The A-10 Thunderbolt II heads back to Iraq
- Thread starter L_Sludger
- Start date
- Status
Enjoy...start at 6:10 for commentary, 6:22 for the action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMXTEowRpA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMXTEowRpA
The A10 and that gun have to be a very cost effective way of accomplishing the mission compared to an F22 or F35 and the million dollar missile.
I mean the Army could do it with MLRS as well. Pick out a grid square and launch the series of rockets. Nothing in that 1k by 1k box would be alive after the dust settles.
I mean the Army could do it with MLRS as well. Pick out a grid square and launch the series of rockets. Nothing in that 1k by 1k box would be alive after the dust settles.
Don't we also have artillery rounds that will follow a laser target designator and/or a GPS guided artillery round. Copperhead and Excalibur come to mind, IIRC.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The A10 and that gun have to be a very cost effective way of accomplishing the mission compared to an F22 or F35 and the million dollar missile.
I mean the Army could do it with MLRS as well. Pick out a grid square and launch the series of rockets. Nothing in that 1k by 1k box would be alive after the dust settles.
Isn't the issue that the A10 is vulnerable to small SAM's or even a large caliber machine gun? Without significant ground forces in the area, I'd assume a downed pilot wouldn't have much chance to be recovered. Or I suppose as well, that eyes on the ground often are needed for accurate targeting, or identifying a trap to down a plane or two...
The A10 and that gun have to be a very cost effective way of accomplishing the mission compared to an F22 or F35 and the million dollar missile.
I mean the Army could do it with MLRS as well. Pick out a grid square and launch the series of rockets. Nothing in that 1k by 1k box would be alive after the dust settles.
Isn't the issue that the A10 is vulnerable to small SAM's or even a large caliber machine gun? Without significant ground forces in the area, I'd assume a downed pilot wouldn't have much chance to be recovered. Or I suppose as well, that eyes on the ground often are needed for accurate targeting, or identifying a trap to down a plane or two...
Indylan is correct. The A10 is a down and dirty aircraft. Using them raises the chances of a pilot being captured. I would not want to be in the hands of ISIS.
The A10 is pretty rugged. Small arms probably won't take it down. A hand held ground to air might, depending on where and if it gets a hit. I believe the A10 has chaff, flares and the like, not to mention the externally mounted engines.
From what I've read, they can fly home, or at least away, with only one working engine.
No solution is perfect. After all, with artillery, you have to have a battery close enough to fire, not to mention an FO who knows what he's doing to call rounds in on target, etc.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The A10 and that gun have to be a very cost effective way of accomplishing the mission compared to an F22 or F35 and the million dollar missile.
I mean the Army could do it with MLRS as well. Pick out a grid square and launch the series of rockets. Nothing in that 1k by 1k box would be alive after the dust settles.
Isn't the issue that the A10 is vulnerable to small SAM's or even a large caliber machine gun? Without significant ground forces in the area, I'd assume a downed pilot wouldn't have much chance to be recovered. Or I suppose as well, that eyes on the ground often are needed for accurate targeting, or identifying a trap to down a plane or two...
From what I've read, they can fly home, or at least away, with only one working engine.
No solution is perfect. After all, with artillery, you have to have a battery close enough to fire, not to mention an FO who knows what he's doing to call rounds in on target, etc.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The A10 and that gun have to be a very cost effective way of accomplishing the mission compared to an F22 or F35 and the million dollar missile.
I mean the Army could do it with MLRS as well. Pick out a grid square and launch the series of rockets. Nothing in that 1k by 1k box would be alive after the dust settles.
Isn't the issue that the A10 is vulnerable to small SAM's or even a large caliber machine gun? Without significant ground forces in the area, I'd assume a downed pilot wouldn't have much chance to be recovered. Or I suppose as well, that eyes on the ground often are needed for accurate targeting, or identifying a trap to down a plane or two...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Isn't the issue that the A10 is vulnerable to small SAM's or even a large caliber machine gun? Without significant ground forces in the area, I'd assume a downed pilot wouldn't have much chance to be recovered. Or I suppose as well, that eyes on the ground often are needed for accurate targeting, or identifying a trap to down a plane or two...
Large caliber machine gun: Not really. Any gun would have to be pretty huge to knock out an A-10.
Other than that, yes, you're generally right.
At the same time, remember two things:
1. We've been deploying the A-10 for decades, including in counterterrorism campaigns. We know how to use it and how not to use it.
2. There is a LONG list of reasons why no one in the military leadership, right up to POTUS, does NOT want an American casualty or prisoner in this fight.
I think it's a good bet that the commanders have made a good assessment of the threat and feel that the A-10 should be relatively safe. We shall see.
I'm much more worried about the helicopters we're apparently using now. That's a whole new level of vulnerable...
Isn't the issue that the A10 is vulnerable to small SAM's or even a large caliber machine gun? Without significant ground forces in the area, I'd assume a downed pilot wouldn't have much chance to be recovered. Or I suppose as well, that eyes on the ground often are needed for accurate targeting, or identifying a trap to down a plane or two...
Large caliber machine gun: Not really. Any gun would have to be pretty huge to knock out an A-10.
Other than that, yes, you're generally right.
At the same time, remember two things:
1. We've been deploying the A-10 for decades, including in counterterrorism campaigns. We know how to use it and how not to use it.
2. There is a LONG list of reasons why no one in the military leadership, right up to POTUS, does NOT want an American casualty or prisoner in this fight.
I think it's a good bet that the commanders have made a good assessment of the threat and feel that the A-10 should be relatively safe. We shall see.
I'm much more worried about the helicopters we're apparently using now. That's a whole new level of vulnerable...
I went and read the A10 wiki, and its surprising how few they lost in both Iraq operations. I suppose the Iraqis don't seem to be the competent opponents, but still, that was a lot of low and slow work to only lose 5.
I suppose the question is how many current Russian small AA missiles did ISIS capture from Syria? I guess the assumption is that the ISIS guys won't be running away as easily as the Iraqis, especially if they have weapons that might actually work on our aircraft.
I also noticed that no A10s were ever sold to other countries. I wonder if they were deemed too simple/tough, than they could actually be operated successfully by a group like ISIS or by a small 3rd world country? I wonder how long it would go on just simple maintenance like oil changes, with all the back up systems?
I suppose the question is how many current Russian small AA missiles did ISIS capture from Syria? I guess the assumption is that the ISIS guys won't be running away as easily as the Iraqis, especially if they have weapons that might actually work on our aircraft.
I also noticed that no A10s were ever sold to other countries. I wonder if they were deemed too simple/tough, than they could actually be operated successfully by a group like ISIS or by a small 3rd world country? I wonder how long it would go on just simple maintenance like oil changes, with all the back up systems?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'm much more worried about the helicopters we're apparently using now. That's a whole new level of vulnerable...
Just ask the Soviets/Russians about helicopters. The Afghans became pretty adept at dropping Soviet rotary wing aircraft with Stingers.
I'm much more worried about the helicopters we're apparently using now. That's a whole new level of vulnerable...
Just ask the Soviets/Russians about helicopters. The Afghans became pretty adept at dropping Soviet rotary wing aircraft with Stingers.
It would be interesting to see the A-10 at airshows-no support, just the pilot and his plane. I talked to one locally and told him that much of the testing of the Gau8/A ammo was done by Honeywell in a basement indoor 1000" range about 8 miles from where we were chatting. It started as a quick/cheap range in the 60's to test 'blooper gun' 40mm rounds used with the M-79 and M203 launchers. When that development moved into production, and testing moved to an arsenal outdoor range, the Gau8/A testing moved in-a whole different animal! and that high velocity 30mm shook the middle third of the building when we fired. Seems crazy now, but that's how it went and kept going that way for many years.
I have crawled all over one of these in Tampa Fl at the base there.
It has a titanium tub under the pilot and a special canopy of bullet proof (resistant) material.
A really good 50 caliber gun could hurt it but it takes a lucky shot. Very survivable platform, and that rotary cannon is unreal...
It has a titanium tub under the pilot and a special canopy of bullet proof (resistant) material.
A really good 50 caliber gun could hurt it but it takes a lucky shot. Very survivable platform, and that rotary cannon is unreal...
I was reading the A-10 story in the Nov Aviation History mag and it had about nothing good to say about the institutional attitude of the AF leadership since it's 1947 independence from the Army. It seems they were all about the AF operating as they saw things and not as DOD needed it to work with the other services. Of course, there is always a fair amount of such present with big money/power/egos. Interesting read anyway.
A-10 is perfect for irregular warfare against ISIS or similar groups.
Still, I was in Bosnia when A-10 was targeting Serb tanks. They were very careful not to go too low since Serb's had very capable air defense units with IR missiles. For that, F-15E is the key.
I was watching from our side how they were targeting tanks, and we could see that for A-10 big problem was lack of power to get out.
Still, I was in Bosnia when A-10 was targeting Serb tanks. They were very careful not to go too low since Serb's had very capable air defense units with IR missiles. For that, F-15E is the key.
I was watching from our side how they were targeting tanks, and we could see that for A-10 big problem was lack of power to get out.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
A-10 is perfect for irregular warfare against ISIS or similar groups.
Still, I was in Bosnia when A-10 was targeting Serb tanks. They were very careful not to go too low since Serb's had very capable air defense units with IR missiles. For that, F-15E is the key.
I was watching from our side how they were targeting tanks, and we could see that for A-10 big problem was lack of power to get out.
Sounds logical.
A-10 is about perfect for an ill-equipped, primitive enemy. Come up against a far more advanced, modern, and better equipped military...and it's not such a great platform.
Awesome aircraft when used appropriately though.
A-10 is perfect for irregular warfare against ISIS or similar groups.
Still, I was in Bosnia when A-10 was targeting Serb tanks. They were very careful not to go too low since Serb's had very capable air defense units with IR missiles. For that, F-15E is the key.
I was watching from our side how they were targeting tanks, and we could see that for A-10 big problem was lack of power to get out.
Sounds logical.
A-10 is about perfect for an ill-equipped, primitive enemy. Come up against a far more advanced, modern, and better equipped military...and it's not such a great platform.
Awesome aircraft when used appropriately though.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: edyvw
A-10 is perfect for irregular warfare against ISIS or similar groups.
Still, I was in Bosnia when A-10 was targeting Serb tanks. They were very careful not to go too low since Serb's had very capable air defense units with IR missiles. For that, F-15E is the key.
I was watching from our side how they were targeting tanks, and we could see that for A-10 big problem was lack of power to get out.
Sounds logical.
A-10 is about perfect for an ill-equipped, primitive enemy. Come up against a far more advanced, modern, and better equipped military...and it's not such a great platform.
Awesome aircraft when used appropriately though.
Absolutely agree.
That is problem with F35. One size fits all cannot work.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
A-10 is perfect for irregular warfare against ISIS or similar groups.
Still, I was in Bosnia when A-10 was targeting Serb tanks. They were very careful not to go too low since Serb's had very capable air defense units with IR missiles. For that, F-15E is the key.
I was watching from our side how they were targeting tanks, and we could see that for A-10 big problem was lack of power to get out.
Sounds logical.
A-10 is about perfect for an ill-equipped, primitive enemy. Come up against a far more advanced, modern, and better equipped military...and it's not such a great platform.
Awesome aircraft when used appropriately though.
Absolutely agree.
That is problem with F35. One size fits all cannot work.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
USAF wants (needs) more money for the F-35 program.
Seen them quite a bit training here in the southern adirondacks. I was usually out in the boat fishing. used to be a weekly deal. had one fly over me at near treetop level once... Wow! They will go over there and hopefully make a difference. If they had stayed stationed there, maybe things be alot different now.
- Status
