sigh So true. Age ends all things. Although, the B-52 is still having a good time of it. They certainly don’t make them like that anymore.
And with small precision weapons becoming more of a thing, lighter aircraft can deal more effective damage to the battlefield.
Yeah…I think we all agree that there are better platforms to put multiple bombs on targets in a precise way. I don’t have any knowledge on how much faster the A-10 can respond (when already in the AO) when being directed by infantry…but I’m guessing they can be slightly more reactive and with quicker passes on a target that might be being adjusted by the FAC or JTAC or whatever/whoever it is on the ground. All of that obviously increases the exposure of the A-10 to exactly what you are talking about…so in that respect, I think the general is right about it being useful in a “permissive environment”.
PLINKING!
General: “Please make sure your pilots don’t call it ‘plinking’…”
Pilot: “We plinked today, we’ll plink tomorrow, and we have gotten really good at plinking. Plinkity plink.”
General: “Do you know who you are talking to??!”
Pilot: “Oh, yeah, I mean, we are really good at plinking…SIR…”
BeachAV8R
I’m not a subject matter expert either. Just a guy at a computer with an opinion 
I don’t think the Avenger weapon gets the credit it deserves. a .50 is no replacement for it. In an aircraft there’s only so much time you can spend on target. You will also rarely actually see the target, most of the times the guys calling on you don’t got an actual eye on the bad guys. I think this video is a good example of what the avenger can do to an area target with 13 seconds spent. All while being more cost effective than a single GBU.
Secondly, the anti-vehicle side of the gun. It surely cannot penetrate the frontal armor of a post 60’s MBT. But there are still plenty of other vehicles on the battlefield that the gun can destroy. An army fielding MBT’s typically needs to field more vehicles of other types like trucks in order to support the armor. Not to mention that every sensible army would deploy atleast motorized and preferably mechanized infantry to further support the armor.
Since we’re looking at 2022 and beyond. It’s not unreasonable to think that targets, possibly even IFV’s and trucks, are all actively protected. I’ll have to see it first in order to believe that an active protection system deflects an attack by something among the likes of a 250kg bomb. But I consider it possible the system could destroy a GBU-39 SDB or a Maverick before it hits the target. I like to think that the gun offers some redundancy here. It would not be the weapon of choice but if the need arises, the weapon is immume to any sort of active protection. From what I can gather the AESA on the latest russian MBT’s even try to filter for cannonfire as to not allow the enemy to use it to ‘mask’ a real shot taken at it.
I know the A-10’s are aging. But I wonder what the prospective replacements are offering over the A-10? They all appear a lot less survivable. Requiring a stand-off weapon for every engagement is probably going to negate their lower flight-cost per hour. And I wonder If acquiring a whole new fleet is cheaper than integrating some new weapons ( like the agm-176 griffin or a modification of the rocket-boosted GBU-39 ) on an A-10D.
Normally we’re to classy to share any live combat here 
But I invite you to watch this clip and convince me wich plane would do a better job at it and what weapon they would use.
One bone of contention with some of the replacements - particularly the Tucano and AT-6B types, is that they are single engine aircraft. Yeah, yeah, quote me the statistics on how reliable turbine engines are these days. I think the PT-6 has around a 125,000 hour mean time before failure…which is darn good. Now, I’m not saying I’m the luckiest guy in the world, but I had one come apart in flames over Nashville one night…and thankfully I had another one to get me down. Statistically, I should be able to fly another half a dozen careers worth of flying and never have one burp on me again…LOL…so I have that going for me. But I do love it when Pilatus pilots start bragging in the FBO about how much better their PC12 is than my B200…lol…
In an environment where, if you get shot down, you might be put in a cage and set on fire or have your head lopped off, err…I’ll take the second engine. Particularly in that you are getting shot at…which no doubt increased the MTBF to something less than that of a civil plane. Yeah, I know there are plenty of single engine fighters out there that do this all day…but they have the speed to at least distance themselves from the point they dropped their bombs a good way before they have to eject. A 280 knot plane turning a PT-6, when it craps out, you aren’t going very far at all…
When they do fly the F-35 against the A-10 in the CAS testing, I’ll be curious how they are going to simulate damage…whether from the “golden BB” or something like you guys are talking about - more modern MANPADS. Again, I don’t have any data or stories really of damage taken by A-10s the last few years in Iraq/Afghanistan with regards to whether the A-10s are even being hit with anything in these COIN type ops. I know in Gulf I and II they took some losses and damage, but don’t recall offhand what missiles hit them.
Fun discussion…!
BeachAV8R
That’s me too. Glad we have some actual people on the forum that are smarter than me and have been there and done that…LOL…
I didn’t read all the posts because I’m at work but I did want to chime in with a few things.
First I worked this jet as a 2W1even deployed with it. I have also worked F-15C and B-1B. The A-10 was by far the easiest and most rewarding jet to work. Most if not all A-10s were just upgrades to C models. And I do believe they were all scheduled to get new
To replace the A-10 you need a few things. You need two engines, redundant systems, no fly by wire crap and you need to be slow. The ability to slowly come in to a battle area allows for more rounds on target.
As of right now I can only see one plane to replace the A-10 and thats the P-51.
Speaking as an aircraft tech now, restarting a production line of the A-10, now that it has been out of production for so long will probably cost as much as developing a complete new aircraft anyway. Many of the tooling problems will resurface, drawings will have been lost, and generally tons of specifics will have to be reconsidered.
The A-10, like all fighter jets is getting old in the airframe and is really done for by any reasonable measure. I can understand why the US airforce wants to get rid of it when it already has a wide arsenal of platforms to deploy weapons from. From what I can see, is that the A-10 is sitting in an uncomfortable gap between aircraft and helicopters with many being able to execute it’s current assigned role better.
Honestly, I don’t get why people are so obsessed with the A-10. Even people that have absolutely no passion for aviation seem to have a strong opinion about it.
There is no way any kind of a .50 will be an equivalent to a 30mm cannon, especially not the GAU-8. However, a .50 is far more cost effective for shooting up a technical than a 30mm and doesn’t jolt the airplane apart, either. You can also bring .50s in closer to troops in contact compared to a 30mm.
I would argue that a single GBU is actually more cost effective than the GAU-8 simply on the basis that the GAU-8 has a certain level of maintenance and care behind it vs. a GBU. The cost of a thousand cartridges of 30mm vs. a single bomb is a bit misleading as we forget that a gatling gun is a pretty complex weapon. The GAU-8 is by no means as simple as an NS-30, for example. I don’t know what the 30x173mm cartridges cost, but I’d bet it’s currently in the realm of $30-40 for the good stuff. That means you get a cost of about $3000-4000 per 100 round burst. So for about 500 rounds, you’ve reached the cost of a GBU-12, not including maintenance and upkeep on the gun.
An excellent area weapon system and definitely the preferred weapon if you’re shooting up APCs and the like. But you have to hope they aren’t going to be shooting back with much more than a few rifle caliber machine guns, and if we use something like a BMP-3 as an example, they bring 30mm cannons to bear as well - not including MANPADS and other regiment-grade SAMs. Bottom line, slinging bombs or missiles greatly increases your survivability when you don’t have the full details of what’s on the ground. With troops in contact, you’re better served by a lighter weapon that can stay on target better and offer more precision.
Most active protection systems fielded on tanks currently or in the near term aren’t that good at catching a piece of iron filled with explosive approaching them directly from the top, especially since a bomb is going to be going almost as fast as a typical large bore cannon shell. They’d also need some serious power to destroy or deflect the cast iron casing typical of the munitions. Against a missile, their chances are much greater, but even then most of them try to deceive the guidance system rather than stop the missile - it’s much easier and your chances of success much greater.
No prospective replacements are going to offer much over the A-10 besides decreased maintenance costs and potentially increased loiter times. The A-10 is a unique system and to get that capability in a new aircraft would require a development track a la F-35. What we’re trying to do here is covering the gap left behind if/when the A-10 goes away, and most of that is in COIN and FAC operations. An A-29 will never be as effective as an A-10 in raw killing power; it wasn’t designed to be. However, it can make an excellent platform to vector in friendly strikes, point out targets, and assist troops in contact. It can do that all at a price point far more palatable than an A-10 doing it, as painful as it is to say that.
Again, it’s all about what risks you’re willing to take. If the USAF didn’t feel it was a risk worth taking, we’d have an A-10 replacement by now. That is where the real issue lies; the Army and most of the people on the ground desire what the A-10 brings to the table, while the USAF feels it isn’t worth keeping over the latest pointy-nose fighters. It’s a disconnect from USAF culture with USA culture, where the USAF believes that it can win wars with air power alone while the USA believes that boots on the ground with air support is the only way to win a war. Neither is absolutely right because no two wars are the same. Sometimes air power alone can achieve political aims while other times the only way is to deploy ground forces.
As for the F-35 being used in CAS, the USAF believes they won’t be using it like the A-10. Instead, it will be flying at 30,000ft slinging PGMs, far away and above hostile ground fire. It’s not so much the golden BB as it is they’re assuming that they won’t ever need to take that risk. This, unfortunately, is not CAS. It would be foolhardy to risk an asset like the F-35 to make a gun run where the fellow with the PKM has an opportunity to riddle it with cheap bullets. That’s where an aircraft like the A-29 would come in… If USAF culture wasn’t so vehemently against such an aircraft.
Most of the A-10 damage/losses were due to MANPADS in ODS, with a pair having been hit by SA-13s. In OEF and OIF, the damage shifted to small arms and machine gun fire, with a Roland missile being responsible for a single loss in OIF.
At the end of the day, you’re faced with a dwindling budget, old airframes in dire need of replacement, and a series of mission types, all of which demand some kind of compromise. A simple, cheap, COTS solution like the A-29 is about the only way to do it within the framework that the USAF has set for itself.
Does the Air Force have JTACs that embed with Army and Marine troops? It would be interesting to hear their opinion on the whole close-air role and what they have liked historically, what they like now, and where they think it should go in the future… I think there used to be a JTAC type that posted on SimHQ a couple years ago…what the heck was his alias?
That’s pretty much what JTACs do, yeah. I know all branches are desperately in need of them and there’s a lot of jumping around that goes on from services offering bonuses.
I’ve read that most JTACs very much want the A-10 to stay, but I’d hazard a guess it has more to do with the A-10 crews rather than the aircraft itself.
Yeah…I got about halfway through this book but something popped up and I didn’t finish it…but it was fascinating look into the complexity of the situation overhead written by a JTAC:
BeachAV8R
I read a JTAC book called “Danger Close”.
It is a bit boring in the beginning but pretty interesting:
EDIT: Also I love how this forums software embeds Steam and amazon links!
@fearlessfrog is the forum software guru… We are really lucky to have him… 
Lets put it this way, if you intercept a 10lb warhead at ten feet with Arena, it will make a nice mess on the side of your armor. You intercept a 250lb or 500lb warhead at ten feet, the over pressure is going to make the crew wish the bomb had impacted directly. That is of course assuming that Arena could force a sympathetic detonation from something that big.
Shtora might give something like the IR guided maverick and laser guided bombs an issue if used at a sufficiently low angle to be within the systems FOV, but it can’t jam GPS, and it can’t jam a CBU.
I would still caution that to use the cannon, you have to be close enough to fire it, and at that point in a modern peer-peer scenario you’ve been rendered very dead by about six different systems.
So what you’ll are saying really is… Bring back the f111…you know it, you want it, you NEED it.
Sorry topic hijack
I don’t know what that it is but I want it now @near_blind
Specifically that’s an F-111C of the RAAF, presumably trying its hand at the barbie.
Generally if we’re talking about reviving aircraft production, couldn’t hurt to bring back the F-111 line. The F-15E may have multi-role capability, but its wings are stapled on and don’t move so it loses style points.
You saying the 'vaark had multirole capability?
Cause that’s just crazy talk.
Only if by multi role you mean dropping multiple bombs.
And eh on style points, the F-15E is still flying 
makes it the most stylish jet around
Your plane may be flying and multi-role, but does it have a bomb bay, swiveling weapons pylons, side by side seating, and a built in flame thrower?
Checkmate, Mudhens
