3 ms·

> the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS You won't hear it here or on jalopnik et all, but there's substantive disagreement on this. The

> the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS You won't hear it here or on jalopnik et all, but there's substantive disagreement on this. The A-10 no longer has a primary mission: the gun is not effective enough against modern tanks. For CAS in low intensity conflict it's both overkill and overly expensive per operating hour vs alternatives. The CEP on the big gun is >10m while the CEP on small guided munitions is now <1m. The accuracy of the GAU-8 fire depends heavily on pilot skill, since aiming requires pointing the whole plane. This is why the A-10 has generated more friendly fire incidents than any other aircraft we fly. Let's compare to Beech's proposed attack variant of the T-6 Texan II. Depending whose numbers you believe, it's 1/5th to 1/10th the total operational cost per flight hour. Since it's our primary trainer essentially every pilot is already familiar with it. Likewise the ground crews can keep them running with ease. There is no parts problem, whereas with the A-10 replacements parts we don't have in the sitting in the AZ desert have to be done as small scale reverse engineering (for the cost of re-winging an A-10 we could have bought a new Texan or Tucano). It has a built in stabilized E/O ball, the advantage of which could be mitigated a bit by putting a pod on the A-10. But the T-6 is also a two seater, which allows situational awareness an A-10 pilot will never have. The back seater can focus exclusively and continuously on the situation on the ground, whereas an A-10 pilot has to re-acquire and re-orient on every pass, losing awareness of changes between passes. The two seats allows operational concepts the A-10 (and F35 for that) matter do not. For example, the back seater doesn't even need to be a pilot: they could be a controller/coordinator from a different branch, service, or even nation. The aircraft could be easily adapted to ISR roles with a back seater specialized in tending the electronics. There's this huge internet enthusiast crowd that's infatuated with a big gun and can only see taking the A-10 out of service as some sort of conspiracy. But that's not the case, there is straightforward, solid, strategic thinking behind this. People need to look at A-10 enthusiasm critically, and consider that maybe the planners actually know some of what they're doing, rather than being pawns in congressional conspiracies.

unchocked 11y ago
Spot on. People complain that the F-35 is overkill for brushfire CAS missions, but what they miss is that the A-10 is overkill too. A weaponized T-6 crew with an observer and modern ISR would have way better situational awareness than a hog driver will ever get. A turboprop would also be able to spend far more time in loiter due to the low speed efficiencies of a large prop versus a small fan. But the AF wouldn't play ball in that game. Let the Army fly fixed wing aircraft and a practical CAS solution for interminable brushfire conflict would be implemented pretty fast I think.
dforrestwilson1 11y ago
You're not including the cost of training/replacing two people (pilot and assistant), when they inevitably take ground fire. https://www.google.com/search?q=A-10+damage&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=813&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCmrGF3rbMAhXHHR4KHZMVDGYQ_AUIBigB https://www.google.com/search?q=A-10+damage&safe=off&espv=2&... That titanium bathtub is why it's valuable. Again, I think drones are a better long-term solution.
GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
I'm receptive to the argument that the A-10s mission could be accomplished by something like a Super Tucano. But the problem with this is that we both know the Air Force doesn't want to do actual CAS. They don't mind flying by at 800 MPH and 30,000 feet and dropping a smart bomb, but they don't want to get in the weeds. Unless the Air Force already has these aircraft in place before they retire the A-10, it's simply not believable that they'll buy them at all, unless forced. Instead, the money will be spent on some fast moving jet. So, given the two most likely scenarios, which are A-10 or not low, slow CAS aircraft, we have to argue for the A-10.
greedo 11y ago
A lot of straw horses being set free here. The primary weapon against tanks carried by the A-10 is the Maverick missile. The GAU-8 can do wonders against a tank especially perforating the upper engine deck etc, but it's really designed for destroying soft targets in combination with unguided rocket pods or CBUs. Comparing it's accuracy with PGMs (that it can carry as well) is disingenuous. Oh, and you seem to be forgetting that the A-10 has had Litening pods for quite a while, giving excellent targeting and ID capabilities. The A-10 is one of the cheapest a/c the USAF flies, excluding drones which still can't compare with the Hog for effectiveness. There's a lot to be said for the Mark One eyeball in the cockpit. The cost for flying the A-10 would be even lower if the service wasn't continually gutting its support infrastructure. The Texan/Tucano light prop a/c is always trotted out as the cheap alternative, but the disadvantages are huge. No self-deploy capability, no survivability against MANPADS, single engined so lower ability to overcome mechanical issues, and kleenex for armor against groundfire.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  Show me a working program, for a working aircraft, that has been tested in actual combat then we can talk about replacing the A-10 Most of the conversation about the A-10 seems to focus on the fact the Airforce need to free up resources for the F-35, and the combination of the F-16, F15, and F35 can replace the A-10 completely. I believe this to be false, and doubly so when the F-15 and F16 are also suppose to be replaced with the F-35.... The worst aircraft ever designed by the US Military..
  - jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
    SOCCOM evaluated the Tucano and loved it. The program to acquire them for US inventory was killed (and went back and forth a couple times, might be something screwy there or just the usual bureaucratic stuff). We did chose them for the ~20 aircraft we're giving the Afghan Army. They're well proven in low intensity conflict across South America.
    - greedo 11y ago

unchocked 11y ago

Spot on. People complain that the F-35 is overkill for brushfire CAS missions, but what they miss is that the A-10 is overkill too. A weaponized T-6 crew with an observer and modern ISR would have way better situational awareness than a hog driver will ever get. A turboprop would also be able to spend far more time in loiter due to the low speed efficiencies of a large prop versus a small fan. But the AF wouldn't play ball in that game. Let the Army fly fixed wing aircraft and a practical CAS solution for interminable brushfire conflict would be implemented pretty fast I think.

dforrestwilson1 11y ago

You're not including the cost of training/replacing two people (pilot and assistant), when they inevitably take ground fire. https://www.google.com/search?q=A-10+damage&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=813&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCmrGF3rbMAhXHHR4KHZMVDGYQ_AUIBigB https://www.google.com/search?q=A-10+damage&safe=off&espv=2&... That titanium bathtub is why it's valuable. Again, I think drones are a better long-term solution.

GunboatDiplomat 11y ago

I'm receptive to the argument that the A-10s mission could be accomplished by something like a Super Tucano. But the problem with this is that we both know the Air Force doesn't want to do actual CAS. They don't mind flying by at 800 MPH and 30,000 feet and dropping a smart bomb, but they don't want to get in the weeds. Unless the Air Force already has these aircraft in place before they retire the A-10, it's simply not believable that they'll buy them at all, unless forced. Instead, the money will be spent on some fast moving jet. So, given the two most likely scenarios, which are A-10 or not low, slow CAS aircraft, we have to argue for the A-10.

greedo 11y ago

A lot of straw horses being set free here. The primary weapon against tanks carried by the A-10 is the Maverick missile. The GAU-8 can do wonders against a tank especially perforating the upper engine deck etc, but it's really designed for destroying soft targets in combination with unguided rocket pods or CBUs. Comparing it's accuracy with PGMs (that it can carry as well) is disingenuous. Oh, and you seem to be forgetting that the A-10 has had Litening pods for quite a while, giving excellent targeting and ID capabilities. The A-10 is one of the cheapest a/c the USAF flies, excluding drones which still can't compare with the Hog for effectiveness. There's a lot to be said for the Mark One eyeball in the cockpit. The cost for flying the A-10 would be even lower if the service wasn't continually gutting its support infrastructure. The Texan/Tucano light prop a/c is always trotted out as the cheap alternative, but the disadvantages are huge. No self-deploy capability, no survivability against MANPADS, single engined so lower ability to overcome mechanical issues, and kleenex for armor against groundfire.

the_ancient 11y ago
Show me a working program, for a working aircraft, that has been tested in actual combat then we can talk about replacing the A-10 Most of the conversation about the A-10 seems to focus on the fact the Airforce need to free up resources for the F-35, and the combination of the F-16, F15, and F35 can replace the A-10 completely. I believe this to be false, and doubly so when the F-15 and F16 are also suppose to be replaced with the F-35.... The worst aircraft ever designed by the US Military..
- jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
  SOCCOM evaluated the Tucano and loved it. The program to acquire them for US inventory was killed (and went back and forth a couple times, might be something screwy there or just the usual bureaucratic stuff). We did chose them for the ~20 aircraft we're giving the Afghan Army. They're well proven in low intensity conflict across South America.
  - greedo 11y ago