Good idea!
Isn’t ‘close air support’ by definition an Army job?US militar
How many years did you serve, Derek? Many senior officers in today’s military ARE woke … just witness the changes in names of OLD military bases just this week. As to shoulder fired missiles, ask any Army or Marine grunt what THEY think about the A-10 when they’re in trouble. 21 years service gives me the right to speak my mind … period!
Veering slightly off, a neat idea was Belfast big fuselage on C-141 wing. Did not get far.
As for props, gee - how old is the basic C-130 design? Now with upgraded engines though not aerodynamic changes it should have had (fin and nose).
Military are often huge bureaucracies. Trying to convince Lockheed Georgia decades ago to fix reliability problems with systems like APO and pressurization/A-C machinery it was pointed out to me that USAF had warehouses full of spares so was not motivated to fund changes. (Civilian operators could not swallow the development cost by themselves - only two were truly financially sound. So Pacific Western developed a modification to replace APU with a 727 unit, and licensed the design to others. Decades later I see that common fit on military Hercs is a new APU and other reliability modifications.)
Today Ukraine is showing the way in its fight against Russian aggression.
- principles and overall mission defined from above
- field operations have flexibility to determine tactics and moves to suit emerging situation
Canadian army showed that in France in WWII.
Whereas Russian army suffered heavily in western Ukraine from top-down bureaucratic approach.
A good book is ‘Engineers of Victory’, which is about grass-roots technical developments by Allies in WWII, and even more actually about good leadership.
An example of success was putting the Merlin engine in P-51s to get long range fast fighters accompanying bombers deep into Nationalsozialistiche Germany. (A better engine in a faster fuselage (area ruling). Took a long time for US military bureaucracy to accept that combination.)
There were failures - the spinning dam buster bombs worked but not well enough, and the enemy repaired dams quickly.
Couldn’t a helicopter do a lot of the missions the A10 does?
Now this is a completely rational and very informative analysis. Thanks for providing the facts! This is why I read the comments section, to get perspective from those who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.
But I too am getting tired of the political tribalism that keeps getting added to these articles. I don’t care if you’re blue or red, if you know aviation and want to talk about it, I’ll listen, but you lose me when it gets political.
Speaking of num nut generals making costly mistakes, just look at the re-engining the kc135 that he had CFM remove the reverses off each engine and didn’t want the flat bottom necell that came with the design, wow how many engine pods did we drag till they figured out the landing profile.
Fortunately for the A-10, David – and for reasons I don’t fully understand – the Congress has saved it multiple times even codifying the effort. I’m absolutely certain there are grunts alive today because of it. Somebody likes it, fortunately.
“T-29 and C-131’s” … you’re dating yourself 
I flew aboard the Samaritans to test the offshore ranges at Vandenburg AFB during my early years at Edwards. CALSPAN in Buffalo had a C-131 modified w/ T-56 engines that was a brute. Called the TIFS (Total In Flight Simulator), it had two noses (one a test cockpit) and the whole airplane was filled with computers to make it fly and act like something else. E.G., the B-2 was first flown using the TIFS airplane. That TIFS is now in the NMUSAF in Dayton. AND … did you know that during the ‘shell game’ missile basing days idea in the 70s’s, we yanked an ICBM out of a C-5A at the Nat’l Parachute Test Range at NAS El Centro?
The A-10 naysayers who predict heavy losses in battle against an opponent well equipped with the latest MANPADs and other modern anti-air defenses are probably correct, but that doesn’t mean they don’t still retain utility, and at quite reasonable cost. I would compare them to the (vastly more expensive) carriers of the Navy. Those ships, in spite of best efforts at layered protection, will suffer frightening levels of loss when/if we go against a first-tier enemy, yet in the meantime will still serve their intended purposes.
Jim,
Your answer is spot on. It’s exactly what I was thinking. At the same time, my moderate Democrat wife shuts her ears to reason whenever the word is used now. It’s much like how the Republicans react to everything being labeled racist.
If we want to be heard by the other side of the aisle, it’s best to leave out the terms.
Yes and no. The main difference is discussed above - crew survivability. Even in peace time helicopters kill too many crews (not that I’m advocating against them). A10 pilots trust that plane to take a hit, so they hit the targets over and over delivering a lot of ordinance in a trip.
The A10 has other advantages as well. At the same time, 4 Apaches can delete most of a Motorized Rifle Regiment leaving the wannabe Soviet force with a bunch of kids in dirty underwear cleaning up what’s left of their buddies. Give them a little scout buddy, and they might do it without being seen.
In the end, synergy is what’s really amazing. After seeing enough of their buddies die from A10 attacks, the enemy stops reacting properly. Then when us guys with tracks boxes come along and blow a few up, instead of fighting back, they hide from the A10! We REALLY appreciate the lack of return fire.
I don’t think the F35 would ever have that effect. They are going to make one or two passes and leave unless they are stupid.
The A10 is the plane we need for most conflicts. Those advanced fighters that are supposed to shoot them down never come. If the Ukrainians had them now they would slaughter the Russians, that was the mission they were designed for. Biggest problem with the A10 is there is no existing manufacturer to give nice six figure post retirement jobs to military people involved with the program. No junkets for politicians. The design is paid for by you and me. We own it. Put it back in production. The F35 is an overpriced, complex unreliable aircraft that has no business in this type of warfare. Heck the single engine turbo prop attack planes are just as effective for 1/10 the cost.
My theory on the Air Force brass hating the A10 and their CAS guys is much like that of the Army brass hating their own Air Defense branch.
These guys have a primary responsibility that will ruin them if they fail. They have a secondary responsibility that they can blame on the other bunch. And, they are fighting each other for a piece of the budget pie. Any idea they are supposed to be doing what’s best for the country is bred out of them starting the day they are commissioned. By the time they are colonels, most of the guys left in the year group who aren’t both brilliant and extremely charismatic, are hiding any thoughts of doing what’s right in order to keep their jobs.
BINGO John!
"At least 380 high-ranking Department of Defense officials and military officers shifted into the private sector to become lobbyists, board members, executives, or consultants for defense contractors.”
As a career F-4/F-16 driver, no other part of the fighter community (“A” designated or not!) is as near and dear to we fast movers than the Hog Mob! The much-maligned brass ARE competing for $$$ and they KNOW how important the Hog is to our joint effort. Didja ever notice how regularly the Congress adds money to the USAF budget for the A-10 when it “appears” the AF is trying to cut it? Without the AF even asking for it? Coincidence? Hmmm!
Living in AZ, it was almost thrilling to watch Sen. McCain rescue the Hogs, and DM AFB’s main mission as the center of the Hog world, on a regular basis at budget-busting time. Yes, partisan politics entered the picture on the local level, but don’t believe for one minute that wasn’t also in the back of the bean-counters’ minds when submitting the budget for the newer, shinier, stuff.
That last post should be signed “Michael H.”
Hello… Is anybody really following the air war in Ukraine? If so they know the aerial carnage that took place on both sides. The reason it has slackened, is because both sides got slaughtered and finally figured out that close air support where there are effective anti aircraft assets is a suicide mission. The Russians have a modern version of the A 10 that they have withdrawn due to heavy losses from MANPADs such as the Stinger and Ukraine’s own fielded version. Sure the A 10 worked well in uncontested airspace such as where the local cave dwellers threw rocks and responded with 7.62 by 39mm AK 47s. But few if any airplanes are capable of consistently defeating Russian SA 400 and SA 500 systems, and modern Russian and Chinese versions of AAA and portable AA missile systems. A 10s would have met the same fate as their Russian and Ukrainian counterparts in Ukraine, or any other modern battlefield. There may be a place at some point in a conflict for the A 10, but it is not within a modern, complex war environment such as Ukraine. The results of any use of close air support in such situations is similar to what we have already seen there, and has been disaster, similar to the slaughter of Russian and Ukrainian tanks by use of systems such as the Javelin and numerous comparable hand launched systems. The same fate awaits the A 10 or other traditional close air support platforms. The rules and equipment of modern warfare have changed, as has been abundantly clear in Ukraine.
Exactly. It was one of the first lessons I got as a new 2Lt in the program office 45 years ago. The AF (and other services) have to submit a budget to the White House that does not exceed a target set by the WH. When you add up everything on the wish list, it’s more than the target. So you have to take some stuff out. If you take out something without a lot of support in Congress, you’ll never get it. If you take out something you know Congress will force back into the budget, they just might do that without cutting something else (they’re not bound by the WH targets.) Those programs that always get funded are called ‘gold watches’. So there’s a chance you get your lower priority programs and the gold watches funded. The goal is to get as many of your programs funded as possible.
Name your “first-tier enemy”.
I’d like to know. At one time, I thought it was the Russians. It’s certainly not anymore. They are currently stymied by a much smaller country, with a much smaller military on a much smaller budget.
“Calling everything and everyone you don’t like ‘woke’ is nonsense and is getting tiresome.”
So is every leftist politician and media hack and their minions calling everyone a “racist” just because they don’t like THEIR political opinions that have NOTHING to do with race.