Never fails to amaze me how long we manage to keep these planes flying. B52, C5, U2/TR1, heck the B1's are over 40 in design and nearly so in production. Same with F15/16. Some of these may not have many original parts left for all I know. One of the major necessities that drives the Boneyard is reusing those parts. I walked around the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center years ago and watched the ongoing rebuild of RC/KC135's. One of the guys told me they wear them out from just taking them apart to inspect them (holes get bigger, things get rounded off, chafed, broken, unplugged, you name it) let alone flying them.
The A-10 will keep flying, no longer in danger
- Thread starter L_Sludger
- Start date
- Status
The Air Force wants to free up the money for other pet projects. There is nothing in the world that does what the A10 does. Its an impressive airplane for sure once you have the skies controlled and the surface to air missile batteries out of commission. And considering that the Iraq/Afghanistan/ISIS type wars will probably go on forever, it makes sense to have this air plane in inventory, for these insurgent type engagements. The Russians even have a version of this style plane, called the "frogfoot".
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
15 years of 'weekend work' on those for me; good news for the army and marines.
What exactly did you do on the Warthog ?
I wonder how many of the Warthogs that are sitting at Davis Monthan not in use are still in fly able condition (not reached max airframe flight hours) and not being use just for spare parts.
15 years of 'weekend work' on those for me; good news for the army and marines.
What exactly did you do on the Warthog ?
I wonder how many of the Warthogs that are sitting at Davis Monthan not in use are still in fly able condition (not reached max airframe flight hours) and not being use just for spare parts.
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
All the vehicule on the ground have their electrical wire bunched up (no Airgap) what are the odds that this thing has the same flaw? I would say 99% . I do hope they do test if I am right , this thing is way more durable and capable then USA military think . I didn't bother with the weapon part since that wasn't what I was checking . Anyway I m glad military mechanic will get play with these some more
You're posting gibberish. Please stop posting gibberish in this thread. Thanks.
What might work is to have yvon_la type text in his native language into Google Translator to convert it to English. It might make more sense to us. yvon_la, can you try that? It could work.
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
All the vehicule on the ground have their electrical wire bunched up (no Airgap) what are the odds that this thing has the same flaw? I would say 99% . I do hope they do test if I am right , this thing is way more durable and capable then USA military think . I didn't bother with the weapon part since that wasn't what I was checking . Anyway I m glad military mechanic will get play with these some more
You're posting gibberish. Please stop posting gibberish in this thread. Thanks.
What might work is to have yvon_la type text in his native language into Google Translator to convert it to English. It might make more sense to us. yvon_la, can you try that? It could work.
There were A-10s cavorting around when we visited the Pima Air & Space Museum in March, it was great to see them in action.
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
All the vehicule on the ground have their electrical wire bunched up (no Airgap) what are the odds that this thing has the same flaw? I would say 99% . I do hope they do test if I am right , this thing is way more durable and capable then USA military think . I didn't bother with the weapon part since that wasn't what I was checking . Anyway I m glad military mechanic will get play with these some more
Actually, the aircraft was designed to take a hit, with multiple redundant systems. It has been tested in combat [a lot], and has passed with "flying" colors. While it can be improved, I doubt they could build another aircraft that could do the close air support role any better.
You could keep the entire fleet of A-10s in service for another lifetime for about the cost of half a squadron of F-35s. The Air Force is famous for wanting pretty airplanes, but if I were a grunt in the Army, I know which one I'd prefer overhead.
All the vehicule on the ground have their electrical wire bunched up (no Airgap) what are the odds that this thing has the same flaw? I would say 99% . I do hope they do test if I am right , this thing is way more durable and capable then USA military think . I didn't bother with the weapon part since that wasn't what I was checking . Anyway I m glad military mechanic will get play with these some more
Actually, the aircraft was designed to take a hit, with multiple redundant systems. It has been tested in combat [a lot], and has passed with "flying" colors. While it can be improved, I doubt they could build another aircraft that could do the close air support role any better.
You could keep the entire fleet of A-10s in service for another lifetime for about the cost of half a squadron of F-35s. The Air Force is famous for wanting pretty airplanes, but if I were a grunt in the Army, I know which one I'd prefer overhead.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
There is nothing in the world that does what the A10 does. Its an impressive airplane for sure once you have the skies controlled and the surface to air missile batteries out of commission.
Don't deny its impressive, but what does it do, in that supposedly optimal scenario, that can't now be done more cheaply, accurately and safely by other means?
Maybe some weather conditions, say a low thick cloud ceiling, would limit those other options, but with accurate positioning ground visibility probably isn't essential. I understand the A-10 lacks all-weather capability, so would still need clear air close to the ground.
Perhaps its best use would still be in the scenario it was designed for; tank-killing in a high threat AA and ECM environment against Warsaw Pact stylee forces.
If The Russian Are Coming again (and they might be), its maybe worth keeping. Otherwise, maybe not.
There is nothing in the world that does what the A10 does. Its an impressive airplane for sure once you have the skies controlled and the surface to air missile batteries out of commission.
Don't deny its impressive, but what does it do, in that supposedly optimal scenario, that can't now be done more cheaply, accurately and safely by other means?
Maybe some weather conditions, say a low thick cloud ceiling, would limit those other options, but with accurate positioning ground visibility probably isn't essential. I understand the A-10 lacks all-weather capability, so would still need clear air close to the ground.
Perhaps its best use would still be in the scenario it was designed for; tank-killing in a high threat AA and ECM environment against Warsaw Pact stylee forces.
If The Russian Are Coming again (and they might be), its maybe worth keeping. Otherwise, maybe not.
Last edited:
Most CAS missions the A10 is involved do not use the gun. Most CAS missions period have bombs as the main bit of destruction. If something that moves needs to be kilt then a hellfire is used.
I love A10s and seeing them in the air flying low n slow is a sight to be seen but at the end of the day they are an imperfect weapon even for the original role (blowing up commie tanks) they were specifically designed for. They have horrible range which means you need to keep them close to wherever they are needed. Coupling low speed and low altitude means they are vulnerable to anti air weapons. I do not care how armored your plane is a shoulder fired missile will wreck your day.
But all of that aside I think people are forgetting the main advantage the F35 has over literally every other combat plane available. Situational awareness and communication. Read up on the shared communication link these planes have. Their cockpits allow you too 'see' the ground straight through the bottom and have an overlay ( like a HUD) of the positions of friendly units and targets. Its almost like a video game in this role.
I love A10s and seeing them in the air flying low n slow is a sight to be seen but at the end of the day they are an imperfect weapon even for the original role (blowing up commie tanks) they were specifically designed for. They have horrible range which means you need to keep them close to wherever they are needed. Coupling low speed and low altitude means they are vulnerable to anti air weapons. I do not care how armored your plane is a shoulder fired missile will wreck your day.
But all of that aside I think people are forgetting the main advantage the F35 has over literally every other combat plane available. Situational awareness and communication. Read up on the shared communication link these planes have. Their cockpits allow you too 'see' the ground straight through the bottom and have an overlay ( like a HUD) of the positions of friendly units and targets. Its almost like a video game in this role.
I'm in favor of killing the A-10. It was built for one job: destroy the Russian Armor in the Fulda Gap, a threat that is greatly reduced.
For every other job, it's compromised. It's slow, can't handle high altitudes, or heat, or a high-threat environment. It doesn't offer anything beyond the big gun, a weapon that isn't always the right solution.
Big gun? Sure...and against a tank, it's a great weapon. Otherwise, a PGM is a better choice against nearly every other threat...and if it's a gun you need from a low/slow airplane, fire up the AC-130 and bring it in: more bullets, longer loiter, better precision.
Armored? Well, yeah, when you're using a gun, you're in range of every rifle on the ground. So, it was designed to protect the pilot from small arms fire. But it's a sitting duck against a fighter, and it can still be killed by SAMs, including MANPADS, which have gotten a lot better since this airplane was built.
I've fought an A-10 - like shooting fish in a barrel. Super-tight turn that's purely horizontal. He can't bring that gun to bear against a fighter, and can't get his nose on with a sidewinder (and carrying one of those reduces his bomb load). Sitting duck in a high threat environment, that's the A-10.
Lots of bombs? No, not really... and it can't take off with even a medium load and full fuel in a hot and or high location like Baghram. So, it needs longer runway (limiting where it can be based) and it drags the tankers down into the terrain and the threat envelope. In Afghanistan, the mountain peaks were higher than the A-10 refueling altitude, putting tankers at risk when there is weather. Putting tankers at risk is a quick way to lose the war. Tankers are critical.
Tough? No, not really. Kill it with an air-air weapon, including 20mm. Kill it with SAMs, including MANPADS. You've got to keep it out of high threat, even medium threat, environments. Environments that other airplanes operate in routinely.
Great CAS platform? Yes and no. The F-14s delivered more CAS than the A-10. Look, the troops loved seeing the A-10 because it was down with them, but other airplanes were delivering more ordnance, over more sorties, than the A-10. CAS, defined, is delivery of fires in close proximity to friendly forces requiring detailed integration and coordination. When the battlefield is spread out, like Afghanistan, the A-10 is often far away...and SLOW to support the troops. F-16, F/A-18, or better still, B-1 can get to where it's needed far faster.
You want a GREAT CAS platform? The B-1. LONG loiter, far longer than the A-10 without refueling. High speed dash to get to the target quickly. Huge bomb load. Better than a squadron of A-10s. Can be based out of theater, reducing the high/hot challenges and it tanks at high altitude, keeping the tankers safe.
The A-10 is a single-purpose airplane. When you look at potential future conflicts, most of them exclude the A-10. It's too slow, unable to protect itself, can't handle the climate or terrain.
Kill it. Pull the plug, now, and divert the $$ to something that can do the job across the range of potential conflict areas.
It costs hundreds of millions of dollars every year to keep an aircraft type in service. You have to have engine overhaul, airframe overhaul capability, avionics and weapon system repair capability, training for technicians and aircrews. That overhead exists, in basically the same size, whether you've got 500 airplanes, or a dozen.
So, kill the A-10, its mission can be done, better, in more environments, and in more potential conflicts, by newer, faster, more capable airplanes. Spend the overhead on buying more F-16s or F/A-18s. Airplanes that carry as many bombs, get there faster, aren't constrained by environmentals, or terrain, that don't put tankers at risk, that can defend themselves, and that are capable of multiple missions, like SEAD, OCA, DCA, Interdiction.
Don't waste resources at home, like overhead program costs, and don't waste resources forward, like deployment ramp space and logistic support on an airplane that does just one thing. If you fill up the ramps with an single-mission airplane that can't be shifted from one role to another as the conditions change, you've destroyed the essential flexibility of air power. You've put your entire campaign at risk.
For every other job, it's compromised. It's slow, can't handle high altitudes, or heat, or a high-threat environment. It doesn't offer anything beyond the big gun, a weapon that isn't always the right solution.
Big gun? Sure...and against a tank, it's a great weapon. Otherwise, a PGM is a better choice against nearly every other threat...and if it's a gun you need from a low/slow airplane, fire up the AC-130 and bring it in: more bullets, longer loiter, better precision.
Armored? Well, yeah, when you're using a gun, you're in range of every rifle on the ground. So, it was designed to protect the pilot from small arms fire. But it's a sitting duck against a fighter, and it can still be killed by SAMs, including MANPADS, which have gotten a lot better since this airplane was built.
I've fought an A-10 - like shooting fish in a barrel. Super-tight turn that's purely horizontal. He can't bring that gun to bear against a fighter, and can't get his nose on with a sidewinder (and carrying one of those reduces his bomb load). Sitting duck in a high threat environment, that's the A-10.
Lots of bombs? No, not really... and it can't take off with even a medium load and full fuel in a hot and or high location like Baghram. So, it needs longer runway (limiting where it can be based) and it drags the tankers down into the terrain and the threat envelope. In Afghanistan, the mountain peaks were higher than the A-10 refueling altitude, putting tankers at risk when there is weather. Putting tankers at risk is a quick way to lose the war. Tankers are critical.
Tough? No, not really. Kill it with an air-air weapon, including 20mm. Kill it with SAMs, including MANPADS. You've got to keep it out of high threat, even medium threat, environments. Environments that other airplanes operate in routinely.
Great CAS platform? Yes and no. The F-14s delivered more CAS than the A-10. Look, the troops loved seeing the A-10 because it was down with them, but other airplanes were delivering more ordnance, over more sorties, than the A-10. CAS, defined, is delivery of fires in close proximity to friendly forces requiring detailed integration and coordination. When the battlefield is spread out, like Afghanistan, the A-10 is often far away...and SLOW to support the troops. F-16, F/A-18, or better still, B-1 can get to where it's needed far faster.
You want a GREAT CAS platform? The B-1. LONG loiter, far longer than the A-10 without refueling. High speed dash to get to the target quickly. Huge bomb load. Better than a squadron of A-10s. Can be based out of theater, reducing the high/hot challenges and it tanks at high altitude, keeping the tankers safe.
The A-10 is a single-purpose airplane. When you look at potential future conflicts, most of them exclude the A-10. It's too slow, unable to protect itself, can't handle the climate or terrain.
Kill it. Pull the plug, now, and divert the $$ to something that can do the job across the range of potential conflict areas.
It costs hundreds of millions of dollars every year to keep an aircraft type in service. You have to have engine overhaul, airframe overhaul capability, avionics and weapon system repair capability, training for technicians and aircrews. That overhead exists, in basically the same size, whether you've got 500 airplanes, or a dozen.
So, kill the A-10, its mission can be done, better, in more environments, and in more potential conflicts, by newer, faster, more capable airplanes. Spend the overhead on buying more F-16s or F/A-18s. Airplanes that carry as many bombs, get there faster, aren't constrained by environmentals, or terrain, that don't put tankers at risk, that can defend themselves, and that are capable of multiple missions, like SEAD, OCA, DCA, Interdiction.
Don't waste resources at home, like overhead program costs, and don't waste resources forward, like deployment ramp space and logistic support on an airplane that does just one thing. If you fill up the ramps with an single-mission airplane that can't be shifted from one role to another as the conditions change, you've destroyed the essential flexibility of air power. You've put your entire campaign at risk.
Last edited by a moderator:
The A-10 doesn't seem to get shot down though? Is that just from being very careful where its deployed? Or is it harder for the bad guys in the desert to have any type of anti aircraft capability than we think?
They seem to be surviving quite well in Syria where you would think ISIS would have some anti aircraft capability? Do B-1's fly over Syria, too risky? I'd assume it would attract the attention of the big SAM units? Also what's the smallest bomb a B-1 can deliver? Gun level of precision must be useful fairly often.
I dunno, it seems to me if the guys on the ground want the A-10, then maybe its worth keeping and it does fit between helicopters and faster jets?
They seem to be surviving quite well in Syria where you would think ISIS would have some anti aircraft capability? Do B-1's fly over Syria, too risky? I'd assume it would attract the attention of the big SAM units? Also what's the smallest bomb a B-1 can deliver? Gun level of precision must be useful fairly often.
I dunno, it seems to me if the guys on the ground want the A-10, then maybe its worth keeping and it does fit between helicopters and faster jets?
The Afghans have only shot down helos.
So, C-130s are just as survivable using that (quite specious) criterion.
If you want an airplane between fast jets and helicopters...kill the A-10 and buy the ground attack version of the T-6 Texan II.
Newer, more reliable, cheaper to fly and maintain, and common parts and training infrastructure already exists.
You could have double the number of low, slow ground attack airplanes, delivering PGM and rockets for a lot less money than the aging A-10 fleet.
This isn't a new idea. It's been proposed as the new COIN platform for limited conflict, like those where we use the A-10.
Seriously, we have to stop looking backwards at what worked in the Desert, because the next war may well be in another place, and even in the Desert, the A-10 had problems that are either impossible, or expensive, to fix.
If we kept looking backwards, like the A-10 proponents, we would still have battleships. Consider this line of reasoning:
"They were awesome at Jutland."
"You can't beat a platform with a big gun!"
"We need a big guns!"
"This new technology is too expensive and fragile! Keep the big guns!"
Uh-huh...worked great in the last war, so we should keep it for the next, right?
Just like battleships...
So, C-130s are just as survivable using that (quite specious) criterion.
If you want an airplane between fast jets and helicopters...kill the A-10 and buy the ground attack version of the T-6 Texan II.
Newer, more reliable, cheaper to fly and maintain, and common parts and training infrastructure already exists.
You could have double the number of low, slow ground attack airplanes, delivering PGM and rockets for a lot less money than the aging A-10 fleet.
This isn't a new idea. It's been proposed as the new COIN platform for limited conflict, like those where we use the A-10.
Seriously, we have to stop looking backwards at what worked in the Desert, because the next war may well be in another place, and even in the Desert, the A-10 had problems that are either impossible, or expensive, to fix.
If we kept looking backwards, like the A-10 proponents, we would still have battleships. Consider this line of reasoning:
"They were awesome at Jutland."
"You can't beat a platform with a big gun!"
"We need a big guns!"
"This new technology is too expensive and fragile! Keep the big guns!"
Uh-huh...worked great in the last war, so we should keep it for the next, right?
Just like battleships...
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to change the subject, but since the subject of close air support of troops on the ground is being talked about.
If you want to read a great aviation book about an OV-10 Bronco - FAC pilot in Vietnam...
you have to read Col Bob Stoffey's book (hardcover has more info): Cleared Hot !
Definitely one of the best aviation books about him and observer in back seat calling in air strikes, marking targets with phosphorus rockets for Phantoms and Skyhawks to hit, straffing runs with his M-60's and high explosive rockets to help out his fellow Marines on the ground, providing cover for Huey emergency extraction of Marines outnumbered and surrounded by the Viet Cong, cat and mouse game with 50 cal AAA gunner at night, almost stalls Bronco and both crew members have to eject cause he didn't know if he had enough altitude to pull out of high speed dive, etc... You can find this book used on Amazon.
He flew the Cobra attack helicopter on his first tour and the Bronco on his second tour. Some of the Broncos from his squadron are now part of California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
If you want to read a great aviation book about an OV-10 Bronco - FAC pilot in Vietnam...
you have to read Col Bob Stoffey's book (hardcover has more info): Cleared Hot !
Definitely one of the best aviation books about him and observer in back seat calling in air strikes, marking targets with phosphorus rockets for Phantoms and Skyhawks to hit, straffing runs with his M-60's and high explosive rockets to help out his fellow Marines on the ground, providing cover for Huey emergency extraction of Marines outnumbered and surrounded by the Viet Cong, cat and mouse game with 50 cal AAA gunner at night, almost stalls Bronco and both crew members have to eject cause he didn't know if he had enough altitude to pull out of high speed dive, etc... You can find this book used on Amazon.
He flew the Cobra attack helicopter on his first tour and the Bronco on his second tour. Some of the Broncos from his squadron are now part of California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
battleships do look like something special out there on the water tho
The Texan weighs about as much as the A-10 gun and ammo alone though... And maybe too low and slow, and you don't want twice as many pilots buzzing around at low speeds without the titanium bathtub.
Isn't that the gun the big attraction of the A-10 to the guys on the ground, as the gun can take out the enemy in almost any structure/cover/vehicle they take cover in, with precision that ground troops trust? Is that fully replaceable with missiles and rockets from miles away? I don't think middle east peace is going to happen anytime soon either, so this type of capability will be needed for decades.
I guess what my main argument would be, is that all the higher tech equipment is available now, B-1's ect, but the A-10 is still being chosen to use for some missions. Even with its limitations, so perhaps an upgrade to that platform or a redesign to make it better at CAS.
Also while the A-10 maybe KISS tech like a battleship, they've never been proven in combat to be obsolete like the BB was.
Isn't that the gun the big attraction of the A-10 to the guys on the ground, as the gun can take out the enemy in almost any structure/cover/vehicle they take cover in, with precision that ground troops trust? Is that fully replaceable with missiles and rockets from miles away? I don't think middle east peace is going to happen anytime soon either, so this type of capability will be needed for decades.
I guess what my main argument would be, is that all the higher tech equipment is available now, B-1's ect, but the A-10 is still being chosen to use for some missions. Even with its limitations, so perhaps an upgrade to that platform or a redesign to make it better at CAS.
Also while the A-10 maybe KISS tech like a battleship, they've never been proven in combat to be obsolete like the BB was.
By the time you design and build upgrades for the A10 you would have already spent so much time effort and money you might as well replace the airframe with something more modern anyway.
The F35 may not be a pure turn and burn type fighter but it sure as heck is going to make an excellent strike aircraft.
The pilots can view, share and select targets using an interface that looks like freaking Starcraft being broadcast directly to their helmet mounted display. This seems like a game changer to me in situational awareness alone. It can (or should) be able to do this mission from 30-40k feet and at more than twice the speed of an A10.
similar payload
2-3x the range
2-3x the speed
not requiring complete air dominance to operate
40 years more advanced targeting tech
it almost seems like a no brainer to me
the gun on the A10 is not used nearly as often as people think
The F35 may not be a pure turn and burn type fighter but it sure as heck is going to make an excellent strike aircraft.
The pilots can view, share and select targets using an interface that looks like freaking Starcraft being broadcast directly to their helmet mounted display. This seems like a game changer to me in situational awareness alone. It can (or should) be able to do this mission from 30-40k feet and at more than twice the speed of an A10.
similar payload
2-3x the range
2-3x the speed
not requiring complete air dominance to operate
40 years more advanced targeting tech
it almost seems like a no brainer to me
the gun on the A10 is not used nearly as often as people think
Truth is, I love the A-10 and the guys who fly it. They saved the life of a friend (Devon Jones) in Desert Storm.
The question is this: in a constrained resource environment, can we afford the huge cost of an airplane that does only one thing, and can only do that under specific circumstances?
My answer, of course, is no...but emotion has won the argument on the hill...
The question is this: in a constrained resource environment, can we afford the huge cost of an airplane that does only one thing, and can only do that under specific circumstances?
My answer, of course, is no...but emotion has won the argument on the hill...
The local ANG unit had them for almost a decade. My warehouse of junk is about midfield within the pattern at the local airport and I always enjoyed watching these guys when I was piddling around out there.
Of all the hand me down planes I have seen this group flying, F-101, F-100, F-4, F-16, and A-10 - the A-10 was the only one I ever thought I would want to be able to fly.
Glad to hear they are going to keep flying on. Don't know where the local A-10's went. They say the local bunch is now "flying" predators, but I guess the actual aircraft are on the other side of the world. Haven't seen one in the air around here, thank goodness.
edit: maybe reapers. Some kind of UAV.
Of all the hand me down planes I have seen this group flying, F-101, F-100, F-4, F-16, and A-10 - the A-10 was the only one I ever thought I would want to be able to fly.
Glad to hear they are going to keep flying on. Don't know where the local A-10's went. They say the local bunch is now "flying" predators, but I guess the actual aircraft are on the other side of the world. Haven't seen one in the air around here, thank goodness.
edit: maybe reapers. Some kind of UAV.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
