A-10 Thunderbolt Receive Upgrades for Search and Rescue

January 10, 2017

FighterSweep Staff 28 Comments Air Force, Air Force, Military Aviation, News, Video

At a time when the future of the A-10 is in doubt the Air Force has decided to upgrade 19 Warthogs to give them improved combat search and rescue capabilities. According to a statement by the Air Force these upgrades were urgent.

Watch A-10 Thunderbolt Gun Runs

The LARS V-12 is designed to allow A-10 pilots to communicate more effectively with individuals on the ground such as downed pilots, pararescuemen and joint terminal attack controllers.

“This urgent operational need arose in August (2016),” said Timothy Gray, 309th AMARG acting director. “Air Combat Command and the A-10 Program Office asked me if AMARG could complete 16 aircraft by 16 December. I said ‘Absolutely!’ It was awesome to see Team AMARG take on this massive logistical challenge, build a production machine, find facilities, manpower, equipment, tools, and make material kits (to) execute the requirement.”

“A-10 pilots take the Combat Search and Rescue role very seriously,” said Lt. Col. Ryan Hayde, 354th Fighter Squadron commander and A-10 pilot. “While this is just one tool, it can assist us in bringing them back to U.S. soil safely.” – Davis-Monthan Air Force Base

Photo of A-10 on a gun run by US Air Force

While many have called for the A-10 to be retired the aircraft is still proving its unique capabilities everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting ISIS and the Taliban. The Air Force has stated that it feels the F-35 could ultimately replace the A-10 in the close air support role but there is heated debate in aviation circles on the wisdom of such a move.

Let us know your opinions below on if you think the F-35 can replace the A-10.

Featured Image of A-10 by Airman 1st Class Mya M. Crosby, US Air Force

Matt Baker

The F35 cannot replace the unique capabilities of the A10 in a CAS role. Its much vaunted RCS is little use against the Mk 1 eyeball, and it doesn’t have the physical characteristics and survivability of the A10 to loiter and deliver a devastating punch where ground troops need it. I think this is the Air Force trying to create a role for their expensive toy.
Surely an updated A10 design can be produced, based on experience of the current plane, and built at a fraction of the price of an F35
- Mali King
  
  There is something the F35 can do that the A10 will have difficulty achieving in a high threat environment….avoiding hits/enemy fire in the first place (obviously using appropriate alternative tactics (i.e. not the A10 “Fulda Gap” low and slow Rambo tactics))! Why would you fly and loiter “low and slow” in a high threat environment like an overconfident airborne Rambo as your primary tactic…..unless you really bloody have to (in a truly shit scenario)? Modern mobile SHORADS like Pantsir S1s/S2s will chop up A10s into little pieces (titanium bathtub or no titanium bathtub) with their agile + deadly missiles and hard hitting 30mm cannons…..those A10s will be smoking holes in the ground. Don’t forget those modern MANPADS and older deadly SHORADS like ZSU-23-4 as well. CAS is about being on time and on target in support of your ground troops. Being a smoking hole in the ground does is not being on time and on target. Why do you think A10s are mostly providing CAS from medium altitudes in recent times…even in relatively permissive environments? Go on…go and find your local friendly A10 pilot and ask him/her about the ugly truth on recent changes to A10 tactics.
  
  The truth is the A10 cannot perform equally effective CAS in all environments and threat levels PERIOD
  
  (And yes….you could argue that you can sanitise high end and capable enemy threats with very comprehensive SEAD/DEAD/EW before sending in the A10s. But you then encounter the problem of having to devote a large proportion of your time and resources to very comprehensive SEAD/DEAD/EW during the first few (and very important) days of a conflict instead of providing adequate timely CAS to your ground troops during this period of time)
  - Matt Baker
    
    i don’t need to ask A10 pilot about changing tactics – believe it or not tactics always change as the environment changes, and thats a simple truth.
    As for who can get it right – well why not an F35 pilot. Major John wilson, an F35 pilot….yes that is correct, go on…check it…Stated that the A10 will always be better in a CAS role than the F35, because it is designed for that role.
    In addition stack external ordnance on an F35 for the CAS role and it will lose that lovely RCS and even then Pantsir SM or S400 will chew F35 out of the sky. As out technology advances, so does the other side – look how the Wobbly Goblin got detected.
    The F35 will have a role as a strike fighter, but when it gets dirty and the guys on the ground need the reputation of the Devil’s Cross in the area, and its unique abilities – including the GAU-8, its true STOL capability and its proven track record, then the A10 is the better choice.
    If you want a second opinion, ask Senator John McCain, I believe he was a pilot too, who thinks its the finest CAS plane in the world and should continue to fly.
    But we can differ there. IMO the F35, is too pricey, late, over engineered and will not deliver a 5* performance on all its various roles, and we in the west will got told by our opponents – we told you so.
    - Mali King
      
      I have seen that Major John Wilson video….all good points by the USAF major but he did add a caveat: the F35 is superior/much more survivable in environments that previous generation aircraft (e.g. F16, A10, F/A 18) would struggle in. At least the F35 has the option of internal only carriage of ordnance to minimise its RCS and maximise its survivability in high threat environments (and perform CAS if needed)……the A10 does not have that option. The A10 is awesome….as long as the adversary does not have a competent IADS with mucho competently run high end SAM systems, SHORADS and MANPADs.
      
      All stealth aircraft can be detected if the enemy radar is close enough (has to be bloody close too…the Serbian Radar/SAM site was pretty close to that Wobbly Goblin which flew the same ingress and egress route day after day). A learning lesson there is that good mission planning (especially not using the same ingress and egress route day after day) and competent tactics are still important for stealth platforms. Also note that the Serbians could not stop all the other stealth aircraft from pounding them hard day after day. There are no silver bullet solutions (talking about the whole kill chain here) against stealth platforms…….for a LONG time. Why do you think the Russians and Chinese are investing significantly in their own stealth fighters? Wake me up when stealth detection technologies (e.g. “Quantum” radar) can be taken out of a laboratory environment and be used RELIABLY and easily in the field to detect and TRACK stealth/VLO platforms.
      
      The A10 is not indispensable for the CAS mission although it is great at the CAS mission. Proof? USMC….USMC aviators are very good providing CAS and they do it with AV 8B Harriers and F/A 18 Hornets. No A10 needed!
      
      Frankly, opponents of the “West” and its allies would actually be saying “Holy Crap, there are F35s in theatre!? Hey why is there a GBU punching through the roof of my bunker and why are my troops being blown up by a phantom force (not the F4 variety :D) ?”
      
      In the case of a near peer opponent hearing that A10s will be charging in from day 1 of the conflict to provide CAS: ” I guess I will be giving some early medals to my SAM, SHORAD, Manpad and AAA crews”
- Thomas Verhey
  
  The F-35A has the best fuel efficiency of any armed jet the US flies and a massive internal fuel load with optional tanks.
  
  Loiter time is NOT an issue for the F-35A,
  It was also indistinguishable between the A-10 in green flag CAS by ground troops’ mk 1 eyeballs because they couldn’t notice (quote) when the F-35 was flying CAS.
  …the only time anyone flying CAS was noticed was when a combat search and rescue was queued for a downed A-10 or by those requesting the CAS.
  - Ed “ID” Muir
    
    Your Green Flag data is also flawed– CSARs are not executed in training only after an aircraft is shot down– if that was the case, EVERY Red Flag since the exercise started would shut down due to the loss rate in EVERY mission. CSARs at Green Flag are pre-planned training lanes that have ZERO to do what occurs in the tactical situation and are predicated on the training needs of the attending joint units.
Dirk Pitt

I would suggest that they rename the F-35, and attach “SAK” (Swiss Army Knife) to the name, F-35 SAK. Some think it can be the ultimate multi-role fighter; radar jamming, bomber, air superiority, CAS. One thing it can’t do is put 50 milk bottle sized DU rounds through a tank, and repeat 20 more times. Until they have something better than an A-10, I would think the discussion is over.
- displacedjim
  
  Once again, the A-10 already has been replaced for CAS missions. A-10s have flown less than 20% of the CAS provided in Afghanistan and Iraq. The F-15, F-16, F-18, AV-8, B-1, B-52, AC/HC/MC-130, AH-1, and AH-64 have all provided air support to troops engaging the enemy. The F-35 can fly missions that these other aircraft have flown. Therefore, the F-35 can also replace the A-10.
  - Ed “ID” Muir
    
    There’s a significant differnce between ATO-assigned CAS missions (quantity) and effective CAS (quality). Flying a “CAS mission” is significantly different than executing no-kidding CAS in support of embattled ground forces in contact. The numbers are also significantly skewed by the fact that data is ignored between 2002 and 2006– the reason? Only A-10s were deployed to Afghanistan during that timeframe because the Hog was the only US fighter that could operate from the austere runways until they were rebuilt in… wait for it… 2006.
    - Mali King
      
      US marines might be disappointed by your statement. You forgot to mention that USMC AV 8Bs were also in country (in the Stan) during that time period providing CAS.
      - Ed “ID” Muir
        
        True– meant to differentiate the numbers that Big Blue uses, not the joint fight– should have said USAF fighters. Kandahar was in better shape than Bagram.
displacedjim

Of course the F-35 can replace the A-10. After all:
1) The F-35 can fly any mission the F-16 can fly.
2) The F-16 already performs more CAS missions than the A-10 does, and has been for a decade.
3) Ergo, since the F-16 has replaced the A-10–as has the F-15, F-18, AV-8, B-1, B-52, AC/HC/MC-130, AH-1, and AH-64–then so can the F-35.
- Dirk Pitt
  
  Everything you say is true, for me it would come down to cost and survive-ability. The Hog is clearly the winner at $18,000/hr to operate. In second place is the F-16 at $22,000/hour. I really don’t want to risk the loss of a $100,000,000 (+ or -) aircraft on a CAS mission unless it was the only hope for the boots on the ground. Otherwise, I would rather focus on its stealth roles where it would be way, way more effective.
  - Thomas Verhey
    
    You forgot the other half of your own priority
    “Ability to survive”
    So, this is about combat search and rescue, in a threat environment.
    
    The A-10 is so vulnerable to ground fire it was pulled from the ISIS fight until AA could be bombed by higher faster jets.
    
    The F-35B&A have flown untouched by vehicle mounted and man portable air defences and ‘enemy’ F-15, 18 & 16 fighters at Green & Red Flags, and in over 100 over flights over an integrated network of a trio of the latest pac3 patriot radars that can ID and fire on tiny radar cross sections of stealthy missiles in just seconds, the jets remain undetected.
    
    So, what is the per hour cost of deploying another CSAR mission to rescue the A-10 pilot? …. And what’s the cost to the government to his wife when he’s KIA … Per hour … Since that is apparently how you measure what a human life is worth.
    
    There’s an entire list of other arguments of F-35a “pro” vs A-10 “con” but, they are tangential to your self-contradiction
    - Dirk Pitt
      
      Too Funny !
    - Ed “ID” Muir
      
      Incorrect–A-10s have not been pulled from the ISIS fight so “higher-faster jets” could handle the AAA.
      
      And, A-10As successfully led a real-world rescue in a threat environment that took down a stealth fighter.
      - Mali King
        
        Those A10s played bait too to distract the local Serbian air defence units. Kudos to the A10 pilots in that mission but don’t expect that same tactic to work all the time especially in a higher threat environment.
        
        Oh BTW, Iraqi Republican units had no issues shooting down or mission killing A10s in Desert Storm. Just ask Gen Chuck Horner…..he had to task F16s instead to do the A10’s job properly over Iraqi Republican Guard positions.
      - Ed “ID” Muir
        
        Sorry man, you’re wrong about CSAR. A-10s weren’t “bait”– they were the Rescue Mission Commanders and Rescue Escort.
        
        Actually, you’re wrong on the F-16 / A-10 data from 1991 as well. The reason General Horner sent the A-10s over the Republican Guard was specifically because he could not get accurate BDA from other assets, and the ground offensive could not start until 50% attrition was achieved. With the most sophisticated sensors being eyeballs and binoculars, the Hogs made their reports. Guys who flew that day reported that they flew home over F-16s doing strikes in the KTO– and that really pissed them off. They took a good amount of damage and lost aircraft– funny thing is, when you apply sortie rates, the A-10 casualties were about the same as other fighters, notably the F-16 and F-15E. The decision to send the A-10s north against the RG was a deliberate one. General Horner also famously exclaimed, “I take back every bad thing I ever said about the A-10– I love them! They’re saving our asses!” Of course, he went back to being a hog hater later, again.
      - Mali King
        
        Fair enough! Looks like I need to do more research ?
- Jason Wooden
  
  The A-10 has something the F-35 doesn’t, A GUN! (that is currently working and carries more than *snicker* 182 rounds).
  - Thomas Verhey
    
    At every green flag the F-35b has flown the ground troops surveyed said they could not tell the difference between the A-10s and F-35s providing CAS.
    
    The only difference being no combat search and rescue exercise missions were deployed after an F-35 was ‘shot down’ … Because none have ever been successfully targeted…. The average loss rate of F-16’s and A-10’s are “about 1/3rd”.
    
    You also make no comparison between the GAU of the jets in function.
    The A-10’s gau fires 30mm explosive rounds with a 40ft kill range.
    It has a 90/10 200ft range rating at 4,000ft. Giving the best possible minimum kill/danger close CAS proximity if 280ft wide and 500-odd feet long…. Only if those 10% of ” misses” don’t occur…. Of those 10% of shots that always miss per burst, they can miss by 100ft or more depending on burst duration, wind speed, direction, dive angle, air speed. Making the A-10’s GAU lethal to anything at random in a 500-700ft oval … Only if the pilot holds true and uses the lines painted on the nose precise my to target.
    
    In conclusion, at best the A-10’s GAU is good to target enemies if they’re only 600’ish feet away from civilians and friendly troops.
    
    And ZERO if the mission in in the mountains because the A-10 can’t fly with bombs and fuel that high.
    
    .. So tell me why that is better than the F-35A’s 25mm gun or a SDB from a jet/bomber …. Or laser guided rocket from a V-22..
    
    You must have the stats, you clearly already reached an educated conclusion, so please share!
    - Dirk Pitt
      
      ROFLMAO !
      Stop your killing me!
    - Ed “ID” Muir
      
      You are 100% incorrect on the effectiveness of the gun. A-10Cs have successfully strafed within 15 meters of friendly forces, and routinely train to 100 meters with ZERO collateral damage or fratricide due to the accuracy of the weapon.
      - Mali King
        
        The myth of zero collateral damage from the A10’s GAU 8 is simply not true. Perhaps you want tell that to the British AFV crew who got whacked by A10 “friendly” GAU 8 fire in 2003/Gulf War II. Is gun accuracy very important at preventing fracticide….absolutely! But so is situational awareness (a more important factor in my opinion) and good coordination with the ground troops/JTAC (with any platform). A Mk 1 eyeball in an A10 cockpit, even when flying low and slow, and obsession with with the GAU 8’s accuracy ain’t going to necessarily reduce fracticides. At least A10Cs have TGPs now I guess.
      - Ed “ID” Muir
        
        Mistakes have been made, and I will not defend the actions of that particular sortie– in fact, that example is one used exclusively by the Hog community to stress battle tracking. The pilots made a critical error, but they were told that there were no friendlies in the area. Fratricide and battle tracking errors of omission and proficiency failures happen across the CAF and are not unique to the A-10, and for every frat incident we’ve had, we have many examples of fratricide prevention.
      - Mali King
        
        Agreed!
        
        I would like to add something extra though….smart pilot + smart weapons = the best ???
    - Ed “ID” Muir
      
      The ability for “ground troops” to tell the difference between platforms providing CAS effects at Green Flag has less to do with the platforms than you might think. Green Flag (the Air Force name for the exercise– the Army either refers to them by their locations–NTC or JRTC) typically provides less-than-robust target sets for CAS players because the Brigade Commanders are “graded” on THEIR warfighting execution, and not on their ability to integratge joint players– weird concept, especially at the JOINT Readiness Training Center where Green Flag East plays. Anyhoo… if the USAF comes in and wipes out all the targets, the Army doesn’t get to effectively test their true capabilities, and their commanders can’t effectively be “graded.” So, air-apportioned targets are significantly less than what might be expected in actual CAS fights– if the USAF hits five targets in a day, the Army starts to complain that “air is taking all the targets.” Five targets. With a typical combat load, now that APKWS has been fielded, a SINGLE A-10 can engage 13 targets with precision-level fidelity. 26 then for a formation of two– that’s easily enough to render a COMPANY combat non-effective. Now, to let the cat out of the bag, as someone who worked at Green Flag East for three years, I never once saw a scenario where 13 targets were struck IN SCENARIO in a single ATO day (or two), much less by a single platform. So, your “average, surveyed ground troop” would likely NEVER know the difference between CAS platforms simply by the way the exercise is mech’d.
    - Mali King
      
      Your comments about F35 survivability (very good survivability that is) is spot on. A smoking (A10) hole in the ground ain’t providing any CAS!