A-10 Warthog - possible victim of the sequestration

[SteveDaPirate]

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!).

The Focused Lethality Munition variant of the SDB is looking pretty interesting in that role. It's a 200lb warhead in a composite casing designed to disintegrate into small fibers upon detonation to eliminate any shrapnel. It also uses Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) to do damage in a very specific but limited area.

Its a pretty interesting idea that reminds me a lot of the breaching rounds used in shotguns. Lots of damage up close, but rapidly disperses into harmless powder.

I'd be interested to see if they can create a "dial-a-yield" option that can fine tune the impulse to the desired result for a given mission.

[SajeevJino]

.

An Intresting one

A 10 Warthog Escapes from four Strela Missiles fired by ISIS

From David

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/

[JA Boomer]

.

An Intresting one

A 10 Warthog Escapes from four Strela Missiles fired by ISIS

From David

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/

I saw that article yesterday. Interesting that everyone seems surprised the A-10's are being shot at .. they're in a war, last time I checked that's what happens.

Of course more focus is being put on "see! they fly low and slow and people can shoot at them!" vs the fact that they successfully evaded 4 SAM shots.

Yes the A-10 flies low and slow, that's where it can perform it's primary mission best. Sure you can accomplish some of the same things from a F-16 at 30k feet, but sometimes you're just going to need to get up close and personnel, and for that, you're going to want the A-10.

[Albany Rifles]

The Excalibur 155mm round allows precision (as in which floor or side of a building to hit) which can mitigate a lot of collateral damage.

M982 Excalibur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jlvfr]

I saw that article yesterday. Interesting that everyone seems surprised the A-10's are being shot at .. they're in a war, last time I checked that's what happens.

Of course more focus is being put on "see! they fly low and slow and people can shoot at them!" vs the fact that they successfully evaded 4 SAM shots.

Yes the A-10 flies low and slow, that's where it can perform it's primary mission best. Sure you can accomplish some of the same things from a F-16 at 30k feet, but sometimes you're just going to need to get up close and personnel, and for that, you're going to want the A-10.

And without stealth. ;)

[Stitch]

Of course more focus is being put on "see! they fly low and slow and people can shoot at them!" vs the fact that they successfully evaded 4 SAM shots.

I'm pretty impressed that they were able to evade four SA-7's; I know the Strela-2 isn't exactly cutting-edge technology, even for Russia, but IR missiles are probably harder to evade than a radar-guided missile. I imagine those flyboys were punching out a lot of flares as soon as they got the launch indication.

[Gun Grape]

I agree with what one of the comments brought up. Nothing has been released about this. Were the SA-7s launched within their engagement envelope? Trained operator or volunteer from backwoods that was told to fire this at a plane when you see one.

Its Isis, Not the Soviet Army of 1979.

Yes the A-10 flies low and slow, that's where it can perform it's primary mission best. Sure you can accomplish some of the same things from a F-16 at 30k feet, but sometimes you're just going to need to get up close and personnel, and for that, you're going to want the A-10.

The F-16 wouldn't worry about Isis Sa-7s at 30k feet. And it performs many more missions plus all the ones the A-10 and does it better.

Except one. Gun runs I haven't seen the invading Russian tank corps that we need the Antitank gun for.

[citanon]

Are the A-10s flying with DIRCMs now?

[Triple C]

I'm pretty impressed that they were able to evade four SA-7's; I know the Strela-2 isn't exactly cutting-edge technology, even for Russia, but IR missiles are probably harder to evade than a radar-guided missile. I imagine those flyboys were punching out a lot of flares as soon as they got the launch indication.

I heard nowadays flares are automatically deployed when sensors find heat source moving towards aircraft.

[Triple C]

The F-16 wouldn't worry about Isis Sa-7s at 30k feet. And it performs many more missions plus all the ones the A-10 and does it better.

Except one. Gun runs I haven't seen the invading Russian tank corps that we need the Antitank gun for.

How about suppression and loiter? I am given to understand by a rifle company commander who'd returned from a deployment that those are the capabilities he likes most when A-10s are on call. Do you think those are issues that can be addressed or necessary sacrifice in the budget climate?

[citanon]

How about suppression and loiter? I am given to understand by a rifle company commander who'd returned from a deployment that those are the capabilities he likes most when A-10s are on call. Do you think those are issues that can be addressed or necessary sacrifice in the budget climate?

Both become moot when the plane gets shot down.

[jlvfr]

How about suppression and loiter? I am given to understand by a rifle company commander who'd returned from a deployment that those are the capabilities he likes most when A-10s are on call. Do you think those are issues that can be addressed or necessary sacrifice in the budget climate?

About that... I have a question: does the USAF really care what the army wants/needs? I'm sure many in the USAF still dream of the "not a pound for air to ground" and "big bombers all the way" days... maybe the army should take over the A-10...

[SteveDaPirate]

How about suppression and loiter? I am given to understand by a rifle company commander who'd returned from a deployment that those are the capabilities he likes most when A-10s are on call. Do you think those are issues that can be addressed or necessary sacrifice in the budget climate?

I think drones will be filling this role quite nicely. They can go lower and slower than an A-10, they have better eyes and less workload than a pilot, and they can loiter all day while sending live video feeds to the guys on the ground. Throw on a pile of 13lb Pyros guided bombs and a couple of Griffin missiles, and suddenly it has a lot of firepower as well.

Meanwhile, if it suddenly encounters heavy AAA fire and is unsuccessful at evading, no pilots end up getting beheaded on TV, and instead of SAR efforts, an F-16 just drops a bomb on the wreckage.

[JA Boomer]

I agree with what one of the comments brought up. Nothing has been released about this. Were the SA-7s launched within their engagement envelope? Trained operator or volunteer from backwoods that was told to fire this at a plane when you see one.

Its Isis, Not the Soviet Army of 1979.

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.

The F-16 wouldn't worry about Isis Sa-7s at 30k feet. And it performs many more missions plus all the ones the A-10 and does it better.

Except one. Gun runs I haven't seen the invading Russian tank corps that we need the Antitank gun for.

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. Yes, it is much safer at 30k feet than down in the weeds, but it's no better at CAS in that situation than a F-15E or B-1B (in fact less capable due to reduced loiter times compared to other 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. 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.

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?

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.

[Stitch]

About that... I have a question: does the USAF really care what the army wants/needs? I'm sure many in the USAF still dream of the "not a pound for air to ground" and "big bombers all the way" days... maybe the army should take over the A-10...

In a word, no.

I know the Services are much better at cooperating now than they were 20 or 30 years ago, but they're still pretty much focused on their own needs & wants. There is no way the Army can/will take over the A-10, for a number of reasons; besides the fact that it's a 30-year old airframe, and rapidly nearing the end of it's lifetime, the A-10 requires unique ground support equipment, AND another logistics tail that the Army would need to fund.

Yes, it would be great for the Army to have their own organic CAS fleet but, realistically, it's out of the question; as Steve said, the future for the Army (as well as the Air Force & Navy) is a dedicated fleet of combat drones for CAS and CSAR missions.