F-22 Raptor Cannot Do The A-10 Warthog's Job

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Moi621, Oct 3, 2014.

  1. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,443
    Likes Received:
    5,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was my impression the all purpose on all fronts by all services McNamara style <the horror> F-22 Raptor was also able to preform the job of close ground support of the A-10 Warthog.
    a10_2.jpg

    Apparently NOT ! :woot:
    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-much-maligned-a-10-warthogs-are-deploying-to-1640395280
    "The USAF's Much Maligned A-10 Warthogs Are Deploying To Fight ISIS"

    The A-10's are coming.
    The Warthogs have deployed to fight ISIS
    It takes a lickin' and keeps the pilot alive for a landing too.

    full-11236-7023-pic_013.png 5888543266_a61c4cbe14_b.jpg

    We all know it is the best close ground support and attack plane out there. Why don't they.


    Moi :oldman:

    r > g


     
    Max Rockatansky likes this.
  2. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    5,684
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The F22-Raptor is excessive to fight ISIS [you don't need stealth capability to attack their ground targets] and the kind of enemy is not that effective in anti air counter measures.

    The development of modern military tactics towards fighters with ground attack capabilities is dictated by the advance of anti air system. For AA hypersonic missiles an A10 is a slow easy target. Substantially facing a modern armored division the pilots in A10' planes would be "dead men [or women] flying".
     
  3. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think anybody ever claimed the F-22 to have more than nominal ground attack capabilities.

    The US does need a successor for the A-10 to handle close air support of troops. It could have the capability of being manned or unmanned to tailor to the threat and attack requirements. Unmanned planes could do a lot of good work a kilometer or two (or more) into the enemy's side of the FEBA, but right at the front, manned planes will be tough to beat.

    The US fights as a system. At the FEBA, grunts and artillery would suppress enemy MANPADs and AA artillery. Ground-pounders love what the A-10 does to the bad guys and will do what they can to make the A-10s lives easier.
     
  4. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keeping the aircraft out of range of ISIS AA systems...without ground troops any pilot in a A-10 has no safe bail out options if shot down, a youtube beheading is a certianty for any captured pilot....so its drones, stealth and high altitude strikes, pilot safety is the priority...
     
    JakeJ and waltky like this.
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,717
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone that actually knows combat aircraft would never state that the F-22 or the F-35 would be equal to or superior to the A-10 in the specific role of close ground support. The A-10 was an aircraft dedicated exclusively to this role while the F-22 and F-35 are not. It would be lie comparing a family practice doctor to a brain surgeon.
     
    Giftedone, Tim15856 and waltky like this.
  6. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,831
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Keepin' the A-10 Warthog flyin'...
    [​IMG]
    New Wings for A-10 May Keep it Flying Past 2030: Air Force Secretary
    30 Mar 2018 - Secretary Wilson said that new wings for the A-10 will keep the aircraft in the inventory for another dozen years.
     
    Tim15856 and zoom_copter66 like this.
  7. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it can't. It's an F-22. It's job is air superiority, and at that it's unparalleled.
     
    BestViewedWithCable, PT78 and waltky like this.
  8. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The F-22 was just suppose to be an air superiority fighter.

    But Democrats wanted tghe F-22 to do more or they weren't going to fund the F-22.

    So the Air Force slapped some hard points of the F-22 and as usual, Democrats rarely knowing what they are legislating on, they were happy and gave the Air Force the money.

    But it was short lived, Obama closed down the F-22 production line when he hit the lottery back in 2016.

    The F-22 is just to fast to be used for CAS. And it's loiter time in the air is to short.

    What's interesting the A-10 was never intended being a CAS aircraft. It was developed as being a Battlefield Air Interdiction aircraft. A Soviet tank killer.


    Battlefield air interdiction involves air attacks that tend to affect ground combat in hours or days, as opposed to close air support (CAS), which has an immediate benefit for friendly forces in direct contact with the enemy.

    Fire Support Coordination Line
    It is differentiated from CAS in the degree of coordination and control necessary to prevent "friendly fire" casualties, and the extent to which the air, rather than ground, forces target and schedule it. "The dividing line is not the fire support coordination line (FSCL)" on the combat map, but in the focus of the attacks

    [​IMG]
     
    JakeJ and waltky like this.
  9. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,443
    Likes Received:
    5,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Synopsis please.
    Wasn't the Raptor suppose to cover the A-10 duties.
     
    waltky likes this.
  10. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the word you are looking for is "unproven",
     
    zer0lis likes this.
  11. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your article doesn't even mention the F22. And it would likely be the F35 that takes over duties of the A-10
     
  12. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No
     
    Moi621 likes this.
  13. SiNNiK

    SiNNiK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    7,348
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you see that some folks were talking about using B-1B's to do the A10's job?

    ETA: The F22 is for when we fight Russia and China. Not ISIS.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
    waltky and Moi621 like this.
  14. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,443
    Likes Received:
    5,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Warthog is a proven design.
    Cable controls and all for last resort of the pilot.
    Sure, update it as updating adds to it. Build new ones. Build new DC-3's too.
    But, replacement seems ludicrous.

    The A-10 biggest flaw
    is it is NOT a
    Boeing nor Lockheed product
    Go figure :hmm:
    "military, industrial, government complex"
    <figure>​
     
    waltky likes this.
  15. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's unproven just how unparalleled it is. That it's unparalleled is out of the question. It's stealth and ability to engage at range are simply unmatched. Is it worth the hefty price tag? That's unknown, and depends on the circumstances.
     
    waltky likes this.
  16. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Simple. The US Air Force is run by fighter jocks. The A-10 isn't sleek and fast and sexy, its not a billion dollar fighter, so obviously its got to go.
     
    Tim15856 and waltky like this.
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,965
    Likes Received:
    10,916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I want to add data not said earlier. I believe the A-10 is like a tank. It is very difficult to destroy. And it is tough as nails. And deadly to the enemy on the ground. Troops need such an airplane.

    Others pointed out the extremely deadly F-22 is not built to be an A-10 and has properties the enemy can't defeat today. I would put the F-22 against the F-35 expecting the F-22 to win.
     
    waltky likes this.
  18. Tim15856

    Tim15856 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6,809
    Likes Received:
    3,283
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds like Hitler and the ME-262. ;-)
     
    waltky likes this.
  19. Tim15856

    Tim15856 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6,809
    Likes Received:
    3,283
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Back when it was first proposed the AF brass didn't want it, they wanted the fancy supersonic jets. Maybe it would have been better if the army had full control of them.
     
    Mushroom and waltky like this.
  20. Esperance

    Esperance Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,226
    Likes Received:
    2,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is not being discussed is that the F22 and F35 aircraft are more likely to be used as technology platforms from where missiles can be launched from drones.

    For example, the drone pilots at Creech Air Force base can fly a drone by satellite and then just turn the drone missile system over to an F35 or F22 pilot in the war zone when requested.

    GPS positioning by satellite until target acquisition is established by ground operations or by other means.

    And don't forget about the new laser capabilities of the F22.
     
    Robert likes this.
  21. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The SU-57 is comparable (better in some ways) & China is catching up fast, that is one reason why the US is pursuing a 6th generation aircraft.
     
    waltky likes this.
  22. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The 3 services multi-role F-35 joint strike fighter combined with early termination of F-22 production could end up having the same effect.
     
    Russ103 and Tim15856 like this.
  23. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,831
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For example, the drone pilots at Creech Air Force base can fly a drone by satellite and then just turn the drone missile system over to an F35 or F22 pilot in the war zone when requested.

    Dey've got enough to worry `bout...

    ... w/o havin' to monitor drone ,missions.
     
  24. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    26,260
    Likes Received:
    7,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The A-10 can't do what an Apache helicopter or B-52 bomber can do either, can it?

    The A-10 has too many vulnerabilities to ground fire, missiles, and any fighter aircraft. To make our A-10s worthless in any theater of combat would be as simple as the Russians providing a few dozen modern SAMs to the adversary. The A-10 is 100% dependent that the adversary has a 100% primitive military. It has virtually no defensive capabilities and almost no fighter abilities. Given the increasing conflict demanded by Democrats against Russia there will be few to no such theaters of battle left in the world. The A-10 has no chance against modern technological defense. There are few things an A-10 can do that either drones or other aircraft can do - but the A-10 can not do what those drones (be high risk sacrificial) or other aircraft can do.

    The A-10 also is not a stand-alone aircraft in any theater in which the enemy has fighter aircraft - meaning it takes fighter aircraft in the air to defend the A-10 in that situation. The A-10 can neither out dogfight or outrun ANY fighter in the world.

    The USA has to have 100% control of the air and be certain the enemy does not have modern anti-aircraft missiles or the A-10 can not be deployed. This does NOT apply to many other aircraft including unarmed large aircraft, which have highly advanced and effective anti-aircraft missiles defensive systems. The Air Force does fly even slow large aircraft (surveillance) aircraft into combat theaters where it is known the adversary has anti-aircraft missiles. However, these aircraft are at altitude and have highly effective anti-aircraft missile defensive systems - which the A-10 does not and can not have.

    The A-10 is NOT a flying tank. They have been brought down by small ground AA fire. http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/combatlosses.html

    The reason the Air Force does NOT want the A-10s is for two reasons: 1.) it divert desperately needed $$ from other programs and aircraft and 2.) the Air Force does not want dead or captured pilots. It also is an outdated and dead-end technology - and increasingly the primary goal of the military to be ahead of the technology race.

    The Air Force offered to GIVE their A-10s to the Marines and the Army so their costs would come off of Air Force's budget. The Marines and Army turned down the offer, literally not wanting them for the same reason. They cost money even to maintain, training and all the rest - and that means giving up money for other aircraft, other development and other training of both pilots and maintainers. That is how much they are NOT wanted, though the A-10 does have a few loyalists in the Air Force, mainly those who work with them.

    The original Thunderbolt (the actual designation of the A-10) P 47 WAS an awesome ground attack aircraft too. It, like the A-10, is an outdated design.
     
  25. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    26,260
    Likes Received:
    7,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Army does not want them. For ground support the Army wants helicopters. The Air Force literally can not give away their A-10s. The other branches of service do not want them.
     

Share This Page