Why the Air Force Generals Want to Kill the A-10

[500]

Just not COIN, but it is also ideal/best for CAS, anti-armor role. It is cheapest & less riskier way to destroy the formidable enemy.

BTW instead of A10 I will put my money on either Su25( flying artillery) or super-tucano.

In CAS against strong enemy it will have enormous loses. Much better to use artillery, MLRS and stand off weapons.

Slow moving armored planes like A-10 were necessary before UAV era, because it was hard to search ground targets with supersonic jets. Today UAVs search targets.

 

[gubbi]

In CAS against strong enemy it will have enormous loses. Much better to use artillery, MLRS and stand off weapons.

Isnt that the primary reason why this aircraft was developed? As a real tank buster? I dunno if you have seen it in action or even flying upclose, but you will be amazed by how agile this aircraft really is. Follow the recent conflicts and you will see how much beating this aircraft has taken and yet brought the pilots back home safe. And CAS was what it was originally planned for.

Slow moving armored planes like A-10 were necessary before UAV era, because it was hard to search ground targets with supersonic jets. Today UAVs search targets.

When UAV/UCAVs become capable of carrying GAU-8s along with other mutions then may be A-10s can rest.

 

[Solomon2]

I really do think getting rid of the A-10 is going to be the US Military's biggest mistake since the start of the 21st century. Make something like it or better at least.

Like the USAF's other long-lived workhorses, the C-130 and B-52, little room is seen for cost-effective improvement by retiring the current product.

Rarely do I agree with Counterpunch, yet little in this article is new and some incorrect, I think. Development and production of the A-10 long preceded that of the Cheyenne helicopter. The USAF brass have hated the A-10 for nearly three decades now - I remember Congress forced them to buy more than they wanted in the early 1980s. Part of the motivation of Congress to do so - and for the brass to run away - was to save a dying aerospace company. Part of the motivation was because the brass like fighter planes best.

But I don't doubt that a large part of it was because the more money you manage, the more important you are, so officers sitting at the A-10 project desk couldn't see their assignment as a good career move. Too bad they don't promote desk officers in peacetime based on how efficiently they use resources rather than on how many millions or billions they have been entrusted to control.

 

[500]

Isnt that the primary reason why this aircraft was developed? As a real tank buster?

As I said, A-10 was developed because there were no UAVs who could search targets.

I dunno if you have seen it in action or even flying upclose, but you will be amazed by how agile this aircraft really is. Follow the recent conflicts and you will see how much beating this aircraft has taken and yet brought the pilots back home safe. And CAS was what it was originally planned for.

Anti aircraft missiles are still more agile.

When UAV/UCAVs become capable of carrying GAU-8s along with other mutions then may be A-10s can rest.

JSOW and CBU-87 are far far more effective against tanks than GAU-8.

AGM-154A JSOW - YouTube

CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) Live Fire Test - YouTube

 

[ANPP]

In CAS against strong enemy it will have enormous loses. Much better to use artillery, MLRS and stand off weapons.

Slow moving armored planes like A-10 were necessary before UAV era, because it was hard to search ground targets with supersonic jets. Today UAVs search targets.

Artillery, MLRS can not used for CAS. It could leads to miss targeting & can cause high friendly casualty. BTW A10 is better for CAS role compare to its counter parts like Heli, armed hercules against strong enemy.

On UAV part, UAVs are still lagging in accuracy without PGM, although they are they are good in recon, & able to deliver PGMs but replacing A10 by UAVs right now

 

[Mosamania]

Like the USAF's other long-lived workhorses, the C-130 and B-52, little room is seen for cost-effective improvement by retiring the current product.

Rarely do I agree with Counterpunch, yet little in this article is new and some incorrect, I think. Development and production of the A-10 long preceded that of the Cheyenne helicopter. The USAF brass have hated the A-10 for nearly three decades now - I remember Congress forced them to buy more than they wanted in the early 1980s. Part of the motivation of Congress to do so - and for the brass to run away - was to save a dying aerospace company. Part of the motivation was because the brass like fighter planes best.

But I don't doubt that a large part of it was because the more money you manage, the more important you are, so officers sitting at the A-10 project desk couldn't see their assignment as a good career move. Too bad they don't promote desk officers in peacetime based on how efficiently they use resources rather than on how many millions or billions they have been entrusted to control.

It is really sad to see that it is being thrown away and do away with for being "Too cheap". The A-10 is not just the ultimate CAS plane but also a US strategic asset. Anyways, all the best, I still believe the A-10's supposed replacement is not really a replacement. The F-35 can not even light a candle to it in terms of role and mission specs.

 

[Solomon2]

There was one more factor that may have been important: the A-10s manufacturer, Fairchild Republic, was not very well versed in the ways of Congress and the procurement bureaucracy. I was in the Congressional office buildings once when I ran into a bunch of suits looking for the committee meeting they were supposed to attend. Lo and behold, they were from Fairchild and the meeting they were looking for concerned A-10 procurement.

Fairchild Republic had been going downhill for over a decade. The common joke at the time:

Q: "What do you get if you merge Fairchild Republic into Honeywell Industries?

A: "Fairwell Honeychild!"

The Honeywell brand survives by various mergers and its dominant consumer products. Fairchild did not and after changing hands several times its remnants are currently owned by an Israeli company, Elbit Systems.

 

[500]

Artillery, MLRS can not used for CAS. It could leads to miss targeting & can cause high friendly casualty.

Planes also can lead to friendly fire. Artillery and MLRS can be assisted by laser and GPS with excellent accuracy.

BTW A10 is better for CAS role compare to its counter parts like Heli, armed hercules against strong enemy.

AGainst strong enemy casualties will be terrible. Its basically a modern Il-2.

On UAV part, UAVs are still lagging in accuracy without PGM, although they are they are good in recon, & able to deliver PGMs but replacing A10 by UAVs right now

I was talking about recon UAVs on first place.

UAV's search targets. Artillery, MLRS and fighters with stand off weapons destroy targets. No need in slow moving sitting duck aka A-10.

 

[gubbi]

As I said, A-10 was developed because there were no UAVs who could search targets.

OA-10's. The secondary role of A-10s is to provide targets for aircraft, thus acting as "airborne forward air control". Also, there is no way a UAV/UCAV can be used in a CAS role as efficiently as the A-10.

Anti aircraft missiles are still more agile.

Are you going to put mechanized infantry on a large scale in an area considered HOT for the airforce to fly? Before SEAD?

JSOW and CBU-87 are far far more effective against tanks than GAU-8.

Yes indeed. But then CAS has its own advantages over missiles launched by small teams of infantrymen. No?

 

[Solomon2]

It is really sad to see that it is being thrown away and do away with for being "Too cheap". The A-10 is not just the ultimate CAS plane but also a US strategic asset. Anyways, all the best, I still believe the A-10's supposed replacement is not really a replacement. The F-35 can not even light a candle to it in terms of role and mission specs.

The USAF preferred battle plan for a Soviet invasion of Europe was to destroy waves of Soviet aircraft first, then have their fighters switch to the ground attack role. Yet by then the Soviet blitzkrieg might have reached the Rhine!

An important example of tactical cleverness failing to theater realities - and one that strongly suggests air forces shouldn't direct wars. A plethora of A-10s in their dedicated tank-buster role guaranteed a prompt response to a Soviet invasion, strengthening the conventional deterrence that kept the peace in Central Europe and increasing the confidence of America's NATO allies. That the U.S. had an excess number of A-10s is one of the reasons why this old bird is available now. I rarely praise Congress but I'm sure it made the right call on this one.

The F-35 might perform nearly as well but the fact a ground-attack aircraft is dedicated to its role is very important both to allies and to prospective enemies.

 

[Solomon2]

UAV's search targets. Artillery, MLRS and fighters with stand off weapons destroy targets. No need in slow moving sitting duck aka A-10.

No doubt the availability of UAVs coupled to precision artillery will reduce the need for the A-10s armed reconnaissance role, yet light UAVs can't fly in bad weather like the A-10 can, nor will they or artillery always have the range to strike mobile targets that must be destroyed, especially if these are heavily defended.

 

[ANPP]

Planes also can lead to friendly fire. Artillery and MLRS can be assisted by laser and GPS with excellent accuracy.

Yes it can. But if you will use PGMs in artillery than whats the basic profit if using artillery. MLRS is pretty much different concept & these basically use for primitive strike before charging on enemy just like artillery.
In more, A10 can give you assistance deep in enemy territory while artillery/MLRS only give you chance upto 40/120 km respectively.

AGainst strong enemy casualties will be terrible. Its basically a modern Il-2.

I was talking about recon UAVs on first place.

UAV's search targets. Artillery, MLRS and fighters with stand off weapons destroy targets. No need in slow moving sitting duck aka A-10.

We are talking about A10. I stated UAVs doesn't give any profit in CAS role. Although these are best for recon, search & destroy purposes. BTW UAVs are much easy target for low level air-defense & also have grave danger from mid level air defense.

 

[500]

OA-10's. The secondary role of A-10s is to provide targets for aircraft, thus acting as "airborne forward air control".

OA-10 searches targets for others. A-10 searches targets for itself. Both can be done by UAVs today.

Also, there is no way a UAV/UCAV can be used in a CAS role as efficiently as the A-10.

UAVs can search targets. Destruction of targets can be done by others means.

Are you going to put mechanized infantry on a large scale in an area considered HOT for the airforce to fly? Before SEAD?

Often mechanized infantry is best SEAD:

Yes indeed. But then CAS has its own advantages over missiles launched by small teams of infantrymen. No?

I am talking about heavy artillery, MLRS, glide bombs and stand off missiles not small missiles lunched infantrymen.

 

[500]

Yes it can. But if you will use PGMs in artillery than whats the basic profit if using artillery.

The profit is that u dont risk to lose the 30 million A-10 with pilot. Also time of respond is shorter.

MLRS is pretty much different concept & these basically use for primitive strike before charging on enemy just like artillery.

MLRS can be used as any other artillery.

In more, A10 can give you assistance deep in enemy territory while artillery/MLRS only give you chance upto 40/120 km respectively.

Thats called AI (Air Interdiction) not CAS. Again against strong enemy much better to use supersonic strike fighters in such missions, because they can deal with enemy fighters.

We are talking about A10. I stated UAVs doesn't give any profit in CAS role. Although these are best for recon, search & destroy purposes. BTW UAVs are much easy target for low level air-defense & also have grave danger from mid level air defense.

UAVs are disposable.

 

[ANPP]

The profit is that u dont risk to lose the 30 million A-10 with pilot. Also time of respond is shorter.
MLRS can be used as any other artillery.

MLRS/ARtillery have same concept & as I mentioned earlier they used for primitive strike not for CAS.

Thats called AI (Air Interdiction) not CAS. Again against strong enemy much better to use supersonic strike fighters in such missions, because they can deal with enemy fighters.
UAVs are disposable.

Sorry for that. I actually want say about A10 range. A10 could be in spec-ops, asymmetric war. A10 can take too much punishment from low level air-defense, as you can see its survivalability is unmatched.

BTW supersonic fighters are preferred because they can evade enemy much easier not because they can deal with enemy fighter.