Print 72 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Apr 23 at 6:19 PM

"The Taliban hates the A-10. That’s good enough for me." -- Senator Lindsey Graham

In February of 2012, a report surfaced that said the U.S. military was looking to retire single-purpose aircraft in favor of multirole aircraft in large part due to budget cuts. One of the aircraft that was among those to be killed off was the A-10 Warthog. However, it looks as though some lawmakers want the venerable Warthog to fly for many more years.
The A-10 is a dedicated ground attack jet that has been providing close air support for decades. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) has announced that she will push for amendments to be made to legislation that would retire the A-10 fleet.
The USAF has proposed the removal of the A-10 from its fleet by 2019 in part due to a 2011 deficit-reduction law. There are lawmakers on both sides of the isle that want to keep the A-10 flying, but they will have to find cuts in the budget elsewhere to make that happen.

The USAF maintains that by cutting the A-10 from the fleet it will save $3.5 billion over several years.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R) says that he has "been in theater enough to know what the troops say about the A-10." Graham added, "The Taliban hates the A-10. That’s good enough for me."
According to reports, many senior Army leaders, special operations troops, and soldiers in the field oppose the retirement of the fleet. Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Oiderno recently stated, "Obviously, we prefer the A-10. [Soldiers] can see it, they can hear it, they have confidence in it."

Source: Defense News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Bad-Karma on 4/14/2014 12:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
I'm with you 100% for most of your post.

But there a couple of points where I thing your off the mark.

1.) Armor travels together. So for "tank busting" the F-35 doesn't have the payload capacity to bring against a column of armor. Remember that they aren't going to fly without some air-to-air capability so those small weapons bays are further reduced by toting air-to-air missiles. Also the F-35's gun isn't really enough for the top armor of modern tanks.

2.) For close air support faster and higher is not always better. When you make a high speed pass over the battlefield you alert the enemy to your presence. Your bomb load or missile may have missed requiring a second/third/.... run, and after the first your targets probably have moved to seek cover, but they are also ready for you. And for the F16, it is actually far worse at medium altitude bombing than you'd imagine even with modern upgrades. It's another reason the AF wants the F-35 to include advancements that the 16 can't incorporate. Gen Chuck Horner proved this in Desert Storm when the Iraqis use of radar guide AAA & tac sams pushed the fight into the mid-high altitude bombing. The Brits tended to stick to low level where they were more effective but had far worse attrition. Horner was very wise to do this after he witnessed what the Egyptians were able to do to low flying Israeli aircraft. So for desert Storm we had worse bomb damage rates but far better attrition. Smart weapons changes the game a little in Close-Air-Support for not by much.

3.)Currently the reaper drones are more ISR focused with couple/few small stings (Hellfires) available should the opportunity arise. CS often demands a far more heavy weapons load like cluster munitions. The other issue with the reapers is that they are currently propeller driven, which means they take quite a bit of time to redeploy to the needed area. Newer faster drones with bigger payloads are under development and R&D but are still quit a ways out to being fielded.

4.) A drone lingering over the battlefield means that the enemy can bring far more anti-aircraft weapons to bare. Trying to linger at higher altitudes inside the envelope of something like a mobile SA-10/20 would be near impossible. Even some of the far more mobile TAC sams could get at you.

5.) The A-10 still has life in it as the fleet just got new wings/avionics and engines.But your right it does need to be replaced eventually. Just not with something inferior.

By gamerk2 on 4/14/2014 3:29:13 PM , Rating: 4
You seem to be disregarding the A-10's primary armament:

Who needs payload when you have several thousand rounds of explosives built in? Compared to what, four hardpoints to carry bombs? Hope the enemy never travels in groups larger then four...

Hence the fatal flaw of the JSF: No carrying capacity. You are too limited to deal with large groups of enemies without dispatching multiple jets, which immediately makes the A-10 a cheaper option.

Hence why the Army LOVES the thing. I say screw the old agreements, and give the cost of operating the A-10 to the army. Problem solves.

By MrBlastman on 4/14/2014 3:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on what angle you shoot at them from. You typically want to shoot the MBTs from top-down (i.e. above them) or from behind. The front and sides are most heavily armored.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2014 5:57:51 PM , Rating: 5
Avenger isn't that effective against MBT's. A-10 would most likely use missiles to take out a T-80 or similar.

I just have to ask...

Are you a retard?

Saying the A-10's main gun isn't "effective" against tanks is like saying a sledgehammer isn't "effective" against an egg!

If was specifically DESIGNED to defeat heavy armor. Wtf? It fires some of the most advanced armor-defeating rounds on the planet, at 4,000 rounds a minute.

A T-80 tank, hell even a T-90, might as well be an aluminum Coke can as far as the A-10 is concerned.

By sorry dog on 4/14/2014 6:37:25 PM , Rating: 1
Saying the A-10 is a flying tank shouldn't be taken to literally. It's still an airplane, and airplanes can be shot down. If an A-10 can go to a particular area because the risk is acceptable then an F16, Beagle, or Stubby (F35) can go there too. Yes, the cannon is awesome, but so are JDAMs, LMAVs, and even from 7,000 feet an F16 CEP with a dumb bomb is around 80 feet or less. The Manpads aren't so effective over that altitude and the 35 can operated even if there are some lingering medium and long range SAM threats.

Now, if Congress wants to give the AF some extra money to keep some A10's around then I'm all for it. But in the sequestration era where some hard choices have to made, I'd rather the guys flying and fighting or at least used to do so make the decisions instead of the desk pilots.

By Fritzr on 4/14/2014 9:48:39 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize that it is the desk pilots saying kill the A10 and it is the troops who will be requesting air support wanting an A10 to stop by when they ask for support.

In short, it is the people who will not need the assistance who are in favor of the F16/F35/AC130 ... the people who will be under fire when they request assistance prefer to see an A10 in their sky.

By JediJeb on 4/23/2014 6:19:03 PM , Rating: 3
Come in close, low and slow as most ground support does( few hundred feet altitude and maybe 200mph) and ask a pilot if they would rather be in an A-10 or an F16/F35. Just having that heavy titanium bathtub to sit in help a lot when you have troops on the ground lobing small arms fire at you, or even some AA. Also in the first Gulf War one A-10 actually flew home with half of a wing blown off, not so easy for something like the F16/F35 to do.

I used to live near where some A10s trained. You really don't know they are coming until they are right on top of you. I have been standing in a field when one came over only a few hundred feet above the ground and by the time you could see it over the trees, it would have been too late to run. An F16 would either need to be much higher up or flying too fast to really react when it saw you in that situation, the A10 though could have taken us out easily.

By corduroygt on 4/15/2014 9:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
You're the bald retard buddy. Ask A-10 pilots if you don't believe me. It was designed to kill 60's tanks and anything lighter. Newer tanks have better armor and the A-10 pilot will be going for the Maverick missiles against something like a T-90 or Leopard or Abrams.

By bug77 on 4/15/2014 9:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
According to this: the Avenger can penetrate 30mm of armor at 1,000m or 69mm at 500m. Couldn't even break open the front of a Tiger.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2014 6:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
Wtf? The A-10 destroyed over 1,000 Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm. A LOT of those were gun kills.

And no A-10 pilot would bother attacking the "front" of a tank where the armor is thickest. Duh! They hit the top of the turret, shredding the occupants and setting off the magazine. Or attack the rear, and obliterate the engine.

the Avenger can penetrate 30mm of armor at 1,000m or 69mm at 500m.

Sure a single round. What you need to think about is the cumulative effect of dozens of hits of a depleted Uranium penetrator within milliseconds of each other does to armor.

Do your own research. There's hundreds of videos from Desert Storm of A-10's strafing tanks to death.

By therealnickdanger on 4/17/2014 10:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I wrote a report on the A10 for school during the first Gulf War with a section dedicated the Avenger. The GAU8 is ridiculous. It's like getting hit by Thor's Mjolnir 60 times per second (if such a thing existed). Insane kinetic energy + insane accuracy = insane damage. The recoil force alone is greater than the thrust output of one of the two engines. In the hands of a skilled pilot, it's like the finger of God.

Yes, I have a slight man-crush on the A10.

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton
Related Articles

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki