Why does no other country operate the A-10?

[swerve]

I am getting the distinct feeling that I am the oldest grognard on this forum, because I am getting a distinct feeling of deja vu, all over again, to quote Yogi Berra. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the same arguments about modern missiles making guns obsolete were being heard. What we got was Vietnam, and a POLITICALLY IMPOSED set of restrictions (visual ID of all targets before engagement) which NEGATED our big, expensive, BVR missiles. Suddenly, the lack of guns became a CRITICAL factor for the guys in blue, both Air Force, which came up with the F-4E "Phantom II", and Navy, which developed the F-14 "Tomcat": both gun armed. I simply note the results of the last election, just completed. Will we find ourselves in a similar situation? I don't know, but I would definitely NOT count out the usefulness of a good, big, rapid fire gun on modern combat aircraft, to deal with that "knife fight in a phone booth", at least not yet.

The critics in this forum are still discounting the Hog's excellent decoy dispenser system (which can be "upgraded" by deploying improved countermeasures packages in the dispenser), and some simple rewiring could enable it to carry ECM pods to better "fox" AAMs, if required. ...

Times have changed. Everybody & his dog now has NCTR on their radars, so the reason for the visual identification rule (friendly fire kills in an environment where >90% of the aircraft in the air were American) has become much less of a problem, & missiles are an order of magnitude more effective than 40-45 years ago. BTW, why don't you look up what killed fighters in Vietnam, year by year? It changed as the war went on By the early 1970s, it was almost entirely missiles, & the majority of US kills were with AIM-7, unlike earlier years. Since the 1980s, it's been BVR all the way, despite ECM & decoys.

Doesn't necessarily mean guns are useless, but an aircraft which can engage fighters only if the fighter pilot chooses to be engaged isn't going to get many chances at that "knife fight in a phone booth". You keep ignoring that point.

 

[Chrom]

Do you feel that the Su25`s gun system is a good tank killer if attacking tops of tank turrets and engine decks.

It was certainly "adequate" by that time, may be even not that much worse than A-10. But certainly it was never meant to be used against tanks in large scale. It was more against trucks and AFV's. Now, after TUSK upgrades and such i doubt it can penetrate even engine decks with same degree of reliabilty.

Compared to A-10 gun Su-25 gun had less penetration power (but it was still in the same class) and had lower nominal ROF. But with ROF thing its no so simple - A-10 gun is rotation gun, and require same time to spin-off. So it reach its full ROF only after split second (i dont know how long exactly, about 0.5 sec or so). Su-25 gun starts firing with full ROF instanly, so in the end it put comparable amount of shells in short time.

Again, i want to stress what since Mujahedeens in Afganistan recived MANPAD's, Su-25 hadnt much opportunity to use its gun - allthought for anti-personel purpose Su-25 gun is at least as good as A-10 gun. But its just dont worth the addidtional risk flying low & close.

And to missiles vs gun argument... well, since the 13 century when guns was invented, swords didnt lost its place in army for almost 400 years. But eventually in the end, after guns developed itself, a full range of edged weapons reduced to a mere "kitchen" knife on the belt of the average soldier. The aircrafts gun will (may be already) certainly follow the same fate.

 

[eckherl]

It was certainly "adequate" by that time, may be even not that much worse than A-10. But certainly it was never meant to be used against tanks in large scale. It was more against trucks and AFV's. Now, after TUSK upgrades and such i doubt it can penetrate even engine decks with same degree of reliabilty.

Compared to A-10 gun Su-25 gun had less penetration power (but it was still in the same class) and had lower nominal ROF. But with ROF thing its no so simple - A-10 gun is rotation gun, and require same time to spin-off. So it reach its full ROF only after split second (i dont know how long exactly, about 0.5 sec or so). Su-25 gun starts firing with full ROF instanly, so in the end it put comparable amount of shells in short time.

Again, i want to stress what since Mujahedeens in Afganistan recived MANPAD's, Su-25 hadnt much opportunity to use its gun - allthought for anti-personel purpose Su-25 gun is at least as good as A-10 gun. But its just dont worth the addidtional risk flying low & close.

And to missiles vs gun argument... well, since the 13 century when guns was invented, swords didnt lost its place in army for almost 400 years. But eventually in the end, after guns developed itself, a full range of edged weapons reduced to a mere "kitchen" knife on the belt of the average soldier. The aircrafts gun will (may be already) certainly follow the same fate.

Thanks for the information, do you know if Russia has a DU round for this gun system.

 

[Waylander]

If you look at Afghanistan now you see that many planes even ran out of gun ammo while giving CAS to ISAF and Enduring Freedom units.
I don't think that the gun is already at its way out.

 

[rjmaz1]

You cant fire a maverick missile if the enemy is metres from the soldiers you are protecting, the maverick has a big warhead and could cause friendly casulties.

The Guns being used for close air support this would be one of the main reason it is used often. The enemy would surely be more scared if an A-10 was strafing their position with guns blazing. It would have a greater psychological effect in my opinion which will see the enemy retreating.

When the hellfire and possibly SDB are integrated onto the A-10C it would be excellent. A lighter weapons load with less drag will increase performance across the board. The hellfire would be able to be fired much more often compared to the larger maverick. The A-10 will now have a weapon with the destructive power of its gun that can be fired from a safe position.

The SDB would also be a good upgrade to make the A-10C a bomber of course only for very low scale conflicts. A low scale war such as Australia attacking Indonesia, PNG or East Timor would see the A-10C doing much more than close air support.

 

[abramsteve]

I still cant believe what USAF plans to somehow upgrade A-10 and keep it in service... Allthought its rather cheap to upgrade & maintain A-10, its very expencive to use it if you think about all preparations , planning and support you need to actually use A-10 in any even slightly hostile enveronment.

Assuming that the operating area of the A-10 has allied air supremecy (which I dont think is that hard to imagine), then surley its still a excellent, if not the best, CAS aircraft. Think about loiter time and survivability. I mean, I would rather be in an A-10 that takes a hit from any sort of sholder launched SAM then an Apache. And its gotta have a better chance of escaping or avoiding any other type of SAM than Apache???

Low mainainence, cheaply upgradable and with long loiter times... Is there a better CAS aircraft out there? With the A-10 range of ordance?

 

[Chrom]

Thanks for the information, do you know if Russia has a DU round for this gun system.

There is rumors what some work has been made, but certainly there are no DU round for Su-25 in service. Obviously, it would be not hard to do for USSR/Russia - but deemed unnesesary. You cant use DU rounds for the type of warfare USSR/Russia doing anyway.

If you look at Afghanistan now you see that many planes even ran out of gun ammo while giving CAS to ISAF and Enduring Freedom units.
I don't think that the gun is already at its way out.

This only speaks about 2 things:
1. USA was fighting completely defenceless peoples
2. USA pilots wanted to have they "gun blazing" fun.
In real situation even 1 medium size bomb or unguided rocket is useally more effective than full load of A-10 cannon. 1 bomb/rocket can destroy everything in 30m radius - cannon cant do that. And you cant bring argument "ah, but cannon is more precise!" becouse its NOT more precise and i pretty much doubt what any pilot would risk firing at something only 40-50 m away from friendly soldiers. And even if they do, still unguided missile will provide same precision as 30mm gun at close range (<1km).

You cant fire a maverick missile if the enemy is metres from the soldiers you are protecting, the maverick has a big warhead and could cause friendly casulties.

The Guns being used for close air support this would be one of the main reason it is used often. The enemy would surely be more scared if an A-10 was strafing their position with guns blazing. It would have a greater psychological effect in my opinion which will see the enemy retreating.

Huh? Why someone needs "gun blazing"? Ya, it might work against random bandit with just AK-47 in his hand, but tell the truth - 130mm rocket will do it better. And against anyone with MANPAD or even 0.50 MG such "gun blazing" fun might turn very ugly for A-10 pilot... Its like using swords/clubs instead of gun by police/army... might work well against unarmed peoples, but against anything serious its better to have at least 0.45 in hand.... And then there is the hammer: weather & time of day. Good luck using gun by bad weather...

When the hellfire and possibly SDB are integrated onto the A-10C it would be excellent. A lighter weapons load with less drag will increase performance across the board. The hellfire would be able to be fired much more often compared to the larger maverick. The A-10 will now have a weapon with the destructive power of its gun that can be fired from a safe position.

The SDB would also be a good upgrade to make the A-10C a bomber of course only for very low scale conflicts. A low scale war such as Australia attacking Indonesia, PNG or East Timor would see the A-10C doing much more than close air support.

Yes, A-10 with such addidion would have good capabilities... but then why you need A-10 in the first case? F-16 or F-15 will do such job with such weapon much better...

For Su-25 ... Look at the RuAF - the money spend for everything but Su-25. New *expencive* helos are bought - check. New *expencive* bombers are bought - check. New *expencive* fighter are bought/developed/upgraded. Cheap and *inexpencive* Su-25 is not even upgraded, allthought there are very good proposals, and Su-25 are widely used in Chechnya. Eventually, they still would be upgraded sooner or later - but the order of thing show what RuAF thinks about the future of Su-25 in the light of MANPAD's and JDAM's.

 

[Chrom]

Assuming that the operating area of the A-10 has allied air supremecy (which I dont think is that hard to imagine), then surley its still a excellent, if not the best, CAS aircraft. Think about loiter time and survivability. I mean, I would rather be in an A-10 that takes a hit from any sort of sholder launched SAM then an Apache. And its gotta have a better chance of escaping or avoiding any other type of SAM than Apache???

Low mainainence, cheaply upgradable and with long loiter times... Is there a better CAS aircraft out there? With the A-10 range of ordance?

Loiter time is not better than say F-15 or even F-16 with drop tanks. Its low speed force it to loiter much close to possible enemy postion, leading to eventually requiring higher number of A-10's than F-15 to patrol same area. Its inabilty (currently) to carry JDAM's-like ammunition make the situation even worse. Its inability to operate in bad weather might lead to ugly situation with ground forces support. Its less-than-stellar night perfomance also not helping. And well, while A-10 is certainly a great aircraft to take the hits from MANPAD's, i better would like not to get hit at all. Apach is just in another category - it can hover other suspiction place if needed, providing a fire support second after it required, it can ecscort the trucks, it can deliver a gun support or missile with much greater precision than A-10 - literally in the required window. And however you think, its less suspectible to MANPADS due to ability not to fly other dungerous area. You just cant compare the both.

 

[abramsteve]

Loiter time is not better than say F-15 or even F-16 with drop tanks. Its low speed force it to loiter much close to possible enemy postion, leading to eventually requiring higher number of A-10's than F-15 to patrol same area. Its inabilty (currently) to carry JDAM's-like ammunition make the situation even worse. Its inability to operate in bad weather might lead to ugly situation with ground forces support. Its less-than-stellar night perfomance also not helping. And well, while A-10 is certainly a great aircraft to take the hits from MANPAD's, i better would like not to get hit at all. Apach is just in another category - it can hover other suspiction place if needed, providing a fire support second after it required, it can ecscort the trucks, it can deliver a gun support or missile with much greater precision than A-10 - literally in the required window. And however you think, its less suspectible to MANPADS due to ability not to fly other dungerous area. You just cant compare the both.

Im of the opinion thats its operational short-comings would be easily solved through a series of inexpensive upgrades. I doubt an F-15/16/18 could provide its level of CAS to ground troops, even with drop tanks. I also think that its decoy systems are being underated, especially when paired with soome type of ECM pod. I dont base this on any hard evidence though.

To a point I agree that you cant compare the A-10 to the Apache, I still think that it would be a hell of alot easier to take one down using anything from advanced MANPADS to an AK-47, than an A-10.

I believe it has an important place in the combined arms tactics required to fight counter insurgency warfare.

 

[Chrom]

Im of the opinion thats its operational short-comings would be easily solved through a series of inexpensive upgrades. I doubt an F-15/16/18 could provide its level of CAS to ground troops, even with drop tanks. I also think that its decoy systems are being underated, especially when paired with soome type of ECM pod. I dont base this on any hard evidence though.

To a point I agree that you cant compare the A-10 to the Apache, I still think that it would be a hell of alot easier to take one down using anything from advanced MANPADS to an AK-47, than an A-10.

I believe it has an important place in the combined arms tactics required to fight counter insurgency warfare.

"Inexpencive" upgrades will just bring A-10 to the level of F-15 to the very best, making it to do the job it is not designed to do. Nothing wrong here... but F-15 will be more effective at that. The time of close CAS manned aircrafts is gone. You cant stop the progress in warfare. ECM & dispensers on A-10 is great and such, but MANPAD's developers also dont eat they cake for nothing. Moreover, CURRENTLY A-10 lack any anti-MANPAD EWR. So they must rely on "common sence" and "instincts" when they starting to drop the flares. Now why Apache is sometimes not as vulnerable to MANPAD's... Apach can hover 2-3 km away from dungerous position constantly watching it, Apache can much better use terrain obstacles - A-10 will have hard time to do so. Again, counter-insurgency dont require cannon, its just counter-productive. You need guided weapon for less collateral damage, you need speed to stike as fast as possible, you need altitude to avoid MANPAD's, and you dont need a cannon anywhere. Every job what a cannon can do the non-guided and guided missiles & bombs will do much better (and in the case of A-10 with its expencive 30mm may be even for less price).
With recent advances in JDAM's and netcentric warfare F-15 can provide CAS support much better than A-10 ever could.
Again, the question is not if A-10 can do its job. Sure, it can. And if upgraded, will do it even better. But the nature of warfare is changed, and now other platforms can do A-10 job much better than A-10.

 

[abramsteve]

"Inexpencive" upgrades will just bring A-10 to the level of F-15 to the very best, making it to do the job it is not designed to do. Nothing wrong here... but F-15 will be more effective at that. The time of close CAS manned aircrafts is gone. You cant stop the progress in warfare. ECM & dispensers on A-10 is great and such, but MANPAD's developers also dont eat they cake for nothing. Moreover, CURRENTLY A-10 lack any anti-MANPAD EWR. So they must rely on "common sence" and "instincts" when they starting to drop the flares. Now why Apache is sometimes not as vulnerable to MANPAD's... Apach can hover 2-3 km away from dungerous position constantly watching it, Apache can much better use terrain obstacles - A-10 will have hard time to do so. Again, counter-insurgency dont require cannon, its just counter-productive. You need guided weapon for less collateral damage, you need speed to stike as fast as possible, you need altitude to avoid MANPAD's, and you dont need a cannon anywhere. Every job what a cannon can do the non-guided and guided missiles & bombs will do much better (and in the case of A-10 with its expencive 30mm may be even for less price).
With recent advances in JDAM's and netcentric warfare F-15 can provide CAS support much better than A-10 ever could.
Again, the question is not if A-10 can do its job. Sure, it can. And if upgraded, will do it even better. But the nature of warfare is changed, and now other platforms can do A-10 job much better than A-10.

Fair points.

But may have to agree to disagree on a few of them.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

"Inexpencive" upgrades will just bring A-10 to the level of F-15 to the very best, making it to do the job it is not designed to do. Nothing wrong here... but F-15 will be more effective at that. The time of close CAS manned aircrafts is gone. You cant stop the progress in warfare. ECM & dispensers on A-10 is great and such, but MANPAD's developers also dont eat they cake for nothing. Moreover, CURRENTLY A-10 lack any anti-MANPAD EWR. So they must rely on "common sence" and "instincts" when they starting to drop the flares. Now why Apache is sometimes not as vulnerable to MANPAD's... Apach can hover 2-3 km away from dungerous position constantly watching it, Apache can much better use terrain obstacles - A-10 will have hard time to do so. Again, counter-insurgency dont require cannon, its just counter-productive. You need guided weapon for less collateral damage, you need speed to stike as fast as possible, you need altitude to avoid MANPAD's, and you dont need a cannon anywhere. Every job what a cannon can do the non-guided and guided missiles & bombs will do much better (and in the case of A-10 with its expencive 30mm may be even for less price).
With recent advances in JDAM's and netcentric warfare F-15 can provide CAS support much better than A-10 ever could.
Again, the question is not if A-10 can do its job. Sure, it can. And if upgraded, will do it even better. But the nature of warfare is changed, and now other platforms can do A-10 job much better than A-10.

“The time of close CAS manned aircrafts is gone.” No. What do you think we are currently doing in Afghanistan? We are engaged in asymmetric warfare, where classic CAS is an integral part.

With regard to MANPADS, at present fast jets (and I include the F-15 & A-10) only have a limited defence against MANPADS, essentially just a MWS and flares. A few helicopters and large high value platforms have directional IR counter-measures. (Currently I don’t think the standard Apache helicopters are so equipped).

Against hard or high value targets PGMs are the correct weapons to use, but against low value soft and often disperse targets (dug in troops) low tech rockets and guns are more effective.

Against the types of targets we face in Afghanistan the A-10 out performs all the other aircrafts currently deployed. It is doing the task on the ground that the army, require, seeing and hitting the target quickly, safely at very close range. The main problem with the high tech approach is that of target identification in a battlefield situation. The other problem with the present conflict is the low value of the target and the very high cost of the weapons.

In the longer term weapons such as LCOSS and UCAVs should enable CAS to be provided at lower cost and without risking manned platforms, but we are at least 10 years (and probably 20 years) away from this position.

Until then the A-10 provides the service required by the army.


Chris

 

[machina]

Assuming that the operating area of the A-10 has allied air supremecy (which I dont think is that hard to imagine), then surley its still a excellent, if not the best, CAS aircraft. Think about loiter time and survivability. I mean, I would rather be in an A-10 that takes a hit from any sort of sholder launched SAM then an Apache. And its gotta have a better chance of escaping or avoiding any other type of SAM than Apache???

Low mainainence, cheaply upgradable and with long loiter times... Is there a better CAS aircraft out there? With the A-10 range of ordance?

I'd suggest the C-130 gunships if you're buying. They were specifically designed as CAS aircraft, and have better range and payload. Plus they see the 30mm Avenger and raise it a 105mm arty gun.

 

[Subangite]

What about Super Tucanos? How do they preform as CAS compared to A10's or even the Su25's?? Columbia uses them against paramilitaries and drug lords, they seem to have found a place in the Amazon Basin, with the Brazilian AF. Venezuala was denied them because of their American content and now seems to be purchasing Su25's instead from Russia. What suprises me is that there hasn't been any exports of the A10's, when clearly there seems to be a market for CAS aircraft.

 

[Waylander]

I really think that the ones who claim that the "old CAS" is gone should take a look at A-stan.
There are reasons for the fact that for example that Hornets and Falcons ran out of gun ammo even while carrying as much JDAMs as they could.

 

[LancerMc]

CAS is evolving because platforms never used for it before are now being used in combat. If you asked Curtis Lemay if the B-52 would be used for direct CAS, he would have told you, you were crazy. Precision munitions allow all kinds of different aircraft to be good at CAS. The draw back of these systems is that their medium and high altitude CAS. The A-10 is great because it can a variety of weapons for attack, stay on stations for periods, and its extremely rugged in the low level environment.

The Super Tucano is good aircraft, it is finally replacing the ageing A-37 Dragonfly fleet in Latin America. Why has the A-37 flown so long, because it is a great CAS aircraft. A aircraft that performs its mission well will continue on for a long time.

 

[Big-E]

I really think that the ones who claim that the "old CAS" is gone should take a look at A-stan.
There are reasons for the fact that for example that Hornets and Falcons ran out of gun ammo even while carrying as much JDAMs as they could.

The reason I ran out of ammo... the Vulcan can't penetrate squat. I remember on one occasion I had delievered my ordinance to the primary and secondary targets and was hunting for convoys, my wingman spotted the targets that run for half a mile. The Taliban forces going to fight the Northern Alliance had a old Soviet APC in the lead so I switched to guns and started my strafing run. I had my barrel on him for at least 4 seconds, he came to a halt but the occupants were seen running out! It was like I was firing a mini-gun at a click.

 

[Waylander]

That's sad to hear that they were able to get out.

But I don't really see it as an argument against guns. More against the Vulcan.
A 27mm Mauser may have worked not to talk of a Gau-8 (No I don't want to put Gaus into normal Fighters ).

 

[Grand Danois]

That's sad to hear that they were able to get out.

But I don't really see it as an argument against guns. More against the Vulcan.
A 27mm Mauser may have worked not to talk of a Gau-8 (No I don't want to put Gaus into normal Fighters ).

The RAF are buying ammo and are going to train on the use of the 27mm Mauser on the Eurofighter. Something they had not previously planned on. Apparently because they intend to use it for CAS in Afghanistan...

 

[Waylander]

Jup and I always thought that it is pure bullshit not to take the Mauser and replace it with a counterweight. They did not even planned to use the space for something else.
I mean..the gun is for sure the most cheap thing on this plane.