Why does no other country operate the A-10?

[Magoo]

there's also the example of an Oz SAS team that conducted the negotiated surrender of an Iraqi town west of bagdhad during Gw2 by calling in a supersonic flyby. it apparently accelerated the opening of the town.

Hi gf - actually I think it was a huge cement factory west of Baghdad you're referring to. Rather than reduce it to rubble and thus place further pressure on Iraq's already crumbling infrastructure, a low-level supersonic flyby by an F-14 (a noted 'big boomer') was requested and carried out. All it did was break a few windows but it resulted in the surrender of about 30-odd Iraqis!

Re Australia getting a dedicated CAS aircraft, whether it be an A-10 , Pucara , A-37 nfloorl: or whatever...Guys, the ADF currently has no requirement for such a capability, so the point is totally moot.

There are far bigger and more experienced brains than mine and 99.9% of us on this forum who would agree that a dedicated CAS aircraft would be a total waste of resources when you're talking about our regional context.

Magoo

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi gf - actually I think it was a huge cement factory west of Baghdad you're referring to. Rather than reduce it to rubble and thus place further pressure on Iraq's already crumbling infrastructure, a low-level supersonic flyby by an F-14 (a noted 'big boomer') was requested and carried out. All it did was break a few windows but it resulted in the surrender of about 30-odd Iraqis!

ah mate - you are absolutely right - it was just a cement factory acting as a mil outpost...

 

[abramsteve]

Hi gf - actually I think it was a huge cement factory west of Baghdad you're referring to. Rather than reduce it to rubble and thus place further pressure on Iraq's already crumbling infrastructure, a low-level supersonic flyby by an F-14 (a noted 'big boomer') was requested and carried out. All it did was break a few windows but it resulted in the surrender of about 30-odd Iraqis!

I heard the story as being a low level flyby by an Australian F/A-18? Then again I read it in the local paper so that proberly should have told me somthing!

 

[icelord]

Nope, F-14, request came over, first had too many bombs, second F-14 was more then excited to do it.
First fly by missed the point, second fly by got it spot on, half shit them selves and hid in the bunkers, others bolted for the front gate.
SAS told them they had 15mins or the place would become rubble, next thing 40 soldiers and workers came out waving anything white, without a single shot fired. After a quick look-see by SAS, factory was allowed to restart production, but warned they would be in the area.

 

[rjmaz1]

Re Australia getting a dedicated CAS aircraft, whether it be an A-10 , Pucara , A-37 nfloorl: or whatever...Guys, the ADF currently has no requirement for such a capability, so the point is totally moot.

I strongly disagree.

The capability gap between the JSF and Commanche is huge.

For the US it would be completely overkill for a F-22 patrolling the skies of Iraq right now. Cheaper F-16's can do the mission flawlessly.

The JSF offers the same overkill for the majority of our missions in the type of conflicts we will encounter. The A-10 can do CAS and act as a forward air controller and perform this roll just as good as the JSF. As the aircraft is a fraction of the price then it is logical to buy this aircraft for those missions which then reduces the number of JSF's required.

The operating costs may be slightly more using two types but the initial purchase cost would be far less for a similar capability.

Quantity had a quality of its own. The sooner the RAAF realises that we cant afford the best in sufficient quantity the better.

 

[WaterBoy]

In one respect I agree with you. In a benign / uncontested airspace CAS scenario, the JSF or even A-10 would be an overkill. Fortunately the ADF have just purchased some Eurocopter Tigers, which will essentially deliver the same ordinance (30 mm cannon, hellfire missiles & unguided missiles) as an A-10. The ADF have even described the Tiger as surprisingly accurate.

In a contested airspace CAS scenario it would be folly to risk a helicopter asset & crew; equally putting an A-10 & pilot at risk are equally foolish. Don’t forget, an A-10 isn’t impervious the ground fire, & doesn’t have the kinematic performance to stay out of harms way. That’s when using an ‘overmatch’ capability makes sense, as it involves minimal risk to both asset & crew.

The JSF offers the same overkill for the majority of our missions in the type of conflicts we will encounter. The A-10 can do CAS and act as a forward air controller and perform this roll just as good as the JSF.

The JSF will offer unmatched sensor capability & weapons delivery, which will only be rivalled by the F-22 & F/A-18E/F, and then only in some aspects. The ‘fused’ sensors will allow the JSF to perform CAS in all weather, day & night, and against moving targets, with outstanding accuracy using datalinked JDAM’s & SDB’s. It will simultaneously be capable of datalinking information with other assets & perform OCA/DCA operations too.

Even with upgraded avionics, an A-10C still won’t have an AESA radar; it still won’t be an all weather attack aircraft, it can’t evade detection like a JSF, or defend itself. The A-10 was designed when precision weapons were in their infancy, & CAS relied almost entirely upon the pilots’ ability to put the bomb in the pickle barrel. Even precision strike (LGB & EO ordinance) required good weather (visual) conditions. Now there is no need to put pilot & aircraft at risk to achieve the desired accuracy.

...why risk them when we have systems that can deliver deadlier firepower with less risk.... There is no point to risk our pilots to MANPADs and AAA fire anymore.

Finally CAS isn’t a scenario where good enough is adequate. What would you prefer to have supporting you on the ground; A 30 year old A-10, with a pilot aiming a cannon through NVG’s 2-3 km away, or a JDAM which will hit within 3m of where it’s told to go?

WaterBoy

 

[Big-E]

Finally CAS isn’t a scenario where good enough is adequate. What would you prefer to have supporting you on the ground; A 30 year old A-10, with a pilot aiming a cannon through NVG’s 2-3 km away, or a JDAM which will hit within 3m of where it’s told to go?

I would rather see the ADF develop NLOS systems with smart munitions and JSF carrying JDAMS and SFWs. If they spend funds on a dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 or even the less capable Pucara that would hurt ADFs transformation into the 21st century. The ADF is not the US and they don't have the budget we have. Some here have said that they wouldn't have enough systems to support any operation with the CAS the A-10s provide and I ask... With the combination of 22 Eurocopters, several squadrons of JSF and the addition of smart 155mm ammo I think would be more than enough for the size of the Army.

I would suggest a better purchase than the A-10 would be to get some MLRS and purchase US Army Paladins that will be sold off with FCS acquisitions. I think the ADF is rather weak in heavy artillery.

 

[Ths]

I think this Australian A-10 discussion up to now has missed a very important point:
We seem to agree that the F-35 is an insurance against what may happen in 10-20 years time.

I do agree on CAS to shop cheaply for what is on the market.

But the important point is:
The Australian forces are no doubt second to none; but they are not very many.
This means that the present soldier are the ones that shall train the recruits in the event that an upscale is necessary.
This is fine with infantry and other branches of army as they can grow with an organisatorial level within a year and probably 2 within 4 years.
The RAN is reasonably comfortable as the these patrollers will allow training a lot of junior officers and give them comman at an early age, so what needs to be trained are ratings - which are quicker to train than commanders.

The Air Force however is in a different position.
Training enough pilots, so they are at hand in the event of an upscale, takes say 5 years before he is operational, and trained airmen that are required for maintainance about the same.
The F-35 will result in fewer aircraft and fewer flying hours - which in effect translates into fewer operational pilot in not only short term; but also medium turn.

Getting some cheap - and reasonably maintainable CAS aircraft - would be a way of producing the nescessary flying hours required to build up a medium term reserve - call them reserve squadrons or National Guard squadrons with part time pilots; but it can be done - and has been done.
For years the US Air National Guard flew antiques, but then during the cold war the started to get quite capable secondhand equipment. This not only retained a considerable amount of pilot skill, but also kept F-16 A' in working order.

These F-16's would then be available as attrition replacements to minor US allies in Europe - notably Holland, Belgium, Norway and Denmark - if need be with pilots. From what I know: Denmark had a pilot/aircraft ratio considerably bigger than one, so we would be able to absorb replacement aircraft (OK i meant a quicker wearing out of the planes at hand; but there were regular replacement buys (cheap ones too).

In Australias case I can see the need for retaining piloting skill so in the event You can convert pilots within a year. I think the cheapest way to do it is to buy some second hand CAS, that still can fullfill an immediate need (such as Iraq or Afghanistan) if need be.
An other avenue would be to design one indigniously - can't be to difficult, andwould provide a base for repair and upgrade that could come in handy if the Indonesians started getting impertinent. A quick transfer of say mothballed F-18's could quickly be brought up to operational standard and pilots trained within a politically significant timeframe.

 

[icelord]

I would suggest a better purchase than the A-10 would be to get some MLRS and purchase US Army Paladins that will be sold off with FCS acquisitions. I think the ADF is rather weak in heavy artillery.

Already on the cards. Project Land something? is under way, which will see the RAR recieve mobile Artillery. Requirment is that it is not towed, front runner appears to be the Caesar, but odds on they skip this all together for something Completely different. Not heavy per say, but better then we've had before.

Ok let me get this straight, There seems to be a fear that the pilots of the tigers, or an A-10 may get killed... well derr! What the hell are we talking about here, this is no Football game, this is Military Affairs, with Military applications, do i need to point out there is a risk no matter what, half the people here have/are serving, and the other half are looking to, and its a common acceptance that they know they could be killed. The Tiger and A-10 are fine pieces of Hardware, the Tiger is the most modern Recon/Attack Helicopter going round, and is the best damn buy for the Army Air fleet in years. Has anyone seen the bird its replacing?
And yes your talking about limiting their danger and so forth, but lets be realistic, can you really do that in a war zone?

I do like the idea of the Reserve RAAF, hell all it is right now is a couple of firies and ADGs, with some docs thrown in for the hell of it. If it comes out a a good idea to keep a Squadron of F-16s to allow more hours, then i hope they go for it. I've said before, and many here know, the Chief of Defence is a fly boy, so he'd be looking out for the RAAF at all times if something was brought before him(not at expense of the ADF though) with something like this in mind. But we do have to remember that any purchased Aircraft needs to be able to have a very long and extended Range, the F-16 is operated by the Saudis and Singapore, We have a lake the size of Singapore, and Victoria's mountains are bigger the Saudi lands. The F/A 18 and F-111 have long ranges, and there is a new tanker coming in i know, but they still need to go further without refueling. JSF would have a better range then an F-16, i don't know, if i'm wrong let me know, but common sense would state this.

This is why i should get a good nights sleep, because i wake up early, tired, grumpy, and with a point to prove to the world, now i'm going to breakfast, good morning to all!

 

[rjmaz1]

In Australias case I can see the need for retaining piloting skill so in the event You can convert pilots within a year. I think the cheapest way to do it is to buy some second hand CAS, that still can fullfill an immediate need (such as Iraq or Afghanistan) if need be.

An other avenue would be to design one indigniously - can't be to difficult, andwould provide a base for repair and upgrade that could come in handy if the Indonesians started getting impertinent. A quick transfer of say mothballed F-18's could quickly be brought up to operational standard and pilots trained within a politically significant timeframe.

Spot on, you bring up a key point that a CAS aircraft will indeed boost the total amount of pilots. These aircraft can act as a form of heavy trainer.

As this CAS aircraft would take the majority of the flying hours and probably take 25% of the workload. As the attrition of the JSF would be extended the number of JSF could be halved for only a 25% reduction in workload which has been taken up by the JSF.

There are no mothballed F-18's, the USN has transfered its good hornets to the Marines and most leftover have no flying hours left.

Also an indignious aircraft would be sensational. Building an aircraft like the A-10 would not be hard as it uses 50 year old construction techniques. Wack in some modern off the shelf avionics and away you go. Such a program would never get off the ground though, not enough aircraft and would still be more costly.

What i proposed in another thread was that new A-10 wings were built in Australia. The parts that are required to extend the life of second hand A-10's could all be built in Australia, a much easier job and would still provide a boost to Australian Industry.

Another key point i also proposed that an A-10 purchase right now would act as the fill in aircraft before the JSF arrives. When the F-111 retire we will only have our hornets for a few years until the JSF comes online. We could have A-10's arriving as soon as the F-111 retires so that all F-111 pilots can jump straight into a squadron of A-10's. Half of the Hornet pilots could also transfer to a squadron of A-10's. This would allow the existing hornets to be shared between fewer pilots eliminating the need for the centre barrel program. As the Hornet would only be used for air/sea defence they would not have to be flown as much. This then allows a perfect crossover to the JSF.

With 3 squadrons of A-10's we would only require 2 squadrons of JSF's IF the A-10's are the aircraft that is deployed oversea's. If we deployed the JSF oversea's instead we would need 4 squadrons of JSF and only 1 squadron of A-10. So 60 A-10's bought ASAP and then 40 JSF's ordered in 2015. 40 JSF's might not be much but remember if the aircraft is not deployed oversea's that elimiated two squadrons right away with no capability loss on Australia soil.

The A-10 hits many birds with one stone.

1) Provides us with dedicated CAS
2) The A-10 can be deployed oversea's helping OUR troops
3) Boosts Australian Industry
4) Eliminates hornet rebarreling
5) Acts as crossover aircraft until JSF arrives.

People dismiss the A-10 because of the first two points, yet the other three are probably more important. The cost of rebarreling half of our hornets is enough money to buy 60 non upgraded A-10 aircraft. So pretty much the A-10's initial purchase cost will be FREE!!!!!

 

[Rich]

High-Tech fast movers turned into expensive CAS will never be true replacements for an A-10 type aircraft. Why would you even want to risk a 100 m+ aircraft to ground fire on low level missions in the first place. Especially such fragile ones like the coming F-35? It doesn't matter if its invisible to radar or not because if an enemy can see the thing they can shoot at the thing. That and speed while in the grass aint all its cracked up to be because if your flying to fast you cant see and shoot the thing your aiming for.

Does anyone here really think that one should buy such an expensive, and potentially war winning, system like the JSF as a hedge against a street fighter like the A-10? Thats partly an American problem too as we, and especially our USAF, has been pushing the delusion for years that big $$$ fragile fast movers like F-16 et al can be tasked for CAS and be every bit as successful as the A-10.

Simply put the A-10 is perfect for its role, even more so now with its upgrades. And no congressman with fast mover factories in his district, or general who lives to feel need for speed, is going to change that. Lets face it, USAF has been wanting to get out of CAS, and CAS aircraft, for decades now, "with the exception of the CAS jockeys".

Another point I'd like to make is that we Yanks seem to always want to be prepared for a war against an enemy with our capabilities, or like those of our western friends, Aussie friends, Japanese, and other 1st world denizens. The reality is we "probably" will be fighting against a generation or two behind us where we establish almost instant Air supremacy, an environment where the A-10 can hunt and kill at leisure.

The airplane is the most survivable system of its type we've ever built and in its intended role it is fearsome. I support those here who are leery of turning big $$ fast movers into "instant CAS systems" on the basis of convenience, budget shuffling, and conjecture.

 

[Big-E]

Another key point i also proposed that an A-10 purchase right now would act as the fill in aircraft before the JSF arrives. When the F-111 retire we will only have our hornets for a few years until the JSF comes online. We could have A-10's arriving as soon as the F-111 retires so that all F-111 pilots can jump straight into a squadron of A-10's. Half of the Hornet pilots could also transfer to a squadron of A-10's. This would allow the existing hornets to be shared between fewer pilots eliminating the need for the centre barrel program. As the Hornet would only be used for air/sea defence they would not have to be flown as much. This then allows a perfect crossover to the JSF.

Let me get this straight... you are suggesting that RAAF purchase A-10s to serve as a transition platform from F-111 and F-18s to the JSF. Do you want the Hornet pilots to lose all of their aggressor training? Do you want the Ardvark drivers to forget how to do a bombing run? They would do better to put together Hawk squadrons for CAS if you want it to be a transition aircraft.

With 3 squadrons of A-10's we would only require 2 squadrons of JSF's IF the A-10's are the aircraft that is deployed oversea's. If we deployed the JSF oversea's instead we would need 4 squadrons of JSF and only 1 squadron of A-10. So 60 A-10's bought ASAP and then 40 JSF's ordered in 2015. 40 JSF's might not be much but remember if the aircraft is not deployed oversea's that elimiated two squadrons right away with no capability loss on Australia soil.

Your advocating scrapping half the JSF order to be replaced with A-10s. I'm sure MoD would love you... nfloorl:

The A-10 hits many birds with one stone.

1) Provides us with dedicated CAS
2) The A-10 can be deployed oversea's helping OUR troops
3) Boosts Australian Industry
4) Eliminates hornet rebarreling
5) Acts as crossover aircraft until JSF arrives.

People dismiss the A-10 because of the first two points, yet the other three are probably more important. The cost of rebarreling half of our hornets is enough money to buy 60 non upgraded A-10 aircraft. So pretty much the A-10's initial purchase cost will be FREE!!!!!

The stock A-10 is not what's expensive... it is the upgrades. You are basically suggesting not extending the Hornets in exchange for aircraft that have no ability for air superiority or heavy strike capability. The ADF has a limited budget and if the option is having flyable Hornets or modern A-10s I think the choice is obvious.

 

[Ths]

It wasn't my idea to cut into orders of the F-35!!!!

 

[knightrider4]

Warthog

I guess a point to consider as well of course that the primary mission of the Warthog is to use that lovely cannon that fires 30mm DU rounds at heavy armour. Unfortunately or fortunately Australia does not use DU rounds so that kind of limits the effectiveness of the cannon. Then of course it comes down to the use of GPS/laser guided munitions and I reckon a hornet is as effective as a warthog in releasing guided munitions. The days of tree hugging or skimming the desert sands at ridiculously low speeds are well and truly over in my opinion, perhaps the USAF people here could shed some light on the effectiveness or otherwise of the warthog in todays manpad intensive battlefield.

 

[Big-E]

I guess a point to consider as well of course that the primary mission of the Warthog is to use that lovely cannon that fires 30mm DU rounds at heavy armour. Unfortunately or fortunately Australia does not use DU rounds so that kind of limits the effectiveness of the cannon. Then of course it comes down to the use of GPS/laser guided munitions and I reckon a hornet is as effective as a warthog in releasing guided munitions. The days of tree hugging or skimming the desert sands at ridiculously low speeds are well and truly over in my opinion, perhaps the USAF people here could shed some light on the effectiveness or otherwise of the warthog in todays manpad intensive battlefield.

Agreed...

The Warthog is centered around the impressive GAU-8/A, everything else it can do can be delievered by other aircraft better suited for the task. So the A-10 basically comes down to a single gun. Is the expense of it really worth it for a gun?

 

[Todjaeger]

Hmm... I'm getting a sense of deja vu here, I seem to remember a similiar discussion about the A-10 & the RAAF before. Anyway, here's my US$0.02

The A-10 is a good, arguably the best, dedicated CAS aircraft currently in service. It is well armed, well protected, and can fly low and slow to allow target selection and identification. However, the design decisions made on the A-10 were at the cost of multi-role ability. Even with a different or upgraded avionics fit, the A-10 cannot realistically be used as a strike or air superiority fighter unless there was nothing else.

With it a given that the A-10 can really only be used for ground attack, that limits potential end-users. Such end-users would be in one of two categories. The first would be large, well funded air services that can afford to have specialist or single-role aircraft. The other would be smaller, less well funded air arms that due to geography or strategic situation feel an emphasis on CAS at the expense of other combat operations is appropriate.

For Australia, I believe the general consensus is that the RAAF can support approximately 100 combat aircraft, including OCU aircraft. Also, given the current types and numbers of aircraft, about a quarter of them will be for OCU and/or training (ie of about 71 F/A-18 Hornets, 14 are two seater F/A-18B)
Outside of a Defence of Australia scenario, this would mean that approximately 75 combat aircraft are available for deployment.

Given that the RAAF would have more potential combat mission types than just CAS as part of defending Australia and allies, I don't think a draw down of available numbers for other air combat roles would make sense.

But as I wrote, that's just my US$0.02

 

[Big-E]

It wasn't my idea to cut into orders of the F-35!!!!

That's what rjmaz1 suggested...

 

[Waylander]

I don't see the A-10 being a good choice.
The A-10 is just master of one thing.
CAS.
Nothing more.

But what about the essential other roles which are important for a country like Australia?
The JSF might be not that numerous but if you need an Interceptor you get one, if you need a precision strike bomber you get one, if you need anti-ship capabilities you get them, if you need CAP you get it, if you need CAS you get it,...

There is not that big gap between a JSF with JDAMs, Paveways, etc. and the Tiger.
Save the money for the A-10s and use it for getting as much JSFs or additional Tigers as you can get.
And as Big-E already said the money could also be used for a capable artillery and MLRS force. (But I think you shouldn't waste you money on american Paladin. Buy the PzH2000! )

If you then look at the mix of JSF, Tiger, Self propelled artillery, MLRS and mortars it is for sure enough support capability for the army.

 

[B.Smitty]

If you then look at the mix of JSF, Tiger, Self propelled artillery, MLRS and mortars it is for sure enough support capability for the army.

Perhaps Oz should look at buying some number of MQ-9 Reaper UAVs instead of A-10s or other CAS/COIN aircraft.

Unlike the A-10, these would provide a unique capability not found in existing or planned Oz systems.

They can carry a useful warload, have tremendous endurance, and an extremely capable SAR and EO/IR sensor suite.

Plus, they aren't very expensive to buy or fly, and Australia has already begun evaluations of the navalized version - the Mariner.

 

[rjmaz1]

Let me get this straight... you are suggesting that RAAF purchase A-10s to serve as a transition platform from F-111 and F-18s to the JSF. Do you want the Hornet pilots to lose all of their aggressor training? Do you want the Ardvark drivers to forget how to do a bombing run? They would do better to put together Hawk squadrons for CAS if you want it to be a transition aircraft.

The A-10 would be used as a transition aircraft, in that it would be used to maintain the number of aircraft until the JSF arrives. It will not like a leased aircraft where the pilots will have to go back to flying a different aircraft at a later date and forget their training. Once the JSF arrives the A-10 would remain in service and the Hornets would be retired. Most of the pilots that were transfered to the A-10 would remain flying A-10's, the Hornet pilots would then start flying the JSF's. So forgeting how to do a bombing run is not an issue.

Your advocating scrapping half the JSF order to be replaced with A-10s. I'm sure MoD would love you... nfloorl:

The main reason we need 80-100 JSF's is so we can deploy a squadron oversea's and keep them there by rotation. If a squadron is oversea's and a squadron has just returned from oversea's that leaves around 40 JSF in Australia ready to fight..

However as i suggested in a previous post that you must have overlooked, if the A-10 is deployed oversea's instead of the JSF then the number of JSF aircraft aircraft could be reduced. The JSF order could easily be halve and our self defence and strike capability would not be reduced.

The A-10 would be the most logical aircraft for us to deply oversea's. The US will already have air dominance and more JSF's would be in theatre than our entire air force, another 20 Australian JSF's wont add anything special. A Squadron of A-10's would provide something different this is even more important if we have troops on the ground. The A-10's can be dedicated just for protecting our own troops.

Sure we could just knock 10 JSF off the order and then get 60 A-10 aircraft. However with the A-10 we could half the JSF order and have similar capability and save a bucket load of money in the initital purchase.

Then you have the fact that the A-10's would technically cost nothing as the money from the CBR program would pay for the A-10's. SO halving the JSF order would free up alot of funds that can be used elsewhere to further improve the navy, army and air force.