The A10 is a fantastic aircraft as long as you have absolute air superiority. Failing that it sits on the ramp.
The A10 is a fantastic aircraft as long as you have absolute air superiority. Failing that it sits on the ramp.
The single bullet from a riflemen is so unlikely as to be nonsensical. Not to mention that if a rifleman could hit a F35 it would probably take a thousand rounds to find that one spot that would cause the loss of the aircraft. If rifleman are the threat the F35’s will ignore it. Better small arms such as 50 cal or larger machine guns or much worse the ZSU’s someone else mention still have many threat mitigation options. The F35 is beyond superb at threat mitigation and more importantly detecting the threat.
Air superiority in the next war will not be a given. At best we can probably hope to establish local zones of Air superiority . If you refuse to ground pound without it the proper term is surrender. It’s one of the biggest concerns for future wars. How will the US operate when ground units are under air attack and assets like the AC130 and A10 can’t be employed. The last major battle the US fought without air superiority was Guadalcanal.
It’s a lot more complex than your picture. You can avoid almost all small arms by staying above 3000 feet. No ground commander is going to allow his troops to fire full auto at every aircraft that comes by. His command will be out of Ammo in minutes. The thousand rounds to bring down a F35 referred to rounds hitting the aircraft. You would need to fire millions of rounds to get that many hits on a 500 knot aircraft. A 250 knot aircraft including the A10 would be highly vulnerable to 50 cal or bigger antiaircraft guns. It would not survive. Those threats have to be identified and suppressed. That’s where the F35 is without peer.
The gun on the tank is pointed up because that is its stowed position. It can’t actually be aimed or fired like that. They are a not threat for a high speed aircraft. Maybe a A10 at 250 knots out in front and extremely low or a helo in the weeds. I spent a good part of my life living and breathing this stuff. Small arms in fast movers was not our concern. Marine F18’s in the first gulf war went down in the weeds against a huge number of guns without so much as a one bullet hole. Manpads were however another issue and 5 F18’s were hit but all flew home and were back flying in 48 hours. Lots of thought and changes made to mitigate those threats. The F35 is a key component in that mitigation.
As a AH-1 and AH-64 driver for over 20 years the 12.7 was the thing I feared the most…Cold War Germany our life expectancy on the border if the ballon went up was less than an hour and half and briefed that way. Our basic load organic to our unit was enough for one turn in the Forward Refuel and Rearm Point…after that the thought was we would be combat ineffective and would have to reconstitute…the early A-10 was no different as we had a habitual working relationship in those days…air superiority was important but our job was to plug the Fulda gap and die in place doing it…
They have been trying to pass off that mission since forever.
So....you know a pilot?
So....you know a pilot?
I used to think that he was just trying to get his post count up to 12,000. Now I'm thinking that he has a reading comprehension problem.No, I know that pilot.
I used to think that he was just trying to get his post count up to 12,000. Now I'm thinking that he has a reading comprehension problem.
From what I’ve read the A-10 was made specifically to counter Soviet tanks invading through Fulda Gap. There is even a famous study that said the A-10 would have a life expectancy of only two weeks if war had broken out.
From what I’ve read the A-10 was made specifically to counter Soviet tanks invading through Fulda Gap. There is even a famous study that said the A-10 would have a life expectancy of only two weeks if war had broken out.
Good friend of mine was an infantry lieutenant back in the '80s. He was based at Fort Lewis here in Washington, in a unit that was tasked with trying out all sorts of experimental hardware.did the study estimate the life expectancy of the soviet tanks during that same time period? or the life expectancy of Allied tanks without the A-10?
The A-10 has developed this mystic of being the go to CAS aircraft but in reality, around 75 % of CAS the past 20 years has been other FW airframes. No one picks up the phone and specifically requests A-10s. Traditional CAS is hardly even done these days. It’s troops in contact and whoever is overhead at that given moment, gets the call. Just another airframe with a PGM that can work with a JTAC. The GAU-8, while effective hasn’t really been needed. Don’t need a 30mm from an A-10 for a white Toyota truck with a technical when a 20mm will do. Or better yet, a 30mm from an AH-64.
So yeah, I think all the hoopla around the A-10 is a bit exaggerated. The ground guys love it but you can find just as many that owe their lives to F-16s, F-18s, etc. Great platform though and cost vs capability is hard to beat.
I kind of like the ability of the A-10 to absorb damage and keep on kicking butt. And doesn't the titanium armor of the A-10 provide a bit more protection than whatever other FW airframes have?
I kind of like the ability of the A-10 to absorb damage and keep on kicking butt. And doesn't the titanium armor of the A-10 provide a bit more protection than whatever other FW airframes have?