A-10 to stay?

[killagee 0]

US Air Force to buy STOVL variant of fighter

The US Air Force (USAF) will buy the short take-off variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and upgrade a portion of its 30-year-old A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet in order to bolster the service's ability to provide support for ground forces, according to senior USAF leaders.

[Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 13 February 2004]

Maybe the A-10 will live on after 2010 eh?

[Impavido 0]

Badass...Ive been considering joining the USAF since I graduated from college...and I had interest in the old and ugly A-10 Warthog.

Maybe that old bird has some fight left in her!

[hellfish6 7]

I'm so irritated that Jane's subscriptions are so expensive.

[Tovarish 0]

I don't think the F-35 (as high tech as it may be) will be a good replacement for the A-10.....I mean the thing has one engine and is nowhere near as sturdy! I thought the USAF realized this already realized this when they were thinking of replacing it with an F-16 variant, but then I guess the USAF dosen't like slow and low tech. Too bad. They should look at some major upgrades to the A-10 if anything, sort of like the Su-25's evolution into the Su-25T (Su-39). (Which the Russians have apparently decided was overkill anyway for what they are using their Frogfoots for right now, and are concentrating on  the long-range Su-34).

Going back to the A-10, I remember seeing pictures of a Night/All weather twin-seat prototype. Too bad it didn't seem to impress the brass. Found a pic:

<span style='color:red'>*edit*</span> Oh, missed the part about the upgrade, thought they just wanted to slowly phase out the A-10's with F-35's (which is what they've been talking about lately)

[killagee 0]

I'm so irritated that Jane's subscriptions are so expensive.

The News Brief email service (where I got this) and 'registraion' is Free though mate! Great galleries and articles etc. Most articles are just the first 2oo out of 20000 kind of thing but still worth it. But yeah, a 'full' subcription costs over $750 nz!

[Impavido 0]

What the A-10 has on a lot of close support aircraft is its loiter time. It can stay in the air waiting for a support request a lot longer than all other modern NATO aircraft that is tasked with close-air support. Sure its ugly, slow, low-tech. But its got a whallop!

[The Frenchman 0]

Screw that futuristic POS that is also known as the J35. Give me a A10 anyday.....that or a Mirage 2000.

[ozanzac 0]

I beleive the A-10 will still be the more important of the two aircraft.

In my opinion, the A-10 will be used where there is great risk, getting down and dirty with the enemy and handling targets that require the survivability of a twin engined aircraft.

The F-35 will be used to 'mop up', destroying targets that pose minimal threat to the aircraft, but require destruction in any case.

Probably a very wise decision to maintain at least a portion of the A-10 fleet.

[Badgerboy 0]

You do realise what will happen to an A10 in a high threat environment?

The buggers will be hacked down in short order if they go up against a modern integrated defense system, so matter how tough they are. Recent conflicts (Iraq) have had run down AA defenses which are constantly supressed.

Look at how many sorties were flown in Allied Force, and their area of operations. Very few in comparison to other aircraft, as they couldn't risk sending a low and slow aircraft into such a dense AA system.

Like it or not, high and fast is far safer than low and slow, and the F35 can fill that role will standoff weapons quite well.

[coporal_punishment 0]

I like the a10 but I can see why the airforce want's the x35s, well to put it simply the a10 is only good for one thing blowing the living hell outta the ground and everything which is moving on top of it but it can't fight a good air to air combat role yet its armed for it. the X35 can, so some guy int he air force taught it would a good idea instead of having a couple of Air Intercopter Squadons and having some Ground Support squadons why don't you have tons of multirole squadrons. Its just another way the airforce can save money (universal parts) and bolster its numbers in all catagories.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]You do realise what will happen to an A10 in a high threat environment?

Yeah, your right that in a high threat environment, the A-10 is more vulnerable than most.

But the A-10's main role has been Close Air Support. I'm more skeptical about whether the F-35 has the ability to fufil this role like the A-10 has, rather than anything else.

[denoir 0]

The A10 is very good against countries who have antiquated defense systems. Going against something semi-modern it would be shredded to pieces.

As Badgerboy said, Allied Force is a good example. After a few attempts of using them and terrible results, they were more or less withdrawn from the area of operations.

video of wreckage

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

You do realise what will happen to an A10 in a high threat environment?

The buggers will be hacked down in short order if they go up against a modern integrated defense system, so matter how tough they are. Recent conflicts (Iraq) have had run down AA defenses which are constantly supressed.

Look at how many sorties were flown in Allied Force, and their area of operations. Very few in comparison to other aircraft, as they couldn't risk sending a low and slow aircraft into such a dense AA system.

Like it or not, high and fast is far safer than low and slow, and the F35 can fill that role will standoff weapons quite well.

This was never the intention for the A-10. It was designed from the ground up as a CAS aircraft and was never expected to penetrate modern IDS.

@Tovarish

Exactly! The whole concept of the single engine fighter should have died with WW2. I'm not disputing the capabilities of aircraft like the F-16. But what you can dispute is their survivability in a CAS role in a hostile environment.

The A-10 can sustain a lot more damage than a F-16 and the attack speeds are much slower allowing them to perform a much better CAS role than a fast mover like the F-16.

Navy has got it right. Name a modern Navy plane with only one engine....anyone...anyone?

[EiZei 0]

Navy has got it right. Name a modern Navy plane with only one engine....anyone...anyone?

Im a bastard.

[Badgerboy 0]

You do realise what will happen to an A10 in a high threat environment?

The buggers will be hacked down in short order if they go up against a modern integrated defense system, so matter how tough they are. Recent conflicts (Iraq) have had run down AA defenses which are constantly supressed.

Look at how many sorties were flown in Allied Force, and their area of operations. Very few in comparison to other aircraft, as they couldn't risk sending a low and slow aircraft into such a dense AA system.

Like it or not, high and fast is far safer than low and slow, and the F35 can fill that role will standoff weapons quite well.

This was never the intention for the A-10. It was designed from the ground up as a CAS aircraft and was never expected to penetrate modern IDS.

@Tovarish

Exactly! The whole concept of the single engine fighter should have died with WW2. I'm not disputing the capabilities of aircraft like the F-16. But what you can dispute is their survivability in a CAS role in a hostile environment.

The A-10 can sustain a lot more damage than a F-16 and the attack speeds are much slower allowing them to perform a much better CAS role than a fast mover like the F-16.

Navy has got it right. Name a modern Navy plane with only one engine....anyone...anyone?

If your not going to enter an area protected by a enemy AA system, then your CAS options are very limited. Integrated fixed SAM's can cover an entire forward line, while modern MANPAD's can take a A10 down if used properly. Consider that a modern ground fighting force will also have its own organic air defense battalition, as well as hundreds of blokes toting MANPAD's.

If an A10 is to provide adequate CAS, then it must venture into a SAM envelope.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Navy has got it right. Name a modern Navy plane with only one engine....anyone...anyone?

Im a bastard.

LOL....OK.....you're right.

You ARE a bastard

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

If your not going to enter an area protected by a enemy AA system, then your CAS options are very limited. Integrated fixed SAM's can cover an entire forward line, while modern MANPAD's can take a A10 down if used properly. Consider that a modern ground fighting force will also have its own organic air defense battalition, as well as hundreds of blokes toting MANPAD's.

If an A10 is to provide adequate CAS, then it must venture into a SAM envelope.

Quote[/b] ]Integrated fixed SAM's can cover an entire forward line, while modern MANPAD's can take a A10 down if used properly.

Alternatively, A-10s are also able to avoid MANPADS if used properly. This hardly an academic argument. Every MANPAD has a chance of failing against an aircraft using chaff and flares, not matter what the speed. Granted, its harder to hit fast movers....but alternatively its harder for fast movers to hit CAS targets repeatedly.

Quote[/b] ]Consider that a modern ground fighting force will also have its own organic air defense battalition, as well as hundreds of blokes toting MANPAD's.

OK...now you have a point....I have no problem with an organic defence system and yes...the A-10 is more vulnerable to these than a fast mover. But you mentioned IDS before...which is a whole different ball game and one that the A-10 would not be a part of.

Quote[/b] ]If an A10 is to provide adequate CAS, then it must venture into a SAM envelope.

Perhaps....if not taken out by SEAD first....the emphasis would be on avoidance. The MANPADs and organic AAA defence are the biggest threats and not ones that I believe the A-10 is ill equipped to deal with as you suggest.

[havocsquad 0]

The purpose for keeping the A-10 is to greatly increase the effectiveness of CAS provided by front line multi-role aircraft.  The A-10's job is not to be the main force in providing front line CAS in a large scaled war of attrition against a very prepared and well equipped enemy.  That job is for F-16's, F/A-18's, F-15E's, and soon to come F/A-35 JSF's.  These aircraft are what makes or breaks an outcome of a war in scale that could happen in Korea.

The A-10's job is to assist and multiple the effectiveness of CAS duty primarily provided by front line multi-role aircraft.  You don't send a squadron of A-10's to provide CAS until the frontline mult-role fighters have done their job the days before the sortie in removing aircraft threats.  Until such ideal conditions are in place, the A-10 will almost always be restricted to friendly terroritory CAS duties.

A good example is if North Korea invaded South Korea, it would be a lightning war, literally.  I wouldn't be surprised if it ended in 2 months or less.

The first thing that would be sent would be a massive SEAD and CAS mission to the current front while coordinating bomber attacks and TLAM strikes against C3 sites and communications centers.  Then right after the C3 sites and comms, the NBC weapons would be targeted and other logistic targets as well.

The F/A-35 provides a kick ass, all-in-one package that provides stealth, superior technology, excellent handling, longer range, cost efficiency, excellent multi-role abilities, and a strategic advantage that is none matched for it's excellent design and low cost to purchase and maintain.

About the single engine arguement, the F-16 is a excellent example of a great aircraft with only one jet engine.  Despite issues that developed about the F-16 involving engines, I have yet to hear or see a large enough group of U.S. F-16 pilots that seriously complained about their aircraft's combat capabilities.  It flies like a dream and kicks ass, nuff said...

Hell, for 40 million a pop for a F/A-35, I'd buy a squadron's worth for myself if I was rich enough and could get past the export restrictions.

[MSpencer 0]

You can get a free weekly news update, but yeah, 1200 US for a subscription to one thing. No way in hell am I gonna pay that much.

I'll stick with FAS.