6 ms·

I was under the impression that the A-10 is fine for Afghanistan but useless anywhere there is good air defence - just too slow. That said it could be useful fo

I was under the impression that the A-10 is fine for Afghanistan but useless anywhere there is good air defence - just too slow. That said it could be useful for blunting an armoured vanguard.

Spooky23 11y ago
We don't deploy aircraft in places with good air defense.
- threeseed 11y ago
  Military purchases aren't just for today's conflicts. Russia is going to continue to assert themselves against NATO's encroachment into the former USSR countries and China wants to be seen to be their region's unquestioned superpower. Both have a lot of political support internally to demonstrate their military strength.
- afarrell 11y ago
  The main purpose of a military is the ability to threaten violence. The ability to execute violence is a prerequisite for that.
cbd1984 11y ago
Who are we fighting who has a good air defense? Also, who are we fighting who would have a good air defense the second week of the conflict? (Don't say China. China has replaced Confucianism with Waltonism, as in Sam.)
- threeseed 11y ago
  Why not China ? They will absolutely defend themselves militarily over the dispute in the South China Sea or Taiwan. They are quite keen to start a skirmish with their neighbours to assert their authority and dominance over the region.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    > Why not China ? They're heavily invested in us, both in terms of bonds and in terms of selling us stuff. Both of that goes away the second they challenge us militarily, and their economy couldn't take it.
    - mcv 11y ago
      I'm not so sure their economy is still as weak as it once was. My impression is that China really has its shit together, more than any other country. Their economy isn't as big as the US yet, but it's catching up and maturing. I think the time will come when China will insist on dominating its own sphere of influence.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  The main problem for the A-10 is widely available, effective MANPADS. I'm not sure what you can do to immunize your attack aircraft from them, but I am pretty sure that the F-35 isn't the answer.
  - graycat 11y ago
    > immunize your attack aircraft from them Stealth?
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      Does "stealth" mean anything in close visual range? Can you do close air support from afar? I don't think you can.
      - jmccree 11y ago
        Close in CAS means close in proximity to friendly troops. Before smart munitions this required the aircraft to also be in close proximity to hit the enemy force without hitting friendlies. Now an orbiting bomber or drone can deliver a targeted strike while flying high in the sky miles away. I love the old warthog, but in the days of drones, I can't see much of a use anymore.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I think we'll have the Warthog until after the ground troops are confident with the drones / remotely piloted craft. That opinion is less to do with my own ideas about the potential of drones to do CAS well, and more to do with my assessment of what military decision makers will tolerate in terms of change.
      - graycat 11y ago
        I was responding to "MANPADS", etc. Such a device will need detectors of some kind, e.g., heat, radar, and the usual approaches to stealth should help. For close air support, maybe the US wants to use fast, stealth aircraft firing missiles to spots specified with laser designators, GPS, etc. As I recall, at times the USAF claimed that to kill tanks an F-16 with a missile was better than the A-10: Sure, the gun on the A-10 is amazing, but the A-10 flies low and slow and should be vulnerable to, say, MANPADS. The F-16 flies higher and faster, fires a missile, and then is out'a there. Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to be better, still: Use stealth. Sure, maybe soon the USAF will want its missiles to kill tanks, etc. fired from drones, maybe even stealth drones.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Yes, that is also true for every other effective ground attack platform. AC-130, Drones, Apaches and other helicopters. The A-10 isn't a fighter, it is for ground attack. Not even the most fervent A-10 fanatics believe that the A-10 is a capable air-to-air fighter; it was never intended to be. So, yes it needs fighters to ensure air superiority so that it can operate. That's not a bug.
- mcv 11y ago
  I once heard they're great for hunting helicopters.
Untit1ed 11y ago
While it's fine for Afghanistan it was designed for a cold-war tank battle. If you don't need to kill tanks or dodge air defences a propeller-powered plane that looks like something out of WW2 is a lot cheaper... and that's what's being developed by a bunch of firms for counter-insurgency.
- tsotha 11y ago
  There are already several of those types of aircraft to choose from. My favorite is Embraer's Super Tucano, of which the US is buying 100 for the Afghan government.
jonathankoren 11y ago
Replace "Afghanistan" with "the Fulda Gap" and you have exactly described the A-10's original design criteria. In a ground support aircraft, slowness is good, because then it can turn over the battlefield. Anyway, the plane can take a huge amount of punishment and still fly.

I was under the impression that the A-10 is fine for Afghanistan but useless anywhere there is good air defence - just too slow. That said it could be useful for blunting an armoured vanguard.

Spooky23 11y ago

We don't deploy aircraft in places with good air defense.

threeseed 11y ago
Military purchases aren't just for today's conflicts. Russia is going to continue to assert themselves against NATO's encroachment into the former USSR countries and China wants to be seen to be their region's unquestioned superpower. Both have a lot of political support internally to demonstrate their military strength.
afarrell 11y ago
The main purpose of a military is the ability to threaten violence. The ability to execute violence is a prerequisite for that.

cbd1984 11y ago

Who are we fighting who has a good air defense? Also, who are we fighting who would have a good air defense the second week of the conflict? (Don't say China. China has replaced Confucianism with Waltonism, as in Sam.)

threeseed 11y ago
Why not China ? They will absolutely defend themselves militarily over the dispute in the South China Sea or Taiwan. They are quite keen to start a skirmish with their neighbours to assert their authority and dominance over the region.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  > Why not China ? They're heavily invested in us, both in terms of bonds and in terms of selling us stuff. Both of that goes away the second they challenge us militarily, and their economy couldn't take it.
  - mcv 11y ago
    I'm not so sure their economy is still as weak as it once was. My impression is that China really has its shit together, more than any other country. Their economy isn't as big as the US yet, but it's catching up and maturing. I think the time will come when China will insist on dominating its own sphere of influence.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
The main problem for the A-10 is widely available, effective MANPADS. I'm not sure what you can do to immunize your attack aircraft from them, but I am pretty sure that the F-35 isn't the answer.
- graycat 11y ago
  > immunize your attack aircraft from them Stealth?
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Does "stealth" mean anything in close visual range? Can you do close air support from afar? I don't think you can.
    - jmccree 11y ago
      Close in CAS means close in proximity to friendly troops. Before smart munitions this required the aircraft to also be in close proximity to hit the enemy force without hitting friendlies. Now an orbiting bomber or drone can deliver a targeted strike while flying high in the sky miles away. I love the old warthog, but in the days of drones, I can't see much of a use anymore.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I think we'll have the Warthog until after the ground troops are confident with the drones / remotely piloted craft. That opinion is less to do with my own ideas about the potential of drones to do CAS well, and more to do with my assessment of what military decision makers will tolerate in terms of change.
    - graycat 11y ago
      I was responding to "MANPADS", etc. Such a device will need detectors of some kind, e.g., heat, radar, and the usual approaches to stealth should help. For close air support, maybe the US wants to use fast, stealth aircraft firing missiles to spots specified with laser designators, GPS, etc. As I recall, at times the USAF claimed that to kill tanks an F-16 with a missile was better than the A-10: Sure, the gun on the A-10 is amazing, but the A-10 flies low and slow and should be vulnerable to, say, MANPADS. The F-16 flies higher and faster, fires a missile, and then is out'a there. Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to be better, still: Use stealth. Sure, maybe soon the USAF will want its missiles to kill tanks, etc. fired from drones, maybe even stealth drones.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

Yes, that is also true for every other effective ground attack platform. AC-130, Drones, Apaches and other helicopters. The A-10 isn't a fighter, it is for ground attack. Not even the most fervent A-10 fanatics believe that the A-10 is a capable air-to-air fighter; it was never intended to be. So, yes it needs fighters to ensure air superiority so that it can operate. That's not a bug.

mcv 11y ago
I once heard they're great for hunting helicopters.

Untit1ed 11y ago

While it's fine for Afghanistan it was designed for a cold-war tank battle. If you don't need to kill tanks or dodge air defences a propeller-powered plane that looks like something out of WW2 is a lot cheaper... and that's what's being developed by a bunch of firms for counter-insurgency.

tsotha 11y ago
There are already several of those types of aircraft to choose from. My favorite is Embraer's Super Tucano, of which the US is buying 100 for the Afghan government.

jonathankoren 11y ago

Replace "Afghanistan" with "the Fulda Gap" and you have exactly described the A-10's original design criteria. In a ground support aircraft, slowness is good, because then it can turn over the battlefield. Anyway, the plane can take a huge amount of punishment and still fly.