Why does no other country operate the A-10?

[boldeagle]

A-10 isn't exactly "Dead Meat"

Earlier in this discussion, someone theorized that the A-10 would be "dead meat" in a high tech battlefield without "fast movers" to clear the skies of other high speed / high tech "bad guys". That's not exactly true. When I was with Project Warrior at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL (just before the Gulf War of 1991) we ran some interesting scenarios wherein some of us "Red Team" types switched sides with the "Blue Team" and ran a simulation series with the A-10 functioning in an extremely hostile environment: A-10 being attacked by Soviet "fast movers". Most folks don't know that the A-10 has a really great, decoy dispenser system, in fact, probably the best one on the planet! An astute and well-trained pilot can use the decoy dispenser, the high maneuverability and massive GAU-8A "Avenger" cannon to "slice and dice" attacking "fast movers": a GAU-8A "tank busting" cannon turned against an aircraft, ANY aircraft, leaves nothing but teeth, hair, and eyeballs all over the landscape. Add a couple of AIM-9L or later "Sidewinder" air-to-air missiles to the Warthog's weapons load and the combat can become REALLY lopsided in favor of the ugly old Warthog! The key, here, is of course, the good and rugged Warthog, being flown by highly trained and talented pilots (air-to-air combat, in this case, being closer to World War II than to even Vietnam Era), but the point is that the A-10 isn't exactly "dead meat" against "fast movers"!

 

[eckherl]

Earlier in this discussion, someone theorized that the A-10 would be "dead meat" in a high tech battlefield without "fast movers" to clear the skies of other high speed / high tech "bad guys". That's not exactly true. When I was with Project Warrior at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL (just before the Gulf War of 1991) we ran some interesting scenarios wherein some of us "Red Team" types switched sides with the "Blue Team" and ran a simulation series with the A-10 functioning in an extremely hostile environment: A-10 being attacked by Soviet "fast movers". Most folks don't know that the A-10 has a really great, decoy dispenser system, in fact, probably the best one on the planet! An astute and well-trained pilot can use the decoy dispenser, the high maneuverability and massive GAU-8A "Avenger" cannon to "slice and dice" attacking "fast movers": a GAU-8A "tank busting" cannon turned against an aircraft, ANY aircraft, leaves nothing but teeth, hair, and eyeballs all over the landscape. Add a couple of AIM-9L or later "Sidewinder" air-to-air missiles to the Warthog's weapons load and the combat can become REALLY lopsided in favor of the ugly old Warthog! The key, here, is of course, the good and rugged Warthog, being flown by highly trained and talented pilots (air-to-air combat, in this case, being closer to World War II than to even Vietnam Era), but the point is that the A-10 isn't exactly "dead meat" against "fast movers"!

Good Quote - A lot people feel that because there is no longer masses of enemy armor out there that there in no longer a true mission for this bird of prey which is absurd, it is perfectly suited for small scale operations also and I know that the troops like seeing them around during skirmishes.

 

[LancerMc]

Lets not forget the fact if a MiG-21/29, or a Su-27/30 would ever to attempt to battle an A-10 at low altitude, the Thunderbolt would do turns around the Russian fast jets. The long and straight wings allow the A-10 huge amounts of lift at low altitudes, versus the small unstable wings of larger fast movers. This allows it to have awesome abilities in the low level environment.

The A-10 also has a number control system backups. The A-10 can take battle damage that nearly every other combat jet in the world, would just fall out of the sky after sustaining

 

[Big-E]

Earlier in this discussion, someone theorized that the A-10 would be "dead meat" in a high tech battlefield without "fast movers" to clear the skies of other high speed / high tech "bad guys". That's not exactly true. When I was with Project Warrior at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL (just before the Gulf War of 1991) we ran some interesting scenarios wherein some of us "Red Team" types switched sides with the "Blue Team" and ran a simulation series with the A-10 functioning in an extremely hostile environment: A-10 being attacked by Soviet "fast movers". Most folks don't know that the A-10 has a really great, decoy dispenser system, in fact, probably the best one on the planet! An astute and well-trained pilot can use the decoy dispenser, the high maneuverability and massive GAU-8A "Avenger" cannon to "slice and dice" attacking "fast movers": a GAU-8A "tank busting" cannon turned against an aircraft, ANY aircraft, leaves nothing but teeth, hair, and eyeballs all over the landscape. Add a couple of AIM-9L or later "Sidewinder" air-to-air missiles to the Warthog's weapons load and the combat can become REALLY lopsided in favor of the ugly old Warthog! The key, here, is of course, the good and rugged Warthog, being flown by highly trained and talented pilots (air-to-air combat, in this case, being closer to World War II than to even Vietnam Era), but the point is that the A-10 isn't exactly "dead meat" against "fast movers"!

Against any modern Russian aircraft the A-10 is deadmeat. The idea of keeping the "Avenger" trained on a super-sonic aircraft is absurd. A-10s slow speeds and pathetic climb rates would make her deadmeat to the P-51 I race on weekends much less the fastmovers I fly during the week. Giving it AIM-9L isn't going to do much good as any fighter will be able to outrange it in a chase. The A-10 is so slow it might as well be an Apache. The reason she has AAMs is to take out helos, not to hit a fast mover. Air superiority is a prerequisite for this aircraft if combat is to commence. Any commander to place it in such a hostile environment without dominance would be booted for incompetance. If you can put AMRAAM on it then we can talk.

 

[eckherl]

Against any modern Russian aircraft the A-10 is deadmeat. The idea of keeping the "Avenger" trained on a super-sonic aircraft is absurd. A-10s slow speeds and pathetic climb rates would make her deadmeat to the P-51 I race on weekends much less the fastmovers I fly during the week. Giving it AIM-9L isn't going to do much good as any fighter will be able to outrange it in a chase. The A-10 is so slow it might as well be an Apache. The reason she has AAMs is to take out helos, not to hit a fast mover. Air superiority is a prerequisite for this aircraft if combat is to commence. Any commander to place it in such a hostile environment without dominance would be booted for incompetance. If you can put AMRAAM on it then we can talk.

Well can you place a AMRAAM on it and if so would it help against your fast mover. Are you at liberty to tell us what kind of fast mover that you fly.

 

[Big-E]

Well can you place a AMRAAM on it and if so would it help against your fast mover. Are you at liberty to tell us what kind of fast mover that you fly.

While an A-10 wouldn't have the radar capability to support it a data link to an AWACs could. This capability would give it BVR with a superior AAM making it survivable against a fast moving threat, that survivability coming from the destruction of said target before it enters its kill zone.

I fly Hornets...

 

[eckherl]

While an A-10 wouldn't have the radar capability to support it a data link to an AWACs could. This capability would give it BVR with a superior AAM making it survivable against a fast moving threat, that survivability coming from the destruction of said target before it enters its kill zone.

I fly Hornets...

Thank you for the information and thank you for serving our country.

 

[Big-E]

Thank you for the information and thank you for serving our country.

Thank you... I think thanks needs to be extended to all DT members who have served the US and her allies in the spread of freedom and democracy. There are many here who also work and have worked behind the scenes that build the equipment we use that makes our jobs possible. Let me extend the thanks that way as well.

BTW you are looking at the USNs newest LTC. I think I have one of the earliest flow points this year. I just hit 9 years.

 

[RubiconNZ]

BTW you are looking at the USNs newest LTC. I think I have one of the earliest flow points this year. I just hit 9 years.

Congratulations,
Thats a fantastic effort,
Wish to you all the success you need,
next stop Admiral.
Rob

 

[swerve]

Lets not forget the fact if a MiG-21/29, or a Su-27/30 would ever to attempt to battle an A-10 at low altitude, the Thunderbolt would do turns around the Russian fast jets. The long and straight wings allow the A-10 huge amounts of lift at low altitudes, versus the small unstable wings of larger fast movers. This allows it to have awesome abilities in the low level environment.

The A-10 can only use that superiority if the fast fighter pilot ignores all his training & chooses to mix it. Anyone that stupid should not have been accepted for fighter pilot training.

 

[Big-E]

The A-10 can only use that superiority if the fast fighter pilot ignores all his training & chooses to mix it. Anyone that stupid should not have been accepted for fighter pilot training.

Exactly... why would a Mig-29 waste his fuel to turn into the A-10 when all he has to do is launch an Alamo, that Warthog is bacon bits.

 

[boldeagle]

Not easy, but still not exactly dead meat.

Agreed: the Warthog's forte is "getting down in the dirt". Hog drivers really know how to use terrain, maneuverability, their decoys and their gun to good advantage. Any "fast mover" that wants to come down within visual range and "play in the dirt" vs an experienced Hog Driver is taking his life in his hands! The best use of that GAU-8A Avenger cannon vs "fast movers" is to lay a stream of slugs across their flight path: they often could NOT maneuver quickly enough to avoid the deadly stream of DU rounds, and getting hit by only one DU round usually KOs the "fast mover".
As for any AAM, that's where the Hog's superb decoy dispenser comes in: you spit out a load of decoys while out turning the missile at the same time. The tactic is similar to how Skyhawk drivers used to dodge SAMs in 'Nam. Putting a hill or trees between you and the "incoming" also breaks missile lock, even at BVR. Admittedly, this is not easy, but the Hog isn't exactly "dead meat" either.

 

[Big-E]

As for any AAM, that's where the Hog's superb decoy dispenser comes in: you spit out a load of decoys while out turning the missile at the same time. The tactic is similar to how Skyhawk drivers used to dodge SAMs in 'Nam. Putting a hill or trees between you and the "incoming" also breaks missile lock, even at BVR. Admittedly, this is not easy, but the Hog isn't exactly "dead meat" either.

Using Nam type tactics is not going to save the Warthog from advanced Russian BVRAAMS. Even if you put the Rafale's countermeasures, which are far superior, on the A-10 she is still at a great risk. Russian BVRAAMs will be fired from alititudes that will make A-10s tree skimming ability a liability as it is a top down attack. Unless the A-10 gets behind a hill or canyon she will be in trouble, if she is in the desert where most ops have been as of late you won't find these topographical features. Against a fast mover the Hog is bacon... yum yum.

I don't know who was planning scenerios over at Mac Dill but it must have been before the introduction of modern Russian AAMs like Archer, Alamo and Adder. I imagine you ran exercises for the NCOs ordinance staff for NATO operations. At the time the A-10 wasn't up against the kind of threats she is in the 21st century as she was facing a Soviet Union fielding 60 and 70s type technology in a topgraphically diverse environment like that of Eastern Europe. Today the environment is very different... the field is open deserts with no cover and USAF is gauranteed air superiority. That last factor is the only reason the A-10 is still in operation today. The famed survivabilty of the A-10 has never faced the modern hell of advanced Russian AAM systems. There is one thing that is still constant in the world of non-stealth combat aircraft... speed is life, that is one thing the Warthog does not have.

 

[Waylander]

Congratulations!!!
Best wishes from me too!

 

[eckherl]

Using Nam type tactics is not going to save the Warthog from advanced Russian BVRAAMS. Even if you put the Rafale's countermeasures, which are far superior, on the A-10 she is still at a great risk. Russian BVRAAMs will be fired from alititudes that will make A-10s tree skimming ability a liability as it is a top down attack. Unless the A-10 gets behind a hill or canyon she will be in trouble, if she is in the desert where most ops have been as of late you won't find these topographical features. Against a fast mover the Hog is bacon... yum yum.

I don't know who was planning scenerios over at Mac Dill but it must have been before the introduction of modern Russian AAMs like Archer, Alamo and Adder. I imagine you ran exercises for the NCOs ordinance staff for NATO operations. At the time the A-10 wasn't up against the kind of threats she is in the 21st century as she was facing a Soviet Union fielding 60 and 70s type technology in a topgraphically diverse environment like that of Eastern Europe. Today the environment is very different... the field is open deserts with no cover and USAF is gauranteed air superiority. That last factor is the only reason the A-10 is still in operation today. The famed survivabilty of the A-10 has never faced the modern hell of advanced Russian AAM systems. There is one thing that is still constant in the world of non-stealth combat aircraft... speed is life, that is one thing the Warthog does not have.

Maybe I am getting a little off track here, but I would like to pose 3 questions to you in regards to having to go at it in a real life scenario.
1. What is the best AAM that is out there in the world.
2. What potential enemy aircraft would you dread coming up against.
3. Does the SU25 Frogfoot compare to a A-10 in capabilities.

 

[Big-E]

Maybe I am getting a little off track here, but I would like to pose 3 questions to you in regards to having to go at it in a real life scenario.
1. What is the best AAM that is out there in the world.
2. What potential enemy aircraft would you dread coming up against.
3. Does the SU25 Frogfoot compare to a A-10 in capabilities.

1. AIM-120D and or Meteor... only time will tell. If you mean current topline AAMs then probably the long range Adder variant.
2. If you mean Russian, the Su-35. If you mean any other then the Eurofighter
3. The Su-25 is not as good as the A-10 in CAS due to poor avionics and weapons choices although it is better if forced to an air duel.

 

[Chrom]

3. The Su-25 is not as good as the A-10 in CAS due to poor avionics and weapons choices although it is better if forced to an air duel.

Huh, i woldnt be so sure. Basic Su-25 and Basic A-10 had pretty even ,ugh, basic avionic and weapon choices. Currently (since 90x) upgraded Su-25x is superior to old A-10 in that regard - but there are not many upgraded Su-25 around. From my POV A-10 with its gun is anochronism what is useless even against poorly equipped rebels, let alone any regular army. MANPADS, you know...
Of course with Hellfire and all upgraded avionic with JDAMS, etc A-10 can find its use, but F-15E or Apach will do a much better job here....

Su-25 is also less-than-stellar in that respect, but at least with its higher speed its not as much behind normal fighter-bomber and have actually noticeable advantage compared to helo.
In 99% sorties Su-25 dont use its gun - and that should tell something to you about how important its really is.

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.

 

[eckherl]

Huh, i woldnt be so sure. Basic Su-25 and Basic A-10 had pretty even ,ugh, basic avionic and weapon choices. Currently (since 90x) upgraded Su-25x is superior to old A-10 in that regard - but there are not many upgraded Su-25 around. From my POV A-10 with its gun is anochronism what is useless even against poorly equipped rebels, let alone any regular army. MANPADS, you know...
Of course with Hellfire and all upgraded avionic with JDAMS, etc A-10 can find its use, but F-15E or Apach will do a much better job here....

Su-25 is also less-than-stellar in that respect, but at least with its higher speed its not as much behind normal fighter-bomber and have actually noticeable advantage compared to helo.
In 99% sorties Su-25 dont use its gun - and that should tell something to you about how important its really is.

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.

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

 

[swerve]

Any "fast mover" that wants to come down within visual range and "play in the dirt" vs an experienced Hog Driver is taking his life in his hands!

Which is why nobody except an utter incompetent would do that. He'd shoot it down from a nice safe distance & altitude.

 

[boldeagle]

Deja vu all over again...

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. As for which is better, the ugly, old Hog or the Russian Frogfoot, my money is staying on the economical old Hog, but that's just me.