A-10 Thunderbolt II and the USAF

There was a major upgrade of the A-10 avionics not too long ago as well.

 

You have a couple of problems here. This particular weapons system is composed of multiple parts, one being the airframe which is very capable. Another part is the pilot, and since transferring much of the A-10 fleet to the Air National Guard that portion of the capability has degraded. This is primarily due to lack of flying hours, not the inate quality of the individual pilots. Add to that the Air Force (and it's reserve arm) giving low priority to training for CAS missions and you have serious problems. The A-10 is by far the number one weapons system for inflicting friendly fire casualties and often in higher numbers. This is especially true when supporting units other than the US Army. US Marines, Brits, Australians, etc. have been the on the receiving end of a number of these incidents, mainly due to a lack of familiarity between the Airforce/ANG and the operational proceedures and vehicles used by these forces. Misidentification due to lack of training equals dead friendlies.
Then you have to look at the weapons systems most often employed by the A-10. More and more often the weapon of choice is a missile, and when this is the option a Hellfire from a drone or helicopter is just as effective as a Maverick from an A-10. A drone additionally has an excellent loiter time, slow enough speed and is often not detected giving it a stealth advantage. Helicopters have an advantage over the A-10 in their greater time to locate and identify their targets. I know many Marines that don't want an A-10 anywhere near them when engaged in a firefight because of fear they'll be the target, not the bad guys.

One word on the statistics. I went back and read the sources about the information being put out to frame the debate and would like to point out a few things.
1.) They're comparing A-10's to other manned, fixed wing platforms, not using figures for all CAS platforms. By excluding drones and helicopters which fly a huge number of strikes, particularly the drones, it makes the A-10 look stronger.
2.) They're only using Airforce piloted aircraft when showing safety figures. If they included all CAS aircraft, those operated by the Marine Corps, Navy and attack helicopters operated by the Army they'd have a harder case to prove to keep the A-10. Again, this is due to the Airforce pilots not having training for CAS as a priority, it's an ancillary skill.

 

True they are excluding however it has been the USAF that made the case that the F-22, F-35, B-1 etc could take over the role of CAS from the A-10, I don't see the airframes the USAF is backing as being able to compare that said what you mention may have merit, But would require a more detailed study to identify whats best, Sadly will not happen with the USAF in charge of CAS.

Incorrect, The AV-8 Harrier piloted by the Marine Corps actually has the highest rate of civilian casualties per the amount of missions flown. Was shown in one of the articles I posted.

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/air-force-doctored-statistics-about-friendly-fire-and-civilian-deaths-to-get-rid-of-a-10-attack-jet-150213?news=855657


While it seems the USMC has never really liked them (Has been pointed out in numerous new's articles) the US Army loves them, Could be an inter rivalry thing going on, Or a case of the A-10 being responsible for a number of US Marines deaths or just different training and procedures that makes it harder to implement (Last point makes it a good case to transfer CAS entirely to the US Army and USMC).

All the asset's have a place and even time to be used, We just need to work out to what extant and not try and push it onto other assets that could have a negative effect long term.

 

I stand corrected. I read three articles on the subject prior to my reply (not the one's linked) and none mentioned the Harrier. One was a pro A-10 article, one advocated the retirement, and one was fairly neutral.

I don't think it an interservice rivalry thing, the Marines don't complain about the AC-130, Drone strikes, F-15's etc. Could be that in Gulf War I and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the single largest cause of death for Marines were A-10's.
As for the US Army loving them, I've heard a good deal of negative from a bunch of Army infantry types. If you read who makes a lot of these statements about the "love", they're normally not quoting soldiers, it's politicians, non-military security/defense writers, Airforce officials, and the reporters themselves. A lot has to do with it being a very capable, lethal weapon, and it just looks sexy. Kinda like Dragon Skin when that debate was going on several years ago. The reporters stated that troops were clamoring for the new armor, the company was pushing that it was more effective, Congress people were advocating it, the DoD was being accused of cutting corners etc. The facts: All troops that were likely to be exposed to small arms fire were issued the interceptor with SAPI plates, the only military personnel not issued the newest body armor were those that never heard a shot fired in anger or even took indirect fire (btw, the older armor was just as effective, in fact slightly more so due to fuller coverage for fragmentation). After the hoopola died down combat proved that the interceptor and the E-SAPI inserts (which were in the process of being fielded at the time the controversy was going on) were much superior at stopping rifle caliber rounds, dramatically more so when multiple hits were taken. Now many years and a number of evolutions down the road what is the body armor of choice? Not Dragon Skin, but enhanced plate carriers. There are still a lot of civilian self-proclaimed experts and bloggers, and non-combat arms "gear queers" (I don't mean to be offensive with the term but that's what we called them, and what they're still called and I tried to come up with an appropriate euphemism to replace it with, but none worked for what I was trying to say) who runs around with all the latest kit and high speed crap hung on them whether it's functional and effective or not, just cause it looks cool, that still advocate Dragon Skin, but virtually nothing from those whose body armor is worn, used and depended upon on a daily basis.
These are the same so called reporters that over exagerated the body armor issue, self-proclaimed experts and wanna be grunts that had caused Washington to try and hang so much protective gear on the fighters that casualties actually went up due to decreased mobility!




All the asset's have a place and even time to be used, We just need to work out to what extant and not try and push it onto other assets that could have a negative effect long term.

 

The U-2 is under almost yearly threat of retirement, due to operational costs (OPEX) although the airframes themselves are claimed to have seen only one fifth of the designed service life.

It matters not when the first flight was made, as planes are retired from service. What matters is the length (duration) of the production series, the amount of flying they do, and the stresses on the airframe.

All F-15 aircraft were grounded by the US Air Force after a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C came apart in flight and crashed on 2 November 2007. A structural failure.

The last F-15A was retired in in 2009.

F-15C & D's were also slated for retirement, but will now have to soldier on, thanks to the non-production of F-22s. Not a very satisfactory situation, however, the last C & D models were delivered 1992, making the average airframe significantly younger than the A-10.

F-15's are, however, still being produced. Which also makes maintenance easier, and cheaper.

Of the 742 B-52's built, 85 remain on operational service. All of them H models (last delivered in '62). A very low OPEX keeps them around. The massive boneyard might have something to do with that. There was a massive effort throughout the 60's and 70's to deal with wing structure fatigue.

The F-16s, are also still being produced....In May 2013, Lockheed Martin stated there were currently enough orders to keep producing the F-16 until 2017. Furthermore, the USAF's Thunderbirds switched to F-16C's (Block 32) from F-16A's (Block 15) in 1992. They then switched to F-16C's from Block 52 in 2008. So much for the Thunderbirds; try suggesting to those pilots they go back to the F-16A's. None of the current T-bird's pilots will have flown an F-16 that old...

The last C-5B was delivered in 1988, and its a strategic airlifter.... Not expected to pull many G's, and hopefully not getting perforated on a regular basis. The operational C5A's (77 of them) wings were replaced in the 80's. As of November 2013, 45 C-5As have been retired; 11 have been scrapped, parts of one (A/C 66-8306) are now a cargo load trainer at Lackland AFB, Texas and one was sent to the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) for tear down and inspection to evaluate structural integrity and estimate the remaining life for the fleet.


A-10 pilot inspecting the damage to her aircraft.

I agree, that probably the best solution would be to restart production. Even that would require modifications to the original, however.

A big part of the current issue with procurement, is the comparatively short life span for very expensive weapons platforms. But here is a platform that could have a low continuous production rate, with upgrades made over the series over an eextended period of time. The basic design does exactly what is needed: battlefield survivability for a slow-flying loiterer providing CAS. You don't need to deliver 350 new planes in 2 or 4 years. Do 30 planes a year for 15 years or more. Higher costs upfront (procurement), lower OPEX costs.

 

While the A-10 is probably one of the oldest airframes out there does any one have any fact's on the current situation, Are they falling apart or are they holding strong? Has not been so long ago that they actually started to replace the wings on them (Increasing the service life through to 2035).

On the note of CAS aircraft, The USAF is stating the scrapping of them is for cost savings, Have they released operating costs per other airframes for which they want to replace it with? Last I checked the A-10 cost about $18k an hour while the B-1 was north of $100k and hour, For something to be cost effective they would ideally have to do it at a close to same cost as the A-10 if they are looking for cost savings.

 

Yup, but any aircraft would be more vulnerable. In a threat environment the A10 would have higher losses too. Depends how good your SEAD is. The main threat would still be MANPADS cause they are difficult to kill. However the A10 is probably still the best close support plane I can think of, maybe the 2nd would the SU25. It can also go slower than most jets so hit better and linger longer. An F16 or Tornado will come in throw/shoot everything it has and then dissapear asap. A10 can stay longer cause it is also better armored.

I wonder what is with the F35 ? It doesn´t look like it can replace an A10 ? Also read a lot of problems with that one.

PS: Check service history of F4, they were still flying up to 2010 or so...

 

Roger that Bundes, but wouldn't new aircraft have better stealth/countermeasures to deal with the AA threat?...I guess using an A10 is like using an A1 Skyraider in Vietnam

 

Imho, stealth isn´t very important for CLOSE support, cause most planes can be seen with the Radar MK1 (eye ball). Also I read that newest radars have other waveforms/technology which can detect stealth planes better.

Countermeasures, have been the same mostly over the years (flares etc. to confuse IR seekers and the good ole Düppels - aluminium foil to confuse radar seekers)....

 

All that means is that certain air forces were forced to make do with older air frames than they would've liked, for longer than they would've liked, because they couldn't afford the CAPEX upfront.

It does not mean it's a terribly good idea. Very few nations still have F-4's flying combat missions.

 

Not entirely true, because some ex-F4 piltos say they miss the plane and think it was still effective. The main problem is maintenance time and costs however.
I took the F4 example cause it is even older than A10 and some are still flying ok. So I guess keepin A10 in service may cost some more maintance but A10 is still effective compared to a cost analysis of eg. F35. Or which plane should take over the A10 role or is this role discarded with ? Maybe helis shall supply close support - yes, if enemy has no AA then, yes.

 

The A-10 actually costs less in maintenance per an aircraft then any other fixed wing combat aircraft the US armed forces have.

 

Really ? So what is the point in retiring it ? Only cause it is "too old" ??

 

Because jet pilots cost an arm, a leg, and three testicles to get trained, and then type-qualified and into the air.

Because A-10's do 1 thing, absolutely brilliantly. However, they can only do that 1 thing. A-10 can never fly CAP, for example.

F-35's do a myriad of things.

Mission Flexibility is also a kind of quality. Having planes and pilots on the ground because of no suitable mission, is also expensive.

And it is an old air frame.

 

Because it is not new and shiny, doesn't fly high, and is actually intended for ground support.. An area which the USAF hates to be involved with yet has a stick up their a** not wanting to let anyone else fly fixed wing combatants...

I'd wager my first born that the year after they scrap the A-10 with out a dedicated replacement the statistics for CAS is going to look a hell of a lot worse.

Btw, Saying the F-35 does a myriad of things is a long shot considering the only way they have been able to keep the program moving forward was by downgrading its requirements.

 

Ah interesting. But the ground guys were quite thankful for A10s from what I heard. But maybe the army considers CAS as obsolete, because most enemies are "only" terrorists ?

Followed the F35 program loosely and it seemed to have serious hickups. And again, this plane doesn´t look like it can take some pounding anyway...however other programs had that too. Eg. the Tornado which finally evolved to be very effective (but 3 countries were involved in it, so it was a bit more difficult to coordinate)

 

Oh I have no doubt that the F-35 could eventually evolve into a highly effective air vs air combat aircraft, But it will be as useful as t**s on a bull when it comes to CAS.

I should note that for the F-35 flying high means they really aren't required to take a pounding, that said flying so high means lower reaction times to the situation on the ground, Less capable of getting a feel of what is going on and adapting your attacks to it.

 

I know in the old days, when you tried to fix an aircraft up to do multiple missions [ CAP, CAS, etc ] it couldn't do those missions as perfectly as an aircraft designed specifically for that particular mission...just common sense/logical...can the F35/etc do multiple missions ''perfectly''??
the FA18 seems do be doing well, but can it do everything for CAP that the F14 did??