Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Future of the A-10??

Being one of the �great unwashed� I wonder how well it will do the job in comparison to the A-10. The A-10 carries more ordnance and has the advantage of the gun, which in the role of CAS, is just more ordnance at best, and something to give serious pause to the enemy at worst. Obviously I�ve never flown a CAS mission. When it�s asked for, how much of which type of ordnance is applied?

Thanks, gentlemen. I have seen some video of the vectored thrust capabilities and I'm sure what I saw was all it can do (at least I HOPE it's not all it can do!), I was wondering about low-level use of the vectored thrust.

PRM, I understand that CAS will be different. I pray, for our guys' sakes, that it will be as good of not better than what the A-10 is capable of.
The ability to provide accurate CAS from higher altitudes and greater speeds means greater survivability for the pilots and more frustrations for the bad guys. Not to mention less work for the Crew Chiefs.

Ed

I don't know the specs on the 35's capabilities, suffice to say they will be way ahead of the A-10s with a LOT less need to get down in the weeds and get bagged. CAS is basically either anti-personnel or anti-armor. Flak Suppression is a sligthly different animal (Iron Hand). I love the A-10 and I wish we had thousands of them along with thousands of 14s, 15s, 16, even 18s, but you people and your welfare state....

Not this people, I'm always up for welfare reform.

PRM, with all due respect, I don't know your experience or creds, but I've been in an active ROZ, and I don't remember GPS coordinates (or our version in a combat zone) being relayed to the CAS aircraft for weapons delivery. Someone has do be "eyes on" the target for the JTAC to release weapons. There have been several times where ordnance was not delivered to to lack of eyes on.

The Army is pushing hard for the Light Attack platform for a fixed wing asset which is old school, and CAS specific with weapons delivered by eyeball guidance (hence the Super Tucano).

I'd guess that an A-10 like plane will come back.. but the next one will probably be unmanned.

The company that made the airplane Fairchild Republic is no longer around and I doubt that the jigs are still around to make the airplane. While it would be a good move to just make some new ones, it would be very very expensive. From what I have read, the A-10 will be in service to 2040 so the airframe is going to be around for another 27 more years. A pilot going to the line now would get a whole career flying one maybe. in 27 years I will be 85 and if luck will have it still be flying,but I have great doubts about that with some of my current health issues. As I recall the Air Force never wanted the airplane from the beginning. I always thought that the A-10 should have belonged to Army Aviation, but since 1947 the army can only have helicopters and light fixed wing aircraft. It seems to me that the AF dose not like CAS and the Army needs CAS support, the rules should change and the Army gets the CAS aircraft it needs be it Fixed or Rotor Wing Aircraft.

The biggest advantage we have now is the amazing accuracy of the munitions we have. And the low yield/low collateral damage bomb bodies were using. We can offer "CAS" at less veunerable positions. The F-22 is an amazing Air Superiourity Fighter...but not a CAS machine. I got an 'incentive' flight in a F-16 on a'mission' against '22s. It wasnt even funny how easy we were to kill against that thing...

Having said that...The A-10 just underwent the 'C-Mod'. This was intended to extend the A-10's service life for another generation. The 30 Mike Mike is an amazing tool. It can sure reek havoc in a hurry...

Also, a bunch of folks like to downplay the unmaned A/C...but they are used in CAS and recon missions everyday downrange. They save lives, are cheap to build and operate, and are quite capabile in a CAS situation. The HellFire missle is a great tool in CAS. The new Reaper is going to (eventually) take over the F-16 type roll in CAS with JDAM, MAV and SNPR capabilities.

The 300+ bombs and 20K rounds my crew loaded in the last Iraq trip would contradict this stance. We perform a lot of CAS and TIC support. More often then not, the presence of a screaming jet engine over head is enough to keep the OPFOR at bay...But some times they need a good paddling...

Incredible thread. The knowledge of members and their willingness to share is astounding and gratifying.

I had the honor to work for several years with a very fine gentleman who commanded the 110th Tactical Air Support Group (National Guard out of BTL) and oversaw their transition from OA-37 Dragonfly to A-10. The 'Colonel' as he was known at our place of business had an extreme fondness for the Warthog and I spent many an hour listening to his stories about it. It's always fun to talk to folks with his level of knowledge about certain airframes. There's more than a few I'd love to personally sit down and listen to right here at the 'fire as well.

There were some intentions or appearances that the A-10 may survive until 2040, if some reverse engineering requests were funded and successful. This was in 2011, and I have no idea whether the engineering was secured. I know there have been many upgrades and field repairs to the airframe that required engineering per repair, including some rather serious wing spar issues. Consistent with many aging aircraft both military and civilian, an awful lot of upgrades for the A-10 were avionics related.

http://defensetech.org/2011/07/22/a-10-warthogs-could-serve-until-2040/

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...f58f8fe0b44ae0&tab=core&_cview=1

As far as the original Fairchild build jigs are concerned, there were rumors that they were destroyed by USAF after the initial production and spare parts runs. Whether they did or someone else did, they no longer exist and that is why the above CAD/CAM order for reverse engineering had been made.
Fairchild supposedly wanted to secure export orders for the A-10. Previously stated, the USAF had no real love for the A-10; they certainly did not want anyone else to have it either.

Not really, cant' get any better than this CAS mission from a combined service strike, all done from the air, the delivery platform was an F-16 and the designation came from a Navy aircraft who was the On Scene Flight Lead, gives me a solid every time I watch it:

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6MH45v0NMOw[/video]

You might like it and good on you, but the Air Force has forever hated the CAS mission and if you look as far back as the 80s they've been on the record as saying so. All they wanted to do was AWACS and air-to-air. Noshit, they wanted to give the A-10 to the Army.

I understand what you're saying, but eyes on doesn't have be the pilot delivering the ordnance. I'm obviously not going to get into what platforms can perform this task or how, but the feel I got from the previous post was that a JTAC could simply relay a lat/long and a JDAM would be dropped in proximity to our ground troops. I see a big difference between a designated target, and fixed wing assets supporting an active firefight on the ground with our guys right there near the POI.

I realize that, my point was the F-16 is a capable CAS platform, nothing more. As to supporting firefights, we've been doing it a long time and of course there are many ways as you know.

Fair enough, I don't disagree. I just think that a slow moving dedicated CAS platform is better, and necessary.

Well that was the purpose of the whole thread, to see if that really is still the case. During lunch I did a little reading up and perhaps it�s not needed anymore�but I don�t know.

The original need for the A10 was precisely that, longer loiter time, low speed stability, and the ability to lay eyes on a target, then destroy it. But that was a criteria laid down following Vietnam, and PGM�s were just beginning to see the light as we exited that conflict. Clearly the A10 does a great job, I don�t think anyone would argue that. The question is�is it still a must? Do other aircraft using PGM�s do the job as well? Have precision guided munitions negated the need for a dedicated CAS aircraft? Why do I feel you�d get two very different answers from the Army and the Air Force?

I find it highly improbable we'll ever see CAS totally dominated by one branch.My experiences [although in the Jurassic AF] taught me several things..In the skies over a real shoot'em up ground battle time is the major element for success and the main life saver,CAS SOP for grunts on the ground is first come first serve, they could care less be helo,gunship or fast mover as long as weapons are deployed and the bad guys have a bad day.

Many of the fights I was envolved in had joint CAS assets which was beneficial to all concerned. I've heard so many say this scenario is old Dino SEA thinking and we'll never be confronted with it again...I call BS just wait a spell as history has an uncanny way of rewriting itself.We'll be in the air over a jungle again down the road and I certainly hope we have the capable aircraft to take care of business.

It's the only aircraft that can fully fulfill the ground attack/anti-tank role with a high survival probability. Not the most graceful looking aircraft in the inventory, but God, is it good!

The A-10 has a long loiter time so it can hang around a battlefield for a long time and be there when needed. The F-16, another great ground attack aircraft, has a lesser loiter time. One place where I can envision a massed tank attack is on the Korean Peninsula, wit the North storming south with armored vehicles.