely low or a helo in the weeds. I spent a good part of my life living and breathing this stuff. Small arms in fast movers was not our concern. Marine F18’s in the first gulf war went down in the weeds against a huge number of guns without so much as a one bullet hole. Manpads were however another issue and 5 F18’s were hit but all flew home and were back flying in 48 hours. Lots of thought and changes made to mitigate those threats. The F35 is a key component in that mitigation.
 
My Texas Aggie Corps of Cadets Outfit sign

62849B5A-2331-4AB1-AE0D-94A2D21B0009.jpeg
 
As a AH-1 and AH-64 driver for over 20 years the 12.7 was the thing I feared the most…Cold War Germany our life expectancy on the border if the ballon went up was less than an hour and half and briefed that way. Our basic load organic to our unit was enough for one turn in the Forward Refuel and Rearm Point…after that the thought was we would be combat ineffective and would have to reconstitute…the early A-10 was no different as we had a habitual working relationship in those days…air superiority was important but our job was to plug the Fulda gap and die in place doing it…
 
Jeff767 said:
The gun on the tank is pointed up because that is its stowed position. It can’t actually be aimed or fired like that. They are a not threat for a high speed aircraft. Maybe a A10 at 250 knots out in front and extremely low or a helo in the weeds. I spent a good part of my life living and breathing this stuff. Small arms in fast movers was not our concern. Marine F18’s in the first gulf war went down in the weeds against a huge number of guns without so much as a one bullet hole. Manpads were however another issue and 5 F18’s were hit but all flew home and were back flying in 48 hours. Lots of thought and changes made to mitigate those threats. The F35 is a key component in that mitigation.
Click to expand...

The gun can be elevated as necessary to fire at aircraft. That is it's primary purpose.

I spent a good part of my life living and breathing ground ops, including going thru Marine Corps CSC, where I got to be friends with Russ Sanborn, who did not fly his Harrier home when he got hit in the first gulf war.

I'm not opposed to the F35. I'm sure it is a fine airplane. But Air Force leadership, unlike the MAW, does not see itself in a supporting tactical role, and must be forced to maintain suitable close air support and air interdiction capability. I'm highly skeptical the Air Force will put $100M aircraft "down in the weeds" against an opponent who shoots back in volume. They have been trying to pass off that mission since forever.
 
Warlock said:
As a AH-1 and AH-64 driver for over 20 years the 12.7 was the thing I feared the most…Cold War Germany our life expectancy on the border if the ballon went up was less than an hour and half and briefed that way. Our basic load organic to our unit was enough for one turn in the Forward Refuel and Rearm Point…after that the thought was we would be combat ineffective and would have to reconstitute…the early A-10 was no different as we had a habitual working relationship in those days…air superiority was important but our job was to plug the Fulda gap and die in place doing it…
Click to expand...

Yep, heavily used in Afghanistan. On one op (Strong Eagle) I remember someone yelling over the net “DSHK sighted in the open, grid follows…” I made damn sure we stayed at least 2 KM from that grid. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DShK
 
My Air Guard unit had deployed to Vietnam . F-100s.

An Army guy was at our reunion.

He related how he was under heavy VC attack and felt death was imminent.

Suddenly the situation changed and when he pulled his face from the

mud he saw a Hun with our unit symbol.

He says it saved his life.

That’s what CAS is about.
 
Upgrade?.....Meh, just make a few thousand more. Ok, I'd probably upgrade with a capable data link and fly them remotely. ;)
 
Jhon William said:
Click to expand...

I personally know that pilot. His call sign is "Gator" and is from Florida and is one of the nicest guys you ever want to meet. That A-10 is based at Davis Monthan and is the only one painted in those demo colors. I've seen his routine about 50 times as he practices here and is the current A-10 demo pilot so that video is new.
 
I don't have an argument for or against the A-10, but roll the video to 3:50 and watch the whisky compass spin when the GAU-8 is spraying depleted uranium.

:D

 
Ah, GE brings good things to death!
 
From what I’ve read the A-10 was made specifically to counter Soviet tanks invading through Fulda Gap. There is even a famous study that said the A-10 would have a life expectancy of only two weeks if war had broken out.
 
ARFlyer said:
From what I’ve read the A-10 was made specifically to counter Soviet tanks invading through Fulda Gap. There is even a famous study that said the A-10 would have a life expectancy of only two weeks if war had broken out.
Click to expand...

did the study estimate the life expectancy of the soviet tanks during that same time period? or the life expectancy of Allied tanks without the A-10?
 
ARFlyer said:
From what I’ve read the A-10 was made specifically to counter Soviet tanks invading through Fulda Gap. There is even a famous study that said the A-10 would have a life expectancy of only two weeks if war had broken out.
Click to expand...

It came out of requirements (the A-X Study) defined during the VN war but didn't see service until after the war was over so it naturally became that anti-armor gap filler in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe.

https://en.everybodywiki.com/A-X_program
 
Bob Noel said:
did the study estimate the life expectancy of the soviet tanks during that same time period? or the life expectancy of Allied tanks without the A-10?
Click to expand...
Good friend of mine was an infantry lieutenant back in the '80s. He was based at Fort Lewis here in Washington, in a unit that was tasked with trying out all sorts of experimental hardware.

He ended up with a small unit of Fast Attack Vehicles, basically dune buggies with antitank missile launchers. Great fun.

Told me that exercises showed they could kill tanks, but would lose about three FAVs per tank. Good ratio for the bean counters, NOT so good for the crews involved....

Ron Wanttaja
 
The A-10 has developed this mystique of being the go to CAS aircraft but in reality, around 75 % of CAS the past 20 years has been other FW airframes. No one picks up the phone and specifically requests A-10s. Traditional CAS is hardly even done these days. It’s troops in contact and whoever is overhead at that given moment, gets the call. Just another airframe with a PGM that can work with a JTAC. The GAU-8, while effective hasn’t really been needed. Don’t need a 30mm from an A-10 for a white Toyota truck with a technical when a 20mm will do. Or better yet, a 30mm from an AH-64.

So yeah, I think all the hoopla around the A-10 is a bit exaggerated. The ground guys love it but you can find just as many that owe their lives to F-16s, F-18s, etc. Great platform though and cost vs capability is hard to beat.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
The A-10 has developed this mystic of being the go to CAS aircraft but in reality, around 75 % of CAS the past 20 years has been other FW airframes. No one picks up the phone and specifically requests A-10s. Traditional CAS is hardly even done these days. It’s troops in contact and whoever is overhead at that given moment, gets the call. Just another airframe with a PGM that can work with a JTAC. The GAU-8, while effective hasn’t really been needed. Don’t need a 30mm from an A-10 for a white Toyota truck with a technical when a 20mm will do. Or better yet, a 30mm from an AH-64.

So yeah, I think all the hoopla around the A-10 is a bit exaggerated. The ground guys love it but you can find just as many that owe their lives to F-16s, F-18s, etc. Great platform though and cost vs capability is hard to beat.
Click to expand...

I kind of like the ability of the A-10 to absorb damage and keep on kicking butt. And doesn't the titanium armor of the A-10 provide a bit more protection than whatever other FW airframes have?
 
Bob Noel said:
I kind of like the ability of the A-10 to absorb damage and keep on kicking butt. And doesn't the titanium armor of the A-10 provide a bit more protection than whatever other FW airframes have?
Click to expand...

I think its ability to loiter is important relative to many other platforms, particularly in uncontested/lightly contested airspace.
 
Bob Noel said:
I kind of like the ability of the A-10 to absorb damage and keep on kicking butt. And doesn't the titanium armor of the A-10 provide a bit more protection than whatever other FW airframes have?
Click to expand...

I agree, It’s definitely more hardened because of its primary CAS role. The titanium cockpit “bath tub”, two high mounted, widely spaced low IR engines, twin tails, redundant hydraulics / controls, etc. But, as stated earlier, all of that is great in a low threat environment with blue air dominance and low ADA threat. Crank up the heat like in Desert Storm and you have just as many losses as other less hardened aircraft because of the speed and altitude A-10s work in. A-10s have done well since Desert Storm but the ADA threat was greatly diminished in the areas they’ve operated since then.

Where the A-10 shines is on station time, variety of ordnance for the customer and ability to quickly acquire and reengage targets. Problem is, that same capability can be done with a mix of RW attack working in conjunction with more advanced FW attack (F-16, F-15 etc)…and those more advanced FW aircraft can also perform other future roles (primarily ACM). That’s been a typical layered approach tactic used during major combat ops in the last 20 years. RW CAS (AH-64/AH-1) down low, maybe C2 (UH-60) above them, then FW CAS (fighter/attack…and yes even Bones), then ISR (MC-12). All of that supported by Artillery. It can be a deconfliction mess but it works.

I think the A-10 is a nice to have but not a critical asset for CAS. In a perfect AF with no budget restraints you’d want to keep it around as long as possible. I hope they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top