Why does no other country operate the A-10?

[B.Smitty]

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.

How far gone are the A-10s at Davis-Monthan? My guess is they're probably all high-hour birds that've been sitting in the desert for years.

So you'd get a bunch of aircraft that you'd have to restore and modernize. You'd have to develop doctrine and train pilots. You'd have to develop a spares and support infrastructure. You'd have to buy munitions.

And they may not have much life left in them anyway.

Or, for $8 mil per new airframe, you could buy MQ-9 Reapers and get a vastly superior COIN and high-endurance sensor capability. And one that can even perform persistent CAS (though with even lower sortie rates than the A-10).

This would be a complementary capability to the JSFs, F-18s, F-111s, and Tigers planned or in service now.

 

[swerve]

How far gone are the A-10s at Davis-Monthan? My guess is they're probably all high-hour birds that've been sitting in the desert for years.

So you'd get a bunch of aircraft that you'd have to restore and modernize. You'd have to develop doctrine and train pilots. You'd have to develop a spares and support infrastructure. You'd have to buy munitions.

And they may not have much life left in them anyway.

Or, for $8 mil per new airframe, you could buy MQ-9 Reapers and get a vastly superior COIN and high-endurance sensor capability. And one that can even perform persistent CAS (though with even lower sortie rates than the A-10).

This would be a complementary capability to the JSFs, F-18s, F-111s, and Tigers planned or in service now.

Fair enough about old, worn-out A-10s. But the MQ-9 isn't very useful for CAS against someone with an air force still capable of operating.

 

[B.Smitty]

Fair enough about old, worn-out A-10s. But the MQ-9 isn't very useful for CAS against someone with an air force still capable of operating.

Neither is an A-10, frankly. For that you'll need F-18s or F-35s backed by AWACS.

Another way to go for enhancing Australia's CAS/COIN capabilities might be to add JDAM/LGB carriage as an option on their AP-3Cs. This would give them a moderately high endurance, range, and payload platform for just the cost of sensor/avionics upgrades and munition carriage clearance (and training, of course).

 

[Magoo]

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.

We are. Look for an announcement on that sometime next year.

Magoo

 

[knightrider4]

Mariner B

I,m a little confused by this trial thats just been conducted. Is Australian Customs to recieve the Mariner and the RAAF the Global Hawk?

 

[alexsa]

I,m a little confused by this trial thats just been conducted. Is Australian Customs to recieve the Mariner and the RAAF the Global Hawk?

Quite probably, nothing like having a common system to cut costs. Mind you customs will operate theirs under the auspicesis of JOPC while the RAAF will have their own so some the mission profile may be a little different.

I have read the DMO are looking at locking Air7000 into the UN Navy BAMS programme so the RAAF may end up with the Mariner in any case. (refer to September/October 2006 edition of defence Today).

 

[alexsa]

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.

Let me seek some clarification here. You want to take a large number of a trained strike aircraft jocks and put them into an aircraft that is really only suitable for one mission .... CAS (and for which we really do not have a need within our current operating structure) and leave them there.

So we end up wasting a large amount of training dollars to put our pilots in an old and slow aircraft that can straff tanks really well. tjhe disadvantage being it does not have any signficant sensors or systems even after being upgraded (those it ahs are carried by Strike aircraft anyway) and very limited mission flexibility.

Then we reduce our JSF buy???????

I fail to be moved by your arguement.

 

[Big-E]

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.

Hold up, you said to fund the A-10s they should forgo the rebarreling of half the Hornets. If you are not aware without the rebarreling the F-18s will not last until the arrival of JSF. Your suggestion would leave RAAF with 5-7 years without half her servicable Hornets and have totally destroyed RAAFs pilot structure. Your parrallel suggestion of putting F-111 pilots in A-10s would leave a significant gap in bombing capability. That wil leave 5-7 years with only half the Hornets operating, those that have not been rebarrelled will not be certified to fly. So for your transition plan for RAAF would contain 36 Hornets and 60 A-10s... that looks like a winner combo

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.

You seem to forget the maintenance issues related to the A-10s... most of the parts aren't made anymore. If you bought 60 used airframes you would have to cannabalize half of them just to keep the other 30 flying and that only buys you a handful of years. You know that stock A-10 was only made to fly for 4,000 hours, only the conitued USAF upgrade programs keep them servicable. If you want frames that will fly to 2028 like you suggested these aircraft would run you about $22 million USD a piece and these frames already have 10,000 hours. If you want to do the upgrade in Oz your more than welcome but it would be a forgone conclusion unless you only want to fly them for a few years. By the time your done upgrading and cannabilizing enough aircraft to get to 60 to last you until 2028 your talking about the same cost frame per frame of the A-10 on the low end cost of JSF.

Not to mention the USAF won't sell her A-10s as she needs them for spares.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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"!

just as an interesting point of trivia - the majority of stinkbug drivers (and this means that they were tapped and invited) were ex warthog drivers.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Quite probably, nothing like having a common system to cut costs. Mind you customs will operate theirs under the auspicesis of JOPC while the RAAF will have their own so some the mission profile may be a little different.

I have read the DMO are looking at locking Air7000 into the UN Navy BAMS programme so the RAAF may end up with the Mariner in any case. (refer to September/October 2006 edition of defence Today).

I'd rely on "DT" articles for info about as much as I'd rely on a crystal ball to pick the lotto winnings...

If you want anything like accurate info on Australian defence matters read ADBR ( http://adbr.com.au/ ). DT still quote and use KOPP as a source of "strategic guidance" and as a "military expert"...

 

[Aussie Digger]

The main reason we need 80-100 JSF's is so we can deploy a squadron
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.

If we MUST increase our CAS capability, why not upgrade a few of the C-130H's we ALREADY have to AC-130 standard? They would provide a capability that NO-ONE besides USAF have and can conduct CAS to a MUCH higher level than even an A-10 can. They also provide a VERY useful ISR capability that the A-10 cannot...

A deployment of 2x RAAF AC-130's to a theatre would provide tremendous combat capability, particularly in support of our (and others) specwaries who really need air support AND get all the gigs anyway (lately). Given that C-130's deploy wherever we go, support an AC-130 detachment on ops should be no problem at all and much easier than deployment of a Sqn of tactical fighters...

Upgrading and support 6 or so AC-130's would not be beyond RAAF's means, the infrastucture is setup to support the "H" anyway. Dovetail 6 of our "H's" into the RNZAF C-130H airframe upgrade program to lower overall costs for us AND RNZAF and then cycle the airframes through the US program. (I understand they just placed an order for a few more AC-130's recently, so joining it shouldn't be TOO difficult).

Oh, and maintain the full 100 strong order of F-35A/B's to maintain a credible fighter capability...

 

[rjmaz1]

If we MUST increase our CAS capability, why not upgrade a few of the C-130H's we ALREADY have to AC-130 standard? They would provide a capability that NO-ONE besides USAF have and can conduct CAS to a MUCH higher level than even an A-10 can. They also provide a VERY useful ISR capability that the A-10 cannot...

A deployment of 2x RAAF AC-130's to a theatre would provide tremendous combat capability, particularly in support of our (and others) specwaries who really need air support AND get all the gigs anyway (lately). Given that C-130's deploy wherever we go, support an AC-130 detachment on ops should be no problem at all and much easier than deployment of a Sqn of tactical fighters...

Upgrading and support 6 or so AC-130's would not be beyond RAAF's means, the infrastucture is setup to support the "H" anyway. Dovetail 6 of our "H's" into the RNZAF C-130H airframe upgrade program to lower overall costs for us AND RNZAF and then cycle the airframes through the US program. (I understand they just placed an order for a few more AC-130's recently, so joining it shouldn't be TOO difficult).

Oh, and maintain the full 100 strong order of F-35A/B's to maintain a credible fighter capability...

Someone else who is thinking outside the box.

AC-130's would also be a brilliant idea which is probably a more realistic and cheaper option.

The USAF has restricted their AC-130's to night time only. However in a lower tech conflict like East Timor im sure AC-130's could patrol during the day as well. Long endurance, precision fire power it would be good.

AC-130 will also ease the pressure off our Hornets as they will have alot of work once the F-111 retires.

 

[Ths]

I agree with Todjäger.
My argument is that the small number of aircraft limit the pilot-base needed if a different scenario arises over a few years. The 100 F-35 purchase is probably the best for the scenarios you can foresee.

But to limit yourself to what you can foresee is an invitation to be blindsided. Like reserving seats for the celebration of the 75 year anniversary of the German Democratic Republic.
The problem is that it takes 5-10 years to get a well trained operational pilot.

During the Battle of Britain it is often overlooked, that there had been university air squadrons for years that provided some pretrained pilots (allthough some of them flew terribly even with DFC's and bars). It is getting to be more important when your airforce - on a good day - has 50 aircraft available, because a wheels up landing takes out 2% of your airforce.

The US has traditionally maintained that ability to expand rapidly by having a high washout - that is kicking out officers that make minute mistakes - a slightly more lenient approach will give a better retention.

I don't know how Australia maintains a reserve pool of pilots, but I would think it a good idea to let a 747 pilot keep his hand in military flying by letting him fly a military plane occationally. And the flight hours produced by the F-35 are not going to be cheap.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

This thread is titled “Why does no other country operate the A-10?” we seem to be straying rather far from the original topic.

We have meandered, via using the A-10 for CAS, to Australian JSF procurement to AC-130 gunship!

The latest post discusses keeping ex-military B-747 pilots current on military platforms!

If we have nothing else to say on the original topic, I think we should shut it down and discuss any (or all) of the above-mentioned topics in appropriate threads.


Chris

 

[Ths]

With all due respect, I think all discussions on the A-10 have that tendency - just look at the raging debates between the Army and AirForce.

 

[Jezza]

If new build A 10Cs were available a lot of countries would consider
them.
Having 40 or so A10s in Australian outback linked to tigers and M1s would be an awesome asset to army and espacially the SAS.

 

[LancerMc]

Here's a question couldn’t the Australian Army request the purchase of A-10's for CAS duties? The U.S. Army has always wanted control the A-10's in the USAF, but inter-branch rivalries has stopped that. Does Australia have such a problem, or could their Army purchase them outfight for their own purposes?

 

[swerve]

Here's a question couldn’t the Australian Army request the purchase of A-10's for CAS duties? The U.S. Army has always wanted control the A-10's in the USAF, but inter-branch rivalries has stopped that. Does Australia have such a problem, or could their Army purchase them outfight for their own purposes?

I believe the Australian armed forces have the idea of working together, & combining their expertise. So the navy doesn't have an army, & the army doesn't have an air force. And they're happy to keep it that way. Let alone such idiocies as the navy seeking to establish a second army because its first one has got away, & established its own air force.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The U.S. Army has always wanted control the A-10's in the USAF, but inter-branch rivalries has stopped that.

I think this stems back to the early days of the creation of the USAF. The new Sec of Air Force anf Curtis Le May fought a long and hard battle against the USAAF and established that the US Army would no longer operate fixed wing combat aircraft.

Its a historical decision.

 

[alexsa]

I'd rely on "DT" articles for info about as much as I'd rely on a crystal ball to pick the lotto winnings...

If you want anything like accurate info on Australian defence matters read ADBR ( http://adbr.com.au/ ). DT still quote and use KOPP as a source of "strategic guidance" and as a "military expert"...

Hmmm, there is not a lot to read out there and lets face it the DMO website is not exactly current. I do read the ADBR.

This being said I did say "may" rather than "will" and simply reported what had been stated. At the end of he day I am a bit lost as to why we wouel ahve seperate customs and air force assets when we could do one buy and dedicate a proportion of tasking to JOPC for the air force assets.

No arguement on the Kopp front.