A-X all over again - USAF pushes for A-10 replacement

Grey Havoc said:
www.defensenews.com

Senate policy bill rejects Air Force request to send some A-10s in the boneyard

The Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the FY22 defense policy bill would guardrails on the number of fighters, C-130s and B-1s the Air Force can retire.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Good news for the A-10, after all the money that the air force has spent on the upgrades in the past few years on the Hog I would wonder how the USAF would think on putting it up for retirement in the boneyard right now. Makes me angry just thinking about it. :mad:
 
One interesting thing to note. The Bronco II actually has two versions. One that is ITAR compliant and assembled in the USA - the Bronco II. The other one with all restricted components and avionics replaced by South African or foreign sourced components - the Mwari. (Mwari is the name of an African Deity worshipped by the Shona tribes in Southern Africa.)

The first of several Mwari was just delivered to the Mozambican Air Force and will be used in Counter-Insurgency Operations against Islamic Militants in the Cabo Delgado province.
 
compton_effect said:
One interesting thing to note. The Bronco II actually has two versions. One that is ITAR compliant and assembled in the USA - the Bronco II. The other one with all restricted components and avionics replaced by South African or foreign sourced components - the Mwari. (Mwari is the name of an African Deity worshipped by the Shona tribes in Southern Africa.)

The first of several Mwari was just delivered to the Mozambican Air Force and will be used in Counter-Insurgency Operations against Islamic Militants in the Cabo Delgado province.
Click to expand...
I think the Bronco's chances are pretty low, just because it doesn't do anything particularly well and setting up a new line is pretty expensive. Light attack isn't the A-10 replacement.
 
trose213 said:
compton_effect said:
One interesting thing to note. The Bronco II actually has two versions. One that is ITAR compliant and assembled in the USA - the Bronco II. The other one with all restricted components and avionics replaced by South African or foreign sourced components - the Mwari. (Mwari is the name of an African Deity worshipped by the Shona tribes in Southern Africa.)

The first of several Mwari was just delivered to the Mozambican Air Force and will be used in Counter-Insurgency Operations against Islamic Militants in the Cabo Delgado province.
Click to expand...
I think the Bronco's chances are pretty low, just because it doesn't do anything particularly well and setting up a new line is pretty expensive. Light attack isn't the A-10 replacement.
Click to expand...

Quite right too trose213, I have always hated the thought of light attack aircraft replacing the A-10 just because of all those triple digit SAMs that the Russians are fielding right now they would not survive any future war that those missiles are used in.
 
FighterJock said:
trose213 said:
compton_effect said:
One interesting thing to note. The Bronco II actually has two versions. One that is ITAR compliant and assembled in the USA - the Bronco II. The other one with all restricted components and avionics replaced by South African or foreign sourced components - the Mwari. (Mwari is the name of an African Deity worshipped by the Shona tribes in Southern Africa.)

The first of several Mwari was just delivered to the Mozambican Air Force and will be used in Counter-Insurgency Operations against Islamic Militants in the Cabo Delgado province.
Click to expand...
I think the Bronco's chances are pretty low, just because it doesn't do anything particularly well and setting up a new line is pretty expensive. Light attack isn't the A-10 replacement.
Click to expand...

Quite right too trose213, I have always hated the thought of light attack aircraft replacing the A-10 just because of all those triple digit SAMs that the Russians are fielding right now they would not survive any future war that those missiles are used in.
Click to expand...
You are both right. The original concept of the AHRLAC was for a low-cost multirole aircraft that could offer some of the benefits of a helicopter, while being flexible enough to operate in various other ISR roles. The lead designer was part of the original Rooivalk Gunship project. And he did a fine job on those requirements.

It can operate out of austere environments, can survive small arms fire and act as a weapons platform. Observation, counter-insurgency operations, forward air control. If you compare it to the original Bronco - you'll see why they chose that name.

But its not an A-10 replacement. Its Mozambican deployment is exactly what it was designed for. Its a Bronco replacement.
 
TomcatViP said:
It has a more defavorable power to Weight ratio than the original Bronco. That's not good.
Click to expand...
Bronco II only has to out-fly the Dishka heavy machineguns fielded by local dissidents, smugglers, etc.
Since few adhoc armies can afford aircraft, Bronco II does not need to worry about air-to-air combat.
The third advantage is that smaller, poorer nations can actually afford to operate a handful of Bronco IIs.
 
I do agree. But the limitations to employ an heavy unpowered aircraft are not trivials: it's payload and persistence at range that are directly imparted.

When the Colombian air force had to rely on armed Tucanos, their loiter time on armed patrol in many area could drop so significantly that militants just had to take a coffee break (or whatever was their thing) the time they left the area.
In the context of Africa this can only lead to a duplication of fixed fortified position to erect and defend small strips. Those positions are often a bona fida for that type of insurgents that can discreetly mass force around for an assault and grab heavy weaponry often found in those outpost.
(in effect such dispersed airfield are not used)

The need for payload and loiter time at range is real and IMOHO more efficient (compare the cost of manning the said outpost to the extra you'd pay for a better engine and the extra fuel consumption).
 
riggerrob said:
Bronco II only has to out-fly the Dishka heavy machineguns fielded by local dissidents, smugglers, etc.
Click to expand...
That's why the Bronco II, something more akin to a powered glider, is a poor successor to the OG Bronco, which was more of a cargo plane. Not really sure what II offers over a drone.
 
FighterJock said:
Damn. I liked the look of the Bronco 2.
Click to expand...
It offered modular functionality that was actually impressive.
FAjnndUXMAQWub1
 
The A-10 can punch holes in anything on the battlefield. If you
can't find anything better keep what you have.
 
compton_effect said:
FighterJock said:
Damn. I liked the look of the Bronco 2.
Click to expand...
It offered modular functionality that was actually impressive.
Click to expand...
I was also surprised by it's relatively early demise. A broken airplane is always tough to overcome in a competition. I would suspect that there were other industrial issues and integration security issues that played a part of the decision. Honestly at this point, and knowing what little I do know on the subject, I would throw my hat in with the Sierra Nevada "Coyote". Two engines (important in poorly developed areas), tremendous payload flexibility, and perhaps most importantly it has already been flown by US AFSOC for a considerable amount of time, so they have trained pilots and maintainers with combat experience. The imponderables of politics (a.k.a. money) may be the only black swan on this program for me.
 
muttly said:
The A-10 can punch holes in anything on the battlefield. If you
can't find anything better keep what you have.
Click to expand...
Plenty of things batter than a nearly 50 year old platform using arguably 80yr old concepts of operation.
 
The A10 is basically a wingload of ordinance and a big gun.
A UAV version ought to be possible.
 
publiusr said:
Give it to the Army!
Click to expand...
Alas, the Army can't afford it. Not enough people slots to put into it. Not enough funds for all the parts and maintenance. The A-10 for all its greatness was designed into the Air Force means and methods. Probably not surprising the Air Force and the Army do things differently. As much as the Army loves the A-10 (favorite bar none), the Army also loves that it is the Air Force's aircraft.
 
muttly said:
The A-10 can punch holes in anything on the battlefield. If you
can't find anything better keep what you have.
Click to expand...

The Armed Overwatch program ( the current focus of the thread) is not meant as an A-10 replacement.
 
yasotay said:
publiusr said:
Give it to the Army!
Click to expand...
Alas, the Army can't afford it. Not enough people slots to put into it. Not enough funds for all the parts and maintenance. The A-10 for all its greatness was designed into the Air Force means and methods. Probably not surprising the Air Force and the Army do things differently. As much as the Army loves the A-10 (favorite bar none), the Army also loves that it is the Air Force's aircraft.
Click to expand...
Also the Air Force said that the army can not make new air fields or parts for it.

Or update it.

Which was the killer...
 
Grey Havoc said:
uk 75 said:
A UAV version ought to be possible.
Click to expand...
The USAF's attempt to replace it with the original MQ-X 'Hunter-Killer' program did not go well.
Click to expand...
Though reading your post again, I realise that I misunderstood your statement as promoting the idea of an unmanned replacement, rather than what you actually meant, i.e. converting existing A-10 airframes to at least semi-autonomous UCAVs. I think we have at least one thread relating to the latter idea lurking around somewhere...
 
Grey Havoc said:
Grey Havoc said:
uk 75 said:
A UAV version ought to be possible.
Click to expand...
The USAF's attempt to replace it with the original MQ-X 'Hunter-Killer' program did not go well.
Click to expand...
Though reading your post again, I realise that I misunderstood your statement as promoting the idea of an unmanned replacement, rather than what you actually meant, i.e. converting existing A-10 airframes to at least semi-autonomous UCAVs. I think we have at least one thread relating to the latter idea lurking around somewhere...
Click to expand...
Not sure that solves many problems, does'nt make the plane any younger, etc. I suppose it updates the avionics, but you could do that to the manned aircraft. Also while UAV's are great over someone else's sparsely populated region, how realistic is it to have say 200 flying over say Poland, targeting Russian Tanks? Do we have the command and control for that, and with enemy UAV and manned fighters hunting them?
 
I think Five O’Clock Charlie in his bi-plane from M*A*S*H could shoot down our drones.

Give a Grunt an A-10, and he’d have Zeus crapping ball lightning.

I love it for the same reason I love SLS…everyone wants to kill them.
 
Fluff said:
Also while UAV's are great over someone else's sparsely populated region, how realistic is it to have say 200 flying over say Poland, targeting Russian Tanks? Do we have the command and control for that [...] ?
Click to expand...
Not yet. But close: FARA

PJMJRQQT5FCABIQU22YNNBNEME.jpg


Also an unmanned A-10 would be lighter (devoid of the titanium tub), have more range (extra internal fuel) and be even scarier (the idea that any 19 year old grunt could have such firepower on hands would make any elder think cautiously twice!).
 
Last edited:
Thailand will be the AT-6's launch customer

media.txtav.com

Royal Thai Air Force awards contract for fleet of Beechcraft AT-6 aircraft, becomes international launch customer for latest USAF light attack aircraft

Textron Aviation Defense LLC today announced a $143 million contract with the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) for an Integrated System in support of the 41st Wing light attack operations at Chiang Mai Air Base. The historic contract — for eight Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine aircraft, ground support...
media.txtav.com media.txtav.com
 
"Do we have the command and control for that, ...?"

To paraphrase a moderately okay science fiction movie - "That detective, is the right question."

One word: Bandwidth.
 
When nuclear powers throw land invasions at each other, collateral damage from 30kg warheads is the last of your problems imo

In any case, it is the terminal seeker and not the eye ball mk1 that will determine what gets hit. Spend money on that instead of nicer rides for eyeball mk1.
 
What is going to take the role of the A-10 if they are retired? Is it
ready and what is the cost? I would like the air force to put the
answer out there in black and white.
 
What is the role of the A-10? Do we need to take on armored divisions in the Fulda Gap against heavy AA?

What needs to happen is for the Army to detail exactly what they need, and for the Air Force to let the Army buy whatever it wants. If that ends up being surplus A-10s, great.
 
The A-10 is in a funny position.
It’s not going to survive in a near-peer conflict, it’s arguably too much aircraft for a lot of virtually unopposed anti-militia type roles, and sensor and weapon technology development has made low and slow suitable characteristics far less critical to the CAS role.
However it is actually in service (unlike cheaper to operate turboprops the US has looked at) and is still useful, though essentially doing the same medium altitude job most other platforms are also doing.

And the US can’t afford the inter-service bullshit of previous decades. No good reasons for the US Army to start operating A-10s now and even if they did all the issues noted above would still very much apply. A shot down Army A-10 (shot down because it was low and slow, and was low and slow only to pander to what some thinks the mission still requires) doesn’t provide better close support than a not shot down airforce A-10 or F-16 at medium altitude using the technological developments that mean they don’t have to be low and slow to do their job.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom