A-10 is a single mission aircraft (CAS).
Air Force pursued a multi-mission aircraft policy. More mission coverage.
Old school Generals were believers in faster/higher aircraft. Until Gulf War I, the A-10 was not thought too highly by old school tac fighter types.
Gulf War I proved the A-10s worth and now enjoys respect from the Air Force.
Gen Horner was quoted a week into the Gulf War I air war: “the A-10s are saving our a$$es—and he was a hard core tac guy that didn’t think much of the Hog. He changed his mind.
Many still want to mothball the jet but the jet keeps performing and doing the mission no other jets can do as well.
A10s were always planned to be part of a package of support jets (a/a escorts, SEAD support, etc). A-10s were never considered a go-it-alone jet, but Gulf War I changed that.
A-10s have staying power and a massive weapons load—the strike fighters do not have staying power therefore could have some effect on the battlefield but the A-10s had long loiter time and weapons flexibility so they really impact the battlefield.
Gen 6 fighters like the JSF have nice stealthy profile but to be effective they have to strap on external weapons load and that destroys their stealth. They can carry some internal load but not near anything like the A-10, and the JSF has a “one pass, haul a$$” staying power due to limited weapons load and no gas.
And the A-10s gun makes all the difference and is highly accurate and flexible, whereas other jets have to reply on satellite guidance weaponry and their gun is a pop-gun, no real anti-armor killing power.
We can go on and one but it is clear, for CAS nothing beats the Hog.
“We can go on and one but it is clear, for CAS nothing beats the Hog.”
That was a very good, clear and concise rebuttal.
The Russians have lost at least nine of their version of the A-10 in battle and the Russians have been very circumspect in using any aircraft in the Ukrainian conflict. Whether their SU’s are as good as the A-10...probably not, but they are comparable. Of course, one data point on a graph where we don’t really know what the axes are isn’t much of a data point. You may be right in your assessment. Personally, I think the A-10’s mission should go to unmanned drones, but they have their own issues...mostly electronic counter measures which at the moment the Russians don’t seem to have any.
Here’s my fear. People tend to fall in love certain designs. I’ve seen people saying, gosh, just bring back the P-51 Mustangs, or battleships. I’ve seen some articles debunking the performance of the A-10’s in the Gulf War because the expectations were so high every tank killed was attributed to an A-10. Was this true? It would be hard to establish after the fact. But the true test is how would the A-10 do in a really high threat environment. It doesn’t matter if the plane brings back to pilot, in the greater scheme, if it is so damaged it can’t fly again.
The A-10 is a hugely competent design, no doubt. But I think what the Airforce wants to do is spend the two billion yearly dedicated to the A-10 on whatever the next generation will be. Who is the more correct? Only time and the next big engagement where the A-10 faces more ground threats will tell. As it appears we will be keeping the A-10 I certainly hope your assessment is the correct one.
Kind regards,
Gen.Blather