View Full Version : Sunset for the A-10?
The current budget proposals call for eliminating the entire A-10 fleet (along with all U-2's). Reason given is that it's a 40-year old single mission aircraft, and it's elimination would free up money for other items. The F-35A is slated to take over it's missions.
As an old USAF Ammo Troop, I supported A-10's for many years (starting in 1978 when they were pretty new). Kind of sad to see them go - if that in fact happens. A lot of people remain unconvinced that the F-35 can be as effective in the CAS mission.
Will the F-35 have a titanium "bathtub" for the pilot to sit in? Will it be as robust an aircraft as the A-10, able to take a licking and keep on ticking?
Will the F-35 have a titanium "bathtub" for the pilot to sit in? Will it be as robust an aircraft as the A-10, able to take a licking and keep on ticking?
In no particular order, no, no, no, and no.
http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-11236-7023-pic_013.png
http://www.terriau.org/joseph-theogenie/blog/a10/Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg
TurretGunner
02-25-14, 06:48
Same thing every couple years.
AF fighter mafia who doesn't want to do 90% of their real time job, Airlift and CAS.............wants to sink all their money into more fighters that will never leave the hanger.
When OSD says they need to take their share of the cuts, they scream bloody murder and say they are going to cut the A-10 (which hurts not only them but the sister services who rely on them for CAS, especialy the army).
The Marines (and even the Army, although the key west accord would prohibit it) say ok, Well take them off your hands. AF says only the AF can handle the beast, Congress gets involved and they make the cuts from somewhere else.
Its nothing but **** **** games by the AF brass to scare the other branches into "paying" for all of the AF's proposed budget cuts. Meanwhile the AF keeps buying $200M+ Aircraft that are never used on missions and have a maintance/opperation cost per HR that far exceeds anything we have in the fleet.
Look at the C-27 Spartan. Army gets shit service from the AF, so they RFB a fixed wing medium lift craft. AF swings in and says NOOOOOOO this should go to us. So AF gets the bird and then a couple years later says....."we don't need this anymore", and scraps it (gives them away). Billions wasted and the Army still has a need for airlift.
AF needs to be disolved and absorbed into the Army, Navy and MC. They are without a doubt the most useless and wastefull service.
Army's biggest issue?
They gave away their organic air arm, the Army Air a Corps, back in 1947.
Not surprising they cut the A-10 and U-2. Older, expensive to maintain, and not starting with an "F".
Then again USAF wanted to give combat medals to drone operators, so that just shows you their mindset.
A lot of people remain unconvinced that the F-35 can be as effective in the CAS mission.
Depends on the CAS mission. For OEF/OIF, circle the wagons CAS the F-35 will be lacking compared to the A-10.
However against a country with sophisticated IADS, F-35 is "supposed" to bring more survivability to the table.
Time will tell.
Bolt_Overide
02-25-14, 07:44
What would the infantry look like with the funds from just one f22.
What would the infantry look like with the funds from just one f22.
Without air superiority, it wouldn't matter.
The F-35's 25mm rotary cannon was originally slated to be a 27mm Mauser single-barrel gun (as used on the Tornado and Typhoon aircraft). Wonder if that would have made any significant difference in a strafing attack against personnel or vehicles.
Without air superiority, it wouldn't matter.
Camels can't fly.
Eurodriver
02-25-14, 08:46
Camels can't fly.
Agreed. The F22s and F35s seem to be grounded every other weekend anyway.
Why haven't fighter pilots been replaced with drones? Build a stealth R/C drone that can handle 10 G's or something stupid all day long and shoot down everything in the sky.
As a tanker, I really appreciated the Warthog guys willing to fly low and slow to kill tanks. An F-35 nor any other Aircraft in the AF inventory isn't built to do that.....
VooDoo6Actual
02-25-14, 10:00
A10's roots are from Fairchild Aviation Corporation. No doubt their most successful creation to date. Saved my ass & many other's on a few incursions where we needed CAS & not too bad providing FAC either. Awesome munitions armament & mission spectrum capability.
As a interesting side note the Armalite AR18 ideas caught the interest of Richard Boutelle at Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, and the company was formally incorporated as a division of Fairchild Aviation Corporation on 1 October 1954. Of course politics, contracts, disputes, corruption all played roles in the history of that interesting weapon system that was aptly monikered the "Widowmaker" by the IRA / INLA when it was made in UK by Sterling.
In reading some of the Future of Warfare docs I have seen, I'm not surprised & Sea changes in Warfare are staring humanity in the face & decisions being made are not always the right ones or good ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD1j5lksoko&feature=related
Camels can't fly.
As long as you know the next opponent only has camels on their AOB.
Not saying the A-10 isn't the premier low threat CAS / COIN aircraft, because it is. CAS and FAC is pretty much all they do, hence they are good at it. The F-35 is destined to be another F-16 / F-18, jack of all trades, master of none.
But if we ever fight an opponent with the equipment, training, and desire to fight back you'll want guys flying in 4th and 5th gen aircraft. Iraq and Afghanistan had pretty much none of that, hence the reason we could fly drones, A-10s, and KC-135s pretty much wherever we wanted to. Throw up some modern Flankers and SA-10/20s and all that goes away.
Agreed. The F22s and F35s seem to be grounded every other weekend anyway.
Why haven't fighter pilots been replaced with drones? Build a stealth R/C drone that can handle 10 G's or something stupid all day long and shoot down everything in the sky.It's a work in progress. It won't just be fighters, but CAS aircraft as well.
Which is all good until someone jams / hacks your network.
Not saying the A-10 isn't the premier low threat CAS / COIN aircraft, because it is. CAS and FAC is pretty much all they do, hence they are good at it. The F-35 is destined to be another F-16 / F-18, jack of all trades, master of none.
How much validity is there to the criticisms made here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
If this happens it will be a sad, sad day. I remember watching the Gulf War on TV as a kid, wanting to be an A-10 pilot. What an ageless, wonderful aircraft.
Why haven't fighter pilots been replaced with drones? Build a stealth R/C drone that can handle 10 G's or something stupid all day long and shoot down everything in the sky.
IIRC, the F-16 is designed to withstand 16G's or something crazy like that. The only limitation is the pilot.
I am not a stick jokey, I do not fly fighters. I did take an aircraft structural and metallurgy class many moons ago.
How much validity is there to the criticisms made here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
That guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey) is spewing so much shit I don't know even where to start, and considering my previous life, I can't comment on some of it. "Stealth" is a scam... geezzz that guy needs to get out of the office and into a jet sometime... Oh, he's too busy recording albums with Kanye West... So consider the validity of the source...
Technology and electronic gear is here to stay. I'm not saying that there aren't issues with developing an aircraft to meet three different services needs (there are, and compromises were made) but unfortunately the day and age of an aircraft doing one mission and one mission only are long gone (aka, if you specialize in something, you'll probably be really good at it). This is due to a number of factors, but the overriding one is cost of aircraft, maintenance systems, as well as pilot / aircrew manning and production.
Yes, we'd all love aircraft that can go 2.5 Mach and pull 10Gs... But if I'm faced with the choice of an old Mirage / MIG-21 (as this guy mentions), that are fast and can pull tons of G's but have no advanced tech, or an F-35 with the tech that is in it, I'll take the F-35 everyday and twice on Sunday. Same with a modern FA-18E/F. Pull all the ****ing Gs you want tough guy, you'll be in a parachute (if you are lucky) long before that even matters.
This guy is stuck in the 1980s of tech and aviation. Think of how you live in 1980s, how you got information. If you were alive then you waited for the newspaper, watch the 5 o'clock news, and communicated by using your home phone to call people. If someone wasn't there you had to call back.
Now think about how you get information today. Internet. Cellphone. Text messages. Email. Satcom. That list goes on, and on, and on.
So somehow all this "tech" wouldn't be any good in military aviation? Sure.... :sarcastic:
And none of what I'm saying takes away from the A-10 as a Low Threat CAS machine. But put up Gen 4 threat aircraft, double digit Surface to Air Missile (SAM) systems, and the A-10 won't last long.
Grand58742
02-25-14, 11:55
But if we ever fight an opponent with the equipment, training, and desire to fight back you'll want guys flying in 4th and 5th gen aircraft. Iraq and Afghanistan had pretty much none of that, hence the reason we could fly drones, A-10s, and KC-135s pretty much wherever we wanted to. Throw up some modern Flankers and SA-10/20s and all that goes away.
Problem I have with this is the fact that none of our missions have included this since the early days of Desert Storm and even that is a stretch. With the low level conflicts we are in now and realistic outlooks on conflicts of the future, the A-10 seems tailor made for this kind of thing.
Problem I see with the priorities (or lack thereof) of the USAF is they tend to look at high tech marvels that save the day which end up being overpriced and have to buy a lot less which in turn means either more deployment rates or less MC capability since the systems are generally harder to fix. The A-10 is a system that has been able to withstand the test of time in each and every scenario it's been thrown into and probably could end up being a viable platform in the future especially with the A-10C mods that were done. I understand the airframes were getting worn out, but nobody can convince me the cost per unit is going to be any more than half an F-35 even with having to retool a factory to build it.
It's time the USAF looked at the priorities of their fleet and gets past this mentality that "do more with less" can be done with a single type of aircraft. We saw the same thing with the F-22 when it got the designation of F/A-22 and never really panned out for that and and we are now seeing it with the F-35. And if the fighter mafia has that much of a stranglehold on the acquisition process and refuses to see an over budget, delayed and less than optimal aircraft (F-35) for the current and realistic threats (low level insurgency and CAS missions) in the future can replace a proven design like the A-10 then perhaps it's time they got rolled back into the Army.
Problem I have with this is the fact that none of our missions have included this since the early days of Desert Storm and even that is a stretch. With the low level conflicts we are in now and realistic outlooks on conflicts of the future, the A-10 seems tailor made for this kind of thing.
Problem I see with the priorities (or lack thereof) of the USAF is they tend to look at high tech marvels that save the day which end up being overpriced and have to buy a lot less which in turn means either more deployment rates or less MC capability since the systems are generally harder to fix. The A-10 is a system that has been able to withstand the test of time in each and every scenario it's been thrown into and probably could end up being a viable platform in the future especially with the A-10C mods that were done. I understand the airframes were getting worn out, but nobody can convince me the cost per unit is going to be any more than half an F-35 even with having to retool a factory to build it.
It's time the USAF looked at the priorities of their fleet and gets past this mentality that "do more with less" can be done with a single type of aircraft. We saw the same thing with the F-22 when it got the designation of F/A-22 and never really panned out for that and and we are now seeing it with the F-35. And if the fighter mafia has that much of a stranglehold on the acquisition process and refuses to see an over budget, delayed and less than optimal aircraft (F-35) for the current and realistic threats (low level insurgency and CAS missions) in the future can replace a proven design like the A-10 then perhaps it's time they got rolled back into the Army.
Obviously we are at a crossroads of sorts with OIF done and OEF winding down. First, I love the A-10. If I was a pilot I would have wanted to fly it, especially in OEF. It is a CAS / FAC machine. I've flow alongside those guys in both those conflicts and they always impressed me and my squadron mates.
Again, this is all about $$$$. We don't know what future conflicts hold and now that the GWOT $$$$ is drying up, it is faster, easier, and arguably the correct call to eliminate older aircraft than terminate a new system that promises, on paper, to do more in the future.
But if you ask guys who are in the USAF, USMC, and USN if they'd want to roll into North Korea / China in A-10s, AV-8Bs, and older FA-18C or F-35A/B/Cs, then answer would be pretty overwhelming.
And while the A-10 is a great choice for low threat conflicts, the services are interested more in Light Attack aircraft such as the Super Tucano / A-29 for things like that. They would have been perfect for OEF, being able to land much closer to ground forces / SOF, integrate, and fly more sorites.
thopkins22
02-25-14, 12:25
the services are interested more in Light Attack aircraft such as the Super Tucano / A-29 for things like that.
An absolutely fantastic idea. But I'm willing to bet money that this will never happen. There's far too much money on the table for something reasonable and inexpensive to be purchased. Too many jobs awaiting folks at GE/Lockheed/Boeing/L3/Raytheon/etc.... The command structure of the US military is like becoming a congressman so that you can go work on K St. It's a serious problem.
TurretGunner
02-25-14, 12:27
What's More likley?
War with China or war in another 3rd/2nd world shithole?
Nuclear superpowers will not go to war with each other, especialy US/CHINA as they are economicaly tied to each other. In the Rare event they did, Aircraft are not even going to be a concern.
I know where I would be investing my money.
TurretGunner
02-25-14, 12:28
An absolutely fantastic idea. But I'm willing to bet money that this will never happen. There's far too much money on the table for something reasonable and inexpensive to be purchased. Too many jobs awaiting folks at GE/Lockheed/Boeing/L3/Raytheon/etc.... The command structure of the US military is like becoming a congressman so that you can go work on K St. It's a serious problem.
Yup, they could have did this 10 years ago when the needs were identified and we had an open checkbook for OCO/Defense spending.
Super Tucano will never happen and in the rare case it does, it will be shitcanned in a few years due to "lack of need".
AF needs to be disolved for the good of the nation.
Yup, they could have did this 10 years ago when the needs were identified and we had an open checkbook for OCO/Defense spending.
Super Tucano will never happen and in the rare case it does, it will be shitcanned in a few years due to "lack of need".
AF needs to be disolved for the good of the nation.Oh, I know the hurdles to the Super T program. It's a long tangled web and this isn't the venue to discuss it.
As far as I can tell, it's still under contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance
And if you are / were US Army, remember that you gave birth to the USAF after letting the Army Air Corps go post WW2. ;)
There's been occasional noises about building some new OV-10 Broncos for the Light Attack/Recon role.
There's been occasional noises about building some new OV-10 Broncos for the Light Attack/Recon role.
Like most acquisition programs, took forever.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-military-completes-ov-10-tests-keeps-aircraft-for-now-392565/
Grand58742
02-25-14, 13:25
Oh, I know the hurdles to the Super T program. It's a long tangled web and this isn't the venue to discuss it.
As far as I can tell, it's still under contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance
And if you are / were US Army, remember that you gave birth to the USAF after letting the Army Air Corps go post WW2. ;)
Yes and no. This program is just another piece of the puzzle that the USAF has conflicting priorities when it comes to support of boots on the ground. The LA/RA is another example of a reasonably inexpensive program that suffered in the hands of competing budgets of bells and whistles high tech aircraft. It would have been limited use sure, but for situations where sending in a premier F-35 unit would have been overkill or if the infrastructure on the ground wouldn't support it, it makes sense.
It's like a reversal of the days of LeMay where every aircraft introduced into the force had to be nuclear capable in some form or fashion. And we ended up with a bunch of Century series interceptors that were ill suited to counter air missions. As you pointed out, if it doesn't have an "F" identifier, it's tossed into the circle file these days without regard if it's the best aircraft for the mission or not.
Budgets be damned. You can control the airspace all day long, but it's the boots on the ground that win the war. And support for them should not be sacrificed on the alter of "do more with less."
Obviously it is all about money. It's easier for the Administration to cut the military and cater to the entitlement crowd, especially since that is their voter base.
- LA/RA floundered for a lot of reasons. Acquisitions, money, egos, mismanagement, and people. I always said by the time we get it the wars will be over. Well that seems to be pretty close to the mark.
- I think it's pretty clear I like the A-10. I've always been an air-to-ground guy. However, while it is a very effective CAS aircraft, US ground forces did just fine with F-14/15E/16/18 and B-1/52 CAS from the kick off of OEF in 2001 until the first A-10 deployment in 2002. Even then they weren't a constant in OEF with OIF kicking off, especially with some high terrain in NE Afghanistan where, at times, the A-10 couldn't operate. And the higher ups point out that while effective, has there ever been an instance where a ground mission wasn't completed because there was a different CAS asset instead of an A-10?
- Do more with less has been a constant in military aviation for years. It's nothing new, just going into a different phase. We can argue the likelihood or not of a war against a more capable adversary all day. But you have to prepare for the worst - otherwise we can sell off all the M1 tanks and buy more up armored HUMVEEs and MRAPs, since we are certain that the next conflict will be just like this one.
- I'm sure as a developing program the F-35 is far from perfect. I have friends working that program and like all new programs it has ups and downs. Unfortunately every service needs it. We've flown through decades of service life in F-15/16/18, AV-8B, and A-10 aircraft and they need replacement. I disagree that all three services should have used the one common airframe, it is a limiting factor for sure. But don't believe much, if anything that the old fossil waxing poetic in that Youtube video. He's simply ignorant of the facts of current technology and thinking about how we fought in Vietnam.
- Yes, boots on the ground win a war, well I guess that depends on the war. While OIF is over and OEF is almost, it's hard to call that a stunning victory as a whole. Personally I'm glad we are leaving those sucking chest wounds and moving on.
The Marines (and even the Army, although the key west accord would prohibit it) say ok, Well take them off your hands. AF says only the AF can handle the beast, Congress gets involved and they make the cuts from somewhere else.
The Army has had armed fixed wing aircraft since the 50s; albeit few are far between. But you are right, the AF would raise holy hell if the Army suggested taking on a CAS role a la fixed wing aircraft. They raised holy hell when the Army did this with helicopters, claiming violations of the Key West Accords.
Like many peeps here, the A10 has been helpful to me, as have F18s, AV8Bs, F15s, and a host of others. A loss of a dedicated CAS aircraft will be a significant detriment in the next entanglement where we have boots on the ground.
Isn't a majority of CAS better handled by rotary wing aircraft anyway? The A10 is going to be forty years old in a few years, and was built and designed for a role (fighting Soviet tanks) that is less and less a realistic support role. Granted that could change with China, Iran, or North Korea at the drop of a hat, but it seems less and less realistic every year. I would think that a majority of CAS will be transitioned to rotary wing aircraft with the F35/F18 playing a minor CAS role with more DAS focus, and the much maligned drones being a larger segment of that role as well. I'm no expert on military strategy nor do I play one on TV, I just read a lot and grew up an AF brat... Love the A10, think takes an amazing beating and keeps going, but keeping it around for the sake of sentiment when we have aircraft that can perform the same job (which we are already buying) would be foolish. People seem to loathe drones, but they will only become a larger and larger component of future A2A and A2G engagements.
Moose-Knuckle
02-25-14, 16:56
Nothing quit says "STFU and DIE" like an A-10's GAU-8.
Isn't a majority of CAS better handled by rotary wing aircraft anyway?
Rotary wing has its place, but is susceptible to ground fire / RPG / Manpads, as well as lacking the firepower of fixed wing aircraft to engage hardened bunkers, buildings, etc.
The GAU-8 is impressive against tanks, but I've have outstanding results with GBU-12s as well. Nothing like seeing turrets flipping through the air.
As much as the appeal of highly trained joystick wizards in 4th and 5th generation sounds awesome, that fleet can still be defeated by an agile drone swarm platform - by the time any adversary or potential adversary has that ability we'll be retiring those airframes anyway, but for the equivalent cash we could have real 8G capability in small aircraft that are themselves inherently specialized, but as an intercommunicating swarm, just as flexible as a single F35.
The issue is that the CAS mission is one of the few where a human pilot is still going to be vastly superior to sensor arrays, and honestly the one thing the Air Force has done consistently to support the way effort aside from airlift capability, so even the notion that cutting this program should come before anything the AF has labeled as 'strategic' is the pinnacle of asinine.
BrigandTwoFour
02-25-14, 19:39
What's More likley?
War with China or war in another 3rd/2nd world shithole?
Nuclear superpowers will not go to war with each other, especialy US/CHINA as they are economicaly tied to each other. In the Rare event they did, Aircraft are not even going to be a concern.
I know where I would be investing my money.
What's more likely?
We go to war, again, in some third world shit hole with uncontested airspace against the will of people at the cost of huge political capitol for no real benefit to ourselves. Or, on the other hand, we end up in yet another low intensity conflict with a power that at least has some military capability and quite probably buys their hardware from China/Russia.
Just food for thought. Especially when you consider that in the acquisition cycle it takes the US to generate one new generation of aircraft, the Rooskies/Chinese anti-aircraft missile program goes through 4-7 cycles.
At some point, probably sooner rather than later, continuing to fly aircraft designed and built in the 70's for use against 70's/80's technology just isn't going to work anymore. Our equipment is functioning beyond its designed lifetime, and keeping them patched up after OEF/OIF isn't getting cheaper. Retooling to build more planes will cost more than designing a new one. It shouldn't, but the broken acquisition system works that way.
Eventually, something is going to have to give.
Rotary wing has its place, but is susceptible to ground fire / RPG / Manpads, as well as lacking the firepower of fixed wing aircraft to engage hardened bunkers, buildings, etc.
Like I said, most CAS can be rotary wing, with more advanced engagements being fixed wing aircraft firing GBUs/AGMs which really don't care what platform they're launched from as long as they can mount. I'm not discounting the role of fixed wing aircraft in the role, just saying that they aren't the end all...
Like I said, most CAS can be rotary wing, with more advanced engagements being fixed wing aircraft firing GBUs/AGMs which really don't care what platform they're launched from as long as they can mount. I'm not discounting the role of fixed wing aircraft in the role, just saying that they aren't the end all...
I'd have to look at the numbers - unfortunately the Army doesn't use rotary wing as "CAS" assess, although that is what they are in essence doing with CCAs and CFFs.
Having lived the joint fires world for the past 15 years, I fully agree that a combined arms engagement & capability leaves the enemy no safe haven - RW / FW, Indirect & direct fires all have their place.
Probably another negative for RW is speed, especially in a place like Afghanistan with widely dispersed ground forces. But RW has plenty of positives, being lower and close to the fight, ability to ID the enemy, engage with low collateral damage weapons, fly under weather that would prevent / limit FW engagements, etc. And given the choice as a FAC(A) in a battle space, I want RW, FW, and other fires assets to bring the fight to the enemy.
I'm not in tune with MX Requirements for the A-10 but I know the F-14 had gotten extremely high in terms of maintenance hour per flight hour near the end, adding significantly to cost and availability. It's always painful to see a workhorse put out to pasture after years of stellar service, especially in OEF / OIF.
If we only had a crystal ball to figure out what the next conflict would look like so we could tailor accordingly. Nice like with drones is sooner or later the micromanaging brass will no longer have a scapegoat for their ****ed up plans.
As long as you know the next opponent only has camels on their AOB.
Not saying the A-10 isn't the premier low threat CAS / COIN aircraft, because it is. CAS and FAC is pretty much all they do, hence they are good at it. The F-35 is destined to be another F-16 / F-18, jack of all trades, master of none.
But if we ever fight an opponent with the equipment, training, and desire to fight back you'll want guys flying in 4th and 5th gen aircraft. Iraq and Afghanistan had pretty much none of that, hence the reason we could fly drones, A-10s, and KC-135s pretty much wherever we wanted to. Throw up some modern Flankers and SA-10/20s and all that goes away.
Totally agree.
However, by thesame token, such an enemy would most likely have lots of armor that would need to be dispatched.... which is what the A-10 was designed for back when we WERE facing an enemy who could match us in the air and on the ground.
The issue here I think stems a lot from it looking like the AF is throwing out a great CAS aircraft, without any serious matching modern equivalent to replace it.
I think it would be a different story if there was something flying operationally that was working in combat, and they said "since this new aircraft is working so well, the A-10 will now be retired".
The A-10 is like Kenny from SouthPark.
It gets killed off after every major action, but it's always back in time the next one.
The reason it comes back IMO, is NOTHING can duplicate or effectively replace the A-10 weapon system.
The issue here I think stems a lot from it looking like the AF is throwing out a great CAS aircraft, without any serious matching modern equivalent to replace it.
I'm sorry, I was unaware that the F35 (and the F18) didn't have a CAS weapons package to compliment the obviously superior AH-64 for air to ground operations... Oh wait, it does?
You're talking about scrapping a single role airframe with a multi role one where cost to maintain per hour of flight will end up lower over time (initial cost per unit is always expensive at the beginning, that pattern is the same with all tech). The loss of CAS capability can be easily offset with existing support aircraft, and the gain in other engagement capability will streamline things for quite some time...
The more I read into this, the more I see it as the right call.
When I was stationed at Nellis in the 1980's, the Wing painted some F-16's in the A-10's (then) Lizard scheme for the "F/A-16" tests. It was an early attempt to replace some or all of the A-10's with a faster, multipurpose CAS platform. The GPU-5/A 30mm gun pod was envisioned as the "gun" part of the equation. My shop had to paint some captive AIM-9P's in a matching green shade (with rattlecans, no less).
That effort fell through. And I hear that the GPU-5 pod vibrated so badly when fired that it was dropped from F-16 usage.
I'd have to look at the numbers - unfortunately the Army doesn't use rotary wing as "CAS" assess, although that is what they are in essence doing with CCAs and CFFs.
CCA was created post 2003 JCAS manual because of the creation of the requirement for JTACs to control all but ECAS. Prior to this the Army and Marines were attempting to create universal observers but could but would not meet AF concerns with fratricide/CIVCAS prevention. The compromise was the JTAC, which has led to the JFO because JTAC certification is so time consuming and costly.
Prior to 2003, if you look in JFIRES you will see Army rotary wing were considered CAS similar to Marine rotary wing
Not saying the A-10 isn't the premier low threat CAS / COIN aircraft, because it is.
That is debatable, what will be lost is not so much the platform but the culture of the community that does it.
The AC-130 is a much better CAS/COIN platform and most 2 seaters provide better integration and SA, what the A-10 brings is relative low speed and a gun. The gun runs look cool and are good for area suppression, but in reality the ability to hit a DMPI with HE is more important than gun runs.
Prior to 2003, if you look in JFIRES you will see Army rotary wing were considered CAS similar to Marine rotary wingBut getting them to actually do a CAS 9-line, that was another story entirely...
The AC-130 is a much better CAS/COIN platform and most 2 seaters provide better integration and SA, what the A-10 brings is relative low speed and a gun. The gun runs look cool and are good for area suppression, but in reality the ability to hit a DMPI with HE is more important than gun runs.
Well until the sun comes up, of course... :)
All assets have a part to play in the fight and having spent lots of my time in the back seat agree with your assessment.
I attended the JCAS conference where JFOs were first discussed. Interesting fight between the USAF & USA on JTAC numbers, etc. But I'd have to say as I've observed it, at least INCONUS during training evolutions, it has been a success - at least from an aircrews perspective.
The A-10s ability to train for CAS / FAC was always envied by those of us who enjoyed the mission and preferred the "A" portion of "FA-18".
Bolt_Overide
02-26-14, 08:34
Without air superiority, it wouldn't matter.
-1 F22 does not equate to the loss of air superiority.
Bolt_Overide
02-26-14, 08:48
And while the A-10 is a great choice for low threat conflicts, the services are interested more in Light Attack aircraft such as the Super Tucano / A-29 for things like that. They would have been perfect for OEF, being able to land much closer to ground forces / SOF, integrate, and fly more sorites.
Yes buy these, keep me in a job.
Bolt_Overide
02-26-14, 08:50
Oh, I know the hurdles to the Super T program. It's a long tangled web and this isn't the venue to discuss it.
As far as I can tell, it's still under contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance
And if you are / were US Army, remember that you gave birth to the USAF after letting the Army Air Corps go post WW2. ;)
Yes it is, we just opened up a facility in JAX in support of the program.
Too bad they'll be about 10 years overdue... but at least we'll have them for the next 3rd world $hit hole when go to.
TurretGunner
02-26-14, 11:07
I'm sorry, I was unaware that the F35 (and the F18) didn't have a CAS weapons package to compliment the obviously superior AH-64 for air to ground operations... Oh wait, it does?
You're talking about scrapping a single role airframe with a multi role one where cost to maintain per hour of flight will end up lower over time (initial cost per unit is always expensive at the beginning, that pattern is the same with all tech). The loss of CAS capability can be easily offset with existing support aircraft, and the gain in other engagement capability will streamline things for quite some time...
The more I read into this, the more I see it as the right call.
The 35 is going to be a shit bird. There is no way around it. Master of none, and insanley expensive.
You think they are going to send $200M+ aircraft (think about that, MORE THAN 200 million per plane) to do CAS? You think the AF is going to take the CAS mission seriously?
The problems go all the way to the top, including congress and the nation.
We should be building more F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's. They are a fraction of the cost of a new airframe that will be inferior to all of them.
We could be pumping out, cheap proven planes that we already have the infastructure and trained personel for. I would rather have 3,000 planes we ACTUALY USE than a handfull of expesnive, low use planes that sit in a climate controlled hanger their entire life.
There is still nothing out there that will challenge a F-15 or F/A-18. No country out there can even field a respectbale enough force to be a threat. No one has the combined arms and Situational awareness we do. No one has the expidetionary capabilities, or even close to it. We STILL have the B-2 for when we need to "knock down the door" or take our contested airspace. We probally have something out in the nevada deserst that will replace that one day.
In this budget enviroment we should be looking at value, not being 10 gens past any advesary.
Meanwhile we could develop technology for the next gen. But that doesnt get votes, pay for campaigns or buy congress members. That doesn't keep Lockmart and Northrup flush with cash.
A long time ago we traded our national security away for greed and money. That is never coming back. Well it will never come back unless this country does a hard reset.
The people who ultimatley pay the price are the guys in the dirt who get shot and killed beacuse they don't have the support that should be provided to them.
Grand58742
02-26-14, 11:13
Too bad they'll be about 10 years overdue... but at least we'll have them for the next 3rd world $hit hole when go to.
Only if they don't turn around and put it on the chopping block like they did with the C-27. And in reality, it's probably closer to 40 years overdue. The way the A-1 Skyraider was put to good use as a COIN type in Vietnam showed the need existed for a relatively slow gun bearing ship limited to CAS and FAC that was a good link between deploying a high tech/high maintenance monster like the F-4/A-7 or in later years a Teen series fighter.
In today's world, I could see the LA/RA project being a good compromise of being able to send in aerial support without a full scale deployment of high profile units like a standard Fighter Squadron or even an AC-130 unit.
TurretGunner
02-26-14, 11:16
Yes it is, we just opened up a facility in JAX in support of the program.
They did the same for the C-27 Spartans.... Look where they are now.
Only if they don't turn around and put it on the chopping block like they did with the C-27. And in reality, it's probably closer to 40 years overdue. The way the A-1 Skyraider was put to good use as a COIN type in Vietnam showed the need existed for a relatively slow gun bearing ship limited to CAS and FAC that was a good link between deploying a high tech/high maintenance monster like the F-4/A-7 or in later years a Teen series fighter.
In today's world, I could see the LA/RA project being a good compromise of being able to send in aerial support without a full scale deployment of high profile units like a standard Fighter Squadron or even an AC-130 unit.Agree completely. Lots of capability / potential there if it's done correctly, but I'm not sure how the USAF is going to run that program. Personnel are just as important as the tech / capability of the aircraft.
Obviously you have to pick the right tool for the job. OV-10 didn't do so hot in Desert Storm but would have been perfect for OIF / OEF (with modern updates, of course).
People who don't know think how fast something goes or turns automatically equates with how good it is. Obviously for an aircraft there are certain minimums required but as I mentioned before technology can't be under-estimated. And it's not the end all be all, but I've put more bombs on target with information and my voice than anything else.
Also, when people see "cost", they don't realize that personnel costs for the whole platform is another huge expense. Pilots, maintainers, admin, depot level MX, etc, etc, etc.
Sometimes it's chess, not checkers. And it is in this case.
Grand58742
02-26-14, 11:44
Agree completely. Lots of capability / potential there if it's done correctly, but I'm not sure how the USAF is going to run that program. Personnel are just as important as the tech / capability of the aircraft.
This could be a serious concern. As of right now (if memory serves), it's going to be an AFSOC assigned bird. But I'd be willing to bet ACC would be chomping at the bit before long to take it over. And then it turns into a pissing contest.
If it's left under a MAJCOM like AFSOC where it can be utilized in the proper role, it will probably end up being a good platform. If it comes under ACC, they will probably find a way to kill it with fire and leave it in the Boneyard at AMARG.
This could be a serious concern. As of right now (if memory serves), it's going to be an AFSOC assigned bird. But I'd be willing to bet ACC would be chomping at the bit before long to take it over. And then it turns into a pissing contest.
If it's left under a MAJCOM like AFSOC where it can be utilized in the proper role, it will probably end up being a good platform. If it comes under ACC, they will probably find a way to kill it with fire and leave it in the Boneyard at AMARG.
+1. That was always my concern and those of others like me acquainted with the program in all its various forms.
What genius decided this? The payload and ability to stay on station longer as cas is unmatched in our inventory.
What genius decided this? The payload and ability to stay on station longer as cas is unmatched in our inventory.
Ah, incorrect. B-1/B-52 got it there, and yes they do CAS and at times are the preferred platform.
Grand58742
02-26-14, 12:54
Ah, incorrect. B-1/B-52 got it there, and yes they do CAS and at times are the preferred platform.
So if there were a way of putting a couple of GAU-8s on a B-1...
Hunter Rose
02-26-14, 13:26
Don't see why people are surprised the A-10 is on the chopping block. The U.S. has been doctrinally shifting away from large footprint/boots on the ground COIN operations for a few years now. The new hotness is Air-Sea Battle, with an emphasis on combating anti-access/area denial weapons. This is the strategic emphasis when the big-wigs decide where to allocate resources. You can disagree with this strategic doctrine, but it's what is being pushed from the CINC down, and the A-10 really has no role in it.
Sure, the A-10 is arguably the premiere CAS/FAC platform, but that's all it does well. In the 21st Century its become a niche aircraft that is vulnerable in other than a permissive air environment. The Air Force has plenty of other platforms that can effectively perform CAS in a low threat environment (B-1, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-35, Raptor, etc.) that also bring other unique capabilities to the fight that the A-10 cannot perform.
We should be building more F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's. They are a fraction of the cost of a new airframe that will be inferior to all of them.
A question. If one were to roll an F-14 out of the factory today, with all the latest electronic technology, latest engines, latest missiles, etc., but essentially the same airframe, how would it do head-to-head against the F/A-18?
Well until the sun comes up, of course... :)
That is a service decision
So if there were a way of putting a couple of GAU-8s on a B-1...
GAU-8 doesn't do anything for you when it's 200' overcast weather.
That is a service decision
Well the loss of Spirit 03 still stings. And until another service starts flying them, it's a fact of life.
A question. If one were to roll an F-14 out of the factory today, with all the latest electronic technology, latest engines, latest missiles, etc., but essentially the same airframe, how would it do head-to-head against the F/A-18?Well, the equipment to produce the F-14 was destroyed years ago, so it's unlikely...
But hypothetically, the answers is "it depends". It's like saying SR-15 vs HK416, what's better. Well, define better. What range, accuracy, speed, weight etc.
Each aircraft has different capes, and different regimes they do better at. I've been in the back seat of an F-14 and we've gunned FA-18, F-16, F-15s, and F-5s. In the back seat of an FA-18 I've seen similar results to include gunning a F-22. But in both airframes we've been on the receiving end as well. Depends a lot on the situation, setup, etc, etc.
Don't see why people are surprised the A-10 is on the chopping block. The U.S. has been doctrinally shifting away from large footprint/boots on the ground COIN operations for a few years now. The new hotness is Air-Sea Battle, with an emphasis on combating anti-access/area denial weapons. This is the strategic emphasis when the big-wigs decide where to allocate resources. You can disagree with this strategic doctrine, but it's what is being pushed from the CINC down, and the A-10 really has no role in it.
Sure, the A-10 is arguably the premiere CAS/FAC platform, but that's all it does well. In the 21st Century its become a niche aircraft that is vulnerable in other than a permissive air environment. The Air Force has plenty of other platforms that can effectively perform CAS in a low threat environment (B-1, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-35, Raptor, etc.) that also bring other unique capabilities to the fight that the A-10 cannot perform.
Indeed.
Grand58742
02-26-14, 18:24
GAU-8 doesn't do anything for you when it's 200' overcast weather.
It was meant as a joke.
Well the loss of Spirit 03 still stings. And until another service starts flying them, it's a fact of life.
That is what I don't understand and a significant difference in service culture, we lost almost as many causalities to A-10 attacks in that battle as where lost on Spirit 03, but we accepted it as a price of doing business while the Air Force used it as a reason not to do its business
We ran Harvest Hawk missions and everyone does rotary wing operations in broad day light with greater risk and don't blink an eye.
That is what I don't understand and a significant difference in service culture, we lost almost as many causalities to A-10 attacks in that battle as where lost on Spirit 03, but we accepted it as a price of doing business while the Air Force used it as a reason not to do its business
We ran Harvest Hawk missions and everyone does rotary wing operations in broad day light with greater risk and don't blink an eye.Being a Navy guy, I don't understand it either. It seems to be a cultural service thing.
I was at an inter service CAS briefing back in early 2009. SECDEF was in the paper that day saying the USAF needed to step up the pace, realize we were fighting a war, and do more to support. I think they were pushing to get USAF Squadrons to deploy longer than 4 months or some such thing.
Well, since I like to stir the pot a little bit and see if I can get a rise out of people, I turned to a couple of USAF F-16 pilots - two Captains as I recall. I say "What do you think of SECDEF saying y'all need to do more?". Completely serious, one of them responds "We're working 12hrs a day, 6 days a week. What more do they want????". I gave them my "alrighty then" look, knowing it was hopeless to explain the facts that for some people the war is 24/7 - even for slack assed guys like myself we fly as much as were told, monthly maximums and crew rest be damned, with no "holiday routines" on Sunday or 3 beers a day.
And you bring up another good point, A-10s have done more than their fair share of damage with blue on blues over the years in Desert Storm, OIF, and OEF.
It was meant as a joke.
I know, just pointing out that as cool as strafing runs are, they aren't the end all, be all. :)
alienb1212
02-26-14, 20:54
All I have to say is, "Beerrrrrrrrrrrrrrppppppppppppppppppppp"
Well, the equipment to produce the F-14 was destroyed years ago, so it's unlikely...
That much I knew.
But hypothetically, the answers is "it depends". It's like saying SR-15 vs HK416, what's better. Well, define better. What range, accuracy, speed, weight etc.
Each aircraft has different capes, and different regimes they do better at. I've been in the back seat of an F-14 and we've gunned FA-18, F-16, F-15s, and F-5s. In the back seat of an FA-18 I've seen similar results to include gunning a F-22. But in both airframes we've been on the receiving end as well. Depends a lot on the situation, setup, etc, etc.
Well I'm just a man who has never grown out of his childhood love/infatuation (call it what you will) for the F-14, so if I am reading you right, and to paraphrase, what you are saying is that the F-14 is simply the most awesomest fighter to ever take to the sky and everything else is complete garbage in comparison, and unworthy to share the same airspace with it. Have I got that right?
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs25/f/2008/175/2/8/F_14_Wallpaper_by_Cattano.jpg
Just kidding. Thanks for the reply.
The future is notoriously hard to predict. Maybe in some future conflict (in another place nobody has ever heard of), the A-10 will be a good fit for us or an ally and we'll be dragging them out of the boneyard - kind of like the A-1 Skyraider or A-26 Invader in Vietnam.
Now this would be unstoppable. :)
24053
Yes, a modern design aircraft with all the wizbang tech, that looked as cool and went as fast as the F-14 with modern digital flight controls would be something to behold. I guess I was burned out on the troops putting in 80 man hours per flight hour and old ass systems still not working.
TurretGunner
02-27-14, 12:57
The only thing that can kill a convoy of Marine AAV's, is a pair of A-10's whose pilots can't tell the difference between them and a BTR.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.