Once at risk of extinction, iconic Warthog plane lives on

a reply to: Wildmanimal

And if you had bothered to read and comprehend anything I've said, instead of making minimal posts, followed by "hmmmm", you would understand that against the defenses that they can put up they wouldn't be able to do what they were originally designed to do.

But I fully expect this to continue to be ignored.

a reply to: D8Tee

They can't. The US makes it extremely difficult to get your hands on one of their former military aircraft now. Unless you're a company that operates Red Air (and many of their US built aircraft came through other countries), or something like the Collings Foundation, which had an F-4 used as a flying museum piece, it's almost impossible to get one.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
I love the Hog. They were always easy to deal with transiting through, and were fun to watch getting thrown around. I have many shell casings from them somewhere.

But....

The A-10 mission is gone. It's that simple. The waves of Russian tanks through the Fulda Gap aren't going to happen, and even if they did, mobile air defenses traveling with them would hammer the A-10s that got near them.

In a near peer conflict, the A-10s would have to sit out the first four days, at least, or work soft targets around the periphery. And what they're doing now, as with every other platform being used, is cracking eggs with a sledgehammer.

But the grunts and Congress love them. So they're not going anywhere.

Sorry to pester you with yet another simple question that I could probably google but asking you and other ATS members you get a better reply on here than google. You mention empty shell casing, when the a-10 fires its gun do the empty shell casings get ejected from the aircraft or are they stored on board amougnst the main gun and it's operating parts. I understand the shells are belt fed, do the casings stay in the belt ?

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Yes. That's how we'd get them. The casings were left in the feed after a training exercise, and during the move, when they'd stop over, the crew chief would open the panel under the nose and pull a couple out and give to us.

I always loved the a10.
They fly over my house every now and then while flying out of the Fort Wayne air guard.
The damn things are past you before you hear them. Very quite for a military jet.

Unfortunately they would not survive a war with modern air defences. Stealth is the future even if some folks want to deny it.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Thanks for the answer I did imagine it was like that. I couldn't picture the A-10 firing its gun and ejecting shells out from underneath and again I hadn't actually seen any empty shells falling when I've seen videos of A-10 doing gun runs. Sorry to waste your time lol

I thInk years ago at a mildenhall air fete I bought a used A-10 shell casing obviously it had a new tip put on to make it look like a complete round. The thing was huge!

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

They make great bookends. You mount them on something like a flat piece of wood or something.

a reply to: Zaphod58 that's exactly what mine became ... until my brother decided to claim them when he moved

It seems like one mission could be an air assault on a single high value target. It could fly under radar, under intense EM and GPS jamming and still seek and destroy a mobile target. Missiles or high level sorties would need to be re-tasked and potentially lose the target. Satellite guidance depends on cloud cover. Drones may or may not be an option, again depending on the EM threat.

A-10 pilots can get into their planes w/a mission and not come home until it's done, analog style.

Neutralizing a radar site or assassination. First a dispenser of delayed cluster bombs to reduce the manpads threat.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It seems like one mission could be an air assault on a single high value target. It could fly under radar, under intense EM and GPS jamming and still seek and destroy a mobile target. Missiles or high level sorties would need to be re-tasked and potentially lose the target. Satellite guidance depends on cloud cover. Drones may or may not be an option, again depending on the EM threat.

A-10 pilots can get into their planes w/a mission and not come home until it's done, analog style.

Neutralizing a radar site or assassination. First a dispenser of delayed cluster bombs to reduce the manpads threat.

Umm a A-10 can get prety low but its cant fly that low. i fi remember the s-400 was a min engagement height of 25 ft off ground. A-10s are great for covering a advance of armor and troops but only after the airspace has been sanitized of SAMs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Iraq was 14 years ago, and had hardly any defenses when they went in. The point is that, like most of the rest of the Air Force, A-10s can't handle a serious air defense system anymore.

Well it never could to a point, and that is why we establish air superiority first. That has always been the key. The A-10 doesn't need to worry about other fighters since there will be no other fighters and if there was we would have the F-16/15/22/35 there to deal with them. Fighter pilots actually hate to fight the A-10, low and slow at the ground is not where they want to be and it makes them very vulnerable, but the A-10 thrives there.

A-10s can't handle a serious air defense system anymore.

Is there anything outside of Fifth Gen that can? That is why we dump missiles on that infrastructure.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Iraq was 14 years ago, and had hardly any defenses when they went in. The point is that, like most of the rest of the Air Force, A-10s can't handle a serious air defense system anymore.

Well it never could to a point, and that is why we establish air superiority first. That has always been the key. The A-10 doesn't need to worry about other fighters since there will be no other fighters and if there was we would have the F-16/15/22/35 there to deal with them. Fighter pilots actually hate to fight the A-10, low and slow at the ground is not where they want to be and it makes them very vulnerable, but the A-10 thrives there.

A-10s can't handle a serious air defense system anymore.

Is there anything outside of Fifth Gen that can? That is why we dump missiles on that infrastructure.

Color me crazy but a A-10 can out turn almost all of those correct?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm not talking about fighters. I'm talking about ground defenses. There aren't many fighters that are willing to get into the weeds with an A-10.

The difference between then and now, is that new defense systems can travel with the ground forces, and don't have to stop and set up to fire. They can fire on the move and are fast enough to keep up with armored units. If you're going to drop missiles on them to take out the defenses, you don't need A-10s.

And a hypothetical A-29 / LAAR will run into the same problem and do even worse.
I'm all for retiring the A-10 rather sooner than later, but purchasing another low intensity platform is not the way to go.
Yeah sure, its cheaper and all but if the next COIN conflict happens to involve semi decent tech on the other side you just wasted a ton of money.
How to CAS tomorrow? I'm all for efficency and affordability but going low tech for very specific scenarios is not the solution. I'd focus on high endurance platforms instead. A B-52 for example is a much cheaper COIN platform on a bomb for bomb Basis than any other fighter sized aircraft. It costs 5 times more than the A-10 to operate but it can carry up to 18 times the number of smart weapons a A-10 carries. The B-52s are also pretty much untouchable to mobile SAM Systems in a COIN environment, can be equipped with superior sensors, have a much longer staying time in theater with less tanker support and can do so much more important stuff besides CAS.
The same is true for any other american strategic bomber platform currently active or in development.
So no, there is really no need for dedicated CAS aircrafts. The bomber fleet is there and needs every Dollar available anyway.
If you want to burn money on this, build a big LO arsenal blimp that can stay over the battlefield for days if neccessary.
And if you think you really need something that shoots bullets instead of dropping bombs - the AC-130J fleet needs all the money/love it can get.

a reply to: mightmight

All of which puts us right back where we are now, using a sledgehammer to kill gnats. You don't send a COIN platform into an area that still has even medium strength defenses, anymore than you send an A-10 on a deep strike mission in a near peer war on Day 2.

Having a COIN platform in the inventory gives you more flexibility for low intensity conflicts. You don't need the aircraft we have in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. If we had a COIN platform it would make more sense. You don't need high tech or expensive for every mission out there.

Purchase a COIN platform now (=within the next 10 years) and you risk arming yoursef for yesterdays wars. Afghanistan and Iraq wont go on forever. Especially not with the level of US military participation we saw in the past.
A dedicated COIN platform would have been a good investment in the early 2000s, but with the US repositioning itself towards the Pacific and given the much reduced enthusiasm for coin adventures, its superfluous at this point.
Also keep in mind, new technologys and weapon systems offer new other solutions for the CAS requirement, especially when it comes to COIN ops. For example, no matter what aircraft you use, it wont be able to match the efficiency and affordability of M777 battery using M982 rounds.
IMO theres nothing wrong with using Sledgehammers. Its not pretty but it works and you need to pay for them anyway.
Special solutions for every concievable scenario are not needed. Especially if you cant afford it.

The A10 needs to have a bit of rumpy pumpy and produce an heir shall we say, its loved because it does what it says on the tin aka you need a trench digging etc then there is a plane to do the job

The F35 and in theory do similar things but a lets just say would give an accountant a heart attack.

We can't afford them because we're so busy rebuilding and upgrading aircraft that we've worn out flying missions they shouldn't have to fly. There is no reason to spend millions of dollars a mission top fly aircraft against people that have effectively no defenses.

Does it have to be? They’ll never learn. The Air Force doesnt have to have the ‚best‘ jet trainer or light attack aircraft on earth, they somethings thats good enough and actually affordable.
Money for procurement is thight as it is and it wont get better with the F-35 and B-21 eating up the budget for the foreseeable future. And if congress gets around to passing an actually budget anytime soon …
I’d rather settle for a less than optimal trainer and safe money on the light attack front top before any other actually critical procurement program goes belly up due to he lack of funds.
But sure, have a nice little contest with what, half a dozens competitors at this point? That will end well. Lawsuits and cost overruns are a near certainty.

Remember that? We don't need the best weapons ever for every mission either.

a reply to: Maxatoria

The accountants are already looking at how much we're spending to fly the aircraft we have flying these missions.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Zaphod58

The A-10 mission is gone. It's that simple.

Still be good to keep them around in case the USA decides to annex Canada or Mexico.

Lol....IMHO America has been hemmed in on both sides and living in fear of the Mexicans and Canadians for Centuries.....lol...I think they are scared to challenge their neighbors Military Might but might want to keep the Warthogs around in case of domestic insurrection ...like an American coup de tat or a civil war.