Chuck Norris wants to save the A-10

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
The problem the A-10 has is that it fills a niche role that only the US is rich enough to have an aircraft variant to fill. It is a close air support gunship, but everyone judges it against strike fighters, even though the roles are completely different. If you only look at how it is used, it has more in common with an attack helo than a strike fighter.
Nothing wrong with Niche Roles. Shit we won the Cold War with ton of vehicles that were niche role. Not everything needs to be Mulitirole. In many ways having everything mulitrole can make it not great at the task a more dedicated platform could perform. Question would making a AH-64 Apache also antisub capable mean that it could do the job better than a SH-60 Lamps Helo. No it would not. We need more not less dedicated platforms.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Nothing wrong with Niche Roles. Shit we won the Cold War with ton of vehicles that were niche role. Not everything needs to be Mulitirole.
I agree completely, I'm just referring to its reputation problem. As of a few minutes ago, thanks to Knowledgeispower, I know of one other aircraft that is in the same role. But whenever there is an argument about it, the hog is always compared to strike-fighters.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
The problem the A-10 has is that it fills a niche role that only the US is rich enough to have an aircraft variant to fill. It is a close air support gunship, but everyone judges it against strike fighters, even though the roles are completely different. If you only look at how it is used, it has more in common with an attack helo than a strike fighter.
The Army knows this. The Marines know this. The Navy knows thos. The Air Force does not.
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Maybe it's time to shift the Hog over to Marine Avaition, instead of leaving it in the AFs control.
As I recall the Hog is mainly operated National Guard and reserve units so if it was transferred to the Marines it would fall under the control of the 4th Marine Air Wing. Also I'm assuming if we did such a transfer the funding for the A-10 would also shift since otherwise the Marines would have to kill it due to not having the money to run them
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Nothing wrong with Niche Roles. Shit we won the Cold War with ton of vehicles that were niche role. Not everything needs to be Mulitirole. In many ways having everything mulitrole can make it not great at the task a more dedicated platform could perform. Question would making a AH-64 Apache also antisub capable mean that it could do the job better than a SH-60 Lamps Helo. No it would not. We need more not less dedicated platforms.
You forget that all that specialization also meant that the sortie rate was just -in comparison to multi-role designs- not that great. Especially due to the fact that they tended to practically nothing in common other than hardpoints, integrated armaments, and maybe the engines (and even then, that is iffy). Multi-role designs are more cost-efficient, have a higher sortie rate, and with the F-35 have higher part commonality. In conflict, you want to have as many common parts as possible and prevent the logistical hell that was the Nazi procurement and logistical department during WW2.

Remember, the US military kept with the various role-specific designs because not of willingness but out of practicality as they're usually the only airframes available. It is surprising how many of those role-specific designs were quickly retooled for multi-roll at the end of the day.

Remember the F-16 was supposed to be essentially the Super Tuncco of the fighter world when it was first introduced (thanks to Sparky and Friends), now its a (relatively) cheap yet highly effective multi-role aircraft with one of the more capable radars that didn't need a monstrous aircraft to take to the skies (looking at you F-14) until you hit the F-22 and F-35 (which, surprisingly enough, utilize something akin to a theorized system that would explain Battletech's heavy reliance on the Gunnery skill for shots and the short ranges, i.e. 'make the return look like its only hitting thin air or something else that would be ignored by the radar set').
Maybe it's time to shift the Hog over to Marine Avaition, instead of leaving it in the AFs control.
That would never happen because that would take funding away from the USAF, even though they've been letting everything else than the fighters literally rot away.
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
I blame the Air Force fighter mafia. If it doesn't turn and burn and let the pilot blow an enemy plane outta the sky. They could care less about it. Unless it means handing over shinies to other branches. Which is why the Hog is Airforce, not Army or Marines.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
I blame the Air Force fighter mafia. If it doesn't turn and burn and let the pilot blow an enemy plane outta the sky. They could care less about it. Unless it means handing over shinies to other branches. Which is why the Hog is Airforce, not Army or Marines.
Not really, back in Desert Storm, the A-10 got its ass whooped by the Iraqis.

Perhaps an F-16 is more likely to go down when hit, but as we can see, fewer F-16s were actually hit than A-10s. 20 A-10s hit, vs 7 F-16s hit. Let me break it down for you:

AAA hits (D/L): A-10 (11), F-16 (1)
SAM hits (D/L): A-10 (9), F-16 (5).
Unknown: A-10 (0), F-16 (1).

Yeah, the A-10 in its normal environment is almost triple as likely to get its shit kicked in than going high and fast. This is against a Soviet-style ADS network with monkey-model AAA systems hamstrung with the usual Arab 'coup proofing'. Serbia showed that a Soviet-style ADS network that wasn't manned by a 'coup proof' Arab military can do under NATO SEAD/DEAD conditions.

Why? One word: energy. All air combat is energy combat. The A-10's low and slow has extremely poor energy while those going high and fast have a lot of energy. This is absolutely vital when it comes to dodging missiles.
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Yet despite the A-10 taking far more hits, just as many F-16's as A-10's were actually lost. 5 of each.

Plus the A-10's were mostly attacking Republican Guard formations, which had the best AAA available to the Iraqi's, the F-16's were lost attacking regular formations or during SCUD hunts, against 2nd and 3rd tier air defenses.

Edited to add this addendum. If we include non-combat losses, the losses by type were 7 F-16's to 5 A-10's. Who knew that being a simpler, more robust and rugged system would result in fewer accidents?
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Not really, back in Desert Storm, the A-10 got its ass whooped by the Iraqis.

Perhaps an F-16 is more likely to go down when hit, but as we can see, fewer F-16s were actually hit than A-10s. 20 A-10s hit, vs 7 F-16s hit. Let me break it down for you:

AAA hits (D/L): A-10 (11), F-16 (1)
SAM hits (D/L): A-10 (9), F-16 (5).
Unknown: A-10 (0), F-16 (1).

Yeah, the A-10 in its normal environment is almost triple as likely to get its shit kicked in than going high and fast. This is against a Soviet-style ADS network with monkey-model AAA systems hamstrung with the usual Arab 'coup proofing'. Serbia showed that a Soviet-style ADS network that wasn't manned by a 'coup proof' Arab military can do under NATO SEAD/DEAD conditions.

Why? One word: energy. All air combat is energy combat. The A-10's low and slow has extremely poor energy while those going high and fast have a lot of energy. This is absolutely vital when it comes to dodging missiles.
Show me the total A-10 loses in Iraq an Afghnistan over the last 20 years. I can't find any.
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
There was 1 A-10 shot down by a Roland over Baghdad in 2003.

Note that the above losses for A-10s in Desert Storm include a bird that made it back to base and safely landed, but was written off. Think on that.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
There was 1 A-10 shot down by a Roland over Baghdad in 2003.

Note that the above losses for A-10s in Desert Storm include a bird that made it back to base and safely landed, but was written off. Think on that.
I know I saw the footage years ago during the invasion. But there was one A-10 literally manuvering at building top level providing cap cover for the ground pounders. It was impressive how it could manuver between the buildings like that.
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
most of the arguments against the A-10 are based on exercises. And indeed, in exercises A-10s get trounced by air defenses and intercepting fighters.

Minor detail. In exercises, A-10s are required to maintain a minimum altitude of ~5k feet and are deemed 'killed' if an enemy air defense platform locks on to them, ignoring the toughness and survivability of the platform. Moreover, at Red Flag, A-10s operating at 5k feet are banned from deploying countermeasures such as flares, as flares could set wildfires.

So yes, when the A-10 is forced to play by exercise rules and compete in the arena that favors air defense and fast-mover fighters, it loses. Big surprise.

Back in the 80's they ran exercises where the A-10 was allowed to play in its preferred environment, down in the weeds so low that the air passing over the wingtips was rustling the grass.

The A-10 was terrifying in those exercises. F-16's couldn't shoot a single one down, because from above the A-10 was too poor of a target even for AIM-9L Sidewinders, so they had to come down in the weeds. There's a manuever called the Warthog Stomp, where the A-10 simply takes advantage of the fact that it can turn far tighter than any other platform when low and slow, and the GAU-8 has effectively zero drop over combat ranges.

Against Shilka's and SAM sites, the A-10 would pop up and hose down the defense site before it could lock on and fire, then drop back down into ground cover before they could effectively react.

The Air Force *hated* the results of these exercises, and imposed massive ROE restrictions on all future exercises in order to eliminate the A-10s strengths and maximize its weaknesses.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
most of the arguments against the A-10 are based on exercises. And indeed, in exercises A-10s get trounced by air defenses and intercepting fighters.

Minor detail. In exercises, A-10s are required to maintain a minimum altitude of ~5k feet and are deemed 'killed' if an enemy air defense platform locks on to them, ignoring the toughness and survivability of the platform. Moreover, at Red Flag, A-10s operating at 5k feet are banned from deploying countermeasures such as flares, as flares could set wildfires.

So yes, when the A-10 is forced to play by exercise rules and compete in the arena that favors air defense and fast-mover fighters, it loses. Big surprise.

Back in the 80's they ran exercises where the A-10 was allowed to play in its preferred environment, down in the weeds so low that the air passing over the wingtips was rustling the grass.

The A-10 was terrifying in those exercises. F-16's couldn't shoot a single one down, because from above the A-10 was too poor of a target even for AIM-9L Sidewinders, so they had to come down in the weeds. There's a manuever called the Warthog Stomp, where the A-10 simply takes advantage of the fact that it can turn far tighter than any other platform when low and slow, and the GAU-8 has effectively zero drop over combat ranges.

Against Shilka's and SAM sites, the A-10 would pop up and hose down the defense site before it could lock on and fire, then drop back down into ground cover before they could effectively react.

The Air Force *hated* the results of these exercises, and imposed massive ROE restrictions on all future exercises in order to eliminate the A-10s strengths and maximize its weaknesses.
During the Wargame Operation Ocean Venture we had 3 main Aircraft supporting us during the mock invasion of the base. The FA-18 Hornets (Marines and Navy), Ah-64 Apaches (operating off of Ships at sea) and the A-10s. Not a bloody F-15 or F-16 in the bunch. ;) The A-10s similated flying from the Virgin Islands to the Base to do the invasion.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Not really, back in Desert Storm, the A-10 got its ass whooped by the Iraqis.

Perhaps an F-16 is more likely to go down when hit, but as we can see, fewer F-16s were actually hit than A-10s. 20 A-10s hit, vs 7 F-16s hit. Let me break it down for you:

AAA hits (D/L): A-10 (11), F-16 (1)
SAM hits (D/L): A-10 (9), F-16 (5).
Unknown: A-10 (0), F-16 (1).

Yeah, the A-10 in its normal environment is almost triple as likely to get its shit kicked in than going high and fast. This is against a Soviet-style ADS network with monkey-model AAA systems hamstrung with the usual Arab 'coup proofing'. Serbia showed that a Soviet-style ADS network that wasn't manned by a 'coup proof' Arab military can do under NATO SEAD/DEAD conditions.

Why? One word: energy. All air combat is energy combat. The A-10's low and slow has extremely poor energy while those going high and fast have a lot of energy. This is absolutely vital when it comes to dodging missiles.
You do know it is telling that SAMs hit the A-10 less then AAA did. SAM are actually more deadly to A-10s then AAA is from the power of them. AAA will least likely kill an A-10 compared to SAM, and the AAA will ALWAYS kill the F-16. The F-16 also generally flys higher then the max range of the AAA, have them fly at the same altitude as the A-10 it will be different
most of the arguments against the A-10 are based on exercises. And indeed, in exercises A-10s get trounced by air defenses and intercepting fighters.

Minor detail. In exercises, A-10s are required to maintain a minimum altitude of ~5k feet and are deemed 'killed' if an enemy air defense platform locks on to them, ignoring the toughness and survivability of the platform. Moreover, at Red Flag, A-10s operating at 5k feet are banned from deploying countermeasures such as flares, as flares could set wildfires.

So yes, when the A-10 is forced to play by exercise rules and compete in the arena that favors air defense and fast-mover fighters, it loses. Big surprise.

Back in the 80's they ran exercises where the A-10 was allowed to play in its preferred environment, down in the weeds so low that the air passing over the wingtips was rustling the grass.

The A-10 was terrifying in those exercises. F-16's couldn't shoot a single one down, because from above the A-10 was too poor of a target even for AIM-9L Sidewinders, so they had to come down in the weeds. There's a manuever called the Warthog Stomp, where the A-10 simply takes advantage of the fact that it can turn far tighter than any other platform when low and slow, and the GAU-8 has effectively zero drop over combat ranges.

Against Shilka's and SAM sites, the A-10 would pop up and hose down the defense site before it could lock on and fire, then drop back down into ground cover before they could effectively react.

The Air Force *hated* the results of these exercises, and imposed massive ROE restrictions on all future exercises in order to eliminate the A-10s strengths and maximize its weaknesses.
As someone who focuses on ELINT, this is very true. Low but fast (The A-10 is faster than any Apache) are not easy for AAA to set up a get locks on, and SAM generally are not the best when firing at low altitude, unless it is MANPAD, they generally have their radars focused upwards, as the likely hood of a low flying aircraft that is to fast for MANPADS and AAA, is damn unlikely
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top