5 ms·

The A-10 is a disaster that needs to be retired. It's completely incapable of facing modern air defences, so is useless against enemies like China or Russia, a

The A-10 is a disaster that needs to be retired. It's completely incapable of facing modern air defences, so is useless against enemies like China or Russia, and has operating costs 30 times higher than a dedicated COIN aircraft like the Super Tucano, meaning you have a lot fewer aircraft supporting your troops than you should have, or end up spending way too much money.

talmand 11y ago
Calling it a disaster is a bit much. I don't think anyone expects the A-10 to face modern air defenses from China or Russia. It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place. Since it appears the US military does have an interest in something like the Tucano, it would stand to reason that the A-10s currently in service will be used for that role until a replacement is ramped up.
- Recurecur 11y ago
  "It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place." No, it was designed to kill tanks, not personnel. Its 30mm cannon is complete overkill for that role. Apaches are MUCH better for ECAS, and GPS guided bombs are fine for the general CAS role (with troops cuing the targets by laser cartography).
  - talmand 11y ago
    This is how I've understood the aircraft: "aircraft designed solely for close air support, including attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets." Essentially, a prime mission objective is to loiter over an area and provide air support. Something most fast-moving aircraft are not exactly made to do. If a request comes in to target a tank; the plane kills the tank. If a request comes in to target a truck; the plane shreds the truck, and whatever happens to be inside, to shreds. If a request comes in to strafe a defensive position; then the plane puts big holes in those defenses. As for personnel, the plane may not kill them but it sure as heck puts a good scare into them. Stories indicate friendly soldiers like seeing, and hearing, the plane in the area during a firefight. It has more uses than the bullets it fires. Also, keep in mind that the A-10 can carry other weapons than just the cannon it's built around. Now, is it expensive in today's world for that purpose? Probably so. Apaches are nice too. I'm sure one day someone will consider them an expensive disaster as well.
ansible 11y ago
Here's a long article on the Super-T: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Yes, essentially I was referring to the points of that article without having linked to it. Thanks for that.
- mrweasel 11y ago
  I think the sad reality is that no western government will be buying Super Tucano, simply because it's not a jet. The image that buying a propeller aircraft sends is that your air force is second rate.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    The US is buying some Super Tucanos, but they seem to be going more to Afghanistan than staying in the Air Force's arsenal [1]. Though the bigger problem is that the Air Force really resents having to do fixed wing close air support, and would much rather have the army just get helicopters for the job, even if helicopters have weaknesses in such a role, so they don't even like having to fly the A-10. [1] http://dodbuzz.com/2015/03/06/afghan-military-to-receive-its-first-a-29s-in-december/ http://dodbuzz.com/2015/03/06/afghan-military-to-receive-its...
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
I am describing the use case of using a wrecking ball when a sledgehammer would do, while your example is of using a sledgehammer when a wrecking ball is needed. Nobody is suggesting the use of a decades-old aircraft against a modern air power. But when you already have air superiority, it is better to use dedicated aircraft like the Super Tucano, as you mentioned. My emphasis is not to bring back the A-10, but to remember the effectiveness of that style of fighter and why it has a place on the modern battlefield, especially when the enemy is in inaccessible terrain and they lack the resources to achieve air superiority.
pasbesoin 11y ago
The A10 is an example of "the right tool for the job." Give it the wrong job and, sure, it will fail. What the last decade plus had demonstrated, is that there is still plenty of work around at which it excels. And for which the military as yet has no comparable nor superior replacement. Ongoing, critical work (well, if you insist on being in that theater, to begin with). In the middle of building a house, you don't throw out your existing hammer two weeks before the new, improved model with the carbon nanotube handle maybe becomes available. Developers aren't ditching their monitors because in 1 - 3 years maybe Oculus and the like are going to give us "infinite", 3D viewspace. I'm sorry to get a bit emotional and strident, here. But a problem the U.S. military has, is -- in good part, for politics, personal power, and money -- bypassing more effective and economical systems for marketing that has yet to be substantiated. They have enough raw resources and innovation to eventually brute force and trick around the resulting limitations, but it costs a lot -- including sometimes lives.
pjc50 11y ago
useless against enemies like China or Russia Those are nuclear powers. The only possibilities of F-35s shooting at Chinese or Russian jets is "accidents" like the Turkish border incident. In the event of actual war they'll be destroyed on the ground by ICBMs, along with everything and everyone else.

talmand 11y ago

Calling it a disaster is a bit much. I don't think anyone expects the A-10 to face modern air defenses from China or Russia. It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place. Since it appears the US military does have an interest in something like the Tucano, it would stand to reason that the A-10s currently in service will be used for that role until a replacement is ramped up.

Recurecur 11y ago
"It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place." No, it was designed to kill tanks, not personnel. Its 30mm cannon is complete overkill for that role. Apaches are MUCH better for ECAS, and GPS guided bombs are fine for the general CAS role (with troops cuing the targets by laser cartography).
- talmand 11y ago
  This is how I've understood the aircraft: "aircraft designed solely for close air support, including attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets." Essentially, a prime mission objective is to loiter over an area and provide air support. Something most fast-moving aircraft are not exactly made to do. If a request comes in to target a tank; the plane kills the tank. If a request comes in to target a truck; the plane shreds the truck, and whatever happens to be inside, to shreds. If a request comes in to strafe a defensive position; then the plane puts big holes in those defenses. As for personnel, the plane may not kill them but it sure as heck puts a good scare into them. Stories indicate friendly soldiers like seeing, and hearing, the plane in the area during a firefight. It has more uses than the bullets it fires. Also, keep in mind that the A-10 can carry other weapons than just the cannon it's built around. Now, is it expensive in today's world for that purpose? Probably so. Apaches are nice too. I'm sure one day someone will consider them an expensive disaster as well.

ansible 11y ago

Here's a long article on the Super-T: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Yes, essentially I was referring to the points of that article without having linked to it. Thanks for that.
mrweasel 11y ago
I think the sad reality is that no western government will be buying Super Tucano, simply because it's not a jet. The image that buying a propeller aircraft sends is that your air force is second rate.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  The US is buying some Super Tucanos, but they seem to be going more to Afghanistan than staying in the Air Force's arsenal [1]. Though the bigger problem is that the Air Force really resents having to do fixed wing close air support, and would much rather have the army just get helicopters for the job, even if helicopters have weaknesses in such a role, so they don't even like having to fly the A-10. [1] http://dodbuzz.com/2015/03/06/afghan-military-to-receive-its-first-a-29s-in-december/ http://dodbuzz.com/2015/03/06/afghan-military-to-receive-its...
- lotharbot 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

I am describing the use case of using a wrecking ball when a sledgehammer would do, while your example is of using a sledgehammer when a wrecking ball is needed. Nobody is suggesting the use of a decades-old aircraft against a modern air power. But when you already have air superiority, it is better to use dedicated aircraft like the Super Tucano, as you mentioned. My emphasis is not to bring back the A-10, but to remember the effectiveness of that style of fighter and why it has a place on the modern battlefield, especially when the enemy is in inaccessible terrain and they lack the resources to achieve air superiority.

pasbesoin 11y ago

The A10 is an example of "the right tool for the job." Give it the wrong job and, sure, it will fail. What the last decade plus had demonstrated, is that there is still plenty of work around at which it excels. And for which the military as yet has no comparable nor superior replacement. Ongoing, critical work (well, if you insist on being in that theater, to begin with). In the middle of building a house, you don't throw out your existing hammer two weeks before the new, improved model with the carbon nanotube handle maybe becomes available. Developers aren't ditching their monitors because in 1 - 3 years maybe Oculus and the like are going to give us "infinite", 3D viewspace. I'm sorry to get a bit emotional and strident, here. But a problem the U.S. military has, is -- in good part, for politics, personal power, and money -- bypassing more effective and economical systems for marketing that has yet to be substantiated. They have enough raw resources and innovation to eventually brute force and trick around the resulting limitations, but it costs a lot -- including sometimes lives.

pjc50 11y ago

useless against enemies like China or Russia Those are nuclear powers. The only possibilities of F-35s shooting at Chinese or Russian jets is "accidents" like the Turkish border incident. In the event of actual war they'll be destroyed on the ground by ICBMs, along with everything and everyone else.