The Air Force Material Command (AFMC) is bringing the A-10 depot line responsible for A-10 maintenance and repair back to full capacity. Despite announcements that the Air Force would being retiring the A-10 in 2018 AFMC chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski recently told Aviation Week that they plan to keep the A-10 in the air “indefinitely.”
The Warthog is currently the only Air Force plane being used for the sole purpose of close-air support (CAS). The U.S. military relies heavily on (CAS) in the battle against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The iconic GAU-8 Avenger 30-millimeter gatling gun found at the nose of the aircraft and its “low and slow” flying capabilities have made it an invaluable resource for missions against ISIS.
I don’t know why I have a soft spot in my heart for this aircraft. I just do.
Let me help explain that soft spot.
THis aircraft was designed from a list of wants ie: if you could carry as many weapons into a fight via air support what would it have as opposed to industry trying to showcase their new gizmo.ie stealth capable.
This is an aircraft that took all the needs of the grunt fighting on the ground and answered the question how do you get it there in one piece.
If you appreciate why a pick up truck is usefull, no body needs to explain to you the need for the A10.
Exactly, and well said.
This is in my opinion the best ground support aircraft ever devised.
Same here. Maybe it’s because Close Air Support isn’t afraid to get its hair messed up.
Its a flying tank. One of the best designed, hardiest, and effective planes ever built.
great decision to keep it in service.
ps took a woman to make the decision?
Great battlefield presence.
How about. It’s just a dang “good” air-plane.
The A-10 was built for a single purpose: Killing Russian tanks.
For that you need a good cannon. The airplane was then designed around that gun. Even the front landing gear was moved to the side, gun position was more important. Then they added some good features to increase longevity in a hostile environment: pilot protection, dual engines – mounted high, redundant controls.
It’s “the little engine that could” syndrome. The A-10 can take two direct hits from a T-72 main gun and keep flying. That appeals to our sympathy for the persistent underdog.
To be honest, though, I’m pretty certain the A-10 is another Avro Arrow – an objectively obsolete design that’s become so wrapped up in politics and emotion that a rational decision on deployment is probably impossible.
I saw one up close at an air show. It’s solidly built and that front cannon is one mean piece of hardware. No wonder ground troops were happy whenever they saw a Warthog in the air near them.
Warthogs are deployed nearby from Selfridge Michigan Air National Guard Base. The noise they make is unmistakable. It’s a real treat to see them at low altitude.
With modern reactive tank armour the 30mm in not as effective as it used to be. Many countries will not let the A10 in because of the use of DU rounds in the 30mm.
I would think the Maverick missile is its most potent weapon against tanks.
The ground troops appreciate the firepower but the loiter time is comforting ….. helicopters just can’t do the same exact job … but a purpose-designed drone with the right data acquisition suite could and will replace the Hog. Can the canon fire other rounds besides DU …? In the coming conflict they may not be attacking waves of Soviet tanks but waves of banzai-charging moslems …. such attacks were common during the Iran-Iraq War
Tank armor is thinner on the deck and roof of a tank. The 30mm gun on an A-10 fires at the rate of 4,200 rpm.(rounds per minute)
After the first or second round, ERA(Explosive Reactive Armor) is gone.(it explodes)
Successive rounds in the same area of the now non-existent ERA do penetrate.
Much of the sensors, aiming, and defence suite of a tank are on the turret roof. They will be destroyed. Additionally, the tracks will be destroyed(no armor) and the main gun jammed or destroyed turning the tank into a mere stationary pillbox if it isn’t outright destroyed by penetration through the roof.
What better aircraft could there possibly be to lay waste to a column of Toyota trucks manned by ISIS goatrapers?
Fabulous Goater Erradicater.
*
“oz says… The 30mm gun on an A-10 fires at the rate of 4,200 rpm”
the distinctive zipper-like sound as this plane dives on enemy troop concentrations and unleashes hundreds of depleted uranium rounds the size of your thumb haunts the dreams of many a once dedicated jihadi.
they rip through unarmored vehicles like a hot knife through butter and turn human bodies into applesauce.
the right decision has been made.
*
Because the A-10 saves lives of good guys by taking lives of bad guys…
Curious how with all the trouble re, Russia, the best anti-tank weapon ever devised is going back into production. Let’s hope it’s not too little too late.
The reason you have a soft spot is because the A-10 is badass ! It is the dangerous tattooed boyfriend that your parents warned you about. It simply kicks ass and doesn’t even bother to take names. The Troops LOVE it … because it SOUNDS like … Victory in the morning …
Exercised with these things when commanding an air defence missile section in the early 1990s. They do not sound like airplanes. They do not manoeuvre like airplanes. They carry three times the ordnance load of your average fast-mover, and don’t really mind you shooting back at them. They’re faster than helicopters, and helicopters don’t carry the GAU-8 Doomcannon.
Having these things around and pointed at the bad guys has to be the warmest feeling ever.
The A-10 is the aircraft that the great tank-buster H.-U. Rudel wanted the Ju 87 G to be. Apparently all members of the A-10 development team were required to read Rudel’s book on his tank-busting career (rather audacious as Rudel was an unapologetic Nazi all his life). There are reports that Rudel consulted in person on the A-10 project. I wonder what he thought about the “small” A-10 30 mm cannon – some of the Ju 87 G’s had 37 mm cannon. Slower firing rate than the A-10, presumably.
Exactly. The Hs 129 armed with a cannon also did a great job
Stop fetishizing the cannon. Actual combat records indicate that the AGM-65 Maverick is responsible for the majority of the A-10’s recent tank kills, sometimes by up to two-to-one over the Gau8.
The safest and most cost-effective way to deliver an AGM is a drone. About the only reason to keep the A-10’s around right now is if you don’t think you’re going to be shooting at tanks in an area that has AA support.
Besides, compared to the venerable B-52, it’s just a “youngster”.
>>Cannon kills more
>>Missiles kill more
Why not both?
Why not more?
If you appreciate why a pick up truck is usefull, no body needs to explain to you the need for the A10.
Exactly true!!
Nothing in the US/CDN arsenal does CAS like the A-10. Canada should have at least a squadron of A-10s if our ground troops will be put in harm’s way. We should be able to protect our own.
The A-10 likely represents a technology which has simply reached optimum. In other words, at a certain point, given the tasks chosen for it, there simply is no better way for a device to be configured. The B-52 may be another example i.e. if one wishes to deliver a large volume of conventional bomb load on a target using subsonic aircraft the B-52 or an aircraft which would be, for all intents and purposes a copy of the B-52 would constitute the optimal solution — thus its longevity. Likewise the Warthog. If one wishes to provide CAS to troops on the ground the Warthog or an aircraft which would effectively be a reconfiguration of the Warthog reflects the optimal configuration. They got it right. That may stick in the craw of designers who would love to create something “new & improved” but it simply may not exist. The Warthog or its twin will likely be around for many years to come.
The Hills are Alive with the Sound of BRRRRRRT!
Aviation pioneer Antoine St.-Exupéry once said the following:
“A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
Perhaps the A-10 is an example.
Good to hear. One of the few military airplanes I’d like some stick time on. I’ve always been awestruck by the strength and capability of that aircraft. Mostly the strength…
Spectre gunship does much the same thing. Same idea, long loiter time, crap ton of concentrated and very precise fire power. One spectre deployed quickly would have saved everyone in Benghazi. Very expensive to operate though.
The AC-130 Spectre is an old warbird, the first ones being used during the war in Viet Nam. The fact that it’s still in service shows that it’s a good machine. The C-130 itself is a design that’s about as old as the B-52.
The AGM-65 Maverick is an example of what the ERA applique’ armor is designed to defend against(plus the other portions of a Russian MBT’s defence suite because it is a one-missile-one-explosive-armor-pack situation standoff.
The multiple hits of the chain-gun rounds in close proximity that cannot be defeated by an opposing ERA pack or spoofing from the tank’s defence suite are why a Russian tank, not a ‘monkey copy’ export version of a Russian weapon system(Russia doesn’t sell the same export version that Russian forces use) has not been pitted against the GAU-8 or AGM-65 Maverick tank killing test.
As I said earlier, ERA is designed to take a single hit(from a HEAT or HESH warhead) and then it is gone.(so is the missile)
Chains of 30mm rounds strike the same area after the ERA has already defeated the first shot and is gone, no longer there to defend against repeated strikes from 2nd/3rd/4th rounds in the same area.
Nothing in a tank’s defence suite, after the ERA pack is gone, can spoof a dumb round of 30mm hammering the naked Chobham armor.
“The move [to retain the A-10 indefinitely] also follows trials initiated by the Air Force to determine if the F-35 or A-10 better executes the close air support role, which suggest that the A-10 came out on top.
“The Government Accountability Office debunked the Air Force generals’ contentions that the A-10 could be replaced, arguing that the plane’s low flight costs, unique airframe, and hyper competent, impeccably trained pilot community was without peer in today’s Air Force.”
The A 10 is such a brilliant design, despite its age.
Recall the A-1 Skyraider, which was a piston engine ground support plane that lasted well into the jet age. It had the toughness long loiter times that made it well suited for its role.
That may be the case. I have to agree with the previous posters only from seeing it perform at an air show years ago. It does appear rather slow and ungainly doing it’s figure eights in the sky, but when it finally wheels around and heads towards you…it looks pretty fearsome. Slow isn’t necessarily less threatening, psychologically. It did look like a big, muscular engine of destruction.
So in answer to your legitimate criticism, why not build a next-gen weapon that answers the same needs? It seems like a good idea that needs updating.
Come on? what’s not to love about a plane that carries a 30 mm cannon firing depleted Uranium bullets that cuts through tanks like butter?
Why the US Army Could Care Less about the A-10 Warthog
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-us-army-could-care-less-about-the-10-warthog-16704
In the event of an all out war in Eastern Europe, it is highly dubious that an A-10 could get close enough to a Russian armored formation to deliver its ordnance. Even during the Cold War, A-10 units were not expected to survive long against a massive Warsaw Pact invasion of the West. Indeed, Russian air defense systems have only gotten more capable in the interim—and unlike U.S. Army formations—Moscow’s ground forces are always accompanied by highly-capable mobile integrated air defenses.
The top tier of the Russian Ground Forces surface-to-air missile defense capability is provided by the fearsome Buk-M3, which is about to enter service. The older version, the Buk-M2—also known by its NATO code name SA-17 Grizzly—is also a fearsome weapon. But according to Russian sources, the Buk-M3 is actually more capable than some versions of the S-300 strategic surface-to-air missile system that is operated by the Russian Aerospace Forces. Indeed, many Air Force officials consider an area defended by the SA-17 and the Buk-M3 to be a de facto no fly zone for conventional fourth-generation aircraft…
… from comments: So, in practice, with a JTAC on the ground coordinating with his ground unit for defense suppression of the remaining anti-air systems, a plane like the A-10 should be able to deliver ordnance. Our government and our military have failed us if they send troops needing CAS into a contested environment on Day 1 with no plan to defeat the surface to air threats. My point is basically that this is all a moot point. There’s no plan that gives CAS to the Army on Day 1 of a fight. This is because Day 1 through Day X of any battle plan is all about defeating the enemy’s air force, navy and surface to air forces to have a chance of achieving at least “localized air superiority” by the time our ground forces are engaged.
Come on? what’s not to love about a plane that carries a 30 mm cannon firing depleted Uranium bullets that cuts through tanks like butter?
Why the US Army Could Care Less about the A-10 Warthog
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-us-army-could-care-less-about-the-10-warthog-16704
In the event of an all out war in Eastern Europe, it is highly dubious that an A-10 could get close enough to a Russian armored formation to deliver its ordnance. Even during the Cold War, A-10 units were not expected to survive long against a massive Warsaw Pact invasion of the West. Indeed, Russian air defense systems have only gotten more capable in the interim—and unlike U.S. Army formations—Moscow’s ground forces are always accompanied by highly-capable mobile integrated air defenses.
The top tier of the Russian Ground Forces surface-to-air missile defense capability is provided by the fearsome Buk-M3, which is about to enter service. The older version, the Buk-M2—also known by its NATO code name SA-17 Grizzly—is also a fearsome weapon. But according to Russian sources, the Buk-M3 is actually more capable than some versions of the S-300 strategic surface-to-air missile system that is operated by the Russian Aerospace Forces. Indeed, many Air Force officials consider an area defended by the SA-17 and the Buk-M3 to be a de facto no fly zone for conventional fourth-generation aircraft…
… from comments: So, in practice, with a JTAC on the ground coordinating with his ground unit for defense suppression of the remaining anti-air systems, a plane like the A-10 should be able to deliver ordnance. Our government and our military have failed us if they send troops needing CAS into a contested environment on Day 1 with no plan to defeat the surface to air threats. My point is basically that this is all a moot point. There’s no plan that gives CAS to the Army on Day 1 of a fight. This is because Day 1 through Day X of any battle plan is all about defeating the enemy’s air force, navy and surface to air forces to have a chance of achieving at least “localized air superiority” by the time our ground forces are engaged.
KISS.
Just drop a molotov cocktail inside. The valiant Hungarians took out many tanks in ’56 that way.
The only valid test is combat. The only valid test is victory.
Actual A-10 engagements indicate that the AGM-65 Maverick is a superior weapons system to the Gau-8. Period. There’s a lot of reasons for that, not least of which is that the real world isn’t some kind of white room testing exercise where tanks obligingly orient their weakest armour 90° to the Gau-8 angle of attack and nobody shoots back at the slow, low-flying fixed wing aircraft.
Against a modern T-90 tank column backed with AA defenses, the A-10 is going to get slaughtered. Why you people want the A-10 pilot corps to commit suicide in a close range knife fight with Russian SAMs is beyond me.
Against the cobbled together trucks and stolen IFVs that ISIS tends to use, without zone air defense, the A-10 is like hitting eggs with a hammer, and that’s a great operational role for it.