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

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post14 Jun 2020, 22:31

Gums wrote:
OP ED: We need to go back to our initial approach with the A-37 and F-5 in Vietnam. Build the things and train the indigenous folks to employ them. Hell, even give them the planes if they cannot pay. Then sit back.

Gums sends...


I feel like that's what one of the goals was for the lightweight CAS program the air force was trying to run. We could operate a few hundred for super cheap( problem for us I think is pilots) and can sell/give them to other countries on the cheap and we have a huge training ability for it.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post15 Jun 2020, 14:07

Salute!

Yeppers, geforcer

The problem is financing just a few dedicated CAS/CSAR forces. The USMC has fielded it own dedicated CAS and BAI planes for decades, with primary mission to support its grunts. In 'nam, they also supported USA grunts due to Momyer's "single air manager" doctrine.

One approach is to "go back to the future" with the special operations command. Hurburt had A-37's until 1972 or so. They were ideal for "low intensity" situations and far cheaper to employ than anything else we had back then. They also enjoyed the special ops infrastructure, which was geared to small unit deployment/employment and austere operatiing environments. At the annual firepower demo (Ft Bragg), we A-37 folks camped out in tents in Mackall Army Airfield while the Thud, Hun and Doubkle Ugly folks slept in air conditioned BOQ's at Seymore or Pope.

Oh well, this debate will persist until the last U.S. politician that flew or liked the Hawg dies - you know, "term limits", when they die, they die.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 03:01

geforcerfx wrote:
Gums wrote:
OP ED: We need to go back to our initial approach with the A-37 and F-5 in Vietnam. Build the things and train the indigenous folks to employ them. Hell, even give them the planes if they cannot pay. Then sit back.

Gums sends...


I feel like that's what one of the goals was for the lightweight CAS program the air force was trying to run. We could operate a few hundred for super cheap( problem for us I think is pilots) and can sell/give them to other countries on the cheap and we have a huge training ability for it.



If you notice, the countries we've sold or pitched the AT-6/A-29 to are same ones to whom we won't sell high-end drones.
And the Air Forces that operate the AT-6/A-29 mainly used them for direct attack; the big bump for CAS has been from APKWS.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 04:03

The sales of high-end drones are restricted by MTCR. Whilst I agree MTCR compliant countries are generally those that already have their own light role attack aircraft, that's not likely the drivers why AT-6/AT-29 are sold to MTCR non-compliant countries.

What I can't understand is the differential between fixed wing vs rotary. I would think helos would be a more effective weapon esp since low end fixed wing won't have that much defensive advantage over rotaries.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 05:52

weasel1962 wrote:The sales of high-end drones are restricted by MTCR. Whilst I agree MTCR compliant countries are generally those that already have their own light role attack aircraft, that's not likely the drivers why AT-6/AT-29 are sold to MTCR non-compliant countries.

What I can't understand is the differential between fixed wing vs rotary. I would think helos would be a more effective weapon esp since low end fixed wing won't have that much defensive advantage over rotaries.


Even the more MTCR friendly RQ-1 hasn't been approved for sale to the countries that were allowed to buy light attack.

You need actual in-cockpit flight time and skill to employ weapons from light attack so the barrier to misuse is
much higher than for UAVs.

Most of the countries that are allowed to buy light attack also buy armed light utility helicopters.

Dedicated attack helicopters have very high CPFH and require very skilled maintainers.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 14:49

Salute!

Ask the Russian Hind D folks about attack helos in the 'stan. Ditto for the Frogfoot dudes.

The advent of the manpads changed many things.

The low intensity scenarios simply do not justify the expense involved with lottsa sophisticated, dedicated assets. That's not simply UE costs but ground/aircrew training, basing and all the logistical support. Hell, nowadays anything involving computer chips is in dinosaur land after a few years.

I'll still take my SOF concept and have a few units like we did in the early 70's, but leave heavy duty work to something like we have now.
And then farm out the light stuff to other countries when it is clearly in our national interest.

Gums opines...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1221
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 19:56

Gums wrote:I'll still take my SOF concept and have a few units like we did in the early 70's, but leave heavy duty work to something like we have now.


It appears to me that is what SOCOM's Armed Overwatch Program is looking back into.

I dont know how true this statement is but someone i know as an acquaintance who did the highspeed low drag operator stuff said something along these lines...
Having a small presence is always a plus. When the baddies sees or hears a loud jet fighter, they know we are in the area. Some times when they hear and see a propeller they dont give it much of a second thought.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 20:43

charlielima223 wrote:
Gums wrote:I'll still take my SOF concept and have a few units like we did in the early 70's, but leave heavy duty work to something like we have now.


It appears to me that is what SOCOM's Armed Overwatch Program is looking back into.

I dont know how true this statement is but someone i know as an acquaintance who did the highspeed low drag operator stuff said something along these lines...
Having a small presence is always a plus. When the baddies sees or hears a loud jet fighter, they know we are in the area. Some times when they hear and see a propeller they dont give it much of a second thought.


Given the number of prop driven armed UAVs out there I'm not sure I buy this premise.

The bigger issue is that the AT-6 and the A-29 are only designed to resist up to 7.62x39 AP.
No shortage of HMGs or the 23mm mounts on technicals out there.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24661
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Jun 2020, 14:30

A-10: Hey Air Force, There’s More to Survival than Hiding
26 Jun 2020 Brian Boeding

"Anyone who's been around ground combat knows F-35s, F-22s and legacy fast jets are far too fast and lack the close in maneuverability to be able detect camouflaged threats to our troops or to separate friend from foe in a highly fluid firefight." [too much to read most likely - the first comment to this story gets stuck into it all]

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/a-1 ... an-hiding/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6423
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post26 Jun 2020, 16:31

spazsinbad wrote:
A-10: Hey Air Force, There’s More to Survival than Hiding
26 Jun 2020 Brian Boeding

"Anyone who's been around ground combat knows F-35s, F-22s and legacy fast jets are far too fast and lack the close in maneuverability to be able detect camouflaged threats to our troops or to separate friend from foe in a highly fluid firefight." [too much to read most likely - the first comment to this story gets stuck into it all]

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/a-1 ... an-hiding/



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

"Anyone who's been on a CVN knows airplanes only fly off ships" and other stupid notions


When will the USAF finally turn over their entire fleet organization to ground units who know best?
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post26 Jun 2020, 19:47

XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
A-10: Hey Air Force, There’s More to Survival than Hiding
26 Jun 2020 Brian Boeding

"Anyone who's been around ground combat knows F-35s, F-22s and legacy fast jets are far too fast and lack the close in maneuverability to be able detect camouflaged threats to our troops or to separate friend from foe in a highly fluid firefight." [too much to read most likely - the first comment to this story gets stuck into it all]

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/a-1 ... an-hiding/



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

"Anyone who's been on a CVN knows airplanes only fly off ships" and other stupid notions



When will the USAF finally turn over their entire fleet organization to ground units who know best?


It's so poorly reasoned and argued. I guess he thinks that single engine aircraft
survivability hasn't improved since the F-100! Nevermind the fact that the F-35 is, per actual LFT&E,
more survivable against kinetic threats then the F-16 which, AFAIK, has never been lost to
small arms/AAA despite doing a lot of CAS work.

That's not true of the A-10 which have mainly been the victims of IR SAMs and small arms/AAA.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6423
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post26 Jun 2020, 21:24

marauder2048 wrote:It's so poorly reasoned and argued. I guess he thinks that single engine aircraft
survivability hasn't improved since the F-100! Nevermind the fact that the F-35 is, per actual LFT&E,
more survivable against kinetic threats then the F-16 which, AFAIK, has never been lost to
small arms/AAA despite doing a lot of CAS work.

That's not true of the A-10 which have mainly been the victims of IR SAMs and small arms/AAA.


its so ridiculous.

Marines somehow "got by" without A-10s all these decades and outright rejected it, as well as the army on many occasions.

I guess the author knows his audience though, this will be locked onto by every mouthbreather you know.
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 04:53

Basic premise is the development of 40k targeting pods (and now internally within F-35) means the ability to operate at medium altitude outside lethal low level GBAD. Without stealth, the A-10 (and legacies in general, even F-16s) is a nice big juicy target at that altitude or be out of the fight if low level flight restrictions are imposed as was imposed in desert storm.

The A-10 has effectively become the USAF' LAS since it is already performing that role.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1221
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 19:41

spazsinbad wrote:
A-10: Hey Air Force, There’s More to Survival than Hiding
26 Jun 2020 Brian Boeding

"Anyone who's been around ground combat knows F-35s, F-22s and legacy fast jets are far too fast and lack the close in maneuverability to be able detect camouflaged threats to our troops or to separate friend from foe in a highly fluid firefight." [too much to read most likely - the first comment to this story gets stuck into it all]

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/a-1 ... an-hiding/


There is not enough time or energy known to man to debate and debunk the article and the stupidity that overwhelms the comments section.

No offense to the writer's service but the article is nothing more than the same old click bait we've seen and read over and over and over again.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 22:02

Salute!

Thanks for the defense at the other blog/news site, Marauder. The comments had a few accurate views, but an awful lotta a "I love the Hog/hate the Stubbie" posts.

From a pure employment/tactical viewpoint, I take issue with the initial comments by this CAS veteran who actually flew the plane and was not an armchair Playstation expert.

I only had about 600 combat hours and 400 missions, but I feel qualified to throw my 2 cents into the pot. I supported the grunts on most of those missions, and I can tell you that unless you are in the sandbox, or an urban area with tracers flying about, then you ain't gonna see the enema without lottsa help from the grunts.

Anyone who’s been around ground combat knows F-35s, F-22s and legacy fast jets are far too fast and lack the close in maneuverability to be able detect camouflaged threats to our troops or to separate friend from foe in a highly fluid firefight. Fast jets are equally handicapped when it comes to delivering meaningful close support in rugged terrain (with confusing target elevations) or under the low overcasts prevalent in Eastern Europe or China.


- try to detect the ZSU-23/4 in the treeline if he ain't firing, just try ....... Ditto for armor, heavy or light. The IR Maverick was a cosmic improvement, and the IR helped more than you can believe. Otherwise, strafe was more effective if you were pointed fairly close to the enema position or the grunts had a good smoke to use on your run in and acquisition. The IR allowed you to pick up a tgt from a few miles instead of 4,000 feet or so.
- you don't need a lotta maneuverability with a computed bombing system as we had in the Sluf and have in the Viper to this day. The Hog didn't get help until the 90's, and I do not think it is still as good as the Viper. Just think! We had a cosmic system in the Sluf in 1970 and it proved itself in combat and.....
- the Sluf and Viper computed delivery system for dumb bombs determines the tgt elevation using the forward looking radar and allows for the hills and ridges and...... If the radar was tits up, the grunts usually knew their elevation and we could manually enter it and use the baro mode for very accurate hits. In fact, until we went to combat with full-up systems like the forward-looking radar, many of us were baro bombers as it was a bit more stable. So when bombing as the enema is crawling over the fence, baro is as good as using the FLR to solve the geometry. When we got to Korat and went into the highlands of 'nam and Laos, the FLR proved itself when hitting ridge tops and hills.
- I routinely dropped very accurate dumb bombs under overcasts that the Huns, Thuds and Double Uglies could not handle. And the Hog would have been like the A-37 and A-1. One day my wingie and I dropped from a bit under 1,000 feet level and then turned to avoid the frags. Until the mid to late 90's the Hog could not do that

We then look at basing. Hmmm....
The Pacific would be a disaster for the Hog due to time over tgt from a suitable field. They are not gonna crank out 2 or 3 sorties a day from some dirt runway 60 or 70 miles away from that "fast-moving" mobile enemy force. And who are the grunts that are being overrun?
At Korat we could get to the friendly camp or downed pilot so much faster than the A-1 could, that the helo folks had to launch and fly to a holding point until we located the survivor for a pickup. We were twice as fast as the A-37, which was about like the Hog in terms of cruise speed, although still faster than the A-1.

Let's face it, we ain't gonna have a lotta success in a land war over in the Pacific using runways close to the "fast-moving" enemy.

Every scenario over there scares the hell outta me and everybody I know that flew attack missions in combat.

Oh well, the Hog lover has some good points about a very few scenarios, as do his supporters. OTOH, I would rather fly a plane that didn't heve to be built to "take the hits", wouldn't you?

If I had the money I would retain two wings of Hogs and give them the best computed weapon delivery and navigation systems out there - kinda like what we had in the A-7 vs A-10 flyoff back in 1974, heh heh. But at what cost? And what scenario?

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests