'Iranian Attack Jets Deployed' To Help Iraq Fight ISIS

[rmi5]

You mean to say before the 1990s the A10s didn't face SA-6/7/8/9/13 etc plus Shilka's, Tunguska? Or that those were no good (many still in use today). Plus, you realize the A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991? It destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of that war ... moved on Bosnia-Herzegowina 1994-5, Serbia 1995 and 1999. A-10s did not take part in the initial stages of US going in to Afghanistan in 2001 but flew there from 2002 on. The US attack on Iraq that began on 20 March 2003 involved sixty OA-10/A-10 aircraft in the early combat there. Total combat losses ... some 7 in Desert Storm, 1 in Iraqi Freedom ( = shot down in combat or lost as a result of combat inflicted damage.)

Why USAF hates A-10 and why it can’t be replaced « Defense Issues

Thanks, I wanted to write a comprehensive response for @forcetrip, but I see that you have already answered him with a more solid response. BTW, the article that you posted is also very interesting. I believe that it is not logical to retire a very cheap and extremely useful attacker in favor of bunch of money-hungry n-th generation fighters. each goal in the battle field needs to be achieved by the military equipment that is exactly designed for the mission. Instead, I suggest to start a new project to build an attacker which upgrades A-10 to a new cheap, and CAS capable aircraft.

 

[forcetrip]

You mean to say before the 1990s the A10s didn't face SA-6/7/8/9/13 etc plus Shilka's, Tunguska? Or that those were no good (many still in use today). Plus, you realize the A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991? It destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of that war ... moved on Bosnia-Herzegowina 1994-5, Serbia 1995 and 1999. A-10s did not take part in the initial stages of US going in to Afghanistan in 2001 but flew there from 2002 on. The US attack on Iraq that began on 20 March 2003 involved sixty OA-10/A-10 aircraft in the early combat there. Total combat losses ... some 7 in Desert Storm, 1 in Iraqi Freedom ( = shot down in combat or lost as a result of combat inflicted damage.)

Why USAF hates A-10 and why it can’t be replaced « Defense Issues

completly true. you have highlighted the past in great detail of what this aircraft has done. now as we enter 2015 could the US public digest a pilot lost to ground fire? its what has been achieved in mass produced stand off weapons and drones that will cause a political firestorm if such a case were to happen. the a10 is not worth the american publics anger no matter how important it is to the US army and airforce. the use of the a10 for developed nations will be questioned in the coming years further. they will still be active for a few more years but their mass use as ground support will be minimized. we are talking about a country that can use their old f16s as target drones and this in no way is taking away any glory from the service it has provided to its country in the past.

Thanks, I wanted to write a comprehensive response for @forcetrip, but I see that you have already answered him with a more solid response. BTW, the article that you posted is also very interesting. I believe that it is not logical to retire a very cheap and extremely useful attacker in favor of bunch of money-hungry n-th generation fighters. each goal in the battle field needs to be achieved by the military equipment that is exactly designed for the mission. Instead, I suggest to start a new project to build an attacker which upgrades A-10 to a new cheap, and CAS capable aircraft.

they already have that. they use a c130 and arm it with lots of cannons and guns. high altitude + long loitering times + lots of crew manning systems and targets.

 

[Informant]

Our brother, @Informant, is simply wrong in the other thread. Basically, an aircraft like A-10 or Su-25 is designed for being hit and not to be shut down. it was obvious for designers that an aircraft like A-10 would be targeted by ground troops, but it is designed in a way, which make it almost invulnerable against them. I can post many pictures, in which A-10 is severely hit by ground troops and has survived. something like this photo:

people usually know air superiority fighters, and mistakenly think that bombers and attackers are designed for the same purposes or with the same design philosophy and goals.
For example, in A-10, they have moved the engine in a distance from fuselage, and implemented fuel tanks in a way that the attacker would not be easily get fired by any shootings from ground troops, ...

Dude you almost got my point, ofcourse these planes are flying armors. But seeing the extremely limited numbers making a single plane combat ineffective would have a tumbling effect on the operators and psychological victory for the Jihadis. Tank Killer and Frogfoot are armored but their vulnerability is higher than high altitude jets using stand off munitions.

These planes are tough but how much risk can the operator take. Now if there is complete belief and intelligence assesment that there are no manned SAMs then the few ack ack are no threat.

 

[Penguin]

Usually close support is thought to be only carried out by fighter-bombers or dedicated ground attack aircraft, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog or Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot, but even large high-altitude bombers have successfully filled close support roles using precision guided minitions. During Operation Enduring Freedom , the lack of fighter aircraft forced military planners to rely heavily on US bombers, particularly the B1-B lancer, to fill the CAS role. Bomber CAS, relying mainly on GPS guided weapons and Laser JDAM's has evolved into a devastating tactical employment methodology and has changed US doctrinal thinking regarding CAS in general. With significantly longer loiter times, range, and weapon capacity, bombers can be deployed to bases outside of the immediate battlefield area, with 12 hour missions being commonplace since 2001. After the initial collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, airfields in Afghanistan became available for continuing operations against the Taliban and Al-Queda. This resulted in a great number of CAS operations being undertaken by aircraft from Belgium (F-16), Denmark (F-16), France (Mirage 2000D), the Netherlands (F-16), Norway (F-16), the United Kingdom (Harrier GR7/9, Tornado GR4) and the United States (A-10, F-16, AV-8B Harrier II, F-15E, F/A-18a-d, F/A-18E-F).

Close air support - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are advantages to dedicated CAS aircraft (Stuka, Shturmovik, A-10, Su-25). If you don't have local airfields, strategic assets can also play a useful role. When you get airfields, tactical aircraft come into play. If you don't have regular bases, just forward bases, or if you aim to deploy forward as much as you can, some tactical aircraft are more suited than others. Point being: it depends on the combat area situation also, not just on the qualities of one airplane or another.

 

[anHuman]

I heard that USA want to turn its A-10s to UCAVs ....