There is nothing wrong with a "single-role" aircraft. With the F-15 the USAF didn't want to compromise its design as an air-superiority fighter for other missions and they knew they'd never get the numbers they'd need for it to replace all of the fighters in the USAF's inventory at the time. The multi-mission F-15E showed the F-15 could be successfully adapted into a strike aircraft, but it didn't match the F-111 in all categories and it was inevitably a pricy aircraft compared to the late model F-16C/D that still do most of the work striking targets on the ground.
The A-10 was built with one mission in mind too. That method of CAS had traits which lend itself well to tasks such as FAC and support of CSAR missions but it doesn't have nearly the same level of versatility as a modern F-16 or F-35.
I've got to question the A-10's use in some of the other tasks listed here. SCAR sounds awfully similar to the FAC mission to me, and as far as I know the A-10 can't carry dedicated anti-ship missiles. It would be great at shredding small boats for sure, but how often does it get that opportunity? When it comes to air interdiction the A-10 isn't the best choice. When A-10s were sent to strike Iraqi Republican Guard divisions in GW1 few were lost yet many ended up damaged and sitting on the tarmac awaiting repairs. And Iraq didn't have the latest generation of Soviet/Russian air-defense systems.
The USAF has a point when they say it isn't survivable. Make no mistake, if the Cold War went hot in the late '70s or '80s the USAF expected huge numbers of A-10 losses, it was just hoped the damage they would do in return would be worth the cost. Since then we've become less willing to adsorb such losses and newer air defense systems are much more capable. Against an opponent like Russia or China these days the A-10C's use would be limited to direct front-line CAS and even that would be a very risky job with inevitable losses. If you go beyond the front to hit something (air interdiction) you're as good as dead.
That said the last couple of wars haven't been against China or Russia and the next war probably won't either. The USAF is right about UAVs being able to do much of what the A-10 does in the same sort of permissive environment. Yet considering the amount of money we (justifiably) invest in our military we ought to be able to afford to keep a respectable number of A-10Cs around for another decade or so, just for the sake of those conflicts where the A-10s talents can be well utilized.
So if I made the decisions I'd keep some A-10Cs primarily for its use in conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq, a specialized asset like the AC-130 gunship. It would also still do well shredding tanks when dealing with a less-than-modern enemy like North Korea. But don't expect it to stop hordes of Russian tanks storming across Ukraine, its time has passed for that job.
The Russian tanks a supported by a large force of BMPs. The A-10 may not stop the main battle tanks but without the BMPs the MBTs are food for soldiers with RPGs.
Why do you think MBTs with ERA are immun against the rounds of the Avenger gun? The GAU-8 fires about 60 rounds per second. An MBT moving at 8 m/s (~18 mph) will be hit by more than one round at the same ERA tile ( 0.25 m ~1 foot). An A-10 flying in the moving direction of an MBT will even hit the same ERA far more often than twice.
There are also many parts on MBTs not covered by ERA: tracks, sights, gun barrel ... The GAU-8 Avenger works like shot. The probability to hit some vulnerable parts is high.
Also the A-10 can carry anti-tank-missiles just like the F-35 but the A-10 has more hard points. The A-10 is also a stealth aircraft. An X-band radar can't see another aircraft behind a hill.
No service should be retiring shit given current world geopolitics without a dedicated a operational replacement. But alas, our civilian leadership in Washington are either ignorant or apathetic to the growing disparity between military needs and capabilities.
Didn't notice this till the other day. This, is awesome!! True AF logic. Bigger, faster, higher. They never wanted to play with the A-10... A shit-ton of ordinance and ample play time, ready for tasking. Long live the mud movers!!
elementary, my dear Watson...
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with a "single-role" aircraft. With the F-15 the USAF didn't want to compromise its design as an air-superiority fighter for other missions and they knew they'd never get the numbers they'd need for it to replace all of the fighters in the USAF's inventory at the time. The multi-mission F-15E showed the F-15 could be successfully adapted into a strike aircraft, but it didn't match the F-111 in all categories and it was inevitably a pricy aircraft compared to the late model F-16C/D that still do most of the work striking targets on the ground.
ReplyDeleteThe A-10 was built with one mission in mind too. That method of CAS had traits which lend itself well to tasks such as FAC and support of CSAR missions but it doesn't have nearly the same level of versatility as a modern F-16 or F-35.
I've got to question the A-10's use in some of the other tasks listed here. SCAR sounds awfully similar to the FAC mission to me, and as far as I know the A-10 can't carry dedicated anti-ship missiles. It would be great at shredding small boats for sure, but how often does it get that opportunity? When it comes to air interdiction the A-10 isn't the best choice. When A-10s were sent to strike Iraqi Republican Guard divisions in GW1 few were lost yet many ended up damaged and sitting on the tarmac awaiting repairs. And Iraq didn't have the latest generation of Soviet/Russian air-defense systems.
The USAF has a point when they say it isn't survivable. Make no mistake, if the Cold War went hot in the late '70s or '80s the USAF expected huge numbers of A-10 losses, it was just hoped the damage they would do in return would be worth the cost. Since then we've become less willing to adsorb such losses and newer air defense systems are much more capable. Against an opponent like Russia or China these days the A-10C's use would be limited to direct front-line CAS and even that would be a very risky job with inevitable losses. If you go beyond the front to hit something (air interdiction) you're as good as dead.
That said the last couple of wars haven't been against China or Russia and the next war probably won't either. The USAF is right about UAVs being able to do much of what the A-10 does in the same sort of permissive environment. Yet considering the amount of money we (justifiably) invest in our military we ought to be able to afford to keep a respectable number of A-10Cs around for another decade or so, just for the sake of those conflicts where the A-10s talents can be well utilized.
So if I made the decisions I'd keep some A-10Cs primarily for its use in conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq, a specialized asset like the AC-130 gunship. It would also still do well shredding tanks when dealing with a less-than-modern enemy like North Korea. But don't expect it to stop hordes of Russian tanks storming across Ukraine, its time has passed for that job.
The Ukraine would love to have some A-10s.
ReplyDeleteThe Russian tanks a supported by a large force of BMPs. The A-10 may not stop the main battle tanks but without the BMPs the MBTs are food for soldiers with RPGs.
Why do you think MBTs with ERA are immun against the rounds of the Avenger gun? The GAU-8 fires about 60 rounds per second. An MBT moving at 8 m/s (~18 mph) will be hit by more than one round at the same ERA tile ( 0.25 m ~1 foot). An A-10 flying in the moving direction of an MBT will even hit the same ERA far more often than twice.
There are also many parts on MBTs not covered by ERA: tracks, sights, gun barrel ... The GAU-8 Avenger works like shot. The probability to hit some vulnerable parts is high.
Also the A-10 can carry anti-tank-missiles just like the F-35 but the A-10 has more hard points. The A-10 is also a stealth aircraft. An X-band radar can't see another aircraft behind a hill.
I'd be quite wary of running A-10s against modern Russian mobile air-defense systems.
DeleteNo service should be retiring shit given current world geopolitics without a dedicated a operational replacement. But alas, our civilian leadership in Washington are either ignorant or apathetic to the growing disparity between military needs and capabilities.
ReplyDeleteDidn't notice this till the other day. This, is awesome!! True AF logic. Bigger, faster, higher. They never wanted to play with the A-10... A shit-ton of ordinance and ample play time, ready for tasking. Long live the mud movers!!
ReplyDelete