9 ms·

I wish this article made any sort of claims as to why.

atonse 5y ago
No good replacement. The military bet everything on the F35 which ended up being a pile of rubbish. The A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop, with that incredibly powerful Gatling gun. What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? I don't think the USAF operate these platforms do they?
  - imglorp 5y ago
    Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      A lot of military planning is increasingly pivoting towards being prepared for peer or peer+ adversaries.
      - masklinn 5y ago
        It can't pivot towards that since it hasn't done anything else since 1945. The US has spent 75 years preparing to fight peer adversaries while fighting asymmetric guerillas. Especially the AF.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        But still running the A-10 is a good example of where that’s not true.
        masklinn 5y ago
        The A-10 was originally designed as a CAS and tank killer for the invasion of western europe by eastern troops and armor. It was never designed to fight against guerillas. The AF is still running the A-10 because they've not managed to get rid of it yet — not for lack of trying, but because when they try the army suggests taking it off their hands and if there's one thing the AF likes less than CAS, it's the idea of the Army getting fixed-wing units.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. It'd have absolutely no chance of getting that close to an advancing Russian force.
        masklinn 5y ago
        > Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? Which does not matter because it's not a role anyone actually needs. > It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. Which has not actually been needed in 75 years, unlike a weapon system suitable for use in asymmetric conflicts.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop Against a an adversary with no anti-air capabilities. Like the Taliban. Whom we are no longer fighting. For the nation-state level conflicts we're gearing up for, the A-10 is a waddling duck. > why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? The AH-64 Apache has a top speed of 184 mph [1]; the A-10 439 mph [2]. The A-10 is also more-heavily armored, and can carry more ordinance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...
  - twic 5y ago
    The US may be winding down against the Taliban, but there are plenty more farmers with AKs around the world to fight. The US is not done with that kind of conflict by a very long chalk.
    - ianhawes 5y ago
      For the most part they _are_ done with that kind of conflict. And in situations where they do need to engage an adversary like that, it is far easier to use drones. I love the A-10, but it's effectiveness as CAS for adversaries with even low-level AA is decreased to a point that its less effective than the F-35.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        Are there any drone platforms that have a gun on them? Bullets are a lot cheaper than missiles. Predator drones get the job done when you just need a one-and-done missile shot. But a loitering gun in the sky is a fundamentally different weapon. ------ I think the issue is that the primary role of the A10, which was to destroy tanks, has basically disappeared. Tank armor has increased to the point where an A10's gun may not be reliable enough. The A10 exists as a cheap CAS role that it wasn't ever really designed for. A10 has a loiter time of 90 minutes, while AC-130 has a loiter time of 4.5 hours. The air-force would rather be sending in AC 130. ------- That being said: if the Army wants the A10, they should get the A10. Air Force's main job is air-superiority, ensuring the skys are clear for other operations.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  >What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? What about the Warren: https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicopter-after-elizabeth-warren https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicop...
  - samcheng 5y ago
    IMO this kind of race-baiting, divisive satire doesn't belong on HN.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun. It's also the carrying capacity, the speed to get on target, the ability to loiter (and take punishment), and that helos try to kill themselves as part of normal operations. One of the large initial motivations for the V-22 was how helos compromised operation eagle claw (the iran hostage rescue), and that was neither the first nor last high-stake op compromised by helos shitting the bed.
Causality1 5y ago
Contractors for new planes offering cushy retirement jobs for officers, mostly.
thebooktocome 5y ago
I have no special knowledge about the issue, but if I had to guess, it's embarrassing to the Air Force that the A-10 does a better job at close air support (CAS) than the F-35. (That's partially because the A-10 was designed to do one task well and the F-35 was designed to do everything somewhat poorly.)
- mrweasel 5y ago
  The idea of a multi-purpose fighter plane makes a lot of sense for small air forces (it doesn't make it a good idea), but why do the US Air Force care about multirole anything. It's the largest air force in the world, and the best funded, surely they'd want to buy the best tool for every task.
  - danielvf 5y ago
    I checked a recent deployment and every combat aircraft on that US carrier is an F-18. Using one multi-purpose aircraft has some fantastic advantages if you can pull it off. A carrier can use all its combat aircraft to fight enemy aircraft (effectively double the number of anti-air aircraft on board), then after the enemy Air Force is the destroyed, switch around to using all the F-18's to attack ground targets. With specialized aircraft types, some combat losses focused in a particular role can cripple the entire air wing, whereas with multi-role aircraft, you can keep right on operating. It's great from a maintenance, logistics, and training as well.
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      USAF doesn't operate carriers
      - mrweasel 5y ago
        Exactly, and a carrier is just the air force of a small country. It absolutely makes sense that the aircrafts onboard can handle multiple roles. In the case of the carrier is just due to space constraints and not funding.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> Why does the Air Force seem to hate the A-10 so much? Many experts say it is part of the branch’s efforts to replace the jet with the multirole F-35 Lightning II and the F-15EX Eagle II, which the service argues can also perform close air support. But many members of Congress, including former military aviators, say the F-35 can’t hold a candle to the A-10 in the close air support business. The Air Force also argues that the slow-moving A-10, while great against Taliban insurgents wielding low-tech AK-47s and RPGs, would not survive against higher-tech anti-aircraft fire. It's a cultural issue - the USAF want to move on to newer platforms - I think because they originally pitched the F-35 could replace it and now they want to show that can be the same. My vague understanding is also that at some point the Army even offered to run the A-10 instead if the USAF didn't want it, and then that got the USAF to dig their heels in half-way between wanting to get rid of it and not wanting anyone else to have it either, because they don't want the Army encroaching on their core skill of aviation. Hence why they're now stuck in a conflicted limbo and nothing is happening.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > the USAF want to move on to newer platforms Warthog pilots are aging. It's tough to convince a good, young pilot to train for a frame on life support. It makes sense that the people who have to recruit, train and retain those new pilots would push back against having to do so.
  - asah 5y ago
    Military pilots get to choose their assignments? Is that how the military works?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Yes - it's supposed to be a volunteer military, not conscription. You ideally want people doing jobs that they want to be doing. (Can't always meet that ideal.)
      - 5y ago
lmm 5y ago
It's operated by the air force but it doesn't really help the air force achieve any air force goals - what it's good at is supporting the army in army missions.
BariumBlue 5y ago
The A-10 was designed to mow down convoys of Russian tanks headed on roads from Russia into Europe. That role is outdated: the US realistically does not expect a full-on war with Russia (though a hybrid war is a possibility, such as the Ukrainian conflict). Also, sending tanks in a single file column down roads is stupid. Russia knows this. What else can it do? Someone mentioned Close Air Support. The AC-130 and MQ-9 do it WAY better. The gun on the A-10 can't hit anything accurately (remember - to aim the gun you have to physically aim the aircraft - the A-10 is not a nimble plane, and human targets are TINY at altitude). The A-10 can also carry bombs for Close Air Support. The thing is... so can the MQ-9 and AC-130. the MQ-9 can loiter on target longer and is WAY cheaper, and the AC-130 has missiles AND guns that actually hit things AS WELL AS quickly engage targets. Can it kill tanks? Yes! But if you're taking out tanks onesy-twosy (again, not in convoys), then again, so can the AC-130 and MQ-9. The Hellfire was LITERALLY designed to kill tanks. Great thing about MQ-9s too is that they're remotely piloted; in a neer-peer conflict, the tanks would be protected by AA - but there'd be no pilot deaths if an MQ-9 goes down, so you can send them to risker places. It's an outdated plane for an outdated mission set that's expensive and ineffective for what it does. People just REALLY like it because "it's a flying tank!", and "brrrrrt! haha! Big gun!". In the end, it stays around solely because of it's "cultural value".
- secondcoming 5y ago
  Hearing the Brrrt of a flying gattling gun must be pretty demoralising for enemy troops though. It doesn't necessarily need to be highly accurate.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > Hearing the Brrrt of a flying gattling gun must be pretty demoralising for enemy troops though. I guess that OP's point is that the AC130 not only has two Gatling guns but also a 40mm canon and a 105mm Howitzer. Also, the AC130 can loiter longer, and doesn't require fly-bys to even be able to target. It just does pylon turns while showering a target with everything it has. Given the alternatives, people have to ask what does the A-10 bring to the table, and the answer is hard to come by.

No good replacement. The military bet everything on the F35 which ended up being a pile of rubbish. The A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop, with that incredibly powerful Gatling gun. What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? I don't think the USAF operate these platforms do they?
- imglorp 5y ago
  Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    A lot of military planning is increasingly pivoting towards being prepared for peer or peer+ adversaries.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      It can't pivot towards that since it hasn't done anything else since 1945. The US has spent 75 years preparing to fight peer adversaries while fighting asymmetric guerillas. Especially the AF.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        But still running the A-10 is a good example of where that’s not true.
        masklinn 5y ago
        The A-10 was originally designed as a CAS and tank killer for the invasion of western europe by eastern troops and armor. It was never designed to fight against guerillas. The AF is still running the A-10 because they've not managed to get rid of it yet — not for lack of trying, but because when they try the army suggests taking it off their hands and if there's one thing the AF likes less than CAS, it's the idea of the Army getting fixed-wing units.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. It'd have absolutely no chance of getting that close to an advancing Russian force.
        masklinn 5y ago
        > Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? Which does not matter because it's not a role anyone actually needs. > It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. Which has not actually been needed in 75 years, unlike a weapon system suitable for use in asymmetric conflicts.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop Against a an adversary with no anti-air capabilities. Like the Taliban. Whom we are no longer fighting. For the nation-state level conflicts we're gearing up for, the A-10 is a waddling duck. > why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? The AH-64 Apache has a top speed of 184 mph [1]; the A-10 439 mph [2]. The A-10 is also more-heavily armored, and can carry more ordinance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...
- twic 5y ago
  The US may be winding down against the Taliban, but there are plenty more farmers with AKs around the world to fight. The US is not done with that kind of conflict by a very long chalk.
  - ianhawes 5y ago
    For the most part they _are_ done with that kind of conflict. And in situations where they do need to engage an adversary like that, it is far easier to use drones. I love the A-10, but it's effectiveness as CAS for adversaries with even low-level AA is decreased to a point that its less effective than the F-35.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      Are there any drone platforms that have a gun on them? Bullets are a lot cheaper than missiles. Predator drones get the job done when you just need a one-and-done missile shot. But a loitering gun in the sky is a fundamentally different weapon. ------ I think the issue is that the primary role of the A10, which was to destroy tanks, has basically disappeared. Tank armor has increased to the point where an A10's gun may not be reliable enough. The A10 exists as a cheap CAS role that it wasn't ever really designed for. A10 has a loiter time of 90 minutes, while AC-130 has a loiter time of 4.5 hours. The air-force would rather be sending in AC 130. ------- That being said: if the Army wants the A10, they should get the A10. Air Force's main job is air-superiority, ensuring the skys are clear for other operations.
geoduck14 5y ago
>What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? What about the Warren: https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicopter-after-elizabeth-warren https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicop...
- samcheng 5y ago
  IMO this kind of race-baiting, divisive satire doesn't belong on HN.
masklinn 5y ago
> Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun. It's also the carrying capacity, the speed to get on target, the ability to loiter (and take punishment), and that helos try to kill themselves as part of normal operations. One of the large initial motivations for the V-22 was how helos compromised operation eagle claw (the iran hostage rescue), and that was neither the first nor last high-stake op compromised by helos shitting the bed.

Causality1 5y ago

Contractors for new planes offering cushy retirement jobs for officers, mostly.

thebooktocome 5y ago

I have no special knowledge about the issue, but if I had to guess, it's embarrassing to the Air Force that the A-10 does a better job at close air support (CAS) than the F-35. (That's partially because the A-10 was designed to do one task well and the F-35 was designed to do everything somewhat poorly.)

mrweasel 5y ago
The idea of a multi-purpose fighter plane makes a lot of sense for small air forces (it doesn't make it a good idea), but why do the US Air Force care about multirole anything. It's the largest air force in the world, and the best funded, surely they'd want to buy the best tool for every task.
- danielvf 5y ago
  I checked a recent deployment and every combat aircraft on that US carrier is an F-18. Using one multi-purpose aircraft has some fantastic advantages if you can pull it off. A carrier can use all its combat aircraft to fight enemy aircraft (effectively double the number of anti-air aircraft on board), then after the enemy Air Force is the destroyed, switch around to using all the F-18's to attack ground targets. With specialized aircraft types, some combat losses focused in a particular role can cripple the entire air wing, whereas with multi-role aircraft, you can keep right on operating. It's great from a maintenance, logistics, and training as well.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    USAF doesn't operate carriers
    - mrweasel 5y ago
      Exactly, and a carrier is just the air force of a small country. It absolutely makes sense that the aircrafts onboard can handle multiple roles. In the case of the carrier is just due to space constraints and not funding.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Why does the Air Force seem to hate the A-10 so much? Many experts say it is part of the branch’s efforts to replace the jet with the multirole F-35 Lightning II and the F-15EX Eagle II, which the service argues can also perform close air support. But many members of Congress, including former military aviators, say the F-35 can’t hold a candle to the A-10 in the close air support business. The Air Force also argues that the slow-moving A-10, while great against Taliban insurgents wielding low-tech AK-47s and RPGs, would not survive against higher-tech anti-aircraft fire. It's a cultural issue - the USAF want to move on to newer platforms - I think because they originally pitched the F-35 could replace it and now they want to show that can be the same. My vague understanding is also that at some point the Army even offered to run the A-10 instead if the USAF didn't want it, and then that got the USAF to dig their heels in half-way between wanting to get rid of it and not wanting anyone else to have it either, because they don't want the Army encroaching on their core skill of aviation. Hence why they're now stuck in a conflicted limbo and nothing is happening.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the USAF want to move on to newer platforms Warthog pilots are aging. It's tough to convince a good, young pilot to train for a frame on life support. It makes sense that the people who have to recruit, train and retain those new pilots would push back against having to do so.
- asah 5y ago
  Military pilots get to choose their assignments? Is that how the military works?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Yes - it's supposed to be a volunteer military, not conscription. You ideally want people doing jobs that they want to be doing. (Can't always meet that ideal.)
    - 5y ago

lmm 5y ago

It's operated by the air force but it doesn't really help the air force achieve any air force goals - what it's good at is supporting the army in army missions.

BariumBlue 5y ago

The A-10 was designed to mow down convoys of Russian tanks headed on roads from Russia into Europe. That role is outdated: the US realistically does not expect a full-on war with Russia (though a hybrid war is a possibility, such as the Ukrainian conflict). Also, sending tanks in a single file column down roads is stupid. Russia knows this. What else can it do? Someone mentioned Close Air Support. The AC-130 and MQ-9 do it WAY better. The gun on the A-10 can't hit anything accurately (remember - to aim the gun you have to physically aim the aircraft - the A-10 is not a nimble plane, and human targets are TINY at altitude). The A-10 can also carry bombs for Close Air Support. The thing is... so can the MQ-9 and AC-130. the MQ-9 can loiter on target longer and is WAY cheaper, and the AC-130 has missiles AND guns that actually hit things AS WELL AS quickly engage targets. Can it kill tanks? Yes! But if you're taking out tanks onesy-twosy (again, not in convoys), then again, so can the AC-130 and MQ-9. The Hellfire was LITERALLY designed to kill tanks. Great thing about MQ-9s too is that they're remotely piloted; in a neer-peer conflict, the tanks would be protected by AA - but there'd be no pilot deaths if an MQ-9 goes down, so you can send them to risker places. It's an outdated plane for an outdated mission set that's expensive and ineffective for what it does. People just REALLY like it because "it's a flying tank!", and "brrrrrt! haha! Big gun!". In the end, it stays around solely because of it's "cultural value".

secondcoming 5y ago
Hearing the Brrrt of a flying gattling gun must be pretty demoralising for enemy troops though. It doesn't necessarily need to be highly accurate.
- rualca 5y ago
  > Hearing the Brrrt of a flying gattling gun must be pretty demoralising for enemy troops though. I guess that OP's point is that the AC130 not only has two Gatling guns but also a 40mm canon and a 105mm Howitzer. Also, the AC130 can loiter longer, and doesn't require fly-bys to even be able to target. It just does pylon turns while showering a target with everything it has. Given the alternatives, people have to ask what does the A-10 bring to the table, and the answer is hard to come by.