Legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts

[US Conservative]

The F35 is by far the superior aircraft, and when production costs are factored in its about the cost of the super hornet with significant performance superiority.

I love the A10 but its very much a niche aircraft, highly susceptible to ground fire and with minimal air to air defense. Low and slow will do that. A10's are used like other strike fighters-its guns are used only after its expended its bomb load, and the gun is less effective and more dangerous to innocents. Bombs are the most effective weapon-not guns.

The F35 brings more weapons (also more advanced) to the fight, has well over twice the speed and 3 times the range.

I think the A10 would be a good aircraft for our arab allies in fighting terror, and if needed they could be easily destroyed by our more modern aircraft.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I love the A10 but its very much a niche aircraft, highly susceptible to ground fire and with minimal air to air defense.

Ya wanna know something? I think somebody forgot to tell the A-10 that it is so susceptible.

We have had A-10s return home with absolutely staggering battle damage, and the pilots were safe and many times the aircraft was quickly patched up and returned to service. Entire engines blown off by SAMs, half of wings blown off, body shredded with 23mm explosive rounds, armor piercing rounds, even RPGs.

What you are making a mistake in, is in confusing susceptible (likely to be harmed by) and vulnerable (likely to be damaged-destroyed by). By your definition, tanks are susceptible to small arms fire, but they are not really vulnerable to it. The Warthog is specifically designed to throw off battle damage which would destroy any other aircraft in the US inventory. And ironically, it's very low speeds and low altitude capability actually protect it from a lot of air defense missile systems.

Ironically, it's only real major enemy comes from ground based anti-aircraft guns (like the Zu-23). But even then, it takes a lot of hits from one to take down an A-10.

 

[UtahBill]

Then you have to say what aircraft you want given up.

how about the B52? drop it, keep the A10.

 

[Tim the plumber]

If it's going to save billions by sacking it then it is not as cheap as you think

Also, those pictures of damaged A-10s; They got hit. A drone dropping a bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet would be hit a lot less and not a big problem if it goes down.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The F35 is by far the superior aircraft, and when production costs are factored in its about the cost of the super hornet with significant performance superiority.

I love the A10 but its very much a niche aircraft, highly susceptible to ground fire and with minimal air to air defense. Low and slow will do that. A10's are used like other strike fighters-its guns are used only after its expended its bomb load, and the gun is less effective and more dangerous to innocents. Bombs are the most effective weapon-not guns.

The F35 brings more weapons (also more advanced) to the fight, has well over twice the speed and 3 times the range.

I think the A10 would be a good aircraft for our arab allies in fighting terror, and if needed they could be easily destroyed by our more modern aircraft.

I've watched an A-10 lose half a wing once, still finished his runs for us. I preferred nothing else above me. My favorite to work with.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If it's going to save billions by sacking it then it is not as cheap as you think

Also, those pictures of damaged A-10s; They got hit. A drone dropping a bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet would be hit a lot less and not a big problem if it goes down.

A drone is not a CAS aircraft. A "bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet" just does not happen in a CAS role. And we do not use drones in CAS at all unless it is absolutely that or the friendly forces are about to be wiped out.

Talk apples and apples, not tomatoes and grapefruit. The CAS is a CAS aircraft. Drones and aircraft that drop bombs are 10,000 feet are not CAS aircraft. Might as well say the F-15 is a nuclear bomber because it can drop a nuclear bomb.

 

[US Conservative]

Ya wanna know something? I think somebody forgot to tell the A-10 that it is so susceptible.

We have had A-10s return home with absolutely staggering battle damage, and the pilots were safe and many times the aircraft was quickly patched up and returned to service. Entire engines blown off by SAMs, half of wings blown off, body shredded with 23mm explosive rounds, armor piercing rounds, even RPGs.

What you are making a mistake in, is in confusing susceptible (likely to be harmed by) and vulnerable (likely to be damaged-destroyed by). By your definition, tanks are susceptible to small arms fire, but they are not really vulnerable to it. The Warthog is specifically designed to throw off battle damage which would destroy any other aircraft in the US inventory. And ironically, it's very low speeds and low altitude capability actually protect it from a lot of air defense missile systems.

Ironically, it's only real major enemy comes from ground based anti-aircraft guns (like the Zu-23). But even then, it takes a lot of hits from one to take down an A-10.

Im not denying its a tough aircraft. But it was designed in the days when low altitude SAMs weren't a significant threat (they were primitive), and so anti aircraft fire was seen as the bigger threat.

In the modern battlefield they are simply unsafe-this is why they only fly in low threat environments. Another similar aircraft-the frogfoot isn't flying in Russia/Ukraine right now because modern missiles are dropping them like its cool.

If missiles are fired-whos safer the low/slow A10 or the F35?

 

[US Conservative]

how about the B52? drop it, keep the A10.

The B52 is currently being upgraded to hold a massive bomb load of guided munitions. For our military, a high flying aircraft with enormous loiter time and a huge load out is attractive.

 

[US Conservative]

A drone is not a CAS aircraft. A "bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet" just does not happen in a CAS role. And we do not use drones in CAS at all unless it is absolutely that or the friendly forces are about to be wiped out.

Talk apples and apples, not tomatoes and grapefruit. The CAS is a CAS aircraft. Drones and aircraft that drop bombs are 10,000 feet are not CAS aircraft. Might as well say the F-15 is a nuclear bomber because it can drop a nuclear bomb.

Ive been reading up on this and the purpose of CAS is to accurately deliver munitions as quickly as possible. With guided munitions, altitude is very much a plus because it keeps the aircrew safer while allowing excellent accuracy. In fact thats how the A10 is largely used these days, it flies the same patterns as other fighters, and drops bombs from altitude, guns are only used when bombs are expended, and they aren't guided. On top of this, the A10 has significantly less range and must be "babysat" by more capable fighters should a threat appear.

 

[Redress]

A drone is not a CAS aircraft. A "bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet" just does not happen in a CAS role. And we do not use drones in CAS at all unless it is absolutely that or the friendly forces are about to be wiped out.

Talk apples and apples, not tomatoes and grapefruit. The CAS is a CAS aircraft. Drones and aircraft that drop bombs are 10,000 feet are not CAS aircraft. Might as well say the F-15 is a nuclear bomber because it can drop a nuclear bomb.

CAS is a job. If the job can be done with LGBs and Mavericks(or whatever they use these days), then that is CAS. I do not think drones are going to be a major CAS platform, but the issue is not altitude.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Im not denying its a tough aircraft. But it was designed in the days when low altitude SAMs weren't a significant threat (they were primitive), and so anti aircraft fire was seen as the bigger threat.

In the modern battlefield they are simply unsafe-this is why they only fly in low threat environments. Another similar aircraft-the frogfoot isn't flying in Russia/Ukraine right now because modern missiles are dropping them like its cool.

If missiles are fired-whos safer the low/slow A10 or the F35?

Not sure where you are going with this really. The Soviet Strela-2 and Strela-3 were already in use by this time, and had shot down at least 40-50 aircraft in Vietnam by 1975. The SA-7/SA-13 was a considerable threat even before the A-10 was designed. And this threat was taken in careful consideration in the design of the aircraft.

Unlike conventional fighters where the engines were inside the body of the fighter (F-15/F-16), the engines for the A-10 were built not only outside of the aircraft, but on pylons extending it away from the body. Since MANPADs (then and now) were designed to go after the engines, this helped to keep the damage only to the engine, and lessen damage to the aircraft itself. And the specifications were that the aircraft would be able to fly even on only one engine.

So sorry, this threat was as real then as it is now, and was taken into consideration when the aircraft was built.

For the Ukraine, your claims are largely worthless. This is a "Battle between a Fascist state and a local popular uprising", and the Russians have deployed limited (or no) resources, and their Air Forces have not been involved at all really, with any of their aircraft.

As for missiles fired at which aircraft, it depends on which missile and where. You can not make this a simple black-white answer like this. But by and large, I would say the A-10. It has defensive countermeasures, just like the F-35. It also is a rugged and durable aircraft, designed to take a lot of damage. It has 2 engines and can fly on 1, the F-35 has a single engine. In combat, it operates below the level if the most powerful surface-to-air missiles, the F-35 operates directly in their peak vulnerability window.

The only real threat to an A-10 during a mission is from direct fire land weapons (like the ZU-23) and MANPADS. And it's design takes that firmly in mind. An aircraft generally has to be at least 500 meters in altitude before any RADAR guided missiles can even be fired at it, A-10s only fly at altitudes like that when loitering, or flying to-from a mission. During missions when they are most vulnerable they are flying at altitudes much lower then that. "Low" is exactly what keeps them safe from the vast majority of missile systems. Missiles other then MANPADs (or vehicle mounted MANPADs like the AVENGER) simply can't be fired at targets that low.

Sorry, but remember what my profession was for many years. Do you really want to go into battle with me on what air defenses can and can not do? Think on this, why do you think our biggest worry as the crew of a PATRIOT system was a helicopter like the HIND getting through our outer defenses? Hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced technology air defense missiles, and we were most scared of a helicopter. Because just like the A-10, it was armored, had a strong punch, and it was just to damned low for us to shoot it down.

 

[Oozlefinch]

CAS is a job. If the job can be done with LGBs and Mavericks(or whatever they use these days), then that is CAS. I do not think drones are going to be a major CAS platform, but the issue is not altitude.

Yes, altitude actually is the issue.

Unless you have absolutely no concern for friendly fire casualties. Being low means you get better visuals on where each side is, and can place the ordinance with more precision where it needs to go.

 

[Redress]

Yes, altitude actually is the issue.

Unless you have absolutely no concern for friendly fire casualties. Being low means you get better visuals on where each side is, and can place the ordinance with more precision where it needs to go.

That is why I specified LGBs and Mavericks.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Ive been reading up on this and the purpose of CAS is to accurately deliver munitions as quickly as possible. With guided munitions, altitude is very much a plus because it keeps the aircrew safer while allowing excellent accuracy. In fact thats how the A10 is largely used these days, it flies the same patterns as other fighters, and drops bombs from altitude, guns are only used when bombs are expended, and they aren't guided. On top of this, the A10 has significantly less range and must be "babysat" by more capable fighters should a threat appear.

OK, a quick lesson on "guided munitions". Primarily, these work in one of 3 different ways.

First, it is with a pre-programmed target placed into the system and basically following GPS or inertial tracking. This is perfectly fine if say the target is a large building, or an enemy encampment. A hit anywhere in the area is just fine, and you have blast damage to take out the rest. Aim for say the North side of Candlestick Park and hit the South Side, you still did your mission.

Second, you have a LASER designator in the aircraft. Once again, for hitting a large target, wonderful. You want to hit a school sized building, or a vehicle park, great. Large target, no friendly forces expected to be in the area. Blast effects close by, not a consideration. The pilot also has to keep the crosshairs of the LASER on the target at all times, not all that easy if they are taking ground fire (which in actual CAS happens all to often).

Finally, you have a ground based LASER designator that the troops on the ground carry. Not to many Air Force aircraft carry munitions to track on these systems, and they have to be manually programmed into the aircraft. This is why Marine Corps and Navy F-18s have a second crewman as the Weapons Systems Officer. They are able to handle all of the weapons targeting (including programming PGMs) to follow a designator on the ground. The Air Force just does not do that.

Now you have CAS, and you have CAS. Sure, any aircraft can do "CAS", even a B-52 bomber at 50,000 feet. But when the Indians are beating on the door of the fort, you need specialized and dedicated aircraft and pilots to be able to take out those Indians without blowing the fort sky-high.

I think what I find absolutely amazing, is that all of us who have actually served on the ground love these birds. We have trained with them, we know their capabilities, and know what they can and can not do. And most of the people saying they should be cancelled seem to have pretty much no experience in what being in the Infantry is like, or what our needs are for close air support. Constantly throwing in things that really do not apply, making comments on things that are not real when it comes to use in CAS, assuming that because we can throw a missile through a window at 35,000 feet, we can also drop 250 pounds of ordinance within 100 meters of friendly positions and not harm our side.

There have been cases of CAS missions being called off simply because an A-10, AC-130, or another "slow mover" was not available. Troops on the ground really do not trust F-15s/F-16s (and only Marines with laser designators trust F-18s) in a true CAS mission. Sure, those are great when the target is an artillery or mortar position a klick away where overshot ordinance is not really a threat. But if the enemy is in rifle range, they would rather go it alone then get killed by their own side.

 

[US Conservative]

Not sure where you are going with this really. The Soviet Strela-2 and Strela-3 were already in use by this time, and had shot down at least 40-50 aircraft in Vietnam by 1975. The SA-7/SA-13 was a considerable threat even before the A-10 was designed. And this threat was taken in careful consideration in the design of the aircraft.

Unlike conventional fighters where the engines were inside the body of the fighter (F-15/F-16), the engines for the A-10 were built not only outside of the aircraft, but on pylons extending it away from the body. Since MANPADs (then and now) were designed to go after the engines, this helped to keep the damage only to the engine, and lessen damage to the aircraft itself. And the specifications were that the aircraft would be able to fly even on only one engine.

So sorry, this threat was as real then as it is now, and was taken into consideration when the aircraft was built.

For the Ukraine, your claims are largely worthless. This is a "Battle between a Fascist state and a local popular uprising", and the Russians have deployed limited (or no) resources, and their Air Forces have not been involved at all really, with any of their aircraft.

As for missiles fired at which aircraft, it depends on which missile and where. You can not make this a simple black-white answer like this. But by and large, I would say the A-10. It has defensive countermeasures, just like the F-35. It also is a rugged and durable aircraft, designed to take a lot of damage. It has 2 engines and can fly on 1, the F-35 has a single engine. In combat, it operates below the level if the most powerful surface-to-air missiles, the F-35 operates directly in their peak vulnerability window.

The only real threat to an A-10 during a mission is from direct fire land weapons (like the ZU-23) and MANPADS. And it's design takes that firmly in mind. An aircraft generally has to be at least 500 meters in altitude before any RADAR guided missiles can even be fired at it, A-10s only fly at altitudes like that when loitering, or flying to-from a mission. During missions when they are most vulnerable they are flying at altitudes much lower then that. "Low" is exactly what keeps them safe from the vast majority of missile systems. Missiles other then MANPADs (or vehicle mounted MANPADs like the AVENGER) simply can't be fired at targets that low.

Sorry, but remember what my profession was for many years. Do you really want to go into battle with me on what air defenses can and can not do? Think on this, why do you think our biggest worry as the crew of a PATRIOT system was a helicopter like the HIND getting through our outer defenses? Hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced technology air defense missiles, and we were most scared of a helicopter. Because just like the A-10, it was armored, had a strong punch, and it was just to damned low for us to shoot it down.

I started a thread on this topic last month here... http://www.debatepolitics.com/military/211713-im-starting-change-my-thinking-10-a.html
In the op I link to some of the reading that influenced my view. I can't argue against the direct personal experience you have (and hate it when others do that to me) however I see similar views mentioned by military sources elsewhere as well. If you say otherwise, it does carry significant weight.

A few questions though (consider me an armchair analyst), have anti-air missiles improved in the last 40 years? Are they more or less of a threat now? A10's were restricted in the gulf war because they were taking too many hits, other aircraft were not-why?

Are low/slow aircraft more or less susceptible to anti-air defenses?

Which is better able to evade anti air?

As for Ukraine-5 su-25's have been lost by Ukraine, to Ukrainian/Russian anti air. This has resulted in the grounding of aircraft by both sides-similar events happened in Afghanistan. How do you explain this?
Sukhoi Su-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Ukrainian aircraft losses during the 2014

Im not saying you are incorrect by any means, im saying how do you explain this?

 

[Oozlefinch]

That is why I specified LGBs and Mavericks.

For LGBs, read my last post. As a classic meme goes, "they are not what you think they are".

Maverick missile, also read my last post. 300-600 pound explosive warhead, blast radius of 75-200+ meters. This is not something you use close to friendly forces unless they are under some really good cover. Great for taking out a tank, an artillery position, a convoy of vehicles. Not good for taking out enemies close to your own forces. Plus remember, the pilot has to continue to concentrate guiding the weapon, not easy when they are likely being shot at.

One last time, Mavericks are generally not used as CAS, that was never their design or intention. But tell you what, think on this:

You are locked in a firefight at long range with an enemy force, 300 meters with incoming mortars and machine gun fire. Your only CAS is a fast mover who will be streaking in at 300 MPH at 15,000 feet, and this is what he drops...

But that is not really accurate, because that is the Anti-tank Maverick missile, with only a 100 pound warhead. For use against troops in the open he will be using a much larger ground attack version (3-4 times more powerful), with a large blast radius. And he only has seconds to determine where you are, and where the enemy is, primarily with eyeball and guessing based upon GPS coordinates. If he is off by as little as 50 meters, you are going to get smacked by the blast as well.

Starting to get an idea where this is going yet? Because I am tired of saying the same things over and over again. CAS is not just attacking some troops or equipment on the ground, it is attacking troops on the ground in direct contact with our own. That is the reason why our CAS before the A-10 was still WWII era prop aircraft. Because in the era of super-sonic fighter jets, they just could not provide what the forces on the ground needed.

 

[Oozlefinch]

A few questions though, have anti-air missiles improved in the last 40 years? Are they more or less of a threat now? A10's were restricted in the gulf war because they were taking too many hits, other aircraft were not-why?

Are low/slow aircraft more or less susceptible to anti-air defenses?

That is a hard question to answer. But the short answer is no, they have not really improved.

What has mostly improved is the RADAR and fire control systems. They are more agile, more powerful, and able to track more inbound threats and target more threats at the same time. Most systems 40 years ago could only track 4 or 5 missiles at a time, today they can literally track dozens of missiles at once. They are also smarter, able to intercept high speed targets much easier. Primarily their speeds and ranges have increased, letting them strike a target farther out then ever before.

But better as in "more lethal when they hit"? Nope, that has not changed in decades. In fact, ironically most systems are actually back-tracking, dumping the concept of "proximity fuse" and returning to "kinetic kill", like the gun based AA of WWII. Blast has been shown to not be as effective in many ways, so more missile systems are reverting to simply delivering a large kinetic kick and letting that do all the damage to the aircraft.

As for which is more susceptible, depends on the air defense itself. And I am only discussing the chance of hitting, not the damage it might create.

For "low and slow", the only real threat is MANPAD and direct fire weapons (ZU-23, .50 caliber, etc). RADAR based systems require a minimum altitude and distance in order to fire at an enemy. By design, the A-10 operates in combat below that altitude. Most RADAR based systems require 300-600 meters minimum altitude differential between the launching station and the target to be able to launch, and at least a 45 degree or higher angle deflection to see and track the target.

Say for PATRIOT, if the altitude is below say 500 meters, it can never be fired at. So if the aircraft is at 600 meters, it has to be at that altitude when it passes say 45% of the RADAR and launching system. In other words, it has to damned near be on top of it before it can be launched at. And guess what, the pilot knows the capabilities and has detection equipment of their own.

In Yuma in 2008 we had A-10s operating all through the wargame. But guess what, we never shot one down. They stayed well away from us and harassed the other targets like the long range RADAR systems, troop concentration locations, and logistic sites (we had no armor in those exercises). HINDs were a bit of a problem, which is why we and the Marines had STINGER and AVENGER teams scattered all around to take them out before they got to us.

However, we shot down tons of F-18s, F-15s, and F-16s. We even got a few Ospreys when they planned on landing near one battery and take it out with a ground assault, and flew to close to another on the way in.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Im not saying you are incorrect by any means, im saying how do you explain this?

It is apples and oranges. The biggest mistake I see most in here making is confusing ground attack with CAS. Ground attack is not CAS, it is taking out enemy ground targets where friendly casualties are not a consideration. The carpet bombing we see is very effective, but it is not CAS. We do not do attacks like that anywhere close to friendly forces. If you see enemy forces across a valley 6 klicks away and call in an air strike that is NOT CAS. Enemy forces on the other side of a river 2 kilometers away, that is not CAS. Now taking out an enemy artillery position that is firing on your forces is CAS, but once again it is far enough away where the risk of friendly fire is horribly low.

The problem many make is that they take all anti-air systems and throw them into this box marked "Air Defense", and think that is it. If you are talking about high and fast movers, they are actually at most danger to "conventional air defense" missiles. Most are within range of everything from a ZU-23 and MANPADS, up to the most powerful like the S-300/SA-10 series of missiles. In Air Defense, the general rule is that the lower you are, the safer you are (unless you can be so high that you are out of range of the missiles like the SR-71 was).

Pretty much any aircraft at a range of 750 meters to 30 miles elevation is vulnerable to conventional SAM attack. In this instance, the higher the worse off you are. Remember that attack angle, these missiles fire either straight up or at a slight angle, and can not go below the horizon of the RADAR system that controls them. This was a lot of the thinking specifically behind the B-1 after all. Penetration bomber, trying to fly as absolutely low as possible. Low flight, reduces chance of being seen, reduces capabilities to be attack by SAM systems.

It is not that you are incorrect, it is just that you are trying to get a complex question answered in a simple manner. But think on this...

If "low and slow" is not good, then why the AC-130? Why not an AC-10? Or AC-5 or AC-17? Why not turn an "obviously better" jet aircraft into a converted cargo plane made super ground attack plane? Because if the A-10 is worthless and should be abandoned, then obviously the AC-130 is even more worthless, it can not even withstand a fraction of the damage an A-10 can, and can not fly as fast either.

 

[Tim the plumber]

A drone is not a CAS aircraft. A "bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet" just does not happen in a CAS role. And we do not use drones in CAS at all unless it is absolutely that or the friendly forces are about to be wiped out.

Talk apples and apples, not tomatoes and grapefruit. The CAS is a CAS aircraft. Drones and aircraft that drop bombs are 10,000 feet are not CAS aircraft. Might as well say the F-15 is a nuclear bomber because it can drop a nuclear bomb.

I'm sure they can use drones in a close support role. They can then even relay the images from the drone to the ground commander and thus make extra sure they have the right target. There are indeed little drones that are used at company level to provide air reconnaissance to the guys on the ground.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'm sure they can use drones in a close support role. They can then even relay the images from the drone to the ground commander and thus make extra sure they have the right target. There are indeed little drones that are used at company level to provide air reconnaissance to the guys on the ground.

And I am sure they do not because of safety reasons (plus the fact that drones are reserved for specific strike missions, they do not carry much ordinance).

But tell you what. If you are right, prove it by giving some references that drones have indeed been used in CAS. Otherwise, you are just making things up.

 

[Tim the plumber]

And I am sure they do not because of safety reasons (plus the fact that drones are reserved for specific strike missions, they do not carry much ordinance).

But tell you what. If you are right, prove it by giving some references that drones have indeed been used in CAS. Otherwise, you are just making things up.

U.S. Military UAV tier system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modern concept of United States Department of Defense UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) is to have the various aircraft systems work together in support of personnel on the ground.

I'm sure they can use their drones in close support if they wish to. It might mean they have to take out some of the explosive. But they were using concrete filled "bombs" in the invasion of Iraq to avoid collateral damage. Easy in operation modification.

 

[Wiggen]

The A-10 is a tank killer, and will be great when the Russian tanks pour across the German border. Go A-10!

 

[Jack Hays]

No, actually it would not be profitable for any one to make them.


And we are going to have more because they are cost effective.



The air force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for quite some time. Your random conspiracy nonsense based on zero evidence does not fit.



New aircraft are going to be expensive and slow to get online. That has alot to do with the high expectations put on them. In the long run, those expectations are good things.



Or we could fly something more effective and more apt to actually be able to get off the ground when needed.

A question: It seems to me the Army's Apache helicopter and the A-10 have quite a bit of mission overlap. You seem to have expertise in these matters. Is there quite a bit of overlap?

A remembrance: My late father was a USAF pilot. He liked the A-10 but said it would never find favor with the USAF because it was not a "pilot's airplane."

 

[Oozlefinch]

U.S. Military UAV tier system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm sure they can use their drones in close support if they wish to. It might mean they have to take out some of the explosive. But they were using concrete filled "bombs" in the invasion of Iraq to avoid collateral damage. Easy in operation modification.

You are confusing concept with reality.

Sharks with frikking laser beams shooting out of their heads is a concept. The reality, not so real.

 

[Oozlefinch]

A question: It seems to me the Army's Apache helicopter and the A-10 have quite a bit of mission overlap. You seem to have expertise in these matters. Is there quite a bit of overlap?

A remembrance: My late father was a USAF pilot. He liked the A-10 but said it would never find favor with the USAF because it was not a "pilot's airplane."

There is, and there is not.

The primary reasons why we have helicopters is that they can literally operate from just about anywhere. They are not a rugged as aircraft, but you can set up a base for them right close to the front lines and move the facilities fairly quickly. For the A-10, you need an actual air base, runways, and a lot more logistics behind it.

Also, the Apache is an Army asset, who's use is controlled by Brigade or Division level command. The A-10 is an Air Force Asset, operated at the theatre level. If a Division Commander wants his Apaches to attack something, he gives the order and they attack. Getting an A-10 requires many more steps and coordination. Reaction times are slower, but the A-10 can put in a lot more punishment when it does arrive, and is much less likely to get shot out of the sky.

Almost everything in the military has overlap, the DoD is a "belt and suspenders" type of operation. Every rifleman has a "machine gun" in his M-16, but that does not make it a real machine gun. Amphibious ships can carry aircraft, that does not make them "aircraft carriers". IFVs have cannons on them, that does not make them tanks. The AC-130 has kick ass guns and even a howitzer on board, that does not make it a fighter.