Why the Marines don't fly the A-10?

[MarineAir]

Just a general curiousity. I've been very impressed with the capabilities of the A-10 since the first Gulf war. Seeing that it is basically a dedicated close air support platform, why don't the marines have it? I know one of the primary missions of marine aviation is to provide close air support to fellow marines on the ground. With that in mind, the A-10 is probably the best platform for that mission. Does anyone know why the corps doesn't fly them? Also I read somewhere that the air force was in the process of getting rid of the A-10 just before the first Gulf war. I guess it was too simple of an aircraft ,flew less that mach 1,and didn't have high tech gizmos. Is this true? If it is true, why didn't the corps grab them from the airforce at that time. Thanx for your replies, in advance.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Look at the OV-10 Bronco - very similar issues

 

[brd2881]

Yeah, I am wondering the same thing, the A-10 seems to really be an aircraft whose mission is very near and dear to the hearts of Marines everywhere: CAS. Would be nice to see the Marines get some.

 

[MarineAir]

Being a "Naval Service", wanting carrier deck capability for all their TacAir jets? (Even if they still land base them).

Good point. I'd think that if the Corps was to get them when they came out in 70's,the skinny landing gears could be replaced with stronger ones and the airframes could be stressed for carrier ops.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Good point. I'd think that if the Corps was to get them when they came out in 70's,the skinny landing gears could be replaced with stronger ones and the airframes could be stressed for carrier ops.

Not to mention folding wings...

 

[MarineAir]

I am not sure of the specifics, but I believe the A-10 should still be flyable with the outer half of each wing gone, one engine gone, one vert and horz stab gone and surious damage to the nose as well. Don't quote me on it, I don't know how true this is.

I know it's true. I saw a documentary on the discovery channel, Or was it the history channel? Anyways, the A-10 in that documentary was seriously shot up with most of what you said. Including the titanium bathtub the pilot sits in taking a few 23mm AAA's. I think it also lost all hydraulics and pilot had to fly the plane manually to get back to base

 

[MarineAir]

Check this out. Just found it on google.www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/109862.html.

 

[NeoCortex]

it's the same reason that the Marines don't have the Apche, it won't fit on "The Boat"

 

[MarineAir]

it's the same reason that the Marines don't have the Apche, it won't fit on "The Boat"

I think it's safe to say the CH-53 and the MV-22 are bigger than the apache and the Marines have those on "The Boat". I thought the Corps didn't have the apache cause it's too complicated to be hauled around due to the high level of maintainance and personnel required to keep it flying. The Corps is expeditionary while the army isn't

It truly would have been a good replacement for the A-1 Skyraider.

concur

 

[Texan]

No one wants the apache cause it's broken all the time. I dont have the exact number, but during Gulf I and II, the Apache's had less than 40% up time. They just got all the credit / glory because they could do night missions while the cobras were day only (supposed to be at least... W-model is night compliant - cobra pilots jump in to correct or verify though please)

 

[Punk]

I think it's safe to say the CH-53 and the MV-22 are bigger than the apache and the Marines have those on "The Boat". I thought the Corps didn't have the apache cause it's too complicated to be hauled around due to the high level of maintainance and personnel required to keep it flying. The Corps is expeditionary while the army isn't
concur

like the MV-22 and the Harrier aren't high maintence items?

only now are Marine Hornet squadrons becoming shipbased, and even now, the D's will remain shore based, A-10's can operate from unimproved runways, like the Harrier, I really don't see a reason why the Marines don't jump at the opportunity

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I think it's safe to say the CH-53 and the MV-22 are bigger than the apache and the Marines have those on "The Boat".

Are you honestly comparing Heavy lift aircraft to light attack aircraft? That is absolutely ridiculous.

By your logic, why doesn't the Marine Corps invest in 747's because CH-46's will fit on the boat...

Apples and Oranges.

 

[jamnww]

like the MV-22 and the Harrier aren't high maintence items?

only now are Marine Hornet squadrons becoming shipbased, and even now, the D's will remain shore based, A-10's can operate from unimproved runways, like the Harrier, I really don't see a reason why the Marines don't jump at the opportunity

The A-10s are even slower than the Harrier and doesn't have the side benefit of being able to hover, yes I know there is a massive fuel complication there. The problem with slower aircraft is that they are more vulnerable and while yes the A-10 can take a lot of individual rounds before being brought down it still is not immune to missles or SAMs which are becoming more of a threat. If the Marine Corps was going to jump on the opportunity they would have in the 80s, now even the Air Force is looking to decommission them.

 

[MarineAir]

like the MV-22 and the Harrier aren't high maintence items?

I know they are. The apache being based close to the frontline, are high maintainance. As Texan stated, they tend to breakdown alot and just require a lot of maintainance personnel to keep them flying.I also came across that statistic awhile back.

Are you honestly comparing Heavy lift aircraft to light attack aircraft? That is absolutely ridiculous.

I was simply answering NeoCortexs' statement that the marines don't have the apache cause it was too big. Not really trying to compare different aircrafts with different missions. Just in terms of their size to fit on "The Boat".

By your logic, why doesn't the Marine Corps invest in 747's because CH-46's will fit on the boat...

Apples and Oranges.

Would you care to elaborate. I'm lost. The Corps doesn't have 747's

 

[Punk]

The A-10s are even slower than the Harrier and doesn't have the side benefit of being able to hover, yes I know there is a massive fuel complication there. The problem with slower aircraft is that they are more vulnerable and while yes the A-10 can take a lot of individual rounds before being brought down it still is not immune to missles or SAMs which are becoming more of a threat. If the Marine Corps was going to jump on the opportunity they would have in the 80s, now even the Air Force is looking to decommission them.

The Harrier is not the fastest jet by any means of the imagination. But yes, it is faster than the A-10. There are two threats flying low, AAA and MANPADS. But you know what, when you're doing CAS, you're gonna have to get in the weeds. And I'd much rather be in a flying tank like the A-10 if I'm going against those threats. So the Harrier can hover, big whoop. They only do that during 2 phases of flight, take-off and landing. It sure as hell doesn't hover in combat.

Like it has already been mentioned, the AF was looking at getting rid of the A-10 prior to Gulf War I. And it wasn't because it was old. It was because the AF likes new, shiney, fast things. The A-10 was anti-everything that the AF wanted. Thankfully, a few vocal voices didn't allow the A-10 to go away. And with what the A-10 accomplished in that war, most everyone smarted up and decided to keep it.

A-10's are the new Sandy's. When you make it to SERE and if you're lucky, you'll get to work with them in that role. And guess what, Sandy's are providing CAS. They are perfect for the role. Afterall, they were designed to fly low and deal with all the threats that you mentioned. Engines on pods, titanium bathtub, triple redundacies, need I go on.

The A-10 was designed purely for this role. (ok, so technically it was designed to stop the Warsaw Pact's thousands of tanks when they broke through the Fulda Gap in Germany in WWIII, but sometimes you gotta improvise)