I suspect that the A10 when faced with any half way sophisticated opponent, eg. Russia, would be toast, to put it bluntly. High volume anti aircraft fire, or air superiority, would defeat it.
Sorry, Peter.

Peter - To the uneducated, that would seem to make sense, however in reality, the A-10 is a MF to shoot down 1V1 in the air even with Gen 4 and Gen 5 fighters. However, the A-10 is somewhat of a target for MPADs but their survivability to missiles exceeds anything else in the air. So at the end of the day, the A-10 is a beast that still has many uses on the modern battlefield - especially against something like ISIS and rag headed terrorists...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Peter - To the uneducated, that would seem to make sense, however in reality, the A-10 is a MF to shoot down 1V1 in the air even with Gen 4 and Gen 5 fighters. However, the A-10 is somewhat of a target for MPADs but their survivability to missiles exceeds anything else in the air. So at the end of the day, the A-10 is a beast that still has many uses on the modern battlefield - especially against something like ISIS and rag headed terrorists...

I was a USAF pilot for 24 years, 1983-2007. I flew C-130s, T-38s, T-1s; participated in many exercises and deployments with A-10s, and my last USAF assignment was at Davis Monthan. During that time I never once heard anyone describe the A-10 as being difficult to shoot down with Gen 4 and 5 fighters. The A-10 is VERY vulnerable to an air threat. It can't sustain G well, it's slow, and if not employed properly they get shot up badly by ground fire. I remember the first briefing where I heard that. A GO involved in Desert Storm told us that while the A-10 crews were exceptional, every time they sent them to a high threat environment they got shot up badly.

A-10s were designed to kill tanks and be tough enough to get the pilot home in a 1980s style tactical environment. That would be Gen 3 Soviet fighters, ZSU 23-4s, SA-7s, etc. That said, when employed properly they are a useful asset, but "properly" requires air superiority and good intel on where the SAM sites are.

I can say much the same about my C-130s. I learned to successfully survive Gen 3 fighters with their 1980s vintage weapons. Those same tactics don't work so well against Gen 4 and 5 fighters, and I would NOT root around anywhere where I didn't know about the SAM sites. And a C-130 is likely harder to kill than an A-10 when hit by a SAM, though the right SAM can quickly take out either.

An A-10 at 20,00 feet is a sitting duck. An A-10 down in the weeds especially with terrain is a MF. I knew two Warthog drivers out of Myrtle Beach AFB who bragged about easily dodging F-16s and avoiding radar/missile lockup. Modern lookdown/shootdown radar still isn't great with a maneuvering aircraft 50 feet off the deck.

Now maybe the new F-35 visual tracking system solves the problem, but that would assume the F-35 can keep up with the Warthog and can keep the weapons system operational long enough to launch something...

Bottomline, the A-10 still serves a purpose that the rest of our inventory would have trouble filling and returning pilots safely. Ask a grunt on the ground what they want overhead - it's either a Spooky or an A-10.

True, IF the F-35 could manage to get airborne with all systems working, the Hog would be in trouble.........

For the record, a C-130 in the weeds can be difficult as well, but neither a C-130 or A-10 will survive against an F-16 for long. Vipers know how to fly in the weeds too........

They don't call them lawn darts for nothing...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
They don't call them lawn darts for nothing...

They got that name when some genius decided that if the stab failed it should go full nose down. They did fix that......

Funny that I haven't heard that song on the radio.
Here in the desert, we have F-16s and F-22s from Holloman in the friendly skies above.

"Worlds biggest varmint rifle".....
- Grumpy
92nd TFS, RAF Bentwaters UK, 1979-81

It just seems odd to this old Soldier that it's perfectly OK for an Army Apache, arguably a less robust aircraft with much less firepower, to fly in close to engage the enemy than it is for the flying tank A10 to do the same. Both are vulnerable to SAMs and both really need air superiority to be most effective but no one is arguing that because an Apache will take fire it should be withdrawn.

Should we do the same for tanks, Bradlys, APCs? How about the poor grunt with a rifle getting close and personal with the enemy?

Yes it would be nice to have a modern replacement but we don't have one and it won't be the F35 and it isn't the F16. No matter how brave and skilled the pilot nothing else delivers for the grunt on the ground like the Hawg and you will not win without the Infantry.

If you go to war expect the enemy to shoot back. If you want to win expect to take a few hits.

Jerry Liles

I am not saying it should be withdrawn, but F-16s can do anything the A-10 can AND hold their own in a dogfight.

A-10s are granted an almost mythical status by those who really don't understand air power. The A-10 fills it's limited role well enough, but it's not magic. It can't fight its way in and out like an F-16
or F-15E, it can't loiter or lay down the gun firepower of an AC-130, and it can't get in tight like an Apache.

All the grunts I came across would much prefer an AC-130. An AC-130 can take out a tank 50' away from our troops with virtually no risk of missing. Ground troops seemed to like that.........

We only have 17 active duty AC-130Us in inventory. There seems to be reluctance to build more for fear of survivability.

We have about 283 A-10Cs still in service.

Pull the A-10s and we have a big gap in our ground game.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
We only have 17 active duty AC-130Us in inventory. There seems to be reluctance to build more for fear of survivability.

We have about 283 A-10Cs still in service.

Pull the A-10s and we have a big gap in our ground game.

Where the hell did I say anything about pulling them? Though they are outdated, they are all we have until we build a replacement.

Where in the hell did I say that you did? All I said is pull the A-10s and we have a big gap in our ground game.

The A-10 is not mythical or magical, but finding a replacement within our current inventory or even anything currently proposed nexgen will be significantly difficult. And since the Air Farce isn't exactly pumping out AC-130Us by the dozens tells me that sooner or later, we are going to have a gap in our close in air support. And that's a gap that not even the F-16V will be able to fill unless we build/convert over our entire inventory to them. With most of our future eggs in the F-35 basket, not sure that is going to happen and I's pretty well convinced that the F-35 will never be a good ground support AC much less a good fighter.

Anyhow, the A-10 is a purpose built air craft that Fairchild got right. Not sure anyone imagined that 45 years ago that the A-10 would still be largely irreplaceable today. About the only other platform that can boast that is the BUFF (and the C-130 to a lesser degree).

We really need to rethink our air capabilities and the future battlefield. Personally, I believe we are headed in the wrong direction.

We already have a gap. If I were in charge we'd build restart the F-22 production line, build Silent Strike Eagles, build a new CAS platform--similar to A-10 capability but 200-300 knots faster and stealthy, and that is just a start.

BTW, using the term "Air Farce" is extremely derogatory and personally insulting. The US Air Force is THE most dominate and effective fighting force that has ever existed on this planet--that is not hyperbole but demonstrable, and I helped make it that way.

If you are a former military member then the terms: jarhead, grunt, squid, flyboy, etc. may be used as affectionate terms of endearment. However, if you have not served then the terms are off limits and ANY insult to ANY of our armed forces will not be tolerated.

Chill out scooter. I have the up most respect for any one who serves this country but I have a little less respect for the military politicians who have sold out taxpayers for BS platforms that we do not need and cannot afford. The F-35 is a perfect example and the littoral combat ship is another and there are plenty more. These programs steal resources and dollars away from the programs that we do need and that is not serving our military men and women. And yes, the F-35 is a farce and a folly.

Regardless, we need a restart on our military procurement and direction. We are on the wrong path. And if I offended you personally with my comment, my apologies. BTW - most of my Navy and Marine friends call the USAF much worse, but I'm sure you already know that...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Peter - To the uneducated, that would seem to make sense, however in reality, the A-10 is a MF to shoot down 1V1 in the air even with Gen 4 and Gen 5 fighters. However, the A-10 is somewhat of a target for MPADs but their survivability to missiles exceeds anything else in the air. So at the end of the day, the A-10 is a beast that still has many uses on the modern battlefield - especially against something like ISIS and rag headed terrorists...

quote:

Originally posted by JJB:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Peter - To the uneducated, that would seem to make sense, however in reality, the A-10 is a MF to shoot down 1V1 in the air even with Gen 4 and Gen 5 fighters. However, the A-10 is somewhat of a target for MPADs but their survivability to missiles exceeds anything else in the air. So at the end of the day, the A-10 is a beast that still has many uses on the modern battlefield - especially against something like ISIS and rag headed terrorists...

Except the A-10 is not hard to shoot down with Gen 4 and 5 fighters.......

You're assuming that the F-35's radar, weapons system, gun, and engine are working that day...

quote:

Except the A-10 is not hard to shoot down with Gen 4 and 5 fighters......

Which is why we have gen 4 and 5 fighters to match.

The A10 is a purpose built machine, not an air superiority fighter. To say it is not a vital part of the inventory just because it can't match a latest MIG in a dogfight is a straw man argument. The Apache and the C130 Specter can't match the MIG either but no one is calling to pull them from inventory. Conversely the latest gen 4 and 5 aircraft can't supply the degree of close air support the A10 can.

Until and if someone comes up with a suitable replacement the A10 is still the best of the best fixed wing close support aircraft and one of the grunts best friends.

Am sure all of us are aware of the drone application in todays battles and would advise that is only the beginning for pilotless aircraft. Coming soon at a theater near you.

And that is exactly where our development funds should be focused but unfortunately, the F-35 hole is too big for that to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
You're assuming that the F-35's radar, weapons system, gun, and engine are working that day...

I exclude the F-35 from all my prognostications on what aircraft we need and have.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Liles:

quote:

Except the A-10 is not hard to shoot down with Gen 4 and 5 fighters......

Which is why we have gen 4 and 5 fighters to match.

The A10 is a purpose built machine, not an air superiority fighter. To say it is not a vital part of the inventory just because it can't match a latest MIG in a dogfight is a straw man argument. The Apache and the C130 Specter can't match the MIG either but no one is calling to pull them from inventory. Conversely the latest gen 4 and 5 aircraft can't supply the degree of close air support the A10 can.

Until and if someone comes up with a suitable replacement the A10 is still the best of the best fixed wing close support aircraft and one of the grunts best friends.

My comments are directed at the idea that the A-10 is difficult for a Gen 4 or 5 fighter to take out. It's not. The A-10 is an outdated platform that never really got to be used for its designed purpose, which was taking out invading Soviet tanks. As cool as it is the A-10 is adequate for how it's currently used but that is it. It needs replaced.........

We do need a replacement for it and we need to upgrade many of our fully capable legacy aircraft - you know the one's that actually work as intended. But unfortunately, the F-35 is stopping that from happening with it's $1.5 Trillion price tag. $1.5 Trillion can do a lot of serious upgrading as well as development of new platforms. Than again, Congressmen do not get to put their fingers on upgrade expenditures so never mind...