12
12
0
A nice review from wired magazine.
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/?mbid=social_twitter
Source: Wired Magazine
For more than 30 years, the A-10 Thunderbolt II—better known as the Warthog because it’s so ugly—has performed a crucial role: attacking hostile targets that threaten troops on the ground, a task called close air support. The plane, designed for the Cold War, is old. It’s slow. And it’s about as sophisticated as a hammer. But it is heavily armored and wickedly armed, making it a ruthlessly effective weapon. And that is why, despite ongoing efforts by Defense Department brass to kill it, the Warthog is headed back into battle to help in the fight against ISIS.
An undisclosed number of Warthogs, part of the “Blacksnakes” 163rd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron based at Fort Wayne, Indiana, have been deployed to Middle Eastern airbases to provide air cover to troops fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
That makes the A-10 something of a zombie—it refuses to die. The Air Force wants to scuttle the 238 A-10s still in service, a move that would save $3.7 billion over five years—and make way for more sophisticated planes like the new F-35 Lightning II. But given the crucial role it plays providing close air support, something particularly helpful against enemies in a place like Iraq, the A-10 has many staunch defenders, including Senator John McCain.
Close air support is a vital job that, when properly executed, can mean the difference between life and death for soldiers. It’s highly dangerous, because it requires flying at altitudes low enough to discern friend from foe, leaving the plane particularly vulnerable to ground-based anti-aircraft fire. The A-10, little more than a flying tank, is perfectly suited to the task and beloved by pilots and troops alike.
“It’s a game-changer,” Gen. John F. Campbell, the Army’s vice chief of staff, told The Washington Post earlier this year. “It’s ugly. It’s loud, but when it comes in and you hear that pffffff [of the cannon], it just makes a difference.” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called it “the ugliest, most beautiful aircraft on the planet.”
What makes the plane’s continued relevance so impressive is the fact it was designed more than 40 years ago, and a new one hasn’t been built since 1984.
The Fairchild Republic A-10 was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, even as American helicopters were being shot down in Vietnam with frightening regularity. It was the first airplane designed specifically for close air support, with the goal of defending soldiers against artillery, tanks and other weapons.
It was basically designed to “take apart a Soviet tank,” says Jeffery S. Underwood, a historian at the United States Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. To that end, the A-10 typically is equipped with the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile and is capable of carrying many other armaments, including AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.
But its primary weapon is a seven-barrel GAU-8 Avenger Gatling cannon. It measures 9 feet long and fires 30mm armor-piercing shells which are held in a drum not quite six feet in diameter. It can spit them out at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute, and accounts for some 16 percent of the plane’s unladen weight. The gun is so large and so integral to the A-10, that the airplane is effectively built around it. In fact, when the gun is removed for maintenance, the tail of the plane must be supported to keep it from falling over.
But all that firepower is useless if the plane can be easily shot down. “Close air support means you’re close to people,” says Underwood. That means you’re flying low, too — often just a few hundred feet up. Easy prey for anyone with bad intentions. The cockpit sits in what amounts to a 1,200-pound titanium tub, specifically designed to withstand fire from 23mm anti-aircraft shells at close range. The A-10 can take a ton of abuse, and continue flying if it’s lost an engine, a tail or even half of a wing.
The engines are quickly and easily replaced, most repairs can be made in the field, and many parts are interchangeable from the left side of the plane to the right. It can even take off from rough, unpaved runways. Although it typically flies at about 300 knots (350 mph), its large wing area, high wing aspect ratio and huge ailerons—almost 50 percent of the wingspan—make it highly maneuverable.
That durability and flexibility makes the plane, which was first flown in 1972 and deployed in late 1976, a pilot favorite. It proved its mettle during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when it was largely responsible for neutralizing much of Iraq’s artillery, tanks and missile defenses. And its exploits are damn near legendary.
In one famous A-10 incident, Air Force Capt. Kim Campbell was sent to defend Army troops in the early days of the Iraq War in 2003. After firing on Iraqi Republican Guard troops, Campbell took an epic amount of enemy fire. Both hydraulic systems failed, forcing the pilot to switch to “manual reversion,” a mechanical backup that allows limited flight capability. Campbell kept flying for more than hour, safely returning to Kuwait despite being riddled with hundreds of bullet holes and a massive hole in the right horizontal stabilizer.
You’d think the Air Force would want to keep the A-10 around, and Underwood concedes “it’s a very effective system,” but time is taking its toll.
“It’s getting older and more expensive to maintain, and that’s the problem,” he says.
Pentagon brass, including outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, would like to retire the jet by 2019. But the A-10 has key supporters in Congress, including McCain and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte (whose husband Joe flew the A-10 in Iraq). They argue there simply isn’t yet an adequate replacement. Not so, say those calling for the A-10’s retirement. The F-35 isn’t quite ready for battle, but they insist planes like the F-16 and the F-15E are up to the task.
That may be, but nothing elicits the same admiration for the Warthog, which is so ugly as to be beautiful, a machine designed to take no end of punishment even as it punishes those stand in its way. “Its ugliness makes it endearing,” Underwood says.
Unless you’re on the receiving end of that 30mm cannon.
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/?mbid=social_twitter
Source: Wired Magazine
For more than 30 years, the A-10 Thunderbolt II—better known as the Warthog because it’s so ugly—has performed a crucial role: attacking hostile targets that threaten troops on the ground, a task called close air support. The plane, designed for the Cold War, is old. It’s slow. And it’s about as sophisticated as a hammer. But it is heavily armored and wickedly armed, making it a ruthlessly effective weapon. And that is why, despite ongoing efforts by Defense Department brass to kill it, the Warthog is headed back into battle to help in the fight against ISIS.
An undisclosed number of Warthogs, part of the “Blacksnakes” 163rd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron based at Fort Wayne, Indiana, have been deployed to Middle Eastern airbases to provide air cover to troops fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
That makes the A-10 something of a zombie—it refuses to die. The Air Force wants to scuttle the 238 A-10s still in service, a move that would save $3.7 billion over five years—and make way for more sophisticated planes like the new F-35 Lightning II. But given the crucial role it plays providing close air support, something particularly helpful against enemies in a place like Iraq, the A-10 has many staunch defenders, including Senator John McCain.
Close air support is a vital job that, when properly executed, can mean the difference between life and death for soldiers. It’s highly dangerous, because it requires flying at altitudes low enough to discern friend from foe, leaving the plane particularly vulnerable to ground-based anti-aircraft fire. The A-10, little more than a flying tank, is perfectly suited to the task and beloved by pilots and troops alike.
“It’s a game-changer,” Gen. John F. Campbell, the Army’s vice chief of staff, told The Washington Post earlier this year. “It’s ugly. It’s loud, but when it comes in and you hear that pffffff [of the cannon], it just makes a difference.” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called it “the ugliest, most beautiful aircraft on the planet.”
What makes the plane’s continued relevance so impressive is the fact it was designed more than 40 years ago, and a new one hasn’t been built since 1984.
The Fairchild Republic A-10 was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, even as American helicopters were being shot down in Vietnam with frightening regularity. It was the first airplane designed specifically for close air support, with the goal of defending soldiers against artillery, tanks and other weapons.
It was basically designed to “take apart a Soviet tank,” says Jeffery S. Underwood, a historian at the United States Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. To that end, the A-10 typically is equipped with the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile and is capable of carrying many other armaments, including AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.
But its primary weapon is a seven-barrel GAU-8 Avenger Gatling cannon. It measures 9 feet long and fires 30mm armor-piercing shells which are held in a drum not quite six feet in diameter. It can spit them out at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute, and accounts for some 16 percent of the plane’s unladen weight. The gun is so large and so integral to the A-10, that the airplane is effectively built around it. In fact, when the gun is removed for maintenance, the tail of the plane must be supported to keep it from falling over.
But all that firepower is useless if the plane can be easily shot down. “Close air support means you’re close to people,” says Underwood. That means you’re flying low, too — often just a few hundred feet up. Easy prey for anyone with bad intentions. The cockpit sits in what amounts to a 1,200-pound titanium tub, specifically designed to withstand fire from 23mm anti-aircraft shells at close range. The A-10 can take a ton of abuse, and continue flying if it’s lost an engine, a tail or even half of a wing.
The engines are quickly and easily replaced, most repairs can be made in the field, and many parts are interchangeable from the left side of the plane to the right. It can even take off from rough, unpaved runways. Although it typically flies at about 300 knots (350 mph), its large wing area, high wing aspect ratio and huge ailerons—almost 50 percent of the wingspan—make it highly maneuverable.
That durability and flexibility makes the plane, which was first flown in 1972 and deployed in late 1976, a pilot favorite. It proved its mettle during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when it was largely responsible for neutralizing much of Iraq’s artillery, tanks and missile defenses. And its exploits are damn near legendary.
In one famous A-10 incident, Air Force Capt. Kim Campbell was sent to defend Army troops in the early days of the Iraq War in 2003. After firing on Iraqi Republican Guard troops, Campbell took an epic amount of enemy fire. Both hydraulic systems failed, forcing the pilot to switch to “manual reversion,” a mechanical backup that allows limited flight capability. Campbell kept flying for more than hour, safely returning to Kuwait despite being riddled with hundreds of bullet holes and a massive hole in the right horizontal stabilizer.
You’d think the Air Force would want to keep the A-10 around, and Underwood concedes “it’s a very effective system,” but time is taking its toll.
“It’s getting older and more expensive to maintain, and that’s the problem,” he says.
Pentagon brass, including outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, would like to retire the jet by 2019. But the A-10 has key supporters in Congress, including McCain and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte (whose husband Joe flew the A-10 in Iraq). They argue there simply isn’t yet an adequate replacement. Not so, say those calling for the A-10’s retirement. The F-35 isn’t quite ready for battle, but they insist planes like the F-16 and the F-15E are up to the task.
That may be, but nothing elicits the same admiration for the Warthog, which is so ugly as to be beautiful, a machine designed to take no end of punishment even as it punishes those stand in its way. “Its ugliness makes it endearing,” Underwood says.
Unless you’re on the receiving end of that 30mm cannon.
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 34
16
16
0
I challenge anyone to find a ground pounder who thinks this airframe should be retired.
(16)
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
I would SERIOUSLY PITY THE FOOL, I personally seen the AIRCRAFT DESIMATE THE IRAQI Republican Guard. It has earned my respect until the end of time. A giant of its era. Long live the A10 (AKA Tank Buster)!!
(7)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
SFC Mark Merino SFC Joe Davis - Yessss sir! You both took the words right out of my mouth. Better wash your hands now, you never know where it's been. lol
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Greed and politics. As I see it, a new aircraft means jobs and money and that helps the economy. That makes politicians giddy. Not the right thing for the right reasons,,,,
(3)
(0)
15
15
0
Ask a JTAC, SOF or Grunt what they want on station when the sh$t hits the fan... the mighty HOG. The GUN is the A-10, and everyone on the ground knows what the Hog brings to the fight. The upgraded versions do the job even better with precision capability, payload, loiter time, sensors... it does require a "permissive environment" to operate. We need to embrace that all situations are not the same, Afghanistan and Iraq are very different than Ukraine would be for instance, A-10, F-16, F-15E, F-18 are pretty useless in Ukraine if the Russians wanted to deny airspace. F-35 has its place there, at what capacity is TBD as the platform matures.
Bottom line, the A-10 has its place in the mix. Should be kept and upgraded until a suitable replacement is required. The F-35 isn't going to "replace" the A-10 in capability, cost to operate, etc.
Bottom line, the A-10 has its place in the mix. Should be kept and upgraded until a suitable replacement is required. The F-35 isn't going to "replace" the A-10 in capability, cost to operate, etc.
(15)
(0)
1LT Nick Kidwell
You know, the visual ID thing is important. During Desert Storm there were FF incidents that were basically due to technology replacing the person in identifying targets.
An A-10 pilot flies low enough and slow enough so that he (or she) can visually identify friendlies and hostiles. I would trust an experienced A-10 pilot to provide CAS within Danger-Close of my position because they have that training and the airframe gives them that ability.
An A-10 pilot flies low enough and slow enough so that he (or she) can visually identify friendlies and hostiles. I would trust an experienced A-10 pilot to provide CAS within Danger-Close of my position because they have that training and the airframe gives them that ability.
(5)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
I know grunts would appreciate it if they kept the A-10 nothing like seeing that thing coming in when your pinned down or just need the support.
(3)
(0)
1stSgt Edward Jackson
I disagree, LtCol. JP R. The Ruskies have no new systems that can effectively deny airspace to our F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, B-1s, B-52s, and A-10s. Yeah, they can shoot down an unarmed B-777 flying straight and level, but taking on combat systems with defenses and tactics of their own is a different animal.
Don't forget, if we need to "kick in the door" with stealth, we already have the B-2 and F-22 to do that. Our Gen.4 fighters are better than their Gen.4 fighters, and our pilots are better trained (and have more experience).
The F-35 will, one day, be a good fighter, and maybe capable of replacing the F-16. But that day is far in the future. In the meantime we should begin developing a second true Gen.5 fighter to stand beside the F-22, that F-35 is not that fighter. It is a jack of all trades, expert at none.
The question is do we really need stealth? Stealth is a good thing to have on war days 1, 2, & 3. Beyond that it just becomes an expensive paint job, as most, if not all air defenses (ground and air based) will have been eliminated. This will be done by a combination of high level stealth B-2s and F-22s, and low level B-1s, B-52s F-15Es, A-10s, F-16s, and USN/USAF cruise missiles using TFR and/or Terrain Masking, and other tactics.
Don't forget we may have Typhoons and Rafale, which also have some stealth capabilities.
Don't forget, if we need to "kick in the door" with stealth, we already have the B-2 and F-22 to do that. Our Gen.4 fighters are better than their Gen.4 fighters, and our pilots are better trained (and have more experience).
The F-35 will, one day, be a good fighter, and maybe capable of replacing the F-16. But that day is far in the future. In the meantime we should begin developing a second true Gen.5 fighter to stand beside the F-22, that F-35 is not that fighter. It is a jack of all trades, expert at none.
The question is do we really need stealth? Stealth is a good thing to have on war days 1, 2, & 3. Beyond that it just becomes an expensive paint job, as most, if not all air defenses (ground and air based) will have been eliminated. This will be done by a combination of high level stealth B-2s and F-22s, and low level B-1s, B-52s F-15Es, A-10s, F-16s, and USN/USAF cruise missiles using TFR and/or Terrain Masking, and other tactics.
Don't forget we may have Typhoons and Rafale, which also have some stealth capabilities.
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
14
14
0
This is the age old "engineer", "developer", "procurement", "manufacturer", battle that goes on in Washington. The USAF wants a new airframe. They hate spending money on old stuff. If they have their way, they will dump the A10 turn it into more standing statues on bases and then in 5 years say; "Oh hell! We sure could use that A10 if it was around, so guess we will just have to make some new airframe to take its place!" EVERYONE knows this AC is the best deployed airframe for Close Air Support in the history of warfare. I remember when they first came out and at Nellis they developed a instant reputation at Red Flag for their combat effectiveness and reliability. Then war proved their reputations were vastly underrated. As a SERE Instructor at Red and Green Flag, we watched daily as the A10 made mincemeat of the targets, sucked down geese in both engines and flew home. I've seen canopy's shattered, engines torn to shreds, huge holes in the airframe and nothing keeps that aircraft from bringing its pilot home safe. But, the bottom line is when the cost exceeds the effectiveness, they will dump it. However, there is no aircraft in the inventory, including those in development which is a dimple on the tail of the CAS A10. When I was in the Army, and we needed that CAS, I wish back in 68-70 in SEA we had the A10 there. Ask any infantry (Army or Marines) if they want the A10 and the universal answer is affirmative. Ask if they believe the F Series anything can take its place and the universal answer is a cuss word.
(14)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
MSgt Charles Johnson - That is an awesome picture. Have you ever watched the movie "Pentagon Wars"? It is based on a true story and if you have ever been in the military of government contracting you can really appreciate it.
(4)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
The Air Force has never been thrilled about Slow Movers in the Close Air Support role, but in the current Threat Environment, I would have to point out that it may be more cost effective to use an aircraft like the EMB314 Super Tucano than it is to rebuild the A10's again. Since we are using the A10 in a CAS role against Insurgents that don't have armor and where we have complete Air Superiority and a low anti aircraft threat, why not use an air frame designed for the mission instead of one built to kill tanks. What would really solve the problem would be to allow the Army to fly fixed wing and run their own CAS program, just like the Marines.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google