Posted on Oct 13, 2023
If the A-10 Warthogs are so useless to the USAF inventory, why are they being sent to Israel as an immediate action airplane?
26K
483
114
114
114
0
Posted 12 mo ago
Responses: 50
Posted 12 mo ago
The A-10s aren't "useless" to the USAF inventory - they are being replaced primarily because they are viewed as a single-role airframe (CAS) and would likely not survive if facing an adversary with modern air defense capabilities and if we didn't have at least a favorable air situation at the time of their employment.
Yes, we (the Army) love them. They became the darlings of the Gulf War, racking up thousands of vehicle kills to include about 1/3 of all tank kills during the conflict. Anyone that has been on the ground when they come in can attest to how close they can deliver accurate CAS to engaged forces - they are basically a slow-flying ordnance factory that we view as being able to chew up whatever is on the ground with the 30mm cannon or by delivering from one of the 11 hard-points carrying the heavy duty stuff if the 30mm doesn't do the job.
On the other side of the argument is that they ARE great - as long as there is no serious threat to them. They are durable, but unlike the popular myth we ground-pounders have about them, they are not invincible. We lost four of them during the Gulf war to 1980s era air defense systems and MANPADS and some others (3?) were taken out of operation because they were too damaged to be airworthy. Even when they were first put into operations (~45 years ago), planners expected to lose every A-10 in the inventory (>700) within a few weeks of combat with the Soviets if they invaded.
However, getting back to the specific question you posed about "why are they being sent to Israel as an immediate action airplane?". It still remains the pre-eminent precision CAS platform we have in our inventory ... as long as there isn't a serious anti-aircraft threat. The anti-aircraft capabilities that are present in Gaza have been very limited so far based on what's been used against the Israeli aircraft. To date the only threat has come from old SA-7s MANPADS although they claim to have more advanced MANPADS such as the SA-18 and SA-24 (again, no evidence of that and only SA-7s have been used against Israeli F-16s).
Note - this isn't new to the region as a squadron of A-10s were deployed earlier this year* at AFCENT's request due to increased tensions from Iranian-backed forces in Syria.
-----------------------------
* https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a-10s-centcom-bolster-air-force-presence/
Yes, we (the Army) love them. They became the darlings of the Gulf War, racking up thousands of vehicle kills to include about 1/3 of all tank kills during the conflict. Anyone that has been on the ground when they come in can attest to how close they can deliver accurate CAS to engaged forces - they are basically a slow-flying ordnance factory that we view as being able to chew up whatever is on the ground with the 30mm cannon or by delivering from one of the 11 hard-points carrying the heavy duty stuff if the 30mm doesn't do the job.
On the other side of the argument is that they ARE great - as long as there is no serious threat to them. They are durable, but unlike the popular myth we ground-pounders have about them, they are not invincible. We lost four of them during the Gulf war to 1980s era air defense systems and MANPADS and some others (3?) were taken out of operation because they were too damaged to be airworthy. Even when they were first put into operations (~45 years ago), planners expected to lose every A-10 in the inventory (>700) within a few weeks of combat with the Soviets if they invaded.
However, getting back to the specific question you posed about "why are they being sent to Israel as an immediate action airplane?". It still remains the pre-eminent precision CAS platform we have in our inventory ... as long as there isn't a serious anti-aircraft threat. The anti-aircraft capabilities that are present in Gaza have been very limited so far based on what's been used against the Israeli aircraft. To date the only threat has come from old SA-7s MANPADS although they claim to have more advanced MANPADS such as the SA-18 and SA-24 (again, no evidence of that and only SA-7s have been used against Israeli F-16s).
Note - this isn't new to the region as a squadron of A-10s were deployed earlier this year* at AFCENT's request due to increased tensions from Iranian-backed forces in Syria.
-----------------------------
* https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a-10s-centcom-bolster-air-force-presence/
A-10s Headed to CENTCOM To Bolster Air Force Presence
As the Air Force's focus shifts to the Pacific and Europe, aging A-10s will deploy to the Middle East to support CENTCOM.
(55)
Comment
(0)
Posted 11 mo ago
Its unfortunate that AF brass always looked down their noses at the A10. And if you ask any grunt from the marines or Army they have always LOVED
(27)
Comment
(0)
SSG Raymond Minze
3 mo
CSM Walter Phillips - It's not so much that the Air Force won't allow the Army to fly the A-10. It's Congress and DoD or both that won't allow it. When it comes to fixed wing aircraft, Army pilots are only allowed to pilot rotary aircraft. All senior Army personnel that are fly in jet aircraft are flown by Air Force Pilots.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW4 William Kessinger
2 mo
CSM Phillips: No quite true. The Army has many pilots qualified in the C-20 (Gulfstream G-1159) and Citations jets. After retiring from my civilian job, I was a check airman and ground school and sim instructor in the G-II/III at an (unnamed) simulator training facility. we had many Army Aviators go through recurrent training with us in the Gulfstream.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Bethina Lee
2 mo
CSM Charles Hayden that is an even more feasible point & convenient excuse that looks good in writing
(1)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Walter Goerner
2 mo
Without getting into the military history of that fight between the newly (1949 version) of the mission of the newly separated branch of the Air Force, Army and Navy pilots...before my time (which branch would fly what type of aircraft) (Yes, we had a fight between services because there were Army owned and operated fixed wing aircraft during the 70's and still do, multi-engine and not limited to staff (flag) transport jet. The Air Force agreed to allow this modification to the "new" service agreement. Not all Army pilots are helicopter pilots, and not all Army pilots are Warrant Officers, we have RLOs piloting helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. I have a childhood friend that was aircrew on one of these Army owned and operated multi-engined large turbopropped signal intelligence aircraft that was operated out of Thailand and a retired CWO pilot that flew that fixed wing aircraft when we were stationed in the ROK and at Ft. Lewis, WA. I was around when the Air Force considered getting rid of the A-10 after the Gulf War, supposedly because those in control calling the shots were ex-fighter pilots and the A-10 was not a fighter. We're probably all in agreement that the A-10 is a VERY good ground attack aircraft. Now saying that, the A-10's survivability over the forward battle area is phenomenal. It is used as a platform and is able to provide heavy (bomb) ordnance for close ground support and has that close ground support anti-armor capability to shred literally any armor enemy asset with that 30mm chain gun. It's faster and can fly higher than any rotary wing attack helicopter and very manueverable to avoid manpack missiles. Why doesn't the Air Force transfer the A-10 assets to Army control? I believe it's mission creep over to the Army, but where is the need without the political nonsense?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next