# A-10 In Big Demand



## tomahawk6 (16 Jun 2006)

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1852381.php

Soldiers call in planes every day in Afghanistan

By Bruce Rolfsen
Times staff writer 


These are busy times for A-10 Thunderbolts in Afghanistan.

As the Taliban steps up its insurgency, A-10s are being called on daily. Fighters from Bagram Air Base sometimes strike targets in southern and eastern Afghanistan on the same day.

On May 29, A-10s came to the rescue of troops under fire by flying several strafing passes against Taliban fighters near Deh Rawood. That same day, the jets also flew missions near Asadabad, 350 miles north.

The high demand for the A-10 is easy for Warthog crews to explain.


“It’s the one that guys in the field want. It’s the one that the enemy fears the most,” said Col. Warren “Wardog” Henderson, commander of the 23rd Fighter Group, the Flying Tigers, out of Pope Air Force Base, N.C.

Since the spring of 2002, A-10s have been a steady presence at Bagram. Often, at least two A-10s are in flight for on-call close-air support missions, with more jets sitting alert on the Bagram flight line.

Typically, the Air Force has about a squadron’s worth of A-10s and personnel on hand at Bagram serving a four-month deployment. However, the Air Force has, at times, doubled the number of jets there by delaying planes from deploying back to their home bases or by moving up arrival dates. 

In Iraq, during the spring of 2003, A-10s were the first U.S. fighters to be deployed to former Iraqi air force flight lines, taking up operations at Kirkuk Air Base and Ali Base.

A-10s were the first fighters based inside Iraq and Afghanistan because the planes are designed to operate from beat-up runways. The A-10’s jet engines are mounted high enough that they aren’t likely to suck in rocks and concrete, whereas the intake of an F-16 Flying Falcon’s belly-mounted engine could act like a vacuum cleaner.

As runway conditions improved in Iraq, the A-10s were replaced by F-16s. The F-16s can drop satellite-guided bombs, a capability A-10s lack.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jun 2006)

There wasn't a single day I visited Baghram that I didn't see a section of 'Hogs taking off to give some grief to the baddies.  What an awesome plane!  Listening to the GAU-8 rip through the sky was something!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2006)

My favorite plane.  Absolutely devastating.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (16 Jun 2006)

Hard to believe the US Military wanted to get rid of them. I hope their recent effectiveness in Iraq and here in Afghan has prompted them to change that plan.


----------



## Armymatters (16 Jun 2006)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Hard to believe the US Military wanted to get rid of them. I hope their recent effectiveness in Iraq and here in Afghan has prompted them to change that plan.



It is the US Air Force that doesn't want them. The air force does not want any combat type airplane that is neither a bomber or a fighter, and the A-10 falls into a catergory into itself. The US Army loves the A-10. Given the opportunity, if the Army could operate them over the air force, they would snap them up in a sec.


----------



## Franko (16 Jun 2006)

I found it extremely re-assuring seeing them flying overhead while we were screaming down highway 4 (IED Alley) in our LAVs.

Some glad they weren't retired as was the plan a while back.

Regards


----------



## Centurian1985 (16 Jun 2006)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Hard to believe the US Military wanted to get rid of them. I hope their recent effectiveness in Iraq and here in Afghan has prompted them to change that plan.



Dont know the current story, but can give you the last evaluation of the A-10 I got from a US pilot.   Cant remember the exact dates, but I think the USAF originally succeeded in putting through a proposal to scrap the A-10 inventory back in 1989-90, because it was considered no longer useful on the battlefield.  At the time, the plan was to replace the A-10 with armed helicopters.  Then when the Iraqi incident sprung up, the approval was rescinded because they needed every aircraft they could get, and the aircraft proved its value in 1991.  Although old, I havent heard of any other aircraft out there that can take a hit and still fly as well as the A-10 can, nor can any other aircraft provide as much effective ground support.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jun 2006)

The truth of the matter is ugly girls get laid more often than pretty ones and the ugly planes do more work than the fancy ones.


----------



## nullterm (16 Jun 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> A-10s were the first fighters based inside Iraq and Afghanistan because the planes are designed to operate from beat-up runways. The A-10’s jet engines are mounted high enough that they aren’t likely to suck in rocks and concrete, whereas the intake of an F-16 Flying Falcon’s belly-mounted engine could act like a vacuum cleaner.
> 
> As runway conditions improved in Iraq, the A-10s were replaced by F-16s. The F-16s can drop satellite-guided bombs, a capability A-10s lack.



Does anyone else see this as a gap in capability?  It seems like because the A-10 is such a rugged plane, it's filling in a niche that no other plane can.  When the USAF does finally get rid of the ole Warthog, I'm sure there'll be alot of people on the ground who will miss it.  The F-16 is a great aircraft, and hopefully so will it's replacement the JSF.  But somehow I don't see those two FA's doing the same rugged role.  At the very least, they won't take the same pounding that the A-10 can.


----------



## Armymatters (16 Jun 2006)

scurvybob said:
			
		

> Does anyone else see this as a gap in capability?  It seems like because the A-10 is such a rugged plane, it's filling in a niche that no other plane can.  When the USAF does finally get rid of the ole Warthog, I'm sure there'll be alot of people on the ground who will miss it.  The F-16 is a great aircraft, and hopefully so will it's replacement the JSF.  But somehow I don't see those two FA's doing the same rugged role.  At the very least, they won't take the same pounding that the A-10 can.



The A-10 is an niche player, and it fills its niche well. Other airplane types, like the F-16 and in the future, F-35, will also fill the niche, but not as well as A-10 can. The ability to fly low, slow, carry a lot of munitions, take an inordinate amount of pounding is a capability that forces the A-10 to be a niche player, and any future design will have to emulate those features to even hope of being the battlefield sucess A-10 has enjoyed.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jun 2006)

The A-10C will be fielded beginning next year which will extend its service life well into 2020.

From Air Force Times.
"The infantryman’s favorite Air Force jet is becoming deadlier.

The A-10 Thunderbolt is being fitted with new computer and guidance controls, enabling pilots of the close-air support warplanes to release bombs more quickly and bring to the fight the latest guided weapons.

The change comes as the A-10 evolves from Cold War tank-killer to the aircraft of choice for tracking down insurgents. The improved plane is dubbed the A-10C.


“You don’t have 50 tanks rolling across a desert valley,” said Maj. Doug Baker, an A-10C operational test pilot and chief of current operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron at Warfield Air National Guard Base, Md. “You’ve got to be able to find a target, figure out what it is and get a bomb off before it scurries away.” 

Ongoing A-10C upgrades are part of a larger effort to keep the Warthog in the fight through 2028 and help each jet reach 16,000 hours of flight time, said Brent Berrett, who helps oversee improvements to the A-10 as deputy commander of the 508th Aircraft Sustainment Squadron at Ogden Air Logistics Center in Utah. About 355 A-10s are flying.

A-10Cs should be in the hands of operational squadrons starting in 2007. How long it will take A-10Cs to deploy to combat zones remains to be seen.

The pilots can’t wait.

“It will absolutely speed up the process of prosecuting a target from the time a terminal air controller develops, ‘I need that thing shot,’ to me as a flight lead putting my weapons on that,” said Capt. Andy “CJ” Taylor, who is looking forward to flying the A-10C as a pilot assigned to the 75th Fighter Squadron at Pope Air Force Base, N.C.

The A-10C “precision engagement” upgrade replaces the attack jet’s 1970s-vintage electronics and flight controls with a digital system that allows the A-10C to release most bombs in the Air Force stockpile. The new bombs include 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions, guided by Global Positioning System satellite signals, and the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser, a high-tech cluster bomb.

In the A-10s over Afghanistan, the only guided bombs the pilot can release are laser-guided. Laser-guided bombs are accurate, but only when clouds, smoke, rain or sandstorms don’t hide the target. With the ability to drop satellite-guided bombs, the A-10 becomes an all-weather attack jet. There are no A-10s in Iraq. 

Another advantage of the A-10C is that the pilot will need less time to find his targets and release bombs.

In the old A-10, before a pilot could release a laser-guided bomb, he’d have to take his hands off the stick or throttle to flip switches and turn dials. Now, all the work can be done by pushing buttons mounted on the stick and throttle. Think of it as being able to program your car’s stereo system with steering wheel-mounted buttons instead of having to turn knobs and punch buttons on the dashboard.

The Air Force expects to spend about $236 million to develop and field the precision engagement kits, Berrett said.

One part of the A-10 won’t change. The Warthog will still have its 30mm cannon with 1,150 rounds ready to fire.

The pilots are looking forward to being able take care of almost any situation ground forces want them to handle.

“You want to carry all that stuff, because the guy on the ground is hoping to have all that stuff,” said Col. Warren “Wardog” Henderson, commander of the 23rd Fighter Group at Pope Air Force Base, N.C., home of the A-10 Flying Tigers.

More power

To enable the A-10 to carry all that gear while flying out of mile-high desert airfields, the Air Force wants to upgrade sections of the planes’ General Electric TF34-100 engine, increasing thrust by about 30 percent to around 12,000 pounds.

The more powerful engine would allow the A-10 to take off safely from bases at high altitudes and temperatures with a full weapons load, and also operate from shorter runways, pilots said. 

The service has spent about $13 million developing the idea and is proposing to spend $257 million, starting in 2007, to buy up to 110 engine improvement kits. 

The Air Force also intends to install new wings on many A-10s. 

About 240 A-10s fly with what the Air Force calls “thin-skin wings,” Berrett said. These wings were installed on early production runs of the A-10.

These thin wings are proving costly to repair as layers of metal inside the wing separate because of high stress the wings endure while weighted down with weapons. 

Instead of continuing to repair the thin wings, for an estimated cost of at least $1.9 billion, the Air Force wants to build and install new wings that have thicker layers of metal. The wings should cost about $1.3 billion to manufacture and install.

The new wings are expected to fly for 10,000 hours without a major inspection, Berrett said. 

The proposed wing installations would begin in 2011 and continue through at least 2015.

Bruce Rolfsen covers the Air Force."


----------



## nullterm (16 Jun 2006)

Awesome!  I didn't know about the A-10C program.  From reading up on it, is it just an electronic/software upgrade of existing A-10 airframes?


----------



## GAP (16 Jun 2006)

Kinda solves all the criticisms I've read in this thread... 

What surprised me was the relatively low cost of some of these upgrades....in the grande scheme of things that is...


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Jun 2006)

I now have a new favourite word for today. "niche".  what a good woody sounding word, not at all tinny.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (16 Jun 2006)

Love this plane glad to see they are keeping her around!!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jun 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The truth of the matter is ugly girls get laid more often than pretty ones and the ugly planes do more work than the fancy ones.



But only the Army sees that work as important. Air Force pilots don't get to paint kill markings on the nose of their airplanes for trucks and APCs knocked out...Army commanders had to beg for heavy bomber support in 1944-45 because the RAF and USAAF types thought their greatest contribution was in strategic terms. It would appear that factions of the USAF felt the same way at the time the A-10 discussions took place?


----------



## Old Guy (16 Jun 2006)

I know that the men (and women) who fly the 'Hog love it.  While it's true Air Force brass have consistently downplayed the importance of the A-10, ground pounders scream loud and clear every time the airdales try to get rid of it.  And now that it's been in service for -- what? -- thirty years, a small, but growing fraternity of mid-level brass (who were once young 1st Lt/Capt. pilots of A-10s) may be looking out for its future, as well.

Relax.  The Warthog ain't going anywhere soon.  And chances are good that a sturdy replacement might be designed by the time the last ones are retired.  Asymetric warfare looks to be the style for the next few decades.  Something like the A-10 will be useful as long as the need exists -- although the replacement might be robotic in nature.

jim


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jun 2006)

Jim, didn't this discussion happen when they took the SkyRaiders out of service?  

The Army got a replacement ground support aircraft anyway.


----------



## nullterm (16 Jun 2006)

Not that it'd happen in a million years, for a million reasons, but why not move A-10's from Air Force to Army?  They would be a highly prized by the Army.  The Marines are already an example of a branch that has both infantry level through to fixed wing.  But not gonna happen!

Unfortunately for the Army, since the split the Air Force has made armed fixed wing aircraft exclusively an Air Force thing.  Which is a bit ironic, considering they don't really want the job anyways.  The most the Army gets due to politics is attack helicopters (Apache), which is a different from than fixed wing attack (Warthog).  

Does this same love-hate relationship also apply to the Air Force's AC-130's?


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jun 2006)

Scurvybob, believe it or not, I think the Warthog would not be top on the list if it were part of the US Army.  To a lesser degree than the Air Force, Army aviation is very cliquey and the Apache definitely rules the roost...A-10 would be seen as support (which it is), not a manoeuvre combat arm (which Apache definitely is).

Spectre/Spooky may be flown by the Air Force, but as an AFSOC capability responsive to SOCOM.  In the AFSOC world, AC130's rule the roost and they generally tend to look down (in a sporting kind of way...for the most part) to the Combat Talon and Compass Call folks.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## geo (16 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> It is the US Air Force that doesn't want them. The air force does not want any combat type airplane that is neither a bomber or a fighter, and the A-10 falls into a catergory into itself. The US Army loves the A-10. Given the opportunity, if the Army could operate them over the air force, they would snap them up in a sec.


The Hogs were an Army aircorp aircraft.  They were / are not elegant and the airforce jocks couldn't imagine themselves defining their use as being "sexy".
1st the AF the took em away from the army
2nd the AF was planning to retire em BUT..... then Gulf War 1 came around and we all know the kind of mayhem the Hogs did to the Iraqi columns................

Hard to keep a "good man" down.


----------



## nullterm (17 Jun 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10

I believe the A-10 started as a USAF need during the Cold War in the late 60's.  

Duey, good point.  Even though it operates from rough airstrips, it still needs an airstrip.  Where as an Apaches can be delpoyed from forward operating bases.

It's funny to see how it seems to go through a cycle of being unwanted, until they need it... at which point it's a gift from heaven.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jun 2006)

Scurvybob, you'd be surprized at the trash talk you hear on the UHF-interplane, with Shooters (-64's) telling monkeys (Hawk drivers) to "shut up unless we ask you a question"...    

"Meow!  Saucer of milk, table 2!"    ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## nullterm (17 Jun 2006)

Haha, awesome.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jun 2006)

Lets hope an A 10 doesn't mistaken one of our LAV's.  This LAV was destroyed in place by an A 10 after it was determined it couldn't be saved by the IED.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Jun 2006)

That looks like one of ours... is it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jun 2006)

The troop is holding a C7A2 and in Can Cmbts so I would presume yes.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Jun 2006)

From the reports I have yes it was one of ours, it got popped with an IED as Quag said, they then deemed it un recoverable and instead of leaving anything intact they did the prudent thing of calling in an airstrike...they got an A10 and as you see well a LAV is not tank and when it gets hit by a tank buster well it goes POP.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Jun 2006)

lol, my tax dollars starting screaming at the sight of that picture.....that's why I asked to be sure. 

(No no, I realize it was completely necessary and a good thing to do... but it's like going to the doctor, you still don't have to like it)


----------



## Centurian1985 (22 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Lets hope an A 10 doesn't mistaken one of our LAV's.  This LAV was destroyed in place by an A 10 after it was determined it couldn't be saved by the IED.



Forunately, the bad guys do not have a similiar vehcile that could lead to mistaken identities.  That didnt look like a survivable hit. 

Overall, amazing how a piece of equipment deemed ready for the scrapyard in 1990 is now planned for extension until 2028!

Hmmm, sounds like the Sea King!   ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2006)

Well it survived the IED but not the wraith of the Warthog.


----------



## chanman (23 Jun 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Forunately, the bad guys do not have a similiar vehcile that could lead to mistaken identities.  That didnt look like a survivable hit.
> 
> Overall, amazing how a piece of equipment deemed ready for the scrapyard in 1990 is now planned for extension until 2028!
> 
> Hmmm, sounds like the Sea King!   ;D



Any leftover BTR's from the russkies?  That's the closest thing that might be mistaken for an LAV in those parts I think.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

Apparantly, the Hog dropped 2-3 500 lb'rs on it and did 2 straffing runs with the gun.  ouch.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

> ...they got an A10 and as you see well a LAV is not tank  and when it gets hit by a tank buster well it goes POP.





> Apparantly, the Hog dropped 2-3 500 lb'rs on it and did 2 straffing runs with the gun.



I think a tank - hit by a tank-buster dropping that much ordnance - would have looked much the same.


----------

