My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

Daryl wrote:My notice was in print media & wasn't on the paper's website. However I found
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/congress ... s-1.319021

which specifically mentions the A-10.

Ensign Re-read wrote:
Good News indeed.
Can you cite a source for us?

I tried to "Google" the answer to my own question.
In the process, I just found out about this:

* https://www.facebook.com/savethea10?fref=nf
It's a Facebook group that's advocating Saving the A-10.
Cool.

{It's ALMOST enough for me to join Facebook; but not quite enough.}



.

Another good news item for the A10 is retired USAF Colonel Martha McSally won the recount for Arizona's 2nd congressional district. Colonel McSally commanded a squadron of A10s.

James

Thucydides wrote:The SU-25 is an analogue (i.e. fulfils a similar role), not a direct copy. Still, the similarities are close enough to make a valid comparison, and the fact the SU-25 is having great difficulty in Ukraine against modern MANPADS flying similar missions and similar mission profiles is a pretty good indication that A-10 pilots in the same situation will have similar difficulties.

no its an comparison to the YA-9 not the A-10. Just because they are intended for the same role doesn't make them analogs, anymore than a WWI Wicks class 4-piper destroyer is a close analog to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The designs are completely different, lack of armor, lack of redundancy, below wing intakes, single tail, all bad design features for a CAS aircraft. These situations you point to in Russia are situations the A-10 HAS flown threw in Iraq and brought its pilot back. the SU-25 is more of a jet analog to the A-29 & shows how bad that aircraft would be to replace the A-10.

The SU 25 is the analogue because it was designed for the same role in the same era. If you want to find the analogue for a 4 stack destroyer you need to find a similar ship from that era, or a modern example with the same mission and limitations (the Arleigh Burke class are guided missile cruisers) otherwise your analogy becomes nonsense.

Being said, yes the A-10 did sterling service in its day, but the big fights where they were flying through a crapstorm of SAM and AAA is the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, and of course they were flying in support of Desert Sabre, after the integrated GBAD and Iraqi airforce had been decimated by the allied airforce during Desert Storm (for non historians, Desert Shield was the buildup in Saudi Arabia, Desert Storm was the well known air offensive and Desert Sabre was the actual advance by the ground troops).

I think most readers will be inclined to agree that things are different now, and GBAD had evolved from the lessons learned from Desert Storm, the Kosovo air campaign, Gulf War 2, the various Israeli air campaigns against rocket launchers, Libya etc. Even if few or no aircraft were shot down during these campaigns, everyone has been watching and developing better systems to deal with the tactics and measures observed during these campaigns.

Modern air support in the later Gulf war, Afghanistan and other campaigns now revolve around discovering and marking a target, then calling in a PGM, usually from another platform. The sensor can be a lowly "grunt", an SoF team, a helicopter scout or a UAV, the target may be "marked" by any number of means and the delivery can be from platforms orbiting a great distance from the target (glide bombs have ranges of up to 60 nautical miles. The British BRIMESTONE is basically a Hellfire with a millimetre radar seeker and modified to fire from a high speed platform, it has a range of @ 30 miles).

Contact patrol fighters in the Great War and Hans Rudel diving on T-34's with a cannon equipped Stuka were the appropriate means of dealing with ground targets in their day, and the A-10 made perfect sense to hit massed armoured columns in the north German plain in the 1980's, but it is 2015, and time to look at solutions that are appropriate to the problem today.

Generally speaking, the A-10 represent still worthy, but too costly solution to the tactical problems. UCAV's and multirole fighters are better suited due to appearance of cheap, lightweight guided missiles and bombs in 1990-2000th. And the SAM and other methods of point defense became more and more dangerous; it is simply ineffective to build aircraft specifically to tactical missions in the A-10 style.

Thucydides wrote:The SU 25 is the analogue because it was designed for the same role in the same era. If you want to find the analogue for a 4 stack destroyer you need to find a similar ship from that era, or a modern example with the same mission and limitations (the Arleigh Burke class are guided missile cruisers) otherwise your analogy becomes nonsense.

No, one's about as analogue as the other. The SU-25 may have been INTENDED to do the same job, but they are little closer in design as they are to the Apache. They both have wings & turbo-jets but that's about it. The design differences are what make the difference. the SU-25 was not designed with the armor, structural strength, or redundancy of the A-10 (as i said, it's an analog to the A-29 or A-4 Skyhawk NOT the A-10, there is NO analog to the A-10, it's a 1-of-a-kind). When the A-10 was designed, it was believed, that with SAMs & Radar AAA with Radar Prox Fuse, aircraft would become useless. After the 1st week or 2 of a war, NO-ONE would have any aircraft left (as with what happened to Israel in the opening actions of the Yom Kippur War) The A-10 was the only plane designed from the frame up to deal with being shout & blasted with SAMs as a matter of routine operations. the YA-9 & the SU-25 were NOT. The A-10s design is unique and has NO peer at all. Saying the SU-25 is like an A-10 is like saying the HMS Hood was like a Battleship, NO it wasn't, that's why its on the bottom, where the USS South Dakota isn't.

Dilandu wrote:UCAV's and multirole fighters are better suited

Multi-role aircraft are NEVER better suited, to ANY situation, than an aircraft purpose-built to that situation. UCAVs are neat but lack the durability to survive some situations that CAS is needed. Only the A-10 has the durability to get in & out of some situations.

Dilandu wrote:appearance of cheap, lightweight guided missiles and bombs in 1990-2000th.

cheap Light weight missiles have been available since the 60s, ask the Israelis what happened in the Yom Kippur War. They sent their Aircraft across the Sinai. The Egyptians opened up their "Suitcase" Missiles & the Israeli attack aircraft disappeared (bang).

Dilandu wrote:Generally speaking, the A-10 represent still worthy, but too costly solution to the tactical problems.

It's only "costly" because it comes back and needs repaired. It's far cheaper than any other aircraft for the role, due to the fact that it DOES come back, where other aircraft (as with the SU-25) would NOT.

Dilandu wrote:...it is simply ineffective to build aircraft specifically to tactical missions in the A-10 style.

No, it's ineffective to build general purpose aircraft that can't handle the situation, send them into a situation that requires a specialist, & have them be destroyed. Special training for heart surgery is expensive. Maybe it would be cheaper & more efficient to send someone who needs heart surgery to a general practitioner.

MAD-4A wrote:snipNo, it's ineffective to build general purpose aircraft that can't handle the situation, send them into a situation that requires a specialist, & have them be destroyed. Special training for heart surgery is expensive. Maybe it would be cheaper & more efficient to send someone who needs heart surgery to a general practitioner.

Sure would be cheaper and more efficient. A lot of the cost of heart surgery is the after surgery recovery costs, and we wouldn't need any of that.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Sure would be cheaper and more efficient. A lot of the cost of heart surgery is the after surgery recovery costs, and we wouldn't need any of that.

EXACTLY!!! you got it! A lot of the cost for the A-10, is in the repairs to planes that survived having the ever lovin' $#!& shot out of it, but still made it back to be repaired (or refurbished), WITH THE PILOT! An expense ANY other plane (including the SU-25) wouldn't have, because it wouldn't make it back. Far cheaper to send a letter of condolence to the pilots widow. What are stamps up-to these days?

Question: would the A10 take more hits than say the multi role would, since the multirole is typically at a much higher altitude?

Multi-role aircraft are NEVER better suited, to ANY situation, than an aircraft purpose-built to that situation. UCAVs are neat but lack the durability to survive some situations that CAS is needed.

The A-10 could carry about 7260 kg on hardpoints. The F-15E could carry about 10400 kg on hardpoints. And A-10 need to be escorted by F-15 if the enemy fighter aircrafts are presented. So...

cheap Light weight missiles have been available since the 60s,

And what exactly that missiles in 1960th was? The visual-guided AGM-12 "Bullpup", that weight a good part of a ton? Or passive-homing anti-radiation "Shrike"?

Only the A-10 has the durability to get in & out of some situations.

In what exactly situations?

It's only "costly" because it comes back and needs repaired. It's far cheaper than any other aircraft for the role, due to the fact that it DOES come back, where other aircraft (as with the SU-25) would NOT.

It would NOT coime back, if the enemy have modern fighters or multi-level anti-air defense. Simply speaking - A-10 is useless without F-15 to protect it and to carry SAM suppression missions.

No, it's ineffective to build general purpose aircraft that can't handle the situation, send them into a situation that requires a specialist, & have them be destroyed.

Well, then simply build a WEAPON that could handle the situation, and let the general purpose aircraft carry it to the target.

P.S. WHAT situation do you speak about? Please describe this "special situation".