Why does no other country operate the A-10?
- Thread starter AK54
- Start date
because It would be ended in a massacre
None other country has the air superior as US, and A-10 with is low speed and even lower maneuverability will be shoot down like ducks. Against any fighter it has no chance to win and no chance to escape .more agile type like Su-25 will prove better in an relatively symmetrical war.Even US don t let A-10 to eat hard nut. it performence begin when all the hostile fighter was cleared and all the anti-air missle pull out by other fighter (like f-16) , only armor unit left to be slaughter ,Then it s capability equal to an arsenal will rain death upon them. However , in other country , such condition is very raire , more likely , your attacker will have to carry out the mission in the danger of hostile fighter and ground fire. A-10 in that case would not last a minute.
None other country has the air superior as US, and A-10 with is low speed and even lower maneuverability will be shoot down like ducks. Against any fighter it has no chance to win and no chance to escape .more agile type like Su-25 will prove better in an relatively symmetrical war.Even US don t let A-10 to eat hard nut. it performence begin when all the hostile fighter was cleared and all the anti-air missle pull out by other fighter (like f-16) , only armor unit left to be slaughter ,Then it s capability equal to an arsenal will rain death upon them. However , in other country , such condition is very raire , more likely , your attacker will have to carry out the mission in the danger of hostile fighter and ground fire. A-10 in that case would not last a minute.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
I thought South Korea did? At least were going to some time ago,
I suppose it is because of its deddicated role, Russia had its own variants for this, these days it would most likely be to costly to have such a dedicated platform only Superpowers can afford this an for the moment theres only one.
I suppose it is because of its deddicated role, Russia had its own variants for this, these days it would most likely be to costly to have such a dedicated platform only Superpowers can afford this an for the moment theres only one.
Every new kind of aircraft your Air Force operates is so expensive that many countries think twice before they purchase such a specialized plane.
BTW, during cold war the A-10 was meant to operate directly over the frontlines to cripple the SU tank columns and artillery divisions. This is not a place I would name one with total air superiority of NATO. That they don't wan to risk it nowadays is no sign for what it is intended to do.
BTW, during cold war the A-10 was meant to operate directly over the frontlines to cripple the SU tank columns and artillery divisions. This is not a place I would name one with total air superiority of NATO. That they don't wan to risk it nowadays is no sign for what it is intended to do.
apparently, this bloke from china may not have good grammar but he certainly knows his stuff! good posts there, mate. good to have u on deftalk.
None other country has the air superior as US, and A-10 with is low speed and even lower maneuverability will be shoot down like ducks. Against any fighter it has no chance to win and no chance to escape .more agile type like Su-25 will prove better in an relatively symmetrical war.Even US don t let A-10 to eat hard nut. it performence begin when all the hostile fighter was cleared and all the anti-air missle pull out by other fighter (like f-16) , only armor unit left to be slaughter ,Then it s capability equal to an arsenal will rain death upon them. However , in other country , such condition is very raire , more likely , your attacker will have to carry out the mission in the danger of hostile fighter and ground fire. A-10 in that case would not last a minute.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
hmm that makes sense, thanks.None other country has the air superior as US, and A-10 with is low speed and even lower maneuverability will be shoot down like ducks. Against any fighter it has no chance to win and no chance to escape .more agile type like Su-25 will prove better in an relatively symmetrical war.Even US don t let A-10 to eat hard nut. it performence begin when all the hostile fighter was cleared and all the anti-air missle pull out by other fighter (like f-16) , only armor unit left to be slaughter ,Then it s capability equal to an arsenal will rain death upon them. However , in other country , such condition is very raire , more likely , your attacker will have to carry out the mission in the danger of hostile fighter and ground fire. A-10 in that case would not last a minute.
There is another factor in the cold war scneario:
Maybe there wasn't airsuperiorit; but there were so many other targets in the area the A-10 would operate. Fighters, combat helicopters, tanks dug in infantry, AAA.
Secondly: Few airforces has the size to allow a specialisation in CAS - which is a refrasing of "wouldn't survive".
Thirdly: The engines on the A-10 are to small. They are not needed for top speed; but for accelleration out of trouble. The main problem is the MANPADs.
Fourthly: A-10 are very good in mountains, where helicopters get short of "huff" - Few countries fight in mountains.
Maybe there wasn't airsuperiorit; but there were so many other targets in the area the A-10 would operate. Fighters, combat helicopters, tanks dug in infantry, AAA.
Secondly: Few airforces has the size to allow a specialisation in CAS - which is a refrasing of "wouldn't survive".
Thirdly: The engines on the A-10 are to small. They are not needed for top speed; but for accelleration out of trouble. The main problem is the MANPADs.
Fourthly: A-10 are very good in mountains, where helicopters get short of "huff" - Few countries fight in mountains.
Every air force and military has "control of the airspace" as a first objective before launching a military attack. That America can do so more efficiently doesn't mean others dont plan to do the same. Look at every modern conflict and domination of the air space is numero uno, or, right near the top.
The real reason other nations dont fly the A-10 is because they dont want to spend the money to field such a specialized asset when they figure dual use/multi role systems will do the same job. Look at what happened to the Tornado in Gulf-1 and you see how flawed that reasoning is. Add to that military people, and Politicians with the at home pork, like fancy shiny new jets like the F-16 far more then the boring A-10. Weve always been close to shelving the A-10 and replacing them with multi-role fast movers too when any imbecile knows the two systems are far different and the A-10 is both far more capable and survivable in its intended role.
So thats the real reason "why". Its because we spend the money and others dont. The fact that we "dominate the airspace" has nothing to do with it because any ones air force has that as its mission. We have a long history of always having specialized tactical/attack aircraft and that seems to be ending now. With the exceptions of our dwindling bomber force America is going to have air forces made up entirely of air dominance and multi-role fast jets. Thats a pity because we need an airplane like the A-10. I think like the Marines the Army needs its own jet pilots to fly these types of airplanes.
The real reason other nations dont fly the A-10 is because they dont want to spend the money to field such a specialized asset when they figure dual use/multi role systems will do the same job. Look at what happened to the Tornado in Gulf-1 and you see how flawed that reasoning is. Add to that military people, and Politicians with the at home pork, like fancy shiny new jets like the F-16 far more then the boring A-10. Weve always been close to shelving the A-10 and replacing them with multi-role fast movers too when any imbecile knows the two systems are far different and the A-10 is both far more capable and survivable in its intended role.
So thats the real reason "why". Its because we spend the money and others dont. The fact that we "dominate the airspace" has nothing to do with it because any ones air force has that as its mission. We have a long history of always having specialized tactical/attack aircraft and that seems to be ending now. With the exceptions of our dwindling bomber force America is going to have air forces made up entirely of air dominance and multi-role fast jets. Thats a pity because we need an airplane like the A-10. I think like the Marines the Army needs its own jet pilots to fly these types of airplanes.
We will not sell the A-10 to another country period, Isreal asked for them after the first Persian Gulf war and we told them no. South Korea was interested in it and we told them no. Everytime the U.S Airforce wants to get rid of them the U.S Army threatens to train Warrant officers to fly them and take control of them. Yes the A-10 Warthog is slow, a WW2 P-51 Mustang is faster but if you look at it`s role of close air support it is one of the best that are out there ie: big gun, can take a beating, good pilot protection, fly at tree top level all day long, turn on a dime. If you take a look at the small scale conflicts that are going on right now this is the perfect bird of prey to help some ground pounders out. This cold war era tank buster will hopefully be around for a while yet.
Yes - the Iraqi Shilka`s had a field day shooting at the British Tornadoes, their losses were so high that they altered their missions.
Definitley the A-10 is a very impressive aircraft for a basic regional conflict.
I think one of the main reasons that the A-10 has not been purchased is because air force generals only want the best shiniest and fastest aircraft available. Hornets, Eagles, Vipers and Raptors are the shiny aircraft that make an aircraft good on paper. An A-10 however does the hard work that no other aeroplane can.
All the armies in the world wish their air force had an aircraft like the A-10. Yet few of the airforces would even consider operating the A-10 because it doesn't look good and has old technology.
If you need to tow a trailer across the country, you dont pick a high performance sports car and stick a tow bar onto it. A cheap older car could tow 10 times better at a fraction of the cost.
For Australia an A-10 pruchase right now would be sensational as it would:
1) Increase the level of Close air support we can provide to our troops.
2) Bridge the gap between the Hornet and JSF, as we need more aircraft.
3) Provide a low-high combat mix with the JSF. JSF goes in first, the A-10 mops up.
4) The US has off the shelf engine and avionic upgrades available which we could buy easily.
5) The A-10 is easy to fix and maintain and have alot of life left. As the aircraft is so simple new wings could even be made in Australia to keep them flying for decades.
6) The A-10 is cheap, we could buy a dozen second hand A-10 aircraft for the cost of a single JSF
Australia needs 100 JSF's with 80 being the minimum buy. However with the price rise we may only be able to afford 60 JSF's unless we increase our budget. Instead of spending 5 billion extra to get the minimum of 80 aircraft, we could spend only 1 billion and get 40 A-10's bringing the total number of aircraft up to 100 aircraft. A much better option.
Its interesting though that Israel wanted to buy the A-10 and was denied,
Well no, actually.Yes - the Iraqi Shilka`s had a field day shooting at the British Tornadoes, their losses were so high that they altered their missions.
Several Tornado IDS (6 I think) aircraft were lost during low-level strike missions, using the JP233 runway-denial weapon, in the early days of the operation. Delivering this weapon required the aircraft to fly low and fast down the runway. This made the aircraft particularly vulnerable to AAA and MANPADs. It was because the mission to put the runways out of action was complete, rather than the mounting losses, which was the reason the Tornado IDS aircraft, were switched to other tasks. (Bombing from medium altitude with dumb bombs and LGBs, initially designated by TIALD carrying Buccaneer Aircraft). (Another couple of aircraft were lost on other mission, at least one of these was due to mechanical failure).
These days a stand-off weapon such as Storm Shadow would be used.
Also the runway denial task was a strike mission rather than CAS. The Tornado was chosen because of the effectiveness of the JP233, over other available US forces. It was not a mission suitable for the A-10.
The A-10 is a very good aircraft for CAS. It can fly slowly allowing the pilot sufficient time to see the target that the troops on the ground need to be hit. Originally a tank buster, it can carry a wide range of weapons that make it ideal for CAS operations when engaged in an asymmetric conflict. For attacks against troops on the ground, it is a little over-gunned, but strafing the opposition is a great moral booster for your own side.
With the current Middle-East style conflicts likely to continue for many years, IMHO, I think that the US should develop a new dedicated CAS aircraft, using the same principles applied to the A-10; I even have a name “Warthog II”
Chris
I think one reason why the A-10 was never released for export was the GAU-8 and its ammo. The Avenger was then a very advance gun, and the Soviets were still using 1 or 2 barrel on their guns systems. The bigger reason I believe is the ammo used by the Americans. The DU and HE 30mm rounds worked so well nothing can protect against them. I believe this is the main reason the A-10 was never exported. The U.S. didn't want to risk losing the secret of the Avengers capabilities to the USSR.
I wouldn't see now why the U.S. wouldn't let allies like South Korea and Australia have the A-10. They could update AMARC aircraft to A-10C's and sell them. I think South Korea could be using some right now.
I wouldn't see now why the U.S. wouldn't let allies like South Korea and Australia have the A-10. They could update AMARC aircraft to A-10C's and sell them. I think South Korea could be using some right now.
I was told that they do not have it, but I will find out for sure and get back with you.
Well, its going to be around awhiles at least. We are upgrading the A-10 fleet to A-10c and its going to enhance the airplane as well as strengthen its punch. Upgraded engines will be installed which will make the jet faster. Computerized flight systems are being installed which will simplify flying it, and the new targeting system will simplify operating the plane and delivering weapons. If I remember right the A-10c will have the ability to deliver the entire inventory of precision munitions including our precision munitions dispensers.
So what was already an enemies worst nightmare is becoming an even worse one.:nutkick
I just had it confirmed, no South Korean A-10s.
That is really a sweeping statement and is not correct. In late seventies or early 80s, US offered to sell Pakistan the A-10, F-20s, or F-18L. Pakistan was more interested in buying the 2nd best, the F-18L as they were certain that they could never receive the F-16s. But then Regan approved the F-16s which in Pakistan's view could perform better than all the other 3 aircrafts previously offered.
It's a matter of specialization. No country has the need per cost ratio for such an aircraft. Money is better spent on dual purpose platforms such as strike fighters and gunships. Only the US military has the budget for such luxeries as the A-10.
We offered to sell Pakistan the A-10 during the cold war period??, the other aircraft I could see, and yes if you want to launch millions of dollars worth of ordanance on the battlefield then the F-16 is your aircraft. If you want a aircraft that cost less on the battlefield and can take more of a beating then the A-10 is better suited.