How Real is it and how effectiv is the real A-10C?

I never heard of a fast jet that got struck by a shoulder SAM, humped it all the way back to base with one engine, a shrapnel-filled wing, a dud, or even a jammed gun.

O HAI!

Okay, who wrote that book and what is the official title ?

Perhaps he is talking about Operation Allied Force, the air campaign on Yugoslavia?

Or maybe he is referring to this book: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0090_haave_haun_a10s_over_kosovo.pdf

To the OP:

You have no idea what are you talking about (based on the first post alone).

O HAI!

 

lol

@OP. This plane was produced for ONE reason, to kill Russian tanks. I have had first hand experience seeing this masterpiece at work. You would actually have to be there to understand. In my opinion the A10 is the best CAS plane we have. I am thankful that it didnt go to the graveyard.

As happens so often from the Pentagon, weapons systems are scrapped before there is actually an adequate replacement. I think they would be wise to keep the A-10 until such time as they have something as good or better to take it's place. Currently they are claiming that the F-18 and other combat aircraft can fill the vacancy left by the A-10. Anyone who knows aircraft knows that one of the strengths of the A-10 is loiter time, which is simply the main weakness of those other systems. Yes it is "dated" but I personally don't see anything in the current inventory that can replace it. And that includes the Apache Longbow.

Loiter time is a strength covering a major weakness of the A-10 which is speed. Loitering is quite dangerous in modern day theaters, it is a better tactical option to have extremely fast jets (F-18's, F-16's) scramble ready, safe and sound in their base than have any kind of jet loiter in/around a hot zone.

As being a participant in modern day theaters I'm abit confused how loitering time is dangerous and having a fast in and out jet is better. Iraq and Afghanistan it's all about loiter time , otherwise known as on station time the longer the better. We always laughed at how f18 pilots would bug out and be afraid to get their nose dirty. Where as a10cs and apaches would gladly get their noses dirty and matter of fact would always escort us in to hit our objectives. Never could the FAST MOVERS accomplish that task.

Everybody has their role on the battlefield. The Hogs and Apaches belong with us the Sof and rest of the ground forces. It's a role a fast mover could never take. Unless it has the loiter time and effectiveness of the Hogs. I can see on the initial invasion yes the über fast movers have their place. But when we are kicking in doors and clearing caves. We welcome the hog over everybody else minus the apaches and specter.

Just my two cents and experience. It's a unfortunate reality that war has become politics and business ventures. Thus the guys on the ground and the guys in those pits are not heard.

I've never seen fuel efficiency and time on station being characterized as a weakness before. If an F-16/F-18 could carry everything it can carry, fly as fast as it can fly, and meanwhile stay on station as long as an A-10 everyone would call these amazing aircraft the greatest multi-role fighters ever built, not weaker because they don't have to hit the tanker after a dozen minutes in the AO.

everyone that poo poos that A-10's survivability must have a short memory. remember that little adventure in the desert called Desert Storm? after 10 years of getting equipment from the east and west; the Iraqi army didn't blow the entire a-10 deployment out of the sky in the first 24 hours.

The A-10 was designed to survive and effect the battle space in a high intensity contested environment.

as an aside, from memory it was actually the F-111 that killed more tanks that any other aircraft in the gulf war. it had a better range and payload than the strike eagle, and was a better low level strike platform; didnt stop it from getting the axe 4 years later.

as an aside, from memory it was actually the F-111 that killed more tanks that any other aircraft in the gulf war. it had a better range and payload than the strike eagle, and was a better low level strike platform; didnt stop it from getting the axe 4 years later.

To be fair, the Strike Eagles were tied up hunting scuds every night night... and were never meant to be tank killers.

Loiter time

Face time :)

From what little history I've read about, that is exactly what war has always been about, even if only from one side.

Its extraordinary that anyone should ever think war is anything else.

Loiter time is a strength covering a major weakness of the A-10 which is speed. Loitering is quite dangerous in modern day theaters, it is a better tactical option to have extremely fast jets (F-18's, F-16's) scramble ready, safe and sound in their base than have any kind of jet loiter in/around a hot zone.

The A-10 was DESIGNED to be low and slow. It was meant to go in harms way, because down and dirty is where you find, and are capable of eliminating single targets, or covering downed airmen etc. It was specified after the Viet Nam war demonstrated the indespensibilty of the Skyraider, which couldn't be carried out by more exotic, faster hardware. That role will not go away just because the F35 was a hyper expensive waste of money.

If the US Government do go ahead and end the A-10 program (which now seems unlikely), you can lay odds on the hole being filled by a drone, and then the shortcomings of relying on electronic surveillance will be highlighted, and the need for a Mk1 eyeball will result in the need for a low and slow manned aircraft. Loitering over the battlefield was a tactic developed in WW2, to provide front line troops with IMMEDIATE air cover. Ask any Afghanistan or Iraq war veteran where they'd prefer air cover, and you'll get just one reply. No fast jet can take off, fly hundreds of miles from rear echelon bases and provide that service, where they need technical support only possible well out of harms way.

In the 1950s everyone in power in the UK thought the missile would replace ALL combat aircraft. Lots of projects were shelved, cancelled, or never saw the light of day. And then it fell to private contractors to fill the gap, resulting in the EE Lightning. It filled a desperately needed role, and saw service for far longer than expected, but was developed entirely without Government backing or input. Funding isn't the only factor in what aircraft fill nations' inventories. Need drives development, and the A-10 is the perfect solution in it's niche.

Why do you suppose aircraft like the B-52 and Avro Shackleton were in service for decades? I have a feeling the A-10 will be around for a long long time to come yet.

The writing is on the wall, the A-10 has at the most 4 years left. DoD retired over 100 in FY13. It's an election year so Congress won't approve retirement in FY15 but it's very likely they will for FY16.

Also, even if Congress approved retirement in FY15 a couple squadrons were still slotted to fly the A-10 until 2017. You can't simply roll all 300 plus airframes into AMARC at one time, to much logistical planning for that.

Hi folks,

 

hope this question wasn't discussed anywhere else.

 

 

After some month spending time in the DCS A-10C I really ask for the effectiveness in the real world.

 

Some CAS Missions in Afghanistan with spotter on the ground is for me no reason to keep this plane alive.

 

Based on my expierence with the game, I doubt that the A-10 can be effective on modern tanks with auto aiming systems. Also the missing of advanced Air-Ground-Radar makes it hard to find its objetives. Watching through a small canopy or tgp for some tanks, AA etc. without radar is almost impossible to survive...the lack of speed is another reason, why I guess, that the A-10 will killed by each modern enemy (no Talibs).

 

Never have seen a fully equippet A-10 on footage videos, mostly only GUN Runs (if no AA) and some CBU's and JDAM's.

 

What are your opinions?

You are very wrong.

The A-10 does what it was designed to do better that any thing else

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/10-aircraft-designer-explains-warthogs-unique-characteristics/