Warthogs versus modern tanks

[Trailrider #896]

The Air Force has run tests using A-10's against simulated heavy armor, including reactive armor, and have concluded the Warthog's 30mm using armor-peircing incendiary ammo can take out modern tanks. The Air Force still wants to replace the upgraded (new wings, etc.) with the F-35.  Now, IMHO, Poland could use some of these planes (maybe using the ones sent to the "boneyard", modernized). Then, if those planes and sufficient ammo were made "black", the Polish AF might decide to "dispose" of them who knows where!   I mean, if you can fly an Su-27, it shouldn't take too much training to learn to fly in attack mode, and A-10, should it? (Opinions solicited, as I never got to fly anything bigger than a Cessna 172/T-41A.

[Doc Moses]

A10s=deadly for tanks, suoer easy to shot down with ANY kind of aircraft or air defense gear.

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

I thought the AF agreed to keep the A10's in service for many more years with upgrades?

[Nostrum Damus SASS #110702]

9 hours ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

I thought the AF agreed to keep the A10's in service for many more years with upgrades?

According to one recent article:  "The Air Force has tried to retire the A-10 for more than a quarter-century. The service has consistently argued that the A-10 cannot survive on the modern battlefield and that A-10 funds are better invested in newer planes such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon — and, now, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Under pressure from the A-10's fans in Congress and the military, the US Air Force is keeping the planes, for now anyway, seeking to manufacture new wings for more than 100 A-10s. This will ensure that at least 280 aircraft will have the structural improvements necessary to keep a viable force of A-10s in the Air Force's inventory."  The author continues: "Against low-tech enemies with poor air-defense weapons such as ISIS or the Taliban, the A-10 is still a capable platform. Against other, more modern threats such as Russian or Chinese air defenses the A-10 cannot survive on its own."  That may be true, but the A-10 was never intended to fight "on its own."  US warfare doctrine was, and still is, to pair A-10s with US Army Apache attack helicopters in a so-called Joint Air Attack Team (JAAT) to kill advancing Soviet armor. JAAT doctrine called for Apaches to suppress enemy air defenses, identifying and killing threats to the A-10.  Suppression of ground-to-air defenses was always necessary before sending in the Warthogs to destroy ground armor.

[Redleg Reilly, SASS #46372]

3 hours ago, Nostrum Damus SASS #110702 said:

According to one recent article:  "The Air Force has tried to retire the A-10 for more than a quarter-century. The service has consistently argued that the A-10 cannot survive on the modern battlefield and that A-10 funds are better invested in newer planes such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon — and, now, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Under pressure from the A-10's fans in Congress and the military, the US Air Force is keeping the planes, for now anyway, seeking to manufacture new wings for more than 100 A-10s. This will ensure that at least 280 aircraft will have the structural improvements necessary to keep a viable force of A-10s in the Air Force's inventory."  The author continues: "Against low-tech enemies with poor air-defense weapons such as ISIS or the Taliban, the A-10 is still a capable platform. Against other, more modern threats such as Russian or Chinese air defenses the A-10 cannot survive on its own."  That may be true, but the A-10 was never intended to fight "on its own."  US warfare doctrine was, and still is, to pair A-10s with US Army Apache attack helicopters in a so-called Joint Air Attack Team (JAAT) to kill advancing Soviet armor. JAAT doctrine called for Apaches to suppress enemy air defenses, identifying and killing threats to the A-10.  Suppression of ground-to-air defenses was always necessary before sending in the Warthogs to destroy ground armor.

One of our primary missions (8 in artillery) in the old cold war days in Europe was the suppression of air defense assets.  We had a vested interest in trying to protect the A-10s.

[Trailrider #896]

There are a number of ways that anti-aircraft fire can be suppressed, both airborne (standoff missiles launched from "fastmovers" or helos), artillery, and by troops on the ground.  Also, the A-10 has been proven to be capable of absorbing a LOT of fire, and still fly long enough to return to base, including missing most of one wing, losing an engine, etc. Pilot is given a lot of protection by sitting in a titanium "bathtub".

[ShadowCatcher]

It would be a damn shame to retire this airplane, but I understand that it is not as sexy looking as the F-35,

so the silk scarf force is understandably arguing to eliminate it. 

 

The SEAD mission is difficult and risky, thus the emphasis on developing UCAV's to swarm and destroy these sites,

and once they're ready to utilize in combat the reduction of threat to the Helicopters and A-10 will be welcome.

 

I suspect that the A-10 will continue to prove itself over and over, and as new technologies emerge it will continue

to be a formidable opponent, as the B-52 does now. 

 

SC

 

 

[Pat Riot]

The A10 is an existing program. Consultants, politicians and bureaucrat Air Force officers can’t make money on existing programs but there is lots of money and status to be gained with new programs. 

[Michigan Slim]

My nephew was a Ranger with four trips over to Azzcrackastan. He is sure a big fan of the A10. So I am too. Like any tool you use it where it is most applicable. Hell of a tool to have in your bag.

[The Blarney Kid]

If the USAF doesn't want it the should give it to the Marines. They perfected ground support air combat in WW2.

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

try flying this damage ---- f-35

[Sedalia Dave]

Fast movers are supposed to providing aircover and aircraft employed in the SEAD role take care of most surface threats protecting not only the A-10 but fast movers like the F-35.  

 

The current version of the A-10 Thunderbolt II is capable of defending its self against surface and air threats. Air to Air combat is actually taught as part of the A-10 advanced weapons courses. The A-10 has unparralled manuverability allowing that GAU-8 to be used against airborn threats in a dog fight.

 

A-10's carry the AIM-9X for air to air protection, a threat warning receiver to detect and identify air and surface threats and a self protection jammer.

 

No aircraft is invincable but the A-10 was designed to take significantly more punishment that other aircraft and still make it home.

 

 

[Trailrider #896]

On 5/13/2022 at 6:40 AM, Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022 said:

try flying this damage ---- f-35

Well, that pilot did, and so did one lady that had most of a wing shot off, and another that had the gun blow up, taking the canopy and assorted parts off the bird. Landed successfully in all those cases!  

[Smuteye John SASS#24774]

Ya'll gotta remember that the Fighter Mafia rules the Air Force.  If it doesn't do Mach 2 so they can turn and burn, they aren't interested in it.  That's why they have been trying to kill the thing since the Wall fell- usually arguing that their preferred Mach 2+ turner and burner can do the job instead- when it's not flying CAP or escort, of course.

 

There's also a BIG difference in their theory of close air support doctrine- and the A-10 doesn't fit into it.  The A-10 can loiter in the area and react to threats to ground forces as directed by the people on the ground.  That's not what the Air Force brass envisions as proper close air support.  They want it more centrally controlled- a 'strike package' assembled, sent into the area, the strike made and they return to base.

 

Can you imagine the reaction to the first BILLION dollar F-35 that goes down running a close air support mission?

 

As pricey as they are, we don't have that many of them and do you really think that the Air Force is gonna take the losses you can expect in a close air support role when they are losing a Billion plus in equipment every time one is shot down?

 

Somebody at the policy level needs to just strip the close air support away role from the Air Force and let the Army take care of it themselves.

 

Let's not forget that they haven't even attempted to replace it with a more advanced aircraft designed for the role.  As close as they've come is buying some Super Tucanos (which is half the aircraft the A-10 is- as in half the hard points, half the lift capacity, ....) from Brazil.

 

Since when does the United States armed forces have to buy foreign made aircraft?  Last I heard, the normal procedure was to send out a set of specifications and the American aircraft industry all clamor over each other to show their aircraft that meets or exceeds those specifications.

[Chantry]

25 minutes ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

Ya'll gotta remember that the Fighter Mafia rules the Air Force.  If it doesn't do Mach 2 so they can turn and burn, they aren't interested in it.  That's why they have been trying to kill the thing since the Wall fell- usually arguing that their preferred Mach 2+ turner and burner can do the job instead- when it's not flying CAP or escort, of course.

 

There's also a BIG difference in their theory of close air support doctrine- and the A-10 doesn't fit into it.  The A-10 can loiter in the area and react to threats to ground forces as directed by the people on the ground.  That's not what the Air Force brass envisions as proper close air support.  They want it more centrally controlled- a 'strike package' assembled, sent into the area, the strike made and they return to base.

 

Can you imagine the reaction to the first BILLION dollar F-35 that goes down running a close air support mission?

 

As pricey as they are, we don't have that many of them and do you really think that the Air Force is gonna take the losses you can expect in a close air support role when they are losing a Billion plus in equipment every time one is shot down?

 

Somebody at the policy level needs to just strip the close air support away role from the Air Force and let the Army take care of it themselves.

 

Let's not forget that they haven't even attempted to replace it with a more advanced aircraft designed for the role.  As close as they've come is buying some Super Tucanos (which is half the aircraft the A-10 is- as in half the hard points, half the lift capacity, ....) from Brazil.

 

Since when does the United States armed forces have to buy foreign made aircraft?  Last I heard, the normal procedure was to send out a set of specifications and the American aircraft industry all clamor over each other to show their aircraft that meets or exceeds those specifications.

 

Based on a variety of bits & pieces from multiple sources the F-35 will never be used in the same role as the A-10.  What will happen is that the F-35 will be up high to maximize the range of it's sensors and target designators and mark targets for other aircraft to fire air to surface missiles from beyond AAA and short to medium range SAM's.  The same may apply to air to air combat, with the F-35 marking targets while other aircraft launch missiles.

 

The Super Tucanos were part of the Light Attack project (which was cancelled in 2020 with no company getting a contract).   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance

 

The Super Tucanos would have been built in the United States, but most were given to Afghanistan

 

The US military buys lots of aircraft from other countries and/or is built in the US by foreign companies, between the USAF & USCG there are planes & helicopters built either in the US or elsewhere from Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland & Brazil and that doesn't include aircraft or helicopters no one talks about used by the various special operations units of other "black" outfits.

 

[Utah Bob #35998]

Warthog. BRRRRRRRRRP from above.