A-10 Warthog - possible victim of the sequestration

[Bullfrog]

The real issue with the A-10, is that they upgraded it to the C variant. Some of the counter measure stuff was needed for a low and slow CAS plane, but what the C upgrade really did was give it avionics for stand off munitions, I.e. lobbing PGMs like an F-16. The A-10 isn't a platform that can capitalize on those techniques the same way a fast strike fighter can. With the C upgrade the question changed to: Why is the A-10C needed when a F-16C or F-15E can do the job better?

Theoretically... you would think with the military looking for a new COIN plane, they would downgrade the A-10C to the A-10A while keeping the counter measure from the A-10C. I imagine it could do the COIN role pretty well while being cheaper and avoiding the bad PR from folks who think Air Land Battle is still plausible in it's 1980s incarnation. If all else fails it can be a diplomatic/moral tool lol.

[jlvfr]

I find the whole "it's a big slow target" argument absolutely ridiculous. There's this aircraft the USAF uses for air support called AC-130 which, if memory serves, it's a bit bigger and slower than the A-10. Is there any talk of shuting them down?...

[Gun Grape]

I find the whole "it's a big slow target" argument absolutely ridiculous. There's this aircraft the USAF uses for air support called AC-130 which, if memory serves, it's a bit bigger and slower than the A-10. Is there any talk of shuting them down?...

That plane is used in a different mission and designed for a very different environment. Not eve a "Apples and Oranges" comparison. More like a "Apples and Bicycles"

[Jimmy]

They also take serious losses in a conventional war. Gunships had a rough go in Vietnam.

[Tom24]

But for all those stats, the proven killer during ODS was the F-111. The 84 deployed F-111s (144 A-10s were in ODS) were responsible for more than 1500 armor kills. It earned the name "Tank Plinker". It also attacked key military production facilities; chemical, biological, and nuclear sites; airfields, bunkers, C3 assets, and portions of the integrated air defense system with great success.

At the end of the day, the USAF learned that an aircraft with FLIR and able to self designate Laser guided munitions is what made a difference in the AtG battle. The A-10 had neither.

The A-10 had the cool look for photo ops. Grunts think it looks cool coming in low and slow but it was the other planes that were more effective killers. With less chance of loss.

Technology has made it possible to do CAS without getting down in the mud. And do it more effective.

Actually your figures for the F-111 of 1500 destroyed "tanks", was actually for tanks, armored vehicles and artillery, 1.500 total. The A-10 total kills in the Gulf War were almost triple the F-111's totals. "The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.[4] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon." The A-10's total was 4,100.

[jlvfr]

That plane is used in a different mission and designed for a very different environment. Not eve a "Apples and Oranges" comparison. More like a "Apples and Bicycles"

Air support of ground troops. In something so big and slow, a sniper rifle can hit it.

They also take serious losses in a conventional war. Gunships had a rough go in Vietnam.

And one was shotdown in 1991.

[JA Boomer]

The real issue with the A-10, is that they upgraded it to the C variant. Some of the counter measure stuff was needed for a low and slow CAS plane, but what the C upgrade really did was give it avionics for stand off munitions, I.e. lobbing PGMs like an F-16. The A-10 isn't a platform that can capitalize on those techniques the same way a fast strike fighter can. With the C upgrade the question changed to: Why is the A-10C needed when a F-16C or F-15E can do the job better?

Theoretically... you would think with the military looking for a new COIN plane, they would downgrade the A-10C to the A-10A while keeping the counter measure from the A-10C. I imagine it could do the COIN role pretty well while being cheaper and avoiding the bad PR from folks who think Air Land Battle is still plausible in it's 1980s incarnation. If all else fails it can be a diplomatic/moral tool lol.

This makes no sense. There's nothing a A-model can do that the C-model can't do better.

Yes it gained capability, but I've never heard once that the C-model upgrade altered the primary missions of the A-10 from CAS and CSAR. So the argument that they have turned the A-10 into a F-16 lite with the C-model upgrade is ridiculous.

[Gun Grape]

But your not looking at it from a budget standpoint.

Desert Storm showed that the number one killer of tanks and other armored vehicles was the LGB. The Number Two killer was the Maverick Missile. Way, Way down the list was the GAU-8.

You are staring the "Peace Dividend" in the face. Do you spend money to upgrade a niche aircraft (A-10) or upgrade/maintain your multi-mission fleet of planes?

[Parihaka]

Give them to NZ, pay for half of their upkeep and we'll lend them back when required.

[FJV]

I find the whole "it's a big slow target" argument absolutely ridiculous. There's this aircraft the USAF uses for air support called AC-130 which, if memory serves, it's a bit bigger and slower than the A-10. Is there any talk of shuting them down?...

"The much hated" Pierre Sprey says the same in this document form 1979. (and adds that it is too expensive)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...May%201979.pdf

Pages 119 ... 138

Of course, the first question that might occur to you is what is wrong with doing the job with our latest aircraft, say A-10's and F-16's. I think there are a few things wrong with trying to do the job or trying to buy several thousand of those airplanes. The first is you cannot buy several thousand of them because they are simply too expensive

Second, both aircraft are too big. For instance, the A-10 is about 900 square feet of plane view area. It has been oriented to a reasonable-sized fighter. The World War II Messerschmitt 109 had about 250 square feet of presented area

Of course, I do not need to dwell on what is wrong with airplanes that are very large, but obviously in the tactical environment that we are talking about, it is very, very valuable not to be seen or not to be seen until the last moment

The A-10 has one other disadvantage, of course, that is associated with its size. It is pretty sluggish. It does not have the kind of performance to get really good evasive maneuvers and, of course, it is a little sluggish in acceleration and climb-out for evading air defenses

In that document he also describes what kind of plane he thinks should replace the A-10.

Pierre Sprey wrote the initial requirements for the A-X program that became the A-10. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey)

It really is standard for engineering that once you have completed designing something for the first time, like for instance a CAS aircraft, you immediately know how to make a better design with what you have learned during the previous one.

[bfng3569]

That plane is used in a different mission and designed for a very different environment. Not eve a "Apples and Oranges" comparison. More like a "Apples and Bicycles"

they are putting griffin, the small diameter bomb, hellfires and other items on them though

[SteveDaPirate]

they are putting griffin, the small diameter bomb, hellfires and other items on them though

This is just a sign of how effective guided munitions have become with increased miniaturization. A handful of Griffin missiles and SDBs now represents more effective firepower than a howitzer and a big pile of ammunition.

You can repeatedly pound at a building until it is rubble with a howitzer, or you can toss a single SDB through a specific window and call it a day. The fact that it doesn't shower the neighborhood in shrapnel is a nice bonus as well.

I'm sure the difference is even more pronounced when it comes to destroying a moving vehicle. A-10s on gun runs tend to come in at a shallow angle that is great for ripping up a convoy on a highway in the desert. I imagine it isn't so hot when the target is weaving in and out of streets in a city of multistory buildings. Since the GAU-8 puts 80% of its ammunition within 40' of where the pilot is aiming, he not only has to hit a maneuvering target, he has to figure out a direction of approach that doesn't end up cutting a swath through civilians in the process.

Or he could just zip overhead in the general vicinity and drop a small guided munition while a drone puts a laser on the target.

This is my long winded way of saying that I think that small guided munitions are going to be far more useful in future conflicts than big guns on airplanes.

[SteveDaPirate]

My particular fear for the future is our ability to conduct operations in massive cities. Urban area are where the majority of the world's population growth is occurring, and this is especially true in the 3rd world, and countries where instability is a real possibility.

Imagining a conflict involving a city of 20 million+ like Jakarta, Manila, or Karachi is frankly terrifying. Our cold war tools for dealing with cities are largely going to be ineffective. Massive artillery fire and nukes would just kill more friendlies or neutrals than enemies. Collateral damage from mainstays like 2000lb bombs or Tomahawks would be unacceptable in the majority of areas.

I think we need to focus on ways to work towards increasingly focused lethality and better methods of figuring out who needs killin'. Things like the SDB and Pyros are great steps in that direction.

The US has repeatedly demonstrated that it is really really good at crushing the opposition in a conventional conflict. Unfortunately, recent history has shown that other people have figured that out as well, and I don't expect future opponents to even bother trying to meet us on the field.

[bfng3569]

This is just a sign of how effective guided munitions have become with increased miniaturization. A handful of Griffin missiles and SDBs now represents more effective firepower than a howitzer and a big pile of ammunition.

You can repeatedly pound at a building until it is rubble with a howitzer, or you can toss a single SDB through a specific window and call it a day. The fact that it doesn't shower the neighborhood in shrapnel is a nice bonus as well.

I'm sure the difference is even more pronounced when it comes to destroying a moving vehicle. A-10s on gun runs tend to come in at a shallow angle that is great for ripping up a convoy on a highway in the desert. I imagine it isn't so hot when the target is weaving in and out of streets in a city of multistory buildings. Since the GAU-8 puts 80% of its ammunition within 40' of where the pilot is aiming, he not only has to hit a maneuvering target, he has to figure out a direction of approach that doesn't end up cutting a swath through civilians in the process.

Or he could just zip overhead in the general vicinity and drop a small guided munition while a drone puts a laser on the target.

This is my long winded way of saying that I think that small guided munitions are going to be far more useful in future conflicts than big guns on airplanes.

I don't disagree, with the only exception being the nature of the future conflict.

[Stitch]

This is just a sign of how effective guided munitions have become with increased miniaturization. A handful of Griffin missiles and SDBs now represents more effective firepower than a howitzer and a big pile of ammunition.

You can repeatedly pound at a building until it is rubble with a howitzer, or you can toss a single SDB through a specific window and call it a day. The fact that it doesn't shower the neighborhood in shrapnel is a nice bonus as well.

I'm sure the difference is even more pronounced when it comes to destroying a moving vehicle. A-10s on gun runs tend to come in at a shallow angle that is great for ripping up a convoy on a highway in the desert. I imagine it isn't so hot when the target is weaving in and out of streets in a city of multistory buildings. Since the GAU-8 puts 80% of its ammunition within 40' of where the pilot is aiming, he not only has to hit a maneuvering target, he has to figure out a direction of approach that doesn't end up cutting a swath through civilians in the process.

Or he could just zip overhead in the general vicinity and drop a small guided munition while a drone puts a laser on the target.

This is my long winded way of saying that I think that small guided munitions are going to be far more useful in future conflicts than big guns on airplanes.

Along those lines, I know the weapon of choice for "surgical strikes" in both Afghanistan and Iraq during OEF/OIF was the GBU-12/49 version of the Paveway II bomb unit; it was accurate enough to go through the window of a target building, but since it was "only" a 500 lbs. Mk 82 bomb, there would be minimal collateral damage (although not so minimal if you were in the same building!).