Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 30 Aug 2015, 12:23

As MD points out, for the most-part, everyone does it the same way these days -- t-pod model A, B, or C; stream video; pgms from altitude. If the platform has a gun, occasionally there will be a few strafe passes; same for rockets. Bigger gun and ammo capacity has more effect on a wider range of tgts; smaller gun, fewer rounds -- the opposite.

F-35 will have its t-pod (internal of course), and a variety of pgms. Wont have stream video until some increment of block 4; same for IR pointer. Wont have wider variety of weapons until sometime later. Will be able to do some things through weather that no-one will do as well. F-35A/C will have impressive TOS; F-35B less so. We know these things -- today.

So, in 2018 DOT&E will waste time and (our) money to tell us what we already know, and we'll all go through another round of screeching henny pennys about stream video and IR pointer and some other segment of a falling sky.

Having watched or participated in some of these things over time, I would argue that F-35 has IOCd with more capability than any fighter ever. APG-81, EOTS, DAS, ASQ-239 EA/EW, HMDS, fusion, MADL, L16, voice in the cockpit, some nominal weapons...that capability expands a bit at the end of SDD, and it will only get better with follow-on development -- including engine upgrades.

The glass is waay more than half full...

blindpilot · by **blindpilot** » 30 Aug 2015, 15:10

Well said, with minor note:

This implies that perhaps the A-10 is usable/needed until the F-35 gets some numbers of block 4 aircraft. It ignores something else we know.

Even in supposed "permissible" airspace, MANPADS etc. are getting dangerous. The F-16/15Es are capable for anything above such danger zones. If we add in SEADS support, each A-10 costs the additional SEADS aircraft / sorties. That ain't cheap. So for the useless test, we need to start with -

At the beginning the A-10's are all shot down, and occupying craters on the ground. So they drop zero weapons at some CEP that would have been. Stealth and SA are not some magic theoretical. They are real. We aren't in Kansas anymore Toto.

Let the test begin.

MHO
BP

Gums · by **Gums** » 30 Aug 2015, 17:25

Salute!

Well said BP.

First time USAF saw Strelas and fierce ack was at An Loc in 1972. Our little Dragonflies were the only USAF dedicated CAS assets in-country, but we still had some Double Uglies at DaNang. So the little beast lost more planes/pilots in that battle than any other battle in its five year tour there at Bien Hoa. As with the A-1, we couldn't use snake-eyes well due to slow speed and over the nose sight depression, so it was slicks, nape, CBU, RX and strafe. Surprisingly, we had no losses to the Strelas, only the ack ( they brought in big stuff and the damn ZSU-23's. Our guys flew nice patterns and one guy could spot the launch and call the break for the other. Didn't carry flares, either. THERE WERE TANKS!! What a surprise, being less than 100 miles from Saigon. We actually killed one or two using slick MK-81 and MK-82 bombs, heh heh. The tanks finally went away when the USMC "TOW" Cobra outfit showed up and went hunting

So helos came in to finish off the tanks, while slow movers attacked the enema troops, supply locations and even ack/arty. We saved the outpost and it was a non-player until 1975. Then there was a reign of terror from way above on the outskirts of the battle - B-52 stikes. Same as we did at Khe San in 1968. But the Army focused upon CAS, as they seemed to feel good arty might work like the Buff strikes.

Of course, the US Army loved us ( as they had since 967 when we showed up). No doubt the battle confirmed the concept of using maneuverable fixed-wing planes to handle the situation and employing attack helos when able. I will guarantee that the helos would have been shot down easily if they showed up in the first few days at An Loc.

So now the stage was set in concrete for the 'hog. Our Sluf's didn't get there early enough, and there was little CAS in Laos compared to a few years earlier in-country. We blew up lottsa trees and had a few good CAS missions in-country, but USAF was pointing at the 'hog, all the time, even though the PACT IAD and mobile SAM/AAA was getting better all the time. The Yom Kippur experience by IAF did not faze the 'hog fanatics. Imagine SA-6 units at An Loc just a year earlier - a turkey shoot.
+++++++
The flyoff was a POS. Criteria was heavily slanted toward the 'hog, and enema opposition seemed to be a non-player. Iron sight accuracy was also greatly exaggerated. As I said in my infamous AvWeek letter to the editor in late 1974, even a 747 can hit well if it doesn't drop until you can the whites of their eyes. There also mucho emphasis upon the gun, having forgotten the effectiveness of the USMC TOW Cobras 2 years before at An Loc.

Do not make light of the polyticks. McCain and the lady have voters in AZ. Back in the 70's we had influential senators in TX and NY. Granted, Sally saw more current scenarios than McCain, but he has more support from the senate and some clueless news folks and gadflies like PS.

I would want to see the scenarios requiring CAS versus arty or high altitude JDAM-type weapons. Throw in medium to heavy enema IAD capabilites ( not drug lords in Columbia), and then add a few air threats ( oh the horror). Various terrain and weather set-ups, huh? Then have nearest fixed-wing base about 150 - 200 miles away ( can you say the letter "Bee"???)

Oh well, the saga continues.

Gums sends....

P.S. For most folks' view of "traditional CAS", tap toes to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bniEbKXt6M

Brings back memories, as our Dragonlfy had the low-freq ADF system and we could listen to AFVN on downwind after dropping nape on the attacking bad guys. Gotta love it.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 30 Aug 2015, 18:59

XanderCrews wrote:WTF is "traditional CAS"?

To whom is your question addressed?

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 30 Aug 2015, 19:14

quicksilver wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:WTF is "traditional CAS"?

To whom is your question addressed?

The only guy who can answer is thr original author, but it's a phrase that makes little sense giving thr changes the last 10 years even

Traditional CAS like 1960s? Or traditional CAS like 1990?

It would be like saying "traditional air 2 air"

Pick your era of what constitutes "tradition"

blindpilot · by **blindpilot** » 30 Aug 2015, 20:24

Gums wrote:Gums sends....

P.S. For most folks' view of "traditional CAS", tap toes to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bniEbKXt6M

One of the guys in our Vet group was with the "original cast" (1965 release) of the ground troops in the video clip (Ia Drang Valley '65).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxPeHqH4XxI

His original DD 214 said he served in "peace time," until he got that fixed. If that's peace time, I would hate to see what war looks like. That's CAS old version, but I wouldn't fly an A-10 down low and slow today ... not even against ISIS in "permissive" Syria ...

But that's just me,
BP

armedupdate · by **armedupdate** » 30 Aug 2015, 23:08

Question: Can the TER on the A-10 equip 3 JDAMS and LGB? Or just the older Mk 82 unguided? I believe it Gulf War only 2 was attached to each TER. And in the War on Terror, the TER was removed for a single LGB.

Can F-35 use TER? Or is it mainly the BRU-69 and SDB 4 packs? And on which stations?

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 30 Aug 2015, 23:09

XanderCrews wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:WTF is "traditional CAS"?

To whom is your question addressed?

The only guy who can answer is thr original author...

The original author of what? Point us to the offending document.

...disregard. I found it.

MD · by MD » 31 Aug 2015, 00:59

blindpilot wrote:That's CAS old version, but I wouldn't fly an A-10 down low and slow today ... not even against ISIS in "permissive" Syria ...

But that's just me,
BP

I too question how permissive Syria actually is. The ISIS strikes we've been doing there seem to mostly be bomber and drones, with the fighters operating mostly in Iraq. Could be coincidence, could be by design. Don't know for sure.

armedupdate wrote:Question: Can the TER on the A-10 equip 3 JDAMS and LGB? Or just the older Mk 82 unguided? I believe it Gulf War only 2 was attached to each TER. And in the War on Terror, the TER was removed for a single LGB.

Can F-35 use TER? Or is it mainly the BRU-69 and SDB 4 packs? And on which stations?

The TER on the A-10 can carry 3 GBU-12s, as it's the same bomb body as the Mk82. I'm not sure about the GBU-38, even though it's the same bomb body, I'm not sure of the JDAM wrap around guidance kit and whether that's a problem or not; as I've only ever seen GBU-38s parent mounted on the Hog. Then again, all this was after my time and came with the C-model, so the LGBs I've seen actually mounted.

In my day it was Mk82 slicks or ballute/snake, or LAU-68/131 pods mounted on the TERs.

armedupdate · by **armedupdate** » 31 Aug 2015, 02:11

I believe the F-16 is only limited to 2 GBU-38s per TER. I read here A-10 cannot use TER with GBU-38.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=103932

What hardpoints does the F-35 use? TER for GBU-38s(carrying 3 each) BRU series for 1000 class(2 each) and 4 packs for the SDB? I beleive the F-35 cannot carry 1000 lb class in the internal bay but it can carry 500 lb correct? And how many?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Aug 2015, 02:31

Searching this forum for answers is always useful. 'racks' would be one word to start with - then search the results with another word and so on: From: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/T ... ayward.pdf (4.2Mb)

Some extraneous pages have been deleted from the edited PDF attached below - complete PDF is available at link above.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 31 Aug 2015, 02:57

The USMC just this year developed a TER (BRU-70A) that is an all digital improvement of the BRU-42 (which had a 2xPGM limit) where all three stations are "smart" and can accept a 3xPGM.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=5852

tritonprime · by **tritonprime** » 31 Aug 2015, 04:00

Why did Chief of Staff General Mark Walsh say in April that the United States Air Force needs a new next-generation low-threat environment CAS platform in the near to medium term? What's the point of a new A-X, which the United States Air Force doesn't have the money to fund, and the talk about a high-low force mix of F-35A and A-X aircraft? Wouldn't A-X be similarly threatened by MANPADS as the A-10? Wouldn't each A-X cost the additional SEADs aircraft/sorties as the A-10?

MD · by MD » 31 Aug 2015, 04:03

tritonprime wrote:Why did Chief of Staff General Mark Walsh say in April that the United States Air Force needs a new next-generation low-threat environment CAS platform in the near to medium term? What's the point of a new A-X, which the United States Air Force doesn't have the money to fund, and the talk about a high-low force mix of F-35A and A-X aircraft? Wouldn't A-X be similarly threatened by MANPADS as the A-10? Wouldn't each A-X cost the additional SEADs aircraft/sorties as the A-10?

I wouldn't be surprised if that talk is all smoke and mirrors, to help navigate the current tough political waters with congress over all of this.

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 31 Aug 2015, 04:45

tritonprime wrote:Why did Chief of Staff General Mark Walsh say in April that the United States Air Force needs a new next-generation low-threat environment CAS platform in the near to medium term? What's the point of a new A-X, which the United States Air Force doesn't have the money to fund, and the talk about a high-low force mix of F-35A and A-X aircraft? Wouldn't A-X be similarly threatened by MANPADS as the A-10? Wouldn't each A-X cost the additional SEADs aircraft/sorties as the A-10?

More then less likely to make all the Low and Slow A-10 fans shut up. If they think a "true" and "proper" A-10 replacement will follow the F-35 procurement they are less motivated to constantly "bash" the more capable platforms that are taking over the role.