Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

I think part of the USAF wish to get rid of the A10, in certain quarters, is a bias against the GAU-8 gun and to go to a smaller, more conventional gun (limited capacity, modern caseless rounds and so on) and to let the helicopters do the "slow" CAS work for the Army and Fighters do fast CAS/standoff as required.

Not bias in favor of different gun, recognition that guns in general are of very limited value for CAS, and that is declining as PGMs get cheaper and smaller.

There really is not much push for more advanced gun tech from the USAF, certainly not caseless. There is some push for better gun aiming, and definite interest in guided projectiles.
 
Imagine if the Airforce find that removing the 30mm gun from the A-10 could solve a lot of the known maintenance problems, postponing scheduled work on engine etc...
Install a 20 or 25mm for self defense and asymmetrical warfare, fit the old gun ammunition space with extra computing power and fuel and fly them as the UAS's MUM-T platform equivalent of the NGAD but for CAS.

I wonder how the public would react.
 
Imagine if the Airforce find that removing the 30mm gun from the A-10 could solve a lot of the known maintenance problems, postponing scheduled work on engine etc...
Install a 20 or 25mm for self defense and asymmetrical warfare, fit the old gun ammunition space with extra computing power and fuel and fly them as the UAS's MUM-T platform equivalent of the NGAD but for CAS.

I wonder how the public would react.

Probably with anger TomcatViP. That is if they were serious about removing the gun from the A-10.
 
I doubt removal is even possible let alone practical. I think that gun and magazine is so built into the design it’s load bearing. :)
 
It might be over for the USAF and peer air forces, with plenty of guided weapons and the appropriate technology on hand to deliver warheads on foreheads from many miles away, but there are still plenty of air arms using the gun/bomb/rocket combinations in traditional attacks. Even in Ukraine, both sides have carried them out in the absence of guided weapons, either from helicopters or fighters. Combat in Syria, Mali, Tigray and other sandy places have shown that the gun is still viable.
 
I suspect that the A-10 or something like it will be needed for a long time yet. The same predictions about its vulnerability in the face of enemy defences were being made while it was under development. Yet the A-10 has consistently proved to be the best close support aircraft available in every war since. Real wars have simply not been fought the way the airplane's detractors predicted.
 
Imagine if the Airforce find that removing the 30mm gun from the A-10 could solve a lot of the known maintenance problems, postponing scheduled work on engine etc...
Install a 20 or 25mm for self defense and asymmetrical warfare, fit the old gun ammunition space with extra computing power and fuel and fly them as the UAS's MUM-T platform equivalent of the NGAD but for CAS.

I wonder how the public would react.
They would need a hell of a counterweight to remove the gun
 
I suspect that the A-10 or something like it will be needed for a long time yet. The same predictions about its vulnerability in the face of enemy defences were being made while it was under development. Yet the A-10 has consistently proved to be the best close support aircraft available in every war since. Real wars have simply not been fought the way the airplane's detractors predicted.
With respect the USAF have been using the A-10C primarily as a medium altitude stand-off PGM deliverer (in more or less the same manner as a F-16, F-15Es etc.) for more than a decade.
The US no longer fights wars or delivers close support the way you appear to think it does.
And looking to provide close support against peer or near peer opponents will make the A-10 less , not more, useful and attractive in that role.
The primary argument re: close support is not platform specific (tactical fighters, UCAVs, bombers etc) but re: retaining sufficient currency, focus and a cohort of experienced pilots, FACS etc. as the US’s focus is on peer warfare with greater demands for other tasks other than close support.
 
The other strength of A-10 operation is cost, since they cost less to maintain per flying hour than most anything else in inventory. That is of course somewhat offset by the fact that maintaining the type requires a separate parts and training stream from other aircraft types, and as noted its role in modern day CAS is more or less equivalent to an F-16 (or even B-52). Against a peer competitor gun runs and resistance to low altitude AAA/MAMPADS isn't likely to be of benefit. And at medium altitude an A-10 has little more survivability than an F-16 against a medium range/altitude SAM, in fact arguably less.
 
With respect the USAF have been using the A-10C primarily as a medium altitude stand-off PGM deliverer (in more or less the same manner as a F-16, F-15Es etc.) for more than a decade.
Agreed - in fact, one could argue that something such as a MQ-9 is even more effective given its persistence.
The US no longer fights wars or delivers close support the way you appear to think it does.
Indeed - as has been discussed before, people all too often mistakenly think that the Close in CAS means the platform delivering weapons has to be close to the action - e.g. gun runs. In reality, the Close is in reference to how close the enemy are to the friendly forces. Thus with appropriate precision weapons and targeting data, CAS can be handled by multiple systems including artillery, strategic bombers etc.
 
With respect the USAF have been using the A-10C primarily as a medium altitude stand-off PGM deliverer (in more or less the same manner as a F-16, F-15Es etc.) for more than a decade.
Agreed - in fact, one could argue that something such as a MQ-9 is even more effective given its persistence.
The US no longer fights wars or delivers close support the way you appear to think it does.
Indeed - as has been discussed before, people all too often mistakenly think that the Close in CAS means the platform delivering weapons has to be close to the action - e.g. gun runs. In reality, the Close is in reference to how close the enemy are to the friendly forces. Thus with appropriate precision weapons and targeting data, CAS can be handled by multiple systems including artillery, strategic bombers etc.
I am aware that the A-10 does not do "gun runs" much, now, if ever. Its value lies in its simple design, redundancy, armor protection--and pilot.

USAF doctrine has long insisted that survivability requires extreme speed and/or altitude performance and/or stealth and/or something else--anything as long as "it" is not cheap and/or proven. The "future battle" always "requires" some new combination of expensive, bleeding-edge technologies that limits numbers purchased, delay soperational capability far beyond the original plan, and suffers in service from poor reliability, high maintenance load, and poor availability.

Drones trade survivability for expendability. The limitations of their sensors and the time delay in their control paths limit the situational awareness a nd responsiveness that an in situ pilots provides.

A simple aircraft continues to make sense or wars we are most likely to get ourselves into, if recent history is any guide. Most often, aircraft are likely to face little or no aerial opposition and only man-portable ground-based air defenses. The ability to directly observe and discriminate will remain important.

Unfortunately, real-world requirements have relatively little to do with procurement decisions. Institutional biases and enthusiasms, politics, and, above all, industry profits drive these decisions.
 
Drones trade survivability for expendability. The limitations of their sensors and the time delay in their control paths limit the situational awareness a nd responsiveness that an in situ pilots provides.
Strictly speaking, the currently procured MQ-9 are about equal or even more expensive than A-10, when adjusted to today's dollars.
So expendability in this case is mainly about pilots and the situation.

Basically, over ETO A-10s and Su-25s are probably still more expendable - and, crucially, more worth risking(expending).
The latter shows pretty well that it still kinda works even with 1980s weaponry.
Modern solutions(targeting, PGMs) make it better, not worse.
 
Considering the number of rotary wing assets in the direct support role, I believe the A-10 to be a superb platform to interdict them. Armour may be helpful but a few rounds from that gun will ruin the day of any helicopter crew in the way. Have any studies been done in this regard?
 
Modern air to air missiles (and surface to air missiles) would be an order of magnitude more effective in the anti-helicopter role than the A-10 trying to use it’s gun in that role.

If that role was to be a real focus for the A-10 community going forward than updating and equipping with AIM-9X would be real priority.
 
Drones trade survivability for expendability. The limitations of their sensors and the time delay in their control paths limit the situational awareness a nd responsiveness that an in situ pilots provides.
Strictly speaking, the currently procured MQ-9 are about equal or even more expensive than A-10, when adjusted to today's dollars.
So expendability in this case is mainly about pilots and the situation.

Basically, over ETO A-10s and Su-25s are probably still more expendable - and, crucially, more worth risking(expending).
The latter shows pretty well that it still kinda works even with 1980s weaponry.
Modern solutions(targeting, PGMs) make it better, not worse.
Don't forget all the logistics that come with necessary CSAR. It's not like you are going to let your pilots die from battle injuries or let them being captured that easily. You need them back and they need to know that dedicated units will come for them when needed to be fully efficient. Kamikaze don't win wars. .

Your flying robot has no mother at home waiting for him and don't expect a search&rescue party. It doesn't even need training. It has a mark and serial number with known operating procedures and none personalized view on things. It is then far less expensive to bring to the battle & can die cheaply while performing his role with excellence. .

Even if it can do only a fraction of what an A-10 pilot can do him[her]self, it is there to stay (and improves). There is no conflict b/w the two. A robot is a tool just like any kitchen appliance and the future is for them to be an extension of the aircraft systems (MUM-T).

The question is then not to choose b/w A-10 and MQ-9 but what can the A-10 do better with them.

We have seen recently how long range strike with SDB is what the USAF is probably looking after . We will see...
 
Last edited:
New Mission Computer for the A-10


The A-10 Central Interface Control System program will replace the current mission computer and weapons stores management system, fully modernizing the Operational Flight Program software environment and establishing COSMC as the new central computer for the A-10. RI&S has partnered with Non-Traditional Defense Contractors including Apogee Worx, CymSTAR, KIHOMAC and Vertex because of their extensive knowledge and experience of the A-10.

“Our COSMC system is a significant technological leap forward for the A-10,” said Denis Donohue, president, Communications and Airspace Management Systems, RI&S. ““This platform-agnostic system delivers the generational refresh required for the Warthog to remain highly capable into the future. We look forward to transforming and reinvigorating our customers’ platforms so that they’re equipped to face any mission, any challenge.”
 
New Mission Computer for the A-10


The A-10 Central Interface Control System program will replace the current mission computer and weapons stores management system, fully modernizing the Operational Flight Program software environment and establishing COSMC as the new central computer for the A-10. RI&S has partnered with Non-Traditional Defense Contractors including Apogee Worx, CymSTAR, KIHOMAC and Vertex because of their extensive knowledge and experience of the A-10.

“Our COSMC system is a significant technological leap forward for the A-10,” said Denis Donohue, president, Communications and Airspace Management Systems, RI&S. ““This platform-agnostic system delivers the generational refresh required for the Warthog to remain highly capable into the future. We look forward to transforming and reinvigorating our customers’ platforms so that they’re equipped to face any mission, any challenge.”

But will the new mission computer be enough to save the A-10C from the axe in the long run? I hope so, but you never can tell in the current climate.
 
New Mission Computer for the A-10


The A-10 Central Interface Control System program will replace the current mission computer and weapons stores management system, fully modernizing the Operational Flight Program software environment and establishing COSMC as the new central computer for the A-10. RI&S has partnered with Non-Traditional Defense Contractors including Apogee Worx, CymSTAR, KIHOMAC and Vertex because of their extensive knowledge and experience of the A-10.

“Our COSMC system is a significant technological leap forward for the A-10,” said Denis Donohue, president, Communications and Airspace Management Systems, RI&S. ““This platform-agnostic system delivers the generational refresh required for the Warthog to remain highly capable into the future. We look forward to transforming and reinvigorating our customers’ platforms so that they’re equipped to face any mission, any challenge.”

But will the new mission computer be enough to save the A-10C from the axe in the long run? I hope so, but you never can tell in the current climate.
Hard to say, with the new wings they can supposedly fly until the late 2030s. Though with age comes increased sustainment costs…
I think the new MC will play a huge part in interfacing with the “Dragons Eye” SAR pod and Link 16 interface. A-10s armed with SDB and APKWS, and tied in with Link 16 does sound the ideal “littoral” fighter/anti-small boat aircraft.
 
New Mission Computer for the A-10


The A-10 Central Interface Control System program will replace the current mission computer and weapons stores management system, fully modernizing the Operational Flight Program software environment and establishing COSMC as the new central computer for the A-10. RI&S has partnered with Non-Traditional Defense Contractors including Apogee Worx, CymSTAR, KIHOMAC and Vertex because of their extensive knowledge and experience of the A-10.

“Our COSMC system is a significant technological leap forward for the A-10,” said Denis Donohue, president, Communications and Airspace Management Systems, RI&S. ““This platform-agnostic system delivers the generational refresh required for the Warthog to remain highly capable into the future. We look forward to transforming and reinvigorating our customers’ platforms so that they’re equipped to face any mission, any challenge.”

But will the new mission computer be enough to save the A-10C from the axe in the long run? I hope so, but you never can tell in the current climate.
Hard to say, with the new wings they can supposedly fly until the late 2030s. Though with age comes increased sustainment costs…
I think the new MC will play a huge part in interfacing with the “Dragons Eye” SAR pod and Link 16 interface. A-10s armed with SDB and APKWS, and tied in with Link 16 does sound the ideal “littoral” fighter/anti-small boat aircraft.

Let’s hope that with all those upgrades the people in the military that want to get rid of the A-10 will be silenced.
 
Your flying robot has no mother at home waiting for him and don't expect a search&rescue party. It doesn't even need training. It has a mark and serial number with known operating procedures and none personalized view on things. It is then far less expensive to bring to the battle & can die cheaply while performing his role with excellence. .
If flying robot is substantially less effective than a manned asset - while operator's mother will get her child back, mothers of infantrymen will weep. Many more of them at that.
So it's important to strike balance. Preferably the balance shall be flexible enough so as to not just work against opponents that can't shoot back.
And here aircraft relying on 1980s solutions(low&fast) are still doing vastly better than loitering drones with an insufficient standoff - thus at least for now there is good merit in actually doing the reverse - unmanned asset doing the stand off observation&target recognition from the altitude, manned asset going in.
Even if it can do only a fraction of what an A-10 pilot can do him[her]self, it is there to stay (and improves). There is no conflict b/w the two. A robot is a tool just like any kitchen appliance and the future is for them to be an extension of the aircraft systems (MUM-T).
Totally agree.
 
If we step aside from the specific USAF role for A-10, we raise bigger questions about the cost of gunned close air support. Yes, every time you descend low enough to fire your gun at ground troops, you are also within range of their AAA and manpads.

But also consider the cost (thousands of dollars per round) or precise guided missiles.
Also consider the cost of precise-guided missiles when your Second or Third World is cut off from re-supply during a war.
Let's say (at random) that Inner Mongolia declares independence from their former communist masters. Because IM is land-locked, they cannot import weapons during a conflict and are forced to fight with only the weapons they had during "day one" of the conflict. Let's assume that IM started the war with many thousands of rounds of gun ammo and many tons of iron bombs, but only a few hundred PGM sensor heads to bolt to those iron bombs. Suddenly, every PGM sensor head increases in value.
Given the shortage of PGMs' IM will eventually be forced to resort to shooting bad guys.
 
Your flying robot has no mother at home waiting for him and don't expect a search&rescue party. It doesn't even need training. It has a mark and serial number with known operating procedures and none personalized view on things. It is then far less expensive to bring to the battle & can die cheaply while performing his role with excellence. .
If flying robot is substantially less effective than a manned asset - while operator's mother will get her child back, mothers of infantrymen will weep. Many more of them at that.
So it's important to strike balance. Preferably the balance shall be flexible enough so as to not just work against opponents that can't shoot back.
And here aircraft relying on 1980s solutions(low&fast) are still doing vastly better than loitering drones with an insufficient standoff - thus at least for now there is good merit in actually doing the reverse - unmanned asset doing the stand off observation&target recognition from the altitude, manned asset going in.
Even if it can do only a fraction of what an A-10 pilot can do him[her]self, it is there to stay (and improves). There is no conflict b/w the two. A robot is a tool just like any kitchen appliance and the future is for them to be an extension of the aircraft systems (MUM-T).
Totally agree.
"Painless war" is an oxymoron. When all of the superior robots are rendered useless through cyber or kinetic operations are you going to surrender? Do any of you have data on how many aircraft sorties have been flown vice number of aircraft lost? Do any of you have the number of reported aircraft lost to air defense missiles vice how many missiles have been launched? How many UAV have been lost versus manned platforms by sortie ratio? YouTube video and Twitter are not sound bases for accurate observation and analysis.
The Russians started the war using massed helicopter formations in daylight with very little in the way of aircraft survivability equipment. Tactics that had not changed at all since the Soviet days. Through Darwinian selection they have modified their tactics and are using more western-like tactics of stand-off with long range missiles (LMUR/Izd.305?) and operating closer only at night. The Ukrainian helicopters flew at night in small groups (through the very same Russian Integrated Air Defense that is going to sweep the sky) on a number of occasions. Both are now using their helicopters to conduct flying artillery barrage attacks from behind the front line trace. MANPADS are not everywhere and they don't see well at night, even with night visions devices. Nor do they last long in enemy territory. Most regular soldiers prefer to be unnoticed behind enemy lines.

Now before everyone gets excited with my diatribe, the US Army FVL program is looking at exactly what you are discussing. The Air Launched Effects (ALE) is launched outside of the WEZ (Weapons Effects Zone) to do the very reconnaissance that used to be done by manned platforms. The manned platform acts as the decision point for the reconnaissance conducted by the attritable unmanned air vehicle. The US Army is also acquiring very long range missiles for sniping their nemesis from behind friendly lines.

Why am I blathering about rotorcraft, because USAF is not going to do CAS early in any fight. In fact I seriously doubt that the US Army field commanders expect any CAS at all. So they have their own. Did you know that a helicopter at 50ft AGL can target a radar 10 miles away without being detected (its geometry folks).

In conclusion: The CAS mission will be conducted in close proximity to ground forces by people in close proximity to the ground forces and not to somebody in a box somewhere far away. Occasionally having an F-35 drop a JDAM on a bridge or building will be great but how many F-35 do you need to kill a battalion of tanks? Keeping a couple of squadrons of A-10 in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve in case we decide to be stupid enough to do "small wars" again might be prudent.
 
In conclusion: The CAS mission will be conducted in close proximity to ground forces by people in close proximity to the ground forces and not to somebody in a box somewhere far away. Occasionally having an F-35 drop a JDAM on a bridge or building will be great but how many F-35 do you need to kill a battalion of tanks? Keeping a couple of squadrons of A-10 in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve in case we decide to be stupid enough to do "small wars" again might be prudent.
To kill a battalion of tanks? I mean, laser-guided 500lb bombs were the most consistently effective method (as I recall) the last time the US had to kill a lot of armor, and you don't have to have an A-10 to carry those.

Save the A-10s for Sandy operations.
 
In conclusion: The CAS mission will be conducted in close proximity to ground forces by people in close proximity to the ground forces and not to somebody in a box somewhere far away. Occasionally having an F-35 drop a JDAM on a bridge or building will be great but how many F-35 do you need to kill a battalion of tanks? Keeping a couple of squadrons of A-10 in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve in case we decide to be stupid enough to do "small wars" again might be prudent.
To kill a battalion of tanks? I mean, laser-guided 500lb bombs were the most consistently effective method (as I recall) the last time the US had to kill a lot of armor, and you don't have to have an A-10 to carry those.

Save the A-10s for Sandy operations.
SDB-II is probably more useful in killing tanks. So for a battalion, I think the answer to the question is a flight of about four, assuming they carried no ordnance externally. With proper cueing from another platform they could do so from 60+km away.
 
To kill a battalion of tanks? I mean, laser-guided 500lb bombs were the most consistently effective method (as I recall) the last time the US had to kill a lot of armor, and you don't have to have an A-10 to carry those.

CBU-105 Sensor-Fuzed Weapon is apparently the new champion:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmFwPyfEAWo&ab_channel=DaeyoungKim


Apparently no longer in production due to expense and sensitives to cluster munitions, though I don't think it has left USAF inventory.
 
In conclusion: The CAS mission will be conducted in close proximity to ground forces by people in close proximity to the ground forces and not to somebody in a box somewhere far away. Occasionally having an F-35 drop a JDAM on a bridge or building will be great but how many F-35 do you need to kill a battalion of tanks? Keeping a couple of squadrons of A-10 in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve in case we decide to be stupid enough to do "small wars" again might be prudent.
To kill a battalion of tanks? I mean, laser-guided 500lb bombs were the most consistently effective method (as I recall) the last time the US had to kill a lot of armor, and you don't have to have an A-10 to carry those.

Save the A-10s for Sandy operations.
Actually the last time(s) shockingly the AGM-114 of of an Apache was consistently the best. There is a well known story from ODS where an entire Apache battalion watched a brigade of the Talwakana (sp) RGD drive across their front, but the Apaches could not shoot their 144 Hellfire, because the USAF was flying two ships of F-111 through "plinking" with 2 LGB per aircraft. The videos of the event from the Apaches is legend in Army Aviation. This is what the platform was designed for. Now they don't even have to have line of sight to launch. Each one can assign a target, confirm that no one else in the flight has targeted the same tank and shoot all its missiles in a few minutes. And because they can stay below the radar horizon of the ADA covering the tanks they don't have to turn off the target when the acquisition radar is switched to the track radar.

I do agree though that keeping Hogs around for those times when the GAU can speak with authority and smaller munitions can help get fire teams out of trouble. FYI the Hog and the Apache ended more fire fights than any other aircraft in the US inventory in OIF/OEF because of the cannon.
 
Your flying robot has no mother at home waiting for him and don't expect a search&rescue party. It doesn't even need training. It has a mark and serial number with known operating procedures and none personalized view on things. It is then far less expensive to bring to the battle & can die cheaply while performing his role with excellence. .
If flying robot is substantially less effective than a manned asset - while operator's mother will get her child back, mothers of infantrymen will weep. Many more of them at that.
So it's important to strike balance. Preferably the balance shall be flexible enough so as to not just work against opponents that can't shoot back.
And here aircraft relying on 1980s solutions(low&fast) are still doing vastly better than loitering drones with an insufficient standoff - thus at least for now there is good merit in actually doing the reverse - unmanned asset doing the stand off observation&target recognition from the altitude, manned asset going in.
Even if it can do only a fraction of what an A-10 pilot can do him[her]self, it is there to stay (and improves). There is no conflict b/w the two. A robot is a tool just like any kitchen appliance and the future is for them to be an extension of the aircraft systems (MUM-T).
Totally agree.
"Painless war" is an oxymoron. When all of the superior robots are rendered useless through cyber or kinetic operations are you going to surrender? Do any of you have data on how many aircraft sorties have been flown vice number of aircraft lost? Do any of you have the number of reported aircraft lost to air defense missiles vice how many missiles have been launched? How many UAV have been lost versus manned platforms by sortie ratio? YouTube video and Twitter are not sound bases for accurate observation and analysis.
The Russians started the war using massed helicopter formations in daylight with very little in the way of aircraft survivability equipment. Tactics that had not changed at all since the Soviet days. Through Darwinian selection they have modified their tactics and are using more western-like tactics of stand-off with long range missiles (LMUR/Izd.305?) and operating closer only at night. The Ukrainian helicopters flew at night in small groups (through the very same Russian Integrated Air Defense that is going to sweep the sky) on a number of occasions. Both are now using their helicopters to conduct flying artillery barrage attacks from behind the front line trace. MANPADS are not everywhere and they don't see well at night, even with night visions devices. Nor do they last long in enemy territory. Most regular soldiers prefer to be unnoticed behind enemy lines.

Now before everyone gets excited with my diatribe, the US Army FVL program is looking at exactly what you are discussing. The Air Launched Effects (ALE) is launched outside of the WEZ (Weapons Effects Zone) to do the very reconnaissance that used to be done by manned platforms. The manned platform acts as the decision point for the reconnaissance conducted by the attritable unmanned air vehicle. The US Army is also acquiring very long range missiles for sniping their nemesis from behind friendly lines.

Why am I blathering about rotorcraft, because USAF is not going to do CAS early in any fight. In fact I seriously doubt that the US Army field commanders expect any CAS at all. So they have their own. Did you know that a helicopter at 50ft AGL can target a radar 10 miles away without being detected (its geometry folks).

In conclusion: The CAS mission will be conducted in close proximity to ground forces by people in close proximity to the ground forces and not to somebody in a box somewhere far away. Occasionally having an F-35 drop a JDAM on a bridge or building will be great but how many F-35 do you need to kill a battalion of tanks? Keeping a couple of squadrons of A-10 in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve in case we decide to be stupid enough to do "small wars" again might be prudent.
The “small wars” are still ongoing, and will continue far into the future, but with drone strikes against targeted individuals. The American public will tolerate that level of conflict for decades to come. If an adversary can’t hit a slow moving drone, that adversary isn’t formidable enough to justify the loss of a single American life.

It seems a shame not to retain the A-10 fleet after so much money has been spent to make it viable until 2040. All the same, the aircraft is worthless against a near-peer adversary, or even a third world country with something better than shoulder fired SAMs.

The General Atomics Mojave STOL drone is probably the ideal replacement for the A-10 fleet. I’d argue for a 1:1 unit replacement, which would be a huge buy by drone standards. Base them on forward airstrips to minimize the transit time and make up for the loss of loiter and keep your Air National Guard pilots safe from harm.

The A10 fleet should probably scrapped immediately to avoid the temptation of employing them in an emergency, and getting brave ANG pilots killed, or transferring them to an ally that might use them to strafe civilians. The expenditure of updates and rewinging are just sunk costs.

I wouldn’t have said that a year ago but the Mojave STOL is just that impressive and the folding wing variant is a no-brained for the Marines, especially now that they’ve lost their M1 tanks and will lose their artillery.

It’s time for the USA to get serious about large scale UAV fleets. Currents events show us that there will be significant UCAV attrition in future conflicts. Buy 200 or 300 Mojaves and end the A10 debate ASAP.
 
It seems a shame not to retain the A-10 fleet after so much money has been spent to make it viable until 2040. All the same, the aircraft is worthless against a near-peer adversary, or even a third world country with something better than shoulder fired SAMs.

The General Atomics Mojave STOL drone is probably the ideal replacement for the A-10 fleet. I’d argue for a 1:1 unit replacement, which would be a huge buy by drone standards. Base them on forward airstrips to minimize the transit time and make up for the loss of loiter and keep your Air National Guard pilots safe from harm.
Erm. So A-10, close analogue of which can operate in the densest field AD conditions possible - while being substantially worse - is worthless, but Mojave(which really can't provide any CAS in such conditions) - is an ideal replacement?

Something is not right in these two sentences.
 
We cannot rationalize non-western societies with our morals. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, as the most commonly know to the western sociality, where technologically the opposition was completely outclassed, we lost. So plinking individuals does not win. America continues to plink ISIS leaders in Syria with drones, but cannot seem to reach conclusion. To win you have to have someone on the ground. So for those foolish to fight to the strengths of the west, high tech mechanized war, the increased use of unmanned systems is applicable. When you are fighting an enemy who will hold a command meeting at a wedding so as to either keep missiles from landing or winning the information war (ask those in Ukraine how critical 'the message' is), it is not the best solution. Many of these societies will see using machines as a weakness, and thus less likely to agree with our wonderful, enlightened ways.

I am perplexed by the false rational that somehow unmanned platforms are somehow going to survive any longer than a manned platform in dense threat environments. Or is it the false rational that we can just turn on the 3D printer and poop out more UAV and get them thousands of miles overnight via UPS? This assumes they don't just MANPAD the UPS delivery plane on final approach to the "safe" airfield (triple win). Or that an enemy who wants to win won't find the antenna dish and/or operations trailer and destroy them, wherever they might be. If I have to take an international flight to get there and rent a heavy vehicle with which to crash into the facility that is rationalized as "safe" because it is thousands of miles away I will do it for the win.

We are seeing a seismic change in warfare, from the high speed, high tech wars of the west, to slow, tech influenced grinding wars (Ukraine, Yemen, Myanmar, Mexico). The Westphalian way of war which has held sway since the end of the War of Roses (although the French revolution accelerated it) is in decline. War is unfair. This video game mentality of the west is not going to win.

People, on the ground will still be a necessity.
 
Indeed - as has been discussed before, people all too often mistakenly think that the Close in CAS means the platform delivering weapons has to be close to the action - e.g. gun runs. In reality, the Close is in reference to how close the enemy are to the friendly forces. Thus with appropriate precision weapons and targeting data, CAS can be handled by multiple systems including artillery, strategic bombers etc.

Yes, and they can employ the iAGM-290 CFW (Counter Fratricide Weapon), which has the same effective damage radius as a conventional standoff weapon, but *only harms bad guys*.

When used the weapon fuse uses Bluetooth to send out a Pew Research survey to all combatants within range to determine their demographics and political affiliations. Evil doesn't have a chance!
 
We cannot rationalize non-western societies with our morals. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, as the most commonly know to the western sociality, where technologically the opposition was completely outclassed, we lost. So plinking individuals does not win. America continues to plink ISIS leaders in Syria with drones, but cannot seem to reach conclusion. To win you have to have someone on the ground. So for those foolish to fight to the strengths of the west, high tech mechanized war, the increased use of unmanned systems is applicable. When you are fighting an enemy who will hold a command meeting at a wedding so as to either keep missiles from landing or winning the information war (ask those in Ukraine how critical 'the message' is), it is not the best solution. Many of these societies will see using machines as a weakness, and thus less likely to agree with our wonderful, enlightened ways.

I am perplexed by the false rational that somehow unmanned platforms are somehow going to survive any longer than a manned platform in dense threat environments. Or is it the false rational that we can just turn on the 3D printer and poop out more UAV and get them thousands of miles overnight via UPS? This assumes they don't just MANPAD the UPS delivery plane on final approach to the "safe" airfield (triple win). Or that an enemy who wants to win won't find the antenna dish and/or operations trailer and destroy them, wherever they might be. If I have to take an international flight to get there and rent a heavy vehicle with which to crash into the facility that is rationalized as "safe" because it is thousands of miles away I will do it for the win.

We are seeing a seismic change in warfare, from the high speed, high tech wars of the west, to slow, tech influenced grinding wars (Ukraine, Yemen, Myanmar, Mexico). The Westphalian way of war which has held sway since the end of the War of Roses (although the French revolution accelerated it) is in decline. War is unfair. This video game mentality of the west is not going to win.

People, on the ground will still be a necessity.
“Boots on the ground” are no longer an option for most conflicts. The simple truth is that “winning” in the 21st century is an elusive goal. Enemy leaders no longer show up to surrender ceremonies. Even the weakest adversaries don’t capitulate. At best you get a ceasefire and frozen conflict. Drone strikes, with near zero collateral damage, are really the only publicly acceptable military option in the West. Modern societies don’t accept even small scale casualties. A single downed aviator is one too many.
 
I believe it is impossible to win any war without boots on the ground, even if it is merely winning the peace and preventing the integration of irregular forces into the civpop. This of course is a null sum, we have seen how this fails as the so called insurgents are only able to be dealt with after the fact of them showing themselves by kicking your footballs around the park.
So what type of war do you intend to prepare for? To be truly relevant, our military must be able to counter differant levels of combatants rather than just conventional formations in a conventional manner.
 
We cannot rationalize non-western societies with our morals. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, as the most commonly know to the western sociality, where technologically the opposition was completely outclassed, we lost. So plinking individuals does not win. America continues to plink ISIS leaders in Syria with drones, but cannot seem to reach conclusion. To win you have to have someone on the ground. So for those foolish to fight to the strengths of the west, high tech mechanized war, the increased use of unmanned systems is applicable. When you are fighting an enemy who will hold a command meeting at a wedding so as to either keep missiles from landing or winning the information war (ask those in Ukraine how critical 'the message' is), it is not the best solution. Many of these societies will see using machines as a weakness, and thus less likely to agree with our wonderful, enlightened ways.

I am perplexed by the false rational that somehow unmanned platforms are somehow going to survive any longer than a manned platform in dense threat environments. Or is it the false rational that we can just turn on the 3D printer and poop out more UAV and get them thousands of miles overnight via UPS? This assumes they don't just MANPAD the UPS delivery plane on final approach to the "safe" airfield (triple win). Or that an enemy who wants to win won't find the antenna dish and/or operations trailer and destroy them, wherever they might be. If I have to take an international flight to get there and rent a heavy vehicle with which to crash into the facility that is rationalized as "safe" because it is thousands of miles away I will do it for the win.

We are seeing a seismic change in warfare, from the high speed, high tech wars of the west, to slow, tech influenced grinding wars (Ukraine, Yemen, Myanmar, Mexico). The Westphalian way of war which has held sway since the end of the War of Roses (although the French revolution accelerated it) is in decline. War is unfair. This video game mentality of the west is not going to win.

People, on the ground will still be a necessity.
“Boots on the ground” are no longer an option for most conflicts. The simple truth is that “winning” in the 21st century is an elusive goal. Enemy leaders no longer show up to surrender ceremonies. Even the weakest adversaries don’t capitulate. At best you get a ceasefire and frozen conflict. Drone strikes, with near zero collateral damage, are really the only publicly acceptable military option in the West. Modern societies don’t accept even small scale casualties. A single downed aviator is one too many.
Your hypothesis is exactly what is counted on to defeat the west. Numerous wedding parties and schools have been surgically destroyed by UAV, much to the angst of western culture. Why has Hamas built their command and control nodes under apartment complexes? Why did ISIS consolidate on now destroyed Mosul. Because western culture demands antiseptic warfare (another oxymoron). They will continue to use this against us.
Fear not though, we in the west have reinvigorated a tried and true means to put boots on the ground without disrupting our coffee at the cafe' or chortling over what the Kardashians' are wearing today. The condottieri of old are back in a big way. Blackwater, Wagner, they go by many names (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA363194), doing our ugly war work without the troubling idea of putting our young people in harms way.

But none of this has anything to do with arguing over the viability of the A-10. I will leave this badminton game with my position that A-10 retains utility in contingency operations, while it is less viable in large scale combat operations
 
But none of this has anything to do with arguing over the viability of the A-10. I will leave this badminton game with my position that A-10 retains utility in contingency operations, while it is less viable in large scale combat operations
aircraft shouldn't be equally viable for 50 years.
if it somehow still remains more viable than the others after that long, and still remains needed - well, it just means that replacement isn't there where it should be.
 
Do they have a great surplus of pilots? The A-10 is very easy to fly but the attrition will be massive against the likely air defense. You can move candidates straight from turboprop basic trainers to the A-10. Even inexperienced regional airline pilots are suitable candidates, but there’s a global shortage of airline pilots to begin with. And just how many veteran Su-25 pilots are left at this point? At this point, with the prospect of Western fighter planes, any surviving Mig-29 and Su-27 aviators are too valuable to waste. Pilots are worth more than airframes in most modern conflicts but that’s especially true in this one.

There’s no question of flying at 20,000 feet and using LGBs, JDAM and Mavericks. In this threat environment you’re going to be operating below 200ft AGL. Treetop level. Lots of ground impacts and bird strikes.

Then there’s the issue of the necessary low level munition. You really would need to use “banned” cluster weapons or Snakeyes. Fly high enough to sight the canon for a pass and you’re dead. Fly high enough to sight rockets and you’re dead. Pop up high enough to release a LGB or even a Maverick and you’re dead. Actually, would there be enough surviving UAVs loitering at medium altitudes to to do the laser designation?

I’m of the opinion that the A-10 could have survived the ZSU-23 and SA-7 Grail threat level over Vietnam in 1972. Certain not over the Golan or Sinai in 1973 and survival over Europe by the mid-1980s was very dubious indeed.

Looking back, a BL-755 armed Jaguar was a heck of a lot faster at low levels and more survivable in the sort of low level tactics necessary. All scrapped now. And even if the RAF still had a stockpile of BL-755s, and you could quickly go through clearance trials with the A-10, transferring cluster munitions would be politically impossible. Literally a “war crime” in the minds of the masses.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom