The A-10 will go!

[nspreitler]

But is not a sheared wing a sheared wing? I mean if a wing gets taken off via a midair or via enemy action its still... well...sheared off (i.e. gone!). The same control surfaces are damaged and/or missing, the same change in flight characteristics occurs, the same fluid(s) are being lost, shrapnel still exists no matter if its an extremely high speed wing-to-wing collision (think about the rate of closure between two high speed aircraft!) or AAA-to-wing. So, does it not stand to reason that if an aircraft can withstand the loss of a wing (or whatever) in a violent midair that it could also survive the same damage incurred via enemy action? Of course, pilot ability comes into play but with all things being equal, should it really matter if the aircraft loses a wing in a midair vs. the same wing from AAA?

Again, I am neither here nor there when it comes to the A-10 and I am but a humble model builder. But I see more evidence pointing to other aircraft being able to perform the A-10's mission as well and/or better in a high threat environment while also being able to complete other missions that the A-10 can't being presented here.

But hey...what do I know ;)/>

Regards,

Don.

EDIT: Spelling mistake.

It is true an A-10 can't operate without protection in a high threat environment without sustaining unacceptable losses.

It is also true other aircraft can and do perform CAS, but that is a mission they also wouldn't do nearly as well in a high threat environment. In those scenarios you can't put tankers into contested airspace and the platforms like the F-16, F/A-18, and eventually the F-35 don't have the ability to loiter like an A-10 without refueling.

Based on experience the argument of other aircraft performing CAS as well as an A-10 is in my opinion false. However with tanker coverage other aircraft can do CAS, but without tanker support they would be very limited in ordnance carried due to a need for more external fuel and they still can't stay nearly as long over an engagement area.

In the current environment there is nothing as effective in providing CAS for forces fighting against ISIS. If you need to kill people in fighting positions you want a gun run, and like I've said before the only aircraft I saw using their guns against ISIS in Iraq were A-10s. Every aircraft has JDAMs, but that isn't nearly as effective on large groups of dug-in enemy fighters as 30mm.

A lot of what is being talked about confuses attacking enemy ground forces for CAS. Striking Republican Guard units in Desert Storm wasn't CAS they were strike missions. The aircraft didn't need to loiter in the area to provide support to friendly forces in contact. They could launch missiles at tanks and then RTB.

The A-10 is old and there are places we couldn't use it, just like there are places you can't use an AC-130. However, right now it is in use and it is very effective. When we have a suitable replacement with similar or better capability while being able to operate in a high threat environment the A-10 should be retired. Until then we should keep the A-10, because it is in use right now and like it or not we will probably be operating in Iraq and possibly Syria for at least the next five years.

[Don]

It is true an A-10 can't operate without protection in a high threat environment without sustaining unacceptable losses.

It is also true other aircraft can and do perform CAS, but that is a mission they also wouldn't do nearly as well in a high threat environment. In those scenarios you can't put tankers into contested airspace and the platforms like the F-16, F/A-18, and eventually the F-35 don't have the ability to loiter like an A-10 without refueling.

Based on experience the argument of other aircraft performing CAS as well as an A-10 is in my opinion false. However with tanker coverage other aircraft can do CAS, but without tanker support they would be very limited in ordnance carried due to a need for more external fuel and they still can't stay nearly as long over an engagement area.

In the current environment there is nothing as effective in providing CAS for forces fighting against ISIS. If you need to kill people in fighting positions you want a gun run, and like I've said before the only aircraft I saw using their guns against ISIS in Iraq were A-10s. Every aircraft has JDAMs, but that isn't nearly as effective on large groups of dug-in enemy fighters as 30mm.

A lot of what is being talked about confuses attacking enemy ground forces for CAS. Striking Republican Guard units in Desert Storm wasn't CAS they were strike missions. The aircraft didn't need to loiter in the area to provide support to friendly forces in contact. They could launch missiles at tanks and then RTB.

The A-10 is old and there are places we couldn't use it, just like there are places you can't use an AC-130. However, right now it is in use and it is very effective. When we have a suitable replacement with similar or better capability while being able to operate in a high threat environment the A-10 should be retired. Until then we should keep the A-10, because it is in use right now and like it or not we will probably be operating in Iraq and possibly Syria for at least the next five years.

Like I said I am just a humble model builder. I see what you're saying and agree with parts of it but others have posted some pretty compelling arguments in favor of retiring the A-10, WACO's being up there at the top and the guy has spent most of his adult life horsing jets around the sky (no disrespect intended towards yourself and your service whatsoever!). Bottom line we just can't keep everything as there are many hands out with few dollars to go around. If we have aircraft that can do the mission of the A-10 and other missions that it can't (and others have demonstrated that they can) then it makes sense to phase it out. And really that's what would happen. Its not like a decision to retire it today would have all Hawgs in the desert by Monday. It would take time. Besides, the Air Force top brass...who I would expect know more then most folks...wants to get rid of it as I understand it. But its become a political ball and that leaves a really bad taste on folks mouths I guess.

But I guess this has all been said and done in this thread already so its come full circle to some extent.

Oh well... back to my humble modeling :)

EDIT: spelling.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Don

[Exhausted]

Yes, it is a good thing the A-10 has a canopy that can resist small calibre rounds. Not much use if you were hit by the larger calibre 57mm and 37mm Iraqi AAA though.

Yes, but up to 23mm is significant, make no mistake. Arming your soldiers is expensive, so smaller calibers are going to be wayyy more common.

[Exhausted]

Thats the point. Its great that A-10s are armored, the question is has it payed off? was the trade off worth it? The fact that F-16s were able to do the same job, with fewer losses is a pretty interesting demonstration.

That's a matter of opinion. The fact that an F-16 was sent home last week from small arms fire does not demonstrate that the F-16 has done the same job as the A-10.

The great debate about maneuver vs attrition goes on...

Agreed, the debate goes on but the debate isn't nearly as complex as reality. Truthfully, a debate about the possibilities in war can never account for the many "X" variables. Truth in war is stranger than fiction because, in high intensity conflicts, you see a lot non-standard situations.

Guess again.

what?

This isn't about Newton, but his laws which are pretty steadfast. Hence Laws. In this case the 2nd. This isn't like that BS "what would the founding fathers think?" political question.

In this case the force of an aircraft collision is more than that of SAM explosives and shrapnel.

I can't agree that flak barrages and missile impacts are less damaging than mid-air collisions. Obviously they could both end up being more or less as damaging, but they are completely different things. Your use of Newton's second law seems auxiliary here.

Did you see that this A-10 pilot dodged four missiles earlier this year?

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/

No. And in the picture of battle damaged aircraft we are posting its clear the damage from explosives/shrapnel was far less than the midairs, which are taking off huge chunks of airplane.

It depends. If a collision is nearly avoided and both aircraft plow through each other's wing, the damage is much less than what a missile can do. Then again, talk of collisions is really getting off topic since so far they aren't really the same.

Its very sad that you would simply dismiss it out of hand with a rather lame excuse. The book talks about the interplay with the leaders and the decision to send the A-10s into Iraq against the republican guard, along with what took place, and the decisions to pull them back by the people involved. Those missions also played a big part in A-10 tactics, and big picture the A-10C. Not all of history is "fluid"

I'm not dismissing the book, I'm dismissing your application of 1991 standards to 2015 standards. The basis of my argument is that the A-10 has a job to do today and that Congress is tossing it around like a live grenade between parties and budgets to see whose face is blows up in.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Exhausted

[11bee]

Did you see that this A-10 pilot dodged four missiles earlier this year?

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/

He "dodged" them? Or maybe his countermeasures diverted them? Or maybe, he was above their effective range? Or maybe, since this is via Iraqi News, it never happened at all?

BTW, how were they were able to ascertain the exact model of the SAM used?

All in all, it means very little.

[TaiidanTomcat]

That's a matter of opinion. The fact that an F-16 was sent home last week from small arms fire does not demonstrate that the F-16 has done the same job as the A-10.

whats the story on that anyway before we jump to any conclusions? I heard someone shot at it as it was landing?

I can't agree that flak barrages and missile impacts are less damaging than mid-air collisions. Obviously they could both end up being more or less as damaging, but they are completely different things. Your use of Newton's second law seems auxiliary here.

Not really since you are trying to say the force of explosions and concusion is more than a midair collision. Force is Force. Mass is Mass.

Did you see that this A-10 pilot dodged four missiles earlier this year?

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/

It depends. If a collision is nearly avoided and both aircraft plow through each other's wing, the damage is much less than what a missile can do.

Then again, talk of collisions is really getting off topic since so far they aren't really the same.

Not really since the original point was an aircraft's ability to absorb punishment. It seems fairly clear that the A-10 is not the only aircraft that can absorb lots of damage and still make it home. In the meantime, the other aircraft enjoy key advantages in far more areas.

I'm not dismissing the book, I'm dismissing your application of 1991 standards to 2015 standards.

How are the "standards" different?

keep in mind I am talking about specific cases all the way back in 1991 where the A-10s were being held back and F-16s sent in to do the A-10s job.

The basis of my argument is that the A-10 has a job to do today and that Congress is tossing it around like a live grenade between parties and budgets to see whose face is blows up in.

I thought the basis of your argument was we need to keep it around to kill tanks and have more luck against BBs.

Edited October 25, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[Trigger]

The fact that an F-16 was sent home last week from small arms fire does not demonstrate that the F-16 has done the same job as the A-10.

So what was he doing that low then, listening to

while engaging Taliban helicopters?

Something else to consider...After 14 years in Afghanistan, an F-16 got hit with a lucky shot and you're having panic $#!t$ about anything that isn't an A-10.

Did you see that this A-10 pilot dodged four missiles earlier this year?

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/

So the A-10 survived, not by absorbing hits, but by not taking those hits in the first place thanks to the use of countermeasures and maneuvering....just like how an F-15E/F-16/F-18 would.

Once again, you'd demonstrated an argument for the retirement of the A-10.

[Trigger]

It depends. If a collision is nearly avoided and both aircraft plow through each other's wing, the damage is much less than what a missile can do.

- Kinetic impact

- Massive structural damage

- Loss of flying and control surfaces

Contrast that with...

With your vast engineering knowledge, I'm sure you would have no problem finding a lucrative 6-figure salary job in the aerospace industry.

Then again, talk of collisions is really getting off topic since so far they aren't really the same.

No, it's because you keep getting your @$$ handed to you.

[SBARC]

Yup...the Ju-87 and the A-10 were/are game changers......if Hitler had built more Ju-87's, then he would have easily won WW2. I think fitting a siren to the A-10 will make it possible to dominate any future conflict.

[Trigger]

if Hitler had built more Ju-87's, then he would have easily won WW2.

You owe me a new keyboard.

[Exhausted]

With your vast engineering knowledge, I'm sure you would have no problem finding a lucrative 6-figure salary job in the aerospace industry.

No, it's because you keep getting your @$$ handed to you.

[Exhausted]

Not really since the original point was an aircraft's ability to absorb punishment. It seems fairly clear that the A-10 is not the only aircraft that can absorb lots of damage and still make it home. In the meantime, the other aircraft enjoy key advantages in far more areas.

Damage is relative. In may cases the same hit on an F-16 is more damaging than it would be on an A-10. This is the biggest reason that the damage pics from mid-airs aren't relevant. So you can have a more heavily damaged F-16 RTB after being hit with less fire than a lesser damaged A-10 that RTBs after being hit with more.

How are the "standards" different?

keep in mind I am talking about specific cases all the way back in 1991 where the A-10s were being held back and F-16s sent in to do the A-10s job.

We haven't fought a standing army since 2003, and that army was just a shell of its former self. Fighting insurgencies over a protracted period has different demands than a conflict like ODS. Also, you're ignoring the scope of ODS: in Kuwait ground support aircraft brought close support down to low levels because in many cases the people they were saving were in the middle of a fight. Contrast that with tank plinking: there were many tanks to be killed at night, waiting in shelter and not posing a direct threat to friendly troops.

But F-16s weren't exactly survivable in ODS like you would like to assume. You said that F-16s came into action after the A-10s took some losses over Kuwait, but could it have been that many of the defenses that the A-10 faced were now eliminated? Your take on the scenario is so unfair because of the rapid threat changes from week to week.

I thought the basis of your argument was we need to keep it around to kill tanks and have more luck against BBs.

No, you misinterpreted this from the beginning. It is true that the A-10 is more adept at killing tanks in an environment where aerospace is more-or-less controlled. But I think gun runs still have a place in close air support, and that takes the platform into the threat zone of small arms fire which the A-10 will survive better than F-16s. Whenever you still have F-16s RTBing from small arms fire then you have a problem, and that problem is that the single-engined, lightly-built aircraft wouldn't survive as well as the A-10 in a conflict that demanded more low-level support than the current ones do.

Finally, everyone realizes this: the Air Force, the troops on the ground and Congress. That's why it's being used in the ugliest form of partisan politics of our lifetime. And people are missing the picture: you can call your congressman and tell them if you think it's important to keep this sucker around and why. I've worked with these issues and I know that these opinions are collected and measured in order to keep that representative accountable to his/her constituency.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Exhausted

[Exhausted]

Yup...the Ju-87 and the A-10 were/are game changers......if Hitler had built more Ju-87's, then he would have easily won WW2. I think fitting a siren to the A-10 will make it possible to dominate any future conflict. :whistle:/>

Yes SBARC.... yes

[Trigger]

Amazing how you make all these ridiculous claims, make up history as you go along, but when challenged, you offer no evidence and instead you just double down. Ordinarily, people live and learn. You just live.

Damage is relative. In may cases the same hit on an F-16 is more damaging than it would be on an A-10. This is the biggest reason that the damage pics from mid-airs aren't relevant. So you can have a more heavily damaged F-16 RTB after being hit with less fire than a lesser damaged A-10 that RTBs after being hit with more.

We haven't fought a standing army since 2003, and that army was just a shell of its former self. Fighting insurgencies over a protracted period has different demands than a conflict like ODS. Also, you're ignoring the scope of ODS: in Kuwait ground support aircraft brought close support down to low levels because in many cases the people they were saving were in the middle of a fight. Contrast that with tank plinking: there were many tanks to be killed at night, waiting in shelter and not posing a direct threat to friendly troops.

Nope. Not with all the oil fires Saddam's troops set on their way outta dodge. A-10s, Tornados, etc couldn't get underneath the smoke. Smoke was so thick, guys on the ground were coughing up black gunk and their snot was black. Only Apaches and Cobras could get in under that crap.

But F-16s weren't exactly survivable in ODS like you would like to assume.

Number of F-16s deployed for ODS: 249

Number of Sorties Flown: 13,500 (highest number of sorties of any system)

Number of F-16s shot down in ODS: 3

January 19 – F-16C 87-0228 was shot down by a 2K12 Kub (SA-6) surface-to-air missile.

January 19 – F-16C 87-0257 was shot down by a S-125 (SA-3) surface-to-air missile

February 27 - F-16C 84-1390 was shot down by an Igla-1 (SA-16) MANPAD

Number of A-10s deployed for ODS: 144

Number of Sorties Flown: 8,100

Number of A-10s shot down in ODS: 6

February 2 – A-10A 80-0248 was shot down by either 'optical AAA' ground fire or Igla-1 (SA-16) MANPAD.

February 15 - A-10A 78-0722 was shot down by AAA ground fire 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets

February 15 - A-10A 79-0130 was shot down ground fire approx 60 miles northwest of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Captain Steven Phyllis killed in action. Captain Steve Phyllis died while protecting his downed wingman, 1st Lieutenant Robert James Sweet.

February 19 – A-10A 76-0543 was shot down by an Strela-1 (SA-9) surface-to-air missile 62 nm North West of Kuwait city

February 22 – A-10A 79-0181 was lost after being hit with a SAM and making a wheels up, hard stick landing. CLSS team stripped the aircraft of parts, some sent to King Fahd International Airport, Main Operating Base for use on other birds, and then buried the rest in the desert

February 27 – A-10A 77-0197 was hit by AAA small arms and lost all its hydraulics & one engine. Pilot was was attempting a landing at KKMC FOL in Manual Reversion, but the aircraft crashed, cartwheeling wingtip to wingtip before coming to rest on its back, killing the pilot.

It was about 4 in the afternoon when another A-10 and I headed across the northern border of Kuwait into Iraq. I was a little keyed up because our target was a group of Republican Guard tanks 80 miles into Iraq—farther north than any A-10s had gone before. If you got hit, it would be a long trip back to safety.

I had already dropped my bombs when a surface-to-air missile was fired at me. It missed, but I saw where it came from, so we decided to hammer the guy that launched it. I was just about ready to roll in and nail him when I felt something behind me, just a bump really. I looked back and saw that the rear end of my right wing was all in flames. "Oh, man, I'm hit!" I yelled, and I started south, trying to make it to the border. But about a minute and a half later, the plane spun out of control and started spiraling downward.

You train for this kind of emergency, but nothing can prepare you for when it really happens. Even as I was spiraling, I was trying to throw the right switches to regain control, but the plane was just too badly damaged. I was hit at about 12.000 feet, and when I saw from the gauge that I was passing 6,500, I said. "It's time to get out, "cause this plane isn't going to do anything."

Before I hit the ground about 200 guys came out of these little holes. I didn't even have a chance to get my radio out of my survival vest and talk to anybody. "Can it get any worse?" I thought, and then of course it did. The horde started running toward me and shooting. With all the commotion, I forgot the correct procedure for landing, so I tore my Achilles tendon a bit when I hit the ground. I landed about 50 yards from a T-72 tank—right in the middle of it.

1st Lt. Robert Sweet

People Magazine

So, F-16s flew more missions while simultaneously having a lower loss rate. There were fewer A-10s, flying fewer missions, with a higher loss rate.

Contrast that with tank plinking: there were many tanks to be killed at night, waiting in shelter and not posing a direct threat to friendly troops.

So you admit that the A-10 isn't the tank killer you claimed it to be previously.

You said that F-16s came into action after the A-10s took some losses over Kuwait, but could it have been that many of the defenses that the A-10 faced were now eliminated?

No, the F-16s were able to better defend themselves with countermeasures, maneuver and the element of surprise.

But I think gun runs still have a place in close air support, and that takes the platform into the threat zone of small arms fire which the A-10 will survive better than F-16s. Whenever you still have F-16s RTBing from small arms fire then you have a problem, and that problem is that the single-engined, lightly-built aircraft wouldn't survive as well as the A-10 in a conflict that demanded more low-level support than the current ones do.

Even most of the attacks the A-10 conducts these days are with PGMs. The fact is that “strafing runs” are not the tool used for CAS most of the time. Yes, they are still used regularly, but nowhere near as frequently as PGMs. Let's try to keep this incident in perspective - an F-16 was damaged at low level in an EXTREMELY rare incident, possibly while performing CAS. We've been using the F-15/16/18 for CAS side by side with the A-10 for an long time, and they've been very successful in that role. Your whines about aircraft such as the F-16 are nothing new. The aircraft's been around for nearly 40 years now and the numbers don't support your claims.

[Alvis 3.1]

Any further attempts to insert personal sniping into this thread will be dealt with by massive nuclear retaliation. While I appreciate the passion some may feel on the subject, when it descends down to seeing who can level the more accusations of being childish, it's near the point of no return. While you may feel some sense of pyrrhic victory at this, I will not find it amusing in the least. Do you REALLY want to be responsible for another slew of sarcastic models for Silly Week? Do you?

Now we have a little cooling off time.

Al P.

ARC Moderation Team Angry Camper Manager and Chief Sarcasm Chasm Guide.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Alvis 3.1

[SBARC]

Ya...what he said....put away the pointy sicks and play nice. :D

I hope a few A-10's survive future missions to be placed in museums...it would be a shame if they were all shot down and none made it to museums.

I miss the Boulton Paul Defiant now there was a fighting machine that was retired too early.

[madmike]

Steve, not many Me109's missed the Defiant.... :P

[Exhausted]

Any further attempts to insert personal sniping into this thread will be dealt with by massive nuclear retaliation. While I appreciate the passion some may feel on the subject, when it descends down to seeing who can level the more accusations of being childish, it's near the point of no return. While you may feel some sense of pyrrhic victory at this, I will not find it amusing in the least. Do you REALLY want to be responsible for another slew of sarcastic models for Silly Week? Do you?

Now we have a little cooling off time.

Al P.

ARC Moderation Team Angry Camper Manager and Chief Sarcasm Chasm Guide.

bah, I really don't know how else to address someone who insists on bypassing the text he's replying to for 2-3 posts in a row. Yet, in deference, I accept your deletion.

Ya...what he said....put away the pointy sicks and play nice.

I have no problem with this at all' date=' but couldn't this message have come sooner?

I miss the Boulton Paul Defiant now there was a fighting machine that was retired too early.

Would be nice to see one flying, but the powers that be were scrap-happy at the time.

Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe. -- John Milton, English poet

[SBARC]

I have no problem with this at all, but couldn't this message have come sooner?

Yup...this thread has run it's course...time to put it to sleep. You should clear out your inbox.....you are not receiving warning messages from the moderating team.