This article, like most others, overlooks the primary reason the A-10 has been slated for retirement for so long even though no one contests its effectiveness in its role. Due to the way the aircraft was designed, it has very limited upgradeability compared to most US military aircraft.
While the airframe still makes for a great weapons platform, the sensor suites, avionics, and countermeasures are obsolete, and not in a good way. They've been doing a lot of nasty hacks to allow it to support modern weapon systems and electronics but there are a growing number of important capabilities that simply cannot be "backported" to that airframe.
This has been increasing its vulnerability to more advanced threats and reducing its ability to deploy more advanced weapons over time. Its shelf-life has been extended by virtue of it being used in practice against adversaries with unsophisticated weaponry. This makes it immediately useful in practice but the military is well-aware that it would not be nearly as successful against a more sophisticated adversary and this is why they have been angling for an alternative.
It is a relic of the Cold War not just in its history but, unfortunately, also in its defenses and weaponry with no obvious upgrade path. Its survivability and effectiveness are predicated on being used against Cold War level adversaries. To replace it with something that could support the capabilities they desire, they would need to design a completely new airframe.
The "Upgradeability" argument is a moot point considering there is no other airframe that can come close to replacing the A-10 in the missions it is best at. To say that the plane isn't nearly "upgradeable" enough (A point on the face I would dispute, as it's already been upfitted with Pave gear) is to say, "let's get rid of the plane because it's not good enough for future battles we might fight, and if we do, then we'll have absolutely nothing capable now." It's an argument that completely lacks any real world basis.
I don't get rid of my only computer because it's a Pentium 3 because it's old, until I have something that can actually replace it (and no, it won't/can't be replaced by the JSF).
Also, I point out that the A-10 is actually young compared to some of the planes we're still flying. B52 anyone? U-2? We don't stop flying planes because they're old, we stop flying them because there is something better to replace them. At this time, no such thing exists for the A-10.
Also, it's insane to say that the missions that the plane "Might" be used for in the future don't suit the plane, considering the missions it actually has, are almost perfect for it (ground support in Iraq as the article states).
The truth is that the Air Force doesn't want the plane and they're trying to come up with any excuse to kill it, despite the fact that it actually saves US troops lives.
> The truth is that the Air Force doesn't want the plane
I'm not disputing the truth of this (as their actions seem to agree with you), but what do you think motivates the air force to want to get rid of such a successful platform?
You don't get to be an Ace by destroying tanks, or artillery, or other ground threats. You get to be an Ace by defeating another pilot in a dogfight. That's why the Air Force is reluctant to support the A-10. They want to put all that money into their fighter jets.
Close air support really should be an Army responsibility, but the Air Force doesn't want the other services flying planes. The only reason the Army is allowed to have helicopters, is because they're not "real" airplanes.
> Close air support really should be an Army responsibility, but the Air Force doesn't want the other services flying planes.
The Air Force doesn't want the Army flying fixed-wing manned combat aircraft. All services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) have manned aircraft, all services have fixed-wing manned aircraft, all services have manned combat aircraft, and all services except the Army have fixed-wing manned combat aircraft.
Exactly. Fighters intercept bombers. Fighters intercept other fighters.
Bombers allow for cheap and reliable mass destruction of any ground target - compared to icbms and ground vehicles.
That these arguments come up only show how brain washed we are by the media.
#1 cost (mostly due to lack of upfront funding to keep costs down)
#2 it doesnt look/scound cool like those 'new' planes. it sounds great to have a cool new jet fighter with (some) stealth and can do neat loopty loops and use the latest and greatest air to air and electronic warfare systems, BUT
none of these new planes actually come anywhere close to fulfilling the close ground support role the A-10 offers. its much akin to wanting the best fantasy stat players on your sports team but come to find those metrics don't win championships / make teams.
> none of these new planes actually come anywhere close to fulfilling the close ground support role the A-10 offers
What makes you think that way? Low-end missions can be fulfilled by drones and apaches, and high-end obviously by F-35.
A-10 is obsolete mostly because high precision bombs and missiles combined with good sensors are much more efficient than what A-10 has.
The modern Apache fires its weapons from so far away there is no hope of hitting it with a machine gun. Those things are probably the most high tech the Army has, it can communicate with a drone miles ahead of it, that will transmit back the location of a vehicle and the Apache can destroy it without even having line of sight.
>This article, like most others, overlooks the primary reason the A-10 has been slated for retirement for so long even though no one contests its effectiveness in its role. Due to the way the aircraft was designed, it has very limited upgradeability compared to most US military aircraft.
The real reason is that it has always been the red-headed step-child of the ch-Air Force. There has never been any real interest in the CAS role from the mgmt, other than to keep that turf away from the Army and Marine Corps.
>While the airframe still makes for a great weapons platform, the sensor suites, avionics, and countermeasures are obsolete, and not in a good way. They've been doing a lot of nasty hacks to allow it to support modern weapon systems and electronics but there are a growing number of important capabilities that simply cannot be "backported" to that airframe.
I was about to make a similar comment that the A10 performs its role well despite having relatively primitive weapons / targeting systems. But I disagree about the reason for the obsolete weapons / electronics. Sensors and computers have only gotten smaller and better, and I am afraid I don't understand why you think that the A10 cannot be fitted with proper electronics and sensors.
>This has been increasing its vulnerability to more advanced threats
The definition of a CAS role practically implies that the airplane can only operate in an arena where air-superiority is assured. The A10 is by definition vulnerable to "more advanced threats" and so will any acceptable substitute share similar vulnerabilities.
>Its shelf-life has been extended by virtue of it being used in practice against adversaries with unsophisticated weaponry.
Exactly the kind of adversary it is being deployed against, though it has proven itself against others as well.
>It is a relic of the Cold War not just in its history but, unfortunately, also in its defenses and weaponry with no obvious upgrade path. To replace it with something that could support the capabilities they desire, they would need to design a completely new airframe.
I agree, and I hope they call it the A10-mkII, and that it is practically a modern rebuild of the A10.
The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats.
Basically, the US military is concerned because they know that they already have ground threat capabilities that would significantly reduce the survivability of platforms like the A-10. Looking forward, they expect this level of weapon sophistication to trickle down to increasingly unsophisticated adversaries. The A-10 lacks the power systems required to drive modern defenses and weapons.
It is no different than how the US military has been planning for the obsolescence of heavy armor.
As an example of the kind of losses that can result from better equipped adversaries, consider what has happened to the Russian Su-25 CAS in conflicts in Georgia and in the Chechen wars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#2008_Russia.E2.80....). Quite a few have been shot down. MANPADS are getting more omnipresent, and overall theater air superiority will not always be enough.
"On 4 October 1999, a Su-25 was shot down by a MANPADS during a reconnaissance mission over the village of Tolstoy-Yurt killing its pilot. The wings of the aircraft were put on a pedestal in the central square in Grozny."
Ok there's the fist problem. Why is a CAS plane doing recon?
The CAS role consists of two things: 1st, bring death from above with heavy firepower and weapons capable of seriously damaging and mobile threat in the area of engagement; 2nd, be the invincible angels, surviving everything from small arms fire to light Flak cannons through to even a stinger missile or two.
The survival part of their role necessitates not going in blind, a CAS plane has no place doing a recon flight. It would be like riding a wounded horse through a hungry pride of lions to check on how hungry they are.
In a world of satellites and drones, recon is their job, they are unmatched at it, smaller, safer, cheaper. Tasking a CAS airframe with recon work is going to cost you a plane, and possibly a pilot as well.
This is why the A-10 remains effective. It's a bone saw or a rib spreader, designed for a task. Yes these days with a da vinci robot you don't need to crack open the ribs as often, but when you need the rib cage open or you need to saw through the humerus to amputate, those are the tools you use.
The A-10 is a dedicated specialist the airforce wishes to replace with more general purpose planes, which may work some of the time, but won't work all the time.
>The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats.
>Basically, the US military...
Chair force types itching for a new jet.
> Looking forward, they expect this level of weapon sophistication to trickle down to increasingly unsophisticated adversaries.
That is a totally reasonable assumption. I agree that MANPADS may prove problematic. There is the potential to develop countermeasure for these, just not the will, which is a shame because the rotors would benefit from it as well. But, the AF doesn't care for those, either.
>The A-10 lacks the power systems required to drive modern defenses and weapons.
You state this as if it were some kind of objective proven fact. It isn't. It may be the case that some existing weapons system can't be bolted on; but it is not a credible assertion to say that that a suitable solution cannot be developed.
>It is no different than how the US military has been planning for the obsolescence of heavy armor.
It is quite different. Heavy armor is useless, everyone knows it, and to the .mil's credit they are phasing it out. The A10 fills an important CAS role that other platforms can't replace. The F35 definitely isn't going to perform well as an A10 replacement. The Apache works well, but for some reason (sortie cost / availability?) it hasn't obsoleted the A10. Some yet undeveloped unmanned drone might be able to do so, but that is yet to be demonstrated.
And a story here where Warthogs saved 60 US soldiers in 2013, where "because people were shooting all over the place, the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel."
>I think the Apache's are not able to take being hit nearly as well as A10s,
No, they definitely can't! But they are much better at avoiding taking fire in the first place.
>plus have less fire power and take longer to get places.
This, and the higher maint-man/hour per flight hour.
>"...the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel."
Thanks for that link, hadn't seen it.
>...the convoy's commander approved the pilots to engage "danger-close." The term is meant to clearly communicate to the ground and air forces that the need for support is so grave the ground commander is willing to accept the potential risk to the friendly unit for the life-saving employment from the air.
Scheisse. Gives you chills if you really think about it.
A related concept is "final protective fire," which means something like "We are being overrun, please drop artillery shells directly on our position, we're in foxholes and they're not so hopefully it will work out." Scary.
My company gunny (1988) got a bronze star when, as an 19-year old mortarman in 1969, aimed his tube straight up and dropped rounds all over his company's position, saving the day.
I know this because he grabbed me by the scruff of my neck and made me read it, as part of up-close and personal counseling.
Exactly that, "his own people" including himself, which is arguably more brave than calling more powerful artillery fire on your own position. See PhasmaFelis comment in this subthread; this is the true last resort after final protective fire.
He was with a rifle company, in mortar squad. The company was over-run during an attack, at night: Marines in fighting holes, bad guys running around in the open, a very chaotic situation.
To eradicate the enemy, and save his company, he pointed the tube of his mortar straight up, dropped a shit-load of rounds down the tube, one at a time. The rounds went up (pretty far, but I no longer recall how high up they go) and came back down all over the place.
Risky, but Marines, generally, were in their holes, the bad guy were not, and so were more exposed to blast and shrapnel.
>No, they definitely can't! But they are much better at avoiding taking fire in the first place.
From what I've read, that really depends on the terrain. The Apache, from what sources I've seen, was really designed to take on Soviet ground forces in Germany. It's a tank hunter, designed to hide around and behind rolling hills, make quick attack passes on advancing armor columns, and then get the hell out of Dodge before AA can shoot back. Unlike its Soviet counterpart, the Mi-24 "Hind", the Apache isn't very well armored. This makes it not very well suited to the sort of mission where it has to loiter in an area and provide fire support for friendly forces.
Cost per sortie on the apache. They prefer sending vipers which arent as good but cheaper to operate. A10 isnt even really in the picture.
Another thing is the limited amount of aircraft carriers, their lack of agility.
F35s and helis can take off smaller, cheaper,more numerous amphibious vehicule carriers. Thats why theyre even making the f35...
We keep hearing how heavy armour is useless... Then events keep happening that demonstrate otherwise. You can't hold territory from the air. You just can't. The Russians know this, and they know the psychological effect tanks have too.
Those articles merely state the Army doesn't want to upgrades, they want to wait until a new version of the M1 is available in a few years? I took the above conversation to mean that there's a (universal?) consensus that heavy armor's time is past. These links don't support that.
At the end of the day, it's kind of hard to do a thunder run [1] without tanks.
>I took the above conversation to mean that there's a (universal?) consensus that heavy armor's time is past. These links don't support that.
No, those links don't. Forgive me, it's the most recent / best that I could find in a single web-query. I also didn't find a better link for you after searching again today. (search results too full of RTS game related junk)
The tank's day is done though, and while we'll maintain a small number of them, our war strategies do no rely on them, nor should they. If that were so, then any opposing force with one (of the many available) Javelin missile[1] like capability could stop our tank forces in their tracks. Killing tanks cheaply is a solved problem.
Yep, but it's more like good combined arms operations (the use of multiple combat arms like armor, artillery and air, you might start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms) and a "cooperative" enemy. Like France in WWII.
I get the impression that Saddam's conception of war was strictly WWI era (right down to chemical warfare, although perhaps the issue there is why it wasn't widely used in WWII (ask for details if you're interested)), although this was most relevant in the First Gulf War, where we tricked him into thinking he would receive a frontal attack, and we hooked around his right flank. This avoided the expense of a frontal attack, he was no doubt hoping would cause us problems back home or worse.
For the rematch, well, he certainly had a lot less force, I would suspect the "thunder run" might vaguely resemble Patton's dash after the breakout from Normandy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#Normandy_brea...), or if you want Nazi analogies, the crushing of small/relatively weak countries prior to France.
Interesting, but is this really an obstacle, or one of those relatively fixable obstacles that's exaggerated by people who really want shiny new planes?
It just seems strange to me -- computers have gotten faster, batteries have gotten smaller, etc. If all of your avionics are theoretically lighter and smaller, how is it an issue to pack more functionality into the same airframe? Hell, remove the pilot and armoured bath-tub and make it into a drone.
Modern military aircraft generate and move an enormous amount of electrical power throughout the airframe to supply all of their avionics and weapons. Power systems take up a lot of space.
The A-10 is an old school design, and there was no use case for installing large power systems when it was originally built. Unlike some other ancient airframes which had the spare room to retrofit power systems, the A-10 had little room to spare in its original design for a modern power system.
True, but our ground troops (some relatives and friends) love this thing because it can hang around for an extended period of time. The F-35 and helicopters cannot. That is what matters and until we get something that has the performance of the A-10 (the F-35 does not), we need to keep this one active.
The other truth is that the Air Force doesn't like it and never has. I seriously believe that they have lost sight of their origin and am starting to think as a cost saving measure the Air Force should be put back under the Army. They want fighters not something that gets dirty.
"Its survivability and effectiveness are predicated on being used against Cold War level adversaries."
>True, but our ground troops (some relatives and friends) love this thing because it can hang around for an extended period of time. The F-35 and helicopters cannot
To what extent do/will drones fill this role? My understanding was that flight time was an area they often excelled at.
A drone shoots off its missiles and turns into an observer. An A-10 can hang around and shoot enemies that threaten the ground troops. No drone that I'm aware of has been built to provide continuous troop protection for a long period of time.
Is the USA likely to go to war against anyone with sophisticated weaponry any time soon? It seems like we're mostly interested in wars in the third world at this point, and the A10 seems pretty well suited to that.
I know someone will have a differing opinion, but a lot of times it's not about having weaponry for the wars you will fight, but the wars that you won't fight.
It's more game theory: If you have state of the art weaponry, the competition is less likely to start a war with you.
This mentality also lead to the nuclear arms race, and today it is more about a race for automation and precision than just mass destruction.
Army families pay close attention to the deployment of A-10's for good reason. On one side, A-10's provide critical assistance against enemy tanks and armored vehicles (combat leverage). On the other, it means soldiers (family members) are being deployed for possible ground combat.
Russia, Iran, China are all countries of concern in the middle to long term.
Iran would obviously retaliate against efforts to destroy their nuclear infrastructure. Russia has stated that it will defend Russians anywhere leaving many Eastern European countries in question. China has stated quite clearly this year that it will start to assert its position as a counterweight superpower to the US.
Totally makes perfect sense. It's not a good plane to fight the hypothetical wars against adversaries that the US might never engage on the battlefield. Though it is actually hugely effective against the current enemies of the US. And for that reason it should be retired from service. Makes perfect sense.
> It's not a good plane to fight the hypothetical wars against adversaries that the US might never engage on the battlefield.
More to the point, it is taking away resources to field the planes that would be needed for that hypothetical fight against an adversary with a modern military. Worse, the inability of the U.S. military to fight and win against states with modern militaries makes war more likely, not less likely.
While the A-10 is certainly a good CAS platform against armed forces unable to oppose it with even 20-year old anti-air defenses, the U.S. does have other aircraft that can perform that role (even if not to the standard as the A-10). Between the AC-130, Army helicopter aviation, F-15, -16, -22 and -35, there's no lack of capability to put ordnance on target in support of ground troops.
The big thing those airframes are missing (except for the helos and AC-130) is loiter time and cannons that go "brrrpt", but neither of those are so critical to CAS as is popularly implied.
In other words, the USAF is arguing against maintaining a weapon system that doesn't deter conflict against states one iota, doesn't deter conflict against extremists (who are not deterrable by the same military calculus in any event), and whose most prominent capability isn't that much of a leap ahead of other platforms the USAF (and US Army) already have to maintain and field anyways.
Although it can certainly kill people, the A-10 was designed to hunt and destroy Soviet tanks, and yet you don't see too many tanks being fielded by ISIS (even with the Iraqi tanks they've captured, they don't have the logistical or maintenance capabilities needed to properly employ them).
Taking away the A10 to feed the JSF program is like deleting txt files to get hard disk space back.
>In other words, the USAF is arguing against maintaining a weapon system that doesn't deter conflict against states one iota,
None of that other garbage deterred any conflict.
>doesn't deter conflict against extremists (who are not deterrable by the same military calculus in any event),
Right, so, why mention it?
> and whose most prominent capability isn't that much of a leap ahead of other platforms the USAF (and US Army) already have to maintain and field anyways.
[x] Can draw enemy fire while wingman locates attackers.
Not a capability of any other aircraft in the stable. Thanks to another poster (tim333) we have yet another recent example of an A10 actually doing a job like that, which no other group would do. http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/4667...
I don't know where the AC130 were but the helicopters didn't want any part of it. The A10 pilots were all like "I'll go draw some fire while you look for 'em." You can't do that in a helicopter.
> Taking away the A10 to feed the JSF program is like deleting txt files to get hard disk space back.
Sure, but A-10 is one of only many txt files USAF is trying to delete so they can defragment.
> > doesn't deter conflict against extremists (who are not deterrable by the same military calculus in any event),
> Right, so, why mention it?
Because it demonstrates that A-10 provides just as much value-add in the deterrence equation (i.e., none at all) that other weapons platforms in the U.S. inventory do.
> I don't know where the AC130 were but the helicopters didn't want any part of it. The A10 pilots were all like "I'll go draw some fire while you look for 'em." You can't do that in a helicopter.
It's a pity the Army got rid of Kiowa, their pilots were precisely crazy enough to do that kind of thing, "armored bathtub" or not.
Either way, no one is saying that A-10 provides nothing at all above other platforms (my comment you replied to acknowledges as much). Rather, the argument is that the cost of maintaining A-10 and its entire associated long tail of maintenance, sustainment, training pipelines, etc., does not provide enough marginal benefit to warrant its price tag.
If our enemies don't have antiaircraft capabilities that can beat it, it's not obsolete. So long we're fighting countries that use salvaged soviet weapons, we won't have a problem. We're not going up against China any to e soon.
I have a hard time seeing that. Serious nasty hacks to retrofit new avionics systems into improbably obtuse spaces is par for the course. My wrists are totally destroyed from years of screwing and unscrewing retrofitted black boxes with a screwdriver at weird angles.
I don't know anything about the A-10 airframe, but I kinda suspect its an airframe structural issue. Your theory isn't impossible or unlikely, but got any documentation?
While the airframe still makes for a great weapons platform, the sensor suites, avionics, and countermeasures are obsolete, and not in a good way. They've been doing a lot of nasty hacks to allow it to support modern weapon systems and electronics but there are a growing number of important capabilities that simply cannot be "backported" to that airframe.
This has been increasing its vulnerability to more advanced threats and reducing its ability to deploy more advanced weapons over time. Its shelf-life has been extended by virtue of it being used in practice against adversaries with unsophisticated weaponry. This makes it immediately useful in practice but the military is well-aware that it would not be nearly as successful against a more sophisticated adversary and this is why they have been angling for an alternative.
It is a relic of the Cold War not just in its history but, unfortunately, also in its defenses and weaponry with no obvious upgrade path. Its survivability and effectiveness are predicated on being used against Cold War level adversaries. To replace it with something that could support the capabilities they desire, they would need to design a completely new airframe.