29 ms·

On what basis do you say that? The purpose of this plane is close in air support with the ability to hang around in the middle of a battle. All of the replaceme

On what basis do you say that? The purpose of this plane is close in air support with the ability to hang around in the middle of a battle. All of the replacement jets can fly over drop some munitions and they fly off. If you are lucky they did the job, but if they missed or the target survived you have to call them back. The A10 comes in, chews everything you pointed out to rubble, asked you if they got it and if not they are still there and adjust and do it again. In a long running firefight in mountains and canyons the ability to point the finger of god at any random outcropping as needed over and over as you move down the path is priceless.

rjsw 6y ago
The A-10 can't fly at low level in the middle of a battle or it will be shot down by a SAM. They have been modified to be able to drop smart munitions from higher altitudes but are too slow to get to where they might be needed.
- rfreytag 6y ago
  Quoting ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Gulf_War_and_Balkans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... "From the beginning of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1B Lancer, but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s." ...and... "The U.S. Army had expressed interest in obtaining some A-10s should the Air Force retire them" I am not sure why SAMs aren't the threat to the A-10s that they were to Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. Maybe the Taliban can't afford them? Also SAMs require training and degrade quickly if not maintained.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    There's a couple of pages that are pretty comprehensive lists of aircraft lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have tables near the bottom. If it's accurate, one A-10 was shot down by a SAM in Iraq, and that was the only A-10 combat loss across both conflicts. Iraq: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_... Afghanistan: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_losses_in_Afghanistan https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_l...
    - rjsw 6y ago
      So many A-10s were damaged in Iraq that they were withdrawn from combat.
      - rfreytag 6y ago
        Can you cite your source? https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_... ... says only one A-10 was lost during the conflict.
        tyingq 6y ago
        I believe he's talking about damaged aircraft that made it home. The list I posted is aircraft that were literally shot down.
    - ckozlowski 6y ago
      It's a little misleading, though it compliments the A-10. The A-10 was designed knowing it was going to get shot at and take hits. It doesn't have the speed other craft do, though it was somewhat underestimated just how many hits it'd take. All of those redundancies and protections are designed to protect the pilot and save the aircraft. However, an A-10 doesn't have to be shot down in order to be considered a "mission loss", which is what would happen. A damaged aircraft is no longer mission effective, as the pilot is now focusing everything on keeping it airworthy and getting it back to base. So as one of the other posters indicated, while many wern't a total lost, many were damaged, and either had to abort or cut short their mission as a result. From a sortie effectiveness perspective, that's the same result as a downed plane. https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/ https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-a...
  - greedo 6y ago
    The SAMs used against the HIND in Afghanistan were Stingers that have smaller warheads. The Hind, while well armored compared to other helicopters, is much more vulnerable than the A-10. For example, an A-10 can lose an engine and still make it home. If a Hind loses a rotor, it's probably dead. And the real issue is whether the A-10 can survive against a near peer like Russia or China. Considering that in the late 70's the life expectancy of an A-10 over the Fulda Gap was measured in single digit sorties, expecting them to survive today against modern SAMs (both radar guided and infrared) is unrealistic. CAS in bush country like Iraq/Afghan is much better performed by fast jets that can respond quickly with a JDAM or SDB.
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  Ah, no. The idea that everyone has a MANPADS is just not true. A-10 spend tons of time on target in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of this is clearly documented.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
I think parent commenter was citing how A-10s are only useful against enemies that can't fight back. I doubt anyone is thinking of fielding A-10s against the Chinese or putting them up against Russian S-400s
- neverartful 6y ago
  I believe the proper distinction is "can't shoot with heat-seeking missiles". It's true that A-10 would be easy kill for the missiles, but it has legendary durability against small arms fire.
  - souprock 6y ago
    The A-10 is not such an easy kill. 1. Take a good look at the tail in relation to the engines. From most angles, the engine exhaust is hidden from the ground. The A-10 is flown with an undulating motion that will break a heat-seeking lock. 2. The typical little missile just isn't going to do much damage. The A-10 is a twin-engine aircraft with some armor around the engines. There is even a bit of extra fuel kept there, in case the fuel line is cut.
jandrewrogers 6y ago
The reason they are retiring the A-10 is that the airframe cannot be upgraded with the power systems needed to support modern defensive and offensive systems. Modern combat aircraft are giant electrical power systems with an aircraft wrapped around them. When the A-10 was designed half a century ago, this was not a requirement and there is no way to retrofit it. Modern air defense systems are explicitly engineered to very effectively kill things like the A-10, and it can't support modern counter-measures because of these limitations. It still works in environments for which it was designed i.e. absent modern air defense systems.
_carbyau_ 6y ago
From your comment it seems like the issue is around good customer service. You want to see something, tell someone you don't like seeing that thing, have someone make it no longer there. Repeatedly over a period of time. Whether that's an A-10 or a magician on a flying carpet doing that work, the work just needs to get done. I wonder if a fleet of drones will do that work. You could have them peel off, refuel and come back as required automatically while maintaining a minimum strike force in the area. Regardless, it has to Just Work TM.
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  Yes, to be honest you are on point. If it is a swarm of drones that can have the same effect sure. The point is today the only thing that can hang around are A-10s.

rjsw 6y ago

The A-10 can't fly at low level in the middle of a battle or it will be shot down by a SAM. They have been modified to be able to drop smart munitions from higher altitudes but are too slow to get to where they might be needed.

rfreytag 6y ago
Quoting ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Gulf_War_and_Balkans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... "From the beginning of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1B Lancer, but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s." ...and... "The U.S. Army had expressed interest in obtaining some A-10s should the Air Force retire them" I am not sure why SAMs aren't the threat to the A-10s that they were to Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. Maybe the Taliban can't afford them? Also SAMs require training and degrade quickly if not maintained.
- tyingq 6y ago
  There's a couple of pages that are pretty comprehensive lists of aircraft lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have tables near the bottom. If it's accurate, one A-10 was shot down by a SAM in Iraq, and that was the only A-10 combat loss across both conflicts. Iraq: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_... Afghanistan: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_losses_in_Afghanistan https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_l...
  - rjsw 6y ago
    So many A-10s were damaged in Iraq that they were withdrawn from combat.
    - rfreytag 6y ago
      Can you cite your source? https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_... ... says only one A-10 was lost during the conflict.
      - tyingq 6y ago
        I believe he's talking about damaged aircraft that made it home. The list I posted is aircraft that were literally shot down.
  - ckozlowski 6y ago
    It's a little misleading, though it compliments the A-10. The A-10 was designed knowing it was going to get shot at and take hits. It doesn't have the speed other craft do, though it was somewhat underestimated just how many hits it'd take. All of those redundancies and protections are designed to protect the pilot and save the aircraft. However, an A-10 doesn't have to be shot down in order to be considered a "mission loss", which is what would happen. A damaged aircraft is no longer mission effective, as the pilot is now focusing everything on keeping it airworthy and getting it back to base. So as one of the other posters indicated, while many wern't a total lost, many were damaged, and either had to abort or cut short their mission as a result. From a sortie effectiveness perspective, that's the same result as a downed plane. https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/ https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-a...
- greedo 6y ago
  The SAMs used against the HIND in Afghanistan were Stingers that have smaller warheads. The Hind, while well armored compared to other helicopters, is much more vulnerable than the A-10. For example, an A-10 can lose an engine and still make it home. If a Hind loses a rotor, it's probably dead. And the real issue is whether the A-10 can survive against a near peer like Russia or China. Considering that in the late 70's the life expectancy of an A-10 over the Fulda Gap was measured in single digit sorties, expecting them to survive today against modern SAMs (both radar guided and infrared) is unrealistic. CAS in bush country like Iraq/Afghan is much better performed by fast jets that can respond quickly with a JDAM or SDB.
myrandomcomment 6y ago
Ah, no. The idea that everyone has a MANPADS is just not true. A-10 spend tons of time on target in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of this is clearly documented.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

I think parent commenter was citing how A-10s are only useful against enemies that can't fight back. I doubt anyone is thinking of fielding A-10s against the Chinese or putting them up against Russian S-400s

neverartful 6y ago
I believe the proper distinction is "can't shoot with heat-seeking missiles". It's true that A-10 would be easy kill for the missiles, but it has legendary durability against small arms fire.
- souprock 6y ago
  The A-10 is not such an easy kill. 1. Take a good look at the tail in relation to the engines. From most angles, the engine exhaust is hidden from the ground. The A-10 is flown with an undulating motion that will break a heat-seeking lock. 2. The typical little missile just isn't going to do much damage. The A-10 is a twin-engine aircraft with some armor around the engines. There is even a bit of extra fuel kept there, in case the fuel line is cut.

jandrewrogers 6y ago

The reason they are retiring the A-10 is that the airframe cannot be upgraded with the power systems needed to support modern defensive and offensive systems. Modern combat aircraft are giant electrical power systems with an aircraft wrapped around them. When the A-10 was designed half a century ago, this was not a requirement and there is no way to retrofit it. Modern air defense systems are explicitly engineered to very effectively kill things like the A-10, and it can't support modern counter-measures because of these limitations. It still works in environments for which it was designed i.e. absent modern air defense systems.

_carbyau_ 6y ago

From your comment it seems like the issue is around good customer service. You want to see something, tell someone you don't like seeing that thing, have someone make it no longer there. Repeatedly over a period of time. Whether that's an A-10 or a magician on a flying carpet doing that work, the work just needs to get done. I wonder if a fleet of drones will do that work. You could have them peel off, refuel and come back as required automatically while maintaining a minimum strike force in the area. Regardless, it has to Just Work TM.

myrandomcomment 6y ago
Yes, to be honest you are on point. If it is a swarm of drones that can have the same effect sure. The point is today the only thing that can hang around are A-10s.