Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Repalcing the A10 Thunderbolt

Interesting article-

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-attack-planes-could-replace-200400978.html

I like the AT-6, but it's no A10

http://defense.txtav.com/

There is no reason to replace it. It fits its role perfectly. If the current ones are beyond repair, build new ones. To me it seems the same as trying to find a replacement for the spoon...why?

They mention operational costs as low as $1,000/hr compared to the much higher costs of A10, etc.

My spoon costs too much to keep welding back together. I should spend billions to find something else that does the same job but costs even more to repair.

Real life example. The F-22, amazing plane that can't use the missile they designed for it. Amazing stealth paint that cracks and flakes off...$$$$$ to repaint. F-35...nothing else needs to be said about that pile.

They recently wrapped up some gun time with two OV-10 Bronco's that were pulled out of mothballs to test the concept of a cheap turbo-prop attack aircraft. Against a 3rd world enemy the any of those 5 would be quite effective. The Bronco had over 99% mission completion rate, that's pretty darned good. They're reliable, effective, and cheap.

Wouldn't break my heart to see Bronco's pulled out of mothballs and put back in service for very limited missions. I think that's a very inexpensive solution for the small, low tech wars.

But there needs to be a more reasonable replacement for a 1st world war and they seriously need to fast track a replacement.

IMO, they need to move the A-10's out of the AF, along with the funding and move it to the Army. Let the Army form attack squadrons of A-10s, Apaches, AC-130 Spectres and let the Army protect their own, if they cannot depend on USAF command to choose the aircraft that will do the BEST job.

Well stated. The A-10 was designed as a tank-killer first, CAS second. Big Blue has to be made to fulfill the former. The Army should not be dependent on a sister service to protect its own troops in the field. The CAS mission doesn't require the range typically that the tank-killer mission might require.

The A-10 wouldn't survive long in a 1st world clash in today's SAM environment, so we need to be thinking about a replacement that would.

For 3rd world, most anything that flies and has a reasonable loiter time would do the trick fairly well.

Actually maybe we're looking in the wrong direction. The AC-130 is THE premier CAS platform, perhaps we should be looking at any inexpensive version of the AC-130.

Maybe so, I dunno, but didn't the USAF take care of Saddam's SAM sites with Wild Weasels and F16-'s ahead of the invasion? Not saying you're wrong, as I no nothing of the newer tech. Even with an improved aircraft, it'll still be a combined effort, I believe.

Also, we have an astonishingly low number of C-130 gunships, IIRC, it is less than two dozen. Hurlburt FL , and England are the only bases for them.

The problem I see atleast in my opinion and view of what the military is trying to do, is they want 1 jet to do it all. Reminds me of a reloader or hunter that wants 1 caliber or 1 bullet to do it all. Long range, short range, rabbits groundhogs, dangerous game and so on. Atleast thats what it looks like with the F-35. I'm sure its a good idea and a way to try and save money, but in reality is it practical?
The A10 is an ugly thing but I love seeing them fly around town on a daily basis. They serve a purpose. Maybe make a plane just as ugly that can fly just as slow or just as fast, can do what the A10 can and not try to add fighter this and bomber that. keep it simple so it can kill tanks, protect troops and scare the piss out of the enemy. Save the fighter crap and bomber crap for fighter jets and bombers. Hell Maybe even a helicopter between the Apache helicopter and A10 if there could be such a thing.
I'm just an outsider looking in so I could be totally wrong. However trying to create 1 jet to do it all seems dumb. Or am I dumb? lol

Kique

Stop. Nothing will, but what the A-10 has going for it is survivability from a close aboard detonation or even a direct hit by a MANPAD. Also, it flies down low, very low and before the enemy can engage it with SAMs, it has to "see it". In a "First World" engagement, the A-10 would be employed after some sort of air superiority has been established. Before that, we have standoff weapons like JDAM, JSOW, etc. In a way with either Iran or the NORKS, the A-10 would be a great asset as a CAS platform when the above requirements have been met. On the Texan, I flew in the first one to arrive in Pensacola. Great little sports car, but an A-10 it will never be.

You need to brush up on your history for starters..secondly, CAS missions are strictly contingent on theater OPS with readily available tanker support if need be.The mission hasn't changed in 75 yrs.The Army flying CAS from AF installations or taking on the massive maintenance and logistic requirements to keep said aircraft combat ready ain't happening.

The Army flying CAS from AF installations or taking on the massive maintenance and logistic requirements to keep said aircraft combat ready ain't happening.
[/quote]


The Army has said it would and could do exactly that on numerous occasions. Flyboys go to Congress and throw tantrums. The Air Force has never wanted the CAS mission, FUGG the Air Force.

In a first world engagement there would be a massive amount of MANPAD's vs. engagemtents like we're in now.

So if we managed to establish air superiority, and take out their major air defense systems, there MANPAD thereat would be unlike anything we've ever seen before. The Russians and Chinese would hand out MANPAD's like lollypops. So unless there's some system that takes out a dude with a missile anytime they pop up, it would be a much different, more complex operating environment than the A-10 has ever operated in.

And the A-10 is built to take hits from MANPADS, but that A-10 is down for the count for a while after a hit.

The Army has said it would and could do exactly that on numerous occasions. Flyboys go to Congress and throw tantrums. The Air Force has never wanted the CAS mission, FUGG the Air Force. [/quote]They say they want the mission to keep the money/mission from going to the Army, but then when the argument's over, they leave the Army high and dry.

The Army has said it would and could do exactly that on numerous occasions. Flyboys go to Congress and throw tantrums. The Air Force has never wanted the CAS mission, FUGG the Air Force.[/quote]

Show me or provide a link that says so..This is one of those often used CF quotes that gets tossed around when appropriate.Your limitations and lack of expertise on the matter are quite evident..do carry on.

Your solution is a more expensive, more delicate, newer platform?

I think the A-10 should be able to survive as well as any low level attack aircraft, redundant systems,high mounted and wide spaced high bypass engines that can eat a lot of junk and spit it out. Good pilot protection.
As to mission, I saw one Pilot quoted that sure he can take out a tank, but he can also take out one guy on a bicycle,

Question - for CAS and tank killer, what does the A-10 bring to the dance that the helicopters don't?

Theater and threat assessment will always dictate assets brought to bear on hostiles and the order in which they're employed. As jorge points out the new high tech battlefield probably won't risk first strike aircraft of the CAS variety until some major disruption of command/control elements or silencing AAA or SAM threats.