Forum: F-35 Lightning II

arkadyrenko wrote:

southernphantom - any support for that assertion?

As for the USAF not liking the A-10, look at their attempt to replace it with the F-16 before Gulf War 1 and the disproportionate hit that it took with this squadron reduction. 1 F-16 squadron, 1 F-15 squadron, 5 A-10 squadrons...

But, back to the A-10 and the JSF. My question is now, we've established that the JSF is less than ideal for the A-10's style of CAS, what would be an ideal aircraft to replace the A-10? Smart munitions are all well and good, but it can be certain that opponents are going to try and improve their own countermeasures. Also, cost per kill is not something to be scoffed at.

The worsening situation in the ME, with Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and possibly Egypt. It's really ugly. Europe is also a cause for concern, though I doubt we're going to be fighting Germany or anything again.

As for A-10 replacements, I'd suggest a scaled-down B-1B. Something that can loiter if needed, carry a truckload of ordnance, and get the hell outta Dodge if need be.

F-16.net Sponsor

southernphantom wrote:

arkadyrenko wrote:

southernphantom - any support for that assertion?

As for the USAF not liking the A-10, look at their attempt to replace it with the F-16 before Gulf War 1 and the disproportionate hit that it took with this squadron reduction. 1 F-16 squadron, 1 F-15 squadron, 5 A-10 squadrons...

But, back to the A-10 and the JSF. My question is now, we've established that the JSF is less than ideal for the A-10's style of CAS, what would be an ideal aircraft to replace the A-10? Smart munitions are all well and good, but it can be certain that opponents are going to try and improve their own countermeasures. Also, cost per kill is not something to be scoffed at.

The worsening situation in the ME, with Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and possibly Egypt. It's really ugly. Europe is also a cause for concern, though I doubt we're going to be fighting Germany or anything again.

The situation isn't really "worsening in the middle east." Its changing for sure, but its not nearly as bad as some would like to portray it as. If you're going to raise the usual islamaphobia argument I suggest you listen to this podcast by a subject matter expert (Roy's work on Afghanistan in the 80s was groundbreaking, his recent work is of very high quality):

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/12 ... pring.aspx

southernphantom wrote:

As for A-10 replacements, I'd suggest a scaled-down B-1B. Something that can loiter if needed, carry a truckload of ordnance, and get the hell outta Dodge if need be.

That's a really really bad suggestion and a waste of resources. In Afghanistan most encounters are decided by one or two bombs. Flying around a B-1 sized aircraft is overkill. In a non-permissive environment like vs China, a large B-1 is a sitting duck for a IADS. In both situations the A-10 is sufficient as is its replacement, the F-35.

Seems like the the bottom line is would you want to see a force of f-22's and A-10's/F-16's/F-15E? Or f-22's and F-35's? Of the legacy to start cutting the A-10 makes the most sense because it is incapable of A/I or DCA. I bet in 2020, if the 35 starts to gen up the f-16 will be next.

Code3 wrote:

discofishing wrote:

That's a bunch of crap. the USAF just upgraded it's A-10 to C standard, right? These aircraft might do well in Army hands. I heard that almost happened too.

The National Security Act of 1947, which created the Air Force, specifically forbids fixed-wing aircraft with forward firing ordnance from being in the Army, thus no A-10s for them.

However, I do agree the A-10s aren't going anywhere anytime soon. The latest figures I saw had them in service until 2020, and possibly up to 2025.

Apaches and Cobras have fixed wings with forward firing rockets and missiles....

MH-60s, AH-6s and OH-58Ds have to do the same strafing runs that fixed wing aircraft have had to do, but maybe a little slower. I don't see what the big deal is. Repeal the Act and let the Army have some A-10s and perhaps some OV-10s. Seriously, the USAF needs to get over themselves.

discofishing wrote:

Apaches and Cobras have fixed wings with forward firing rockets and missiles....

I was surprised it took 3 pages for this point to come up...completely agree with you, and while there might be some reduction in force, it won't be nearly as large as the A-10 redux.

I would like to see a cobra try to glide just using its fixed wings. That would be something.

So food for thought... currently there are 7 active duty A-10 squadrons in the Air Force..

1 at Osan, 1 at Spangdleham, and 3 at Davis Monthan and 2 at Moody. Not counting the WPS at Nellis. So is losing one active squadron going to make a difference?? The A-10s have been deploying pretty much like most air force squadrons where they only been taking half their assigned aircraft.

Much discussion on tactical aircraft loiter times seems to not take into account that tankers are present. Missions flown over the STAN these days for FAC-A and CAS not just by A-10s but F-15Es and F-16CMs.

Maybe a case can be made to sell the Warthogs to Taiwan? They pose no offensive threat to the Mainland.

popcorn wrote:

Maybe a case can be made to sell the Warthogs to Taiwan? They pose no offensive threat to the Mainland.

I'd say that the RoKAF would get a kick out of having 48 or so, and could probably afford it.

popcorn wrote:

Maybe a case can be made to sell the Warthogs to Taiwan? They pose no offensive threat to the Mainland.

Better beef up the landing gear on the A-10. RoCAF pilots have a habit of using steep glide paths and slamming planes down on the runway. (multiple reports of Block 20 F-16 with broken landing gear while no similar (or very few) exist anywhere else.)

Also as for a direct replacement to the A-10. I think a re-vamped re-engined A-10 is about as good as it gets. I think it would be difficult to improve on the A-10 for that exact role (low level, long loiter, heavy fire power, CAS).

Sufa Viper.

Several instances of just plain terrible information on here. First, the 'Close' in Close Air Support refers to ordnance proximity to friendly forces, not aircraft proximity. Therefore, ANY aircraft that is actually doing CAS will have to land weapons in close proximity to the ground party, regardless of how far away the aircraft stays from the fight or threat. Second, I flew A-10's for years (last in 2009) and I can say without question that the USAF does not like the A-10 and never has. In the time I've been around, it has pushed hard to retire it in the '80's (pre-desert storm), in the 90's (post-Kosovo), in the early 2000's( when "victory" was declared in OIF in 2003) and now in the 2010's. I wasn't a math major, but I'd say that's 4x attempted retirements in 25 years or so....yeah, they love the ol' A-10. Also, we must stop thinking of CAS from an air war perspective. True, it is fought by airplanes, but it is a ground war. In general, you don't have boots on the ground if you have modern radar SAMs and Flankers roaming the sky. You generally have air supremacy and have to contend with AAA, MANPADS and the occasional radar SAM. You also need to provide support to someone who may or may not know where he is (I've had it happen), know how to call in CAS (ditto) or know where any other friendly forces are. In a situation like that (which happens just about weekly, to this day, in Afghanistan) you can't let a JAGM or JSOW or SDB fly from 30 miles out. It is the CAS pilots job to go in there and figure things out. If you field a plane, with the intent of it having a primary CAS role, and you say from the outset that you know it can't get into a robust AAA or MANPAD environment...but that's OK, because you don't care...you are really messing up. Lastly, CAS needs to be cheap. You can do CAS with a $150 Mil fighter shooting 6x $500K a pop missiles, but is it smart. You could have a $10 Mil jet shooting $5 bullets, but I suppose that's passe.

handyman wrote:

I would like to see a cobra try to glide just using its fixed wings. That would be something.

It's called auto rotation, which is gliding for helicopters. The AH-1 (which are NO LONGER in Army service) had a pretty good auto rotation profile. D model Apaches are another story, but pilots constantly train for this event anyways. It helps to have 2 engines. As far as with just fixed wings, how's it going to get into the air in the first place?

twintwinsingle wrote:

Several instances of just plain terrible information on here. First, the 'Close' in Close Air Support refers to ordnance proximity to friendly forces, not aircraft proximity. Therefore, ANY aircraft that is actually doing CAS will have to land weapons in close proximity to the ground party, regardless of how far away the aircraft stays from the fight or threat. Second, I flew A-10's for years (last in 2009) and I can say without question that the USAF does not like the A-10 and never has. In the time I've been around, it has pushed hard to retire it in the '80's (pre-desert storm), in the 90's (post-Kosovo), in the early 2000's( when "victory" was declared in OIF in 2003) and now in the 2010's. I wasn't a math major, but I'd say that's 4x attempted retirements in 25 years or so....yeah, they love the ol' A-10. Also, we must stop thinking of CAS from an air war perspective. True, it is fought by airplanes, but it is a ground war. In general, you don't have boots on the ground if you have modern radar SAMs and Flankers roaming the sky. You generally have air supremacy and have to contend with AAA, MANPADS and the occasional radar SAM. You also need to provide support to someone who may or may not know where he is (I've had it happen), know how to call in CAS (ditto) or know where any other friendly forces are. In a situation like that (which happens just about weekly, to this day, in Afghanistan) you can't let a JAGM or JSOW or SDB fly from 30 miles out. It is the CAS pilots job to go in there and figure things out. If you field a plane, with the intent of it having a primary CAS role, and you say from the outset that you know it can't get into a robust AAA or MANPAD environment...but that's OK, because you don't care...you are really messing up. Lastly, CAS needs to be cheap. You can do CAS with a $150 Mil fighter shooting 6x $500K a pop missiles, but is it smart. You could have a $10 Mil jet shooting $5 bullets, but I suppose that's passe.

Are A-10s with the C upgrade "cheap"? I bet AC-130U gunships aren't cheap and I bet their AC-130J (if it happens) isn't cheap. I know the USAF possesses a kind of warrior that will fly ANYTHING into combat to support guys on the ground and put the hurt on the enemy. I and many of my closest friends (soldiers on the ground) owe our lives to men/women like this. However, I can't justify, in my mind, strapping a flesh and blood human being to a cheap CAS aircraft. I want quality, durability, ruggedness, and supportability. Let it be cheap to operate, sustain, maintain, arm....whatever.....and focus on that stuff. Ignore the initial price tag.

I flew the A-10C and year after year was part of the "rack and stack" for its capabilities, both before and after fielding, along with dozens of other pilots. I am a USAF "warrior", so I can tell you from experience that, yes, we will fly anything into combat to support the ground troops. My point is, I don't want our guys to fly "anything" into combat. I want them to fly the best. I have flown over you and your brethren, in harms way, and I can tell you that CAS airplanes aren't cheap, but they are MUCH cheaper than multi-role jets. I'm going back a ways, but when Vipers cost $16 Mil, 'Hogs cost 6. Now, when Block 50's are $40 Mil-60 Mil (depending on config), a new-build 'Hog would be approx. 20-30. Not cheap, by any stretch, but much cheaper and it frees-up the multi-role jets to do what they really were designed for: going deep and fighting SAMs and other jets. For that matter, an AT-6 or Super T is about $10 Mil. I know that the "techie's" on here are going to howl that doing CAS with toy airplanes is an abomination, but look at the war we've been fighting for the last 10+ years. I've flown there, my friend, and an AT-6 would have been perfect. Will it be ideal for CAS in the straits of Tiawan? Nope, it won't be. But look around the world at all of the low-grade conflicts that we have fought and may fight in the future...we need a $10 Mil dollar CAS airplane that can hang out for 3-hours, shoot some rockets, drop a bomb or two, use 1000lbs of gas (what an F-35 uses to start, taxi and takeoff), and land at the FOB with the Army guys and do it again. Ask an Army guy, that's what he wants...persistance. The CAS is always there and he can count on it, like his arty and helo's. They are forward based with the ground units. This model has worked for the USAF before, in Vietnam. I know, I know...."but it's a sitting duck and they'll get slaughtered wholesale"....really? When? Not over the last 10 years they wouldn't have. And they won't in the horn of africa or lots of other small conflicts around the world. It's not a cure-all, but it will work well and inexpensively in 75% of our CAS needs (100% for the last 10 yrs). I also know..."UAV's are cheaper and don't put a guy at risk"....really? True enough, they don't put anyone at risk (except the ground guy when the situation goes bad, but I digress), but they also cost around $10 Mil. Just the plane. The satellite architecture to support UAV's is hundreds of times that amount. Everyone always leaves that part out. A UAV system (everything you need) is very expensive.

I know I'm ranting, but I'm telling you...CAS isn't that difficult to get right, or that expensive. That's why, 40 years later, an airplane that cost $4 Mil to buy and $10 Mil more to upgrade is still a MUCH better CAS platform that a $40 Mil Viper, an $80 Mil Strike Eagle or a $150 Mil F-35. CAS is about capability, not $$$$ and the most expensive is usually not the best (as we see here). My 2-pennies.

I don't buy the "hit the bad guy from five miles up" that easily. Sure, the tech is good, but could it really target something the size of a person from 25,000ft? I don't know the specs on the EOTS, but that seems like a bit of a stretch. Of course, being proven wrong about this wouldn't bother me a bit... XD

One other thing, what's the travel time for a weapon launched from a distance (or dropped from high alt) compared to firing the A-10's cannon in a heavy strafing run? I have no clue what the terminal velocity is on an SDB, but could the extra travel time be a factor?

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

USAF retiring 5 squadrons of A-10s for F-35s