The Warthog has suffered more near death experiences in Washington than it ever faced on the battlefield.

Go Hog!


http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-f...-amid-232648633.html

You know the brass hates the fact that a "Cheap", Simple, Effective" aircraft is kept in the inventory.

15-20 years ago, when I was a USAF pilot, I remember a briefing given on Desert Storm. The General was very complementary of A-10 drivers, but pointed out how they got shot up in environments where F-16s didn't. So much so they quit sending them on those missions.

While I love the A-10, I think the F-16 is a better choice for most of what the A-10 does.

A grunt on (or in) the dirt in contact with the enemy wants an A10. Nothing does close air support like a Warthog! It is a Infantry sort of airplane and, perhaps, belongs in the Army's inventory. Nothing against the F16 it just isn't really suitable for that job.

Jerry Liles

The A-10 was built to fly around Europe and kill tanks. In a CAS role is it doesn't have the firepower, accuracy, or loiter time of an AC-130. An Apache is much more responsive and usually closer in than an A-10, so the slow helo speeds are much of a factor.

The A-10 cannot be as rapidly sent to a target as an F-16. The A-10 goes half as fast. Its 30mm gun is great against armor but not really any better against troops and vehicles than the F-16s 20mm gun. The F-16 is WAY more survivable against an air OR ground threat, and it has no issue maneuvering tight and close. If there ever did happen to be an air threat, the F-16 can transition from an effective CAS platform to premier air-to-air machine. The A-10 cannot.

The A-10 is also not a very good escort aircraft. I remember one time flying in a C-130 formation and being escorted by A-10s. We needed to bump up our speed to 250 KIAS, and the A-10s had a difficult maneuvering around our formation. And when a threat was called out and they went to kill it, they could never catch back up to us. F-16s have no such issues.

Reasons like the above are why those truly in the know want to retire the A-10. If you have eliminated the air threat, Apaches and AC-130s are much better CAS platforms. If you have an escort mission, an air threat, or a serious SAM threat, the F-16 is a better choice.

The A10 is still the best close support aircraft ever. It isn't a multi-role ship. It isn't an escort or air superiority fighter. IF you insist on making it multi-role it will fail. It is a down in the dirt brawler and the worthy successor to the Skyraider of Vietnam and the P47 of WW II.

The GAU 8 with HE shells works nicely against soft targets and the Hog will carry more bomb load than a B17 and it can loiter. As for the speed of the A10 it is not fast but it isn't exactly slow for its mission either. It is a rugged aircraft and should be forward deployed like the Army's helicopters.

To say it is vulnerable to damage is true, just as it is true for all equipment involved in combat. Should the Army not employ tanks because they can be damaged? Ask the infantry in contact with the enemy what they think of that.

The Apache is a terrific attack helicopter but it cannot carry the load of an A10 and it cannot absorb the damage the A10 can. The two aircraft complement each other.

You say the AC-130 is better for close support. If there is no real ground threat it is but it is more vulnerable than the A10 and apparently requires escort and there are relatively few of them.

The F16 is a wonderful fighter and it can do a creditable job of support but it cannot really loiter, it tends to attack from altitude and it just cannot get down an root out the enemy like the Hog. If I remember correctly the F16 was limited from getting close in the Gulf due to the damage it took. The F16 also requires more maintenance and cannot operate off forward strips.

I wish the Army had the A10 or a similar aircraft for the job and let the Airforce concentrate on air superiority and bombers. Both very essential missions and missions it does very well. I really would not like to be in a theater where we did not have air superiority. However close support somehow otherwise seems to be lower priority and it is a mission the grunt forces take very seriously. The Marines have the right idea. All Marine pilots were once Infantry and they take support extremely seriously.

My 2 cents as an old down it the dirt Doggie

Don't try to use logical arguments concerning the A-10; it doesn't fly here (pun intended). I've tried it every time one of these "We love the A-10" threads start, but my 20+ years experience in the USAF don't amount to beans against the "Nothing better for a grunt" crowd, and the "'brass' just doesn't know what they're doing" group. The fact that an A-10 can't do anything that an F-16 can do twice as fast falls mostly on deaf ears because the A-10 looks so cool.

quote:

Originally posted by Toomany Tools:
Don't try to use logical arguments concerning the A-10; it doesn't fly here (pun intended). I've tried it every time one of these "We love the A-10" threads start, but my 20+ years experience in the USAF don't amount to beans against the "Nothing better for a grunt" crowd, and the "'brass' just doesn't know what they're doing" group. The fact that an A-10 can't do anything that an F-16 can do twice as fast falls mostly on deaf ears because the A-10 looks so cool.

LOL!!! Thanks for that. My last assignment was working in an ACC HQ, and it was filled with crusty Majors, Lt Cols, and Cols. Guys who had been there and done that. Backgrounds were varied. On top of that the base that was hosting the HQ had a wing of A-10s.

The consensus seemed to be while the A-10 was indeed a cool plane and fun the fly and no one would bad mouth it, it just wasn't anyone's top choice for combat any more. They employed A-10s because it's what they had, not because it's what they wanted.

IIRC, in the gulf wars A-10s were used mostly from medium altitudes and dropped bombs and fired Mavericks.

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Toomany Tools:
Don't try to use logical arguments concerning the A-10; it doesn't fly here (pun intended). I've tried it every time one of these "We love the A-10" threads start, but my 20+ years experience in the USAF don't amount to beans against the "Nothing better for a grunt" crowd, and the "'brass' just doesn't know what they're doing" group. The fact that an A-10 can't do anything that an F-16 can do twice as fast falls mostly on deaf ears because the A-10 looks so cool.

LOL!!! Thanks for that. My last assignment was working in an ACC HQ, and it was filled with crusty Majors, Lt Cols, and Cols. Guys who had been there and done that. Backgrounds were varied. On top of that the base that was hosting the HQ had a wing of A-10s.

The consensus seemed to be while the A-10 was indeed a cool plane and fun the fly and no one would bad mouth it, it just wasn't anyone's top choice for combat any more. They employed A-10s because it's what they had, not because it's what they wanted.

IIRC, in the gulf wars A-10s were used mostly from medium altitudes and dropped bombs and fired Mavericks.

Never got a chance to prove or disprove what they were designed to do, fight off the Soviet tank hordes in the Fulda gap. Is one hell of a neat airplane though, that cannon has always fascinated me.

Grizz

The Thunderbolt II aka "warthog" indeed has proven its mettle and basic use principle- perhaps not against Russian tanks in the Fulda gap, but against Russian tanks in Kuwait, Iraq and AFG multiple times over. While many kills were made with PGMs, many more were made with low and slow 30 mm DU from the AG8U Gatling gun. Plus, may a Taliban and or regime loyalist were dug out of mud huts and ditches by the same.

Nothing (other than maybe an AC-130 variant) better to have running over head when metal is seeking flesh.

Dirt soldiers have a great affection for the A10 that is inspired by no other aircraft except the AC130 in current Air Force inventory. It is the infantry of aircraft that shares the danger of being close with the enemy. Perhaps it is outmoded but there is nothing else that gets down with the troops. In the Gulf war it was the F16 that would not get below medium altitude. If the A10 sustained a lot of battle damage it's because it was where the action was doing battle. The airplane deserves a CIB. We also deserve a proper replacement.

Jerry Liles
USAR Ret

The A-10 sustained a lot of battle damage because it was slow, and they quit sending it where it could get shot up. I knew several A-10 drivers and they typically engaged at medium altitudes with missiles and bombs, just like the F-16s.

While the AC-130 is probably the top choice of grunts for air support, it is vulnerable. I think it's time for an AC-17.......

A-10 = $18.8 million
F-16 = C/D,$18.8 million, A/B = $14.6 million

same cost to within $100k I call BS.

This is from the AF.mil site

quote:

I think it's time for an AC-17.......

Yeah, cuz that's not a GBT.

The A-10 vs the F-16 argument is the same that happened between the P-51 and the P-47. Sure the Mustang could strafe and drop bombs, but a BB in the radiator and it was finished. The P-47 could lose three or more cylinder heads and still make it home - albeit with a lot of extra noise and smoke, but you got home. There is a reason why the A-10 is still flying and still called into ground support roles. It does what the F-16 could not survive.

In regards to an AC-16, 180 MPH will not make it any more survivable on the modern battlefield. AC-130 is great when dealing with the Taliban or Africans with the latest in 1970's era RPGs. But probably over its head in a modern battlefield with a plethora of MPAD technology on it.

F16 with bombs = F104 with bombs = Thoroughbred with saddlebags = VS model in galoshes.

Comparing survivability between the A-10 and F-16 in terms of how much battle damage they can take is ridiculous; the idea is to not get hit in the first place and F-16s get hit a whole lot less. Joke used to be the A-10 had two rounds counters; one for outgoing and one for incoming.

Comments above on the comparative cost of the two jets: economies of scale is why the two aircraft cost about the same. Over 4,200 F-16 produced compared to barely over 700 A-10 represents a HUGE difference in return on capital investments. Same for maintenance costs.

But just like the armchair generals in Congress, the folks here won't be convinced. The A-10 was developed for the Vietnam War and probably would have been great there, but it never made it and we're not going to do that again...

If everything you say is true, why is it still flying? Guess the brass just wants them all shot down so that they can switch over to the far superior F-16.

If you don't want to be shot at don't go to war.

The Army and Marines get down and dirty and engage the enemy at close range. AFVs trade fire with the enemy. Army and Marine helicopters come in range of the enemy. They do it because that's the way to take ground and inflict maximum damage on the enemy.

I'm not saying to fight stupid and I'm all for the other side getting the worst of it but you can't win by avoiding being shot at. As far as comparing now with Vietnam it seems to me the Nam was a hotter war and harder on aircraft than either Gulf war and the Air Force got down with the Grunts in their ancient Skyraider and took the damage and supported the troops and we really appreciated it. For the same reason we really appreciate the Hog riders that share the danger and come to our aid.

Jerry Liles

When I first saw the title of this post I expected to open it and see a video clip of a warthog running across a strip in Africa and getting cut up.

That would make more sense that getting rid of this great weapon.

quote:

But just like the armchair generals in Congress, the folks here won't be convinced. The A-10 was developed for the Vietnam War and probably would have been great there, but it never made it and we're not going to do that again...

There are some great interviews with the guys who communed to design the A10. Will find some links if y'all insist. The concept was to build something that could assist NATO in overcoming the numerical superiority of Soviet armored forces in Europe. Viet-Nam was never referenced in any material I saw. The FW190 and P47 were major influences in design and function. There is a good clip of Stormin' Norman on this topic. They were all revisiting Kursk in their heads, not Viet Nam or Iraq or Detroit.

IMO, as I haven't flown any of them, your choice here is gonna depend a lot on the specific mission that day. Is the target well defended by AA? What's your weapon? Load? Loiter? Time to target? Last I checked, an F16 doesn't turn at 200 KIAS with a full bomb load at FL 010 on a 95 degree day. It might not even fly. Unless there was some major upfit I missed, the F16 doesn't take old clunker soviet era AA very well. I've seen original development film of an A10 on a ramp taking 53mm AA PBR into the tub. Messes up the paint a tad but that's about it.

Viper doesn't get shot up cuz he's not in the fight or he's a stand-off platform. If stand-off, you're far better in an F15E eh?

F16 = F105

DG--
With your stated equivalencies:

"F16 with bombs = F104 with bombs = Thoroughbred with saddlebags = VS model in galoshes."

"F16 = F105"

Curious how you rate/equate other "A" labeled equipment:
Such as the A-6, A-7, or the Scooter I flew- (A-4)

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
DG--
With your stated equivalencies:

"F16 with bombs = F104 with bombs = Thoroughbred with saddlebags = VS model in galoshes."

"F16 = F105"

Curious how you rate/equate other "A" labeled equipment:
Such as the A-6, A-7, or the Scooter I flew- (A-4)

Dunno, hadn't thought about that. Suppose you'd compare them with historical naval A types.

My first line there was more of a play on function but in comparing the F16 to the F105 I was thinking about high performance single engine unarmored platform being used in an attack role and the potential loss rates. IIRC the F105 took a beating in Viet Nam.

Don't think I know anyone who flew A6 or A7 but someone close to me has time in A4 and speaks highly of it. When did you fly A4?

Unfortunately , the Carter era-- sad times for the Navy.
Heck of platform-
bit short on legs- but a new turbofan could fix that

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
Unfortunately , the Carter era-- sad times for the Navy.
Heck of platform-
bit short on legs- but a new turbofan could fix that

A few are flying as contract TAC air. You can buy em all cleaned up pretty cheap (relatively speaking). Would make a great weekend commuter.
You could buy one and a million gallons of fuel for what a King Air costs.

To old , decrepit and fleeced by divorce court to safely fly or acquire one-

Nice thought though - a TA-4 J in particular-
dress her up in FastFAC or Playboy markings

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
To old , decrepit and fleeced by divorce court to safely fly or acquire one-

Nice thought though - a TA-4 J in particular-
dress her up in FastFAC or Playboy markings

Yessir! I'm rowin' the same boat. Good to be free of the boat anchor though.

I flew A-7Es (Navy) back in the Vietnam era. The A-10 came along a pretty good while after Vietnam and was in no way designed for Vietnam or equivalent. As a matter of record the Air Force also had A-7Ds which were used extensively in Vietnam and when the A-10 was in development many senior Pentagon civilians and Generals wondered why the AF was buying a new plane when the A-7s had done a pretty good job in the same missions, which brought about a flyoff competition between A-7Ds and A-10s. As usual with these kind of silly operations the deck was stacked against the A-7 because the A-7 had the M-61 20mm gun while the A-10 had the larger 30mm gun, plus AF generals wanted a shiny new airplane that wasn't a Navy design. The AF A-7D and Navy A-7E had large weapons payloads, including Sidewinders and SAM suppression missiles, and were excellent, proven, close air support platforms with longer combat range, loiter time, and much higher airspeeds for the longer range strikes. At $5.5 million they were also much cheaper and could have been modified for additional anti-armor capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by A7drvr:
I flew A-7Es (Navy) back in the Vietnam era. The A-10 came along a pretty good while after Vietnam and was in no way designed for Vietnam or equivalent. As a matter of record the Air Force also had A-7Ds which were used extensively in Vietnam and when the A-10 was in development many senior Pentagon civilians and Generals wondered why the AF was buying a new plane when the A-7s had done a pretty good job in the same missions, which brought about a flyoff competition between A-7Ds and A-10s. As usual with these kind of silly operations the deck was stacked against the A-7 because the A-7 had the M-61 20mm gun while the A-10 had the larger 30mm gun, plus AF generals wanted a shiny new airplane that wasn't a Navy design. The AF A-7D and Navy A-7E had large weapons payloads, including Sidewinders and SAM suppression missiles, and were excellent, proven, close air support platforms with longer combat range, loiter time, and much higher airspeeds for the longer range strikes. At $5.5 million they were also much cheaper and could have been modified for additional anti-armor capabilities.

Thanks for that. Great stuff.

Did the A7D/E have any sort of protective armor? Did the limited rearward visibility cause you any grief?

The A-7E had some limited armor protection on the belly under the engine, specifically under the oil pump and oil supply lines. The rearward visibility was just not a factor any more than any other tactical aircraft with the ejection seat headrest blocking direct rear vision. We had nicely placed mirrors on the canopy bow and you could pretty much just bend your neck around to get good rearward vision. Besides, whenever we went feet dry we were in a combat spread formation with the wingman free to maneuver in a cone around the lead and up to 1/2 mile away to prevent a SAM (700 ft kill radius) from killing 2 birds with one stone. Each pilot was able to look forward, down, above and behind the other aircraft and see any threats. On large strikes like an Alpha Strike with 40-60 strike aircraft there were plenty of other eyeballs plus a fighter CAP cover of 8-12 F-4s.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
To old , decrepit and fleeced by divorce court to safely fly or acquire one-

Nice thought though - a TA-4 J in particular-
dress her up in FastFAC or Playboy markings

LIKE THIS?

beautiful aircraft

no one could ever call A10 beautiful but certainly functional!

LOL. Nobody could ever claim the A-7 was beautiful either but it was extremely functional. The Air Force nickname for the A-7D was SLUF; Short Little Ugly F_ _ _ er.

I always liked the A7. It just looked capable and it was. Reminds me of a pitbull.

Well before the days of smart bombs, A-7s were constantly scoring bulls on bomb drops. A F-15 driver told me of one A-7 unit they flew against that would occasionally get an F-15 kill when the 15s tried to attack.

They should have built more A-7s than getting the A-10, but the Hog was a better tank buster with the 30mm gun. An A-7 with a 30mm gun would have bested the A-10 even in the anti-tank role. IIRC, A-7s could get 450-500 kts.

I wish they had built the F-16XL.

We could actually get a little faster than 450-500 Kts. Going in to North Vietnam with a heavy weapons load we would accelerate in a shallow dive from 18-20,000 in altitude down to our roll-in altitude of 13-14000 and end up at around 450 KIAS for the run to the target. In the dive we'd get about 520 KIAS at the bottom and then after the weapons were off we could get about 600 for the ride out of there. That was with bombs (1000 pounders or 2000 pounders)loaded directly on the wing pylons and full ammo; if we were loaded on multiple bomb racks we were a little slower on the run back out. Our normal load for night and day armed recce was 5-500 lb bombs, 3 Rockeye bombs, a flare pod, a Shrike anti-radar missile and full 1100 rounds of 20mm. With that load we could run the roads and railroad lines or rivers at about 400-450 KIAS down low. The aircraft was rated for Mach 1.06 but to get it we had to climb to 40K, roll inverted and pull the nose straight down; it would accelerate rapidly to supersonic but then slow to subsonic just as rapidly as you got to lower altitudes. Fun but not practical!