Future of the A-10 Warthog

Article I saw: pushback on the planned axing of the program.

Are the A-10's beyond their useful life? Do they need to be 'overhauled' to continue in service?

I can't think of another platform that can perform the mission that they do, offhand.


Plan to Ax A-10 Warthog Gets Pushback | Fox Business

 

I want one.

 

The Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years. Last time they seriously tried, the Army threatened to take them over (with some Congressional support) and the Air Force backed off quickly.

 

There was a SLEP on them already. Wikipedia says 2040.

 

They're constantly being overhauled and updated, which is good. Nothing else like it coming off of the assembly lines anytime soon.

A Higher-Tech Hog: USAF A-10C Upgrades and Refurbishments

 

I don't know about the politics of it all, but I would sorely miss them flying over the house regularly (Martin State). Can't adequately explain the mood when they are above. Some of my buddies get very quiet and I've seen more than one whisper a "thank you" while out on the boat in the river by the runway.

I've read articles, but there are a whole lot of men and women who have quite a bit of respect for that plane saving their asses and nostalgia certainly plays a big part of planning for its retirement.

 

The A-10 Thunderbolt II Is The Toughest, Most Ferocious Aircraft In The Skies - Business Insider

"This Is The Face Of Salvation When You're Outgunned In The US Army"
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Part of this is the kabuki dance that is done when they want to cut the budget. The White House and the military chiefs (in this case the AF) agree to cut the program that they don't like. The Generals are betting that the congress won't cut the program and know cutting it is stupid, so they count on the congress to save their bacon...but... sometimes this doesn't work properly and the congress actually cuts the program.... As noted above the AF brass think that the F35 can do this job (not a snowballs chance in hell, but that's just my opinion) and they don't want a "flying tank", but that is really stupid.

The A-10 has twin engine redundancy, long loiter capability, armor, a big gun, and flies slowly enough to do the job, none of which the F-35 has. While the A-10 was designed originally to stop the Russian armor in the Fulda gap, it turns out, much like a lot of other weapons, it turns out that this is a very effective platform for use for doing things it was never really intended to do. If I were any one of our potential enemies I'd be sleeping a lot better knowing there was a chance that I wouldn't have to face the A-10...

 

This is an overly simplistic view, but shouldn't the A-10 be flown by the Army and Marines rather than the Air Force?

 

Not simplistic at all, just the debate since almost day one instead.

 

Likewise!

It is a great demonstration of clear focus in design. It wasn't designed to be all things to all men (and then failing to achieve any of them) - it is outstanding in its design objective, and as a byproduct can do some other things too.

It is one of my favourite aircraft

 

No burner and silk scarf.

The Army would love to have them.

In a few decades the air force will be a support service with computer operators and joy sticks.

 

It's nothing but a BF gun for ground suppport.


They were able to add a couple wings and engines.

Marines should have it.

 

Only "live" one I've seen was over Nurburgring of all places..

Couple of hasty pics from the travel camera which takes about a fortnight to power up, focus and ready to fire.

Should start a "spotters" thread
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

+10
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I always enjoyed looking at them sitting on the ramp in Bagram, Afghanistan. They looked slightly battered and bruised yet ready for action, like a prize fighter halfway through a bout.

 

I read an article that basically stated modern helicopters from the Army could do the same job as an A-10, in addition to being cheaper, so why should the Air Force spend its money on a platform that they don't want. Is this a reason or completely off base? I don't know much about the situation but always liked the A-10 so I'm a little curious.

 

The A-10 is by far the coolest plane in my book. Got to see them all the time in Afghanistan.


The only thing I can say why the marine corps didn't have the a-10 is two reasons.

First (as far as I know) it's not capable of ship board ops either on a big carrier or on the lHA's or the LHD's (that's where the harriers are at with the parent helicopter squadron or tilt rotor squadron now) and without the ability to fold it's wings and be small there's no room for it on the carriers. It would take up to much real-estate!


2nd it's because if #1
The marine corps needs this plane. On those ships so it can respond immediately not fly in from some base somewhere. It's not practical for the MC mission. Plus they have the f35 to replace the aging fleet of North Carolina lawn darts.. I mean scariers, I mean harriers.

 

CSUSAF's and Commander, ACC's position is that they cannot afford them with the budget cuts already on the way. The F-16, F-15E and F-35, with PGMs, and 20 mm guns, can do almost as good a job, plus they can do other missions that the A-10 cannot. It comes down to good enough, if not great, and the A-10s are getting expensive to maintain. Retiring an entire weapon system creates more savings than cutting down on numbers and still needing all the support of the larger fleet in engineering and parts supply chains.

The Army and Marines do not want them. The Army could not support them with its current budget and the Marines want a STOVL or VTVL platform to replace the AV-8. USAF is also being forced to shut down the U-2 because congress has been forcing it to buy Global Hawks it does not want. So they will modify the Global Hawk, at some expense, to perform the U-2 mission and boneyard the U-2, which could have lasted through 2050 with planned updates. AF really wanted a stealthy platform to replace both eventually, but now cannot afford to do that in the numbers needed.

 

In WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and G.W. the MC flew from fixed land bases. In the past, the MC had some all but useless aircraft for the ground attack mission - F3H (Whale/Skyknight), FJ-2/3/4 (Cadillac/Fury), and F4D (Ford/Skyray). The A-10 is perfect for the mission. The issue is (as you stated), it cannot land on the boat. Interservice politics. The embarrassment of using an AF airplane.

 

Maybe he was looking for Mc P1 or Porsche 918 doing some laps

 

The U.S. forces learned in Vietnam that a "flying dump truck" was a must, and the A-1 Skyraider was it. The A-10 was a direct replacement for the A-1 and has done the same job with continual excellence.

Supposedly the F-35 is supposed to replace the A-10. Are you kidding me? The F-35 is going to be a great airplane for many missions, but it will never be a "flying dump truck", not unless they put a much longer wing on it!

 

Jim- A stealthy platform has advantages in CAS, and if SAMs are not an issue, so stealth is not important, the F-35 has several external carriage points. The A-10 is a flying radar reflector, and not really suitable for a high threat environment against current SAMs. To be really effective, something else would have to take down the SAMs.

Eventually it gets like it did for the F-111, the ACC commander said he could only afford to buy them back so many times before he gave up and let them retire it. Same thing is happening to the A-10. Only big difference is the Guard flies many of them, so congresssional support, and one A-10 pilot's wife is a Senator.

 

One of my favorite planes. Love them!

 

The A-10's are old, even with SLEP's. They had to be re-winged fairly early in life because the pilots were yanking and banking them much harder and on a more regular basis than they were designed for. Fatigue life was still not a huge consideration in military fighter aircraft design in the early 70's. Would probably not have made much of a difference in the A-10 because of the nature of how the pilots flew them during training.

A long long time ago during a lull between having to engage in actual combat (early 60's) the USAF decided that air combat would be ruled by missiles, and the gun would be of marginal use. That thinking changed as soon as they got back into a real shooting match.

A long time ago (late 80's) the USAF decided that the A-16 should replace the A-10. All they had to do was strap an external gun onto the -16 and presto the A-10's could be replaced. Then along came GWI.
F-16 Versions - A-16, F/A-16, F-16A (30mm gun)

The F-35 has a max gun capacity of 220 rounds on an external pod (182 on -A model internal gun) versus 1350 on an A-10. So the F-35 has about 3-4 secs worth of cannon fire. Definitely not a replacement.

The A-10 threat environment has included radar controlled AA from day 1, e.g. ZSU-23. Fact is the A-10 has proven to be more survivable against missiles (e.g. MANPADS) than other aircraft due to the pod mounted engines (which is why they are pod mounted). In addition much of the low level threat is from IR-guided systems which RCS will not defeat.

The F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 in name only. Not enough budget, given current prices, to field dedicated aircraft. That time period has long since passed. So they'll have to do.

Who knows when the Army will ever be able to field a rotorcraft capable of performing a similar mission. There are some promising designs, but like the F-35 it would be a minimum of 15 yrs to get a squadron operational if they started today. Apaches are getting worn out, so they better not wait too long.