81-0952 is the full serial.

=====================

USAFE News Service  29 July 2005

UNS05230: Spangdahlem A-10 flies into history
http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news05/uns05230.htm

2nd Lt. Shannon Collins
52nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs

SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany (USAFENS) -- One of the 52nd Fighter
Wing's A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft flew into history July 22, becoming
the first A-10 in U.S. Forces in Europe and the sixth A-10 in the Air
Force to achieve 10,000 flying hours.

Col. Scott West, 52nd FW vice commander, had the honor of flying tail
number 952 as it achieved 10,000 hours of flight time.

"[One of] the reasons this A-10 reached 10,000 hours is because of the
superb work of the maintenance professionals who worked on it from the
time it was delivered to the Air Force in 1982 at Royal Air Force
Bentwaters, England, until it flew its 10,000th hour," said the colonel.
"Flying 10,000 hours in a fighter is significant, and says a lot about
the 20 or so dedicated crew chiefs and the many other maintainers who
have taken care of it, as well as all of our aircraft."

And, it's not just a large milestone for the aircraft itself, but also
for the members who maintained the fighter, said Tech. Sgt. Steven
Pierik, 52nd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron 81st Aircraft Maintenance
Unit crew chief.

"It's a big milestone for the A-10, so I'm glad I could be a part of it;
it's exciting," said Sergeant Pierik, who has been maintaining A-10s for
seven years. "You put a lot of work into the aircraft, so to see it go
that far, it makes you feel pretty good."

This sentiment is not only true of the current personnel maintaining
tail number 952, but also applies to troops who have worked on the
aircraft previously.

"When I saw it hit 10,000 hours, it touched me; it's kind of like your
baby," said Staff Sgt. Jeremy Stewart, currently assigned as quality
assurance for the 52nd Maintenance Group and was a former dedicated crew
chief for the aircraft during Operation Enduring Freedom. "I may no
longer be the DCC, but I'll still keep tabs on it."

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is the first Air Force aircraft specifically
designed for close air support of ground forces. They are effective,
survivable, twin-engine jet aircraft that can be used against all ground
targets, including tanks and other armored vehicles.

"The A-10 has served the Air Force well," said Colonel West. "In the
past, it's sometimes been considered a niche airplane we no longer need,
but the Thunderbolt II has repeatedly proven itself well-suited for the
requirements of combat.

About 3000 of the hours racked up by tail number 952 have been combat,
having been flown in Operations Iraqi Freedom, Northern Watch, and
Allied Force.

"I find it ironic that the oldest person flying in this squadron is
flying its oldest jet, but I'm not using a walker yet and certainly tail
number 952 is a long way from its walker, as are the rest of the A-10s
in the fleet," said the colonel. "They've got a lot of life left, and
the Air Force is putting a lot of resources toward sustaining them. They
are a great operational asset to the Air Force and the Department of
Defense."

Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10...

Spooky

Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky

Do you have the same opinion of, oh, I don't know, say ... AC-130s? B-52s? T-38s? KC-135s?

Hell I saw some A-10's flying down here at Patrick's a few months ago. Those planes kick ass.

"It's a big milestone for the A-10, so I'm glad I could be a part of it; it's exciting," said Sergeant Pierik, who has been maintaining A-10s for seven years. "You put a lot of work into the aircraft, so to see it go that far, it makes you feel pretty good." This sentiment is not only true of the current personnel maintaining tail number 952, but also applies to troops who have worked on the aircraft previously. "When I saw it hit 10,000 hours, it touched me; it's kind of like your baby," said Staff Sgt. Jeremy Stewart, currently assigned as quality assurance for the 52nd Maintenance Group and was a former dedicated crew chief for the aircraft during Operation Enduring Freedom. "I may no longer be the DCC, but I'll still keep tabs on it."

There's something really cool about the Crew Chief keeping tabs on his old plane.

All you need to say is that it shoots:  Six-Inch Depleted Uranium Shells

It is basically a giant frickin' gun with wings.

God I love that Warthog!!!! Second only to the Black Rifle

Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky

Actually it probably IS cheaper and requires less maintenance than any other ground attack fixed wing aircraft,  AND it works really well.  Which is probably why we are trying to get rid of it (for something more expensive, less reliable, and not as cabable).

Hogs Rule!!!  They can keep their Fast Movers, I'd take an A-10 Thunderbolt II any day of the week. One bad MoFo Kick Ass plane.  

Quoted: Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky Do you have the same opinion of, oh, I don't know, say ... AC-130s? B-52s? T-38s? KC-135s?

Fighters age much more quickly than heavies.  My jet (KC-135) has around 15k hours, the RC-135s have closer to 30-40k hours.  It's alot more uncommon to see a fighter with five digits.

As for your list
- AC-130:  Based on an old design, but the oldest U model is an 87 model.
- B-52:  Nobody makes planes like it anymore, but it's engines are tired.  Alot of the jet has been replaced in the last decade.
- T-38:  An older design again, but trainers don't tend to take as much abuse as real fighters.  I guess it's about due replacement.
- KC-135:  Not much left of the jet that an old maintainer would recognize.  New engines, new avionics, improved landing gear, etc.  They're old, and are down more to corosion than they used to be, but over a long haul they would have a better offload than a brand new KC-767 (if the ever get ordered).

Originally Posted By Colonel West: I find it ironic that the oldest person flying in this squadron is flying its oldest jet,

I like Colonel West's sense of irony.

that can't be right!  When I was stationed there 96-99 the 81st had a lot of birds with 7500+hours.  I wonder why it took so long?

Quoted: that can't be right!  When I was stationed there 96-99 the 81st had a lot of birds with 7500+hours.  I wonder why it took so long?

Maybe some airframes were removed from service?

Quoted: Quoted: that can't be right!  When I was stationed there 96-99 the 81st had a lot of birds with 7500+hours.  I wonder why it took so long? Maybe some airframes were removed from service?

That or they rotated some of the birds out.  I distinctly remember seeing on several occasions various tails with over 7500 hours on them in the books.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky Do you have the same opinion of, oh, I don't know, say ... AC-130s? B-52s? T-38s? KC-135s? Fighters age much more quickly than heavies.  My jet (KC-135) has around 15k hours, the RC-135s have closer to 30-40k hours.  It's alot more uncommon to see a fighter with five digits. As for your list - AC-130:  Based on an old design, but the oldest U model is an 87 model. - B-52:  Nobody makes planes like it anymore, but it's engines are tired.  Alot of the jet has been replaced in the last decade. - T-38:  An older design again, but trainers don't tend to take as much abuse as real fighters.  I guess it's about due replacement. - KC-135:  Not much left of the jet that an old maintainer would recognize.  New engines, new avionics, improved landing gear, etc.  They're old, and are down more to corosion than they used to be, but over a long haul they would have a better offload than a brand new KC-767 (if the ever get ordered).

The T-38 takes PLENTY of abuse in it's roll as a trainer. Hard landings, over g's and tons of other things that pilots in training can do, because they lack the finess of experienced pilots.

It's also no irony that the Col was flying the pig when it hit 10,000. It was planned. They track every minute of flight on the birds.

Quoted: Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky Do you have the same opinion of, oh, I don't know, say ... AC-130s? B-52s? T-38s? KC-135s?

Like Rumsfield said, you gotta go with what you have...

My point is that all the USAF aircraft are getting old...  You list the B-52 and KC-135.  Nothing out there can do what the B-52 does.  The things the KC-135 does can be done by other aircraft.  Sometime, sooner or later, you are going to have to replace them.  The F-15 is going to be surpassed by F/A-22 and it is time.  

Spooky

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky Do you have the same opinion of, oh, I don't know, say ... AC-130s? B-52s? T-38s? KC-135s? Like Rumsfield said, you gotta go with what you have... My point is that all the USAF aircraft are getting old...  You list the B-52 and KC-135.  Nothing out there can do what the B-52 does.  The things the KC-135 does can be done by other aircraft.  Sometime, sooner or later, you are going to have to replace them.  The F-15 is going to be surpassed by F/A-22 and it is time.   Spooky

ok if and when if ever the f-22 can get to the f15 in terms of number of planes then maybe the f-22 will pass it.
ohhhhhhh then i like to see them exchange hmmm 92 F-15E Strike Eagles to what 10 or 15 f-22 no ty i rather have 92 eagles over that crazy raptor love the f-22 just dont think it will ever be seen is as many numbers as the eagles.
end of rant

The 4th Fighter Wing is the host unit at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and accomplishes its training and operational missions with 92 F-15E Strike Eagles. Two of the wings four fighter squadrons are operational units, capable of deploying world-wide on short notice and immediately generating combat power. The other two squadrons are responsible for training all F-15E aircrews for the Air Force

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky Do you have the same opinion of, oh, I don't know, say ... AC-130s? B-52s? T-38s? KC-135s? Like Rumsfield said, you gotta go with what you have... My point is that all the USAF aircraft are getting old...  You list the B-52 and KC-135.  Nothing out there can do what the B-52 does.  The things the KC-135 does can be done by other aircraft.  Sometime, sooner or later, you are going to have to replace them.  The F-15 is going to be surpassed by F/A-22 and it is time.   Spooky ok if and when if ever the f-22 can get to the f15 in terms of number of planes then maybe the f-22 will pass it. ohhhhhhh then i like to see them exchange hmmm 92 F-15E Strike Eagles to what 10 or 15 f-22 no ty i rather have 92 eagles over that crazy raptor love the f-22 just dont think it will ever be seen is as many numbers as the eagles. end of rant The 4th Fighter Wing is the host unit at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and accomplishes its training and operational missions with 92 F-15E Strike Eagles. Two of the wings four fighter squadrons are operational units, capable of deploying world-wide on short notice and immediately generating combat power. The other two squadrons are responsible for training all F-15E aircrews for the Air Force

I should have specified that the F/A-22 will surpass the F-15C Eagle in capabilities.  I completely agree there need to be more of them than what the current (and constantly changing) buy calls for.  The F-15Es are not that old - most of them made their debut during GW-1.  The C models are more what the F/A-22 was designed to replace.  They just tacked the A on to get more political support for it.  

Spooky

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good to see it is still flying...  Not something to really brag about - having really old airplanes.  New ones would probably be cheaper and require less maintenance but let's face it - nothing can or will replace the A-10... Spooky Do you have the same opinion of, oh, I don't know, say ... AC-130s? B-52s? T-38s? KC-135s? Like Rumsfield said, you gotta go with what you have... My point is that all the USAF aircraft are getting old...  You list the B-52 and KC-135.  Nothing out there can do what the B-52 does.  The things the KC-135 does can be done by other aircraft.  Sometime, sooner or later, you are going to have to replace them.  The F-15 is going to be surpassed by F/A-22 and it is time.   Spooky ok if and when if ever the f-22 can get to the f15 in terms of number of planes then maybe the f-22 will pass it. ohhhhhhh then i like to see them exchange hmmm 92 F-15E Strike Eagles to what 10 or 15 f-22 no ty i rather have 92 eagles over that crazy raptor love the f-22 just dont think it will ever be seen is as many numbers as the eagles. end of rant The 4th Fighter Wing is the host unit at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and accomplishes its training and operational missions with 92 F-15E Strike Eagles. Two of the wings four fighter squadrons are operational units, capable of deploying world-wide on short notice and immediately generating combat power. The other two squadrons are responsible for training all F-15E aircrews for the Air Force I should have specified that the F/A-22 will surpass the F-15C Eagle in capabilities.  I completely agree there need to be more of them than what the current (and constantly changing) buy calls for.  The F-15Es are not that old - most of them made their debut during GW-1.  The C models are more what the F/A-22 was designed to replace.  They just tacked the A on to get more political support for it.   Spooky

sorry spooky i read it wrong i should have known you meant the elder f-15 not the younger f-15e i love both the f-22 because of its cutting edge technology and  the f-15 cant cut it  as well as the f-22 in fighter terms know more that is a given but who cant love the f-15es mmm i read somewhere it can carry 30 cluster bombs if need be miny bomber. the f-15e i hope will be with for 20 or more years good bird.

Hey VTwin60,
Did Spang get A-10's from Sembach too? It's been so long since I lived over there that they (Spangdahlem, Home of the Sheiks) had F-4's at the time.

Quoted: Time to pay off these old, slow clunkers… 400knots in a contested airspace = airborne target. F-16… King of the Ground Pounders! img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/f-16.jpg

However the A10 has added survivability from light ground fire, and can loiter for longer meaning that it's better for CAS.

As a direct beneficiary of close air support in Desert Storm, I’d like to say God bless the A-10 pilots and those that take care of them.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Time to pay off these old, slow clunkers… 400knots in a contested airspace = airborne target. F-16… King of the Ground Pounders! img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/f-16.jpg However the A10 has added survivability from light ground fire, and can loiter for longer meaning that it's better for CAS. If it's low enough to be taking ground fire it's dead on a modern battlefield… 'Speed is Life' is truer now than ever… modern missiles will take down an A-10 … see Baghdad Airport, OIF… ANdy

If what you're saying is true, the fields of Iraq should be littered with them.

One of the strengths of the bird besides it's redundancy and hi-survivabiity is stealth at night.  The Iraqis called it the ghost plane, because it was on them before they ever knew it.

(insert proud papa disclaimer here) When my son was in Najaf in the first few weeks of the invasion, he was pretty happy to see shells raining down from the "X" in the sky.

I love F16's, but the A-10 has its place.  And no, it ain't the graveyard.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I love F16's, but the A-10 has its place.  And no, it ain't the graveyard. In a situation of 100% air superiority the A-10 can survive, but even a basic jet  fighter would put the bite on it. It's too slow to tangle with enemy aircraft… an F-16 on the other hand can deal with pretty much anything that crosses it's path on the ground or in the air. ANdy

ANdy does have a point.  The A-10 can't handle a situation where the USAF doesn't have air supremacy, while an aircraft like the F-16 can.  

That said, it's a limitation in it's use, that's all.  As long as the USAF has the ability to maintain air supremacy against any enemy, the A-10 will continue to be a wonderful aircraft.  If the USAF were to lose that ability (say our congresscritters don't like buying new aircraft and we end up replacing 10 aircraft with one ) then the A-10's survivability would go to hell.

The A-10, while it's the best thing going to handle ground fire, is in deep trouble against an air threat.  A -16, OTOH, is not as good against ground fire, and doesn't have that big 'ol cannon, but against an air threat, it's vastly superior.

In no way do I advocate retiring the A-10, but it does have limitations that the F-16 doesn't... (and also capabilities that the F-16 doesn't.)

Quoted: Time to pay off these old, slow clunkers… 400knots in a contested airspace = airborne target. F-16… King of the Ground Pounders!

Ya right See how many bombs that thing is carrying and it would still need air refueling to get anywhere with that dismal ground attack load. The 16 is a wonderfull liteweight AD fighter esp in it's early Block's but it isn't a bomb truck.

The 16 looks great on paper but in reality put the Janes down and back away slowly ...... IMOP the AF fighter mafia pushed the " Ground Attack " role onto the 16 to justify getting rid/replacing the long in the tooth A-7D's without buying another dedicated attack aircraft replacement.
To put any meaningfull bomb load on a 16 you have to take off ext wing tanks and the center line is usually always taken up by an ECM pod instead of a small ext tank. Put on two 2k LGB's and mavs and you will be pulling in behind a tanker pretty quick before you go anywhere. and again returning.

BOS; The A-10 is great plane that has proven itself over and over and will probably continue to serve for many more years.  

Of the potential future conflicts, I see 7-8 likely.... and 1 where we wouldn't be able to gain  air superiority fairly fast.

I watch them take off every day when I am at Bagram, and the guys here love them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Time to pay off these old, slow clunkers… 400knots in a contested airspace = airborne target. F-16… King of the Ground Pounders! img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/f-16.jpg Ya right See how many bombs that thing is carrying and it would still need air refueling to get anywhere with that dismal ground attack load. The 16 is a wonderfull liteweight AD fighter esp in it's early Block's but it isn't a bomb truck. Run that past me again? 2 LGBs, a couple of Mavericks and two AIM-120's on an F-16 is trumped by half a dozen dumb bombs on an A-10!… I doubt it! F-16C… combat radius 740nm with a 4,000lb bomb load and two tanks A-10… combat radius on deep strike 620nm… Of course the minor fact that the A-10 can barely do 400mph on it's way to that target, and will need to take along some F-16's for top cover if the enemy still has air assets, is something we should ignore. And as for bomb loads, theoretical max bomb loads don't mean shit, an A-10 can in theory lift 16,000lbs, and an F-16 around 12,000lbs… but in action they both end up carrying 4-6 pieces of ordnance unless they are only flying to the end of the runway and back.

Yeah............... If the enemy has air capability, the Warthog is still way better off then any attack helicopters..............

A-10's cost appx 1/4 what an Apache costs........................

They are simple, redundant, planes, that don't require the dozens of support people and sensor maint that their more complicated running mates do. Some of their munitions have their "sensors" built in, like the Mavericks, and are fire and forget. Nothing complicated to go toes up when you NEED the plane flying.

Even if I believe you about "if it's low enough to get hit................." Tell me how a F-16, F-35, or other plane used for ground attack, USING THE EXACT SAME WEAPONS AS THE A-10 IS ANY LESS VULNERABLE? Oh yeah, I bet those complicated fly by wire inherintly unstable planes will do good when they take ground fire....................

Then again, what computers on the A-10 are needed to keep it stable? Oh yeah NONE. Not to mention the Titanium bathtub the pilot sits in, that will defeat 23mm rounds. Or the triple redudndant hydraulic flight control systems, with a MANUAL back up.

Or those big silly engines, high mounted to keep the from getting hit by ground fire whne the A-10 rolls in. What do the fronts of the F-16 and F-35 look like when the roll in? Giant engine intake........

The A-10's high mounted engines also make the heat from it's engines disperse, making it more diffiicult to get an IR lock, not to mention they are relatively cool running. If a IR weapons does lock on an engine................. the missile is likely to hit the tail, which can survive damage instead of the engine. If it does hit an engine, the engines are in seperate nacelles to minimize damage to the other engine, and severly damage engines are designed to drop off.............. lightening the A-10, and getting rid of aerodynamic drag...........

F-16 and F-35.................. aside from nosing at t the target with their giant jet intake exposed, when the egress, their engines, which can be very hot, are centered on the rear of the plane, w/o obstructions. Making it easier to lock onto them, and hit. As a bonus there is only one engine, kill it the plane is done.  

Next, the F-16 has been touted as the replacement for the A-10, since the F-16 was in the planning stages. It carries less munitions, the A-10 can loft like 8 Maverick missiles........... Not to mention the A-10's cannon has something like 3 times the range and 2 times tha power as the 20mm in the F-16.................... wanna gues which carries more gun ammo?

Back in the day the AF ran a test near NTC to "prove" the F-16 was better. They gave it and an A-10 one pass at some armored vehicles. Because the F-16 is soooooooooo fast, the AF put it's target vehicles in a convoy column like the USSR would use. Then the A-10 took a pass. since the A-10 is sooooooooo slow the AF said the convoy would have time to disperse. After testing both wanna guess which plane consistently killed more ground targets per pass?

Of Course, in ground attack id'ing the traget is crucial. That often means coming in low and slow, and putting the Mk-I eyeball on the area. If it comes down to that, and it will, the F-16 and F-35 have LOST their advantage of speed. I wonder how much an F-16 or F-35 will protest when you fly them at 300 mph? An A-10 WON'T protsest at those speeds. It's design is to be a flying tank.......... no matter what speed it is going it is still an ARMORED, TOUGH, plane.

1 other thing, if the US doesn't have air superiority, how many F-16's and F-35's will the Air Force be using in ground attack missions? Calll me cynical but the answer is none. The Air Force won't be doing any ground support until they have control of the skies, no matter what they are flying.

I also won't get into the fact that a lot of the "wonder weapons" are great at taking out high-value targets. They aren't as good at taking out the low value, larger area things. like infrantry in a field, woods, or building. The A-10 with Rockeyes, or it's gun, is a much better weapon at taking out those types of tactical targets.

So the A-10 is cheap, durable, easy to fly, and pack a heck of a wallop. As soon as something better comes along I'm sure they will replace it. The A-10 is currently being SLEP'ed...................

4,000 lbs in bomb and 2 external tanks........... How many external tanks will the A-10 need? Off the top of my head, I thought an A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs in external stores. I also thought the A-10 was being upgraded for the GPS guided bombs. It can already drop the laser guided stuff. Not to mention the HUD includes aids for dropping dumb bombs.

The A-10 does the mission it was designed to do wonderfully. It's not a deep strike aircraft like an F-15E. It's not a fighter like an F-15C, F-16C or F-18C. It's not a stealth aircraft like an F-22, F-35 or F-117. What it is a cheap, highly effective, CAS and anti-tank aircraft. It can fly slow enough and get down in the weeds to engage such targets. F-16's passing overhead at 600 mph miss minute details that the slower flying A-10 pilot will see.

Sure, it's not as survivable against most modern threats as newer, more expensive aircraft. But it doesn't have to be. The A-10 will spend most of it's time flying CAS missions. I don't envision having any large quantity of ground troops in area where we do not have air superiority anyway. Look at Vietnam. Look at Gulf War 1. Look at Aghanistan. Look at Gulf War 2. If the sky is so full of enemy bandits that the A-10's can't do their mission, then my opinion would be the A-10 is not the platform we  would need to be blaming. Our ground forces would be taking heavy casualties do to these enemy aircraft attacking them. And that would mean our F-15's, 16's and 18's were failing to secure air superiority.

The F-22's, F-35's, F-15E's, F-16's, F-117's, B1, B2 and B52's can handle the skies and deep strike missions in the future. Upgraded A-10's will continue to be the best option for CAS. Even if we lose a few of them, I still view them as superior to the alternatives. Anything that gets low and slow in order to eyeball the enemy will be vulnerable. Would you rather place an $8 million plane in that roll that offers good pilot protection or one that costs $200 million? So long as the pilots get out, you could lose a whole squadron of A-10's and still not suffer the $$ loss of one F-22, for example.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Time to pay off these old, slow clunkers… 400knots in a contested airspace = airborne target. F-16… King of the Ground Pounders! img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/f-16.jpg Ya right See how many bombs that thing is carrying and it would still need air refueling to get anywhere with that dismal ground attack load. The 16 is a wonderfull liteweight AD fighter esp in it's early Block's but it isn't a bomb truck. Run that past me again? 2 LGBs, a couple of Mavericks and two AIM-120's on an F-16 is trumped by half a dozen dumb bombs on an A-10!… I doubt it! F-16C… combat radius 740nm with a 4,000lb bomb load and two tanks A-10… combat radius on deep strike 620nm… Of course the minor fact that the A-10 can barely do 400mph on it's way to that target, and will need to take along some F-16's for top cover if the enemy still has air assets, is something we should ignore. And as for bomb loads, theoretical max bomb loads don't mean shit, an A-10 can in theory lift 16,000lbs, and an F-16 around 12,000lbs… but in action they both end up carrying 4-6 pieces of ordnance unless they are only flying to the end of the runway and back.

Now here is the real bomb truck (as far as fighters go).  That is only five 2000 lbs JDAMs you see it dropping, Strike Eagles can carry seven of them plus four air-to-air missiles.



Lets see a lawn dart carry a couple of these;



Or these;

Love the A-10's. We have an airbase here were they are out of and love watching them when they fly over.

Yawn. I passed 10,000Hrs in my aircraft last year and I personally put almost half those hours there in the last four years. All low level manuver.

Quoted: Time to pay off these old, slow clunkers… 400knots in a contested airspace = airborne target. F-16… King of the Ground Pounders!

Maybe we should ditch the Apache too, since it's even slower and therefore even easier pickings by an enemy .    

As others have pointed out, it has been tried and it failed.   Aside from the survivability and bomb load advantages it shares over the F-16, the A10 has that magnificent gun.   A similar gun, mounted on the F-16's centerline station,  was tried but scrapped due to poor accuracy and excessive vibration.

The speed difference isn't as large as you make it out to be, either.   While there's no question that the Viper is faster, it's not like it flies in at mach 2.   It's faster than the A-10, but it's still subsonic.  

Or what about short field performance?   The F-16 needs long, smooth runways completely clear of FOD because of the "vaccuum cleaner".   The A-10 has excellent short field performance out of rougher strips, and is not nearly as vulnerable to FOD due to both the engines placement and "shielding" from the ground, if you will, by the wing.      This makes forward basing them at improvised facilities much easier, and I believe that was done during OIF.

How about loiter time?    The F-16 sucks at this, and is why you rarely see one without a bag of gas under each wing unless it is a point defense roll or something similar.    The A-10s worked perfectly in Afghanistan and Iraq precisely because they could loiter over their "kill box" longer.  

Nope, the A-10s will be around for a while filling a role that other assets in the inventory cannot.   Fortunately, the decision to keep them was made by pragmatic people for whom sleek looks and high speed aren't the only deciding factors.

Quoted: Want to quote me how far and how fast an A-10 can go with it's theoretical 16,000lb bomb load? All the way to the target(s)............... A-10 is for supporting ground troops, not deep raids.  How far can an Apache or Cobra go?  HAs any A-10 ever carried said 16,000lb bomb load in a combat situation?  Most A-10's I've seen are carrying a handfull of cluster bombs and Mavericks. tinypic.com/9zq2dv.jpg Nope, no '16,000lb' bomb load… just a couple of Mavericks and 4 500lbers tinypic.com/9zq2pf.jpg Nope, no '16,000lb' bomb load… just a couple of Mavericks tinypic.com/9zq2xd.jpg A P-51D throttling back so an A-10 can keep up with it… Likewise, if you are dropping GPS and laser guided or heat seeking stuff you don't need to be down in the weeds and SPEED (something the A-10 completely lacks) and altitude gives the weapon a much greater stand off range. So that completely removes the A-10 'advantages' when using any PGM's. So it seems the ONLY thing the A-10 can do that an F-16 can't is strafe targets with it's 30mm übercannon, and that requires you to come well inside the range of shoulder launched SAM systems, so you are going to sure as hell need that armor! WOW!  'The HUD includes aids for dropping dumb bombs'…pretty much EVERY plane with a bombing capability has had that for the last 40 years, welcome to the last century! Jeez! some of you guys have such a hard on for the A-10 and it's 'wondergun' you make the F/A-18 SuperBug cheerleaders look almost bi-partisan!

As bad of an airplane you want to make the A-10 into, it is far ahead of the AH-1's and AH-64's, that do the same missions........................................

The first production A-10A was delivered to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., in October 1975. It was designed specially for the close air support mission and had the ability to combine large military loads, long loiter and wide combat radius, which proved to be vital assets to America and its allies during Operation Desert Storm. In the Gulf War, A-10s, with a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles.

Because in the real world, the A-10 does it's designed mission, very well.........................

Quoted: Hell I saw some A-10's flying down here at Patrick's a few months ago. Those planes kick ass.

+1

One other thing nobody has yet mentioned is the psychological factor that A-10's deliver to the battlefield. Remember the story in A-Stan where this small US unit is ambushed and calls for air support? The enemy is all around them and B-1B's come on station dropping their ordnance from high up. But it had little effect on the enemy, as they continued shooting at them.

Then this unit requests A-10's. They entered the target area, flying low. The enemy tore off their toenails getting the hell outta the area.

A-10's strike fear into the hearts of our enemies like no other aircraft can do. That alone is reason enough to keep some of them around.

Hell, look at Vietnam. We had long gone to jet aircraft, yet a WWII vintage A-1 Skyraider was the most effective CAS aircraft in service. It could do stuff the fast movers could not. The A-10 is just a more modern and capable Skyraider. It still very much has a role in modern warfare also.

Quoted: Quoted: In the Gulf War, A-10s, with a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles. Yawn… anything with wings can fire a Maverick, it ain't no special hog trick…

Yup, the trick in combat is to have a Maverick, then find a target....................... apparently one aircraft was doing most of the target finding.

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200309/ai_n9253410#continue

little preview

It also performed combat search-and-rescue missions, making it one of the most valuable and versatile aircraft in the coalition inventory. Some days during the major combat, the A-10 flew 40 percent of all OIF sorties even thought the Warthog accounted for only eight percent of the aircraft, officials say.

During the first week of the war, close-air support requests went to the Combined Air Operations Center "open-ended"-meaning no specific aircraft type was requested.

The A-10 made such an impression in the war's opening days that upwards of 90 percent of the requests for close-air support were A-10 specific after the first week.

The 110th flew missions out of both Al Jaber and Tallil and produced an enviable combat record. In four weeks, the 110th pilots alone eliminated 1,100 targets, among them were tanks, armored personnel carriers, buildings, aircraft, bunkers, vehicles, weapons storage bunkers and revetted positions.

________________________________________________________________________________

Huh, the actual people that need that tactical air support started specifying which plane, once the actual shooting started. Gee I wonder what that means.

Quoted: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200309/ai_n9253410#continue little preview It also performed combat search-and-rescue missions, making it one of the most valuable and versatile aircraft in the coalition inventory. Some days during the major combat, the A-10 flew 40 percent of all OIF sorties even thought the Warthog accounted for only eight percent of the aircraft, officials say. During the first week of the war, close-air support requests went to the Combined Air Operations Center "open-ended"-meaning no specific aircraft type was requested. The A-10 made such an impression in the war's opening days that upwards of 90 percent of the requests for close-air support were A-10 specific after the first week. The 110th flew missions out of both Al Jaber and Tallil and produced an enviable combat record. In four weeks, the 110th pilots alone eliminated 1,100 targets, among them were tanks, armored personnel carriers, buildings, aircraft, bunkers, vehicles, weapons storage bunkers and revetted positions. ________________________________________________________________________________ Huh, the actual people that need that tactical air support started specifying which plane, once the actual shooting started. Gee I wonder what that means.

The A-10 did engage a lot of targets, but it never engaged them in areas of heavy or even moderate air defenses.  It was assigned kill boxes, and those boxes had already been cleared by F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s.

I like the A-10 and I think it has a role to play for CAS.
But, the fact is that it's far too slow and has short legs.
The F-16 was the first aircraft that could fight its way to the target (and still can).
That was never (and never will be) true of the A-10.