What news about A-10's from across the Big Pond?

I would like to ask our Yank friends from across the Big Pond, what's the news on the A-10 Thunderbolt II?

I only ask because ever since the first one landed at RAF Biggin-Hill in the late 70's, I have had this 'thing' about them.

I even went on 'patrol' with a Snowdrop friend of mine [and his dog Winston Churchill] because he had to patrol the flight line.

Up close they are one ugly aircraft but Jesus! That gatling gun is something else. I've still got the pics I took.

Then there was the time 3 friends and I were trekkign across the Brecons one New Year's eve.

A couple of A-10s flkew overhead, really low and well under the 500 feet they were supposed to be flying at! Naturally we flicked the 'V' and used another international hand signal that rhymes with 'banker' and were rewarded with several very low level passes overhead and some very hard gut wrenching banks and weaves. Very impressive, especially when being flown at such low speeds.

Then, a few of us saw it in action at a firepower demo in Warminster on SPTA and that only confirmed my suspicion - you Yanks had come up with something to rival the Hind-D, the other great love of my life.

Over the years we've hears rumours about rumours, about the USAF scrapping them and replacing them with the puny F-16 for God's sake!

Of course GW II and Afghanistan have given the 'Devil's Cross' another lease of life. But what is to happen when you guys pull out?

Any news would be greatly appreciated - as would links to footage from Afghanistan.

The A-10 will be in service a bit longer, Right now the USAF is upgrading all A-10s to the A-10C standards. While I do not know the details about the upgrades, its safe to say to A-10 has earned its place in the Air Force. But the biggest problem they are having is the life span of the main wing spare. That has grounded a few A-10s already.

I love A-10's also, I would love to see a newer version

Lines Sorry

The Warthog was designed to combat the Soviet Tank threat back during the cold war.

The F-16 are considered multirole Fighters but are no where near the capability of the A-10.

The A-10's are designed to fly low and slow. Hence the straight wing design, as well as the wing spar eventually succumbing to stress failures.

All of the A-10's glass is bulletproof and the cockpit itself is surrounded by a heavy tub of titanium. Titanium armor protects both the pilot and critical areas of the flight control system. This titanium "bathtub" can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high explosive projectiles up to 37mm in size. The front windscreen can withstand up to a 23mm projectile. Fire retardant foam protects the fuel cells which are also self sealing in the event of puncture.

The F-16 is lighter and built for speed. AND cannot fly slow enough to really support ground forces as the A-10 could by maintaining an Eye on the enemy.

The only thing that they have in common are the Maverick Missiles. Which is what both are armed to kill tanks.

But times have changed and since the Soviet Tank Threat thru the Fulda Gap in Germany is no longer an issue....for which the A-10 was designed.

Times have changed. We have Apache Helicopter tank killers.

Great Plane though and derived from the P-47 of WWII which was also armored with self sealing tanks and practically indestructible from which the concept of the A-10 was derived.

There was actually a WWII story about a Luftwaffe Pilot tailing a P-47 low on fuel limping home back to the UK. The Luftwaffe pilot, lined up and emptied all of his rounds from his FW-190, in short bursts into the thing and it kept on flying !!

The Luftwaffe Pilot out of respect pulled along side , saluted the American Pilot and pulled away.


And is what the Warthog was designed after....Survivability of the aircraft and more importantly the pilot.





[edit on 21-8-2010 by nh_ee]

Originally posted by Pockets
I love A-10's also, I would love to see a newer version

Lines Sorry

Honestly it doesn't look too different then the older ones on the outside. It has a new "Glass" cockpit and some other avionic upgrades. On the outside looks the same except for a new paint job and some antennas.

reply to post by nh_ee[/url]

Therein lies the problem. The F-16 is primarily a fighter with a ground attack patch added on. Very much like our 'Tornado' and the superb Eurofighter 'Typhoon'.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is, as you say, a thoroughbred ground attack aircraft with the agility and load carrying capability of the old Viet Nam era Douglas A1-Skyraider.

Nothing delivers ordnance on tap quite like the A-10. Brits troops in Afghanistan prefer the A-10 and the Harrier (in that order) when requesting CAS.

The A-10 may be slow-ish but it, like the Harrier can loiter but unlike the harrier, it can deliver one hell of a punch.

My only question is, why try and fix something if it ain't broke?

The word i got was if the Air Force did not want the A-10s the Marines wanted them all for close air support.

The air force then decided that they did not want the Marines to have there own air force for close air support and started to up grade the A-10 to keep them.

the marines already have a name for them if they can get them.
"Marine Corps A-10 "Sea Hog"

The marines never did like the "Key West Agreement" or how it left the air force as close air support for there marines in some combat areas.

Just put a tail hook on the A-10 and there are a number of Marines that would fly it.

The A10 is one heck of an aircraft, built as a tank buster.

The problem is, that these days none of the small countries that America attacks has any tanks, so the A10 is really an aging solution still looking for a problem.

It may be a tank buster but what taliban want to be hiding on a hill side shooting at US troop and have 30 mm HE round hitting there position.

The 30 mm on the A-10 can hit small areas without causing a lot of collateral damage like a 500 pound bomb would.

reply to post by Silver Shadow[/url]

I just don't get why this is a problem! Okay the Red Bogerman ain't gonna come storming down the Fulda Gap but so what?

The A-10 is the ideal ground support aircraft for when you want something hammered in the dirt at a low-low height.

The F-16 is built for medium-high height and at the height those fighter jocks like to fly at, providing CAS in them or the F-18 mHornet is a non starter.

An exception of course is laser designated targets, but both the A-10 and the Harrier have that angle covered, so no need for F-16's, F-18's or Tornados - unless you want to carpet bomb a compound.

Somebody said they have the Apache. Great. What a pity it can't go as fast as a Chinook! Perhaps the Chinook should become the gunship and Apache can be released for other duties, like VIP taxi. (Sarcasm)

CAS needs to be done at low level. THAT was demonstrated during GW II when F-16 Jocks [allegedly] refused to fly low-low missions because they might get shot at, thus causing the RAF to fly Tornados on low-low missions against Iraqi airfields and SAM/gun sites.

A-10's also proved their worth against soft targets and after some upgrades, even went Scud hunting with some success.

So, my final thought for this bright sunny Brit Sunday morning is, if you Yanks don't want them, we'll have 'em. But only if they're free with frequent flyer air miles thrown in.

It may be a tank buster but what taliban want to be hiding on a hill side shooting at US troop and have 30 mm HE round hitting there position.

The 30 mm on the A-10 can hit small areas without causing a lot of collateral damage like a 500 pound bomb would.

A Apache helicopter gun ship with a Gatling gun would be far more effective against people hiding on the side of a hill.

You don't need the rate of fire or the armor piercing capability of the A10 to shoot at civilians on the ground.

The A-10 is based on highly successful Russian ground support aircraft, the stormovik. The Russian plane terrified German tankers and support crews as it had excellent close support capabilities.




en.citizendium.org...

"Soviet designers, as the Second World War approached, gave a special priority to aircraft optimized to destroy tanks; the first workable version was the Il-2 Shturmovik from the Ilyushin design bureau. Even though antitank operations were definitely in the planners' minds, the initial aircraft, the name of which means "Storm Bird" in Russian, were also general-purpose close air support planes. Current designers still cite it as an inspiration for armored CAS and antitank aircraft such as the Russian Su-25 and U.S. A-10"

The A10 is an amazing piece of work BUT…..
Pilots are the problem once they get higher in rank they are in charge and they have this Top Gun mentality and want small go fast fighters which is always against the A10.
I work on Harriers and I read a few here mention the bird. It’s junk, and needs replacing. If you ask for Harrier support it has 1 bomb and 300 rnds after you load 2 external tanks that it must have.
Drones are the future in CAS, a Reaper can fly for 72 hours and carry 2 bombs and 8 hellfires vs a Harriers 1 hour on station and low ordnance load.
The A10 is better, more ordnance and longer on station, but the drone still beats it….

reply to post by Steve8511[/url]

Au contrair Steve, Taranis will replace Reaper. Why? 'Cause it's really stealthy and can be used as a mother ship for up to four other aircraft via encrypted radio control.

Taranis is British and has already undergone 'certain' trials and will undergo another 'certain' trial later this year but I think this will be a missile firing.

My best guess is that it will fire Brimstone which ellegedly, is much better than Hellfire.

Not MY opinion, you understand. Its just what I have read on a certain MOD website.

The A-10 is a great bit of kit. It can drop a huge volume of 30mm into a small area, or provide straffing runs along longer targets (eg woodlines etc) and can unzip a compound in seconds few, shredding anyone inside.

There may be no tanks in our AOR, but the Warthog takes out other ground targets as well. The Apache was also designed as a tank buster, but it is being employed in the AP role too.

While drones are all nice and stuff, they don't have the cannon option of the A-10 or AH-64. This is needed for precision attacks against small targets. Plus I don't care how good the cameras are, there is no match for a man in the air for situational awareness.

Having utilised CAS from both platforms, I wouldn't feel naked having either A-10 or AH-64 above me.

reply to post by PaddyInf[/url]

Steady on Paddy! That last bit looked a bit purvy to me! 1 x 30 mm shell every 1/2 an inch speaks for itself.

One of my acquaintancies was with the Paras in Sangin when it really kicked off a couple of years ago. He was a member of a joint service FAC (?) calling in sky to mud and he just enthused about the A-10 all day and night.

Said it were the best bit of kit he had ever played with. He even managed to get a straffing run to within 100 metres of a compound wall but had to call in a Harribird when the '10 went dry.

Originally posted by fritz
reply to post by PaddyInf[/url]

Steady on Paddy! That last bit looked a bit purvy to me!

Perversion is not the mouth that speaks it but the ears that hear it, you dirt old man!

One of my acquaintancies was with the Paras in Sangin when it really kicked off a couple of years ago. He was a member of a joint service FAC (?) calling in sky to mud and he just enthused about the A-10 all day and night.

I probably met him then. I was involved in the siege of Sangin in 2006 myself, and was there again in 2008. We were part of the 3 Para battlegroup both times. He'll be able to tell you about the experiences we were faced with, and the God-send that was the A-10.

The A10 can carry much more than the Apache, is faster, has a longer range and higher endurance. Drones are not up to the same level of the A10 yet but they will eventually reach that level and they are the logical replacement for an A10.

To say it is "based on" the Strumovik is a bit silly. That's like saying the Abrams is based on the Tiger tank.

Originally posted by ariel bender

The A-10 is based on highly successful Russian ground support aircraft, the stormovik. The Russian plane terrified German tankers and support crews as it had excellent close support capabilities.




en.citizendium.org...

"Soviet designers, as the Second World War approached, gave a special priority to aircraft optimized to destroy tanks; the first workable version was the Il-2 Shturmovik from the Ilyushin design bureau. Even though antitank operations were definitely in the planners' minds, the initial aircraft, the name of which means "Storm Bird" in Russian, were also general-purpose close air support planes. Current designers still cite it as an inspiration for armored CAS and antitank aircraft such as the Russian Su-25 and U.S. A-10"