Forum menu
Flown by ****wits who shoot anything that moves. The number of friendly fire incidents they are responsible for are legion
If you look back at WW2 archives, you'll find that friendly fire incidents are nothing new.
In combat completely dependent on no decent ground air defences being around, and total air superiority
Same goes for helicopters and an F16, F15, F18, F35 etc. on a close air support mission.
That XB70 video is remarkable. Those stills of the Starfighter hitting it and shearing the verts off are amazing.
The number of friendly fire incidents they are responsible for are legion
Of the 10 blue on blue involving UK forces since the Korean war, 2 have been by A10s.
"Secrets in the Sky: The Untold Story of Skunk Works" is well worth a watch for anyone that hasn't seen it
Same goes for helicopters and an F16, F15, F18, F35 etc. on a close air support mission.
Not really, AH deploy as pop up targets giving very short engagement windows, FGA have at least double the speed of an A10, again shortening the engagement windows.
The reality is they are very vulnerable to any modern AD system. The standards they are operated to are very poor and the pilots are National Guard cowboys
But you know the internet says they are amazeballs
FGA have at least double the speed of an A10, again shortening the engagement windows.
Not if they're trying to strafe ground targets with a cannon. Important thing to remember is that the current conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in have zero need for air superiority fighters, but they do need something tough that can loiter around and deal with guys in pick-up trucks. An A10 can handle being hit by a .50 calibre machine gun. An F16 can't. It's also much cheaper to operate than an F35.
FGA have at least double the speed of an A10, again shortening the engagement windows.
waaaaaay back in the early 60s my dad was flying Hunters from Aden in support of marines and SAS in the Radfan campaign, even then the RAF realised that the speed of 1st Gen fighters made GS work really really hard, and recommended that a low speed relatively well protected airplane be developed for COIN work,
the USAF have deployed any number of airplanes in the role from the A-1 to the A37, to the OV-10 and the A-7, the A10 is just one more along that development line. Yes it’s vunerable to AD, but lots of airplanes are, which is why (in part) WW F-18s exist.
The standards they are operated to are very poor and the pilots are National Guard cowboys
of the 10 blue on blue in the 50 years since the Korean War, just one mission was flown by ANG pilots. So if you’re judging those pilots as cowboys then I guess the Army folklore about them is probably as real as Hans Christian fairy stories
Look around the world and you’ll see turbo props doing the A-10s job for other air forces. Speed isn’t always king
It has always been the case... A-1 SPAD for Vietnam, A-10 for the cold war and AFG and now the Tucano being re-rolled as the cheap alternative for CAP in the modern age where the need to suppress a modern air defense network is not required.
Let's be honest... War is expensive and modern, cutting edge planes are expensive to develop, produce and maintain. If you can get by using a turboprop rather than a turbine, it's cheaper. You can save the F-35s for chasing away Russians in the Baltic or in Alaska.
Not if they’re trying to strafe ground targets with a cannon.
Any competent AD operator will have downed you before you press the trigger. Using cannon your line of weapons release is too close, you will be unable to penetrate the ground defended area without being engaged (missile strike, not missile release) first
Why has the AH development pushed the "pop up", simple, slow moving aircraft are vulnerable to other aircraft and any modern AD system.
For the A10 it's even harder with the latest AD systems as they are developed to tackle the pop up AH threat and are significantly faster and have a shorter engagement time.
If you want to argue that operating with total air superiority, against pick up trucks, used for sweeping up "targets of opportunity" especially the ones with Hi Viz panels makes a great plane then fill your boots.
The yanks did get lucky in a way with the A10, it would have been a shit show in a USSR conventional attack into West Germany etc., assuming NATO didn't achieve air supremacy (which was never going to be likely) but for the conflicts it's been deployed in since it went into service it's worked very well. Sure it's also fortunate MANPADS never really became ubiquitous and still aren't widely deployed apart from in top tier armies.
As for AH64 vs A10 - the key difference is time on target and that's critical to many CAS missions. The AH64 is great at going out and destroying a pre-planned target and in short-duration CAS (e.g. once called in by infantry that are in trouble). But it can't loiter (or in-air refuel) like the A10 can, which you can just send out in a CAS role before the enemy is even engaged by ground forces, it's just there ready if/when you need it. It's also far more capable than just shooting up pick up trucks...
The yanks did get lucky in a way with the A10, it would have been a shit show in a USSR conventional attack into West Germany etc., assuming NATO didn’t achieve air supremacy (which was never going to be likely) but for the conflicts it’s been deployed in since it went into service it’s worked very well. Sure it’s also fortunate MANPADS never really became ubiquitous and still aren’t widely deployed apart from in top tier armies.
As for AH64 vs A10 – the key difference is time on target and that’s critical to many CAS missions. The AH64 is great at going out and destroying a pre-planned target and in short-duration CAS (e.g. once called in by infantry that are in trouble). But it can’t loiter (or in-air refuel) like the A10 can, which you can just send out in a CAS role before the enemy is even engaged by ground forces, it’s just there ready if/when you need it. It’s also far more capable than just shooting up pick up trucks…
No idea what most of this means, but I agree 100%.
As for AH64 vs A10 – the key difference is time on target and that’s critical to many CAS missions.
Totally dependent on air superiority and no decent ground AD systems in place. The AH64 can survive in a hostile AD world a lot better than an A10.
But you know, it works when nobody can effectively fire back
Any competent AD operator will have downed
any competent intelligence assessment would see the AD threat, and dictate air-Ops accordingly.
The AH64 can survive in a hostile AD world a lot better than an A10.
yeah...no. And while we’re at it, AH64s have been involved in as many blue in blue as A10s have...so by your own yardstick “the failures are legion”
especially the ones with Hi Viz panels
"They were rocket launchers, weren't they?..."
[shakes head in disbelief]
yeah…no. And while we’re at it, AH64s have been involved in as many blue in blue as A10s have…so by your own yardstick “the failures are legion”
I'm not the one having keyboard orgasms over YouTube clips of A10's
I'd put that clip of Blackadder discussing the British Army facing natives armed with guava fruit if I could, the similarities are striking
“They were rocket launchers, weren’t they?…”
You mean the "bright orange" rocket launchers used by armies the world over......
I’m not the one having keyboard orgasms over YouTube clips of A10’s
no, to be fair you’re not, but at the same time that it was involved in perhaps one of the worst friendly fire incidents of recent times also doesn’t make it a failure. FWIW I find the glorification of the capabilities of warplanes a bit distasteful regardless of what it is.
it was involved in perhaps one of the worst friendly fire incidents of recent times
Wasn't it an F16 that bombed the Canadians in Afghanistan? Let's scrap them too.
Totally dependent on air superiority and no decent ground AD systems in place
Which is the all the wars it's been deployed in, just because it's not good in certain situations doesn't mean it's not a good platform. It's like saying the AC-130 Spectre is crap because it's slow and vulnerable to modern AD systems - it is vulnerable but it's not used in those scenarios.
Aye and if I remember correctly wasn’t a fusilier shot by one of our own tanks? Better got rid of those as well
And I do believe that in the 15thC the Earl of Oxford was fired on by the Lancastrians as they mistook his banner for a Yorkist one.
we should probably do something about that as well
One thing that A-10s are undisputed masters of is turning 50% of all modern military aviation discussions into arguments about A-10s.
My limited understanding of these things suggests that a lot of close air support these days is not carried out in the manner that the A-10 was originally intended to operate. Instead of low level flying and gun attacks modern close air support involves a lot of mid altitude loitering and lobbing smart munitions at targets when requested. Lots of aircraft can carry out this sort of mission (e.g. B-1Bs carry out close air support missions, in addition to fighter-bombers like the F-15E and F-16 and attack aircraft like the A-10).
When air superiority is present (something that seems to be important for the A-10), probably one of the most important factors for aircraft performing this sort of mission should probably be operating costs. A-10s may well be cheaper to operate than many of the current crop of fast jets but they are still big old jets and they don't seem to be particularly cheap. This may be why the USAF (apparently reluctantly) did some trials involving cheaper to operate aircraft such as the Textron Scorption, the Super Tucano and the AT-6B. They killed off the program early last year though, the USAF does seem to be reluctant to give much attention to anything other than fast jets, whether the alternatives are A-10 shaped or not.
While mid-altitude close air support seems to be important the A-10's low altitude combat abilities do seem to still have a place, and I recall seeing reports from Afghanistan of the morale boost given to friendly troops and the demoralising effect on enemy forces from low level gun passes and the like. I recall also seeing it stated that because of the A-10's sole focus on close air support its pilots are often more skilled when it comes to its finer points and intricacies than the pilots of other types of aircraft. I'd have hoped that it would be possible to transfer those skills to other pilots if necessary, but that may be straying into the territory of fast jet snobbery again.
What it possibly comes down to is whether the USAF feels that the extra benefits provided by A-10s justify the need to keep supporting an ageing single role aircraft, with all the logistical and training hassle that brings. This determination seems to be made harder by USAF fast jet snobbery, but also by US pork barrel politics - I think historically the A-10's staunchest allies in Congress coincidentally represent areas with financial interests in keeping the A-10s flying.
In addition current Western military planning seems to be more focused on conflicts with "near peer" adversaries, rather than the asymmetrical/counter-insurgency conflicts that have been the focus for much of the past 20 years. The A-10 seems to have less of a place in a conflict with a near peer adversary, so there may be another push to finally retire it in the pipeline.
What it possibly comes down to is whether the USAF feels that the extra benefits provided by A-10s justify the need to keep supporting an ageing single role aircraft, with all the logistical and training hassle that brings.
The U.S. Army is basically prohibited from operating fixed wing aircraft, they are allowed to operate helicopters, but fixed wing aircraft are the U.S. Air Force's job, by act of Congress. The U.S.A.F love sportscars like the F15 and F16, the A10 is like a pick up truck. The U.S. Army want to keep the A10 flying, but the Air Force want to scrap it. The Army are prohibited by law from buying them from the Air Force because fixed wing aircraft are the job of the Air Force.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it but the sukhoi T4 is a comparable prototype to the Valkyre, a very interesting looking jet.
What's an A10?
It's it a tiny ISO standard paper airplane?
The chap flying the F104 was an X15 pilot, first chap to fly above 100km and a contemporary of Neil Armstrong.
Just watching that Sukhoi T-4 video and wondering where the bombs would go - that and the XB-70 have that central cluster of engines which would in my mind preclude packing a decent load on.
Anyway, found this about the -70 which I found interesting and maybe quite a good reason why the project never went anywhere...
