A-10 Warthog-AKA-Thunderbolt II-Tank Buster

[y_p_w]

If A-10s are in the air, real fighters have very little chance of being shot down by them. The A-10 is slow, stuck at low altitude, can't bring his nose to bear in the vertical, lacks the acceleration and climb rate to catch the fighter, and lacks long range weapons. Even that big gun has a max tactical range against a fighter. It's a quite easy to remain outside that range. The A-10's best chance for a kill is an IR guided missile, not the gun. Longer range, better lethality, but the fighter would have a similar weapon, along with much longer range radar guided weapons.

Which reminds me. What happens with all the aircraft that aren't armed or are minimally armed? I'm pretty sure in any conflict that there are tankers, AWACS, electronic warfare, support helicopters, and even transports. I'm pretty sure they're not considered off limits.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Anything is possible in life but it’s highly unlikely an A-10 would ever be a threat to any fighter. IIRC, Chuck Yeager was able to shot and destroy a much faster M262 WW2 German fighter jet.....but when it was slow and coming in for a landing.

The A-10 is an impressive ground attack aircraft and an engineering marvel in its ability to survive after being hit from ground fire.

Enemies on the ground should worry about it, not jet fighters.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Usually a radar plane in the area helping guide an A10, and they fly in groups sharing intelligence. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Astro knows what he's talking about. He is a former jet/fighter pilot.
He has more credentials than that, but he can explain it (if need be).

 

[y_p_w]

Usually a radar plane in the area helping guide an A10, and they fly in groups sharing intelligence. But you are entitled to your opinion.

That wasn't what you were claiming. You were making claims that made no sense. No way would a fighter give up an advantage by trying to fight low. I'm pretty sure that even flying low and slow in tight terrain, aircraft from above can spot an A-10 with radar and target it pretty easily. That's a situation no A-10 pilot wants to be in.

Astro was an F-14 pilot - hence the "14" in his handle. I'd think he knows what he's talking about, especially since it sounds like he's actually been in exercises with A-10s. Nobody is saying that it's a horrible aircraft. But it's a tool where the combatants have to pick their fights carefully when they use it. It was expected to have heavy losses in any environment where there's isn't total control of the airspace. Right now it's great against pickup trucks and convoys, but so is an AC-130.

 

[Astro14]

Airplanes other than fighters, which I’ll refer to from here on as “targets” are either kept well back from the forward edge of the battle area, or they’re provided with a fighter escort.

E.g. A-6s going into Basra on night one of Desert Storm. Loaded with their max capacity bomb load. Slow (not as slow as an A-10, but slow) and low (again, far higher than an A-10 could reach with a tactical load) they were, in a word, vulnerable. They had F-14s, a division (4) for each division of Intruders. When the AWACS/E-2 had "bogeys", the F-14s started searching. When they got close enough to be a threat, and were identified as hostile, the F-14s would "commit", light full AB, and go directly towards the threat. A "commit" meant that the A-6s were either left alone, or left with just one section (2) of F-14s, depending on the strike lead's decision of how much risk to take with the fighters, and the A-6s..

The commit allowed the fighters to accelerate to speed (better maneuverability, and better kinematics on weapons) and the increased speed allowed them to push the actual engagement, the point at which weapons were used, out away from the defended Intruders. It's good if you kill all the threats before they are able to threaten the defended airplanes. It also pulled the fighters far enough away that if a second group of bogeys showed up, they couldn't get back to defend. They were "stripped" off the defended airplanes. So, there is risk in a commit, and a risk to not taking a commit.

They were supported by EA-6Bs providing electronic jamming and shooting HARM (if you haven't seen a HARM come off the rail of an airplane at night, it's spectacular - looks one heck of a lot like a SAM for a second or two..). The EA-6Bs were "HVA" - High Value Assets. Each Prowler had two fighters tied in close escort.

They were assigned one simple mission: the Prowler survives at all cost, including the loss of the fighter.

You couldn't commit off the wing of a Prowler until relatively close range. You had to be certain that this wasn't a dodge, or feint, to strip the fighters off and allow a second bogey to get the Prowler. That feint was a tactic used by the Iraqis against the Iranians, by the way, that resulted in the loss of an Iranian F-14 to a Mirage F-1, an inferior airplane that was employed with clever tactics, and in far greater numbers...it was one F-14 against several F-1s.

HVA missions sucked, for a variety of reasons - you knew that any threat would have a tactical advantage because of the close commit range, and also because you would fly night close formation on the Prowler. Better to hide your numbers from the enemy that way. They're expecting one sitting duck, and find themselves facing two fighters ready for a fight.

So, I've kept the discussion centered on old conflicts, and old tactics, but you get the idea. We planned and thought about all of that. All of the targets were protected, either directly by fighters, or indirectly, by time and space.

 

[Astro14]

Usually a radar plane in the area helping guide an A10, and they fly in groups sharing intelligence. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks.

I do have an opinion. I also have some experience.

Both are based on 30 years of service in the US Navy, first, flying and instructing as a fighter pilot, then working at the Operational Level of War in planning and directing air missions.

I have a detailed knowledge of every airplane that was in the inventory in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict because I was part of the team that wrote the "air schedule" (known as the ATO, through a detailed process outlined in Joint Pub 3-30, Command and Control of Air Operations, it's unclassified, if you are interested).

I'm well aware of the A-10s capabilities and limitations because I had to plan for them, particularly when they operated out of Bagram AB in Afghanistan. At the time, a relatively short runway at high altitude. I also had to be aware of every legal and treaty caveat that applied to forces like the Dutch and Danish F-16s, who had different ROE due to national constraints imposed on Alliance operations by their own governments. That required careful planning to get the best airplane, one that didn't have the possibility of national constraint, on a mission they might be assigned.

Much of what I did, and know, is still classified.

In a forum like this, I like to explain things, and hope that I give some insight into platforms, or operations. There are many opinions on the internet.

Some come from experienced professionals with detailed and nuanced understanding of the topic.

Some come from people who, well, just have an opinion.

If you're interested in airplanes, fighters in particular, I recommend reading through this thread:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/

There is a lot there, but if you've got any more questions, I am happy to answer them.

 

[y_p_w]

So, I've kept the discussion centered on old conflicts, and old tactics, but you get the idea. We planned and thought about all of that. All of the targets were protected, either directly by fighters, or indirectly, by time and space.

I suppose it's different now with different equipment. Can't a Growler defend itself, while being much faster than a Prowler if needed? But an E-2 always looked like it was a sitting duck without an escort.

 

[Astro14]

One of the great things about the Growler, and the Strike Eagle and Hornet for that matter, is the “self escort” provided by having an air to air radar and weapons.

It’s not the same capability as a fully loaded pure fighter, however. An F-15E with conformal tanks, and bombs on it, is fast, but it doesn’t turn as well, and it’s only carrying a couple of missiles.

So, yeah, able to defend itself, but not the way a fully loaded F-15C can, with better performance, and at least double the load out.

The mission planning in assembling the strike package, or campaign, takes that into account. The fighter/bomber ratio, the EW aircraft, and many other factors, are planned against anticipated enemy capability. For a high end threat, you’re going to have Raptors engaging the enemy air threat, for example, and a whole lot of suppression of enemy air defense, some by kinetic means, some by other means.

 

[Malo83]

They were well protected.
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact...awkeye-airborne-command-and-control-aircraft/

 

[IndyFan]

Don't under sell the capabilities of the F16, F15, and F18

They'll do better than an A-10, but even they won't play in the SA-400's territory until the F-35's knock them or at least put a good dent in them. They will have to make do with longer range standoff weapons.

 

[simple_gifts]

15 years working on the A-10 in the CTANG; worked with the guys from MD, MA and MI

The (3) real world deployments in which i participated, it was tasked as performing a particular role; there were other supporting aircraft to compensate for the plane's inability to "go it alone"; I'm not sure if was ever represented as more than what it exactly is.

What you could hang from the pylons was pretty extensive and diverse

 

[IndyFan]

SAMs are great for shooting down big bombers, and planes like F14, 15, 16, 18, etc. But an A10 at 30' AGL is not an easy target for a SAM to even see, much less target lock, and shooting it down is difficult. A faster fighter has a good chance of getting shot down by an A10 also, because they don't do so well when the fight becomes low and slow. Different aircraft for different missions, the A10 is basically in a league of its own, and so superior in many ways, even all these years later. An A10 pilot is not going to mix it up with a few fighters at 30,000', they are going to get them to come down to 30' and dodging hills and terrain. Slow that fast fighter down to 150 knots and it is utterly useless, and has to accelerate and start to climb. The A10 turns and points the nose up and shoots down said fighter with ' THE GUN' as its known as. My Dad was born in the USA and is ex military, he always said that nothing else would he rather fly on this earth if he had to fly fixed wing, instead of rotary.

Wow, when have you EVER seen an A-10 30 feet off the ground other than passing through on approach or takeoff? My house is 30' tall. Maybe a wingtip dips to 30' sometimes, but I'd have to see it to believe they spend much more than a few seconds at that altitude. Heck, its own bombs would frag it at that altitude.

Look, I love the A10. It has its place in the kind of combat we've done in the last few decades. Yes, its gun is INCREDIBLE. But its day has passed for front-line service in a near-peer conflict in the highest threat environments. It just can't cut it there until air superiority is established and maintained.

The P-51 is sleek, fast, and has six awesome .50 caliber machine guns. I will be in awe and drool over that thing all day, but it doesn't belong in today's battlespace.

The A10 is loved because it makes a highly visible mess of insurgents who are trying to kill our troops. So the troops love it. And we've had so many troops see or even hear of stories of the A10 doing just that over the last 30 years that it makes it hard to kill. Especially when there are vets in Congress that have such fond experiences with it.

So politics has extended its life. If I'm an Army General, I'd rather have more F-35's supporting my troops, which are designed more to drop bombs than to be a fighter. But it looks more like a fighter, so people think it can't do the CAS mission. It can. And I'd bet it can do it better than any other platform in a near-peer conflict in a high AAA/SAM environment. It can drop guided SBD's right down the hatch of the threat, from a distance where the troops wouldn't see it, and so it would miss out on some of the glory. But I'd rather the pilot and plane stay safe to fight another day than to come down where I can see it just to make me feel better, to do the same job.

I'll add this, from reading Astro's posts, and others, yes, the A10 would have tremendous support around it from other aircraft. But that's the problem with it. An A10 is going to need a lot more other airplanes involved to successfully fly a mission in a high threat environment than an F-35. Lots more. All of a sudden the very expensive F-35 has a cost advantage, and not just in terms of dollars. In terms of manpower and resources, too.

It would be neat to get a former A-10 pilot in here who now flys the F-35. Bet he or she would not trade the new ride for the old one, any day, in any conflict.

 

[y_p_w]

Wow, when have you EVER seen an A-10 30 feet off the ground other than passing through on approach or takeoff? My house is 30' tall. Maybe a wingtip dips to 30' sometimes, but I'd have to see it to believe they spend much more than a few seconds at that altitude. Heck, its own bombs would frag it at that altitude.

Isn't it just stunt flyers who might try stuff like that? I've seen the Team Oracle stunt plane at San Francisco Fleet Week. Blue Angels did a high angle of attack near stall, but that was maybe 150 ft over the water. I was at the Travis AFB Open House the day before Eddie Andreini grounded his Stearman trying to do an inverted ribbon cut. I dunno. I thought that flying that low was rather risky.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

15 years working on the A-10 in the CTANG; worked with the guys from MD, MA and MI

The (3) real world deployments in which i participated, it was tasked as performing a particular role; there were other supporting aircraft to compensate for the plane's inability to "go it alone"; I'm not sure if was ever represented as more than what it exactly is.

What you could hang from the pylons was pretty extensive and diverse

Thank You for keeping them in great shape. They were our air support at times, and I always thanked God above when I heard them coming.

 

[y_p_w]

Isn't it just stunt flyers who might try stuff like that? I've seen the Team Oracle stunt plane at San Francisco Fleet Week. Blue Angels did a high angle of attack near stall, but that was maybe 150 ft over the water. I was at the Travis AFB Open House the day before Eddie Andreini grounded his Stearman trying to do an inverted ribbon cut. I dunno. I thought that flying that low was rather risky.

If I didn't make it clear, I was referring to the pilot who died at Thunder Over Solano 2014 at Travis AFB. I went there for the show. Had a great view of the preflight for the Thunderbirds and toured through several transport/tankers. Got to lift up a Predator drone too. However, Eddie Andreini was one of the performers and was inverted when he crashed. I saw the photos/video and though he might have already died from the impact, but the autopsy said he died from the fire. It took too long for the fire truck to come out that might have prevented it from catching on fire or at least put it out quickly. It was smoking for a while before it burst into flames.

I was in San Francisco the next day and I saw the news. They discontinued the remainder of the air show.

 

[Astro14]

Isn't it just stunt flyers who might try stuff like that? I've seen the Team Oracle stunt plane at San Francisco Fleet Week. Blue Angels did a high angle of attack near stall, but that was maybe 150 ft over the water. I was at the Travis AFB Open House the day before Eddie Andreini grounded his Stearman trying to do an inverted ribbon cut. I dunno. I thought that flying that low was rather risky.

Flying that low is risky. I’ve been that low. At speed. And a tiny control input, or deviation from intended flight path, is fatal. It’s incredibly demanding.

The A-10 is a good handling, predictable airplane, but even they don’t spend all their time below a few hundred feet.

Gun employment requires a shallow dive, so, to set up a gun run on a target requires climbing to at least 1,500 feet for the shallow dive to employ the gun. Look, tactics and preferred parameters change, but you can’t strafe in level flight at any altitude, much less, 30 feet, you can’t aim, and you’ll frag yourself with your own ricochets and debris.

So, sure, you can “buzz” the troops at 30 feet, skim the treetops for fun, but tactically, being that low doesn’t allow you to employ weapons, or do anything but focus on not.hitting.the.ground!

 

[Astro14]

15 years working on the A-10 in the CTANG; worked with the guys from MD, MA and MI

The (3) real world deployments in which i participated, it was tasked as performing a particular role; there were other supporting aircraft to compensate for the plane's inability to "go it alone"; I'm not sure if was ever represented as more than what it exactly is.

What you could hang from the pylons was pretty extensive and diverse

It’s a great airplane for its intended mission.

Excellent turn rate and radius. Good endurance, fuel-efficient. Good weapons load out. Precision targeting capability. Awesome gun. Incredibly damage tolerant with separated engines, mechanical flight control back up, and armor.

While it’s maneuverable and tactical, and can carry AIM-9 for self protect, it’s not a fighter. It’s an attack aircraft.

As a mission planner, orchestrator of the air plan, there are missions for which the A-10 is uniquely ideal. Escort of a downed aircraft rescue package will always want to include A-10s. They can stay low and slow with the helos. They need fighter top cover if there is an air threat, and SEAD if there is an enemy air defense. Those missions are fighter missions. Helos get the down aircrew. A-10 protects the helos. Fighters protect the A-10.

It’s like a football team. Different roles, different specialities, all important. None work alone or in isolation.

 

[Astro14]

Let me add one more thought on the mission/specialization concept.

As a fighter pilot in the 80s and 90s, my whole reason for being was shaped by one common goal: get the A-6 BN to the target. That Bombardier-Navigator put precision weapons (yes, even in the 80s, precision weapons) on target. His own pilot was there to get him to the target.

Everything I did was in support of that goal. Sweep the skies of MiGs, establish air superiority, so the A-6s get to the target. Protect them directly by escorting them to the target Protect the EA-6Bs so that they could jam/EW/SEAD, which allowed the A-6s to get to the target.

The carrier itself existed so that the A-6BN could get to the target. I defended the carrier through long range CAP, protecting it from threat aircraft, so that the A-6 BN could launch and get to the target.

E-2s coordinated strikes (offense) and CAP (defense) to maximize the effectives of the A-6 getting to the target.

We each had our role. We each had our speciality. I loved my job. I knew where I fit. I was not the reason carriers were built. I was support.

 

[edyvw]

SAMs are great for shooting down big bombers, and planes like F14, 15, 16, 18, etc. But an A10 at 30' AGL is not an easy target for a SAM to even see, much less target lock, and shooting it down is difficult. A faster fighter has a good chance of getting shot down by an A10 also, because they don't do so well when the fight becomes low and slow. Different aircraft for different missions, the A10 is basically in a league of its own, and so superior in many ways, even all these years later. An A10 pilot is not going to mix it up with a few fighters at 30,000', they are going to get them to come down to 30' and dodging hills and terrain. Slow that fast fighter down to 150 knots and it is utterly useless, and has to accelerate and start to climb. The A10 turns and points the nose up and shoots down said fighter with ' THE GUN' as its known as. My Dad was born in the USA and is ex military, he always said that nothing else would he rather fly on this earth if he had to fly fixed wing, instead of rotary.

As Astro pointed, no.
They are slow and really not maneuverable. They pack a punch if no serious defense. In 1999 they were pretty much sitting on a side during operation Noble Anvil in Serbia. Country with very few mountains, mostly flat land, and trained anti aircraft defense crews. I saw A10 numerous times in Bosnia, and as part of anti aircraft crew, they seem pretty easy kill. I was though, on this side, but if that was the plane to target, they are easy. But, USAF never used them in areas where Serbs had serious anti aircraft capabilities, and were very selective targeting tanks. If tanks and artillery units were located near anti aircraft units, F15, F16 and F18 were used.
A10 works only if it has serious protection by other aircrafts, or those aircrafts sweeped ground from SAM's etc.

 

[edyvw]

Let me add one more thought on the mission/specialization concept.

As a fighter pilot in the 80s and 90s, my whole reason for being was shaped by one common goal: get the A-6 BN to the target. That Bombardier-Navigator put precision weapons (yes, even in the 80s, precision weapons) on target. His own pilot was there to get him to the target.

Everything I did was in support of that goal. Sweep the skies of MiGs, establish air superiority, so the A-6s get to the target. Protect them directly by escorting them to the target Protect the EA-6Bs so that they could jam/EW/SEAD, which allowed the A-6s to get to the target.

The carrier itself existed so that the A-6BN could get to the target. I defended the carrier through long range CAP, protecting it from threat aircraft, so that the A-6 BN could launch and get to the target.

E-2s coordinated strikes (offense) and CAP (defense) to maximize the effectives of the A-6 getting to the target.

We each had our role. We each had our speciality. I loved my job. I knew where I fit. I was not the reason carriers were built. I was support.

Exactly. Excellent airplane when all other parts of a puzzle are in the place. And that is how it is built. It is not a flaw.