Will the old people go into battle again?
Poor Warthog... It has a truly Russian fate: just as its retirement, earned in many battles, was looming, an order arrived for an extension. And so the US military has been torturing this honored aircraft since 2015.
The Middle East is a magnet for the A-10; it's fair to say they've been there since 1991, flying from one conflict to the next. Overall, of the seven wars involving the A-10, only one took place outside the Middle East: the operation against Serbia. The others were Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And now, either the icing on the cake or the final nail in the coffin of his career – Iran.
But there's a small catch here. The question is whose career the Warthogs will hammer this nail into.
Although the A-10 is considered the most useless and criticized strike aircraft, it certainly now has a competitor. And the Warthog itself continues to be recalled from retirement due to the emergence of "new circumstances"—or, more accurately, new conflicts—in which the aircraft must play a role.
In fact, it's worth acknowledging that there's never been, and still isn't, an equivalent replacement for the A-10. That is, it must do its job—support ground forces and create beachheads clear of enemy defenses for Marines landing from ships. And no other aircraft in the US military can do this except the A-10, simply because there's no replacement for the Warthog.
A-10A is designed for direct aviation ground support. The only comparable aircraft is the Su-25, which is also an anachronism from a modern aircraft perspective. The A-10's primary targets remain enemy armor on the battlefield. Its high maneuverability at low altitudes theoretically allows the A-10A to evade attacks from fighters and anti-aircraft guns. missilesIn practice, the absence of a radar makes it much easier for the enemy to destroy the A-10.
However, the relatively low flight speed, maneuverability, and good visibility from the cockpit allow the aircraft to hit small targets on the first approach in visual mode.
At the time of its creation, the A-10 significantly surpassed other combat aircraft in terms of protection. 1309 kg of armor reliably protected the pilot and vital structural elements from the impact of light small arms fire. weapons and ensured a certain survivability when hit by 20-23 mm caliber shells.
Yes, at first, the Warthog, as they say, "didn't catch on." Simply because time passed, and there was no use for it.
But in the 90s, when the showdowns in Kuwait and Iraq were just beginning, the A-10 showed off its ability to smash dishes in other people's shops. And somehow the criticism actually abated, because yes, the Warthogs really did burn down a bunch of Iraqi tanks and other equipment, taking full advantage of the air.
The 30mm seven-barreled monster GAU-8/A Avenger performed very well in the deserts of Iraq.
And just like a couple of years ago in Afghanistan, and a couple of months ago in Syria, and right now in Iraq, the A-10 will once again be forced to rescue US special forces and Marines who have gotten themselves into trouble.
It's odd that such an aircraft was rarely shot down. But that's likely because the Americans never fought against countries with large numbers of MANPADS and small anti-aircraft missiles. Stick a Warthog somewhere in the skies over Ukraine, and such a relic would clearly be dead. The Su-25 fared no better, however. Its occasional use always resulted in losses on both sides of the front line.
By analogy, it's doubtful the A-10 will have a more impressive career in its twilight years.
Nevertheless, the Warthog is going to war again. But it's clearly not doing so for the good of it. The US Air Force officially announced that the A-10 will be replaced by the multirole and very stealthy F-35. We've already discussed this issue, and nothing has changed since then. This includes the opinion that the Penguin is about as good an attack aircraft as the F-22. In other words, it's useless.
Of course, a strike aircraft like the F-35 could deal with ground targets if it had the appropriate weapons. Unfortunately, nothing has changed since the last article on this topic. Moreover, a massive withdrawal of F-35s from the Middle East to the United States is currently underway. For modernization, so to speak.
But the TR-3 modification package is still not ready, and, accordingly, the high-precision air-to-surface weapons for it are not ready. This means that until the F-35 is trained to engage ground targets, they have little use in any theater of war. As is well known, the United States does not engage in military conflicts with countries whose armed forces are more or less decent. DefenseTo avoid unnecessary losses, so to speak.
At least, I can’t remember a conflict of this order.
Air & Space Forces Magazine, through its editor Tobias Naegeli, wrote:
The presence of Warthogs in Iran, especially at such an early stage before the ground operation even began, is a bad sign for the F-35. They are not performing well as close air support aircraft. Their sorties are currently suspended, and some have already been withdrawn from the theater of operations. Yesterday alone, 12 aircraft left bases close to Iran. Air Force command fears they could be destroyed on the ground by Iranian aircraft. drones and missiles, with very questionable tactical value.
This raises a very interesting question: why is everyone so fixated on the F-35? Okay, it's been billed as the successor to the A-10 and an aircraft capable of providing close support to troops on the ground. Fine.
Words came first, then action. They announced it, but that didn't make the Penguin a ground attack aircraft. And it won't be one in the traditional sense. It won't fly at low altitude and shoot tanks with its cannon or launch missiles at them. It's not really suited for low-altitude flight anyway.
Moreover, the F-35's weapons eliminate those patently outdated special effects. This refers to firing a cannon at tanks (even one like the A-10's) or launching the patently ancient AGM-65 Maverick missiles.
No, the AGM-65 still has a decent hit rate and a powerful warhead, but its 27 km range and infrared guidance system that can be knocked off course by a sunbeam are all bad news for those flying the Warthogs and those below relying on their support.
However, counting on the F-35 is even more futuristic optimism. Imagining a Penguin operating like an A-10 in the Iranian foothills (let's not even mention the mountains, mind you) is simply impossible.
But here's a glaring question: does the US Air Force have any other aircraft besides the F-35 and A-10? Why is everything suddenly so focused on this pair?
Looking at the US Air Force itself, in addition to 443 F-35s and 219 A-10s, they can scrape together around 300 F-15s of all variants and 800 F-16s. That's just over a thousand aircraft, which, as demonstrated by operational experience and use in various military conflicts, are certainly worth something.
Indeed, the question of why the US is so fixated on the F-35/A-10 pair is not at all idle.
It's entirely possible this is some kind of diversionary tactic – things are bad in the US (many questions), the F-35 is useless (almost true), and they're throwing old A-10s into battle with equally old pilots (true). Aircraft carriers with a thousand F/A-18s are broken and not ready for combat.
But this does not remove a thousand F-16s and F-15s from the agenda.
Iran is the least suitable country in the Middle East for the A-10. There are no Iraqi deserts where one can comfortably fly at low altitudes without fear. However, there are mountains that will not allow the unequipped "bird" to soar so freely. Afghanistan has already shown many pilots just how treacherous mountains are.
Plus, these mountains are incredibly green. You can easily hide any surprises you like there, ready to be enjoyed by an A-10 skulking at low altitude and speed. Iraqi soldiers managed to bring down seven attack aircraft with their Shilkas back in the day, and damaged nearly two dozen beyond repair.
Who said things would be any different in Iran? Things will be even worse there, with mountains right next to the coast, where American Marines will be in constant fear. And that's where Warthog pilots will have to come to their rescue.
And here comes the understanding that the same F-16E with its very impressive set of air-to-surface missiles (AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-158 JASSM, AGM-84E SLAM), whose pilot does not at all need to look for targets on the ground and shoot at them with a cannon, having 9 tons of payload at 9 knots at his disposal - this is “today”.
But hovering over the front lines in an aircraft with armor but no radar, armed with a complement of homing missiles and a cannon (albeit a remarkable one) from the last century—that's not a good scenario. The same weapons that destroyed 33 Ukrainian Air Force Su-25s and 37 Russian Aerospace Forces Su-25s, according to the British Ministry of Defense's statistical service—small anti-aircraft missiles, man-portable air defense systems, conventional air defense systems, and fighters—will also destroy the A-10. Especially since, with the exception of fighters, the Iranians have more than enough other weapons at their disposal.
And unlike Venezuela, where Russian weapons were lying around in warehouses and yards, the Igla and Verba are unlikely to be sitting on shelves.
The southern Iranian coastline will be a very unpleasant place if the US decides to launch a ground operation.
If you superimpose one map on the other and take measurements, you'll find that the coast is between 40 and 70 km wide. And beyond that—yes, the Zagros Mountains, with all that implies.
Of course, it would be more interesting to hang around 40-50 kilometers from the coast, avoiding trouble, hoping to avoid the S-300 by flying low over the sea ("it's never a bad idea to dream" - S-300 note), scanning the foothills with radar, and, if necessary, launching a missile. This, of course, seems more logical, and most importantly, safe.
Why many media outlets on the other side are shouting that “everything is bad” and that the A-10s will go into battle is not entirely clear due to the lack of logic.
Only one scenario fits: the US Air Force has finally decided to condemn the Warthogs and write them off, leaving the disposal to Iran.
There's some real logic here. Why risk more modern and expensive aircraft if the Iranians will bend over backwards to shoot them down? Especially since they have the means to do so?
All these tales about Iran's destroyed air defenses and the IRGC missile launch sites being destroyed—that's something we need to discuss with the Israelis. They have the most accurate information, although questions could also be directed to Bahrain and Kuwait.
In this light, the A-10's deployment seems quite logical and well-thought-out. However, one doubts that American pilots will be happy with this end to their careers.
Information