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.)
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.
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.
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.
Fighter jet development costs are punishing even for the USA. Going to one multi-role airframe with three configurations was probably intended to keep the costs under control.
> why do the US Air Force care about multirole anything
The Air Force doesn't, but the Navy does.
The thing that everybody leaves out about the F35 is that you can take a relatively small ship, put a half-dozen F35's on it with some drones, and you have a tiny carrier with a remarkable amount of firepower.
So, now you don't have to sail your gigantic ass Nimitz carrier into the forward theater where a lucky cruise missile hit can cripple your entire fleet capability.
Also no one in their right mind would risk such an expensive airframe on defending mere ground troops. The A-10 does its job incredibly well, and is cheap to build, repair and keeps its pilots alive. Not a big plus from a defense contractor perspective.
> 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.
AF jocks plain don't want to do CAS at all, they want to launch missiles from 200 miles away and 20000ft up. But they want the army to have fixed wings and do its own CAS even less.
They hate the A10 because the A10 was created solely to do CAS. It flies low and slow, its only job is to support grunt, and it does that extremely well. None of that gives AF jocks a stiffy.
> 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.
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.
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.)
The pilots get to submit a limited list of preferences, but there's a fixed list of slots, like "f22 => 2, f16 => 4, ... kc-135 => 3".
Then, your ranking in the class drives when it's your turn to pick. Along with some other criteria. For example, some aircraft have min/max pilot height criteria because of the ejection seat. So some pilots do end up flying aircraft they didn't really want to fly.
In the UK at least, RAF pilots who have gone through basic flight training have a broad choice between fast air, widebody and rotary wing (helicopters). Once you pick a particular type (and assuming you pass the relevant aptitude / selection tests), there is a complex career progression that includes type-specific training and then assignment to a squadron that operates a particular type of aircraft. Pilots who have trained on one type can't be randomly 'assigned' to a different aircraft without a lot of extra training.
Similarly, in the British Army, all soldiers go through basic training and then choose a particular military 'trade' (e.g. infantry, armour, artillery, etc). They receive trade-specific training before joining a relevant unit. Some regiments even have 'father and son' social events where an officer joined the same regiment that his father did.
The Royal Navy has similar career personal-choice progression routes for weapons officers, engineers, etc.
> Military pilots get to choose their assignments? Is that how the military works?
We have a professional Air Force. It's not uncommon to see e.g. F-16 pilots "retire" into senior management roles. These are smart, ambitious people. If you want to keep it that way, you give them a say in the planes they fly.
> because they don't want the Army encroaching on their core skill of aviation
That's exactly what's going on. Incidentally that's one of the reasons USAF did their best to bury the promising AH-56 Cheyenne [0] back in the day, it was in direct competition with their own program that would later become the perennial A-10. [1]
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
The US has been gearing up for nation-state level conflicts and only fighting asymmetric guerrilla ones since 1945. And the AF is the one branch which most refuses to fight the wars the US are actually fighting.
I think one of the reasons it is easy to make this mistake is that most seem to mispronounce ordnance in that they add a superfluous syllable. Ordinance has three syllables, while ordnance only has two. Hope that helps.
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.
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.
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".
Literally anything coming to kill you from the air is going to be demoralizing. I respect the concept of "the bigger boom" (the concept being that the person with the larger/scarier gun feels like they're winning, and the inverse that if the opponent has the larger/scarier gun you feel like you're losing), but I don't think we should rely on frightening the enemy into submission.
> 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.
> Given the alternatives, people have to ask what does the A-10 bring to the table, and the answer is hard to come by.
Gets on target faster, is much cheaper, doesn't need half a brigade to crew, and can take a lot more punishment (especially compared to the barely armored AC130J).
The AC130 no longer has a Gatling gun, or any mutli-barrel gun for that matter as the Spooky/II and Specter variants have been retired.
The Ghostrider / Stinger II variants which are in service today have 1 30mm bushmaster auto cannon, 1 howitzer and a bunch of guided munitions.
The recent variants have been criticized for not being able to provide the same level of air support as the older variants or the A-10 in built up areas or for danger close missions.
They lack the volume of fire needed to effectively suppress enemy infantry as the 30mm bushmaster has a rate of fire of only about 100 rpm and the next thing in line is either a 105mm howitzer or a hellfire missile/SDB which might be too high profile for many engagements.
And most importantly unlike the A-10 the air force isn’t willing to employ the AC-130 in anything that even comes close to a denied air space so if the baddies have anything larger than a Dushka good luck…
Very false. It excels at close air support. Period. It's the main thing used in infantry skirmishes. It's incredibly nimble and precise compared to an AC-130. It's also very cheap.
I don't think you'll find anything more precise in terms of air support. You'd be surprised how low they go, and how close the pilot can get.
An MQ-9 is not going give much support, it's great for blowing up an innocent family like recently or proper assassinations, one off hits.
The support an AC-130 gives is immense, but it can't see everywhere and most of it's weapons are too close for some skirmishes.
Sometimes you do need a flying machine gun for those hard to reach areas.
The A-10 is the attachment suction tube on your vacuum. AC-130 would be the main vacuum itself. MQ-9 is the spot cleaner for before or after.
MQ-9s are a tool. They're a very useful/versatile tool for the military, which is why they're used a lot, even though they are easy to misuse and use unethically. We don't hear about A-10s killing people because they're not used for it because they're trash at it.
My point was they are great (and not so great) for planned assassinations. Not really for providing cover.
An A-10 pilot might even be close enough to see there are children in the car and abort. An MQ-9 you are much higher up and you are relying on intel mostly.
I had a cousin who was in Afghanistan that would disagree. It was quite accurate in putting bullets into a trench near them. He said, with the A-10 providing cover, it was the first sleep he got in days. Sustainable CAS and the troops view matter.
Tanks?!? It has missiles too, but we don't face tanks.
It might have been originally designed to kill tanks, but it's incredibly well suited to current asymmetric warfare.
- Massive Payload capacity; it's a missile truck, 5x what a reaper can bring.
- Cannon can hit infantry in closer quarters than any explosive missile/bomb.
- Armoured and extremely tough, designed to survive small arms fire, loss of wing, loss of engine.
AC-130 might be the king of CAS but it's also crewed by 13 people and has a top speed half that of a hog... which is important when people need support _now_.
The US airforce don't like the A-10 because it's a platform that primarily does grunt work for the army and they'd rather spend that money on their own missions.
> Massive Payload capacity; it's a missile truck, 5x what a reaper can bring
If you need a bunch of munitions, bring a B-1 or B-52. Those things are GREAT at annihilating a whole training camp.
> Cannon can hit infantry in closer quarters than any explosive missile/bomb.
A small (18lb warhead) hyper-accurate missile is better than a cannon than can easily shoot way off. If there's a bad guy hiding behind a building, you want to frag the guy, not shred the building.
> AC-130 has a top speed half that of a hog
What's better than something that can take off and get into position quickly is something that's already there and watching the situation - MQ-9s are GREAT at that, and AC-130s are almost always providing overwatch when they're up.
> Armoured and extremely tough, designed to survive small arms fire,
Important if you're constantly flying very low. Why are you constantly flying low though? MQ-9s and AC-130s don't need to do that.
> AC-130 might be the king of CAS but it's also crewed by 13 people and has a top speed half that of a hog... which is important when people need support _now_.
It's also not suited for very low flying, it wants to perform large circles around the target to get the side-guns pointed at it. And the AF made it even less suited for very low flying as the J revision reduces the armor dramatically compared to previous variants: where H had enough armor for 37mm J is only armored against 7.62, and not even all posts (gunner is unarmored).
The M2 Browning .50 machine gun ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning ) is more than a century old, and still very widely used. Originally, it was an anti-tank weapon...then tank armor got thicker. It became primary armament on fighter airplanes...then enemy fighters got faster and better-armored. Then it was...
Being very flexible and useful in current-day military operations is why the M2's still around. (Though being mostly below the radar of the US's stupid rival-service-branches politics, and always-gotta-have-new-shiny-stuff mentality sure helps.)
Well, compared to an F-16 or other fighter that is true. Compared to everything else, e.g. general aviation, they are quite nimble. I've watched them perform aerobatic maneuvers.
If the Air Force was truly interested in eliminating the A-10 instead of just pushing its job to an airframe that is less capable it would offer them up to the Army or bootnecks. I am fairly certain that either of them would be willing to take on the cost if it meant they were able to own CAS.
The AF is interested in eliminating the A10, but they're even more interested in the Army not having its own fixed wings. Every time killing the A10 comes up, the Army goes "sure mate we'll take them off your hands" and the AF steps back.
If and when the Army stops wanting the A10, they'll immediately take it behind the barn and shoot it. Meaning they'll more likely end up waiting for the remaining warthogs to fall to pieces (the youngest frames are reaching 40 years of age) so there's nothing remaining for the Army to use. And the article describes them wilfully accelerating this by actively sabotaging the program.
I like the Army guys. Since they are the ones getting killed on the ground- they are far more inclined to go with products that just work and get the job done.
Unlike the airforce - that has a huge budget and an arsenal of all sorts of hardware from B2s to b1s to drones to f22s, b52s, list goes on.
Remind me again what happened in Afghanistan?
Apache, a10, mh6, ac130. These were the workhorses and of course reapers.
Afghanistan/Taliban didn't have a functional air defence network nor where they technologically near-peer.
The A10 is amazing for CAS in that environment but against anyone tooled up by the russians/chinese with modern SAM's it'd be a different picture.
Now..whether the USAF needs both given that everything they've done for most of the last 40 years has been that type of air support is an interesting question, they like to have high tech toys which is why the A29 isn't apparently going anywhere.
Which near peer would that be? The US military industrial complex is gearing up for a conflict with China to control Western Pacific islands, where any CAS will have to be provided by carrier aircraft or long-range land based bombers. The A-10 can't even get there.
Air superiority doesn't mean that ground-based air defenses are all eliminated, or even that the enemy's air force is completely defeated. Nor is there any guarantee that air superiority will be gained quickly. In WW2, the allies didn't achieve air superiority until early 1944, and while by D-Day they outnumbered the Luftwaffe 10:1, they still lost 10% of their aircraft between June 6th and June 30th. The Luftwaffe was still shooting allied planes down as late as May 8, 1945.
In a modern conflict, CAS aircraft like the A10 would be vulnerable to MANPADs, AA guns, and SAMs which could all be hidden for extended periods of time in bunkers and caves, and would continue to be produced by peer adversaries for pretty much the entirety of the war. Even late in the war, manned CAS would require fighter escort, which effectively limits their dwell time and availability to that of the fighters. By the time the CAS can really do their thing, the war is essentially already won.
The US army is restricted from operating fixed wing aircraft heavier than 5,000 pounds due to the Pace-Finletter MOU of 1952[0].
I agree with you that both the air force and the army would appreciate and gladly cooperate with such a transfer, if it were possible. But in this case, both of their hands are tied.
> I agree with you that both the air force […] would appreciate and gladly cooperate with such a transfer
No, it would not. The MOU was between the SECAF and the SECARM, if the Air Force actually wanted to hand the A10 (and CAS missions) to the Army it'd have happened 50 years ago. The AF wants to kill the A10 without the Army getting it, and the latter takes much higher priority than the former.
If the Air Force truly wanted to transfer CAS to the Army, the legislation would have happened. They want it all but don't respect the CAS mission. They want fighters that look like fighters and bombers.
US air force operates like a US corporation and is bestowed to LHM And others to start new products and buy a bunch of new parts. Who cares if it does the job great.
I like this picture of the GAU-8 cannon outside of the plane, next to a VW bug. Gives a notion of scale that's hard to get in other pictures of the A10.
That being the case: advances in Tank Armor over the last 40 years have made the Air Force question the A10's ability to kill a tank (its original purpose).
From what I can tell, the A-10 has become a hellfire or even JDAM slinging platform like every other plane, the big advantage, if any, is loiter time. It sounds like they've found it easier stay far away from anyone shooting lead or manpads, and puke out longer range standoff weapons
I was driving on a highway once here. And pulled off to get some gasoline. At the gas station, there was a semi truck with a huge object on it, and two military people were filling up the truck. I asked them what it was and they said that it was the cannon for the Warthog and we talked about it. I asked if they were not scared that someone would steal it from them. They laughed and said take it, that's ok. But it needs special depleted uranium rounds, so unless you can get them, how are you going to fire it? And secondly, how are you going to maneuver it around to actually use it? I asked him, in jest, that I could just strap it onto the top of my car to use it. They started laughing. They said that if you fired it, your ca would be going backwards at a high rate of speed.
My friend and I spent about 5 minutes talking to them after that.
I was extremely grateful to have USAF A10’s in presence patrols orbiting overhead to deter activity against my partner and I in Afghanistan back in 2013 in a remote area.
In conflict environments such as Iran and Afghanistan or against conventional forces with limited modern air defence systems, the A10 is a very useful platform.
But against peer adversaries with modern air defence infrastructure, A10 is vulnerable.
The future will probably include over the horizon perishable drone swarm launches and persistent UCAVs for close air support and networked fires(possibly hundreds of miles away) in contested environments
The recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a good indicator of near future conflict.
I’ve always wondered if the A-10 was saved because of John McCain, the now decreased senior AZ Senator. A-10s are based out of Davis Monthan Air Force base (possibly others) in Tucson AZ. Tucson, Arizona’s second largest metropolitan area, would be devastated if DM ever closed. McCain was extremely powerful, as chairman of the armed services committee, he could have help prevent the A-10 retirement.
97 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] thread(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.)
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.
The Air Force doesn't, but the Navy does.
The thing that everybody leaves out about the F35 is that you can take a relatively small ship, put a half-dozen F35's on it with some drones, and you have a tiny carrier with a remarkable amount of firepower.
So, now you don't have to sail your gigantic ass Nimitz carrier into the forward theater where a lucky cruise missile hit can cripple your entire fleet capability.
AF jocks plain don't want to do CAS at all, they want to launch missiles from 200 miles away and 20000ft up. But they want the army to have fixed wings and do its own CAS even less.
They hate the A10 because the A10 was created solely to do CAS. It flies low and slow, its only job is to support grunt, and it does that extremely well. None of that gives AF jocks a stiffy.
The F35A is also supposed to be able to do CAS missions, especially with drones that can deliver fuel to the uncontested battlefield.
AC130J is losing the gatlings and the armor.
> The F35A is also supposed to be able to do CAS missions
Operative word: supposed.
And nobody will send that expensive an airframe at the ranges and a10 operates at.
Then why is there a Gatling gun on the F35A?
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.
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.
Then, your ranking in the class drives when it's your turn to pick. Along with some other criteria. For example, some aircraft have min/max pilot height criteria because of the ejection seat. So some pilots do end up flying aircraft they didn't really want to fly.
Similarly, in the British Army, all soldiers go through basic training and then choose a particular military 'trade' (e.g. infantry, armour, artillery, etc). They receive trade-specific training before joining a relevant unit. Some regiments even have 'father and son' social events where an officer joined the same regiment that his father did.
The Royal Navy has similar career personal-choice progression routes for weapons officers, engineers, etc.
We have a professional Air Force. It's not uncommon to see e.g. F-16 pilots "retire" into senior management roles. These are smart, ambitious people. If you want to keep it that way, you give them a say in the planes they fly.
That's exactly what's going on. Incidentally that's one of the reasons USAF did their best to bury the promising AH-56 Cheyenne [0] back in the day, it was in direct competition with their own program that would later become the perennial A-10. [1]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR-r6RR1nJM
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne#Progra...
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.
...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?
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.
Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
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.
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.
But nobody serious responsible for managing our defence thinks that. Hence why the capability needs to be upgraded.
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
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...
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.
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.
The US has been gearing up for nation-state level conflicts and only fighting asymmetric guerrilla ones since 1945. And the AF is the one branch which most refuses to fight the wars the US are actually fighting.
I think one of the reasons it is easy to make this mistake is that most seem to mispronounce ordnance in that they add a superfluous syllable. Ordinance has three syllables, while ordnance only has two. Hope that helps.
What about the Warren: https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicop...
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.
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".
The enemy never came out to play when we had helicopters on station. Planes high in the sky didn't stop attacks until they dropped bombs.
The same concept can be seen with infantry and crowd control. The best way to keep a crowd away is to fix bayonets.
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.
I am not an expert at this stuff.
Gets on target faster, is much cheaper, doesn't need half a brigade to crew, and can take a lot more punishment (especially compared to the barely armored AC130J).
The Ghostrider / Stinger II variants which are in service today have 1 30mm bushmaster auto cannon, 1 howitzer and a bunch of guided munitions.
The recent variants have been criticized for not being able to provide the same level of air support as the older variants or the A-10 in built up areas or for danger close missions.
They lack the volume of fire needed to effectively suppress enemy infantry as the 30mm bushmaster has a rate of fire of only about 100 rpm and the next thing in line is either a 105mm howitzer or a hellfire missile/SDB which might be too high profile for many engagements.
And most importantly unlike the A-10 the air force isn’t willing to employ the AC-130 in anything that even comes close to a denied air space so if the baddies have anything larger than a Dushka good luck…
I don't think you'll find anything more precise in terms of air support. You'd be surprised how low they go, and how close the pilot can get.
An MQ-9 is not going give much support, it's great for blowing up an innocent family like recently or proper assassinations, one off hits.
The support an AC-130 gives is immense, but it can't see everywhere and most of it's weapons are too close for some skirmishes.
Sometimes you do need a flying machine gun for those hard to reach areas.
The A-10 is the attachment suction tube on your vacuum. AC-130 would be the main vacuum itself. MQ-9 is the spot cleaner for before or after.
MQ-9s are a tool. They're a very useful/versatile tool for the military, which is why they're used a lot, even though they are easy to misuse and use unethically. We don't hear about A-10s killing people because they're not used for it because they're trash at it.
An A-10 pilot might even be close enough to see there are children in the car and abort. An MQ-9 you are much higher up and you are relying on intel mostly.
I had a cousin who was in Afghanistan that would disagree. It was quite accurate in putting bullets into a trench near them. He said, with the A-10 providing cover, it was the first sleep he got in days. Sustainable CAS and the troops view matter.
Tanks?!? It has missiles too, but we don't face tanks.
Not to mention it’s battle proven.
Other than the AF wanting to retire it, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be modernized to some degree (like the guns).
So you may be right, but if the Army is willing to take it from the Airforce then the question is “why”.
- Massive Payload capacity; it's a missile truck, 5x what a reaper can bring.
- Cannon can hit infantry in closer quarters than any explosive missile/bomb.
- Armoured and extremely tough, designed to survive small arms fire, loss of wing, loss of engine.
AC-130 might be the king of CAS but it's also crewed by 13 people and has a top speed half that of a hog... which is important when people need support _now_.
The US airforce don't like the A-10 because it's a platform that primarily does grunt work for the army and they'd rather spend that money on their own missions.
If you need a bunch of munitions, bring a B-1 or B-52. Those things are GREAT at annihilating a whole training camp.
> Cannon can hit infantry in closer quarters than any explosive missile/bomb.
A small (18lb warhead) hyper-accurate missile is better than a cannon than can easily shoot way off. If there's a bad guy hiding behind a building, you want to frag the guy, not shred the building.
> AC-130 has a top speed half that of a hog
What's better than something that can take off and get into position quickly is something that's already there and watching the situation - MQ-9s are GREAT at that, and AC-130s are almost always providing overwatch when they're up.
> Armoured and extremely tough, designed to survive small arms fire,
Important if you're constantly flying very low. Why are you constantly flying low though? MQ-9s and AC-130s don't need to do that.
It's also not suited for very low flying, it wants to perform large circles around the target to get the side-guns pointed at it. And the AF made it even less suited for very low flying as the J revision reduces the armor dramatically compared to previous variants: where H had enough armor for 37mm J is only armored against 7.62, and not even all posts (gunner is unarmored).
The M2 Browning .50 machine gun ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning ) is more than a century old, and still very widely used. Originally, it was an anti-tank weapon...then tank armor got thicker. It became primary armament on fighter airplanes...then enemy fighters got faster and better-armored. Then it was...
Being very flexible and useful in current-day military operations is why the M2's still around. (Though being mostly below the radar of the US's stupid rival-service-branches politics, and always-gotta-have-new-shiny-stuff mentality sure helps.)
...err, what? It is a very nimble plane.
Haha, straight from the horse's mouth, I did not expect to get such a perfect quote.
If and when the Army stops wanting the A10, they'll immediately take it behind the barn and shoot it. Meaning they'll more likely end up waiting for the remaining warthogs to fall to pieces (the youngest frames are reaching 40 years of age) so there's nothing remaining for the Army to use. And the article describes them wilfully accelerating this by actively sabotaging the program.
Unlike the airforce - that has a huge budget and an arsenal of all sorts of hardware from B2s to b1s to drones to f22s, b52s, list goes on.
Remind me again what happened in Afghanistan?
Apache, a10, mh6, ac130. These were the workhorses and of course reapers.
The A10 is amazing for CAS in that environment but against anyone tooled up by the russians/chinese with modern SAM's it'd be a different picture.
Now..whether the USAF needs both given that everything they've done for most of the last 40 years has been that type of air support is an interesting question, they like to have high tech toys which is why the A29 isn't apparently going anywhere.
In a modern conflict, CAS aircraft like the A10 would be vulnerable to MANPADs, AA guns, and SAMs which could all be hidden for extended periods of time in bunkers and caves, and would continue to be produced by peer adversaries for pretty much the entirety of the war. Even late in the war, manned CAS would require fighter escort, which effectively limits their dwell time and availability to that of the fighters. By the time the CAS can really do their thing, the war is essentially already won.
I agree with you that both the air force and the army would appreciate and gladly cooperate with such a transfer, if it were possible. But in this case, both of their hands are tied.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952
No, it would not. The MOU was between the SECAF and the SECARM, if the Air Force actually wanted to hand the A10 (and CAS missions) to the Army it'd have happened 50 years ago. The AF wants to kill the A10 without the Army getting it, and the latter takes much higher priority than the former.
Masters of war.
https://i.insider.com/579a52aa88e4a79f178bb61a?width=1200&fo...
There are also photos out there showing it next to a bottle of beer
https://i2.wp.com/gunsandtactics.wpengine.com/wp-content/upl...
The F35 gets additional loiter time from fuel drones, delivering fuel autonomous ly to the battlefield.
> Armament: Precision Strike Package with 30mm and 105mm cannons and Standoff Precision Guided Munitions (i.e. GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, GBU-69 Small Glide Munition, AGM-114 Hellfire missile and AGM-176 Griffin missile)
They also have hellfire missiles now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130
I was driving on a highway once here. And pulled off to get some gasoline. At the gas station, there was a semi truck with a huge object on it, and two military people were filling up the truck. I asked them what it was and they said that it was the cannon for the Warthog and we talked about it. I asked if they were not scared that someone would steal it from them. They laughed and said take it, that's ok. But it needs special depleted uranium rounds, so unless you can get them, how are you going to fire it? And secondly, how are you going to maneuver it around to actually use it? I asked him, in jest, that I could just strap it onto the top of my car to use it. They started laughing. They said that if you fired it, your ca would be going backwards at a high rate of speed.
My friend and I spent about 5 minutes talking to them after that.
That's my Warthog story.
In conflict environments such as Iran and Afghanistan or against conventional forces with limited modern air defence systems, the A10 is a very useful platform.
But against peer adversaries with modern air defence infrastructure, A10 is vulnerable.
The future will probably include over the horizon perishable drone swarm launches and persistent UCAVs for close air support and networked fires(possibly hundreds of miles away) in contested environments
The recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a good indicator of near future conflict.