A-10 Warthog - possible victim of the sequestration

[citanon]

If the A-10 was so vulnerable or useless, why did it perform so well over the last 25 years (in non Soviet invasion conflicts for which it was not purposely designed). Why is it over fighting ISIL right now??? The USAF has at least 4 times as many F-16's .. why not send them over instead of the A-10 if they are so useless when the enemy possesses something as basic as MANPAD's?

I can't find the article now but a while back there was a very good piece of reporting on US efforts to remove MANPADs from the fight in Afghanistan. The military and the CIA spent considerable effort there buying MANPADs and killing people who would not sell. The result was a reduction of MANPAD availability in the Afghan theater.

Needless to say such efforts will be much more difficult in Syria.

Perhaps the answer is because the A-10 is the best at a few niche missions, and those niche missions are still required. If it's because US military brass and lawmakers are hoping one will get shot down so they can finally retire the fleet, then they should all go to jail.

The A-10 isn't the be all and end all. But it's the best at performing a niche mission. CSAR and true CAS performed in a relatively permissive environment. The US must not decide whether the A-10 is needed, but whether it's core mission set is needed.

Or perhaps they are seriously rethinking their use of A-10 now that one has been shot at by 4 missiles.

[bfng3569]

Perhaps the answer is because the A-10 is the best at a few niche missions, and those niche missions are still required. If it's because US military brass and lawmakers are hoping one will get shot down so they can finally retire the fleet, then they should all go to jail.

The A-10 isn't the be all and end all. But it's the best at performing a niche mission. CSAR and true CAS performed in a relatively permissive environment. The US must not decide whether the A-10 is needed, but whether it's core mission set is needed.

a niche role... says who......?

The Air Force's Rationale For Retiring The A-10 Warthog Is Bullshit



A One Trick Pony?

Some say that the A-10 is a "one trick pony," and a "niche" capability. It is amazing that precision battlefield interdiction and close air support is now thought of as a "niche capability." Close air support enables America's primary land combat component, the US Army, to even be able to operate at all. Additionally, the ugly term "niche capability" can be more accurately applied directly to the F-15C Eagle fleet which is much more costly on a per hour basis to operate than the A-10.

Currently, the F-15C runs over $40k per hour to operate compared with the A-10 at $18k per hour. In fact, the A-10 is still cheaper to fly by a good margin than the single engine and "cost efficient" F-16C Viper. In actuality the A-10 is not a single role aircraft at all. It has a fairly wide array of mission sets that it can perform extremely well, especially in comparison to the F-15C's almost solitary counter-air mission. Just take Dr. Evil's word for it in this popular meme making the rounds on Facebook and Twitter:
Also, Dr. Evil forgot that the A-10 is actually a fantastic counter-air aircraft as well, not against high-flying fast jet fighters, but for hunting down helicopters and low flying fast jet aircraft. This is a very important but under-realized issue that does pose a serious threat to our ground forces, especially in mountainous, jungle or hilly terrain. An F-22 or F-15 is poorly suited for flying at extremely low levels and searching canyons and valleys for enemy attack choppers that may be operating in a dispersed manner. The A-10 can do this, and with simple upgrades it can do this extremely well (more on this in a moment).

If the USAF wants to make a case against "single-role" platforms during this down and dirty budget rationale battle then they have to be fair and take into account an aircraft's actual relevance and utilization over its lifetime. How many aircraft have American F-15Cs shot down in the past decade and a half? None. How many tanks, APCs, trucks, command and control shacks, buildings and enemy fighters has the A-10 destroyed in that same time span? Thousands.

Keep in mind that I do not in any way condone the disbanding of the F-15C community, in fact I highly support its existence under the current force structure, albeit for other reasons than the A-10. Still, the USAF's "F series" fighter jock dominated command culture is selling you a load of crap by telling you that niche capability "single mission" aircraft fleets need to go, while the F-15C fleet remains off the chopping block even though the F-16, especially upgraded with a modern AESA radar and the forfeited yet totally essential CAPES upgrade, could do a large degree of the F-15's air to air mission. If you add conformal tanks to the F-16 equation the gap between the F-15's capability and a totally upgraded F-16 force decreases even less. Once again I am not condoning jettisoning the F-15C fleet, what remains of it at least, but I want to highlight the force structure options that do exist.

Just because a tactical aircraft is not capable of firing AMRAAMs does not make it a niche capability. The fact that the DoD acts like this is so is an insult to our intelligence. It is called marketing, and with all the things the DoD does poorly, when it comes to axing existing weapon systems they are as good as any major Madison Avenue marketing firm at "shaping the conversation" and getting you to buy in to their plans. Remember, psychological warfare is a major tenant of any conflict, and axing the A-10 is just another battle for the DoD, although the theater of operations is Washington DC and it is fought with carefully contoured messages, questionable metrics, and "winning the hearts and minds" on Capitol Hill.

[tuna]

Don't forget the bese counter air role - strafing the crap out of airfields with aircraft on the ground.

Also - it isn't the low level that makes finding and fighting helo's so hard, it is the low speed.

[SteveDaPirate]

On the topic of platforms that could potentially step in for the A-10's current duties, the Future Vertical Lift program is starting to look like it could turn out some very capable aircraft. The front runners appear the be a 3rd gen Tilt Rotor, the Bell V-280 Valor, and a pusher propeller design from Sikorsky and Boeing, the SB-1 Defiant.

Some of the most interesting aspects of these designs are the greatly increased speed and range available. The V-280, for example, is capable of strategic self deployment overseas. The SB-1 is supposed to be extremely nimble, and capable of performing unorthodox maneuvers that current helicopters are incapable of replicating.

These offer the US Army some interesting capabilities if manned organic CAS platforms are something they are truly interested in. The V-280 in particular offers much greater range than the A-10 with a difference of only 80 knots in top speed. While not designed from the ground up as a gunship or attack platform, modifications towards such a role wouldn't be without precedent. Nor would a request for a follow on platform to fill such a niche using similar techniques.

[Jimmy]

Both become moot when the plane gets shot down.

Actually that's exactly when those tasks become crucial. And an A-10 is a better Sandy than an F-16.

[Gun Grape]

Would you like his height, weight, and ISIL member card to audit his training? What are you getting at here? Knocking the A-10 because you don't know the exact parameters of the engagement...c'mon.

Not knocking the A-10. Knocking possible hype.
"Evading 4 missiles" has one meaning if there were trained operators shooting those missiles and another if it was Isis volunteers that didn't know how to employ the missiles.
One is a serious threat, the other they might as well have been shooting bottle rockets

I agree in some respects. The current F-16 is a multi-role fighter, capable of doing many things well, and yes, it's skill set overlaps the A-10's. However, when an F-16 is performing "CAS" at 30k feet, it's really performing precision bombing in a troops in contact situation.

What exactly do you consider CAS if its not precision bombing of enemy personnel and equipment in close proximity to the FLOT/FEBA?

DOD defines it as " Air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces."

Are you going to redefine terms to fit your pet aircraft?

Is it more capable than the A-10 in that role, yes. But where the A-10 shines is when CAS has to be performed in person. Where the situation is so messed up, you have no choice but to get down low in order to identify friend from foe and engage the correct target.

Actuality it sucks at that. Look up the number of Blue on Blue when the A-10 got low and close.

I'm not sure where this "down low where they can see the situation" idea came from. It doesn't work like that. Down low, as the trees blur by, target identification is more of a guess. Tenths of seconds eats up hundreds of feet of space. Squeeze the trigger a little to soon and you are plowing up friendlies. A little to slow and you have missed your target.

Oh, Before you accuse me, I'm not knocking the pilots. Its the nature of the beast

Loitering at 30k feet you can be talked onto a target much easier.

So for the missions of CSAR or true CAS, there really is nothing better than the A-10. Is the A-10 vulnerable during these missions, yes. But it's the job that makes the A-10 vulnerable, because in order to perform the mission you have to operate at speeds slower than most jets. So the F-16 performing true CAS would be less vulnerable due to it's energy state, but it wouldn't be as effective in actually dropping ordinance in the right place or strafing.

Bombs, Laser guided or GPS guided are more accurate when dropped from afar. Its all about the guide slope. The F-16 (or A-10) dropping a LGB from 30K is more accurate than the plane dropping from 5-10K every day of the week.

If the A-10 was so vulnerable or useless, why did it perform so well over the last 25 years (in non Soviet invasion conflicts for which it was not purposely designed). Why is it over fighting ISIL right now??? The USAF has at least 4 times as many F-16's .. why not send them over instead of the A-10 if they are so useless when the enemy possesses something as basic as MANPAD's?

Why not send F-16s to fight Isis? Do you read the news? The USAF has been using F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, B-1s and various modes of Drones from day 1. We also have F-18s, AV-8s, AH-1s and Ah-64s doing their thing. The Air Force brought the A-10 in for CSAR.

The A-10 isn't the be all and end all. But it's the best at performing a niche mission. CSAR and true CAS performed in a relatively permissive environment. The US must not decide whether the A-10 is needed, but whether it's core mission set is needed.

The A-10 is the best close support aircraft that the USAF has for CSAR. All the other services use attack helos for that "Up close and personal" support during a TRAP mission (the Rescue part of CSAR).

Everything is Joint now. Instead of keeping a aircraft around because it does that one mission, maybe the USAF could just get Army or Marine Corps attack helos tasked to their CSAR
force on the days they are assigned the primary TRAP/CSAR mission.

[Jimmy]

The Air Force will hand the A-10 keys to the Army before the Army or Marines let the JFACC use their helicopters.

It's a nice thought, but in practice "joint" doesn't usually work that way.

[Gun Grape]

The Air Force will hand the A-10 keys to the Army before the Army or Marines let the JFACC use their helicopters.

It's a nice thought, but in practice "joint" doesn't usually work that way.

During the Balkans, 3 groups did CSAR/TRAP. The Army, with the 160th SOAR, The Navy with a SEAL det and the MEU. We took turns week on 2 weeks off. The Navy did use their SH-60s but borrowed our AH-1s.

[Jimmy]

That's good to hear. I never saw that level of cooperation, but it was also never quite as critical so that might just be my cynicism creeping out.

[JA Boomer]

Not knocking the A-10. Knocking possible hype.
"Evading 4 missiles" has one meaning if there were trained operators shooting those missiles and another if it was Isis volunteers that didn't know how to employ the missiles.
One is a serious threat, the other they might as well have been shooting bottle rockets

Well that was exactly my point, in the opposite direction. I was simply pointing out the fact that the article was glued onto the fact that the A-10 was fired upon, instead of a more balanced approached including the fact that it "evaded" the shots.

What exactly do you consider CAS if its not precision bombing of enemy personnel and equipment in close proximity to the FLOT/FEBA?

DOD defines it as " Air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces."

Are you going to redefine terms to fit your pet aircraft?

I was simply pointing out that the F-16 performs CAS from 30k feet, and the A-10 performs CAS at lower altitudes.

Actuality it sucks at that. Look up the number of Blue on Blue when the A-10 got low and close.

Perhaps that's because the A-10 is involved in a lot of troops in contact situations with moving pieces?

I'm not sure where this "down low where they can see the situation" idea came from. It doesn't work like that. Down low, as the trees blur by, target identification is more of a guess. Tenths of seconds eats up hundreds of feet of space. Squeeze the trigger a little to soon and you are plowing up friendlies. A little to slow and you have missed your target.

Oh, Before you accuse me, I'm not knocking the pilots. Its the nature of the beast

Loitering at 30k feet you can be talked onto a target much easier.

Can you explain why A-1 and A-10 that operate closer to the ground are generally considered the best close air support aircraft of the last 50 years, or is this a misconception?

Bombs, Laser guided or GPS guided are more accurate when dropped from afar. Its all about the guide slope. The F-16 (or A-10) dropping a LGB from 30K is more accurate than the plane dropping from 5-10K every day of the week.

That's a valid point. I guess my understanding is that when your JTACT says "by that hill to the north" it's a little hard to see what he means on your 6x6 display from your Lightning pod at 30k feet.

Why not send F-16s to fight Isis? Do you read the news? The USAF has been using F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, B-1s and various modes of Drones from day 1. We also have F-18s, AV-8s, AH-1s and Ah-64s doing their thing. The Air Force brought the A-10 in for CSAR.

My question was why did the USAF send in the A-10 at all when it could have deployed more F-16's. The USAF most certainty didn't deploy the A-10 for CSAR alone. They have not performed strictly CSAR related missions, and they were probably not on a CSAR mission when they were shot at with missiles.

The A-10 is the best close support aircraft that the USAF has for CSAR. All the other services use attack helos for that "Up close and personal" support during a TRAP mission (the Rescue part of CSAR).

Can you elaborate as to why the A-10 is so great at CAS during a CSAR mission but is outperformed by other aircraft during non-CSAR CAS taskings?

[Gun Grape]

I was simply pointing out that the F-16 performs CAS from 30k feet, and the A-10 performs CAS at lower altitudes.

But you defined "True CAS" as down low. As if somehow the heightof the plane providing support defines if it is providing precision bombing or CAS.

Is it more capable than the A-10 in that role, yes. But where the A-10 shines is when CAS has to be performed in person. Where the situation is so messed up, you have no choice but to get down low in order to identify friend from foe and engage the correct target. So for the missions of CSAR or true CAS, there really is nothing better than the A-10

Perhaps that's because the A-10 is involved in a lot of troops in contact situations with moving pieces?

No its because the pilot has reduced reaction times and less situation awareness compared to the pilots providing CAS from higher altitudes

Can you explain why A-1 and A-10 that operate closer to the ground are generally considered the best close air support aircraft of the last 50 years, or is this a misconception?

Legacy systems before precision guided munitions. Desert Storm showed the effectiveness of LGBs in close support

That's a valid point. I guess my understanding is that when your JTACT says "by that hill to the north" it's a little hard to see what he means on your 6x6 display from your Lightning pod at 30k feet.

If you think that's hard imagine trying to ID that terrain feature 500 ft off the ground going 250 MPH.

Its pretty easy to ID it on the 6x6 display when the JTAC/TACP hits the feature with one of their hand held lasers.

My question was why did the USAF send in the A-10 at all when it could have deployed more F-16's. The USAF most certainty didn't deploy the A-10 for CSAR alone. They have not performed strictly CSAR related missions, and they were probably not on a CSAR mission when they were shot at with missiles.

They were sent primarily for the CSAR mission according to the USAF. But they are in the theater, so why not use them?

Can you elaborate as to why the A-10 is so great at CAS during a CSAR mission but is outperformed by other aircraft during non-CSAR CAS taskings?

Because its performing what would be an attack helo tasking for all the other services. The A-10 is the closes thing that the USAF has that fits that profile.

[Gun Grape]

That's good to hear. I never saw that level of cooperation, but it was also never quite as critical so that might just be my cynicism creeping out.

i know what your talking about and from this old Jarheads POV I'll tell you that its a self inflicted wound by the Air Force.

I can go to Camp Lejeune or Cherry Point and put my hands on the Navy and Army Air liaison officers (and the Army Fire Support guy) on any given day.

When a MAGTF forms we work with the same pilots for a year before deploying and if there is a Army unit we will work with their aviation assets.

Our Controllers in the TACP know each pilot, how they fly, how they shoot and how much info is needed to talk each one on target. (Do I need to give a detailed 9 line or can I pass an abbreviated 9 line).
So when they report in over the TACP net we know we can put a face to them and they us.

Our air support is a known quality. We get a bit jumpy when, all of a sudden an outside group, that we have never seen, comes in and decides that they are in charge of the air and wants to take our guys away from us.All our request will come through them for approval,They will decide who flies support for us.And who has priority according to their decision matrix.

We don't know you guys from Adam. So yea we don't like to play.

Same with Joint Exercises. On the TEWOTs that I've been a part of everyone seems to be mission oriented and figuring out how to work together in spite of the regs. Air Force guys are all about procedure.

Example: I can go to any cell manned by Army/navy MC guys and say "Hey I'm a bit bogged down but I need this to happen quick." The response is "Got you covered. Sent me a formal request when you get a chance." The Air Force response is always "I cant do anything without a request form. Send me one and then we will get started".

You guys want to go strictly by the book, the rest of us use the book to keep our paperwork from blowing off our desk

Or as a Marine pilot that had done a tour with the Air Force once told me " Air Force flight regs tell the pilot what they can do. Navy/MC regs tell us what we can't do"

[JA Boomer]

But you defined "True CAS" as down low. As if somehow the heightof the plane providing support defines if it is providing precision bombing or CAS..

No its because the pilot has reduced reaction times and less situation awareness compared to the pilots providing CAS from higher altitudes

Legacy systems before precision guided munitions. Desert Storm showed the effectiveness of LGBs in close support

If you think that's hard imagine trying to ID that terrain feature 500 ft off the ground going 250 MPH.

Its pretty easy to ID it on the 6x6 display when the JTAC/TACP hits the feature with one of their hand held lasers.

They were sent primarily for the CSAR mission according to the USAF. But they are in the theater, so why not use them?

Because its performing what would be an attack helo tasking for all the other services. The A-10 is the closes thing that the USAF has that fits that profile.

You make valid points. But I still can't wrap my head around the fact that you believe the A-10 doesn't do anything well accept CSAR support, and only because the USAF doesn't operate attack helicopters.

I'm not an expert. I try and be well informed on these topics because I find them interesting. The only critics of the A-10 seem to be the USAF brass, which I understand. Gen. Welsh's explanation as to why the A-10 fleet must go in the current budget situation is actually quite logical.

But then why do pilots, Army soldiers, member of congress (for what it's worth), universally praise the A-10 and it's capabilities, specifically regarding it's close air support prowess; if it's such a pig?

How has it survived the past 24 years (during a period when precision guided munitions have taken over the inventory - one of the reasons you say the A-10 is now obsolete) when the USAF brass is always seemingly willing to spend it's money on other, newer programs. Seemingly because every time it is involved in a conflict, it performs exceedingly well.

In summary, I hear what you are saying. But yet it goes against all my knowledge gathered to date. So it is not for a blind love for the aircraft that I argue with you, but a confusion while I try and put context to your posts.

Hell, last night I read an article regarding the retirement of the A-7 from the Hellenic Air Force, in which an officer was quoted as saying the best close air support aircraft in the world is the one aircraft that was specifically designed for the role, that being the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

[gunnut]

Example: I can go to any cell manned by Army/navy MC guys and say "Hey I'm a bit bogged down but I need this to happen quick." The response is "Got you covered. Sent me a formal request when you get a chance." (startup) The Air Force response is always "I cant do anything without a request form. Send me one and then we will get started". (blue chip)

You guys want to go strictly by the book, the rest of us use the book to keep our paperwork from blowing off our desk

Or as a Marine pilot that had done a tour with the Air Force once told me " Air Force flight regs tell the pilot what they can do. Navy/MC regs tell us what we can't do"

I know exactly what you mean. The bureaucracy evolves to take control of the organization. It is more concerned with the process of the work than the work itself. This happens in business world everyday, and we hate it.

[Gun Grape]

You make valid points. But I still can't wrap my head around the fact that you believe the A-10 doesn't do anything well accept CSAR support, and only because the USAF doesn't operate attack helicopters.

I'm not an expert. I try and be well informed on these topics because I find them interesting. The only critics of the A-10 seem to be the USAF brass, which I understand. Gen. Welsh's explanation as to why the A-10 fleet must go in the current budget situation is actually quite logical.

But then why do pilots, Army soldiers, member of congress (for what it's worth), universally praise the A-10 and it's capabilities, specifically regarding it's close air support prowess; if it's such a pig?

How has it survived the past 24 years (during a period when precision guided munitions have taken over the inventory - one of the reasons you say the A-10 is now obsolete) when the USAF brass is always seemingly willing to spend it's money on other, newer programs. Seemingly because every time it is involved in a conflict, it performs exceedingly well.

In summary, I hear what you are saying. But yet it goes against all my knowledge gathered to date. So it is not for a blind love for the aircraft that I argue with you, but a confusion while I try and put context to your posts.

Hell, last night I read an article regarding the retirement of the A-7 from the Hellenic Air Force, in which an officer was quoted as saying the best close air support aircraft in the world is the one aircraft that was specifically designed for the role, that being the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

Its not that the A-10 is poor at CAS, its that other planes in the inventory do a better job. They carry better munitions, the airframes are not as old. The A-10 is a legacy system. In a time when the budgets are getting smaller and forces are drawing down its time for the A-10 to go. You have to spend your money wisely. And thats by putting money in newer systems that are more flexible.

In a similar vein, I could argue that the military should bring back/should have kept the M-101 howitzer. It has capabilities that no other howitzer can match and when we retired that gun the artillery community lost those capabilities. But, there were/are other systems that made up for those losses. Same goes with the A-10