A-10 Warthog's Tusks Are Being Sharpened For A High-End Fight

[SC Maintenance]

No serious, experienced campaign planner likes them.

It only does one thing.

As a campaign evolves, and mission needs shift, you have an airplane that is limited to one mission taking up the space that could be used by multi mission airplanes.

The Corolla analogy isn’t fair. Imagine instead a Corolla in taxi service that is limited to one passenger under 125 lbs and 25mph. And the taxi company wants to buy new Camrys. But the Corolla is legendary… so what?

Great for trips around the block. But not across town and not for the majority of passengers.

The A-10 is really good at one thing, but that thing is easily done, and often better done, by other airplanes.

Airplanes that can survive and defend themselves.

From a fighter pilot perspective, killing A-10s is fun because it’s so easy - that’s not the airplane to send in against an adversary with modern fighters.

The A-10 requires air superiority to survive and it doesn’t contribute to establishing air superiority.

Every time it excels in a permissive environment, it allows people to ignore its vulnerability, its cost, and its limitations.

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. IYKYK.

The Sherman tank was inferior to German tanks in every way, but we could build them 10 to 1. Were now shooting down $35K drones with $1M missiles and were running out of missiles. Seems similar yes?

 

[97prizm]

Hmmm… so, too expensive to buy in numbers, you say?

750 have been built. 150+ being built every year.

280 A-10s in the inventory.

The USAF already has more F-35 than A-10.

With orders for 2,500 in total.

F-16s are wearing out, the F-35 is replacing them.

You keep talking about it being “fragile”. Not getting hit in a “fragile” airplane is a whole lot better than dying in a “tough” airplane because you couldn’t defend against an enemy.

There is a whole lot more to stealth employment, strike planning, and survivability, than the coatings on the airplane.

I’m no F-35 fan, but it’s light years ahead of the A-10 in effectiveness and survivability.

Supposedly an F-35 was hit by an Iranian projectile then hobbled back to base. Centcom won't disclose what it was.

 

[Astro14]

Supposedly an F-35 was hit by an Iranian projectile then hobbled back to base. Centcom won't disclose what it was.

So, it equals the A-10s legendary ability to absorb battle damage?

 

[4wd]

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. IYKYK.

The Sherman tank was inferior to German tanks in every way, but we could build them 10 to 1. Were now shooting down $35K drones with $1M missiles and were running out of missiles. Seems similar yes?

I have read the smaller rockets under the A10 are of similar cost as the one way drones - part of the logic …

 

[burbguy82]

@Astro14

I respect your point of view, likely more than all others on this subject. From a logistical, command and control, and capability standpoint, there is no doubt in my mind that you are correct.

But........ Just because something is a one trick pony doe not make it obsolete. Sniper rifles are in truth a one trick pony........but not obsolete......yes they dont require 10 of millions $ to keep in service

More $$$$$ should be in fighter readiness, both air and ground...........but not so much in between. Drones have changed the game .


But to those who say B1 can do the same job..........you need to go back to school.

 

[CleanSump]

It's all moot anyway. Airframes are designed for so many flight hours. They are going to be parked whether anyone likes it or not.
Quote from a guy who sundowned 3 aircraft.

 

[y_p_w]

There's one unfortunate problem with that. Those small, low-tech short range drones spend most of their time flying over populated areas, which presents a serious issue when it comes to shooting them down via air to air. Just imagine what a 3 second blast from that 30mm cannon would do if unleashed above downtown Dubai.

Not good...

Proximity with self destruct might be ideal from the ground. The US Army has the XM1225 meant for use in the Apache. Not sure why they had to design a separate air to air version. But the idea is that they’re fired judiciously and just need to get close enough to release a shower of tungsten.

https://cdn.northropgrumman.com/-/m...hure.pdf?rev=719281ef7e7c4bb58685cd9e4e2c4fc5

Hiding between buildings might be difficult to overcome though, but they have to get there first where they’re out in the open.

 

[4wd]

@Astro14

I respect your point of view, likely more than all others on this subject. From a logistical, command and control, and capability standpoint, there is no doubt in my mind that you are correct.

But........ Just because something is a one trick pony doe not make it obsolete. Sniper rifles are in truth a one trick pony........but not obsolete......yes they dont require 10 of millions $ to keep in service

More $$$$$ should be in fighter readiness, both air and ground...........but not so much in between. Drones have changed the game .


But to those who say B1 can do the same job..........you need to go back to school.

The A10’s were mobilized along with the F35, and the F15 …
They had a plan and we are watching it unfold …

 

[mk378]

The A-10 was built specifically to kill tanks as it was once feared a likely scenario that Russia would send thousands of tanks West and take over Europe. This was proven rather unfounded by experience in Ukraine. Tanks are deathtraps on a modern battlefield since there are numerous effective anti-tank weapons available to any military. Their only real use now is against civilians. Does Iran even have any tanks? The US Army has said they don't need any more tanks but political situations force them to take delivery of new tanks only to park them.

Of course you can shoot at other things with an A-10 but it is overkill on anything but tanks and since the projectiles are unguided, there are better options on stationary targets.

 

[y_p_w]

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. IYKYK.

The Sherman tank was inferior to German tanks in every way, but we could build them 10 to 1. Were now shooting down $35K drones with $1M missiles and were running out of missiles. Seems similar yes?

Production is being ramped up of these types of systems, like the EOS Slinger and Northrop Grumman M-ACE designed to fire exploding munitions that just have to get close enough where they go kaboom. There are variations on these types of exploding, prox fuzed munitions from Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, and Northrop Grumman. They can be produced in the hundreds of thousands. Not sure about the US Army version for the Apache as I heard they have to fire the Hughes Chain Gun in bursts of at least 12.

 

[Pablo]

What is the ground speed of an A-10?

Faster than a 2 stroke drone?

Just need to know and see.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. IYKYK.

The Sherman tank was inferior to German tanks in every way, but we could build them 10 to 1. Were now shooting down $35K drones with $1M missiles and were running out of missiles. Seems similar yes?

@Astro14 recalled to activate duty with the old "new" drone interceptor.

 

[y_p_w]

What is the ground speed of an A-10?

Faster than a 2 stroke drone?

Just need to know and see.

Well yeah they’re faster. But Iran has jet powered drones that are faster than an A-10.

 

[Pablo]

Well yeah they’re faster. But Iran has jet powered drones that are faster than an A-10.

Sure, but not as many nor as easily built in a squalid hut.

Pretty much if we can see or detect it, we can shoot it down.

 

[y_p_w]

Sure, but not as many nor as easily built in a squalid hut.

Pretty much if we can see or detect it, we can shoot it down.

They use some fairly modern components like FPGAs and radio receivers. But they’re able to obtain them even though there are supposedly sanctions.

https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/931876/download?inline

 

[billt460]

..........I’m no F-35 fan, but it’s light years ahead of the A-10 in effectiveness and survivability.......

Astro, could you elaborate as to some of the reasons why? What are some of the negatives most are not seeing? (A lot of people see it as a cheaper version of the F-22). They do look alike, except for one big round hole out the back vs. 2 square ones.... Along with the whole vertical takeoff deal.

 

[dlundblad]

No more A10’s fly over. They have since been replaced with F16’s I believe. By the time you hear them, they are gone. Boo.

The last A10 I saw was while working by the airport Summer 2023.

 

[4wd]

Things said in this thread remind me of “hey, man - my 2026 V6 is faster than my 1972 V8” -
BLUF - the US mobilized the F35, F15, and the A10 just weeks ago. They are likely to leave planes in Jordan.

 

[4wd]

This is a better example of an old plane makeover - amazing electronics and weapons arsenal …
Always had the thrust/maneuvers …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15EX_Eagle_II

 

[y_p_w]

Astro, could you elaborate as to some of the reasons why? What are some of the negatives most are not seeing? (A lot of people see it as a cheaper version of the F-22). They do look alike, except for one big round hole out the back vs. 2 square ones.... Along with the whole vertical takeoff deal.

A lot of people think it’s a jobs program that got way too expensive. The most common criticism is that it was really designed around V/STOL and there were way too many compromises based on that.