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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 05:15
by disconnectedradical
As I understand, the F-35 would be a fine replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 classics, and AV-8. But it is also being advertised as an A-10 replacement. This is something that I don't quite understand, since I don't think the F-35 can perform CAS nearly as well as an A-10 would. This is no knock on the F-35, since an F-16 or F/A-18 also isn't nearly as good at CAS. I'd imagine that jets like F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 lack the loiter time of the A-10.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 07:16
by XanderCrews
disconnectedradical wrote:As I understand, the F-35 would be a fine replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 classics, and AV-8. But it is also being advertised as an A-10 replacement. This is something that I don't quite understand, since I don't think the F-35 can perform CAS nearly as well as an A-10 would. This is no knock on the F-35, since an F-16 or F/A-18 also isn't nearly as good at CAS. I'd imagine that jets like F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 lack the loiter time of the A-10.


The short answer is, "We don't use A-10s like A-10s" I can give a longer more detailed answer here soon, but I need to sleep first.

Its a qood question, BTW

RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 08:08
by lookieloo
To put it another way... in limited/denied scenarios, we use our A-10s more like F-16s and our F-16s more like A-10s than we used to. Ergo, we're replacing both with a single type. As for the COIN mission, the A-10 is actually overkill; there are cheaper ways to do the loitering thing. The Marines have the right idea with their Harvest HAWK program; that is to say, developing RO-RO systems that can give more economical transport/support aircraft PGM/TACAIR capability in the low-threat environment without the need for a single-purpose type.

RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 11:12
by count_to_10
And let's not forget: the ground forces will be packing infantry scale attack drones by the time the A-10 is retired.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 13:12
by popcorn
Because CAS is a capability, not a platform... and the CAS/anti-CAS game has evolved in response to changes in technology and doctrine.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 14:22
by uclass
There is the cost aspect to this equation though. An AC-130J is great but they cost a 'bit' more than A-10s, as do F-35s. Attacking from higher altitudes also has time-related problems in a moving fight and whilst an F-35/F-18 is conducting CAS, there's something else that they could have been doing instead.

To emphasize the point another way. Do we still need AH-64s or could the AC-130 and F-35 be used instead?

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 16:22
by XanderCrews
uclass wrote:There is the cost aspect to this equation though. An AC-130J is great but they cost a 'bit' more than A-10s, as do F-35s. Attacking from higher altitudes also has time-related problems in a moving fight and whilst an F-35/F-18 is conducting CAS, there's something else that they could have been doing instead.

To emphasize the point another way. Do we still need AH-64s or could the AC-130 and F-35 be used instead?


Its not a matter of direct replacement. There was no direct replacement for battleships either. They were phased out in favor of other more capable ships. You make the point with the AC-130s and Apaches. Not to mention: AH-1, F-16, F-15E, F/A-18, AV-8B, B-1B, B-52 and MQ-9. Don't look now but the same arguments for battleships are the same for the A-10 "Guns N armor!" as for loiter time it varies, but the A-10 has nothing on the F-15E or AC-130. Helicopters do pretty darn good for all the "low slow" arguments, and A-10 have been insanely overkill for COIN. you don't need 30MM guns to kill foot soldiers, and they don't seem to get shot at by anything heavy in COIN conflicts either. an AT-6 Texan can out COIN an A-10 and do it for less, with a guy in the back to provide easier FAC-A if you want as well.

arguing the A-10s 30mm, ability to get down low-slow, put eyeballs on target, and loiter in a target area for an extended time are the main reasons for keeping the 'Hog. Of course, that's not the way CAS is done any more, not even by the A-10. All these whiz bang toys that bring the 'Hog up to C-model standard are designed to improve its connectivity, better network the aircraft into battlefield SA and C2 tools, carry much improved/modern targeting pods, and increase its ability to use smart and standoff munitions. In short, the C-model upgrades help give the A-10 a bunch of capabilities that other fighters have had for a long time, and bring it up to speed for the modern CAS battle.

There are a lot of people that argue that we can't afford whiz bang multi role toys like the JSF, I take the opposite approach: We can no longer afford to spend money on multiple types of specialized niche aircraft, no matter how capable they are fighting tanks in the Fulda gap.

No the F-35 will never have a gun like the A-10, but then again neither does any other platform, and A-10s only use their guns as a last resort. We can go on about the things an A-10 can do than an F-35 can,t but there are a myriad things the JSF can do that an A-10 can't either.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 16:45
by uclass
Devils advocate here. When rail guns come out, they might want some battleships again and with 2 large guns, maybe the DDG-1000 is a battleship. Similarly guided rounds could bring a new leash of life to CAS aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25. Whilst you don't need 30mm round to kill infantry, when firing from several nm away to avoid ground fire, a 30mm HEI will kill with a miss, whereas an AT-6 with .50cal MGs won't. An AT-6 is also very vulnerable to HMG fire, not just because of the lack of armor and single engine but also because it has to get in closer.

I guess we'll see how it goes.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 17:02
by XanderCrews
uclass wrote:Devils advocate here. When rail guns come out, they might want some battleships again and with 2 large guns, maybe the DDG-1000 is a battleship.



I will concede that with a Massive technical breakthrough we could build our first battleship since WWII. In the mean time, I will continue to point out that the battleships are long supplanted and then retired after some brief recalls here and there.

Similarly guided rounds could bring a new leash of life to CAS aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25. Whilst you don't need 30mm round to kill infantry, when firing from several nm away to avoid ground fire, a 30mm HEI will kill with a miss, whereas an AT-6 with .50cal MGs won't. An At-6 is also very vulnerable to HMG fire, not just because of the lack of armor and single engine but also because it has to get in closer.

I guess we'll see how it goes.


Don't confuse COIN with CAS. They are different animals. Do we provide CAS while doing COIN? yes. But is it the kind of CAS where we are dodging SAMs, jamming radars, etc in highly contested IADs environments? No. Hell no. So whenever someone uses OIF II and what followed along with Afganistan as to why we "need the A-10" I roll my eyes.

A-10 pilots don't like using the gun unless they have to. Its not a weapon of first resort by any stretch. Have we noticed A-10s getting upgrades so they can pitch smart bombs from a distance? Advocating the "but the gun can better!" isn't really helping the A-10 because no one is really interested in the gun anyway.

I once had a lively internet debate with someone determined to create a perfect scenario where only an A-10 could do the job, it was fun to watch because its he had to keep continually narrowing the scenario and moving the goal posts to make it work. which was kind of proving my point. Don't keep this aircraft around for the 00.01 percent of missions that "only it can do." Don't keep it around for its cannon. The A-10 was created for WWIII over europe, the attrition was expected to be intense. The Gun was to kill tanks, after you ran out of TV guided Mavericks, A lot has changed since then, including our aversion to casualties.

A lot of people don't understand the tactics the A-10 employs, modern CAS, or the JTAC doctrine. They think its still flying at tree top level, identifying its own targets and strafing with guns at will like a P-47 over France.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 18:28
by archeman
Agree w/F414...

Try turning the question of "Should the F-35 replace the A-10?" around backwards:
"Should the A-10 replace the F-35?"
Assume for the purposes of discussion that the F-35 is already fielded and serves us in the CAS role now.
Also assume for the purposes of this discussion that the A-10 is a 'new' concept aircraft with the same systems and capabilities it currently has (don't confuse the discussion by projecting new systems and capabilities on the A-10 it doesn't actually have).

In that imaginary scenario, is it justifiable to continue A-10 development, acquisition and deployment and start retiring F-35s, or keep the F-35 in that CAS role? I think that buying A-10s would be a difficult position to try to justify, the F-35 is vastly more flexible.

It may be that we are actually pursuing the best path right now by slowly decreasing the A-10 numbers until all the niche roles they performed have been adequately replicated by other platforms.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 19:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
with EOTS and DAS the F-35 will have unparralleled ability to put eyes on target. SDB would make a mess of an enemy foothold.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 22:16
by uclass
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:with EOTS and DAS the F-35 will have unparralleled ability to put eyes on target. SDB would make a mess of an enemy foothold.

If they haven't moved by the time it gets there.

Maybe I am narrowing the scenario too much, but I'm just considering running fights where the enemy grabs you by the belt buckles. I'm not sure high altitude CAS could do that job quite as well.

I do appreciate that the F-35 works better in highly contested airspace. However, the modern doctrine seems to be to 'uncontest' that airspace before beginning a ground offensive, so maybe, again playing Devil's Advocate, the question is in what percentage of scenarios would you be providing CAS in unsanitized airspace? A CSAR mission is all that really springs to mind but that again poses the problem of running fights and close range.

Furthermore if we look at a theatre of the Caucasus Mountains (yep I went there), then you have a situation where steep mountains will continuously be blocking the view and trajectory of higher flying aircraft and ballistic style smart bombs like SDB.

If you also consider the scenario where a Russian force with maybe several hundred paratroopers and dozens of IFVs in a highly spread formation are coming to collect your downed pilot, then you have a situation where a few smart bombs from high altitude aircraft are not going to help the situation. And what's more still, you could get yourself into a situation where after descending to lower altitude, you find yourself using mountains to block AAA and SAM coverage and something like an A-10 can take the tight turns between mountains to make the repetitive passes.

I know that's a terrible scenario but I was just imagining a sort of, 'what if Syria went really bad' situation.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 23:12
by count_to_10
SDB's will be able to follow moving vehicles that travel while the bomb is in flight, and, with laser designators and data-links, should re-targetable at any time.
As far as your "scenario", uclass, a pack of F-35s will do better than A-10s.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 23:15
by XanderCrews
If they haven't moved by the time it gets there.


??

The same could be said for A-10s (sorry that bird is not known for speed.)

Maybe I am narrowing the scenario too much, but I'm just considering running fights where the enemy grabs you by the belt buckles. I'm not sure high altitude CAS could do that job quite as well.


Then they get low. short of a heavy bomber they all have guns and are capable

I do appreciate that the F-35 works better in highly contested airspace. However, the modern doctrine seems to be to 'uncontest' that airspace before beginning a ground offensive,


Then why do you need an Armored aircraft??

so maybe, again playing Devil's Advocate, the question is in what percentage of scenarios would you be providing CAS in unsanitized airspace?


Almost all of them. The A-10 was designed in a time when a MANPAD was a very new technology, and the early ones weren't nearly the threat that they are now. Moreover the A-10 if it wants to kill airplanes, or suppress SAMs, isn't capable of carrying AMRAAMs, Can't carry HARMs, Has a fraction of the EW capability, and no AESA radar to fry or jam things. It has recently been equipped with targeting pods, and smart weapons, to increase its stand off ability there is a reason for this. A-10s, only get low and slow for gun runs as a last resort, The ROEs typically set a high minimum too, I think in Kosovo it was 15,000 ft. You needed permission to go below that.

So how many aircraft are you donating to sanitize the area before we send in the mighty A-10? Is the A-10 a second-line aircraft? honest question.

Its really hard to find a perfect middle ground of so dangerous it rates an armored flying cannon, while at the same not so dangerous that an A-10 can't do it. And the list of stuff an A-10 can't do really overwhelms what it can do. The change in tactics has only solidified that.

A CSAR mission is all that really springs to mind but that again poses the problem of running fights and close range.


Is the A-10 the only aircraft capable of close range support?

Furthermore if we look at a theatre of the Caucasus Mountains (yep I went there), then you have a situation where steep mountains will continuously be blocking the view and trajectory of higher flying aircraft and ballistic style smart bombs like SDB.


We have been doing CAS in mountains the last 12 years, with various aircraft of all classes and types.

If you also consider the scenario where a Russian force with maybe several hundred paratroopers and dozens of IFVs in a highly spread formation are coming to collect your downed pilot, then you have a situation where a few smart bombs from high altitude aircraft are not going to help the situation.


highly spread formation through the mountains?

Interestingly enough the last few pilot rescues have been by Marines and they used AV-8Bs. Other than short legs Harriers seem to be an excellent CAS platform.

And what's more still, you could get yourself into a situation where after descending to lower altitude, you find yourself using mountains to block AAA and SAM coverage and something like an A-10 can take the tight turns between mountains to make the repetitive passes.


It has to make the tight turns through the mountains because it doesn't have the ability to find, lock, and destroy threat systems. So in other words, we are creating a situation where the A-10 has to be defensively fighting for its own life while simultaneously dropping ordnance in close proximity to a friendly. This won't end well. The A-10 is going to spend all its time reacting, rather than dictating the fight

Worst case we are sending in rescuers for the rescuers.

I'm not trying to pick on you, its just that things have evolved. And its not even just that Teen fighters have become better at being A-10s, its that A-10s have been relegated to using teen series-like tactics for several reasons. There just isn't a whole lot that A-10s can do that other things can't, but the other things do other stuff really well too.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 23:28
by cantaz
uclass wrote:Maybe I am narrowing the scenario too much, but I'm just considering running fights where the enemy grabs you by the belt buckles. I'm not sure high altitude CAS could do that job quite as well.


Please explain how the A-10 is suppose to do any better in such a scenario?

If you also consider the scenario where a Russian force with maybe several hundred paratroopers and dozens of IFVs in a highly spread formation are coming to collect your downed pilot, then you have a situation where a few smart bombs from high altitude aircraft are not going to help the situation.


Again, how is the A-10 suppose to deal with that better than the F-35? Seems more like a B-1 with two dozen 2,000lb JDAM scenario.

And what's more still, you could get yourself into a situation where after descending to lower altitude, you find yourself using mountains to block AAA and SAM coverage and something like an A-10 can take the tight turns between mountains to make the repetitive passes.


Relying on the Russians to screw up their AAA and SAM placement in such a way as to allow for a situation where only terrain only stops being in the way when the A-10 is lined up to shoot at whatever the AD was setup to defend?

I know that's a terrible scenario but I was just imagining a sort of, 'what if Syria went really bad' situation.


If Syria went "really" bad, then some lucky Pantsir crew might get to paint A-10s on the sides of their launchers.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 23:41
by uclass
I was talking about the bombs themselves not the actual plane with respect to weapon trajectory and fall time. The Caucasus are also very different to the Afghan Mountains from what I've seen. They seem steeper with more narrow valleys.

SEAD can only clear out so much. It won't get rid of things like ZSU-2-23 positions. The A-10 made a useful stepping stone between fast jets and helicopters and was often used in support of heli missions in the Balkans.

I'm not really sure you'd be sending in troops while the enemy still had its SAM batteries at play. MANPADS wouldn't be susceptible to HARM so I'm not sure where that point was going, although HARM could be qualified for the A-10, just as the Su-25T has ARMs. If an F-35 does have to get low, does it have surviveability against MANPADS?

Usually I'd think that some EA-18Gs would sanitize things first with CAP cover (F-22s/F-15s).

There just isn't a whole lot that A-10s can do that other things can't, but the other things do other stuff really well too.

Well that's why I think some people would rather the other things be doing other stuff. There is the actual weapons load itself to look at. The A-10 can carry more than most.

I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 23:50
by lookieloo
uclass wrote:There is the cost aspect to this equation though. An AC-130J is great but they cost a 'bit' more than A-10s...
You're completely missing the point. Harvest HAWK isn't a specialized aircraft like the AC-130; it's a kit that can be rolled on and off of a regular KC-130 to provide loitering CAS capability in a low-threat environment when it's required without the need to maintain a separate aircraft/training infrastructure ALL THE TIME. When not needed, it can be stored in a shed while the KC-130s continue to be useful doing their normal thing.

Likewise, the USAF should think about shunting the A-10's COIN job onto a similar system, preferably one that would work on multiple types of aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 23:59
by lookieloo
deleted

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 00:03
by count_to_10
lookieloo wrote:
uclass wrote:There is the cost aspect to this equation though. An AC-130J is great but they cost a 'bit' more than A-10s...
You're completely missing the point. Harvest HAWK isn't a specialized aircraft like the AC-130; it's a kit that can be rolled on and off of a regular KC-130 to provide loitering CAS capability in a low-threat environment when it's required without the need to maintain a separate aircraft/training infrastructure ALL THE TIME. When not needed, it can be stored in a shed while the KC-130s continue to be useful doing their normal thing.

Likewise, the USAF should think about shunting the A-10's COIN job onto a similar system, preferably one that would work on multiple types of aircraft.

Say, a V-22. :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 02:14
by aaam
uclass wrote:There is the cost aspect to this equation though. An AC-130J is great but they cost a 'bit' more than A-10s, as do F-35s. Attacking from higher altitudes also has time-related problems in a moving fight and whilst an F-35/F-18 is conducting CAS, there's something else that they could have been doing instead.

To emphasize the point another way. Do we still need AH-64s or could the AC-130 and F-35 be used instead?


Neither the AC-130 nor he F-35 will really be an effective replacement for attack helos. Plus, you have the problem of daytime operations where USAF will pull the AC-130s out (ask the folks stuck on Roberts Ridge).

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 02:27
by aaam
Something else to keep in mind:

AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I, and hasn't been completely sure of what to do with it ever since (the re-engining program always seemed to get moved below the line) I wouldn't doubt that bureaucracy would not be that sorry to see it go. In any case, it' getting long in the tooth, so we're going to have to do something.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 02:41
by lookieloo
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 02:42
by lookieloo
deleted

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 03:39
by XanderCrews
I was talking about the bombs themselves not the actual plane with respect to weapon trajectory and fall time. The Caucasus are also very different to the Afghan Mountains from what I've seen. They seem steeper with more narrow valleys.


Thats neat, but its not enough to keep the A-10 in service.

SEAD can only clear out so much. It won't get rid of things like ZSU-2-23 positions.


It won't. which is why A-10s are encourage not to go low level.

The A-10 made a useful stepping stone between fast jets and helicopters and was often used in support of heli missions in the Balkans.


So its a useful helicopter escort?

I'm not really sure you'd be sending in troops while the enemy still had its SAM batteries at play.


Now one man can be a SAM. With increasing lethal mobile SAMs with more range, its not hard to have friendly troops miles from the SAMs but still be within their firing envelope. IADs is no joke.

MANPADS wouldn't be susceptible to HARM so I'm not sure where that point was going,


my point was low and slow was peachy when you only had to worry about AAA over europe, and casualties weren't a concern. now dumb grunts have missiles that can reach out and touch A-10s far more easily--and without the altitude to react to them and the speed to get away from them they are far more vulnerable to MANPADs. Which is why the USAF has changed tactics.

In Libya rumors of SA-18 Missiles put restrictions on A-10 operations (along with AC-130. and AV-8B) F-15Es F-16s, F-18s were still unrestricted. The best CAS aircraft in the world doesn't mean much when you can't fly it where the action is. Its a limited aircraft, with a limited role, even in limited wars.

Despite the rough and tumble nature of the A-10, its still an aircraft that has to be protected from getting in over its head. And it has before, multiple A-10s getting shot down over Iraq had commanders requesting smaller safer operations in 1991.

An F-35 can go downtown on day one, and you can load the bejuses out of it with bombs and hard points and it can support grunts on day 2, and then you can strip it back down to hunt airplanes on day 3 with internal AMRAAMs. And thats not getting into the EW and comm/intel capability.

although HARM could be qualified for the A-10, just as the Su-25T has ARMs. If an F-35 does have to get low, does it have surviveability against MANPADS?


It will be able to accelerate and break 400 knots, so yes.

Usually I'd think that some EA-18Gs would sanitize things first with CAP cover (F-22s/F-15s).Well that's why I think some people would rather the other things be doing other stuff.


like not babysitting A-10s?

There is the actual weapons load itself to look at. The A-10 can carry more than most.


Enough to justify it?

I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


The person in the know who I talked to said the F-35 could probably be canceled tomorrow and they would still retire the A-10. The money is that tight.

and its not so much a matter of the USAF "liking" or disliking the A-10. Technology has passed it by. I'm sure we can think of scenarios where an Iowa-Class battleship would be perfect as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 04:17
by smsgtmac
disconnectedradical wrote:...I don't think the F-35 can perform CAS nearly as well as an A-10 would. This is no knock on the F-35, since an F-16 or F/A-18 also isn't nearly as good at CAS. I'd imagine that jets like F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 lack the loiter time of the A-10.


I categorically reject any assertion that the F-35 can't 'do' CAS as well as an A-10. It will do it <b> differently</b>. Loiter time is only needed if you don't kill the bad guys the first time you try or you don't have enough aircraft to begin with.

And because I got tired of addressing it every time anyone suggested retiring the A-10. I wrote it all down so I could just point to it in the future. If interested, start here: (http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -part.html)

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 07:50
by haavarla
uclass wrote:I was talking about the bombs themselves not the actual plane with respect to weapon trajectory and fall time. The Caucasus are also very different to the Afghan Mountains from what I've seen. They seem steeper with more narrow valleys.

SEAD can only clear out so much. It won't get rid of things like ZSU-2-23 positions. The A-10 made a useful stepping stone between fast jets and helicopters and was often used in support of heli missions in the Balkans.

I'm not really sure you'd be sending in troops while the enemy still had its SAM batteries at play. MANPADS wouldn't be susceptible to HARM so I'm not sure where that point was going, although HARM could be qualified for the A-10, just as the Su-25T has ARMs. If an F-35 does have to get low, does it have surviveability against MANPADS?

Usually I'd think that some EA-18Gs would sanitize things first with CAP cover (F-22s/F-15s).

There just isn't a whole lot that A-10s can do that other things can't, but the other things do other stuff really well too.

Well that's why I think some people would rather the other things be doing other stuff. There is the actual weapons load itself to look at. The A-10 can carry more than most.

I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


The Threath enviroment just got a tad worse.
Russia has launched a New S-350E Vityaz Air defense system into the fray. Imagine this being exportet along all the other double digit missile defence systems.

It is basicly a medium missile range system, designed to work on the same network With the larger S-400 systems.

Hense, why i would pick the F-35 long before A-10.

http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/513

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 09:57
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:

The person in the know who I talked to said the F-35 could probably be canceled tomorrow and they would still retire the A-10. The money is that tight.


The former CSAF was very clear, to achieve significant cost reductions, reducing the size of the fleet isn't enough. You have to retire the entire fleet and it's entire logistical support infrastructure. Given the choice between retiring the B-1 or the A-10, I think retaining the former makes sense in the A2/AD world. Who knows? Maybe both will be canned.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 09:58
by popcorn
Deleted.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 11:27
by uclass
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.

There's no question that PGMs can do the job but $100k for some fool on a camel with an AK has questionable cost effectiveness.

Anyway I guess we'll only know the answer to this after the next 15 years. Not trying to pick a fight, just exploring the answers.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 11:46
by lookieloo
uclass wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.
There's no question that PGMs can do the job but $100k for some fool on a camel with an AK has questionable cost effectiveness.
You know better than that. Unguided ordnance is rarely used downrange; and in a serious conflict, no one's going low enough to strafe.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 14:03
by smsgtmac
Ack! Missed this one...

aaam wrote:Something else to keep in mind:

AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I, and hasn't been completely sure of what to do with it ever since.


A subset of one of the Great CAS Myths. Completely unfounded.
(See: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -part.html)

Weird. the link is correct, yet I get the same error as others. Oh well. Just search "Debunking the Close Air Support Myths" Start with Part 1

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 14:26
by wrightwing
uclass wrote:I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


Well considering that the USAF plans on keeping ~ 246 A-10s until 2040, we will have both, for 27 more years.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 14:38
by sprstdlyscottsmn
uclass wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.

There's no question that PGMs can do the job but $100k for some fool on a camel with an AK has questionable cost effectiveness.

Anyway I guess we'll only know the answer to this after the next 15 years. Not trying to pick a fight, just exploring the answers.


I watched a video where TWO Hellfire missile were used to take out two people digging a hole. one anti tank missile per human target.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 16:29
by XanderCrews
uclass wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.

There's no question that PGMs can do the job but $100k for some fool on a camel with an AK has questionable cost effectiveness.

Anyway I guess we'll only know the answer to this after the next 15 years. Not trying to pick a fight, just exploring the answers.


for a "guy with an AK" an A-10 is expensive overkill in itself. We can use a helicopter for that. There is no need to keep a flying cannon/titanium bathtub attack aircraft to kill an AK toting riflemen.

The cost argument goes completely out the window when you start talking about the millions every year it takes to maintain a fleet of aircraft in order to "save money" to kill a guy on a camel. Especially when we have so many other assets to do it, and if you consider the US is trying to get out of the small wars business for the next couple decades anyway.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 18:20
by aaam
smsgtmac wrote:Ack! Missed this one...

aaam wrote:Something else to keep in mind:

AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I, and hasn't been completely sure of what to do with it ever since.


A subset of one of the Great CAS Myths. Completely unfounded.
(See: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -part.html)


I can't get the page to display in Firefox or IE, maybe it's temporarily having problems. So I can't comment. I'll just note that:

AF didn't strongly push the A-X/A-10 until Army said that they would be able to do CAS and dive bomb with their forthcoming AH-56. AF then repeatedly lobbied that the AH-56 should be canceled, the A-10 should get the money and besides, it's their role anyway so Army shouldn't get to play. When Army dumped AH-56 on its own, they were caught by surprise, and weren't really sure of the A-10's role (if you'll look back anti-tank wasn't originally one of the primary goals of A-X). There's lots of contemporaneous information on that. Even the late, great Jeff Ethell in a documentary highly supportive of the A-10 noted this.

By the mid- '80s, only a few years after its introduction, AF started a program and competition specifically to replace the A-10, called CAS-X. This kind of petered out when it became apparent that USAF wanted whatever aircraft was best for the job as long as it was the F-16 (the A-7F started out as part of the CAS-X operation).

Even when DoD was relatively fat with money in the '80s, the largesse didn't find its way down to the A-10 program very often. The higher thrust engine program was repeatedly blue pencilled. Don't forget that prior to Saddam's Kuwait sojurn, the A-10 was scheduled to be removed from service , except for those being kept as OA-10 (relatively) fast FACs. They were already sending them to the desert when the invasion changed everything. I personally know people who were involved in trying to bring some of those back. They were shocked at how much it would cost. Not because the A-10 was a poor design, but because when they were put out there they were stripped so much and preservation was lacking to the point that it wasn't affordable to do so.

As an aside, they tried to do the latter to the SR-71 but that didn't quite work, a tale for another topic.

Note that I'm not picking on the A-10 or those in the field who flew and maintained it

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 19:04
by wrightwing
uclass wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.

There's no question that PGMs can do the job but $100k for some fool on a camel with an AK has questionable cost effectiveness.

Anyway I guess we'll only know the answer to this after the next 15 years. Not trying to pick a fight, just exploring the answers.


JDAMs, SDBs, etc... don't cost anywhere near $100k, and how much value do you place on the forces being defended by those weapons? Do you risk a multi-million dollar aircraft, on flying within range of ground fire?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 20:41
by hb_pencil
Also the United States and other allies are developing an entirely new generation of very inexpensive PGMs for use on all aircraft... including bomblets and guided rockets. Two examples are the CVR-7PG and Laser Guided Zuni, which both utilize an inexpensive laser homing unit bolted onto the rocket, turning it into a highly accurate missile. I believe in both cases the cost is below $10,000 dollars per unit.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 21:13
by uclass
wrightwing wrote:
uclass wrote:I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


Well considering that the USAF plans on keeping ~ 246 A-10s until 2040, we will have both, for 27 more years.

Oh, I'm happy then. :D

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 21:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
fwew, now THAT is an anti light vehicle system

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 21:14
by uclass
XanderCrews wrote:
uclass wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.

There's no question that PGMs can do the job but $100k for some fool on a camel with an AK has questionable cost effectiveness.

Anyway I guess we'll only know the answer to this after the next 15 years. Not trying to pick a fight, just exploring the answers.


for a "guy with an AK" an A-10 is expensive overkill in itself. We can use a helicopter for that.

An AH-64 is more expensive surprisingly.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 21:56
by XanderCrews
uclass wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
uclass wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:AF never really wanted the A-10, tried to get rid of it until reality intruded in the form of Gulf War I...
... and now reality is intruding on sentimentalists in the form of smaller, cheaper, more-advanced PGMs that don't need to be delivered via low-'n-slow flying tanks.

There's no question that PGMs can do the job but $100k for some fool on a camel with an AK has questionable cost effectiveness.

Anyway I guess we'll only know the answer to this after the next 15 years. Not trying to pick a fight, just exploring the answers.


for a "guy with an AK" an A-10 is expensive overkill in itself. We can use a helicopter for that.

An AH-64 is more expensive surprisingly.


Who said anything about an AH-64?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... or_gun.jpg

plus Blackhawks can do other useful things like carry people and cargo when they aren't camel hunting.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 01:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
and when only loaded with door guns they are faster than an Apache too.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 03:20
by tacf-x
With the SDB II I'm pretty sure the F-35 should be able to handle CAS fairly well. The F-35 would just have to loiter at large slant ranges and altitudes compared to the A-10 and lob SDB IIs to eliminate targets.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 04:35
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:
uclass wrote:I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


Well considering that the USAF plans on keeping ~ 246 A-10s until 2040, we will have both, for 27 more years.


I wouldn't bet on it.. the political winds sre fickle, and cost pressures unrelenting and plans are made to be broken.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 04:39
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:
uclass wrote:I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


Well considering that the USAF plans on keeping ~ 246 A-10s until 2040, we will have both, for 27 more years.


I wouldn't bet on it.. the political winds sre fickle, and cost pressures unrelenting and plans are made to be broken.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 04:51
by sprstdlyscottsmn
is what would be the best CAS weapon for the F-35. SDB wouldn't be bad, but what about internal cluster munitions or brimstone?

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 06:57
by wrightwing
popcorn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
uclass wrote:I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


Well considering that the USAF plans on keeping ~ 246 A-10s until 2040, we will have both, for 27 more years.


I wouldn't bet on it.. the political winds sre fickle, and cost pressures unrelenting and plans are made to be broken.


Well, they've already spent the money on re-winging them, and adding updated avionics, not to mention a plan for retiring 5 squadrons, so it's doubtful they will be retired in the near term, whether they last till 2040 or not.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 07:12
by hornetfinn
SDB II should be quite nice with so many targeting options. Of course there are several other similar small weapons being planned for use in F-35 also like MBDA Spear which uses similar multimode seeker and should be faster as it uses turbojet engine and might have a longer range. It most likely is also more expensive weapon than SDB II. Of course there is the Brimstone missile which is smaller and with shorter range, but also with nice multimode (SAL, MMW, or both at the same time) seeker.

There are also interesting weapons that could be used like MBDA Viper-E which is already used by USMC (as Viper Strike) and should be quite inexpensive and is very small (so large number could be carried). I don't know if such a weapon could be used in fast moving jet as it has been used only in UAVs and different versions of C-130. Other very similar weapon is Raytheon AGM-176 Griffin, which is also already in use. Maybe they'd have too much limitations in launch speed to be good candidates for F-35? Of course they might be nice weapons for the A-10 though?

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 08:09
by wrightwing
hornetfinn wrote:SDB II should be quite nice with so many targeting options. Of course there are several other similar small weapons being planned for use in F-35 also like MBDA Spear which uses similar multimode seeker and should be faster as it uses turbojet engine and might have a longer range. It most likely is also more expensive weapon than SDB II. Of course there is the Brimstone missile which is smaller and with shorter range, but also with nice multimode (SAL, MMW, or both at the same time) seeker.

There are also interesting weapons that could be used like MBDA Viper-E which is already used by USMC (as Viper Strike) and should be quite inexpensive and is very small (so large number could be carried). I don't know if such a weapon could be used in fast moving jet as it has been used only in UAVs and different versions of C-130. Other very similar weapon is Raytheon AGM-176 Griffin, which is also already in use. Maybe they'd have too much limitations in launch speed to be good candidates for F-35? Of course they might be nice weapons for the A-10 though?


Not to mention Brimstone, JAGM, etc...

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 11:23
by count_to_10
Who knows. Maybe we'll see something to the effect of a laser guided gliding hand grenade.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 14:15
by XanderCrews
wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
uclass wrote:I agree that if I had to pick just one of the two it would be the F-35 but I'd rather have both and cut elsewhere.


Well considering that the USAF plans on keeping ~ 246 A-10s until 2040, we will have both, for 27 more years.


I wouldn't bet on it.. the political winds sre fickle, and cost pressures unrelenting and plans are made to be broken.


Well, they've already spent the money on re-winging them, and adding updated avionics, not to mention a plan for retiring 5 squadrons, so it's doubtful they will be retired in the near term, whether they last till 2040 or not.


If we follow the UK model, you upgrade before you scrap them. :twisted:

uclass wrote:Oh, I'm happy then. :D


Me too. With sequestration kicking in and the US Military swimming in excess money the next 10 years, and filled with old over-flown aircraft. we must retain a niche aircraft, the kind that we can't think of a single scenario in which it would be necessary is just what the doctor ordered. Its for camel hunting afterall. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 21:44
by uclass
count_to_10 wrote:Who knows. Maybe we'll see something to the effect of a laser guided gliding hand grenade.

Been done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ICxImSsjw

http://www.defensereview.com/mbda-tiger ... -a-temper/

I guess the Harvest Hawk does work pretty well too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyjuhz74hsg

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 21:56
by uclass
XanderCrews wrote:
Who said anything about an AH-64?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... or_gun.jpg

plus Blackhawks can do other useful things like carry people and cargo when they aren't camel hunting.

Does leave the gunner exposed though.

40:45 (common criminal with a bolt action .30-06.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... YHTZ9PBEHw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk1Me_AKxxU

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 00:57
by count_to_10
uclass wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Who knows. Maybe we'll see something to the effect of a laser guided gliding hand grenade.

Been done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ICxImSsjw

http://www.defensereview.com/mbda-tiger ... -a-temper/

I guess the Harvest Hawk does work pretty well too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyjuhz74hsg

The Viper strike looks something like what I was thinking, although I was thinking more like 20 inches rather than 35. I wonder if you could configure some kind of array of launch tubes in the F-35 bay that would kick them out downward. Don't see any cost listed.

The tiger is the kind of infantry deployed CAS weapon I was talking about earlier. Switchblade is a bit more timely, though -- you can launch it out of it's tube in a matter of seconds instead of having to assemble it.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 09:44
by wrightwing
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Who knows. Maybe we'll see something to the effect of a laser guided gliding hand grenade.

Been done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ICxImSsjw

http://www.defensereview.com/mbda-tiger ... -a-temper/

I guess the Harvest Hawk does work pretty well too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyjuhz74hsg

The Viper strike looks something like what I was thinking, although I was thinking more like 20 inches rather than 35. I wonder if you could configure some kind of array of launch tubes in the F-35 bay that would kick them out downward. Don't see any cost listed.

The tiger is the kind of infantry deployed CAS weapon I was talking about earlier. Switchblade is a bit more timely, though -- you can launch it out of it's tube in a matter of seconds instead of having to assemble it.


It'd be cheaper to just use launchers on the wings, since maintaining stealth isn't an issue for CAS.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 11:52
by uclass
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Who knows. Maybe we'll see something to the effect of a laser guided gliding hand grenade.

Been done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ICxImSsjw

http://www.defensereview.com/mbda-tiger ... -a-temper/

I guess the Harvest Hawk does work pretty well too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyjuhz74hsg

The Viper strike looks something like what I was thinking, although I was thinking more like 20 inches rather than 35.

SABER or STM (Pyros).

http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue ... ons/air/28
http://mbdainc.com/downloads/saber-data.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lERkmjvsLWQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKVwdPd4nlc

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 13:06
by count_to_10


It'd be cheaper to just use launchers on the wings, since maintaining stealth isn't an issue for CAS.


It may be in the future -- but, more to the point, you get more persistence if you go with an internal load only.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 15:19
by uclass
wrightwing wrote:It'd be cheaper to just use launchers on the wings, since maintaining stealth isn't an issue for CAS.

It'd be cheaper to use a Mk44/GAU-23A.

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 21:24
by uclass
count_to_10 wrote:The tiger is the kind of infantry deployed CAS weapon I was talking about earlier. Switchblade is a bit more timely, though -- you can launch it out of it's tube in a matter of seconds instead of having to assemble it.

Out of a tube?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade_UAV

Ah okay.

http://www.avinc.com/uas/adc/switchblade/

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 23:08
by maus92
disconnectedradical wrote:As I understand, the F-35 would be a fine replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 classics, and AV-8. But it is also being advertised as an A-10 replacement. This is something that I don't quite understand, since I don't think the F-35 can perform CAS nearly as well as an A-10 would. This is no knock on the F-35, since an F-16 or F/A-18 also isn't nearly as good at CAS. I'd imagine that jets like F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 lack the loiter time of the A-10.


Boeing just won a contract for an additional 56 wings, bringing the total on order to 242 - enough to keep the A-10 flying to the mid 2030s. It's not going anywhere soon. The USAF continues to try to retire them, but pressure from the ground forces on various fronts keeps them alive.

RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 02:23
by southernphantom
I half-expect a contract for new airframes at some point.

Frankly, aside for 'show-of-force' CAS missions that the B-1 has been used for, I suspect that fixed-wing CAS will be obsolete before the F-35 even has a chance to replace the A-10.

RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 02:31
by count_to_10
Aren't there plans to turn the A-10's into drones?

RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 05:32
by checksixx
There are NO plans to retire the A-10 currently...at least for the next 20 or so years. In fact, Boeing just got another contract for more replacement wing sets.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-to-B ... -Air-Force

RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 12:56
by uclass
So they must still make wings?

Re: RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 14:17
by checksixx
uclass wrote:So they must still make wings?


See link in above post...Boeing makes A-10 wingsets.

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 16:53
by popcorn
All the Services have basically said there will be no sacred cows though one gets a hint here and there which programs seem to enjoy top-level support. Those like the A-10 that are not obvious fits into the whole JOAC-A2/AD-ASB paradigm are vulnerable IMO. Cost cuts to generate savings will have to come from somewhere, that's for sure. The beancounters are probably crunching numbers right now.

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 19:25
by wrightwing
The A-10 will be in service till ~2040. This topic is based upon numerous fallacies.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 00:28
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:The A-10 will be in service till ~2040. This topic is based upon numerous fallacies.


I wouldn't mind seeing them in ROKAF colors.
I'd wager you a case of beer they'll be retired much earlier. If you afe proven right, I'll be long gone by then so a safe bet for me :lol:

Re: RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 00:33
by count_to_10
checksixx wrote:
uclass wrote:So they must still make wings?


See link in above post...Boeing makes A-10 wingsets.

Does Boeing make every aircraft that the F-35 is replacing/competing with?

Re: RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 00:37
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:
checksixx wrote:
uclass wrote:So they must still make wings?


See link in above post...Boeing makes A-10 wingsets.

Does Boeing make every aircraft that the F-35 is replacing/competing with?


Actually, Boeing got really upset when they heard LM was proposing a stretched F-35 as a BUFF replacement. :lol:

RE: Re: RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 04:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
why get upset? NOTHING replaces the BUFF.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 07:21
by wrightwing
popcorn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The A-10 will be in service till ~2040. This topic is based upon numerous fallacies.


I wouldn't mind seeing them in ROKAF colors.
I'd wager you a case of beer they'll be retired much earlier. If you afe proven right, I'll be long gone by then so a safe bet for me :lol:


What's much earlier? 2035? 2020? The USAF already has a plan for retiring 102 A-10s, and has invested a lot of money, in upgrading the remaining ones, for decades more service.

Re: RE: Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 07:34
by checksixx
count_to_10 wrote:
checksixx wrote:
uclass wrote:So they must still make wings?


See link in above post...Boeing makes A-10 wingsets.

Does Boeing make every aircraft that the F-35 is replacing/competing with?


Boeing never made A-10's.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 08:48
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The A-10 will be in service till ~2040. This topic is based upon numerous fallacies.


I wouldn't mind seeing them in ROKAF colors.
I'd wager you a case of beer they'll be retired much earlier. If you afe proven right, I'll be long gone by then so a safe bet for me :lol:


What's much earlier? 2035? 2020? The USAF already has a plan for retiring 102 A-10s, and has invested a lot of money, in upgrading the remaining ones, for decades more service.


When enough F-35s are in service, then justification for A-10 diminishes accordingly. Yes, they invested in upgrades.. but the real issue is relevance to the overall strategic thrust which is not major land wars opposing masses of armor Rather it is the JOAC/A2AD/ASB paradigm.,The money invested in upgrades has to be weighed against the cost to continue operating and supporting the aircraft for the next 10, 20, 30 years - a significant potential savings that will not go unnoticed.

It will become increasingly difficult IMO to justify their continued operation if they are not aligned with the strategic direction. Gen.,Schwartz alluded to the major cost saving that can be achieved but only if you retire an entire fleet of aircraft including it's logistical infrastructure. When sequestration really begins to bite over this decade, I expect the A-10 to come under increasing pressure and be a prime candidate for termination.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 09:02
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The A-10 will be in service till ~2040. This topic is based upon numerous fallacies.


I wouldn't mind seeing them in ROKAF colors.
I'd wager you a case of beer they'll be retired much earlier. If you afe proven right, I'll be long gone by then so a safe bet for me :lol:


What's much earlier? 2035? 2020? The USAF already has a plan for retiring 102 A-10s, and has invested a lot of money, in upgrading the remaining ones, for decades more service.


When enough F-35s are in service, then justification for A-10 diminishes accordingly. Yes, they invested in upgrades.. but the real issue is relevance to the overall strategic thrust which is not major land wars opposing masses of armor Rather it is the JOAC/A2AD/ASB paradigm.,The money invested in upgrades has to be weighed against the cost to continue operating and supporting the aircraft for the next 10, 20, 30 years - a significant potential savings that will not go unnoticed.

It will become increasingly difficult IMO to justify their continued operation if they are not aligned with the strategic direction. Gen.,Schwartz alluded to the major cost saving that can be achieved but only if you retire an entire fleet of aircraft including it's logistical infrastructure. When sequestration really begins to bite over this decade, I expect the A-10 to come under increasing pressure and be a prime candidate for termination.

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2013, 03:19
by popcorn
A peek into the mindset at the top.. specialized COIN platforms don't have much support.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/13/v ... f-our-way/

VCJCS Winnefeld Tells Army : Forget Long Land Wars

ARLINGTON: A candid Vice-Chairman of the Joint Staff delivered some tough messages to the Army yesterday and got in a few swipes at Congress and “the political leadership” in general.

Adm. James “Sandy” Winnefeld’s raised the most hackles among the serving and retired officers gathered at the headquarters of the powerful Association of the US Army Thursday night when Winnefeld said the nation would probably not need an Army sized to do any large-scale, long-duration ground operations. The admiral did not only downplay the possibility of prolonged counterinsurgencies like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam, although he certainly emphasized the decline of COIN: He raised doubt about long wars of any kind...

“I simply don’t know where the security interests of our nation are threatened enough to cause us to cause us to lead a future major, extended COIN campaign,” he continued, “though we were very well might provide support to a nation fighting its own COIN campaign, as we continue to do today in Colombia.” (Note that supporting Afghan security forces, whether today or post-2014, was not his example of choice). “The president himself made it clear in his Defense Strategic Guidance that we will retain some capability for COIN, but only on a limited scale.”

More at the link.

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2013, 12:57
by count_to_10
If we had a penny for every time someone said that...

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2013, 13:45
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:If we had a penny for every time someone said that...


Yeah, but note that the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is an Army general. What better way to get the message across to his Army subordinates than to have a navy Admiral deliver it? :D

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 00:03
by XanderCrews

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 05:48
by alloycowboy
Definitely time to get of the A-10, in an theater of war it is just to venerable without stealth.

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 16:27
by archeman
XanderCrews wrote:http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/18/air-force-mourns-likely-passing-of-a-10-warthog/



I was impressed by how uniform the comments were on that topic.
In general the A-10 is the best thing ever for a ground troops since the invention of the folding cot, and there will never be any substitute (according to the comments).

You can also see on display, every conspiracy theory of AF vs Army ever thunk up.

In the rush to declare that the F-35 just can never do the CAS mission, I don't ever seen any of them ever ponder that the Marines plan to do just that almost exclusively.

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 19:10
by XanderCrews
archeman wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/18/air-force-mourns-likely-passing-of-a-10-warthog/



I was impressed by how uniform the comments were on that topic.
In general the A-10 is the best thing ever for a ground troops since the invention of the folding cot, and there will never be any substitute (according to the comments).

You can also see on display, every conspiracy theory of AF vs Army ever thunk up.

In the rush to declare that the F-35 just can never do the CAS mission, I don't ever seen any of them ever ponder that the Marines plan to do just that almost exclusively.


Well said.

Some people still think its the 1980s

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 19:13
by count_to_10
The way I see it, the future of CAS is a combination of ISR drones for targeting and some kind of portable ground launched missile system.
The NLOS-LS didn't work out,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non- ... nch_System
but the concept is such a good idea, something like it seems inevitable. Meanwhile, mortars seem to be evolving.

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 09:42
by spazsinbad
POGO weighs in...

Air Force Brass Ignores War's Lessons to Wipe Out A-10s 26 Sep 2013 Robert Coram

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-mil ... ssons.html

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 13:35
by count_to_10
[...] is so blinded by [...] of the multi-mission F-35 that it cannot, or will not, understand the nature of close air support (CAS) on today’s battlefield; how very close our young troops are to the enemy and the special equipment, controllers, and pilots it takes to perform CAS.

Fill in the [...] with "POGO" and "hatred", and they might be on to something.

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 21:12
by gtx
Spot on!!

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 23:18
by popcorn
[i"]By all accounts, General Welsh is a highly-respected leader and a fine man. But he has been on the job only a year and is facing so many issues, some strategic and immediate, that he has not had time to conduct due diligence regarding the A-10."
[/i]

So, Gen. Welsh has no clue about the value and capabilities of the A-10, the very front-line aircraft he trained on and flew? Patronizing idiot. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 00:32
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:By all accounts, General Welsh is a highly-respected leader and a fine man. But he has been on the job only a year and is facing so many issues, some strategic and immediate, that he has not had time to conduct due diligence regarding the A-10."


So, Gen. Welsh has no clue about the value and capabilities of the A-10, the very front-line aircraft he trained on and flew? Patronizing idiot. :roll:

Googled him. This
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/D ... h-iii.aspx
shows his A-10 service.
So does this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Welsh
actually.
Seriously, no excuse for claiming he doesn't understand the A-10.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 04:06
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:POGO weighs in...

Air Force Brass Ignores War's Lessons to Wipe Out A-10s 26 Sep 2013 Robert Coram

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-mil ... ssons.html

Coram spins tales. He's under the mistaken impression that he knows what he is talking about. He is under an even greater mistaken impression that people will believe whatever cr*p he puts to paper.

As to Gen Welsh. He knows something about fast movers as well as slow movers and hitting targets:
(http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... couts.aspx)
Day of the Killer Scouts
By Lt. Col. Mark A. Welsh, USAF
"It was a reprise of the old "Fast FAC" concept--but they marked their targets with 500-pound bombs."

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 09:44
by huggy
popcorn wrote:[i"]By all accounts, General Welsh is a highly-respected leader and a fine man. But he has been on the job only a year and is facing so many issues, some strategic and immediate, that he has not had time to conduct due diligence regarding the A-10."
[/i]

So, Gen. Welsh has no clue about the value and capabilities of the A-10, the very front-line aircraft he trained on and flew? Patronizing idiot. :roll:

popcorn,... I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you being facetious... or are you serious?

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 10:37
by popcorn
huggy wrote:
popcorn wrote:[i"]By all accounts, General Welsh is a highly-respected leader and a fine man. But he has been on the job only a year and is facing so many issues, some strategic and immediate, that he has not had time to conduct due diligence regarding the A-10."
[/i]

So, Gen. Welsh has no clue about the value and capabilities of the A-10, the very front-line aircraft he trained on and flew? Patronizing idiot. :roll:

popcorn,... I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you being facetious... or are you serious?


Just to be clear.. Coram is incredibly stupid to think that the good General does not have a grasp on the A-10 issue, specially given the latter's background. That, and he would make us believe that Welsh was thrust into the highest AF leadersip position from some apparent vacuum, insulated from key issues and decision-making on his rise to the top.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 00:22
by lookieloo
smsgtmac wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:POGO weighs in...

Air Force Brass Ignores War's Lessons to Wipe Out A-10s 26 Sep 2013 Robert Coram

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-mil ... ssons.html

Coram spins tales. He's under the mistaken impression that he knows what he is talking about. He is under an even greater mistaken impression that people will believe whatever cr*p he puts to paper.

As to Gen Welsh. He knows something about fast movers as well as slow movers and hitting targets:
(http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... couts.aspx)
Day of the Killer Scouts
By Lt. Col. Mark A. Welsh, USAF
"It was a reprise of the old "Fast FAC" concept--but they marked their targets with 500-pound bombs."
Anyone mind if an actual infantryman weighs in on the issue?

Personally, I think much of the hoopla is based on sentimentality and poor understanding of the bigger picture of airpower, of which some have come to have a skewed view after so many decades of bushfire wars. From a ground-pounder's perspective, allow me to list the USAF's priorities in order:

1. Make damned sure that I don't have to worry about enemy CAS.

2. Hinder the enemy's weapons/personnel from getting to me in the first place.

3. Make sure I can get myself and my *stuff* in and out of the battlespace.

4. CAS. Why so low on the list? If the USAF takes care of the first three items, I shouldn't need it that much (got plenty of my own). This isn't to say that I don't want CAS from the A-10; but when it comes to making the hard choices, I'd rather see the A-10s go away than lose core-capable aircraft that better support the overall mission.

As for COIN-specific aircraft (which the A-10 isn't), I've already made my opinions clear elsewhere on the board.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 00:26
by count_to_10
So, Air Superiority, Strike/Interdiction, ???, CAS.
What do you call your #3, Lookieloo?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 01:04
by lookieloo
count_to_10 wrote:So, Air Superiority, Strike/Interdiction, ???, CAS.
What do you call your #3, Lookieloo?
Uh, you know, those fat planes with the big door in the back... uuuuuh, what's the thing they do called again?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 17:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Tac Airlift?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 22:06
by Prinz_Eugn
U-Haul. Wait, that can't be right.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 22:18
by XanderCrews
AirTruck?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 22:18
by vilters
For CAS you absolutely need something slower, and with a bigger wing.
Even the F-16's wing is too small to do good CAS.

It can be done, but it's not the optimal solution.

But?
Build the 30mm gun in a upgrated F-35's belly and enlarge the wing?
This also puts more fuel in the wings.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 22:23
by XanderCrews
Build the 30mm gun in a upgrated F-35's belly and enlarge the wing?


You need the 30MM gun to strafe all the Soviet T-72s pouring through the Fulda Gap.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 22:38
by SpudmanWP
The 30mm was because they did not have a cheap precision attack munition. The only thing they had was Mavericks and they were God-awful expensive.

They now have SDB2, LSDB, Brimstone, JAGM, L-Zuni, Paveway, LJDAM, and DAGR for laser-based attack in addition to SDB & JDAM for GPS-based attack.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 00:01
by count_to_10
lookieloo wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:So, Air Superiority, Strike/Interdiction, ???, CAS.
What do you call your #3, Lookieloo?
Uh, you know, those fat planes with the big door in the back... uuuuuh, what's the thing they do called again?

Oh, you meant actual airlifting. You phrased it as if you wanted them to counter enemy interdiction -- which I don't know any term for.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 00:47
by neptune
vilters wrote:For CAS you absolutely need something slower, and with a bigger wing.
Even the F-16's wing is too small to do good CAS.

It can be done, but it's not the optimal solution.

But?
Build the 30mm gun in a upgrated F-35's belly and enlarge the wing?
This also puts more fuel in the wings.


F-35C with 25mm gun pod. :)

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 01:16
by XanderCrews
neptune wrote:
vilters wrote:For CAS you absolutely need something slower, and with a bigger wing.
Even the F-16's wing is too small to do good CAS.

It can be done, but it's not the optimal solution.

But?
Build the 30mm gun in a upgrated F-35's belly and enlarge the wing?
This also puts more fuel in the wings.


F-35C with 25mm gun pod. :)


This is the part where I tell you thats not even close to the same thing, (even though the 25MM is better than the 20MM M61 All the Teen Fighters use, and is used in the Spectre gunship)

And that it will never be an A-10s gun (which is true, but only the A-10 has ever had the A-10s gun, --one aircraft, used by one service, in one country-- so being second to the A-10 with the majority of legacy fighters a distant 3rd or 4th aint bad at all, in fact some might even call that an improvement overall for everyone who didn't have A-10s)

And that the A-10's gun is critical to COIN (killing such "hardened targets" like foot soldiers who aren't even wearing a hint of Kevlar, and can be killed by a 5.56 round)

Did I leave anything out?

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 03:17
by Conan
vilters wrote:For CAS you absolutely need something slower, and with a bigger wing.
Even the F-16's wing is too small to do good CAS.


That's not what my local JTAC tells me. He tells me anything with an air to ground capability on-board can do CAS, including but not limited to, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 (of all variants), F-22A, F-35, Predator drones, AC-130, KC-130J Harvest Hawk, AV-8B Harrier II, B-1B, B-52, B-2A, the AH-64 Apache, an AH-1Z Cobra, UH-1Y Iroquois...

It can be done, but it's not the optimal solution.


Considering something like 98% of the US's CAS capability is invested in aircraft OTHER than the A-10 well again, methinks you're wrong.

Considering the rest of the world has invested 100% of their CAS capability in other than the A-10, is not good news for your point of view either.

But?
Build the 30mm gun in a upgrated F-35's belly and enlarge the wing?
This also puts more fuel in the wings.


Sure, let's just redesign every variant of the F-35 at this point. That should fly without issue...

Maybe we could put 2 engines in it as well, cause you know, the A-10 has 2 engines...

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 03:24
by southernphantom
Make it fly out of SAF/MANPADS range (i.e. make the datalinks work properly), or start bolting on hillbilly armor. One or both is the solution :D :D

Though, frankly, a lot of the loitering CAS missions go to AC-130s, heavy bombers, and helo gunships. I'm not sure it's the right role for new-build fighters.

Strike that. It ain't the right role at all.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 04:33
by JetTest
Someone apparently has clue as to the total physical size of the gun in the A-10. The airframe is completely designed around it. It would require such extensive redesign there would be nothing left of the F35. Then again, maybe that's the idea....

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 05:52
by smsgtmac
Conan wrote:
vilters wrote:For CAS you absolutely need something slower, and with a bigger wing.
Even the F-16's wing is too small to do good CAS.


That's not what my local JTAC tells me. He tells me anything with an air to ground capability on-board can do CAS, including but not limited to, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 (of all variants), F-22A, F-35, Predator drones, AC-130, KC-130J Harvest Hawk, AV-8B Harrier II, B-1B, B-52, B-2A, the AH-64 Apache, an AH-1Z Cobra, UH-1Y Iroquois...

It can be done, but it's not the optimal solution.


Considering something like 98% of the US's CAS capability is invested in aircraft OTHER than the A-10 well again, methinks you're wrong.

Considering the rest of the world has invested 100% of their CAS capability in other than the A-10, is not good news for your point of view either.

But?
Build the 30mm gun in a upgrated F-35's belly and enlarge the wing?
This also puts more fuel in the wings.


Sure, let's just redesign every variant of the F-35 at this point. That should fly without issue...

Maybe we could put 2 engines in it as well, cause you know, the A-10 has 2 engines...

SHACK!
Someone also doesn't know how much GAU-8 rounds cost either. At around $53 bucks a round, IF you buy a gazzilion in bulk(2008 dollars) you don't have to shoot too many before you're in JDAM/SDB territory. not to tip my hand too much on a future post, but an F-35 with the new 2.75" laser guided rockets seem like a good Block4+ weapons option. :D

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 14:01
by sprstdlyscottsmn
What about laser guided 25mm rounds?

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 15:01
by smsgtmac
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:What about laser guided 25mm rounds?

My only objections would be
1. I don't think they have enough 'weight' per shot to make it worthwhile for an F-35 (or A-10 for that matter) to make a pass,
2. Round designed for stationary firing and we don't know if it is feasible off a fast mover.

Would we fire as if it were a regular cannon? That would be even more expensive than the current dumb rounds. We'd have to get a selective fire (1-5 rounds?) capability to make it cost efficient. I DO like the idea of a possible off-boresight A2A gun capability though. :) (I'm waiting to retire to file a patent in that area. It is an idea I had back in the AF, but under my employment contract, my employer reserves right to lay claim to any patents I file while employed).

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 16:26
by madrat
They've miniaturized guidance sections to turn 2.75" rockets into pinpoint strike weapons. With GPS it should be possible to do the same rocket during most foul weather. Now get some folding wings so you can fire them at a decent slant range out of shorad range.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 16:51
by SpudmanWP
They have the same thing for Zuni rockets now.

Laser guided, 10 mile range, 40lb warhead, moving target capable, impact or delay fuze.

An F-35 could carry 32 using existing systems without taking up internal bays.

Image

http://www.defensereview.com/mbda-semi- ... big-boost/
http://www.mbdainc.com/downloads/zuni-data.pdf


Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 18:45
by smsgtmac
The LGRs successfully fielded by the Marines are already being tested on the A-10: F-16s to come.

http://defensetech.org/2013/04/19/air-f ... 10s-f-16s/

"The U.S. Air Force is working to mount the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) to the A-10 Thunderbolt II and F-16 fighter jet, a service official said".

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 20:23
by gtx
JetTest wrote:Someone apparently has clue as to the total physical size of the gun in the A-10. The airframe is completely designed around it. It would require such extensive redesign there would be nothing left of the F35. Then again, maybe that's the idea....


Theoretically, one could probably develop a pod using something like the 30 mm Oerlikon KCA cannon (from the Viggen - uses very similar round to the GAU-8/A with only marginally less muzzle velocity). Alternatively, one could revive the GPU-5/A with the 4 barrelled GAU-13/A. Either way though, I think the days of needing the big cannon for tank busting or direct fire CAS are dying, if not dead already. The current setup with the F-35 is sufficient IMHO.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 20:58
by vilters
For CAS, you need a WING.
For CAS you need to turn on a dime.

What weapon?
Who cares?
Most CAS is to scare the sh*t out of the ennemy anyway and make them run for their money.

The F-35 has the best avionics to do so.

It only needs a wing, trust, and fuel. AND yes, a good gun. Or some good guns.

Why not go older style? Put four 20mm guns in the bays.
Ala what was it? Cutlass F-7? ?

Yeah, I think the F-7 had four 20 mm guns.

Now, that is some lead distribution on the target area. LOL.
No LOL actually. :-)

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 21:06
by bigjku
Honestly the best way for this debate going forward would be for the USAF to simply state that the A-10 is being retired without replacement and keep the F-35 buy for the same numbers.

Otherwise we will be deluged in nonsense from people like Vilters.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 21:07
by vilters
Just cheched.
Yes the F-7 had four 20mm canons with 180 rnds.
Make that 1000 rnds each for a CAS mission.

I do not want to be on the recieving end of this., Oh, no.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 21:18
by gtx
vilters wrote:For CAS, you need a WING.
For CAS you need to turn on a dime.


Rubbish!!! Close Air Support (CAS) is defined as air action against hostile targets that are close to friendly forces. The target is the thing that is close, not necessarily the air platform! In fact CAS has been provided to ground forces in Afghanistan from relatively high altitude using multiple platforms right up to strategic bombers (hardly 'dime turners'). It can also be provided using standoff weaponry from a distance.

Similarly, one could argue that helicopters are just as good at CAS as fixed wing platforms.

The days of Vietnam where you needed slow movers operating just above treetops and using visual means of target identification/acquisition and targeting have been advanced upon.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 22:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
"B-52, from Carpet Bombing to CAS, we do it all"

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 23:27
by XanderCrews
For CAS, you need a WING.


What about 4 wings spinning in a circle?

For CAS you need to turn on a dime.


So a helicopter is best.

What weapon?
Who cares?


exactly, we can put this to bed now right?

gtx wrote:
Similarly, one could argue that helicopters are just as good at CAS as fixed wing platforms.



I routinely argue this in fact.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 23:58
by archeman
Forget those fuel hungry helos and A-10s, if Vitters is really right you need really low and really slow with lots of loiter time for CAS --- a well armed blimp is the only way to go!

Just think of it, you can hang over the battlespace and get shot to ribbons for hours on end without too much vital damage to the important parts of the craft. You can carry loads of the most powerful chainguns and cannons and nearly limitless ammo. You can even bring along your own medical team to patch holes that will surely begin appearing in the luckless crew. BUT it will be very heroic and there will be lots of led thrown about (up and down) and I think that is really what Vitters was looking for (effectiveness be damned!).

At least somebody will be happy with the results and we can pin a lot more medals on our limbless kids over at the VA hospital.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 00:20
by count_to_10
What weapon?
Who cares?
Most CAS is to scare the sh*t out of the ennemy anyway and make them run for their money.

So, CAS is reduced to an expensive fireworks display for you? An intimidation weapon?
"The rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air..."

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 10:50
by vilters
Sometimes I think people forget the Skyraider in Vietnam.
The A-10 in recent conflicts.

For Cas you need : "How is it called? => " Close - Air - Support? "

Close has a meaning to anybody?

You can not come screaming around at 500 kts with a 2 mile turning circle. That is completely useless.

You need a WING, you need to TURN, you need situational awareness, and you need firepower.

The F-35 is good at one thing; Situational awareness.

For CAS it fails in all other departments.

I have no problem to say the F-35 has advantages over other weapon systems, but I am not blindfolded to its limitations either.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 12:52
by stobiewan
Most of the heavy weight CAS is being done from B1B's in race track patterns and the light weight efforts are from jets at mid altitude. There's not a lot of turn and gun style work going on.

The platform doesn't have to be close to the target these days, not with PGM's available in quantity.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 15:23
by bigjku
vilters wrote:Sometimes I think people forget the Skyraider in Vietnam.
The A-10 in recent conflicts.

For Cas you need : "How is it called? => " Close - Air - Support? "

Close has a meaning to anybody?

You can not come screaming around at 500 kts with a 2 mile turning circle. That is completely useless.

You need a WING, you need to TURN, you need situational awareness, and you need firepower.

The F-35 is good at one thing; Situational awareness.

For CAS it fails in all other departments.

I have no problem to say the F-35 has advantages over other weapon systems, but I am not blindfolded to its limitations either.


Close refers to the proximity of the target to friendly forces. Not where the aircraft has to be. What matters is the ability to hit the target that is close to friendly forces. If does not really matter if you do it from 2,000 feet or from orbit really.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 15:24
by Conan
vilters wrote:Sometimes I think people forget the Skyraider in Vietnam.
The A-10 in recent conflicts.

For Cas you need : "How is it called? => " Close - Air - Support? "

Close has a meaning to anybody?


In the context of CAS it means the weapon is dropped close to friendly forces, but hopefully much closer to enemy forces...

The distance the aircraft delivering the weapon is irrelevant, but further away is better for safety of the aircraft and it's ability to continue to deliver weapons against the enemy.

You can not come screaming around at 500 kts with a 2 mile turning circle. That is completely useless.


Air to ground weapons typically aren't delivered while turning so I'm not sure how that is relevant and most air to ground weapons most definitely ARE delivered at 500knots or greater.

Feel free to google "close air support" and watch the videos on youtube. You can actually watch REAL combat drops of weapons in close support of friendly forces amazingly enough.

Even you should be able to notice that the planes with tiny wings and travelling 500knots can deliver the weapons the ground forces need in support of them.

Here, I'll help you. Watch this video and take note of those people on the ground. They are called soldiers.

They are in a battle and have requested air support because they are under fire. You can tell they are under fire because if you listen closely you can hear a rat a tat, tat sound that machine guns make.

You'll also hear a loud rushing noise. That loud rushing noise is a fast moving jet aircraft flying overhead. (Yes probably one with little wings, flying at 500knots).

Keep watching and you'll hear two loud bangs. These are caused by bombs. What bombs do is rapidly spread lots of hot metal and gasses out over a large area, which is quite bad for human beings who are unfortunate enough to be underneath those bombs without any protection.

The effect that these particular bombs have, is to silence that rat a tat tat noise the soldiers aren't very fond of, as you'll notice by the fact that you can't hear it anymore after those bombs were dropped on whoever was firing those machine guns.

http://youtu.be/Ng9U4cS0nWQ

That is called close air support and there wasn't an A-10 or an A-1 Skyraider involved in anyway at all, as far as I can tell.

You need a WING, you need to TURN, you need situational awareness, and you need firepower.


Very few aircraft don't have wings. Even A-10's have them.

Very few aircraft can't turn. Even A-10's can.

Very few combat aircraft don't have situational awareness or firepower.

The F-35 is good at one thing; Situational awareness.

For CAS it fails in all other departments.

I have no problem to say the F-35 has advantages over other weapon systems, but I am not blindfolded to its limitations either.


Really? So the F-35's has no wings and can't turn but can somehow do 500knots, but it also has no firepower?

Wow. No wonder it's such a crappy aircraft, though a miracle of aerodynamic design, if it can mange 500knots with no wings...

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 16:57
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Sometimes I think people forget the Skyraider in Vietnam.
The A-10 in recent conflicts.

For Cas you need : "How is it called? => " Close - Air - Support? "

Close has a meaning to anybody?

You can not come screaming around at 500 kts with a 2 mile turning circle. That is completely useless.

You need a WING, you need to TURN, you need situational awareness, and you need firepower.

The F-35 is good at one thing; Situational awareness.

For CAS it fails in all other departments.

I have no problem to say the F-35 has advantages over other weapon systems, but I am not blindfolded to its limitations either.


Congratulations! In one single post you have completely demonstrated your total ignorance of this entire subject.

More fun reading:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 17:18
by netcentric
XanderCrews wrote:
vilters wrote:Sometimes I think people forget the Skyraider in Vietnam.
The A-10 in recent conflicts.

For Cas you need : "How is it called? => " Close - Air - Support? "

Close has a meaning to anybody?

You can not come screaming around at 500 kts with a 2 mile turning circle. That is completely useless.

You need a WING, you need to TURN, you need situational awareness, and you need firepower.

The F-35 is good at one thing; Situational awareness.

For CAS it fails in all other departments.

I have no problem to say the F-35 has advantages over other weapon systems, but I am not blindfolded to its limitations either.


Congratulations! In one single post you have completely demonstrated your total ignorance of this entire subject.

More fun reading:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf


x2
and I would just like to point out, as has been done many times here, that the days of low and slow are over. The battlefiled has changed. Hanging out down there in the missile envelop and AAA means dead pilots an high loss numbers for planes.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 18:10
by maus92
A-10 vs landing craft / small boats = field day.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 19:29
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:A-10 vs landing craft / small boats = field day.


Doesn't everything?

A F-35 or F-15E with maximum SDB I or II load and using AESA for targeting would make one pass and be done with it.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 21:55
by stobiewan
maus92 wrote:A-10 vs landing craft / small boats = field day.


Ditto a pair of Jags with BL-577 cluster bombs. It's not a tough target set ;)

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 00:27
by count_to_10
maus92 wrote:A-10 vs landing craft / small boats = field day.

Wouldn't most attack helicopters have even more fun? Or maybe an AC-130?

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 01:21
by smsgtmac
vilters wrote:Sometimes I think people forget the Skyraider in Vietnam.
The A-10 in recent conflicts.

For Cas you need : "How is it called? => " Close - Air - Support? "

Close has a meaning to anybody?

You can not come screaming around at 500 kts with a 2 mile turning circle. That is completely useless.

You need a WING, you need to TURN, you need situational awareness, and you need firepower.

The F-35 is good at one thing; Situational awareness.

For CAS it fails in all other departments.

I have no problem to say the F-35 has advantages over other weapon systems, but I am not blindfolded to its limitations either.


A few points if I may:

CAS is?
The definition of CAS itself has morphed in seemingly little ways over the years, and as far as I know they all boil down to something like "CAS is an air attack against enemy forces in and around the battlefield, and that it requires close coordination between air and ground parties before the aircrew can expend ordnance". The 'official' DoD version apparently reads that CAS is "air action by fixed or rotary winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces". The Army, before they dropped all pretenses of following decades of different accords, used to call rotary wing CAS "Aerial fire support" to allow 'credible deniability' that they were trespassing on AF turf. I miss those days. :(

CAS Requires?
You need 1) the right weapons (type and number) to put on target, 2) "responsiveness" to put those weapons on target in a timely manner, and 3) "communications" to get the info you need to discriminate the bad guys from the good, Everything else is either a subset of the above or the "how'' it is done. (technique). In the old days, 'low and slow' was a compensation technique for insufficient amounts of 1, 2, or 3.

Maus' Observation
A-10 vs landing craft / small boats = field day.

Sure. It's all fun and games until someone brings the MANPADs. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 01:42
by maus92
MANPADS are always a threat, but launching them from an open boat or LC underway isn't necessarily an effective or particularly safe tactic. An "acquaintance" of mine flew Army SOC during the Tanker Wars and later - now he has some stories to tell.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 03:47
by archeman


Thanks f414xxxxxxxxxxx good stuff there

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 07:05
by Corsair1963
Well, the USAF may want to retired the A-10 and it may even have a good case. Yet, you have to consider the Politics and most of the A-10's are at bases that are already under strength. So, to loose the A-10 could be the loss of the base and countless jobs..........So, the Warthog may not be going anywhere!

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 17:05
by maus92
Corsair1963 wrote:Well, the USAF may want to retired the A-10 and it may even have a good case. Yet, you have to consider the Politics and most of the A-10's are at bases that are already under strength. So, to loose the A-10 could be the loss of the base and countless jobs..........So, the Warthog may not be going anywhere!


Yup.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/08/s ... inee-hold/

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 17:25
by vilters
Thanks for the confirmation ; Blindfolded.
Or sponsored.
Or brainwashed.
Or all of the above. LOL

War has changed: We are fighting loners.

- A 20 year old rusted truck with 2 men and a gun on the back.
- 2 miles up the road another 3 guys with AK47 and an RPG.
- On the block , a 10 year old jeep with a stinger.

We do not fight army's any more. We fight some loners somewhere. . .

Wanna spend a "Smart" bomb on each position?


What does the cost - result balance sheet look like?

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 19:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
seen video of two anti tank missiles being used on two "loners". One $68,000 AGM-114 Hellfire per individual. sounds like a $40,000 SDB would have been cheaper per shot, and would have been less likely to require a followup.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 19:39
by gtx
In my opinion people get too enamoured with particular aircraft such as the A-10 and make up all sorts of ridiculous arguments as to why they need to be kept or even conspiracy theories behind their removal.

It's a good thing those in power aren't swayed by them or else our frontline combat aircraft might still be canvas with open cockpits...if we made it into the air at all!

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 19:41
by bigjku
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:seen video of two anti tank missiles being used on two "loners". One $68,000 AGM-114 Hellfire per individual. sounds like a $40,000 SDB would have been cheaper per shot, and would have been less likely to require a followup.


The problem is that people measure these against the cost of a couple rounds of ammo from an aircraft gun and then think that this is a valid approach to determining what makes sense. That is a small part of why Vilters is so confused.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 19:53
by castlebravo
vilters wrote:Thanks for the confirmation ; Blindfolded.
Or sponsored.
Or brainwashed.
Or all of the above. LOL

War has changed: We are fighting loners.

- A 20 year old rusted truck with 2 men and a gun on the back.
- 2 miles up the road another 3 guys with AK47 and an RPG.
- On the block , a 10 year old jeep with a stinger.

We do not fight army's any more. We fight some loners somewhere. . .

Wanna spend a "Smart" bomb on each position?


What does the cost - result balance sheet look like?


What does the balance sheet look like when the Warthog eats an Igla and goes down while trying to strafe irregulars in an attempt to "save money". How do you figure the loss of a pilot on a balance sheet?

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 21:12
by cantaz
And why wouldn't the grunts just waste a bunch of irregulars out in the open with direct fire? CAS is not there to replace the army's role in killing people and breaking things.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 21:26
by cola

We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk,” the second A-10 pilot said. “We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy’s position and used the 30-mm gun — 50 meters parallel to ground forces — ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn’t hurt the friendlies.”

It will be interesting to see how will the F35 perform such perimeter attacks in similar time frame and with what tools.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 00:29
by count_to_10
Using the Avenger on soft targets is probably slower (because of the time it takes to line up the shot), less accurate, more dangerous, and potentially more expensive (once you add up those hundreds of rounds) than PGMs, particularly the new laser guided rockets coming out.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 03:14
by smsgtmac
cola wrote:

We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk,” the second A-10 pilot said. “We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy’s position and used the 30-mm gun — 50 meters parallel to ground forces — ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn’t hurt the friendlies.”

It will be interesting to see how will the F35 perform such perimeter attacks in similar time frame and with what tools.


The A-10 had to get close because the GAU-8 is sloppy. If he had the new DAGRs available he could have picked them off from a safer distance.

Anyhoo...I left my 2 cents worth at Breaking Defense. No doubt the mouth breathers will be frothing soon.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 04:11
by huggy
castlebravo wrote:
vilters wrote: How do you figure the loss of a pilot on a balance sheet?

What exactly is your point?

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 06:29
by madrat
The old British argument against penny packets holds true in massive campaign warfare against a concentrated enemy. Not so wonderful when you're in a modern insurgency.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 10:55
by cola
smsgtmac wrote:The A-10 had to get close because the GAU-8 is sloppy. If he had the new DAGRs available he could have picked them off from a safer distance.

With what?

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 13:42
by smsgtmac
madrat wrote:The old British argument against penny packets holds true in massive campaign warfare against a concentrated enemy. Not so wonderful when you're in a modern insurgency.

That is a pronouncement without any supporting information. Tell me WHY you think you are correct. And I will tell you why you are wrong. :)

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 13:49
by smsgtmac
cola wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:The A-10 had to get close because the GAU-8 is sloppy. If he had the new DAGRs available he could have picked them off from a safer distance.

With what?

I picked a LGR and wrote DAGRs: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/DAGR.html
But I just as easily could have written TALON: http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/lgr/
Or picked the guided rocket the AF is actually proving out on the A-10 and F-16 now: APKWs:
http://defensetech.org/2013/04/19/air-f ... 10s-f-16s/

The APKWs was initially selected for rotary wing largely due to the configuration advantage when using existing rocket launchers. that advantage may not hold on fast movers with new launchers.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 15:42
by hb_pencil
There are also two guided bomblet designs coming out. While primarily intended to be carried by UAVs, they are also being marketed towards manned aircraft. I just, for the life of me can't remember who were the manufacturers, or the system names.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 21:25
by cola
smsgtmac wrote:I picked a LGR...

Yes LGRs are fine for point targets, but so are the LGBs and what if you have non point/radial target? How do you solve that with LGRs?

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 23:00
by count_to_10
cola wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:I picked a LGR...

Yes LGRs are fine for point targets, but so are the LGBs and what if you have non point/radial target? How do you solve that with LGRs?

A bigger bomb? Several rockets?

Roles, missions, capabilities, platforms and doctrine

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 23:14
by Gums
Salute!

I have refrained from commenting until I read all of the posts.

With no small experience in actual combat in the CAS and combat SAR role, I feel well-qualified to add my two-cents worth.

CAS: The CAS mission is a no-brainer. The F-35 can do as well or better than the Warthog. Hell, the A-7D did as good or better than the A-1 despite 200 knots faster. This was in 'nam, but I didn't see a lot of difference in 'raqi I or 'raqi II or the 'stan. Not the PACT war we trained for all during the late 70's and 80's. The A-37 I flew on first tour was as good as the A-1 and lots better than the Hun or Phantom. We dropped within 50 meters of the good guys on many misions and we done good.

Times have hanged, but we may still see the classic CAS mission when the bad guys are charging the fence and we need something right then and quickly. So ordance selection is important and time to bring the weapons to bear is important. Think forward-firing stuff like RX and strafe. Then think area coverage like nape and CBU. As long as you could see the friendly lines and have a clue about where the bad guys wwere, then BFD.

Lottsa the Warthog stuff came from our experience with the A-37 and the A-1 in 'nam. Endurance and accuracy and being able to survive.

Times changed, as did the threat. So the 'hog had good armor and two motors and great vis and great turn ability.

Times also changed with the threat to the ground forces. The 'stan and 'raqi missions were more like 'nam than anything we envisioned for a PACT confrontaion.

CSAR: Combat SAR is where the Warthog has been the premier platform since the A-37 and A-1 went to the boneyard. And that might be a concern for the F-35.

The combat dynamics change rapidly, but you don't have 100 bad guys charging the fence like a CAS scenario.

Nose-pointing ability was important, and situational awareness was the same. The F-35 has cosmic sensors and such, but on a SAR we used visual acquisition and calls from the survivor that counted most. So we used RX and strafe a lot to take out threats. And don't belittle the 'hog gun.. All the pilots I talked with and flew with raved about it's laser-like trajectory and range of 4,000 feet +. And the HEI rounds were the best for bad guys trying to get to the survivor. No need for depleted uranium rounds.

I don't see the F-35 as a great replacement for the Warthog in the CSAR role, but as with the A-7 in late 1972, you develop tactics to get the job done. Our worst performance was staying close to the choppers on ingress, as our turn radius was two or three times larger than the A-1. Our cosmic avionics and nav gear allowed us to find and locate the survivor much faster than the A-1. We also had an easy time getting the choppers in due to our map display and nav system. In the pick-up, we were about as good because we had flights of 4 or 6 to keep somebody ready to shoot at any time.

++++++++++++++++++++

I can't see keeping a dedicated CSAR Warthog outfit just for a limited mission, and believe the grunts can fill the gap with choppers and such. And don't forget the drones.

Of course, we will still need brave chopper or Osprey folks to snatch the survisor(s).

Gums sends....

RE: Roles, missions, capabilities, platforms and doctrine

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 00:30
by count_to_10
Always good to hear from Gums.

On CSAR: it seems to me that we are going to see a move toward attack tiltrotors and the like in that role, in combination with F-35 top cover.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 00:47
by popcorn
hb_pencil wrote:There are also two guided bomblet designs coming out. While primarily intended to be carried by UAVs, they are also being marketed towards manned aircraft. I just, for the life of me can't remember who were the manufacturers, or the system names.


Raytheon's PYROS and ATK's HATCHET come to mind.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 00:51
by popcorn
Deleted

RE: Roles, missions, capabilities, platforms and doctrine

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 01:01
by neurotech
In the CSAR/CAS role, the sound of a fighter aircraft rolling in at Mach 1+ was sometimes enough to scare the badguys and force them to scatter. The A-10 can't go supersonic to get to a target quickly.

The EODAS should help make the F-35 less vulnerable to AAA fire, compared to a F-16 or F/A-18.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 01:40
by Gums
Salute!

c'mon, Neuro, nobody will drop something when supersonic, or even above 450 knots or so. Sheesh.

Only thing ya got right was the A-7D could get to the survivor and locate him quicker than the A-1. We had a super ADF that was separate from basic UHF and FM radio, and a very good nav system.

I never saw the gomers quit shooting because we made a hi-speed pass. And tho' the F-35 sensors will be great, all they will do is let the pilot know who shot him!!!!

BEAM ME UP!

BTW, I did get a chance to work with one of the teams for the RAH-66 armament system design back in late 80's. Same for the Spec Ops version of the Osprey. Had the helmet sight, a great inertial and fire control system for accurate delivery of dumb weapons like RX and a chain gun. Then Hellfire and even Aim-9. Same for the Marine Super Cobra upgrade after 'raqi I. Jarheads wanted a four-blade rotor more than cosmic avionics, heh heh.

The Osprey has a cee gee problem with a large capacity gun and ammo, so what we have now is smaller caliber and such for their guns.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 13:02
by cantaz
Gums wrote:And tho' the F-35 sensors will be great, all they will do is let the pilot know who shot him!!!!


Isn't the point of those sensor to automatically pinpoint the sources of ground fire so the pilot can take them out if need be? Unless the ground fire gets the F-35 first, but why is the F-35 that close to the ground in that case?

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 16:36
by SpudmanWP
It does not have to be the F-35 that get's him either.

It could be a follow-on F-35, a drone, arty, etc.

What the sensor does is pinpoint the attacker and the type of attack. This is something that has never existed and it's going to be a while till the CAS mindset adapts to the new capabilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZO0T5mDYU

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 18:40
by Gums
Salute!

Spud is on to something. The drones.

OTOH, our last 20 years have been in the dry desert. If we have a SAR mission in many other places, you can't have a drone at 20K with super vis and such. Our outfit's most memorable SAR ( successful) had low clouds and in mountainous terrain. Another one had great weather, but still in mountainous terrain (unsuccessful). A drone would have helped a lot if we had good datalink and such to help us.

We have to look ahead and not get trapped in past scenarios, tho' I do use my own experience in that regard. We have to develop the tactics and the equipment and ordnance for various climate and terrain scenarios.

Looks to me that the F-35 will have a leg up on our legacy platforms due to sensors and sensor fusion and links to the other players. Nevertheless, the CSAR mission concerns me most, and my gut feeling is that the grunts' platforms may be best suited to the mission requirements. I ain't worried about interdiction or CAS or SEAD with the F-35. But I can tell you, and several of my friends who were shot down, that knowing we would come and get you or die trying was a biggie. In fact, the Sandy motto on our entrance to the squad building had a paraphrased biblical quote, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend". The A-1 Sandy outfit had a very high loss rate, and we all valued their efforts and dedication and bravery.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 19:27
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Thanks for sharing the memories Gums.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 19:53
by cola
count_to_10 wrote:A bigger bomb?

Not when friendlies are sitting in the houses across the street.

Several rockets?

This sure sounds like a way to go, but what are the capabilities of modern designators and LGRs to synchronize and guide such a volley from 20kft? Then there's the issue of illumination when there are fires and smoke and during adverse weather.

An A10 laying gun fire along a side of the main village street and putting a round every 2-2.5 meters, produces enough fire, smoke and casualties on the enemy that the friendlies from across the street can evac or even counter, not to mention enemy armor running for the woods at the sight of A10 and all this with an overcast at 2kft or even less.
During ODF, F18s used to loiter waiting for clouds to clear to get laser fixes and deploy LGBs and not small number came back loaded and even when not, their effect on the target wasn't as good, because an F18 could level 2-4 houses, but that's just not enough when you consider the enemy occupies an entire side of the street.

Granted, friendlies had little or no armor and seldom artillery support so US may consider such situations irrelevant, but it was pretty much a common reality of rural and suburban warfare in the Balkan war which again constituted a vast majority of total warfare in the region, the job an A10 was perfectly suited for, while F18 was essentially useless in cloudy weather which is btw very common in continental climate and of limited effect even when the weather was clear.
Unless something radically changes I'm not sure how does the F35 improve on F18's performance in such situations.

neurotech wrote:The EODAS should help make the F-35 less vulnerable to AAA fire, compared to a F-16 or F/A-18.

Neuro, once the Russian automatic57 starts to bark nothing will really help you, except a badly trained gun crew or being over 15kft and if it hasn't been firing recently DAS won't help you much neither. Last time I watched the guys shooting it, they managed to cut the steel cable towing the receding target at almost 4km.
Moreover, when radar guided it can shoot you through the overcast, while you can't even see it DAS or noDAS.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 21:34
by count_to_10
An A-10 trying to gun a line of houses on one side of a street is likely to kill a whole bunch of people on the other side of the street, and I'm not sure A-10s are even capable of doing that. Doesn't the A-10 autopilot take over and lock the aircraft pointing vector while the gun is firing?

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 22:30
by Gums
Salute!

Shooting down one side of a street is easily done by the Hog and the Viper and the Bug. Our A-7D was also really good at that, as was the A-37 I flew first tour. If friendlies are on one side, they would prolly be ok dpending on how wide the street was. But all that is CAS and not CSAR, where the Hog excelled, as did it's father did - the A-1. We were pretty good in the A-7D, I might add.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kansas 01B ( Hector) talked with me 25 - 30 years later about our strafing runs during his attempted rescue and was tickled pink. Lead chopper got shot up and I was escorting the backup Jolly. We came in and I wound up escorting both outta Dodge when the initial Sandy guys ran low on gas.

I was on a photo reconnaissance mission in North Vietnam (a few miles north
of Vihn) when an unseen surface to air missile (SAM) sent my aircraft, piloted by Major Billy Joe Williams (currently MIA), plummeting in flames. I received multiple shrapnel wounds and burns on both arms and right leg in the SAM strike and ejected to safety (two good chutes). This occurred during the early afternoon of December 9, 1972, during, approximately, my ninetieth mission. An extensive rescue effort lasted through the late afternoon of the 10th.

No words can express my gratitude to the men who participated in these attempts. At one point after I had been wounded by my captor's gunfire (scalp wound to the top of my hard skull from an AK-47) and was being disarmed and stripped of survival gear, a rescue craft was passing directly overhead, braving intense ground fire on my behalf.


See : http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/a/a079.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The good thing about dumb bombs and RX and strafe is they are very easy to employ quickly and are true launch-and-leave. From 1971 and on, the A-7D/E and Viper could do this easily with the CCIP modes. The Hog finally got a decent computer system and could do the same ( editorial remark: way too late, as a basic system would have been very cheap back in the mid-late 70's, but another story). We had an "in range" cue at 4000 feet or so in strafe and further out with the RX. Our CEP was well under 50 meters. Viper was even better.

I worry more about low weather, and the Hog and A-1 and A-37 could easily work under a 2,000 foot ceiling, and even lower with "soft" ordnance versus big bombs.

Decent discussion here, but PLZ do not get all hung up on the high tech magic. Especially for CSAR.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 01:28
by neurotech
@cola: I know there are radar-directed AAA out there, but usually they are part of an IADS. Guess what happens when the radar locks onto the target? The Radar Warning Receiver goes off. Also did you see how well those radar guided AAAs did over Bagdad in '91 against F-117s? What EODAS does get the F-35 pilot is improved situational awareness, compared to seeing bullets whiz past the canopy and try to figure out the source.

@gums: The A-37 is a great jet for CAS/CSAR, no doubt. The problem comes in when ancient avionics compounds poor mission planning or when used with an overly restrictive RoE. It would be interesting to see what a modernized A-37 could do using simplified targeting systems in a glass cockpit design.

What do think of the Textron Scorpion light attack jet? I have my doubts it would be effective in the light attack role.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 13:19
by cola
count_to_10,
I think TwinTwinSingle here flew A10s, so he may prove to be an invaluable source of information.

Gums wrote:Shooting down one side of a street is easily done by the Hog and the Viper and the Bug.

You're right, it's just that I never saw F16/18 strafing.
I'd say Vulcan is a bit light for punching holes in brick houses.

neurotech wrote:Guess what happens when the radar locks onto the target? The Radar Warning Receiver goes off.

And so did Zelko's and O'Grady's, before both were shot down.
RWR isn't an automatic 'save' and you still need to actually defeat the threat.

Also did you see how well those radar guided AAAs did over Bagdad in '91 against F-117s?

F117s over Baghdad didn't provide CAS, but went after predetermined targets.
Wasn't there to see, but as I understood the F117s kept above 20kft, which is out of reach of AAA calibers that Iraqis had, so the AAA did their job.

Anyway, here's a little bit about DS and 'downtown' Baghdad > http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf

What EODAS does get the F-35 pilot is improved situational awareness, compared to seeing bullets whiz past the canopy and try to figure out the source.

By all means its better to have it than not, if that's what you mean.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 15:08
by count_to_10
That doesn't sound right. I've seen videos of A-10 gun attacks on tanks -- and the bullets hit the ground all the tank. That's several meters of spread, easily enough to get across some urban streets, and that's not even counting the risks of pulling the trigger in the wrong place.
However, even if that is not an issue, you would be better off using an attack helicopter with a stabilized gun and the ability to hover near the target.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 19:33
by neurotech
cola wrote:
neurotech wrote:Guess what happens when the radar locks onto the target? The Radar Warning Receiver goes off.

And so did Zelko's and O'Grady's, before both were shot down.
RWR isn't an automatic 'save' and you still need to actually defeat the threat.

In Zelko's F-117, the RWR didn't detect low frequency radar.

In O'Grady's case, the RWR didn't detect the radar because the radar wasn't turned on, the missiles were flying "blind" until shortly before impact, when the radar started transmitting again.

I'm not claiming that this "cosmic tech" is an automatic save, but the combination of EODAS, and the RWR/EW systems improve survival in combat, but not eliminate the risk. An unguided "Golden BB" could still bring them down.

There was an accident in Kosovo where a F-16 bombed a tractor-trailer with civilians, because he mis-identified the target from 20,000 ft. The pilot was looking at the cockpit targeting FLIR and bombed what he thought was a military truck filled with weapons. And so did the first 20 people to review the tapes, they also thought it was a military truck. The pilot wasn't reckless or negligent or impaired somehow, he made a mistake in the fog of war. After that, the pilots got together and decided they would no longer fly missions at 20,000 ft, but get down low and ID targets properly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... short.html

I've never been in combat, but I don't think there is a single Fighter/Attack pilot here or anywhere else, that would want to make a mistake like that in combat. It's not a video game. Accidently targeting civilians during combat Strike / CAS / SEAD/ CAP/ CSAR is something that weighs on those heavily on the pilots who fly those missions.

cola wrote:
Also did you see how well those radar guided AAAs did over Bagdad in '91 against F-117s?
F117s over Baghdad didn't provide CAS, but went after predetermined targets.

Wasn't there to see, but as I understood the F117s kept above 20kft, which is out of reach of AAA calibers that Iraqis had, so the AAA did their job.
I was too young for that war..

Those AAAs were firing blindly into to the sky hoping to score the "golden BB" type hit. The F-117s may have stayed above 20,000 ft to avoid the threat, but it wasn't from radar guided AAAs, it was from unguided AAAs.

From what I understand, these radar-guided AAAs are not usually in the middle of nowhere, but protecting SAM sites as part of a IADS.

I agree with Gums' point that the A-7s got the job done, and that tactics change with each new airframe. From what I understand, the A-7 was a fast jet down low, and used its speed to evade ground fire. The A-10 might have more armor plating and bigger guns but its also a slower jet.

The F/A-18D(& F) has flown FAC(A) and CSAR profiles in combat quite effectively. I don't think the SUU-20 bomblet dispenser supports guided bombs, but the dropping training bombs to scatter the hostiles without the blast radius of live ordinance is an option sometimes used. Israeli pilots in F-16A Block 10 jets got within 30ft of targets with unguided ordinance.

People who think tech alone will make the CAS/CSAR platform are missing the point, its the pilots (& WSO in the back seat) skill that make these platforms successful in combat.
@count_to_10: There is video of a CF-18 doing a strafing run, and the instructor explains that technique matters and the hand has to be kept perfectly still when pressing the trigger to avoid spraying rounds everywhere. If anyone is interested, I'll post the video.

Has anyone seen the movie "Stealth" where the pilot flying these cosmic F/A-37 Talons starts to wonder if the tech has removed the human decision element from war?

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 20:00
by KamenRiderBlade
The movie "Stealth" had pretty CG and decent air combat action, but horrid everything else

roles and missions and platforms, again

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 20:55
by Gums
Salute!

Some great points here, and we just need to look at how much tenchonlogy can make up for poor tactics and misunderstood operational requirements for the mission.

Strafe from a half a mile to even a mile slant range is prolly the most effective ordnance except for an LGB. Next I would take nape or even RX. Trouble is that you are down amongst them. No way around it.

Secondly, you can bet your butt that pilots worry about "short rounds". So most CAS scenarios required us to drop parallel to the friendly frontlines. Can't do this on CSAR, as the gomers are coming in from all around. Worst news you can get is that you injured or killed friendlies when trying to help them.

The CSAR mission are not restricted to snatching a downed pilot. You might have to evacuate embassy folks or civilians or..... We flew Prairie Fire missions over the Trail, so go read up about "SOG". On several insertions we had to get them out ASAP. On one we actually dropped on their position with "soft" ord as they scrambled over a ridge to an awaiting chopper. All they wanted was for us to tell them we were gonna drop about 10 or 15 seconds before hitting the button.

I was Sandy One in 1975 when we were faced with evacuating the embassy at Vientiane, Laos. So we brought gas and soft ordnance. Anything that posed a threat around the pickup site, a soccer field, we were gonna gas first or and/or take out obvious guns and vehicles - think BMP's, AAA up to 37mm, small arms, etc..

And BTW, our Sandy unit was the only one in the whole screwed up war that did not have restrictive ROE. Our ROE was simply to take out anything in our opinion that posed a threat to the survivor or the chopper. How about that?

Gums sends....

RE: roles and missions and platforms, again

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 00:14
by FlightDreamz
<b>Gums</b>
And BTW, our Sandy unit was the only one in the whole screwed up war that did not have restrictive ROE. Our ROE was simply to take out anything in our opinion that posed a threat to the survivor or the chopper. How about that?

If only more rules of engagement made as much sense!

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 09:30
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:
neurotech wrote:The EODAS should help make the F-35 less vulnerable to AAA fire, compared to a F-16 or F/A-18.

Neuro, once the Russian automatic57 starts to bark nothing will really help you, except a badly trained gun crew or being over 15kft and if it hasn't been firing recently DAS won't help you much neither. Last time I watched the guys shooting it, they managed to cut the steel cable towing the receding target at almost 4km.
Moreover, when radar guided it can shoot you through the overcast, while you can't even see it DAS or noDAS.


AAA systems are one area that I've personal experience and knowledge, including the AZP S-60. Cutting the cable is great for the firing crew, but that has been done with systems even much older than S-60 and without any automation (with combination of skill and luck). Currently there are many AAA systems which are way more capable, although the sheer size and power of the gun makes S-60 pretty scary.

What really helps the F-35 in this scenario is stealth. The RPK-1 radar/fire control unit used in later S-60 systems (or any other fire control radar used for AAA) would have serious troubles trying to find and track the F-35. RPK-1 has a maximum detection range of about 40-55 km and 30-40 km tracking range against non-stealthy targets without any interference (jamming, chaff, weather, clutter). Those ranges would be cut to very short against F-35 and S-60 fire control system would most likely not have enough time to operate against it as it's not the fastest thing in the world. Modern AAA fire control systems still require about 5 seconds reaction time from target detection to slewing the guns against the target in fully automatic radar mode. In real life this requires good early warning which might well not be coming with VLO targets. Of course the fire control radar for S-60 system would be very easy to detect and jam for the F-35 as it's simple, very high powered X-band fire control radar with relatively poor (by current standards) ECCM features.

A-10 would have nothing against S-60, except maneuverability and terrain hugging capability. Once detected, it would be easy target for S-60 as its armor would be of no consequence against huge 57 mm rounds which have 16 times the kinetic energy and about 10 times the HE content compared to 23 mm rounds used in ZU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4. It would not have enough speed to seriously complicate the targeting and huge RCS (compared to F-35) that would make it easy to detect, track and engage.

In F-35, I would be far more worried about for example Pantsyr S1 or later Oerlikon systems, with far more modern radar and electro-optical fire control systems. Their maximum effective range would be about the same as S-60, but would be far more deadly within it. Even they would have serious trouble trying to find, track, fire and hit VLO targets using radar fire control. Using optical or thermal imaging sights and laser range finder would be much better bet. Even that would be very difficult without early warning as early target detection is crucial for air defenses.

I don't think either aircraft would willingly fly into the effective range of fully operational AAA defenses. If so happens, A-10 has far higher probability of being detected, tracked, engaged and even hit than F-35. F-35 can detect the gun system (firing or not) with far higher probability that A-10 pilot can with far superior sensors. Armor of A-10 would only really help against smaller AAA systems and would be easily decimated by modern 30+ mm ammunition. As a AAA guy, I'd much rather be facing A-10 than F-35 in a duel.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 13:30
by cola
hornetfinn,
I wasn't talking about radar targeting, but automatic loading.
I'm not aware of any military referring to radar targeting as 'automatic'.

neurotech wrote:I've never been in combat...

Let me just tell you that accidentally hitting unintended target is a whole lot less problematic than loosing a buddy over a 'could be' tractor, turned Strela-10.

Anyway, Iraqi IADS, including AAA radar guided or not, managed to push coalition jets above 15kft, which resulted in degraded accuracy, even against fixed targets and one can only imagine how'd CAS function from that altitude.
EOTS and DAS are probably better than '91 LANTRIN, but the fundamental problem of LOS remains, making F35's med-high altitude A/G delivery essentially a clear-weather first pass capability, same as legacy fighters 20 years ago.
When LOS to target isn't clear and stable (weather, fire, smoke, etc), a common thing during prolonged fighting in continental climate, the F35 will eventually need to go low if no other assets (armor, artillery, vertical) capable of relieving it, are available.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 16:28
by Gums
Salute!

Great!

We're finally getting to actual mission requirements and not crowing about how cosmic the F-35 avionics and such are.

As I have opined, not much worry about the CAS mission, even in poor WX. OTOH, I'd hate to lose an F-35 to a MANPAD or new AAA system 'cause it was low, and the LO features were not a big player.

Problem is matching $$$ and such with the mission requirements. We abandoned the dedicated CSAR units that I had the pleasure of flying with. In that war we had a dedicated attack unit (Sandy) and dedicated chopper unit (Jolly) and a dedicated command C-130 ( King). We practiced together and employed together and knew each other. Worked like a charm.

By 'raqi I, we had Hogs that practiced the mission, but no direct connection with the chopper units. No dedicated King bird, either. It worked to some extent, but not nearly as effective as what we had from 1965 to 1973.

The biggie is whether we spend all the $$$ and training time for a relatively low number of missions. My feeling is no, regardless of my fond memories.

We need to look at future scenarios and plan for different terrain and weather than what we have been thru for the last 20 years. Same for the IAD and the mobile air defense capabilities of potential enemies.

Gums opines...

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 17:07
by lamoey
Will a forward ground controller be able to use his own GPS based equipment to give the pilots an actual position to drop munitions of choice, hence allowing the attack to take place from high altitude out of reach from AAA?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 17:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SAR mapping would eliminate the reliance on visual/thermal id of SAM/AAA threats. A-10 can't do that.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 19:09
by SpudmanWP
SAR mapping is not 360 and cannot ID a MANPADs, Technical, etc threat.

The key to EODAS is that it is 360 and will ID & share the launch point of many types of threats (MANPADs, AAA, SAMs, etc). It also has YATO (You Are The One) functions that tell the F-35s where the threat is heading.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 19:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I am aware of that. But my point in bringing that up is the post people are making of being forced to fly at 15,000+feet above the clouds and EODAS is useless in that condition etc. The F-35 flies forward. It can SAR map the area it is flying into, ID ground based threats (reguardless of if they are iluminating or not), and decide to drop SDBII class weapons on them. Weather does not render the F-35 useless. It has many tools in the box to get the job done. if the F-35 is above the clounds then teh manpad/technical will not be able to fire at them either. Information is the F-35s specialty, collecting, sharing, interpreting.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 20:38
by count_to_10
Weather gives you another "payloads over platforms" moment: weapons with multi-mode guidance can be dropped from above the clouds, directed to approximate GPS coordinates, and then locate the target for themselves under the cloud deck.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 20:43
by Gums
Salute!

@ Lam:

CAS is one mission where friendlies would have a designator and wouldn't necessarily need GPS, so the new JDAM eggs with the terminal seeker would work.

Secondly, CAS missions are lots slower than the CSAR mission. F-35 will have no problem with CAS, IMHO. Usually, it's not an ambush, but even then the targets were clearly defined and we weren't talking about "Custer's Last Stand", heh heh. We done good with the A-7D even when dropping about 200 knots faster than the A-1 folks did.

CSAR has less-defined targets, and new bad guys pop up within minutes once they figure out where the survivor is. Of course, the survivor is not usually in a known position as a "normal" ground unit would be, comprende?

USAF just may have to relegate the CSAR support to the folks with attack helos, and help when they can with the F-35. Think about hitting vehicles and mobile AAA moving in from a a few miles away.

enuf of my tactics and doctrine for now.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 21:44
by cola
Gums wrote:We're finally getting to actual mission requirements

Yes, but those differ and what works for US services doesn't necessarily work for others, hence my reminiscence of Balkan war where LANTRIN delivery would probably be fine for US and its lavish assets.
However, the 'friendlies' had different requirements given other assets constrains and although I'd like to hereby express my eternal gratitude to all AF and Navy personnel involved in ODF for their truly selfless help (comes to mind a very cool-headed SEAD guy, tracked by a friendly SAM due mistake and stupidity, but who refrained himself from shoving the HARM down the idiots' throats, which he could easily do and walk away, no questions asked), from purely military perspective and in spite of exceptional efforts the fighters overally just couldn't cut it to the full extent friendlies required, while A10s did.
Either way, if F16/18 level of AG performance is enough for the US, F35 will no doubt, do just as good and better.
It's just when fanboys (like the one quoted below) start to harp on how JSF is 'better' ground support platform than A10...

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:SAR mapping would eliminate the reliance on visual/thermal id of SAM/AAA threats. A-10 can't do that.

Yes well, if only a few percent of JSF budget had been invested in A10, it'd fly a Longbow radar by now, along with DAS, glass cockpit, links and all other funky gadgets, new engines, improved structure, etc., making JSF look like a toy in comparison.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 22:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
who's a fanboy? I state existing facts, and you conjecture to what would make a cool airplane cooler. Fanboys ignore facts and rant like angry teenagers. I read a few pages of a discussion and see something that has been left out so I add it in to be discussed and because it runs contrary to what you want to hear, I am a "fanboy"?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 23:33
by count_to_10
Cola, in order for the A-10 to have what the F-35 has, it would have to cost what the F-35 costs -- and it would take as long as the F-35 is taking.

Re: roles and missions and platforms, again

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 23:47
by maus92
Gums wrote:Salute!


I was Sandy One in 1975 when we were faced with evacuating the embassy at Vientiane, Laos. So we brought gas and soft ordnance. Anything that posed a threat around the pickup site, a soccer field, we were gonna gas first or and/or take out obvious guns and vehicles - think BMP's, AAA up to 37mm, small arms, etc..


Gums sends....


Gas? Is this napalm, or tear gas, or something else?

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 00:57
by Gums
Salute!

We had two kindsa "gas" we could employ. Code names were "glink" and "pot pie".

One type was dispensed from pods and was a very strong riot control agent. We actually tried it in the Mayagues incident and the stuff was so old that it was not effective. Go look up that incident.

The other stuff was really nasty, and it was a "powder". Not sure about a dispenser, and seems like we had something like a napalm can. If that stuff got on your sweaty body or you inhaled it, then you were pretty much out of it for a long time. Our PJ's on the Jolly's had the chem warfare suits and they could go down and throw aside the bad guys until they found the survivor and then scarf him up.

I dropped some of the gas in 1968 on some caves, and then we dropped ordnance after a few minutes. The ROK ground troops then came in to mop up. Wasn't proud of that mission and was an obedient soldier.

Go look up Operation Tailwind to see a documented use of the "gas".

For an area target, we liked the CBU cannisters that had hundreds of bomblets with various time delays. Figure about 45 minutes or so before thay all exploded.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 01:42
by maus92
A few points:

I haven't read the O'Grady book for a while, but IIRC, it was at night, and flying in the clouds when attacked. He didn't see the missile launch, and his EW gear didn't detect the missile until the guiding radar set off his EW gear late in the engagement. Being able to see the launch and track the missile visually is critical to defeating it, and EODAS cannot see through dense clouds.


------

Full spectrum stealth works best at night, but most CAS missions occur during daylight, so optically commanded missiles should be effective (even more so with rumored multispectral seekers) against visually acquired targets. A-10C w/ PEC are now all weather, equipped with SADL, ROVER, and Sniper/Lightening pods, and can launch JDAMs, laser Mavs and other precision weaponry. Clearly the A-10 is not technologically equivalent to F-35, but why risk a $100M F-35 when a $20M A-10 will do fine? Perhaps the day belongs to the A-10, and the night to F-35...

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 02:01
by quicksilver
The coordination elements of the constantly changing 'pick-up game' that is CSAR make cockpit SA all-important. Part of that relies on the ability of the pilot/crew, some of that is training, and part of that is the tools available.

Hard to imagine how an F-35 with probably the best SA-building cockpit in the world would be diminished in a CSAR role by its ability to simultaneously display multiple elements of key mission and sensor information to the pilot. The A and the C will also have significant TOS at range (the B on-par with C/D Hornet).

Was it designed for CSAR? Clearly not, but it will bring significant advantages to the arena that it's predecessors do not have.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 02:16
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:A few points:

I haven't read the O'Grady book for a while, but IIRC, it was at night, and flying in the clouds when attacked. He didn't see the missile launch, and his EW gear didn't detect the missile until the guiding radar set off his EW gear late in the engagement. Being able to see the launch and track the missile visually is critical to defeating it, and EODAS cannot see through dense clouds.


------

Full spectrum stealth works best at night, but most CAS missions occur during daylight, so optically commanded missiles should be effective (even more so with rumored multispectral seekers) against visually acquired targets. A-10C w/ PEC are now all weather, equipped with SADL, ROVER, and Sniper/Lightening pods, and can launch JDAMs, laser Mavs and other precision weaponry. Clearly the A-10 is not technologically equivalent to F-35, but why risk a $100M F-35 when a $20M A-10 will do fine? Perhaps the day belongs to the A-10, and the night to F-35...


Are you suggesting an A-10 isn't susceptible to those same day systems? In fact, it is more susceptible due to its size and speed. All the enhancements do not change that fact.

Will F-35 be used for CSAR? Yep. Will it do CSAR in the same fashion as the A-10? Not likely. Will it be less effective? Remains to be seen.

Harriers did quite well at it in Libya...

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 03:22
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:That doesn't sound right. I've seen videos of A-10 gun attacks on tanks -- and the bullets hit the ground all the tank. That's several meters of spread, easily enough to get across some urban streets, and that's not even counting the risks of pulling the trigger in the wrong place.
However, even if that is not an issue, you would be better off using an attack helicopter with a stabilized gun and the ability to hover near the target.


I've seen a video where the A-10 was in the middle of a gun run when the pilot for some reason had to jerk the nose of the plane while keeping his finger on the trigger. That big gun dug a long furrow extending for what seemed hundreds of yards into the surrounding countryside. So much for CEPs in that particular instance.

Re: roles and missions and platforms, again

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 03:53
by blindpilot
Gums wrote:Salute!

....

I was Sandy One in 1975 when we were faced with evacuating the embassy at Vientiane, Laos. So we brought gas and soft ordnance. Anything that posed a threat around the pickup site, a soccer field, we were gonna gas first or and/or take out obvious guns and vehicles - think BMP's, AAA up to 37mm, small arms, etc..

... How about that?

Gums sends....


Off subject... Holy Cow! Gums I was there! flying out of U-Tapao and Kadena,165 hours in the ten day window...
If I could remember anything after 40 years I probably heard your radio chatter.. I imagine the Habu took your picture, but I wouldn't have had access to those. (PS our flights were "unencumbered" by a great many rules also, almost got me shot down over Taipei. They had no sense of humor) It's a small world. :shock: :shock:

Mostly I remember that I remembered it. That's about all these old brain cells are up to. :)

BP

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 06:02
by neurotech
I thought Capt. Scott O'Grady's F-16 got hit during a daytime patrol. The SAM fired with the radar turned off, travelling through thick cloud, so the combination meant that the F-16 RWR didn't wan him to look for the missile plus he couldn't see it through the clouds until shortly before it hit.

With the F-35s reduced RCS from the rear (LO from the front), it would make it significantly harder for a SAM to get radar lock on the jet. IR SAMs tend to be smaller, shorter range compared to radar guided SAMs.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 12:44
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:hornetfinn,
I wasn't talking about radar targeting, but automatic loading.
I'm not aware of any military referring to radar targeting as 'automatic'.


Then you don't know that much about AAA systems. Yes, almost all AAA systems in existence are automatically loaded, although AZP S-60 is not that good example of this as it uses 4 round clips and requires manual reloading after those 4 are shot, which takes a lot of time and really reduces rate of fire compared to chain or belt fed systems. I assumed you meant automatic target detection and tracking as it significantly increases accuracy and decreases reaction time for the AAA unit. In S-60 this is done with radar, although originally it was only optically and manually guided. The gun system can be and have been used optically and manually guided in various conflicts in 3rd world countries, but the hit probability is then very poor, especially against fast movers and is day-only system really. It might work against the slow A-10 that comes too close during daytime, but hit probability against faster jet would be abysmal, especially since it doesn't have proximity fused ammo.

Most modern AAA (and also SAM) systems have several operating modes, which usually include manual modes, semi-automatic modes and automatic modes. Terminology might be different in different systems or services, but operation is quite the same. Manual mode means operator searching for targets, designating them (with radar or optical/laser systems) and engaging them with fire control system usually calculating the engagement parameters. Fully automatic mode means the fire control system searches, detects, tracks, prioritizes and also engages targets automatically without human intervention. Semi-automatic modes means that fire control system does part of that automatically (like detects, tracks and prioritizes) and and operator is required for engagement. Automatic mode is naturally the fastest one, but is very risky and is only possible when there is no chance of shooting friendlies. Manual modes (radar or optical) are used as human operator can in some situations detect and track targets when computer is not capable of doing it. In more modern systems automation is significantly increased as computer systems have increased capabilities. Usually systems use manual and some form of semi-automatic mode simultaneously with both the fire-control system and operator(s) searching for targets.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 14:10
by cola
maus92 wrote:A-10C w/ PEC are now all weather...

These A10s still can't reliably see through battlefield obstructions and this is why something in AN/APG-78 class is IMO mandatory and shoulda been done years ago.

quicksilver wrote:Are you suggesting an A-10 isn't susceptible to those same day systems? In fact, it is more susceptible due to its size and speed. All the enhancements do not change that fact.

QS, I personally observed A10 flying through Bosnian mountains.
There's no IADS (minus airborne component) on this planet that coulda track that flight let alone shoot it down, even with heads up from outspread network of ground spotters, that they did have. The only really dangerous thing for the A10 are enemy fighters, which is where the JSF has considerable advantage.

Also, I think you're forgetting the C in CSAR.
Sure JSF can see, but what can it do?
It takes forever to lineup with anything compared to A10 and then what?
180 25mm rounds will last only so long, but then what? JDAM? SDBs?

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2013, 12:49
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Are you suggesting an A-10 isn't susceptible to those same day systems? In fact, it is more susceptible due to its size and speed. All the enhancements do not change that fact.

QS, I personally observed A10 flying through Bosnian mountains.
There's no IADS (minus airborne component) on this planet that coulda track that flight let alone shoot it down, even with heads up from outspread network of ground spotters, that they did have. The only really dangerous thing for the A10 are enemy fighters, which is where the JSF has considerable advantage.


What makes you think A-10 would be impossible or even hard to track with air defense systems? I've personally engaged practice targets that are much smaller, faster and more maneuverable than any A-10 is going to be with a relatively modern AAA system (with 35 mm Oerlikon guns) and killing them wasn't even remotely difficult. I've seen several different SAM systems doing the same with extremely high kill percentage. Of course A-10s have already been shot down with some rather old SAM systems like SA-9, SA-13 and Roland 2. A-10's capability to fly low and slow and maneuverability might be enough to survive against older systems or systems with only manual control, but it would not be so against anything modern (designed during the last 30 years or so). Against more modern systems A-10 could not rely on armor, gun or maneuverability as they would not be nearly enough. Armor would not stand against modern AAA or SAMs as they have way too much power. GAU-8, while awesome, would be at great disadvantage against modern AAA systems which have much longer range, faster targeting capability and shooting faster and bigger projectiles. Modern AAA or SAM systems have been designed to engage targets with way higher maneuverability and speed than A-10.

While A-10 is awesome aircraft, I don't think it would be particularly survivable aircraft against enemy with modern air defenses. It can definitely take damage like no other, but it would not be enough against modern weapon effects which are several times more powerful than weapons it was designed to withstand. Of course it can be modernized with longer ranged PGMs and sensors to allow standoff attacks, but what advantages it would then have compared to F-35? It would still be cheaper for sure, but without flying higher it would not be capable of using those longer ranged PGMs and sensors very well. It would then be flying higher and then would be rather easy target for potential enemy SAMs, fighters or larger AAA systems. F-35 has stealth and avionics to help it being detected, tracked and engaged successfully. It also has really good sensors and associated systems to detect, identify and engage the enemy from good distance accurately. Of course if it's being engaged successfully, it can't withstand similar punishment that A-10 can, but IMO not being hit or even detected is much more important.

For those cases where enemy has poor air defenses, A-10 is an excellent aircraft. Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan were operational areas which fitted it very well. It only faced systems it was designed against. In such a setting it might well be preferable to F-35. Against modern systems, it would require very intensive SEAD/DEAD effort to make skies safe enough for A-10 to do the job. F-35 would not require that and could likely effectively operate even when enemy IADS is still fully functional.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 02:50
by popcorn
Good points, hornetfinn. The Armed Services are restructuring to deal with current threats but more importantly against the increasingly challenging battlespace environment in the coming decades. Not surprisingly, platforms like the F-35 designed with this imperative in mind will take precedence vs the A-10 which does not and would only be viable in more benign threat scenarios.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 03:37
by smsgtmac
cola wrote:Yes well, if only a few percent of JSF budget had been invested in A10, it'd fly a Longbow radar by now, along with DAS, glass cockpit, links and all other funky gadgets, new engines, improved structure, etc., making JSF look like a toy in comparison.


:lol: Now THAT's a 'Fanboy' fantasy! It reminds me of the outrageous ideas behind and claims made for the 'mudfighter' by Sprey etal in the late 80s when the A-10 replacement SHOULD have been done with A-16s and A-7Fs. As then Lt Col Bruce Carlson noted, it seems like some people are willing to put anything on a CAS platform "except thrust".

Put all that stuff on an A-10 and all you get is an even slower-flying junked-up radar reflector.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 05:23
by popcorn
Here ya go.. :)

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 06:07
by maus92
Current CAS doctrine requires (desires?) Air Superiority, so benign conditions will exist (in theory.)

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 13:00
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:Current CAS doctrine requires (desires?) Air Superiority, so benign conditions will exist (in theory.)


Current budgetary environment requires (demands) a platform that can contribute towards achieving Air Dominance, so no free loading/niche platforms.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 23:09
by archeman
I've been able to pick up A-10s on very old medium power search radar and been able to get a solid tracking lock on them with an old magnatron based Xband system at below 1000 feet.
Granted at the time the terrain was flat and the aircraft were not dropping chaff or jinking to try and break the lock. They were also not trying to kill me which is good, because their weapons 'out-ranged' my own.

But, I did 'get the drop on them' with a very primitive AAA system, and would have given them some shiny new holes to take home had it been a real fight.

The A-10 is not a difficult machine to pick up and the radar returns are bright and excellent match for AAA.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 23:29
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:Here ya go.. :)

What is that? Legos?

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 10:38
by spazsinbad
Air Force: Army Not Interested in A-10 Fleet, Should It Be Divested 18 Oct 2013
"The Army has not shown interest in operating the Air Force's A-10 fleet should the service move forward with an option to divest the close-air-support aircraft, according to congressional correspondence obtained this week by Inside the Air Force...."

http://insidedefense.com/index.php?opti ... w/cz1kbg==

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 13:02
by hornetfinn
archeman wrote:I've been able to pick up A-10s on very old medium power search radar and been able to get a solid tracking lock on them with an old magnatron based Xband system at below 1000 feet.
Granted at the time the terrain was flat and the aircraft were not dropping chaff or jinking to try and break the lock. They were also not trying to kill me which is good, because their weapons 'out-ranged' my own.

But, I did 'get the drop on them' with a very primitive AAA system, and would have given them some shiny new holes to take home had it been a real fight.

The A-10 is not a difficult machine to pick up and the radar returns are bright and excellent match for AAA.


A-10 (like Su-25) likely has huge RCS as the airframe has a large number of very good radar reflectors and two very large engines are totally exposed. Of course mostly flying low in ground clutter offers protection from being detected and tracked especially from older radar systems. For example ZSU-23-4 and SA-8/9/13 type systems have troubles tracking and engaging targets flying in ground clutter.More modern radars and fire control systems don't have much trouble with such targets as they can pretty easily track targets flying below clutter. Of course there are number of elevated low altitude radar systems that would likely detect and track A-10 from 30-50 km or about 20-30 miles away (of course depending on terrain). Fire control systems in older air defense systems are also so slow that they can require 20-30 seconds from target detection to engaging it, allowing a lot of time for aircraft to do their job. Modern systems require about 4-10 seconds and of course can engage targets at much further away, making successful evasion very much harder.

Jinking and shooting chaff is still an effective way to try to break lock or preventing radar system to locking on in the first place depending on radar system and system operator skill. Of course if the air defense system also has optical and thermal sights with laser range finders connected to the fire control system and reasonably skilled operators, such tactic doesn't work so well any more. Pretty much all modern systems have them, so the tactics would really reliably work only against now obsolete equipment.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 14:44
by maus92
Air Force: A-10 cuts would save $3.5 billion
Brian Everstine / Air Force Times / Oct. 17, 2013

"The Air Force could save about $3.5 billion over five years by cutting the entire A-10 fleet, and then would rely on other aircraft for close-air support...."

"“Only by divesting entire fleets (vertical cuts) will we achieve savings measured in billions rather than ‘just’ millions of dollars,” the Air Force said in the response. “Additionally, the savings from an entire fleet divestiture prevents the AF from having to eliminate newer, more capable, multi-role aircraft such as the F-16 or F-35.....”"

"The A-10’s operation and maintenance costs from fiscal 2010 through 2012 were the cheapest among the Air Force’s fighters that handle the ground attack role. In fiscal 2012, operation and maintenance for the A-10 cost about $1.1 billion, with the F-15E’s budget at about $1.3 billion and the F-16C/D’s at $3.1 billion, according to the responses.

The A-10’s availability for fiscal 2012 was lower than the F-15E, though, at 66.52 percent, compared with 69.80 percent for the Strike Eagle and [higher than] 64.42 percent for the F-16s...."

"The Air Force said that while the A-10 has performed “superbly” in Afghanistan and boasts features such as the largest caliber gun, other aircraft can excel in close-air support as well. For example, the B-1 has the longest loiter time and most ordnance; the A-10 is less ideal for ballistic munitions such as the GBU-12 or GBU-54; and other, faster aircraft such as the F-16 can cover larger engagement areas, according to the service...."

So, retiring the entire fleet of 340+ A-10s saves $3.5B over 5 years, or $700M per year. To buy one F-35 and all the necessary support equipment, spares etc. to operate it costs roughly $150M per plane. That buys 5 F-35s per year, or 25 over five years. 25 F-35s = 348 A-10s?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... 202010330/

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 15:04
by vilters
Those that want to replace the A-10's by F-35's need a cold shower, and a return to the reality of real combat versus paperwork and simulations.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 18:21
by spazsinbad
Hmmm. OK then. How about this?

Android Terminal Assault Kit: US Forces Could Use App to Call in Airstrikes 16 Oct 2013 Jack Phillips
"The Android Terminal Assault Kit, or ATAK, is an Android app in development that could be used by U.S. forces to call in airstrikes or control drones.

Draper Laboratory of Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is working on the project, says the app will allow troops to “more easily call in airstrikes — and reduce friendly and civilian casualties while doing so.”

“Troops can also use ATAK (Android Terminal Assault Kit), for other purposes, including battlespace awareness, navigation, de-conflicting airspace, and controlling fleets of unmanned aerial vehicles,”...

...[Laura] Major said that troops used to bring laptops to the field but some didn’t use them because they are too bulky or emit too much light at night.

Aircraft that have taken part in live-fire exercises using ATAK include A10s and F-16s. The ATAK system requires approximately 50 percent fewer clicks than laptop-based systems."

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/320781- ... irstrikes/

TacDroid Technology - Draper Laboratory VIDEO



http://s2.djyimg.com/n3/eet-content/upl ... 76x450.jpg

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 20:44
by gtx
vilters wrote:Those that want to replace the A-10's by F-35's need a cold shower, and a return to the reality of real combat versus paperwork and simulations.


And those who think the A-10 can stay around forever need to start dealing in reality! As for those who think light planes can handle it...well... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 21:43
by cola
cantaz wrote:Current budgetary environment requires (demands) a platform that can contribute towards achieving Air Dominance, so no free loading/niche platforms.

Indeed and Winnefeld pretty much sums it up here:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... 202010330/
"Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don't think anybody believes that," (and you'd be wrong, admiral :lol:) Winnefeld said, "But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be?"

The rest of the 'pro' comments is so stupid, it's embarrassing just to read it.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 01:06
by aaam
smsgtmac wrote:
cola wrote:Yes well, if only a few percent of JSF budget had been invested in A10, it'd fly a Longbow radar by now, along with DAS, glass cockpit, links and all other funky gadgets, new engines, improved structure, etc., making JSF look like a toy in comparison.


:lol: Now THAT's a 'Fanboy' fantasy! It reminds me of the outrageous ideas behind and claims made for the 'mudfighter' by Sprey etal in the late 80s when the A-10 replacement SHOULD have been done with A-16s and A-7Fs. As then Lt Col Bruce Carlson noted, it seems like some people are willing to put anything on a CAS platform "except thrust".

Put all that stuff on an A-10 and all you get is an even slower-flying junked-up radar reflector.


FWIW, the A-7F had LOTS of thrust. Otherwise, I agree 100%. Longbow???!!!??

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 03:14
by smsgtmac
aaam wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:
cola wrote:Yes well, if only a few percent of JSF budget had been invested in A10, it'd fly a Longbow radar by now, along with DAS, glass cockpit, links and all other funky gadgets, new engines, improved structure, etc., making JSF look like a toy in comparison.


:lol: Now THAT's a 'Fanboy' fantasy! It reminds me of the outrageous ideas behind and claims made for the 'mudfighter' by Sprey etal in the late 80s when the A-10 replacement SHOULD have been done with A-16s and A-7Fs. As then Lt Col Bruce Carlson noted, it seems like some people are willing to put anything on a CAS platform "except thrust".

Put all that stuff on an A-10 and all you get is an even slower-flying junked-up radar reflector.


FWIW, the A-7F had LOTS of thrust. Otherwise, I agree 100%. Longbow???!!!??


Yeah, Carlson was trying to overcome the emotional resistance to the A-16 and A-7F in an Army periodical when he noted the above. I think the A-7F and A-16s probably would have been every bit as awesome in Desert Storm as the A-10 was...not that most of the the Army would've ever realized it without the 30mm matinees umpteen times daily.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 03:49
by smsgtmac
vilters wrote:Those that want to replace the A-10's by F-35's need a cold shower, and a return to the reality of real combat versus paperwork and simulations.

Yeah...Yeah...Yeah... So says some 'guy' called 'vilters'.

However, Since I'm not one to pass on a teachable moment.....

Now tell us, who said:
‘Fools say they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by others’ experience. This saying, quoted of Bismark, but by no means original to him, has a special bearing on military questions.

But Bismark’s aphorism throws a different and more encouraging light on the problem. It helps us to realize there are two forms of practical expertise, direct and indirect – and that, of the two, indirect practical experience may be more valuable because [it is] infinitely wider. Even in the most active career, especially a soldier’s career, the scope and possibilities of direct experience are extremely limited. In contrast to the military, the medical profession has incessant practice. Yet the great advances in medicine and surgery have been due more to the scientific thinker and researcher.
Direct experience is inherently too limited to form an adequate foundation either for theory or for application. At the best, it produces an atmosphere that is of value in drying and hardening the structure of thought. The greater value of indirect experience lies in its greater variety and extent.
?????
No cheating and looking up the answer or getting help from the others :)

Not that the source would have ever cared, but I heartily concur. It has been in my practical 'direct' and 'indirect' experience, that when you are looking to improve the way something is currently being ‘done’, the ‘operators’ are where you go to find out what changes are needed. When you are seeking to do something new or better that is substantially different from what is currently being done, most (not all) ‘operators’ are usually the LAST people you go to for inputs. Operators that can rise above their current world views and challenges to see a different future are often prized, if only for their rarity.

OK.....I'll give you the quote source. B.H. Liddell Hart in ‘Strategy’ first page of Chapter 1. (P. 23 in my 1967 second edition.)

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 14:22
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:Hmmm. OK then. How about this?

Android Terminal Assault Kit: US Forces Could Use App to Call in Airstrikes 16 Oct 2013 Jack Phillips
"The Android Terminal Assault Kit, or ATAK, is an Android app in development that could be used by U.S. forces to call in airstrikes or control drones.

Draper Laboratory of Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is working on the project, says the app will allow troops to “more easily call in airstrikes — and reduce friendly and civilian casualties while doing so.”

“Troops can also use ATAK (Android Terminal Assault Kit), for other purposes, including battlespace awareness, navigation, de-conflicting airspace, and controlling fleets of unmanned aerial vehicles,”...

...[Laura] Major said that troops used to bring laptops to the field but some didn’t use them because they are too bulky or emit too much light at night.

Aircraft that have taken part in live-fire exercises using ATAK include A10s and F-16s. The ATAK system requires approximately 50 percent fewer clicks than laptop-based systems."

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/320781- ... irstrikes/

TacDroid Technology - Draper Laboratory VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH74OWHu ... bedded#t=0

http://s2.djyimg.com/n3/eet-content/upl ... 76x450.jpg
Very interesting stuff. The YouTube comments are a little odd, though.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 16:45
by spazsinbad
"...The YouTube comments are a little odd, though."


ALL uTube Comments are ODD.

Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 17:55
by Gums
Salute!

Some good observations here, and I add.....

Back in 1974 I was adamant about not replacing the A-7D with the A-10 for all missions. I could see great capabilities in each jet, but not the long-range interdiction mission for the Warthog, nor survivalibility versus AM and really big radar-controlled AAA. CAS was a draw. CSAR favored the Warthog, as did low-intensity CAS and such. So I wrote a letter to the editor for AV Week. I got a formal reprimand from USAF!!!

One thing I mentioned was the increasing capability of Army attack choppers. I think that did it. I also had a problem with the lack of avionics in the 'hog. Honest, USAF sold the thing to Congress as very capable and using WW2 gunsites and such. BEAM ME UP!! In short, USAF wanted an A-1 replacement and was stuck in the 'nam scenario. A-1's never flew over Hanoi, but we did. We could also locate downed pilots faster and more accurately thn the A-1, but we lacked the staying power and great turn radius at slow speed. Hell, I flew the A-37 on first tour and we were damned good at CAS using the same "avionics" as the A-1. Had the lowest loss rate of any jet in the conflict, too.

USAF had sold the 'hog as cheap and effective, without a half a million $$ in avionics. They were stuck with it, and USAF kept exaggerating it's accuracy ( except for the cannon). As I said in the letter, even a B-747 could be accurate if you didn't drop until you could see the whites of their eyes!!!

So we now have to use what we are dealt, and it's the reverse of the A-7 v A-1 days. This time, we are replacing an "old" platform" with a cosmic new one that can do things the Warthog folks can't dream about.

It comes down to $$$ and the threat. It comes down to mission requirements and good analysis of future threats, while still dealing with existing ones.

Comments regarding AAA and SAM acquisition from some here are very accurate, IMHO. I would NOT want to repeat my first or second tour versus the new stuff out there. Flying a Viper one day at Red Flag my flight was tracked by an SA-6 that could never hold on to us long enough to launch or even guide once launched. They showed the gunner's tape at the de-brief as a good example of terrain masking. But the sandbox ain't like that, and my IAF students in the Viper flew in Yom Kippur against SA-6 sites and said it was brutal. Best way to kill the AA-6 site was to drive a tank up to it and blewie!!! That sucker will track you down to the deck if it has a good line-of-sight and you don't use appropriate tactics.

Anyway, good dicussion and as with most old jets, I hate to see a good one retired.

Gums opines....

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 18:36
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:
"...The YouTube comments are a little odd, though."


ALL uTube Comments are ODD.

Well, in particular, the comment that dismissed the incident of a squad accidentally calling CAS down on itself as pure user error. I think it's pretty clear that the interface was a significant contributor.

Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 19:26
by gtx
Gums wrote:I also had a problem with the lack of avionics in the 'hog. Honest, USAF sold the thing to Congress as very capable and using WW2 gunsites and such.


Your comment makes me wonder if one of the great lost opportunities was the A-10B (NAW). By giving the A-10 the additional avionics (potential for latter upgrades too) + the potential to carry the second set of eyes, I wonder if a real opportunity was lost. Especially given the more non-stop 24Hr operational tempo we have witnessed over the last 20+ yrs.

RE: Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 19:43
by count_to_10
Especially given the more non-stop 24Hr operational tempo we have witnessed over the last 20+ yrs.


:?:
I can see ten, but not twenty.

RE: Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 20:42
by gtx
I'm thinking the 1991 Gulf War as being one of the first cases whereby technology was allowing full/partial night ops, therefore allowing 24hr tempo to be maintained. Admittedly this was not wholesale but still....

Either way, my point was that a NAW A-10B would have been a potentially very useful platform to have n this context.

Re: RE: Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 21:04
by count_to_10
gtx wrote:I'm thinking the 1991 Gulf War as being one of the first cases whereby technology was allowing full/partial night ops, therefore allowing 24hr tempo to be maintained. Admittedly this was not wholesale but still....

Either way, my point was that a NAW A-10B would have been a potentially very useful platform to have n this context.

Oh, that's what you meant. That's probably true, then.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 21:13
by gtx
:thumb:

Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 21:43
by aaam
Gums wrote:Salute!

Some good observations here, and I add.....

Back in 1974 I was adamant about not replacing the A-7D with the A-10 for all missions. I could see great capabilities in each jet, but not the long-range interdiction mission for the Warthog, nor survivalibility versus AM and really big radar-controlled AAA. CAS was a draw. CSAR favored the Warthog, as did low-intensity CAS and such. So I wrote a letter to the editor for AV Week. I got a formal reprimand from USAF!!!

One thing I mentioned was the increasing capability of Army attack choppers. I think that did it. I also had a problem with the lack of avionics in the 'hog. Honest, USAF sold the thing to Congress as very capable and using WW2 gunsites and such. BEAM ME UP!! In short, USAF wanted an A-1 replacement and was stuck in the 'nam scenario. A-1's never flew over Hanoi, but we did. We could also locate downed pilots faster and more accurately thn the A-1, but we lacked the staying power and great turn radius at slow speed. Hell, I flew the A-37 on first tour and we were damned good at CAS using the same "avionics" as the A-1. Had the lowest loss rate of any jet in the conflict, too.

USAF had sold the 'hog as cheap and effective, without a half a million $$ in avionics. They were stuck with it, and USAF kept exaggerating it's accuracy ( except for the cannon). As I said in the letter, even a B-747 could be accurate if you didn't drop until you could see the whites of their eyes!!!

So we now have to use what we are dealt, and it's the reverse of the A-7 v A-1 days. This time, we are replacing an "old" platform" with a cosmic new one that can do things the Warthog folks can't dream about.

It comes down to $$$ and the threat. It comes down to mission requirements and good analysis of future threats, while still dealing with existing ones.

Comments regarding AAA and SAM acquisition from some here are very accurate, IMHO. I would want to repeat my first or second tour versus the new stuff out there. Flying a Viper one day at Red Flag my flight was tracked by an SA-6 that could never hold on to us long enough to launch or even guide once launched. They showed the gunner's tape at the de-brief as a good example of terrain masking. But the sandbox ain't like that, and my IAF students in the Viper flew in Yom Kippur against SA-6 sites and said it was brutal. Best way to kill the AA-6 site was to drive a tank up to it and blewie!!! That sucker will track you down to the deck if it has a good line-of-sight and you don't use appropriate tactics.

Anyway, good dicussion and as with most old jets, I hate to see a good one retired.

Gums opines....


When the A-10 was first mooted, its main reason for existence had evolved to being a method to kill off the AH-56. When the Army did that on its own, USAF didn't know what to do with it, but they did want the funding for a new program. The announced plan was that the A-10 would, as you wanted, operate in concert with the A-7D. Then once the program got really going, USAF announced they were dumping the A-7D (I wonder if the fact that it was a Navy design had anything to do with it). Congress directed that the two types be comapred in exercises. The results came back that the A-7 could do everything the A-10 could do (except tote the gun), though for some missions not as well, whereas the A-10 coudl do certain things better than the A-7 could do them, but there were some parts of the A-7 mission it simply couldn't do. The strong recommendation was that both types be retained because the combination of the two was much greater than the sum of its parts. USAF noted that although Congress directed the two be evaluateed and recommendations made, it didn't direct that USAF follow them. So, AF announced they were going to continue with plans to dump the A-7.

Not that long after that, USAF started CAS-X, a program to replace the A-10. I've always thought of the guiidance for that program as being, "Objectively analyze all poterntial options to accomplish the goal and then buy more F-16s". Fallout from that exercise resulted in the A-7F, for which Congress provided funding to build and evaluate two demonstrators vs. the proposed A-16. After the analysis, USAF decided, "Nope, we're got going to get any new version, we'll just hang stuff on existing F-16s and by the way, could we have some more, please"? BTW, this was the same tactic used in the ADF competition with the F-20.

As an aside, the A-7F proably could have handled much of the role proposed for the A-10 (N/AW)

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 21:49
by Gums
Salute!

RE: 'raqi I......

I talked with 'hog drivers in 1992 and they used the IIR Maverick as a poor man's LANTIRN. They said that the hot tank barrels sticking out of temp shelters looked like "toothpicks". Same for a few 'vark drivers I talked with. So BAM! 'raqi tank eats a 100 pound warhead or a 500 pounder. Sure messes up dinner, heh heh.

OTOH, the 'hog was great at CSAR considering the lack of practice with other dedicated components. The F-16's could get there faster, but the 'hog's staying power and that big gun was essential.

One thing we had to deal with for the A-12 project I worked on was using the IIR Maverick. Being in a bay required you to slave the seeker while the missile was still in the bay. Then open doors and hope the tgt was close enuf to the crosshairs to designate and then fire. We had same problem with the AIM-9, but it was easier, as the seeker would chirp soon as it had a line-of-sight. F-35 will have to cope with this aspect of targeting.

The newer ord is lots better and can be dropped/launched easily as soon as the doors open. Thinking of the SDB, Slammer, HARM and other stuff.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 21:53
by gtx
Gums wrote:Salute!

RE: 'raqi I......

I talked with 'hog drivers in 1992 and they used the IIR Maverick as a poor man's LANTIRN. .


I recall that too. Part of the reason why I speculate that having a dedicated NAW A-10B would have been welcomed.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 22:10
by count_to_10
One thing we had to deal with for the A-12 project I worked on was using the IIR Maverick. Being in a bay required you to slave the seeker while the missile was still in the bay. Then open doors and hope the tgt was close enuf to the crosshairs to designate and then fire. We had same problem with the AIM-9, but it was easier, as the seeker would chirp soon as it had a line-of-sight. F-35 will have to cope with this aspect of targeting.

The newer ord is lots better and can be dropped/launched easily as soon as the doors open. Thinking of the SDB, Slammer, HARM and other stuff.

That's also a consideration only for bay-only load-outs. The F-35 can still use lock-on-before-launch weapons on its exterior hardpoints in low threat environments.

Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 01:07
by smsgtmac
aaam wrote:
When the A-10 was first mooted, its main reason for existence had evolved to being a method to kill off the AH-56. When the Army did that on its own, USAF didn't know what to do with it, but they did want the funding for a new program. The announced plan was that the A-10 would, as you wanted, operate in concert with the A-7D. Then once the program got really going, USAF announced they were dumping the A-7D (I wonder if the fact that it was a Navy design had anything to do with it). Congress directed that the two types be comapred in exercises. The results came back that the A-7 could do everything the A-10 could do (except tote the gun), though for some missions not as well, whereas the A-10 coudl do certain things better than the A-7 could do them, but there were some parts of the A-7 mission it simply couldn't do. The strong recommendation was that both types be retained because the combination of the two was much greater than the sum of its parts. USAF noted that although Congress directed the two be evaluateed and recommendations made, it didn't direct that USAF follow them. So, AF announced they were going to continue with plans to dump the A-7.

Sources Please?
I ask for two reasons.
1. Because I have sources that tell the tale slightly differently
2. And I'm considering this topic for my next thesis/dissertation.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 01:56
by Gums
Salute!

You are welcome to open the door RE: A-7D versus A-10.

The flyoff was rigged, and I had friends on both sides.

I would have been on the A-9 versus A-10 JTF, but was at a PME school and they wanted two pilots right then. So I knew the pilots for the AX program at Edwards, and I believed them when they raved about how great it would be as an A-1/A-37/F-100 replacement. They had not flown the A-7D, as it was just coming on board.

Make no mistake, USAF wanted an A-1 replacement and the A-37 wasn't tough enuf and had less arm loadout, and then there's that huge gun. the A-7D din't have that huge gun either, but for CAS it was extremely effective, and it beat the pants off of the A-10 for interdiction in a high threat scenario.

Secondly, USAF sold Congress that the 'hog could do everything the A-7D could do with zero avionics. When we questioned that, we were told to shut up. That's one reason I got the official letter of reprimand.

I grew to appreciate the capabilities of the Warthog, and have many friends that flew it and the A-7D and A-37 and A-1. But it was a jet for the late 60's and the 70's. It did great in a few scenarios, but never had an interdiction role, best I recall. It didn't even get some computer-aided delivery systems for over ten years, and that would have been a cheap mod in tbose days.

Oh well, those days are gone and I should just let them go.

Gums opines...

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 02:54
by count_to_10
Gums, did you ever get the impression that the A-10 was a great aircraft that was built much later than it should have been?

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 13:59
by FlightDreamz
<b>gtx</b>
Your comment makes me wonder if one of the great lost opportunities was the A-10B (NAW). By giving the A-10 the additional avionics (potential for latter upgrades too) + the potential to carry the second set of eyes, I wonder if a real opportunity was lost.

Unless I'm very badly mistaken (which God knows I've stuck my foot in my mouth enough times on F-16.net) the A-10<b><i>C</i></b> has many of the features the A-10B Night Adverse Weather variant was supposed to have. With notable exceptions being a second seat (and more importantly a second set of eye's), and radar. But it DOES have an F-16 control stick! :) How well does an F-16 stick work iin front of the pilot as compared to the F-16 Falcons side mounted location anyway I wonder? :?:

Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 16:37
by smsgtmac
gtx wrote:
Gums wrote:I also had a problem with the lack of avionics in the 'hog. Honest, USAF sold the thing to Congress as very capable and using WW2 gunsites and such.


Your comment makes me wonder if one of the great lost opportunities was the A-10B (NAW). By giving the A-10 the additional avionics (potential for latter upgrades too) + the potential to carry the second set of eyes, I wonder if a real opportunity was lost. Especially given the more non-stop 24Hr operational tempo we have witnessed over the last 20+ yrs.


During TASVAL79 the N/AW A-10 came to Lemoore NAS for a very short while to play with our (TFWC) A-10s flying over Fort Hunter-Ligget . The idea behind it was that since our operating area and scenarios (red-blue ground battle) more closely emulated the Fulda Gap area, they would get a more realistic test of the on-board systems than over the desert ranges. To a man, our A-10 drivers said there was no way in h*ll they would ever fly backseat in an A-10. The GIB had this giant rubber shroud (like an old ADC fighter radar scope shroud on steroids) that he stuck his face in to look at the IIR picture during attacks. Might as well have made it do double duty as a barf bag. It just wasn't practical, and the AGM-65D was coming on line.
At around the time we started TASVAL, much of the same batch of 'reformers' had the long knives out for the Maverick A/B and were pointing to the IIR Maverick as even a bigger mistake. It was noted that in OT&E the pilots had trouble finding the targets, and were taking forever to slew the 'gate' onto the desired target-- increasing their exposure time and shortening the range to ground fire.
Turns out all anyone needed was practice. I think I debriefed every sortie for the entire 6 months (could have missed one or two but I can't remember missing any) and saw every on-board video. At the first, the pilots did have difficulty, they'd take forever to slew onto a target, You'd see the gates overshoot, come back overshoot again, hear the pilot cussing and the hostile radar search tone switch over to track, then more swearing in between grunts and breaths as the pilot broke off his attack and headed for the weeds. But within only a short while, probably after about two-three weeks our guys had it down pat. They would pop over a ridge line, and you'd see the gates swing over the desired target and lock the first time, Simulated launch a heartbeat later and then egress.

As FlightDreamz observes, lots of the capability (if not the stuff) that was going into the N/AW made it into the A-10. the big deal was the IIR Maverick, and as someone else noted they would eventually be used as a poor man's LANTRIN (much to the horror of the people who knew the designed operational lifespan of a live missile)

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 20:07
by huggy
FlightDreamz wrote:How well does an F-16 stick work iin front of the pilot as compared to the F-16 Falcons side mounted location anyway I wonder? :?:

Slight tangent,... but I've had two pilots I know that have flown both the Hog and Viper tell me they prefer the stick mounted in the center. Reason: when working a CAS, SAR, or other mission, where they have to write a 9-line or other data, being able to fly with your left hand and write with you right is much easier.
Being a lefty, I never thought much about that.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2013, 21:46
by Gums
Salute!

Huggy has a point about lefties. In fact, we moved the FCNP to the left for data entry in Block 5 or so. Typing with left hand not so hard. We still wrote with either hand on our kneepad, so that was like all other planes except you had to let go of the stick if right-handed. Turns out the flight control system kept the jet at zero roll rate and close to the attitude you were at if you let go. Wasn't a big deal far as I was concerned. A-7D NAV/WD panel was on left side, best I recall.

WRT IIR Maverick.

First time I saw the display it was lots easier to find the tgt and slew, designate, fire. The EO versions couldn't see the tanks and such until you were close enough to strafe them ( unless in the desert or shooting at a boat). The IIR version made the targets stand out real fine. We couldn't slew the seeker to a line of sight in the HUD, but clever folks figured out we could use a "spot" on the HUD or even the fixed back-up reticle to get the nose pointed and then look at the video.

Remember, we had to use the LAU-88 or -117 that contained all the plethora of signals that went to the missile and back. The video line went direct, but our interface unit converted the mux bus messages to something the LAU/Mav could use for about everything else. Compare this with the AIM-9L that could be slaved to our radar. Awesome. Hit the cursor control and seeker moved. Get the chirp and hose!

Gums sends...

Re: Roles, missions and politics

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 23:50
by aaam
smsgtmac wrote:
aaam wrote:
When the A-10 was first mooted, its main reason for existence had evolved to being a method to kill off the AH-56. When the Army did that on its own, USAF didn't know what to do with it, but they did want the funding for a new program. The announced plan was that the A-10 would, as you wanted, operate in concert with the A-7D. Then once the program got really going, USAF announced they were dumping the A-7D (I wonder if the fact that it was a Navy design had anything to do with it). Congress directed that the two types be comapred in exercises. The results came back that the A-7 could do everything the A-10 could do (except tote the gun), though for some missions not as well, whereas the A-10 coudl do certain things better than the A-7 could do them, but there were some parts of the A-7 mission it simply couldn't do. The strong recommendation was that both types be retained because the combination of the two was much greater than the sum of its parts. USAF noted that although Congress directed the two be evaluateed and recommendations made, it didn't direct that USAF follow them. So, AF announced they were going to continue with plans to dump the A-7.

Sources Please?
I ask for two reasons.
1. Because I have sources that tell the tale slightly differently
2. And I'm considering this topic for my next thesis/dissertation.


You're going to have to hit the library both civil and military to get some of this as it's very pre-internet. I recommend contemporary y issues of Flight International, . Aviation Week and especially Armed Forces Journal International. If your resources are pretty deep, both Congress' direction and the summary of the testing results can be found . Mine are at the bottom of an unmarked box in a totally disorganized storage shed, so I'm relying partly on memory of the times.

One of the most interesting results was this: The A-7, flying at its normal attack speed and dropping visually was nowhere near as accurate as the A-10 striking visually. However, if the A-7 slowed down to the A-10's speed, it was just as accurate visually.

The A-10 was more agile at those speeds, while the A-7 could use its sensors that the A-10 lacked, and operate in poorer weather. And of course, when someone's shooting back, the ability to go 150-200 knots faster can't be discounted.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 01:35
by Gums
Salute!

I must refute the assertions made in this quote:

One of the most interesting results was this: The A-7, flying at its normal attack speed and dropping visually was nowhere near as accurate as the A-10 striking visually. However, if the A-7 slowed down to the A-10's speed, it was just as accurate visually.

The A-10 was more agile at those speeds, while the A-7 could use its sensors that the A-10 lacked, and operate in poorer weather. And of course, when someone's shooting back, the ability to go 150-200 knots faster can't be discounted.


At "normal" attack speeds and even higher release altitudes the A-7D was much more accurate than the A-10. That was using the basic "Vis Attack" mode of our computed delivery. The A-10 was like the A-37, A-1 and F-100 - TLBR ( that looks 'bout right). OTOH, our system used either forward looking radar slaved to the TD box/FPM, radar altimiter or baro altitude to solve the range triangle. We had rave reviews from every FAC we worked with with our 15 meter accuracy on first pass, better on second pass. Over Hanoi, same from the F-4 pathfinders on my first mission up there. Our Thud vets said afterwards that if they had the same system we would have had lots less POW's, 'cause we wouldn't have to go back over and over.

The A-10 was somewhat better in some respect than us in poor weather due it's slower speed and turning abililty, assuming we could not bring the nose around and put the tgt in the FPM. OTOH, we could drop level and then pull left/right/up to avoid frags, and we did this in low weather. Still required us to ID the tgt, but we dropped with great accuracy. Iron sights for this are a joke. If you don't drop until you see the whites of their eyes, no big deal getting under 50 meters accuracy. The big gun was better than our 20mm in pure "manual", no question. But our RX were better than the A-10's TLBR method - was a CCIP mode, as was our strafe.

We had no cosmic sensors for tgt acquisition other than using ground map radar or INS/PMDS coordinates above clouds to get us close when we broke thru the weather.

The flyoff was rigged, and many folks involved will testity to that. The A-10 never had to fly the scenarios we normally experienced, and never in a very high-threat environment. Red Flag was not in existence, and the threats there would have made a big difference in survivability. Oh yeah, just navigating at 200 feet using a handheld map, heading/time would have beem very tough.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 01:41
by bigjku
Gums,

Much respect but my question is one of pure ignorance even though I suspect I know the answer...

Why rig the contest?

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 02:01
by aaam
Gums:

The sensor I was referring to was the radar.

Rigged flyoff, et al

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 05:05
by Gums
Salute!

The "sensors"
- Yep the ground map helped in conjunction with the moving map to get you down thru thw weather. then it was all visual

Rigged:

- Simple. USAF wanted the A-10 and sold it to Congress as a cheaper platform that didn't need a) INS, b) computed delivery system, c) HUD with the INS flight path marker and connection to computed delivery system, d) radar altimiter, e) projected map display, f) ground map radar, and the beat goes on.

- The bombing tests were designed to get good results at very low altitudes and short slant ranges

- The IR signature of the A-10 was lower in the rear aspect due to the loaction of the motors and the twin tails. A-7 had a low signature compared to other jets at the time, but not as low a the A-10

- No medium range interdiction missions in high-threat scenarios

In short, the thing was intended to be an A-1 replacement and bigger A-37.

At a minimum, the thing should have had an INS( already paid for) and same computer as the A-7 ( already paid for), HUD ( already paid for). We can forgive all the other gold-plated avionics the A-7 had, but that is another story.

The avionics I focus upon would have added about a million $$$ per airframe in those days. But USAF had sold it to Congress as very cheap. So USAF couldn't go back to Congress to add the avionics because Congress would say that we already had a jet with all that stuff, except the big gun.

Gums recounts...

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 14:01
by hornetfinn
It seems that a lot of people who think that A-10 is the end-all CAS aircraft are still thinking about the threat environment (mostly ground based air defenses) 30 or 40 years ago. That has changed dramatically and modern environment can be really lethal and is why stealth tech was born in the first place.

For example when A-10 was designed the AAA system to counter (in CAS missions) was ZSU-23-4. It has an effective range of 2500 meters (1,5 miles) although in reality the hit probability at ranges over 1500 meters is not very high. It requires target being tracked for over 20 seconds before it has gone through the fire solution sequence and is ready to fire at the detected target. This is because the radar and fire control system are rather antiquated systems. In comparison modern AAA systems have effective range of 4000 to 6000 meters and can fire within 5 seconds from detection. Of course the hit and kill probabilities are much higher. So, ZSU-23-4 required a lot of time to act and required that target comes rather close before engaging. Even then it lacked accuracy and lethality to kill armored targets reliably. Not so with modern AAA systems.

The main SAM systems to beat were SA-6, SA-7, SA-8 and SA-9. They were pretty dangerous for their time, but modern SAM systems are really scary. SA-8 for example had reaction time of 26 seconds from target detection to launch, leaving a lot of time to foil the tracking and fire sequence with countermeasures and maneuvers.. In modern systems like Crotale NG or Pantsir S1 this is about 5 seconds. Of course the missile time of flight is greatly reduced and modern SHORAD missiles can reach 8 km range within 10 seconds. So an incoming low level target detected at 10-12 km (depending on target speed) range can be shot down within 15 seconds at about 8 km range. SA-8 had a maximum maneuverability of less than 20 G's. Modern missiles can maneuver at 30-60 G's and they don't lose speed nearly as fast as older missiles after the rocket motor has burned out, making them much more lethal at longer ranges. Other problem is that most modern SAM systems can work co-operatively, with other unit tracking the target and shooter being somewhere else without emitting much at all.

Some current SAM systems also have the capability of being dispersed at very large geographical area. Best example of this is NASAMS, which has fire control centers which control several (usually 2-4) radars and several (usually 6-9) launch units. Each can be located pretty much anywhere irrespective where other units of the battery are located. Of course they must be within the area where sensors can see, but otherwise there are not many restrictions. Older systems (even mobile ones like SA-6) units had to be positioned very close to each other, making them relatively easy targets for SEAD/DEAD efforts. Older systems were command guided or semi-active homing and required constant illumination with the radar. For example NASAMS can fire active radar homing AMRAAMs and AIM-9X IR missiles and require only periodic or no updates at all and still have high hit probability, depending on situation. Updates can come from any sensor (radar, optical or external datalink targets), so missiles will likely have targeting data even under the most intense jamming environment. Old systems could engage only 1 or 2 targets at the time and shoot only few missiles at a time. Some modern systems could theoretically fire at dozens of targets at the same time and guide very large number of missiles simultaneously without alerting the target aircrafts.

All this would seriously complicate SEAD/DEAD efforts and knocking down the defenses with it might not be realistic at all. Maneuvering would not be very effective as even old systems have killed highly maneuverable aircraft and modern missiles are much more capable in every way. CAS against such an enemy would be highly dangerous to current jets, although luckily the most modern and capable systems are not in the hands of most likely adversaries of western countries. But in the future they might be and facing them would be tough for any jet. F-35 seems to be by far the best equipped to face such a threat with all aspect stealth, very advanced sensors, CNI and EW systems.

It's all about the threats

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 15:52
by Gums
Salute!

Hornet has cracked the code.

indeed, the A-10 was very much intended to face the ZSU-23-4. When it came out, it scared the hell outta us. We weren't worried about it for a basic interdiction mission, as the other threats were more formidable. It was tanks, tanks, tanks. And the Fulda gap was the big deal.

The big gun on the A-10 was a very cheap tank killer, especially using a WW2 gunsite. My friends told me that it was like a laser out to 2 km or so. I saw a real T-72 that had a few hits from the GAU-8 and I sure would have been uncomfortable inside that thing, heh heh.

We were very familiar with the acquisition and tracking times/requirements for the systems of that time. So our tactics were developed and practiced to minimize those threats. We hardly worried about Migs, as there wasn't much we could do in the SLUF about them anyway. Besides, you wouldn't see them down low in the midst of the "great battle".

At one Red Flag, and I think I mentioned this before, our flight successfully defeated a SA-6, with a SA-4 nearby trying to get us before we got real low and jinked a lot. On a real mission one day I heard the SA-2 a good 15 to 20 seconds before it launched. Two missiles came out of the cloud deck below and they were going the speed of stink! Because we had good ECM pods, they didn't lead us and couldn't make the square corner at the end game. Suckers went between my flight and one ahead of us. Remember, most of our losses were to AAA, especially the 37 and 57mm guns. Due to our jinks, the 85mm and associated Firecan were not as effective, having been shot at by them and here to tell my war stories.

Gums adds to Hornet's comments...

RE: It

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 16:25
by spazsinbad
GUMS said: "...having been shot at by them and here to tell my war stories...." And thank goodness for that. :D Keep 'em coming.

RE: It

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 16:45
by SpudmanWP
I was in West Germany in '88 with an M60A3 company.

While at Grafenwoehr during night gunnery exercises, an A-10 rolled in for a run at targets 2km to my front… That was impressive.

The real treat was when a M163 VADS pulled up in the pit next to my tank. I thought he was just going to do some 50 cal practice. Lets just say when he opened up with the 20mm against ground targets at night that it was quite impressive… especially when viewed from 20 ft away :)

And you were right, there was not much left of the target tanks they were shooting at.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 19:25
by gtx
hornetfinn wrote:It seems that a lot of people who think that A-10 is the end-all CAS aircraft are still thinking about the threat environment (mostly ground based air defenses) 30 or 40 years ago. That has changed dramatically and modern environment can be really lethal and is why stealth tech was born in the first place.


Spot on!

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 20:12
by Gums
Salute!

Yep, the threat has changed dramatically since the A-10 was developed and employed.

I have a few misgivings with the F-35 for an intense CAS scenario where "one pass haul a$$" won't work. But the new attack choppers ( if they are there and can get there fast enough) should make a difference. Same for the drones.

The LO of the F-35 should really help with the IAD, but the problem arises when you have to make multiple passes. At that point in the battle you will have optical threats that negate the LO of the jet.

With really great coord with the ground forces, the jet might be able to use SDB's and friendly designators to clean house. OTOH, there will be very quick surprises from the bad guys that require a respectable point and shoot/drop on the bad guys at the fence. Saw this once or more in the real world. That is the scenario where the A-10 excelled.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 20:27
by aaam
Gums wrote:Salute!

I must refute the assertions made in this quote:

One of the most interesting results was this: The A-7, flying at its normal attack speed and dropping visually was nowhere near as accurate as the A-10 striking visually. However, if the A-7 slowed down to the A-10's speed, it was just as accurate visually.

The A-10 was more agile at those speeds, while the A-7 could use its sensors that the A-10 lacked, and operate in poorer weather. And of course, when someone's shooting back, the ability to go 150-200 knots faster can't be discounted.


At "normal" attack speeds and even higher release altitudes the A-7D was much more accurate than the A-10. That was using the basic "Vis Attack" mode of our computed delivery. The A-10 was like the A-37, A-1 and F-100 - TLBR ( that looks 'bout right). OTOH, our system used either forward looking radar slaved to the TD box/FPM, radar altimiter or baro altitude to solve the range triangle. We had rave reviews from every FAC we worked with with our 15 meter accuracy on first pass, better on second pass. Over Hanoi, same from the F-4 pathfinders on my first mission up there. Our Thud vets said afterwards that if they had the same system we would have had lots less POW's, 'cause we wouldn't have to go back over and over.

The A-10 was somewhat better in some respect than us in poor weather due it's slower speed and turning abililty, assuming we could not bring the nose around and put the tgt in the FPM. OTOH, we could drop level and then pull left/right/up to avoid frags, and we did this in low weather. Still required us to ID the tgt, but we dropped with great accuracy. Iron sights for this are a joke. If you don't drop until you see the whites of their eyes, no big deal getting under 50 meters accuracy. The big gun was better than our 20mm in pure "manual", no question. But our RX were better than the A-10's TLBR method - was a CCIP mode, as was our strafe.

We had no cosmic sensors for tgt acquisition other than using ground map radar or INS/PMDS coordinates above clouds to get us close when we broke thru the weather.

The flyoff was rigged, and many folks involved will testity to that. The A-10 never had to fly the scenarios we normally experienced, and never in a very high-threat environment. Red Flag was not in existence, and the threats there would have made a big difference in survivability. Oh yeah, just navigating at 200 feet using a handheld map, heading/time would have beem very tough.

Gums sends...



Gums:

You and I are not in disagreement except maybe in terminology. When I used the term "visual", I was referring to "TLBR" drops from both acft. IIRC, there was much trumpeting about how the A-10 was more accurate. Since the A-10 didn't have the systems the A-7D had, this referred to drops strictly using the approved "eyeball, Mk1". When flown that way, at their normal speeds,and altitudes, the A-10 was indeed more accurate. However, if you flew the A-7 and A-10 at the same speeds and altitudes (the A-7 had to slow down because the A-10 couldn't speed up), that advantage disappeared.

And when the A-7 turned on some of its other targeting capabilities...

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 20:30
by aaam
Gums wrote:Salute!

Yep, the threat has changed dramatically since the A-10 was developed and employed.

I have a few misgivings with the F-35 for an intense CAS scenario where "one pass haul a$$" won't work. But the new attack choppers ( if they are there and can get there fast enough) should make a difference. Same for the drones.

The LO of the F-35 should really help with the IAD, but the problem arises when you have to make multiple passes. At that point in the battle you will have optical threats that negate the LO of the jet.

With really great coord with the ground forces, the jet might be able to use SDB's and friendly designators to clean house. OTOH, there will be very quick surprises from the bad guys that require a respectable point and shoot/drop on the bad guys at the fence. Saw this once or more in the real world. That is the scenario where the A-10 excelled.

Gums sends...


Getting there fast enough is why the Marines' F-35Bs are STOVL.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 21:34
by Gums
Salute!

No real problem, aaam

We saw the same with the A-37 ( first tour). We were lots better than the Double Ugly and the Hun or the F-5 Vee jets.

When you drop at 300 knots and real close, no biggie. Not so good for survival, but real good for the grunts in a CAS mission.

The A-37 was very small and nimble, so we had the lowest loss rate per sortie of anybody in that screwed up war. I only got hit once, but it was bad enough 'cause I made repeated passes as they were shooting. So did flameout landing. BFD.

In our CSAR missions and even CAS missions in both the A-37 and A-7D, our time to target was lots better than the A-1. That extra 100 or 200 knots makes a difference. In the A-7D, we also had the cosmic nav gear, so less problem getting to the coordinates. The F-35 is the first new jet with what we had in the A-7D 45 years ago ( except for the doppler). It took 20 years for the Viper to get what we had back then, and we even had a doppler nav to back up our INS, tho' the Vipers now have a GPS back up. Nevertheless, our systems were self-contained and did not depend on satellites.

RE STOVL: Yep, the Marines have the right jet for the mission. It will be lots better than the Bug or Super Bug. More flexible and better in a high threat environment.
++++++++++++++=

@ all:

I really enjoy this discussion, and I think we all agree that politics and economics have dictated the replacement of the Warthog.

I try to add perspective from an old pilot that flew a basic jet with WW2 gunsite and then a cosmic jet with all the avionics you could add. I was disappointed with the Viper when I showed up, as were all the A-7D folks. The thing didn't even have a radar altimeter, as we were waiting for the "CARA". It didn't have a PMDS or a back up nav system. It didn't have TF or TA radar. It didn't have a super ADF on UHF to locate the grunts or survivor. No backup UHF either.

later,

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 21:53
by SpudmanWP
Gums, What do you think of the ScorpionJet as an A-37 Type jet?

--Content moved to ScorpionJet thread--

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 22:47
by Gums
Salute!

yeah, saw the Scorpion proposal a few months ago.

Not appropriate here, and need another thread someplace else.

Gums...

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 23:51
by SpudmanWP
Gums wrote:Salute!

yeah, saw the Scorpion proposal a few months ago.

Not appropriate here, and need another thread someplace else.

Gums...


Here it is:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24567.html

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 21:28
by spazsinbad
Another Scorpion stings the F-35 story here: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 2e1b481f25

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 23:23
by neurotech
Gums wrote:Salute!

No real problem, aaam

We saw the same with the A-37 ( first tour). We were lots better than the Double Ugly and the Hun or the F-5 Vee jets

When you drop at 300 knots and real close, no biggie. Not so good for survival, but real good for the grunts in a CAS mission.

The A-37 was very small and nimble, so we had the lowest loss rate per sortie of anybody in that screwed up war. I only got hit once, but it was bad enough 'cause I made repeated passes as they were shooting. So did flameout landing. BFD.

Wow!

Off field landing, and did you run out gas?
Gums wrote:In our CSAR missions and even CAS missions in both the A-37 and A-7D, our time to target was lots better than the A-1. That extra 100 or 200 knots makes a difference. In the A-7D, we also had the cosmic nav gear, so less problem getting to the coordinates. The F-35 is the first new jet with what we had in the A-7D 45 years ago ( except for the doppler). It took 20 years for the Viper to get what we had back then, and we even had a doppler nav to back up our INS, tho' the Vipers now have a GPS back up. Nevertheless, our systems were self-contained and did not depend on satellites.

RE STOVL: Yep, the Marines have the right jet for the mission. It will be lots better than the Bug or Super Bug. More flexible and better in a high threat environment.

...

later,

Gums sends...

As I understood, The F-35B isn't cleared for STOVL mode weapons release or gun firing.

That said, the F-35B does have the advantage of austere basing and rapid sortie rates similar to the AV-8B, only more advanced. The F/A-18 needs at least 4,000 ft of runway to land and takeoff without arresting gear, so that isn't exactly austere basing. At least one F/A-18 made its final flight landing on 4,000 ft of runway, so its not recommended.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 23:38
by aaam
neurotech wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!


As I understood, The F-35B isn't cleared for STOVL mode weapons release or gun firing.

That said, the F-35B does have the advantage of austere basing and rapid sortie rates similar to the AV-8B, only more advanced. The F/A-18 needs at least 4,000 ft of runway to land and takeoff without arresting gear, so that isn't exactly austere basing. At least one F/A-18 made its final flight landing on 4,000 ft of runway, so its not recommended.


Not sure what you mean.

No version of the F-35 is cleared yet for deploying weapons.

If you mean it won't be cleared to fire weapons when operating in powered lift mode that's true, but doesn't really matter. It's only using STOVL for takeoff and landing, and you normally wouldn't be shooting at that time anyway. In fact, on those occasions when the F-35B is carrying the gun, firing it would blow off the nose gear!. The Harrier doesn't usually fire when it's in powered lift mode either. In fact, "True Lies" not withstanding, when it's engine-borne, it can't maintain altitude if the gun is fired, because too much thrust is diverted to power the gun.

STOVL allows more than just austere basing. it allows you to operate from damaged runways or no runways, including roads, reasonably level fields or improvised spaces from metal laid down, which the AV-8 has done repeatedly in combat. In unplanned operations it allows you to get to the troops faster than anything, is not dependent on massive tanker exercises and can arrive overhead with bags of gas, allowing you to hang around longer. IN Afghanistan there were multiple occasions where AV-8Bs had more loiter time than A-10s because they didn't have to come from as far away.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 00:05
by neurotech
I meant the F-35B isn't even planned on being cleared for STOVL mode weapons release. I wasn't going off movie performance either, because I know the AV-8B doesn't hover nearly that easily, nor survive hitting buildings etc.

I can well believe that the AV-8B would loiter longer because it didn't have to fly as far, hence why I made the reference to the AV-8B Harrier. The Marine KC-130s can refuel AV-8Bs and F/A-18s from austere basing.

The F/A-18 has flown onto ice runways and roadways, sometimes with field arresting gear. The Marines also operated the F/A-18 from austere basing in Iraq fairly easily. Its just that flying a AV-8B requires less preparation (or none for an emergency landing!) and suits the Marines better.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 00:57
by aaam
neurotech wrote:I meant the F-35B isn't even planned on being cleared for STOVL mode weapons release. I wasn't going off movie performance either, because I know the AV-8B doesn't hover nearly that easily, nor survive hitting buildings etc.

I can well believe that the AV-8B would loiter longer because it didn't have to fly as far, hence why I made the reference to the AV-8B Harrier. The Marine KC-130s can refuel AV-8Bs and F/A-18s from austere basing.

The F/A-18 has flown onto ice runways and roadways, sometimes with field arresting gear. The Marines also operated the F/A-18 from austere basing in Iraq fairly easily. Its just that flying a AV-8B requires less preparation (or none for an emergency landing!) and suits the Marines better.


The difference between the AV-8B and the Bug is that for the latter, roadways and icy runways is that the former operation is a best a special demonstration case for the Bug while roadways are normal for AV-8s. Icy runways for the Bug are an extreme case when the ops just have to take place. Field arresting ear was used in exercise Geiger Fury in the tropics to operate Hornets from an abandoned WWII airstrip that took a lot of preparation, but AV-8s and F-35Bs, would have just flown in. In Afghanistan, when all other a/c are grounded due to ice on the runways, AV-8s can operate.

Using KC-130s is of course feasible, but the idea for STOVL is to be based close enough so that tanking requirements are minimized or non-existant. (e.g. Desert Storm, et al) If tanking is desired to remain overhead longer, those assets can come from a secure base further in the rear. KC-130 is capable for operating from some pretty rough stuff, but even it couldn't operate from what the F-35B can ('Course a V-22 could). Another consideration is terrain surrounding the strip. If you've got 50 foot trees right at the end, that forces a CTOL to need even more space than just the required runway length to get down/ takeoff ever them. For a STOVL, nothing changes.

The AV-8 can't actually hover as long as there's fuel, temperatures start to rise, which limits the time available. It could have been designed to hover until fuel exhaustion, but that would be expensive and there's no point since STOVL is really just invisible takeoff and landing gear anyway.

With respect, I still don't see the significance of no plans for being cleared for weapons release in STOVL mode.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 02:01
by weasel1962
Was re-reading about Yom Kippur (Oct 1973). What was interesting was how CAS failed due to airspace denial in the 1st 48 hours (50% of air losses came in this period) by sams/AAA. And where the IAF air mission for that campaign really worked was in BAI.

Desert storm (1991) also proved the A-10 was vulnerable. 16% of air losses + 29% of aircraft damaged, all by IR sams and AAA (highest for all coalition a/c). Loss+damaged = 15% of A-10 fleet deployed. The A-10s operated below 12k ft. Desert storm forced the rest of USAF to go medium altitude. That is despite a really effective SEAD USAF.

If one looks at potential aggressors, most studied Yom Kippur and really boosted their low-level airspace denial capability with highly effective AAA, low level sams. That includes North Korea, Iran. Others who have bigger budgets are learning from Desert Storm to try contesting the medium altitude. The USAF needs to have a dispassionate analysis of the A-10 effectiveness in a future battlefield context.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 03:09
by Gums
Salute!

OFF TOPIC: I, indeed, ran outta gas due to many holes in the fuel lines. Deadsticked into the internaitonal airport at Saigon.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now we return to our regularly scheduled program.

Gums....

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 11:12
by hornetfinn
Gums: Thank you for great comments and telling your personal real-world experiences. They have been very interesting to read! Hope you keep them coming!

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 15:10
by cola
A video of actual fight, with A10 slapping left and right...I bet those boys on the ground were happy to see it.
Note the dynamic of target priority changes and the proximity of engaged troops, for which there's currently only one aircraft and one tool and that's not the F35.
Anyway, if we had this video some time ago we'd save a lot of bandwidth, so I figured it's worth posting here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8XexZ5kwQ

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 17:29
by smsgtmac
cola wrote: Anyway, if we had this video some time ago we'd save a lot of bandwidth, so I figured it's worth posting here.


Since the arguments for the A-10 never address the essence of the arguments against the A-10, which since day-freakin'-one has been the issue of survivability in a non-permissive environment, linking a video of an A-10 freely working a firefight unmolested by AAA or SAMs merely adds unnecessary bandwidth.

I figure mentioning this one point was worth posting just to head off wasting any more bandwidth talking about a video.

BTW: this is a good candidate for the Troll Flypaper Topics category I mentioned on another thread.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 18:00
by stobiewan
Ironically the video highlights the difficulty of trying to track and separate friendly and enemy forces while flying in support -something the F35 will beat the A10 at, hands down.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 19:12
by cola
smsgtmac wrote:which since day-freakin'-one has been the issue of survivability in a non-permissive environment

Kid...the A10s flew, fought and won in non-permissive environments.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 23:03
by smsgtmac
cola wrote:
Kid...the A10s flew, fought and won in non-permissive environments.


Pffft. That all you got 'boy'? OK then, name them. :twisted:

And do try to be factual for a change

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 23:26
by cola
smsgtmac wrote:OK then, name them.

A10s got shot, some even got downed on many battlefields and if I really need to list them for you, better change the hobby. So tell me, to what purpose am I to 'name' anything for you?

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 02:39
by smsgtmac
cola wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:OK then, name them.

A10s got shot, some even got downed on many battlefields and if I really need to list them for you, better change the hobby...


So we've established the first thing you need to learn is the working definition of a permissive combat environment. From the AF's A-10 Systems Engineering Case Study:
The A-X RAD called for fixed, internally mounted guns with a “capability equal to or better than four M-39 20mm guns”[20]*. It also added consideration for a large caliber semiautomatic recoilless rifle. A minimum of six ordnance stations were required capable of delivering all types of conventional ordnance projected for use through 1970-1985. Although the intended operating scenarios stressed a permissive environment, the CFP was to consider the feasibility of incorporating a limited air-to-air missile capability as a defensive measure. Survivability from ground fire was an essential characteristic for the A-X. Structural and system design would need to provide inherent survivability, to include self sealing fuel tanks and, if power flight controls were used, a manual backup system would be provided. The pilot and critical flight systems would be protected from 14.5mm projectiles (common Soviet Anti-Aircraft shells).

Therefore, based upon the A-10's own RAD, the definition of permissive environment was:
1. No/minimal air-to-air threat and
2. No heavy (heavier than 14.4 mm) or radar-directed AAA threat.
3. No MANPADs
4. No crew served SAMs.
This should not be surprising as the 1966 SEA environment did not have any of these weapons widely used in South Vietnam at the time. In the same era as when the A-10 requirements were written, the Army characterized this kind of environment as a "mid-intensity" conflict environment in judging the survivability of their assault helicopter capability (See Tollitson's AIr Mobility in Vietnam, passim).

*Note: '[20]' refers to an endnote reference: AF Form 71, Requirements Action Directive RAD 7-69 (1), “Requirements for a Specialized Close Air Support Aircraft (A-X), 22 Dec 1966. Page 7

Two years later, the environment in SEA was already getting more dangerous, so the requirements were upgraded a bit:

Lethality would be determined by a varied payload of bombs, rockets, guided missiles and a “new large-caliber high velocity, high-rate-of-fire gun.” Survivability would depend on maneuverability, redundancy and shielding of critical subsystems (and the pilot), small aircraft size, shielding of IR Survivability would require protection from small arms, 7.62 mm and 14.5 mm machine guns, anti-aircraft artillery (principally the Soviet ZSU-23 mm system), REDEYE and other Surface-to-Air (SAM) missiles. Survivability would depend on maneuverability, redundancy and shielding of critical subsystems (and the pilot), small aircraft size, shielding of IR sources, and weapon delivery systems that would reduce the amount of time the aircraft was vulnerable and allow for greater flexibility in approach and delivery of weapons.

Note that the requirements changes took into consideration that first-gen MANPADs were on the horizon and recognized the proliferation of ZSU-23-2s occurring (both of which would become a major operational consideration for Army helicopter ops in SEA) but still did not include radar-directed AAA (which would also later become a major problem), or a credible SAM or A2A Threat. At that same time, the Air Force was buying A-7s and as part of the package deal they wanted (and eventually got) more F-4s for the Air Superiority mission to protect those A-7s. (See 'DECISION-MAKING ON THE A-7 ATTACK AIRCRAFT PROGRAM', Richard G. Head, 1970, passim )

We also know what a permissive environment is NOT for the A-10 from its performance in Desert Storm. From an interview shortly afterwards with the DS 'Air Boss' then LtGen Chuck Horner:
Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?
A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that. Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes. Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16. Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job. Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.

Q: This conflict has shown that?
A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.
The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line [sic] if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.
Q:At what point did you do that?
A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this."


'Permissive' isn't an environment where you don't get shot at. That would be called 'peacetime'.

cola wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:OK then, name them.

...So tell me, to what purpose am I to 'name' anything for you?

To the purpose of proving you are not just the high-time house troll. To the purpose of showing all of us where I was as erroneous as you attempted to imply in a poorly executed fallacious Appeal to Ridicule. To the purpose of showing us that you might actually be in possession of relevant knowledge to support your claims and assertions that I and others may not be aware of instead of otherwise blurting out unsupported and unsupportable drivel. To illustrate you do not just blather, but perhaps have something material to contribute. It was a opportunity to lift yourself above your fully-frothed trollfullness. And while you failed to capitalize on the opportunities, you did not disappoint.

ALL: As I said, this is a good example 'Troll Flypaper Topic' thread

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 04:47
by beepa
Now that has just made my Christmas....Thanks SMSGTMAC....Merry Christmas all....

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 05:28
by spazsinbad
Have a good one....

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 10:49
by cola
combat aircraft operate in non-permissive environments by definition and this is why they're called 'combat'.
Some eventually get shot down, because this is how the war works.

F117s over Serbia also operated in non-permissive environment and got shot down.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 18:30
by Gums
Salute!

Well, lottsa points here that I had brought up back in 1974 in my infamous "letter to the editor" - AvWeek. The one that got me a letter of reprimand from CO of 9th AF.

Horner has a good perspective of the Warthog, IMHO. He was my first "wing king" student in the Viper and I later worked with him twice. Once for the leading edge flap failures we had and during an ORI down at his wing at Nellis. Neat guy, and good stick. His tactical callsign on his name tag was "animal", heh heh.

I also talked with 'hog drivers when we closed up the wing at Myrtle Beach. These were Storm vets.

The gun is fun, but almost all tank kills by the 'hog were with Mavericks. They even used the IIR Mav at night as a poor man's LANTIRN. Thier CSAR ops were pretty good compared to the Viper.

We never got to see the Fulda Gap scenario, but after seeing Yom Kippur, I predict we would have our butt handed to us with the "tank killer" 'hog. My IAF students told us that the SA-6 and ZSU-23-4 were murder. One joke was the best way to take out an SA-6 was to drive a tank up next to it and blow it to another universe, heh heh. OTOH, they also explained to us how to defeat the SA-6, and we used the tactic at Red Flag with good results. Did it myself one day.

I don't like the idea of using the F-35 for CAS, and especially not CSAR. Both the F-35 and Viper would suffer the same as we did in the Sluf for CSAR. The 'hog would be good for that. For CAS, it's a draw. Speed and size make a difference, and the computer bomb systems allow higher attack speeds and the sensors don't require you to do tight turns for maintaining a visual on the target. Sluf was really good at that, as was/is the Viper.

Sprey was right about size - look at Viper versus 'hog.

Image

Then there's speed. Think 300 knots versus 450 or even 500 knots while having excellent accuracy.

Let's face it, the 'hog was a point design to replace the A-1. It was based on 'nam experience and then the Fulda Gap scenario. There are better ways to fry the fish, folks.

Hate to see the Warthog go, but we gotta move on. And I don't see a lot of threats/scenarios out there requiring the beast.

Gums sends...

P.S> I need a non-pay wall link for Head's paper about DECISION-MAKING ON THE A-7 ATTACK AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 20:59
by smsgtmac
Hi Gums,

I was already planning to bring it to you on disk the next time I'm in FWB. I had to go to a research library and get a microfiche to print from. I scanned my printout (630+ pages) into two pdf files that total nearly 300MB. The microfiche copy quality was horrible, and I had to pen in some parts of words in the margins to make it just barely searchable. If you can't wait, Eglin may be able to borrow the Maxwell/Gunter copy for you.

In the meantime, I'll copy you on something related in an email.

-Best

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 21:32
by smsgtmac
cola wrote:combat aircraft operate in non-permissive environments by definition and this is why they're called 'combat'.
Some eventually get shot down, because this is how the war works.
F117s over Serbia also operated in non-permissive environment and got shot down.

Provided with not only an authoritative and sourced description of what a 'permissive environment' is, but one specifically used for the weapon system in question's own Requirements Action Directive, the compulsive Troll must continue with its troller-ific trolling. Thus, the Troll rejects reality (history with references) and inserts its own.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 23:38
by stobiewan
smsgtmac wrote:
cola wrote:combat aircraft operate in non-permissive environments by definition and this is why they're called 'combat'.
Some eventually get shot down, because this is how the war works.
F117s over Serbia also operated in non-permissive environment and got shot down.

Provided with not only an authoritative and sourced description of what a 'permissive environment' is, but one specifically used for the weapon system in question's own Requirements Action Directive, the compulsive Troll must continue with its troller-ific trolling. Thus, the Troll rejects reality (history with references) and inserts its own.



Admit it, he just owned you with the "lalala..I'm not listening defence" :)

I did chuckle when I read quote you proffered - it did seem very substantial and touched on almost every aspect of the A10 forever campaign and trashed it with real world experience.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 00:29
by cola
smsgtmac,
sorry but your line of argumentation was so laughable that I thought you were kidding.
As it turned out you were serious, so let's see...
Survivability would depend on maneuverability, redundancy and shielding of critical subsystems (and the pilot), small aircraft size, shielding of IR sources, and weapon delivery systems that would reduce the amount of time the aircraft was vulnerable and allow for greater flexibility in approach and delivery of weapons.

This is a general definition and as such completely irrelevant.
It's always nice to shoot from a safe place --- if it works and it doesn't in the combats like the one in the video, which is the topic regardless of your clumsy attempts to derail and shift the issue.

Then comes another mindblowing sentence:
We also know what a permissive environment is NOT for the A-10 from its performance in Desert Storm. From an interview shortly afterwards with the DS 'Air Boss' then LtGen Chuck Horner:

Wow....you got no idea what's A10's permissive environment in the first place, how it's adjusted 'on-condition' and who recommends it, so not only that you haven't understood what Horner said, but you also don't understand how the ops are conduced.
For each ground mission the Army needs certain conditions to be met in order to be conducted. If you remove one of the conditions like 'danger close' CAS eg., you're also loosing ground missions that require that particular item.

Then comes the completely misunderstood paragraph:
the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited...

Yes the A10 is vulnerable, but is way less vulnerable than anything else in the inventory that needs to shift 2-3 targets within the 2-3 minutes frame in the 'across the road' sized space required by the nature of combat, which is what you don't get.
The mission IS out there and MUST be done regardless of environment's 'permissiveness' because the CAS is there for grunts not the other way around, so if there's no 'danger close' CAS capable aircraft then there's no ground mission that can lead to such situations which is pretty much anything involving infantry.
Kiddies find uber-cool to pop up at M.9 at 15m over the ridge with pine tree branches still stuck in your wings, but you simply ain't gonna hit anything and even people that were flying over a particular part all their life and knew that terrain by heart, still had troubles hitting even fixed targets.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 05:01
by count_to_10
On Gums's topic of the F-35 and CAS: with smart infantry weapons (particularly smart mortars), all the F-35 may need to do in CAS is provide spotting for targets. As far as CSAR goes, it looks like there are going attack tilt-rotors for that kind of thing in the not too distant future.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 05:02
by smsgtmac
Well most of your odd reply took issue with assertions and assumptions the authors of the A-10's requirements and AF Systems Engineering Case Study or with General Horner's statements, so I'll let them defend their writings and statements against your unsupported and convoluted ramblings. I will however take the time to illustrate the manifest problems with the rest of your post.
cola wrote:Yes the A10 is vulnerable, but is way less vulnerable than anything else in the inventory that needs to shift 2-3 targets within the 2-3 minutes frame in the 'across the road' sized space required by the nature of combat, which is what you don't get.
The mission IS out there and MUST be done regardless of environment's 'permissiveness' because the CAS is there for grunts not the other way around, so if there's no 'danger close' CAS capable aircraft then there's no ground mission that can lead to such situations which is pretty much anything involving infantry.
Kiddies find uber-cool to pop up at M.9 at 15m over the ridge with pine tree branches still stuck in your wings, but you simply ain't gonna hit anything and even people that were flying over a particular part all their life and knew that terrain by heart, still had troubles hitting even fixed targets.
Sure, you can loose the mission (change CONOPS)...


In Classical Rhetoric, the (kind Joshua Chamberlain taught) I have found it helpful in determining the validity of a position by extracting the major and minor premise found in every position. In your passage above (which BTW contains a distinct taste of a Fallacious Appeal to Emotion, i.e. a 'help the poor soldier' version of 'its for the children'. But we shall set that aside as a minor nit in the scheme of things) the minor premise is that the A-10 does the CAS job well because the pilot can get down in the weeds and find the targets, the good guys, can tell the difference between the two and safely strike the enemy. I have no problem with the minor premise. However, the argumentation fails because the major premise behind your minor premise, is that CAS can ONLY be done effectively from down in the weeds, to include identifying the good guys and the bad guys and distinguishing between the two, and killing the right people. This major premise is demonstrably false. SNIPER pod equipped bombers and fast movers are already providing that same ability. Good short video with the essence of the point here:


I believe ( <--see that word to the left? It is a 'qualifier'. Use for anything less than 'fact' is highly recommended) the F-35's sensors, and just as importantly communications ability, surpasses that found in current systems using Sniper Pods.
So we already have high-fliers doing CAS regularly, and have every reason to believe and expect the F-35 to be even better at it.
Since the major premise of your scenario has been shown to MY satisfaction as false, I dismiss it as a fallacious Strawman Argument. Others may not, but I doubt it.

Housekeeping: 'Danger close' has nothing to do with how close the plane flies towards the target area and everything to do with how close the fires are being laid down in proximity to friendly troops. It is based upon the probability of incapacitation (PI) <.1%. For for the GAU-8 that value is 65m based upon classified GR&As, and for the SDB FLM, probably very close to same.
The important thing is 'Danger Close' isn't a restriction but a tool:
"Aircraft ordnance delivery inside 0.1% PI distances will be considered danger close. This is simply A WARNING and not a restriction to the maneuver commander and the FDC to TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS." -- FM 3-09.32. Dec 2007, pg 105 (emphasis mine, and the weird thing is this is the second time I've had to type this someplace today.)
Source Quote from General Horner here: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... orner.aspx

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 05:09
by smsgtmac
count_to_10 wrote:On Gums's topic of the F-35 and CAS: with smart infantry weapons (particularly smart mortars), all the F-35 may need to do in CAS is provide spotting for targets. As far as CSAR goes, it looks like there are going attack tilt-rotors for that kind of thing in the not too distant future.


I agree. The increasing lethality and situation awareness of a patrol-sized unit has bloomed in the last two decades. Can you imagine a 'Big Dog' follow-on to take some weight off the soldier's backs and to carry better organic fire? I'm thinking precision mortars, better breaching tools and portability for same will be a game changer.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 05:49
by Gums
Salute!

Well, I see lottsa philosophical ideas and theories and such here. But I don't see meaningful discussion of actual requirements.

Ya gotta lay out the scenarios and then come up with systems and tactics to get the job done.

I must admit that my real world experience was back in 'nam, and we had many more CAS missions each day than the Storm or 'raqi II. Sheesh, we had a half a million troops there and were losing about 200 each week!!! We also had an inordinate number of CSAR missions due to operations up North or in Laos. Haven't seen anything close since then.

So before I outline some of the requirements and suggest/discuss systems and tactics to meet them, I gotta take a break.

Finally, I add a paraphrased quote from a seasoned Senator at a hearing with SecDef McNamara regarding the TFX. The old man asked, "Just what, if any, experience does the Secretary have in these matters?".

Gums sends...

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 09:34
by lookieloo
Gums wrote:Salute!

Well, I see lottsa philosophical ideas and theories and such here...
I only see one... the philosophy (or rather dogma) that anything with a pointy nose is automatically incapable of providing effective CAS, which is of course the only mission that matters to certain fanboys who've never actually seen it (I've been close enough to hear 30mm brass land in the street). Nothing provides better CAS than an Apache... period. So long as F-35 can accurately deliver heavy ordnance (altitude matters not), I'd say the USAF has other things it needs to focus on.


As I stated previously in this thread:
Personally, I think much of the hoopla is based on sentimentality and poor understanding of the bigger picture of airpower, of which some have come to have a skewed view after so many decades of bushfire wars. From a ground-pounder's perspective, allow me to list the USAF's priorities in order:

1. [Air Superiority] Make damned sure that I don't have to worry about enemy CAS.

2. [Interdiction] Hinder the enemy's weapons/personnel from getting to me in the first place.

3. [Air Transport] Make sure I can get myself and my *stuff* in and out of the battlespace.

4. CAS. Why so low on the list? If the USAF takes care of the first three items, I shouldn't need it that much (got plenty of my own). This isn't to say that I don't want CAS from the A-10; but when it comes to making the hard choices, I'd rather see the A-10s go away than lose core-capable aircraft that better support the overall mission.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 09:58
by cola
However, the argumentation fails because the major premise behind your minor premise, is that CAS can ONLY be done effectively from down in the weeds...

Not really. As I said, I was referring to the case in video, as pointed out several times.

For for the GAU-8 that value is 65m based upon classified GR&As, and for the SDB FLM, probably very close to same.

It doesn't matter what's the GAU-8's PI paper range value, as long as it's still the smallest of anything in inventory that is applicable within a specific situation defined constrains, like the one in the video I was referring to.
If you don't have such a tool you get more body bags, or you loose the mission if you wanna maintain casualty rate.
We can't have a meaningful discussion if you keep ignoring discussion points.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 11:25
by spazsinbad
Sorry to interrupt our regular programming on the endless discussion about CAS - I thought this screed might be appropriate to get beyond yesterday and all the historical events of yore. Let us look at the possible future via:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20419&p=232904&hilit=Isherwood#p232904
OR:
Airpower for Hybrid Warfare by Michael W. Isherwood, June 2009
"...In short, the days of strike aircraft being fighter aircraft on station only for a strafing or bombing run are over....”

http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/mp3 ... e_0609.pdf (0.6Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 15:15
by count_to_10
smsgtmac wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:On Gums's topic of the F-35 and CAS: with smart infantry weapons (particularly smart mortars), all the F-35 may need to do in CAS is provide spotting for targets. As far as CSAR goes, it looks like there are going attack tilt-rotors for that kind of thing in the not too distant future.


I agree. The increasing lethality and situation awareness of a patrol-sized unit has bloomed in the last two decades. Can you imagine a 'Big Dog' follow-on to take some weight off the soldier's backs and to carry better organic fire? I'm thinking precision mortars, better breaching tools and portability for same will be a game changer.

They are working on bringing down the size of shock-hardened guidance modules. The latest I have seen is for the vehicle mounted mortars, but I think there is a good chance of there being cheep, multi-mode seekers for man portable mortars within a decade or so. Big Dog should help small units carry more firepower (though they really do need to fit a good muffler to that thing), but people are seriously talking about powered armor (50+ years after Starship Troopers), which would have huge implications.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 20:17
by weasel1962
I think this discussion topic is not complete without the impact changes of ground target designation as well as UAVs. Whilst there were always forward observers/controllers, the realtime technology of relatively longer ranged ground designators, datalinking coupled with loitering UAVs reduces the need for significant forward loiter times by the A-10 in the CAS role. Even if the A-10 can operate in non-permissive environments, the question really people at the top are asking is whether that's really necessary today. The loss of a UAV is way less painful than a manned aircraft (zero risk is still way better than low risk). That's also where the F-35 is intended to validate the concept where its next gen networking capabilities integrate the various pictures from the various platforms (patrol sized units, JSTAR, UAVs, AEW etc) into a far more superior situation awareness environment which targets potential counter-air assets, minimises inefficient loiter times etc.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 23:26
by count_to_10
weasel1962 wrote:I think this discussion topic is not complete without the impact changes of ground target designation as well as UAVs. Whilst there were always forward observers/controllers, the realtime technology of relatively longer ranged ground designators, datalinking coupled with loitering UAVs reduces the need for significant forward loiter times by the A-10 in the CAS role. Even if the A-10 can operate in non-permissive environments, the question really people at the top are asking is whether that's really necessary today. The loss of a UAV is way less painful than a manned aircraft (zero risk is still way better than low risk). That's also where the F-35 is intended to validate the concept where its next gen networking capabilities integrate the various pictures from the various platforms (patrol sized units, JSTAR, UAVs, AEW etc) into a far more superior situation awareness environment which targets potential counter-air assets, minimises inefficient loiter times etc.

Definitely easier to send a bomb to destroy any sensitive parts in a downed drone than to send a CSAR team to extract a downed pilot and send a bomb for his aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 21:04
by Gums
Salute!

While taking a break from the persistent grandchildren today, and the ham in the oven and the dip heating up ....

Lookie and I and others here have probably spent more than one Christmas and/or Thanksgiving in some godforsaken place doing our duty. And sometimes getting shot at, heh heh.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lookie's hierarchy of airpower missions is right on.

As far back as Normandy, Allied forces have not been subject to enemy CAS. Air superiority is prime.

I also like interdiction as the number two. I have always been an enthusiast for that mission, and only our terrible results over the Trail 45 years ago sour me. 'course, that was a very unconventional war.

All here must realize that 45 years ago and even the last ten years in the sandbox, USAF used aircraft as very long range artillery. A small SEAL team can't bring along arty and even cosmic new mortars. Then there's an outpost someplace that is ill-defended. So some form of CAS will be around, despite the main units having embedded capabilities - the Apache.

The way I see it, you won't see an F-35 down in the weeds dropping nape or CBU or even strafing. Nevertheless, the plane can help when embedded CAS assets are unavailable or impossible, ya think?

Merry Christmas to all, and I gotta check on that ham.

Gums sends...

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 04:17
by lookieloo
Gums wrote:Salute!

While taking a break from the persistent grandchildren today, and the ham in the oven and the dip heating up ....

Lookie and I and others here have probably spent more than one Christmas and/or Thanksgiving in some godforsaken place doing our duty. And sometimes getting shot at, heh heh.
Here's to Christmas/Thanksgiving in a real house with a warm fireplace... full of kids running, toddlers toddling, and someone's new baby sleeping on your shoulder. :cheers:

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 02:49
by maus92
Why the A-10?

http://ec2-54-204-18-44.compute-1.amazo ... teristics/

PBS is running a story tonight on The Newshour. The link above is additional unaired material.

UPDATE:

The main story is at this link:
http://ec2-54-204-18-44.compute-1.amazo ... -aircraft/

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 04:00
by gtx
More drivel...let's just keep rolling out Sprey and the same old, disproven arguments. Get over it folks, the A-10 was cool, it's big gun was cool...but it's decades old and times and technology have moved on! These guys are even worse than those who argued for open cockpits and fabric covered biplanes! Moreover, if they were to ever get their way they will cause the deaths of more troops on the ground/air than anyone else!

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 06:47
by spazsinbad
It seems to me the F-35 will be performing better than these guys imagine:

Budget cuts could ground unstoppable A-10 Warthog aircraft
PBS NewsHour 25 Feb 2014
"...KWAME HOLMAN: But A-10 advocates say technology has limits.

LT. COL. BILL SMITH (RET.), Former A-10 squadron commander: Technology is good, but the problem with using that technology, especially the optical stuff, is that it’s like looking through a soda straw. So imagine you hold a straw up to your eye, and that’s how you have to view the whole battlefield.

KWAME HOLMAN: Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Smith flew Warthogs over an 18-year career, including combat missions in Afghanistan. He also participated in the save the A-10 event.

LT. COL. BILL SMITH: With looking with your eyeballs, I can turn my head around and I can see much more of the battlefield than I can with slewing that pod around. And I can see the bigger picture. I’m able to maybe catch some movement out of the corner of my eye and look down and go, oh, you know what? There’s a little bit of dust over there.

KWAME HOLMAN: A-10 advocates are getting support on Capitol Hill. Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, wants to hold off on dumping the A-10 until the new Joint Strike Fighter proves it can do close air support. Ayotte, whose husband is a former A-10 pilot, says the Air Force should find other places to save money...."

http://ec2-54-204-18-44.compute-1.amazo ... -aircraft/

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 07:56
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:It seems to me the F-35 will be performing better than these guys imagine:

Budget cuts could ground unstoppable A-10 Warthog aircraft


I am a Republican but not a big fan of Senator Ayotte. While, New Hampshire may want to keep it's A-10's. The fact is the US Defense Budget is and will get smaller. So, something has to go and the 40 year old A-10 is limited in capability and life expectancy. Better to cut it than future Weapon Systems like the F-35, Future Bomber, Cyber Programs, Special Forces etc. etc. :doh:

SOMETIMES EVEN POLITICIANS NEED TO PUT COUNTRY FIRST. :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 08:25
by Corsair1963
maus92 wrote:Why the A-10?

http://ec2-54-204-18-44.compute-1.amazo ... teristics/

PBS is running a story tonight on The Newshour. The link above is additional unaired material.

UPDATE: The main story is at this link:
http://ec2-54-204-18-44.compute-1.amazo ... -aircraft/

Honestly, I think the video highlights the case to cut the A-10. As the plane is ~ 40 years old and the budget is just not there...

Hell, I would love to have the 4 Iowa Class Battleships back too! Yet, we just can't afford them...... :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 08:39
by Corsair1963
gtx wrote:More drivel...let's just keep rolling out Sprey and the same old, disproven arguments. Get over it folks, the A-10 was cool, it's big gun was cool...but it's decades old and times and technology have moved on! These guys are even worse than those who argued for open cockpits and fabric covered biplanes! Moreover, if they were to ever get their way they will cause the deaths of more troops on the ground/air than anyone else!


That old man has lost every bit of respect he may have ever had... He is now right up with ELP, Kopp, and Sweetman. :(

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 08:40
by Corsair1963
I think the question should be how many Brand New F-35A's could the USAF get for 3.5 Billion! :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2014, 15:25
by popcorn
A 20% utilization rate for,a dedicated CAS platform does little to bolster it's case. Unfortunately, the media does not seem interested in covering the story of the 80% who benefited from other CAS platforms.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -A-10.aspx

USAF Will Scrap, Not Mothball, the A-10

The Air Force isn’t planning to mothball its 283 A-10s, but simply retire the type wholesale as part of the Fiscal 2015 budget request, service Secretary Deborah Lee James said Wednesday. James told a Bloomberg defense symposium in Washington, D.C., that “the idea… is to…retire them fully” rather than put the A-10s into Type 1000 storage—meaning they could be returned to operations if needed—at the Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., boneyard. However, she said the A-10s won’t be retired all at once, but rather over several years. “The beginning years would tilt toward the Active component,” and the Guard and Reserve A-10s would be the last to go, she said. James emphasized that the A-10 is not the only close air support platform in the Air Force, and that in Afghanistan, it has actually only performed 20 percent of the CAS mission. The rest has been done by AC-130s, F-15s, F-16s, B-52s, and B-1s; all of which will be retained. “We have got this,” James said of the CAS mission, insisting the service won’t let down its brethren in the other services. The F-35 also will eventually take over the CAS role, she said. Retiring the A-10s will save $3.5 billion over the future years defense plan, she said.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 01:43
by maus92
Corsair1963 wrote:I think the question should be how many Brand New F-35A's could the USAF get for 3.5 Billion! :doh:


35, or less than 1/2 year's output at FYP. In other words, you take 35 less F-35As, and get to keep 300+ A-10s. Better to get the A-10s in the Boneyard before somebody suggests using them to offset procuring additional F-35s. The USAF should cut them up, because at some point, somewhere they might prove to be useful.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 02:13
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I think the question should be how many Brand New F-35A's could the USAF get for 3.5 Billion! :doh:


35, or less than 1/2 year's output at FYP. In other words, you take 35 less F-35As, and get to keep 300+ A-10s. Better to get the A-10s in the Boneyard before somebody suggests using them to offset procuring additional F-35s. The USAF should cut them up, because at some point, somewhere they might prove to be useful.


To break it more gently than others might. Your equation is in error. It is not 35*F-35s = 300*A-10s.

Assuming the F-35s that could be bought have a 25-35 year service life and '35' is the right number of F-35s
it is 35*(25 to 35)F-35 possession years = (283*5) A-10 operating** years.

**As F-35 possession year costs are based upon fixed dollars and the A-10 operating year costs are only good for the first five years, you may safely assume after the first five years , 35*(25 to 35)F-35 possession years <(283*5) A-10 operating years.

As is oft heard around my house.... " Just sayin' " :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 04:06
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:It seems to me the F-35 will be performing better than these guys imagine:

Budget cuts could ground unstoppable A-10 Warthog aircraft PBS NewsHour 25 Feb 2014
"...KWAME HOLMAN: But A-10 advocates say technology has limits.

LT. COL. BILL SMITH (RET.), Former A-10 squadron commander: Technology is good, but the problem with using that technology, especially the optical stuff, is that it’s like looking through a soda straw. So imagine you hold a straw up to your eye, and that’s how you have to view the whole battlefield.

KWAME HOLMAN: Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Smith flew Warthogs over an 18-year career, including combat missions in Afghanistan. He also participated in the save the A-10 event.

LT. COL. BILL SMITH: With looking with your eyeballs, I can turn my head around and I can see much more of the battlefield than I can with slewing that pod around. And I can see the bigger picture. I’m able to maybe catch some movement out of the corner of my eye and look down and go, oh, you know what? There’s a little bit of dust over there.

KWAME HOLMAN: A-10 advocates are getting support on Capitol Hill. Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, wants to hold off on dumping the A-10 until the new Joint Strike Fighter proves it can do close air support. Ayotte, whose husband is a former A-10 pilot, says the Air Force should find other places to save money...."

http://ec2-54-204-18-44.compute-1.amazo ... -aircraft/



gotta wonder why A-10 upgrades over the years have been all about increasing avionics, communications, pods, GPS and other whiz bang... And not guns and armor.

Other fighter class airplanes can see the "bigger picture" using the Mk.1 eye ball just as well (or not well actually) as an A-10.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 05:46
by lookieloo
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I think the question should be how many Brand New F-35A's could the USAF get for 3.5 Billion! :doh:
35, or less than 1/2 year's output at FYP. In other words, you take 35 less F-35As, and get to keep 300+ A-10s. Better to get the A-10s in the Boneyard before somebody suggests using them to offset procuring additional F-35s. The USAF should cut them up, because at some point, somewhere they might prove to be useful.
To break it more gently than others might. Your equation is in error. It is not 35*F-35s = 300*A-10s.

Assuming the F-35s that could be bought have a 25-35 year service life and '35' is the right number of F-35s
it is 35*(25 to 35)F-35 possession years = (283*5) A-10 operating** years.

**As F-35 possession year costs are based upon fixed dollars and the A-10 operating year costs are only good for the first five years, you may safely assume after the first five years , 35*(25 to 35)F-35 possession years <(283*5) A-10 operating years.

As is oft heard around my house.... " Just sayin' " :wink:
To reiterate from earlier in the thread.... viewtopic.php?p=260693#p260693

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 14:52
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:It seems to me the F-35 will be performing better than these guys imagine:

Budget cuts could ground unstoppable A-10 Warthog aircraft


Someone needs to tell Bill Smith NVGs are OBE: That with the Sniper Pod or HMDS he IS using his eyeballs...better and best.

Bill-Smith-Doing-it-Wrong.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 15:09
by SnakeHandler
I love the A-10 as much as anyone but the solution to this debate is very simple. Every fighter (yes, even the F-15C with unguided weapons) and bomber can do CAS. The A-10 can't do anything else. The last 12 years has given the public a skewed importance of that mission. In force-on-force wars CAS is what you do to pick of the remaining elements of enemy forces following INT and SCAR. Anyone remember how long the Desert Storm ground war lasted? There's a reson for that.

The AF must prepare to fight the peer adversary, not the insurgency. That's not why we exist.

End of story.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 17:21
by Gums
Salute!

Good to see the Snake Handler post.

I feel he would agree with Lookie's thots.

Anyone mind if an actual infantryman weighs in on the issue?
Personally, I think much of the hoopla is based on sentimentality and poor understanding of the bigger picture of airpower, of which some have come to have a skewed view after so many decades of bushfire wars. From a ground-pounder's perspective, allow me to list the USAF's priorities in order:

1. Make damned sure that I don't have to worry about enemy CAS.

2. Hinder the enemy's weapons/personnel from getting to me in the first place.

3. Make sure I can get myself and my *stuff* in and out of the battlespace.

4. CAS. Why so low on the list? If the USAF takes care of the first three items, I shouldn't need it that much (got plenty of my own). This isn't to say that I don't want CAS from the A-10; but when it comes to making the hard choices, I'd rather see the A-10s go away than lose core-capable aircraft that better support the overall mission.


Comes back to roles and missions and command/control doctrine.

All must remember that a lot of our doctrine and employment concepts came from the period 1965 - 1973. You know what I am talking about.

- A dedicated CAS unit for each grunt outfit didn't work then and didn't work back in WW2 or Korea. Same for 'raq 1 and 'raq 2 or the 'stan. So even the U.S. Army began a more centralized force of attack helos, then allocated them where needed on damned near a minute-by-minute basis. e.g. Division verus battalion or regiment. USAF CAS could respond fairly quickly and cover the distance quickly to lend a helping hand. Ditto for later operations in the 90's and early 2000's.

Those days are gone, my friends.

- Ditto for dedicated CSAR units. I was proud of my contributions for those missions (two tours), but the situation was fairly unique compared to 'raqi 1 or 2. We were losing folks at an unacceptable rate up North, and not so badly in-country. Nevertheless, we had Sandy and Jolly and King that practiced and worked together extremely well.

The threat on the Fulda Gap made us shudder. No way could we do what we did back in the '65 to '73 era. Zip, nada, noway dot com.

So we have seen the last of dedicated CSAR units. And who wants/needs to "rescue" a drone camera?

Lookie has the best perspective IMHO. No USA ground forces have been subject to enemy CAS as of Normandy ( Lima Site 85 wasn't CAS but a strange drop by Colts). Secondly, the new "maneuver warfare" tactics and doctrine do not figure to have many fixed outposts or such. Sure, it helps to have friendly air nearby for a spec ops insertion or assault, but those missions are usually well-planned. We did it at Son Tay, and our unit covered SOG teams in Laos ( when we didn't have ground troops there, heh heh), so look up Prairie Fire. But the number of those missions were in the noise level as far as CAS missions went, when we flew dozens of missions each day in our small squadron during the '68 Tet. Figure three times a day for each pilot, with some missions right off the end of the runway, heh heh.

The Sluf community realized right up front that the Warthog was a point design, and based upon our experience from '65 to '73. Worthless for interdiction, and the Hun and Thud were gone. Few 'vaarks around for the BAI or close-in missions. Phantoms going away with Eagles coming on board. So we made our opinion known and were harshly treated, scolded and banished. Funny, but the cadre for the Viper had maybe a third or a bit more Sluf drivers!

I don't like the idea of a Stubby getting down and dirty amongst optically-aimed AAA or MANPADS. But we just have to think about Lookie's concept and figure how many times we would have to do that.

Gums sends...

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 18:24
by maus92
What is being ignored is that the US has *traditionally* found itself involved in wars / conflicts / police actions / peace keeping missions that it never expected / foresaw. In Africa for example, there are a number of potential conflicts that the US *might* get drawn into - a region where sophisticated IADS do not exist, and probably won't for some years to come. Deploying a $100-130M F-35A/Bs to engage what is likely to be amateur / semi professional forces and fundamentalists is ridiculous, whereas A-10s are essentially paid for, far less expensive to operate and hold on the books, effective, and bred for an austere environment. The USAFs transparent attempts to retire these aircraft is at best, shortsighted, and at worst, dereliction. They could easily support these aircraft for some time to come, at a cost far less than F-35, but simply do not want any competition to F-35s, or anything to interfere with their dream of an all stealth force. It's an ideological position more than a practical solution - that is why they will attempt not only to retire the aircraft to AMARC, but to break up the airframes so there will be no possibility of A-10s returning to flight status.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 18:48
by maus92
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I think the question should be how many Brand New F-35A's could the USAF get for 3.5 Billion! :doh:


35, or less than 1/2 year's output at FYP. In other words, you take 35 less F-35As, and get to keep 300+ A-10s. Better to get the A-10s in the Boneyard before somebody suggests using them to offset procuring additional F-35s. The USAF should cut them up, because at some point, somewhere they might prove to be useful.


To break it more gently than others might. Your equation is in error. It is not 35*F-35s = 300*A-10s.

Assuming the F-35s that could be bought have a 25-35 year service life and '35' is the right number of F-35s
it is 35*(25 to 35)F-35 possession years = (283*5) A-10 operating** years.

**As F-35 possession year costs are based upon fixed dollars and the A-10 operating year costs are only good for the first five years, you may safely assume after the first five years , 35*(25 to 35)F-35 possession years <(283*5) A-10 operating years.

As is oft heard around my house.... " Just sayin' " :wink:


I think you know that I was being a tad facetious. It's just an illustration, of course excepting the LCC of F-35 over those same years - which when you add that in, the picture looks even better for retaining at least some A-10s for contingencies.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 20:22
by deadseal
I think you know that I was being a tad facetious. It's just an illustration, of course excepting the LCC of F-35 over those same years - which when you add that in, the picture looks even better for retaining at least some A-10s for contingencies.


What contingencies? What scenario would you HAVE to have an A-10 and could not have an F-35? If you throw down with 100 possible threats for the future at least 99 of them could be accomplished by the F-35, and 99 of them could NOT be accomplished by an A-10.

Put it this way...
Pick any country in the middle east or any country involved in the "Pacific pivot" Now try and break down the door....would you rather have 35 fifth gen stealth fighters? or 300 giant radar returning, slow, non A-A A-10's?
I think no one can argue that we are in a budget crisis. Think strategically. Think long term. Think SA-20's, 26's and PAK-FAs and J-20s.

This is a no brainer for long term strategic application of budget needs to produce AIRPOWER. Not fill some niche because the army likes the way an A-10 can strafe and governors want us to downsize, but "I'll be damned if i give up my legacy fighters". It so frustrating it almost kills me.

By the way, I have not met a single fighter pilot yet that has said we need to keep the A-10. Think about that.
Sorry.

Also, the A-10 would have serious trouble against anyone with any kind of advanced man-pads. IRCCM in the SA-18 and up are a very serious problem for all aircraft. The low show is over.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 20:59
by lowcountry_acro
disconnectedradical wrote:As I understand, the F-35 would be a fine replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 classics, and AV-8. But it is also being advertised as an A-10 replacement. This is something that I don't quite understand, since I don't think the F-35 can perform CAS nearly as well as an A-10 would. This is no knock on the F-35, since an F-16 or F/A-18 also isn't nearly as good at CAS. I'd imagine that jets like F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 lack the loiter time of the A-10.


The short answer is that it's asinine Pentagon politics at work. Every General and brueaucrat who administered the A-10 hated it both because they found it unglamorous and felt it was tasking the USAF as an auxiliary aid to the US Army, which is anethema in military politics. Every pilot who flew the A-10 and every soldier and Marine under its protection loved it. It has consistently been the most capable air-to-mud platform in the USAF inventory in every armed conflict it was deployed to since entering service in the 1980s.

The F-35 gets the green light to replace the A-10 based on the ease of Pentagon brueaucrats to be fooled by shiny objects and the bean counters still pumping at the dry well that the F-35 will save the armed forces money based on its commonality.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 21:19
by gtx
maus92 wrote:What is being ignored is that the US has *traditionally* found itself involved in wars / conflicts / police actions / peace keeping missions that it never expected / foresaw. In Africa for example, there are a number of potential conflicts that the US *might* get drawn into - a region where sophisticated IADS do not exist, and probably won't for some years to come. .


Arguably, one could say that this was the type of scenario that the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR)/Light Air Support (LAS) program - which was originally won by the Super Tucano - was perfectly suited for, and one that even an A-10 would be potentially overkill for...

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 21:36
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:I think you know that I was being a tad facetious. It's just an illustration, of course excepting the LCC of F-35 over those same years - which when you add that in, the picture looks even better for retaining at least some A-10s for contingencies.


Yeah, I got that. Though I specifically thought of the synonym 'flippant'. I just wanted to provide an equally flippant response, in the hopes that it would head off someone else overreacting: going off the deep end in reaction to a (yet another) inconsequential 'tweak'.
Since there are no real F-35 LCC numbers in existence, only those being thrown around by the same people who have been so wrong to-date as to actual cost projections, I recognize you must still merely be speaking a tad bit facetiously. :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 21:47
by smsgtmac
lowcountry_acro wrote:
The short answer is that it's asinine Pentagon politics at work. Every General and brueaucrat who administered the A-10 hated it both because they found it unglamorous and felt it was tasking the USAF as an auxiliary aid to the US Army, which is anethema in military politics...
The F-35 gets the green light to replace the A-10 based on the ease of Pentagon brueaucrats to be fooled by shiny objects and the bean counters still pumping at the dry well that the F-35 will save the armed forces money based on its commonality.

:lmao:
Your assertions are patently and demonstrably false.
Those who know much about CAS myths could start with Part 7: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/09/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part-7.html
You will want to start with Part 1: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part.html

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 22:30
by Gums
Salute!

If all we want is a "low intensity" conflict needing a COIN or light CAS system, bring back the A-37. Not as much of a loadout as the Warthog, but extremely cheap and easy to maintain. Add a few hundred thou $$$ for nav gear and a simple computed bomb/RX delivery and walla! NOT!!! I loved that little jet and flew about 300 CAS missions under fire. But it was obviously intended for countries with less infrastructure and skilled maintenance folks that we had in U.S.A.F. I ain't gonna talk about the pilots.

For the die hard Warthog folks, come up with a billion $$$ and have a mercenary group that goes where they can get paid, whether by the U.S. or a warlord someplace or..... Sheesh.

Of course, $$$ play a role in this decision by DoD, but roles and missions and perceived threats contribute. And then....

One contributor pointed out the eternal politics of procurement. Was personally there with the A-10 and the F-16.

- The A-10 cadre was from our A-37 group, and I missed out on the flyoff due to being at a professional military school when the pilots were selected. We, the A-37 bunch, supported the Warthog. Would have been awesome from 1965 - 1972, trust me. Would have a great replacement for the A-1 the last few months of that stupid war when we A-7 Sluf folks took over for CSAR.

Now we Sluf folks had flown over Downtown and some other places that the Warthog would have been meat on the table. We could get someplace lots faster, carry a great load and had the cosmic avionics that the Warthog didn't get for two decades. Nevertheless, we supported it. And then it came down to Sluf versus Warthog. So USAF had sold Congress the "facts" that the Warthog would be cheaper then the Sluf and be more effective at CAS and killing tanks with that big gun ( Fulda Gap scenario). We pointed out it would be lousy at BAI and interdiction. We asked for a mix, but by then USAF had to justify the procurement and made all kindsa claims that had no basis . Otherwise, Congress would cancel the thing. So no computed weapon delivery. A cheap HUD. No projected map. I don't even think the beast had an inertial nav system. No all-weather groundmap radar. It was a large A-37!!!

- Years later from the 1974 "fight", like 5 years, we show up at Hill in the F-16 cadre. So many Sluf drivers it was like a homecoming ( 3 of the guys from flight at Korat were there waiting for me, heh heh). Then we saw the Eagle versus the Viper politics. Although the radar in the Viper only took a minor mod to provide the "illuminator" or whatever for the Great White Hope, no way jose. There was even a "demo". If we had a BVR capability, then Eagle procurement would fade away. AMRAAM was on the way, and it was funny that we could employ it operationally sooner than the Eagle due to our avionics for the armament system (SMS). So we waited and bombed and flew A2A when we could. Secondly, the Eagle had no A2G capability other than strafe. Remember the quote, "not a pound for air-to-ground"? So guess what jet got produced for 4,000 airframes?

Time to move on folks. Let the Stubby folks figure out what they will do in a "low intensity" conflict, and remember that it ain't low intensity if you are the one being shot at. Let the grunts figure out how to employ their assets if the command authorities want to have the encampments and move from maneuver warfare doctrine. Maybe drop some drones down lower and take your chances with MANPAD systems. Practice using ground designators for the LGB doofers, and that would have been super back when I flew "in-country". "There must be fifty ways...", to borrow from Paul Simon.

Gums sends...

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 22:44
by Corsair1963
I wonder if the blue prints for the A-37 still exist?

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 23:02
by popcorn
The simple truth is some cannot or will not accept that CAS is a capability, not a platform and that there are a myriad ways of getting it done nowadays. The stats show 80% of CAS in Afghanistan is non-Warthog. Appreciate all the insights from those with the actual creds.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 23:23
by Gums
Salute!

No problem, Corsair.

Several are flying, and tech orders and such available. May even have a few airframes out in the boneyard. Then there's all the ones flying in South America.

Visited with Charley on his restoration, and here's the website. Many good things there, and I got to climb in and have the basic flashback last year. Talk about a "basic" airplane, heh heh. No complaints, and after 1400 hours moved on to the Sluf. BTW, our combat evaluation from 1967 had a demonstrated CEP of about 15 - 20 meters using dumb bombs dropped from as low as 1100 feet when ceiling was poor. This was scored by our FAC's, and not we pilots who told the "fish stories". I'll upload the Combat Dragon summary for all, but would like to move to another forum.

http://supertweet.org/

BTW, we prefer 'Dragonfly'. We did not "tweet" due to the J-85 motors. Sucker sounder like a giant vacuum cleaner. Lost my hearing in the Sluf and Viper, but most likely one day during UPT on the ramp.

++++++++++++++

I feel we should let this thread wither for a bit, then come back when something really big comes up.

Gums....

P.S. Combat Dragon report summary is here: http://www.a-37.org/misc_pages/combat-d ... ummary.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2014, 03:43
by lowcountry_acro
smsgtmac wrote:
lowcountry_acro wrote:
The short answer is that it's asinine Pentagon politics at work. Every General and brueaucrat who administered the A-10 hated it both because they found it unglamorous and felt it was tasking the USAF as an auxiliary aid to the US Army, which is anethema in military politics...
The F-35 gets the green light to replace the A-10 based on the ease of Pentagon brueaucrats to be fooled by shiny objects and the bean counters still pumping at the dry well that the F-35 will save the armed forces money based on its commonality.

:lmao:
Your assertions are patently and demonstrably false.
Those who know much about CAS myths could start with Part 7: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/09/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part-7.html
You will want to start with Part 1: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part.html

Interesting read. But beyond being a word salad, it fundametally ignores both internal USAF and Pentagon politics. The Air Force has, historically been run and managed by 'bomber generals' - SAC staff which would prefer to hold to the USAF's original charter to be a delivery system for nuclear weapons with TAC largely relegated to the status of the red headed stepchild of the USAF. And within TAC the CAS role was never popular; but the realities of Vietnam begrudgingly forced TAC to seek out a purpose built CAS bird, mainly due to the shortcomings of the A-7 and the F-4 was disastrous at CAS (not to mention sucking at pretty much everything else save a BVR bomber killer). Combine this with Pentagon bean counters and guys like McNamara who felt that the military could be run like Ford and gave us terrible aircraft like the F-111 on the grounds that a common platform could save money while ignoring the realities of how you do war.

Post Cold War, the Pentagon has become obsessed with high technology and has begun to ignore the realities of war. The A-10 was exceptional at its role and I still say the management at the USAF never liked it for the reasons I stated. It's conventional, unglamorous, low tech, and slow. But nothing else came close when guys on the ground needed help.

While the A-10 could stand to be replaced, the platform you choose to replace it with needs to be able to do the job and the F-35 is totally useless for this role. It ignores everything we know about what works for air-to-mud operations. I don't mind that it's high tech; but the tech has to work and in flight testing, the F-35 has been wanting. On top of that, the airplane is a totally inadequate configuration for the CAS role. It's too fast, too unmaneuverable and it does not have the armor, redundant systems and the weapons carriage required to dish out and take the punishment of the CAS role.

And finally with budget cuts and every defense dollar so tight, why the hell would you retire an $8 million and capable airplane with a $200 million mediocre one?

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2014, 04:15
by count_to_10
Seriously, arco, read through everything mac has on the topic. The A-10 would have been great at CAS in Vietnam, but, by the time it saw action in Desert Storm, it had to do CAS the way the F-16s did -- at altitude and with guided weapons.
As for the F-111, the problem was that they tried to shoehorn totally different missions into the same basic airframe, not any inherent problem with moving toward common airframes across the services and compatible missions.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2014, 05:17
by smsgtmac
count_to_10 wrote:Seriously, arco, read through everything mac has on the topic. The A-10 would have been great at CAS in Vietnam, but, by the time it saw action in Desert Storm, it had to do CAS the way the F-16s did -- at altitude and with guided weapons.
As for the F-111, the problem was that they tried to shoehorn totally different missions into the same basic airframe, not any inherent problem with moving toward common airframes across the services and compatible missions.


Shhhhhhh. :) Don't tip him off that everything he just spewed was contrary to everything he pretended to read. I love it when trolls self-identify. It WOULD be nice if he limited his flaccid musings to the 'politics' board though.

Oh Moderator! Troll cleanup on Aisle 3 please.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2014, 06:08
by Gums
Salute!

Is arco a troll?

Honestly, I am compelled to comment.

So here we go:
Interesting read. But beyond being a word salad, it fundametally ignores both internal USAF and Pentagon politics. The Air Force has, historically been run and managed by 'bomber generals' - SAC staff which would prefer to hold to the USAF's original charter to be a delivery system for nuclear weapons with TAC largely relegated to the status of the red headed stepchild of the USAF. And within TAC the CAS role was never popular; but the realities of Vietnam begrudgingly forced TAC to seek out a purpose built CAS bird, mainly due to the shortcomings of the A-7 and the F-4 was disasteroua [sic] at CAS (not to mention sucking at pretty much everything else save a BVR bomber killer). Combine this with Pentagon bean counters and guys like McNamara who felt that the military could be run like Ford and gave us terrible aircraft like the F-111 on the grounds that a common platform could save money while ignoring the realities of how you do war.


Points:

- Since 1982, USAF CSAF has been fighter dudes until last 5 years or so. Even Gen Brown, who commanded 7th AF in 'nam came to our unit and flew with my roomie on a regular basis to get a feel of the CAS mission. I flew combat with Ron Fogleman in 1968 and again in the Viper at Hill. Also flew combat with Don Shepperd ( National Guard Chief) and Bob McIntosh ( USAF Reserve Commander) . Sheesh. And then Mosely was a student of mine. So take that!!! The whole atmosphere in USAF changed in the mid-seventies. We went tactical in many ways.

- USAF developed the snake eye eggs for CAS when you had to get down and dirty with the Hun and then the Double Ugly, before before 'nam heated up in late 1965. The A-1 and A-37 didn't need them, thank you very much. See my ref to our CEP using dumb bombs. Better yet, find some grunts that sent us letters of appreciation. But I digress.

- This one really gets under my skin:

the shortcomings of the A-7


Beam me up!!!! We ( USAF A-7D ) got there too late. We had the same accuracy as the A-1 and A-37, and were faster. The only "shortcoming" we had was turn radius under low ceilings in the CSAR role when compred with the A-1. Could find the survivor quicker and mark his position with our system, then find an ingress/egress route for Jolly and escort the Jolly in real fast.
- Most of we TAC weenies realized that the 'vaark was not gonna be the all-purpose tactical aircraft that McNamara thot we could produce and field. Nevertheless, we bought a slew of Slufs and kept improving the Double Ugly when things didn't work out for the 'vaark. BFD!!

- The "reality" of war is that you use what you have when the first bullets start flying, and then you add capabilities and such to get the damned war finished. You prepare ahead of time, and if you have a really good crystal ball then you can do really well from the get go. Last thing USAF thot about in the 50's and early 60's was using jet fighters for the 'nam scenario. The mission was A2A and interdiction. So we sent A-1's and T-28's and such. Then the spec ops birds like the A-26.

Secondly, the U.S. is sick and tired of the pissant conflicts and "nation-building" crapola. Only in dire straits for a close ally ( pick your favorite) will we repeat the 'nam process. Fer chrissakes, we had fighter wings all over the place, and then brought in ANG units when I was there in 1968. And for what? So we learned our lesson, and won't do that again. We had less fighters in Saudi for Desert Storm than we had at the height of 'nam, way less.

- The reason we TAC folks had problems with the Warthog was its limited capability to do anything but be a jet-powered A-1. Sure, it would be super for the 'nam scenario, but we all knew times were a' changing. And we were bound and determined not to repeat 'nam. Hell, just read the book by Clancy/Horner about Desert Storm. Horner was my first wing king student in the Viper and we know each other on a personal level. He will support my view of the Warthog and such. He also believed in air supremacy, as Lookie has ponted out. The Desert Storm generals were of my vintage, and they were gonna fall on their swords if they had the same ROE and micro management that we had to endure back then.

Gums rants....

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2014, 21:51
by XanderCrews
Every pilot who flew the A-10 and every soldier and Marine under its protection loved it. It has consistently been the most capable air-to-mud platform in the USAF inventory in every armed conflict it was deployed to since entering service in the 1980s.


Hi I am US Marine and I don't love the A-10, many Marines don't like A-10s thanks to their proclivity to shoot first and establish comms later. I know many Marines who prefer helicopters and Harriers. Also the USAF's Top man is an A-10 guy, and ordered it axed. How do you reconcile this?

Not to bore you with details, but the A-10 entered service in 1977

The Air Force has, historically been run and managed by 'bomber generals' - SAC staff which would prefer to hold to the USAF's original charter to be a delivery system for nuclear weapons with TAC largely relegated to the status of the red headed stepchild of the USAF.



Where have you been since 1991?

And within TAC the CAS role was never popular; but the realities of Vietnam begrudgingly forced TAC to seek out a purpose built CAS bird, mainly due to the shortcomings of the A-7 and the F-4 was disastrous at CAS (not to mention sucking at pretty much everything else save a BVR bomber killer).


And yet F-4s still serve today, over a half century later, and arrayed an excellent amount of kills on migs. Interesting definition of "suck" I would love to see another aircraft with the F-4s history that is in service to this day. Also how many BVR kills did they end up getting on bombers, Mr Historian?


Combine this with Pentagon bean counters and guys like McNamara who felt that the military could be run like Ford and gave us terrible aircraft like the F-111 on the grounds that a common platform could save money while ignoring the realities of how you do war.


ahh whats it like in the 1960s? how about them Beetles huh? did you know things have changed in 50 years? You are on the internet. Its like a typewriter television that connects to other typewriter TV sets.

Post Cold War, the Pentagon has become obsessed with high technology and has begun to ignore the realities of war.


What do you think the USAF has been doing the last 13 years regarding the GWoT?

The A-10 was exceptional at its role and I still say the management at the USAF never liked it for the reasons I stated. It's conventional, unglamorous, low tech, and slow. But nothing else came close when guys on the ground needed help.


Your ignorance is incredible! :doh:

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ancer.aspx

While the A-10 could stand to be replaced, the platform you choose to replace it with needs to be able to do the job and the F-35 is totally useless for this role.


really? why?

It ignores everything we know about what works for air-to-mud operations.


tell me more, you have really shown you know what you are talking about so far.

I don't mind that it's high tech; but the tech has to work and in flight testing, the F-35 has been wanting. On top of that, the airplane is a totally inadequate configuration for the CAS role. It's too fast, too unmaneuverable and it does not have the armor, redundant systems and the weapons carriage required to dish out and take the punishment of the CAS role.


I wonder why the USMC would want it then? Thats curious. Also how did the USMC provide CAS without A-10s? How do other air forces (which is all of them) without A-10s provide support to their troops?

And finally with budget cuts and every defense dollar so tight, why the hell would you retire an $8 million and capable airplane with a $200 million mediocre one?


Do you really want the answer to this? or are you just trying to "impress" us again? because I can give you the reasons why the USAF is doing what it is doing, but you seem to have made up your mind and I don't want to confuse you with facts

BTW, Where and when did you serve? I am curious how you could speak for so many? I really hope you do not get banned so we can show you just how "off" you really are. Did you bother to read this thread before posting in it? because a lot of what you claim was covered in depth. (ON THE FIRST PAGE in fact. Reading is hard)

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2014, 22:00
by XanderCrews
Gums wrote: The Desert Storm generals were of my vintage, and they were gonna fall on their swords if they had the same ROE and micro management that we had to endure back then.



So thankful for those men and their determination to "get it right" in 1991. They got it done.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2014, 17:38
by southernphantom
Does anyone know if the A-7 tooling still exists, and/or who would own it if it did?
I suspect that the SLUF wouldn't be half-bad for most roles aside from extremely-high-intensity conflicts. Unit cost was under three million, which even today would likely not even hit thirty. Basically, treat it as a subsonic Viper with ridiculous fuel and payload. Perfect for high-altitude loiter-CAS with PGMs- buy a few hundred for the Guard, sell the rest to Thailand or something. It could likely even swing air-defense alert, not to mention lob AMRAAMs for other platforms.

Edit: Vought still exists as a subsidiary of Triumph Aerostructures.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2014, 21:38
by archeman
southernphantom wrote:Does anyone know if the A-7 tooling still exists, and/or who would own it if it did?
I suspect that the SLUF wouldn't be half-bad for most roles aside from extremely-high-intensity conflicts. Unit cost was under three million, which even today would likely not even hit thirty. Basically, treat it as a subsonic Viper with ridiculous fuel and payload. Perfect for high-altitude loiter-CAS with PGMs- buy a few hundred for the Guard, sell the rest to Thailand or something. It could likely even swing air-defense alert, not to mention lob AMRAAMs for other platforms.

Edit: Vought still exists as a subsidiary of Triumph Aerostructures.


Well I think that you answered your own question in there by accident.
Why bother trying to reconstruct A-7s and go through a new engine&type certification (even if you could get the tooling to build the airframe, nobody would start over with those old TF-30s) to serve a theoretical customer as subsonic lower capability Vipers when used supersonic Vipers are readily available on the market for around your projected restart cost of 30mil?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2014, 22:54
by Gums
Salute!

Nice post, Arch

I looked up the Sluf's at the boneyard and they are gone. Maybe 2 or 3.

I loved that plane, and I flew combat in that plane. But those days are gone, I should just let them go.

I loved the A-37, the mini-Warthog. hard to hit by primitive AAA and even the early Strella MANPAD. We lost zero to those suckers in 1972 at An Loc, when we saved the day. One guy even took out a tank with a 250 pound dumb bomb!

Sheesh, we have to look ahead and not build or use systems that would have been good for the past conflicts. It's too easy to use Trojans or other light planes for insurgencies. Some flares and chaff and maneuver capability would work. We are not talking about some of the big boys, and I doubt we will have the old CAS missions if we have to face a capable and high-tech adversary.

Littleloo has the mission nailed down, IMHO.

If I were the "general", I would not use the Stubby down low and slow for the old-style CAS I saw 40 years ago. I would relegate the mission to embedded helo assets or even drones. Anyone else here that ever got their a$$ shot at trying to help the grunts? I don't think so. The current and projected doctrine is based upon "maneuver", as Lind, et al proposed back in the 70's. No more "outposts" or "strategic hamlets". We have artillery for those places, and those places will move maybe on an hourly basis.

Let's be honest. The Stubby is not replacing the Warthog. The plane is much more like a LO, high-tech Viper or Sluf. And it seems to have a decent A2A capability that we Sluf drivers could only dream about. The plane is not supposed to be in a telephone booth with a knife. Sheesh.

The afficianados here that want to "return to the future" need to look at potential threats and scenarios. As a historical proponent of airpower said a century ago, "Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur.” He over estimated the bomb effects and accuracy of "strategic" bombing that we tried over Germany. but his message still rings true. The USAF and USN learned that lesson the hard way in 'nam. We were not prepared for a low-intensity CAS scenario, so slow and low planes did real well. Not to take anything away from the Hun, or even the Phantom, but the special ops planes (including the A-37) did really well. The 'vaark and the Thud were not the planes the grunts wanted with the enemy at the gates. The arrival of the AH-1 and then the ones with TOW really helped. Ditto for Spooky, Shadow and Spectre.

I suggest we just let this thread go. We are not gonna influence the U.S. DoD to change their decision. Guess we can talk about this over a beer or two one night, but it's a done deal.

Gums opines....

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 06:39
by meatshield
Love your work Gums :thumb:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 07:50
by Corsair1963
Clearly, the role of the A-10 can be performed by a mix of assets. Which, Include F-16's, F-35's, UCAV's, Apache, Sea Corba, etc. etc. etc.



Regardless, the budget just doesn't support the A-10 anymore and something has to go.....


I think it's time for that beer and just move on! :beer:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 07:51
by Corsair1963
meatshield wrote:Love your work Gums :thumb:



Ditto :D

Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10? background

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 18:27
by Gums
Salute!

Thanks for all the nice words, folks.

Maybe not completely off topic, but still relevant to the A-10 discussion, and the F-35 and my background. So here goes....

About 4 years ago I was contacted by a research dude working on his thesis for an advanced degree up at the Royal Military College ( Canada). Contact was established via this very web site and things went from there.

Being an airpower enthusiast with actual first-person experience in these matters, I responded. I saw first hand the evoluton of our doctrine and collaboration with the USA and USN and USMC. From the late years of 'nam, we U.S. folks emphasized an AIRLAND doctrine that integrated all the services and their capabilities. Desert Storm appeared to emphasize airpower, but in fact, it was an expression of the doctrine. A WW3 scenario focused upon the Fulda Gap scenario was still big in our ops plans and training. So the Warthog was to play a big role, as was the Viper. See item 1 of my answer, then think of the A-10.

I quote a question and my response to the researcher here for you to better understand my philosophy.

> TAC and USAFE got to buy a lot of good equipment during
> these years. My question is, as a fighter pilot, where you keyed up
> at the prospect of shoving the Soviets back to the Urals? I don’t
> mean this in a war monger sort of way. The question is rather about
> whether you took professional satisfaction in matching your skills
> against an undoubtedly formidable, well-trained, and well-defined
> enemy. This topic might be sensitive so I will not quote your answer
> unless you explicitly permit me to.

As a "plans" weenie at that time, most of our plans were to 1) stop
the armor, 2) gain/maintain air superiority, 3) conduct offensive
counterair versus PACT bases and radar, 4) interdiction to help with
item "1" above.

We did not talk much about going up against a "well-trained" enemy.
All of our training, even during 'nam, assumed a "well-trained" enemy.
That's on a "personal" and professional level. No such thing as a
milk run or turkey shoot.

We were very concerned with the overall Soviet/PACT integrated air
defense and the armor. Hanoi had a very effective integrated air
defense system, and the folks there had more real world practice than
the PACT folks would have had. The problem was "depth" and sheer
quantity of newer systems we had not faced in actual combat. Hence,
Red Flag, duhhhh?

Last thing we planned for, trained for or thought about was "pushing
the Sovs back to the Urals". I think Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" has
a realistic scenario and outcome.

Finally, one more comment about weather and night. "They" would face
the same weather as us. At the time, we probably were better equipped
and trained for the night and weather. Still didn't like it, but we
felt we had the advantage. We felt the Aardvark was much better than
the Fencer. Same for the Brit Tornado, and those folks flew in poor
weather a lot more than most air forces in the world.


So there you go.

Gums sends...

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 20:18
by spacemanspiff
I find it hilarious that some of you suck the F-35s teat so hard making it seem like you all are a bunch of salesmen trying to justify an over-budgeted POS. Somebody should write a book - "Oh it can do this" or "Oh it can do that." In reality, all you have is theory and suppositions. Makes one wonder how many on here have pockets that are being lined because of this fiasco...

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 20:28
by Prinz_Eugn
spacemanspiff wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you suck the F-35s teat so hard making it seem like you all are a bunch of salesmen trying to justify an over-budgeted POS. Somebody should write a book - "Oh it can do this" or "Oh it can do that." In reality, all you have is theory and suppositions. Makes one wonder how many on here have pockets that are being lined because of this fiasco...

In reality, we have a huge program supported by thousands of professional military people and trained engineers, or as I like to say "people who actually know what they are talking about". There are approximately 12,435,678,356 threads on this website about why the F-35 is significantly less terrible than internet defense hipsters and self-aggrandizing iconoclasts would have you believe. It would probably behoove you to read maybe like one or two of them before spouting off the same crap long-time F-16.net members have been reading for at least the last 8 years.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 20:38
by spacemanspiff
Funny, some of the guys out at Pax say differently..
Oh, damn I forgot this plane is sooo successful after how many years (10+? 20+?) of development? Seems like the only good have been hearing/reading about the Pig are from those with their hands in the till. It just makes me so giddy to hear that the plane can do this or do that when it hasn't. Don't you just love it? My gawd, the koolaid is thick in here. Next thing we know is that it is the premiere fighter in the world and all others just cower in its presence. Oh I get it, it was designed from the stolen alien tech and can actually fly in space and is something that Kirk would be proud of. Yes, thats it... :roll:

Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10? Troll alert!!

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 20:43
by Gums
Salute spaceman!

In lieu of actual experience, what do you have to offer?

Many aficianodos here, but a few combat vets, engineers with hands-on experience in the industry, etc.

I guess we fly the Viper and Hornet for another 20 years, huh?

As I have expressed my feelings many posts ago, I still wonder if we are trying to "go a bridge too far" with the F-35. That being said, I see a constant progression on the design and actual flying of the thing by real pilots, not "test pilots". We had first vertical landing here at Eglin a week or so ago by a Brit for their Bee model. Iam encouraged, but still have a few misgivings, and they are not about CAS.

This new jet is gonna serve as the mainstay attack/strike capability for several air forces for another 30 years, considering the long development and funding cycle we have these days. So we gotta get it right.

I do not see the F-35 as another F-111. The folks that reviewed the proposals and flyoff long ago were not of the same ilk that went with McNamara's DoD in the 60's. Several had been around for the 'nam fiasco, but more were of the Desert Storm vintage, then 'raqi 2. I realize the fascination with extremely high-tech by some, but I also have to look at future threats and likely employment scenarios.

The Warthog is dead. RIP.

I went thru the death of the Sluf because the powers that be wanted a tank killer, and the A-10 was the beast. Thank god the Viper came along concurrently, so we had a decent BAI capability and interdiction capability beyond the FEBA. Also had vastly superior A2A capability to fight in and out than my beloved Sluf. A good deal, IMHO.

The F-35 looks like a good choice to develop and field, but we won't know how good it really is until the bullets and missiles start flying. First thing that goes out the window in warfare is "the plan", and have seen that first hand.

Gums opines....

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2014, 22:21
by wrightwing
spacemanspiff wrote:Funny, some of the guys out at Pax say differently..
Oh, damn I forgot this plane is sooo successful after how many years (10+? 20+?) of development? Seems like the only good have been hearing/reading about the Pig are from those with their hands in the till. It just makes me so giddy to hear that the plane can do this or do that when it hasn't. Don't you just love it? My gawd, the koolaid is thick in here. Next thing we know is that it is the premiere fighter in the world and all others just cower in its presence. Oh I get it, it was designed from the stolen alien tech and can actually fly in space and is something that Kirk would be proud of. Yes, thats it... :roll:


Could you be a little more specific when referring to what it can't do, or hasn't done, according to some of the guys at Pax?

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 01:52
by newmanfrigan
spacemanspiff wrote:Funny, some of the guys out at Pax say differently..


Ok. What do "the guys at Pax" say? You guys must be good buddies.

You use terms of familiarity, as if you know them. A vague allusion to some connections to the big boys, I see. ...but too vague to actually call you out as a poseur. maybe that flies with the mental preschoolers and "reformer" sock puppets on other forums? Convenient, because we all can tell that you've been reading the forums, av-week, etc., but definitely not here. We've deconstructed the BS here already. Your complaints about the F-35 are the same "doomed to fail" myths that have surrounded every big ticket military program in history....such as the M1 Abrams tank. Should have been a disaster according to the media and reformer "experts". You were probably in diapers at the time though...so I understand.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 03:58
by smsgtmac
spacemanspiff wrote:Funny, some of the guys out at Pax say differently.
:doh:

I think we can expect to get more of this kind of fact-free stream of conscious stuff. Reality is beginning to set in out there among the uninformed that the F-35 isn't going to go away, but some sacred cows are. The only question is: What stage of behavior are we seeing in spiffy's comments?

Five Stages of Procurement Reality Grief

1. Denial and Isolation
The reaction when first confronted with a new and better way to make war that one does not fully understand and thus turns one’s worldview upsidedown is to deny the reality of the situation. It is a normal reaction to rationalize when overwhelming emotions come forth. It is a defense mechanism that buffers the immediate shock. One ‘blocks’ out the word that cause such feelings--and so one then hides from the facts. This is a temporary response that carries a mature person only through the first wave of pain.

2. Anger
As the masking effects of denial and isolation begin to wear, the new reality and its pain emerge again if one is not ready. The intense emotion is deflected from one’s vulnerable core. Then it is redirected and expressed instead as ‘anger’. The anger may be aimed at inanimate objects such as the new weapon systmem, complete strangers on message boards, friends or even family or pets. Anger may even be directed at the past ‘management’ of the dying and obsolete weapon systems. Rationally, one may know the people working on the obsolete weapon systems are not to be blamed, and equally rationally one may even realize they do not understand or grasp the dynamics that make the new weapon system an imperative. Emotionally, however, one may resent the retirement of the old weapon system for causing pain or for leaving. One feels guilty for being angry, and this makes one even angrier.
The military planners who identified the deficiencies in legacy systems and found that no amount of modification of the existing systems would suffice to correct those deficiencies to make them worth pursuing instead of pursuing new systems and strategies might become a convenient target. Defense planners and acquisition officials deal with the weapon system life cycle every day and understand. Fortunately that also makes them immune to the manipulation and faux angst of fan boys or others who grieve for the obsolete weapon systems.

3. Bargaining
The normal reaction to feelings of helplessness and vulnerability is often a need to regain control–
• If only we had stopped the buying of this new system sooner…
• If only we had a different set of acquisition officials and contractors…
• If only we had done a better job of defending our pet weapon system…
Secretly, one may make a wish for Divine Providence in an attempt to postpone the inevitable. This is a weaker line of defense to protect one from the painful reality.

4. Depression
Two types of depression are associated with mourning over the departing reality and its weapon systems and strategies in decline. The first one is a reaction to practical implications relating to the loss. Sadness and regret dominate this type of depression. One worries about the personal ramifications. This phase may be eased by simple clarification and reassurance that change is the only ‘true constant’. One may need a bit of helpful cooperation and a few kind words. The second type of depression is more subtle and, in a sense, perhaps more private. It is one’s quiet preparation to separate and to bid our loved one farewell. Sometimes all one really needs is to troll a serious discussion board for a reality check.

5. Acceptance
Reaching this stage of mourning is a gift not afforded to everyone. Usually it is denied to low-information bystanders, the innumerate, and other casual observers who are vulnerable: easily manipulated by ne’er-do-wells via fallacious argumentation. Those people may never see beyond anger or denial. It is not necessarily a mark of bravery to resist the inevitable and to deny oneself the opportunity to make one’s peace. This phase is marked by withdrawal and calm. This is not a period of happiness and must be distinguished from depression.
Coping with change is ultimately a deeply personal and singular experience — no one can help another go through it more easily or understand all the emotions that one goes through. But others can be there for the afflicted and help comfort them through this process. The best thing one can do is to allow oneself to feel the grief as reality comes over them. Resisting it only will prolong the natural, painful process of accepting reality.


I'm thinking maybe #2 or probably #4.
(Yeah, I shamelessly adapted from someplace else)

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 04:06
by spazsinbad
Thanks ['smsgtmac']. Wot a ride! :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 05:10
by Prinz_Eugn
I had a really cool post ready to go, but I just reported him to the staff instead.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 05:33
by Gums
Salute!

Thank you, Mac.

I gotta tellya that when the F-111 was being developed/tested, that I was not in TAC. Was an interceptor puke and thot we had a good set of planes to do our job defending the North American airspace, with lottsa help from our Canadian friends.

The "war" gave me a new perspective, and I knew from the get go that the 'vaark was not gonna hack it. And then we had the extremely low exchange ratio versus some really good Mig pilots and IAD system up north. And guess what? The Eagle and Tomcat came about. Duhhhh?

Gotta go, and thanks again Mac.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 16:28
by Lieven
I've banned 'spacemanspiff' for trolling. Just send me a pm if you feel that was too harsh and I might lift the ban.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 18:55
by XanderCrews
Lieven wrote:I've banned 'spacemanspiff' for trolling. Just send me a pm if you feel that was too harsh and I might lift the ban.


He didn't seem to have any redeeming qualities, so good riddance. 3 posts that contributed nothing to the debate while acting like he had some aces up his sleeve.

Back on topic... Sweetman really one ups himself:

Once again, the U.S. Chair Force wants to sacrifice the blood of the heroic infantry in favor of Mitchellesque strategic-bombing dreams and white-scarf fighter missions. It should be disbanded and its functions assigned to fighting services made up of Real Men


You just know with an opening like that, brilliant, well measured analysis is sure to follow... He also states that the A-10 not being able to go up against modern defenses is a good thing.

See: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 04.xml&p=1

and then:
So what replaces the majority, expeditionary land-based piece of Marine air, now equipped with aging Hornets? The Marines are all about close air support (CAS). They want to operate from runways that are shorter and rougher than most fighters need. Wouldn't it be great if someone had a force of around 200 dedicated CAS aircraft they were trying to divest?

They do and they are. They're called A-10s (AW&ST Dec. 9, p. 15) and transferring them to the Marines would do more than create a durable, focused force to provide CAS, not just for the Marines but for the Army and special operations forces. It would give the Navy's army's air force a mission.


See: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 38.xml&p=2

Turns out the USMC air wing has never had a mission... And the USAF doesn't have real men and should be disbanded.

This is APA level of analysis. has bill lost the last of whatever was keeping him from being a poorer David Axe? has the hyperbole reached critical mass?

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 19:40
by sferrin
I'm surprised BS hasn't been fired yet. Certainly AvWeek's continuing support is only going to drag their credibility down as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 20:21
by gtx
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised BS hasn't been fired yet. Certainly AvWeek's continueing support is only going to drag their credibility down as well.


Unfortunately it helps sell magazines. Though I know many in the industry who have long since given up on A&SW as a useful source...

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 21:42
by Gums
Salute!

I can't seem to find the main thrust of Sweetman's op-ed. guess I am getting old.

Is it to move Warthogs to the Marines?

One thing he got right was the alleged move by USAF to develop/procure A-10's to keep the U.S.Army helos from taking over the CAS role. That is the quote I made in my 1974 AvWeek letter to the editor that earned me a letter of reprimand, heh heh.

At the time, many of we Sluf folks were advocating a mixed force of Warthogs and Slufs for reasons I have made clear in previous posts. No way, said USAF. We were gonna go away and the Warthog was gonna be the main platform and the Eagle the air superiority platform.

Once the decision became clear, we Sluf folks made an effort to have some avionics in the Warthog. Unfortunately USAF had sold the thing to Congress as being super accurate and able to endure hits and..... All without an inertial or computed weapon delivery capability. Over a decade or so later, the Warthog got a jury-rigged weapon delivery system, and then some more stuff. Big $$$$ compared to what it could have had in 1974 by simply moving some A-7D avionics into the new jet.

Sorry to rant, but I was there and my ops officer was on the "flyoff" team. It was pre-ordained to have the Warthog be the ultimate CAS machine. Interdiction be damned. The thing would have been awesome from 1965 to 1972 in that screwed up war. But that thing was over. It was one war too late, and I am glad we didn't have the Fulda Gap scenario to see how good it would have been.

Gums rants....

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 22:18
by smsgtmac
gtx wrote:
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised BS hasn't been fired yet. Certainly AvWeek's continueing support is only going to drag their credibility down as well.


Unfortunately it helps sell magazines. Though I know many in the industry who have long since given up on A&SW as a useful source...


That "Ragin' Hedge Baby from the Shires" is in 'Step 3' with some residual 'Step 2' going on it seems. :D
A libelous/insulting AND inaccurate spleen vent in one editorial? Bill's got a two-fer on the burner to keep the boards warm over the weekend!
On the plus side, he's drawing all the myth-breathing Ignorami to one spot on the web for them to commiserate in their collective grief. Only the intrepid SFerrin among the sane has dared to wade into the 'cesspool', I mean "comment thread", so far.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 23:13
by sferrin
smsgtmac wrote:
gtx wrote:
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised BS hasn't been fired yet. Certainly AvWeek's continueing support is only going to drag their credibility down as well.


Unfortunately it helps sell magazines. Though I know many in the industry who have long since given up on A&SW as a useful source...


That "Ragin' Hedge Baby from the Shires" is in 'Step 3' with some residual 'Step 2' going on it seems. :D
A libelous/insulting AND inaccurate spleen vent in one editorial? Bill's got a two-fer on the burner to keep the boards warm over the weekend!
On the plus side, he's drawing all the myth-breathing Ignorami to one spot on the web for them to commiserate in their collective grief. Only the intrepid SFerrin among the sane has dared to wade into the 'cesspool', I mean "comment thread", so far.


I take it you're referring to DODBuzz? :lol: My God, I feel like I lost 40 IQ points just perusing the comments. I must say, reading your blog and your extended comments on various boards, 1. You have the patience of Job. 2. Keep up the good (and very interesting) work. :notworthy:

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2014, 04:14
by smsgtmac
sferrin wrote:I take it you're referring to DODBuzz? My God, I feel like I lost 40 IQ points just perusing the comments. I must say, reading your blog and your extended comments on various boards, 1. You have the patience of Job. 2. Keep up the good (and very interesting) work.


DoD Buzz too? Is there someone posing as you at Av Week?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2014, 13:13
by sferrin
smsgtmac wrote:DoD Buzz too? Is there someone posing as you at Av Week?


Oh, AvWeek. I posted the one time yesterday but in general I haven't bothered posting there much lately. It's a vast echo-chamber with BS playing pied-piper to his merry band of useful idiots.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2014, 14:12
by count_to_10
sferrin wrote:I take it you're referring to DODBuzz? My God, I feel like I lost 40 IQ points just perusing the comments. I must say, reading your blog and your extended comments on various boards, 1. You have the patience of Job. 2. Keep up the good (and very interesting) work.

Sounds like "Defense Tech" comments, where anything the military is actually doing must be a corrupt waste of money, especially the F-35 and LCS.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2014, 09:33
by enrico
XanderCrews, not that your posts here are not right on target, but you might want to read that article more closely:
What is really happening is that some critics of the Air Force like the A-10 not for what it can do, but for what it can't—operate offensively against air defenses—and because it forces the Air Force, despite its own selfish plans, to do its job and support ground forces.


The bit about it being a good thing that the A-10 can't go deep is not the author's opinion, but his view of the Air Force critics, accurate or otherwise.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2014, 19:36
by smsgtmac
Now this may seem somewhat off topic, but I like the way the moderators handle trolls, including our last troll. More importantly, I admire how the members of the board handle them as well. For it seems if you let one wanton troll run amok, they proliferate and then ruin the boards for everyone. I also think equally important is how the members and moderators alike accept contrary views so long as they are backed up with reason and facts that allow an exchange of ideas. That may be the more important of the two troll control devices in many ways.

Sure we get what I would call 'soft trolling', but when that appears, the board seems to control that with enquiry and skeptical engagement.

DoD Buzz and DefenseTech has been brought up. DefenseTech used to be really pretty good...when Christian Lowe ran it. About the time he left, Military.com decided to 'integrate' DefenseTech more closely with the rest of Military.com. The crosslinking of articles to DoD Buzz brought all the little trolls with no clue (evidently no job or hobbies either) running over to make it their own little echo chamber. The format that text-limits the comments promotes the throwaway snarkiness and suppresses thoughtful response. The format and environment here, in contrast, I would say is 'just right'.


Back to the topic...

enrico wrote:What is really happening is that some critics of the Air Force like the A-10 not for what it can do, but for what it can't—operate offensively against air defenses—and because it forces the Air Force, despite its own selfish plans, to do its job and support ground forces.


Almost correct. Rephrased to be true and accurate:
[SMSgt Mac Corrected]
What is really happening is that some critics of the Air Force like the A-10 not for what it can do, but for what it can't—operate offensively against air defenses—and because it is seen as forcing the Air Force to do CAS. This is because those critics suspect (wrongfully) that the AF would only perform CAS in support ground forces if they are 'made' to do so.

I think I've pretty much debunked such criticism as invalid and rooted in Army institutional doctrine and insecurity elsewhere, but the best discussion of this one particular issue has to be 'Help From Above' by John Schlight. (It has other problems but is OK in most areas) here: http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 26-039.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2014, 20:33
by Gums
Salute!

Thanks for the huge document, Mac.

I'll look at it when I get to the motel tonight.

As I posted earlier, I helped steer a Canadian on his thesis concerning the "AIRLAND" doctrine. It was obvious that the 50's and early 60's training and doctine was not emphasizing CAS. And then we had that stupid war ( 400 missions for me, and 90% were CAS or SAR) .

The "bomber generals" lost their power once we had to employ tactical assets in 'nam besides deep interdiction. Hell, there wasn't even a concept about BAI ( battle field interdiction). The grunts were pleased when we developed doctrine and tactics to prevent the enema from getting closer to the friendlies. We were not thinking the Ho Chi Mihn Trail any more.

So USAF doctrine and USN doctrine evolved. So did the training and war plans.

Only problem I had was lack of ground units in Red Flag. That was one area we should have trained for, and practiced. Think highly-mobile armor units as in the Storm. No more fixed outposts and strategic hamlets. We learned a lot in 1968 during Tet.

Gotta go...

Gums remembers...

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2014, 14:20
by SnakeHandler
Gentlemen,

No need to get into a measuring contest. I assure you that the leadership of the AF (both MAF AND CAF) will always support their commitments to the Army, Navy, Marines, and anyone else on the team. Even at the degredation of our own mission and training (observed multiple times). CAS will always be successfully executed when needed with precision and efficiency. But CAS is a MISSION, not an airframe. The most successful CAS events I've seen (in the air and from the ground) involved ISR as the primary sensor and even the A-10s were relegated to bomb trucks dropping on a steerpoint. I assure you that an FOC F-35 will outclass the A-10 in both weapons loadout and air to ground situational awareness. For those that are worried about the loss of the GAU-8, research the effectiveness between the GAU-8 and the M61 in IRQ and AFG. You'll find that both are used for the same purpose and have the same effectiveness. Furthermore, the retirement of the A-10 will take a significant amount of time. This isn't something that can be done in 6-9 months, particularly with Guard units.

No airframe is perfect and does everything we want it to. But the combination of sensors and weapons on the F-35 will enable it to surpase the effectiveness of the A-10 and the stealth charactaristics will allow the F-35 to get in first and be there, on station, whenever the Army decides to join the fight (even if they decide to go on day one).

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2014, 17:25
by XanderCrews
enrico wrote:XanderCrews, not that your posts here are not right on target, but you might want to read that article more closely:
What is really happening is that some critics of the Air Force like the A-10 not for what it can do, but for what it can't—operate offensively against air defenses—and because it forces the Air Force, despite its own selfish plans, to do its job and support ground forces.


The bit about it being a good thing that the A-10 can't go deep is not the author's opinion, but his view of the Air Force critics,


I'm willing to accept that. My mistake. I honestly am starting to have a hard time telling when Bill is being cheeky, sarcastic, hyperbolic, clever, ironic, factual, non nonsensical, snarky, theoretical, realistic, etc. It doesn't help that he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, and yet writes like a lawyer so he can fall back on the "I never said that specifically..."

For example him ending with the "giving the navys army's air force a mission" is pretty nasty and in bad taste. You would think thats sarcasm if you didn't know Bill, but thats his honest opinion.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2014, 03:12
by maus92
Congress Rallying—Again—To Save the A-10 Attack Jet
Senate proposal blocks plan to ground legendary tank-killer David Axe in War is Boring

"In late 2013 the U.S. Air Force let slip its plan to retire all 340 of its A-10 Warthog attack planes between 2015 and 2019—a move the flying branch said would save $3.5 billion and protect funding for new bombers, aerial tankers and the F-35 stealth fighter.

Congress thwarted that plan … temporarily. Now the flying branch is trying again to bury the Warthog. And lawmakers are mobilizing to block this second attempt...."

"Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, led the effort to preserve the Warthog in the 2014 defense spending authorization. But the bill’s language prevented the Air Force from retiring the A-10 only in 2014—something the flying branch never actually intended to do, anyway.

Ayotte also sponsored a separate law—“S. 1764: A bill to limit the retirement of A-10 aircraft”—that would require the Air Force to keep its A-10s until there are enough so-called “Block 4A” F-35s in front-line service to fully replace the Warthogs. The Air Force doesn’t anticipate getting its first Block 4A stealth fighters until some time in the early 2020s....."

[Which leads to the question about how long it will take to upgrade enough F-35As to Block 4A software configuration to offset the A-10s]

"The Air Force’s priorities reflect a disputed theory of air warfare. Expensive stealth warplanes “can better survive in contested environments,” budget director Maj. Gen. Jim Martin said while defending the plan to retire the A-10. But the Navy, for one, does not assume stealth always works, and emphasizes electronic jamming and effective teamwork between manned and robotic planes in order to win future air battles.

The Air Force honored the letter of the 2014 authorization and retained its A-10s. But it violated the spirit of the law by cancelling the routine software upgrades that keep the Warthog flightworthy. Ayotte called foul, and with sternly-worded correspondence forced the flying branch to reinstate the upgrades...."

"[A] proposed law ["Save the A-10 Bill"] is slowly winding its way through a Congressional committee. It could be the instrument for preserving the Warthog—or Congress’ 2015 defense authorization could do the job. Either way, the Air Force has a fight on its hands."

Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/beab833c0493

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2014, 03:45
by smsgtmac
:doh:
1. Must be an election year....file under "Stupid Congress Tricks".
I'd be surprised if she can muster the support, UNLESS she turns it into a broader Guard vs. Active issue.
2. The Navy won't like LO until Navy has a NA community that owns it. Purely tribal over there. It would have helped if the Navy had thought of LO first, THEN we'd be hearing "LO Naval Aviaton is a must!" drumbeat ad nauseum.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2014, 05:18
by XanderCrews
smsgtmac wrote::doh:
1. Must be an election year....file under "Stupid Congress Tricks".
I'd be surprised if she can muster the support, UNLESS she turns it into a broader Guard vs. Active issue.
2. The Navy won't like LO until Navy has a NA community that owns it. Purely tribal over there. It would have helped if the Navy had thought of LO first, THEN we'd be hearing "LO Naval Aviaton is a must!" drumbeat ad nauseum.


I'm just looking forward to this EW/Robotic A-10 :D

But the Navy, for one, does not assume stealth always works, and emphasizes electronic jamming and effective teamwork between manned and robotic planes in order to win future air battles.


Or Naval A-10s? :wink:

Maus92, appreciate you posting the whole article so I didn't have to click the link and feed Axe :D

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2014, 07:13
by Corsair1963
In some ways it's hard to blame Congress for fighting to stop the cancellation of the A-10. As many have A-10 Units based in there districts! So, they clearly don't want to see the job losses associated with the A-10's withdrawal.

Nonetheless, the "fact" is we just can't afford the A-10 in the current budget climate. So, there efforts would be better spent on pushing critically needed areas within the Defense Budget. Like "Readiness and New Equipment".... :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2014, 21:33
by Gums
Salute!

Finally finished reading the long discertation that Mac put up for us to review/comment/extend remarks.

I thot it was a decent summary of CAS thru many years. However, being physically present during 'nam, and flying several hundred actual CAS missions, i noticed a few things.

The obvious "editor error" on one page had a picture of a B-47, but it was allegedly a B-52. Credibility quotient begins to go down with Gums.

The characterization of the F-100D and the A-37 had serious flaws, and I wonder if the author looked at the Combat Dragon Summary WRT accuracy and loadout and range/endurance of the A-37. Have other comments regarding the A-7D, but that's for later - tend to go with SnakeHandler about that part of the document as of now.

We must realize that because of infrequent training for "really, really close air support", that the "fast movers" could only drop so close, and then the grunts would call them off. The A-37 was not supposed to be a USAF asset for CAS. It was supposed to be a plane for the Vee and other small nations. It was supposed to be a COIN aircraft. After the Combat Dragon test phase ended, USAF kept the original jets in-country while the A-37B model was being produced, using lessons-learned form Combat Dragon.

The Hun could go 200 miles faster than the Dragonfly, no doubt. At 16,000 feet with 4 x 500 pounders it was at mil, and to go higher it had to use AB. Meanwhile, we Dragonflies easily zipped up to 20K and used only one motor to cruise and/or hold in the target area. Could also drop right off end of the runway, but the Hun could not, as it had to burn down gas. We also carried more than the Hun - 4,200 if we counted the wing tanks. So figure 2 x 750, 2 x 500 and 2 x 250 eggs. Not too shabby for a 6,000 pound empty weight and 14,000 lb gross takeoff weight. So we had about a 150 - 200 mile range for CAS or LZ prep or killing trees. Came back on one motor if low on gas. So many gave the advantage to the Dragonfly - mostly the FAC's and grunts.

Our CEP was much better than the Hun, and was only equaled by the A-7D in late 1972. So from the Combat Dragon test report, and using FAC numbers verus our own embellished reports.

Image

The document Mac provided had:

"The Super Sabre was among the most accurate bomber of all the planes in Vietnam, its average circular error being 130 feet."

I personally watched many drops by the Huns, and using Snake-eye's and nape, they were very accurate. We could not effectively use the high-drag eggs due to our slower speed ( over the nose depression, and other problems with arming wiresa), so we perfected low angle, low-drag deliveries, or we dropped at a healthy dive angle and maybe 2,000 to 2,500 feet. That's where our 15 meter accuracy came from.

The A-7D which I flew on my second tour did as well, but a hudred knots faster and from 3,000 to 4,000 feet release. FAC's would give us corrections using bomb crater width!! A raw nugget in the Sluf could hit within 15 or 20 meters on his first trip to the range. Ditto for the Viper.

Our loss rate was the lowest of any attack plane in the war. And we flew more sorties a day with 20-24 planes than the F-100 wing at Bien Hoa each day.

The Hun was getting old, and the Dragonfly was easier to maintain and could generate more sorties, so USAF created two more squadrons in 1970 at Bien Hoa. Last attack jets of USAF in that in-country effort were A-37's at Bien Hoa. Last attack jets of the whole damned war were A-7D's, and yours truly led that flight outta Korat in December of 1975. See:

Image

To summarize, I go with SnakeHandler, et al.

Warthog? SALUTE!!!! RIP.

Gums sends...

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2014, 04:30
by smsgtmac
Yep Gums, you saw a lot of the same problems I did.

There's quite a few more in there, but I'd have to read it all again to find them all. They seem to jump out at the oddest times. I think the biggest problem is that, with rare exceptions, Historians as a whole usually begin with some premise of a 'problem' (or problems) they want to highlight and they tend to just repeat whatever 'everyone knows' which too often is in error at some fundamental level. The end product ends up being 'narrative' that fits someone's world view and NOT an accurate account of history.

With the modern military historians, the most egregious violations I've seen lately seem to be either failing to understand military leadership and command dynamics and then overlaying some political foreign policy wonk worldview (talk about applying inconsequential knowledge in consequential matters) and/or blaming evil technology as the font of all problems. As long as I've been around, I've seen too few military historians with either the technical or military backgrounds needed for a competent understanding of what they are writing about.

Even those with experience, like Marshall Michel in his dissertation, Revolt of the Majors http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdfseems to let his pet peeves dominate at times. I found his SEA experience more than 'colors' his treatment of Gen Momyer for example. In contrast, everything else I've ever read by and about Momyer was a lot more balanced (Michel was allowed to put far more emotion and leave lots more typos than I've ever gotten away with in formal papers too). You have to read past the rants, but well worth it if only for pointers to source material.
Speaking of rants. I'm out. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 02:36
by popcorn
Maybe Sen. Ayotte should conduct her own,war games to support her case. :roll:

CAPITOL HILL: Aside from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the reaction from Capitol Hill to the Air Force plan for retiring the ugly and beloved A-10 has been relatively muted and may remain so. Why would Congress, beloved for going slightly nuts whenever the military tries to retire a ship, aircraft squadron, or anything else that means jobs in their districts or states, not rail against this sweet plane going quietly into the night? They will be replaced at most A-10 bases by F-16s, C-130Js or KC-135s so few or no jobs or money will be lost... The Air Force, Chief of Staff Mark Welsh told me after today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing, ran war games to assess the impacts of each action. The retirement of the A-10 fleet was found to be the least disruptive to America’s global capabilities.

See: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/why- ... -the-a-10/

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 03:45
by steakanddoritos
One of the big things to note is, the US is pivoting to Asia (Contain a rising China). Bear in mind, in this theater, the A-10 is practically useless. Might as well can them now to save on the ever-increasing maintenence costs.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 07:36
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Maybe Sen. Ayotte should conduct her own,war games to support her case. :roll:

CAPITOL HILL: Aside from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the reaction from Capitol Hill to the Air Force plan for retiring the ugly and beloved A-10 has been relatively muted and may remain so. Why would Congress, beloved for going slightly nuts whenever the military tries to retire a ship, aircraft squadron, or anything else that means jobs in their districts or states, not rail against this sweet plane going quietly into the night? They will be replaced at most A-10 bases by F-16s, C-130Js or KC-135s so few or no jobs or money will be lost... The Air Force, Chief of Staff Mark Welsh told me after today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing, ran war games to assess the impacts of each action. The retirement of the A-10 fleet was found to be the least disruptive to America’s global capabilities.

See: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/why- ... -the-a-10/


Thank you for sharing that

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 18:14
by maus92
XanderCrews wrote:Maus92, appreciate you posting the whole article so I didn't have to click the link and feed Axe :D


It's not the entire article, but certainly a substantial part containing the pertinent details.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 22:47
by jimmer
Obviously the A-10 wouldn't work in a modern contested environment, but I disagree with the premise that makes it antiquated. The A-10 is more survivable than an AC130 or an Apache, and we're not getting rid of those.

We don't need 330 A-10s anymore, but it seems prudent to keep at least a few dozen, with the expectation that it is a weapon used for certain situations, like the AC-130s.

I'd keep whatever ones already have the new wings and electronics for now. Then let attrition gradually drive down the numbers from there. I understand the Air Forces argument that they still have to pay for the infrastructure, but it seems like a reasonable cost to pay to keep the system for specific situations. I wouldn't spend any more money on A-10 sleps or upgrades, but I wouldn't liquidate the entire fleet either.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 23:09
by deadseal
why is this still a thread?
i'll answer....
Cause the a-10 is an old one trick pony.....albeit an awesome one at non contested CAS/battlefield AI
let it go!
let the air force be the air force and make the damn call
stealth...aesa....give me a break!
these units that will lose the a-10 will get block 40's...god damn just let the a-10 go.
It just can't survive on the modern battlefield.......and I dare any one to tell us otherwise

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 23:28
by jimmer
deadseal wrote:why is this still a thread?
i'll answer....
Cause the a-10 is an old one trick pony.....albeit an awesome one at non contested CAS/battlefield AI
let it go!
let the air force be the air force and make the damn call
stealth...aesa....give me a break!
these units that will lose the a-10 will get block 40's...god damn just let the a-10 go.
It just can't survive on the modern battlefield.......and I dare any one to tell us otherwise



The time to retire the A-10 is when the next gen attack helicopter is being built, that's at least a decade away.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 23:31
by XanderCrews
jimmer wrote:Obviously the A-10 wouldn't work in a modern contested environment, but I disagree with the premise that makes it antiquated. The A-10 is more survivable than an AC130 or an Apache, and we're not getting rid of those.


Well the Apache belongs to the Army, so the USAF isn't worried about cutting that, as for the AC-130 there is still a large C-130 fleet out there that makes logistics less painful. So killing the AC-130 doesn't change much when you still have hundreds of herks running about anyway.

We don't need 330 A-10s anymore, but it seems prudent to keep at least a few dozen, with the expectation that it is a weapon used for certain situations, like the AC-130s.

I'd keep whatever ones already have the new wings and electronics for now. Then let attrition gradually drive down the numbers from there. I understand the Air Forces argument that they still have to pay for the infrastructure, but it seems like a reasonable cost to pay to keep the system for specific situations. I wouldn't spend any more money on A-10 sleps or upgrades, but I wouldn't liquidate the entire fleet either.


well it is all about the infrastructure I'm afraid. And the A-10 being good only for a narrow band of specific situations is precisely why its getting the ax. Imagine having to pay rent year after year on a garage for a car you only need the one day a year it snows, you plan on junking soon anyway. Does it help to keep it going another 5 years?

bottom line is its not a reasonable price. And the half measure is the worst measure. Its all or none im afraid. And we can't have all so that narrows it down.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 23:32
by XanderCrews
jimmer wrote:
deadseal wrote:why is this still a thread?
i'll answer....
Cause the a-10 is an old one trick pony.....albeit an awesome one at non contested CAS/battlefield AI
let it go!
let the air force be the air force and make the damn call
stealth...aesa....give me a break!
these units that will lose the a-10 will get block 40's...god damn just let the a-10 go.
It just can't survive on the modern battlefield.......and I dare any one to tell us otherwise



The time to retire the A-10 is when the next gen attack helicopter is being built, that's at least a decade away.


You may want to read through the thread... start on page 1.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 23:58
by jimmer
XanderCrews wrote:
jimmer wrote:
deadseal wrote:why is this still a thread?
i'll answer....
Cause the a-10 is an old one trick pony.....albeit an awesome one at non contested CAS/battlefield AI
let it go!
let the air force be the air force and make the damn call
stealth...aesa....give me a break!
these units that will lose the a-10 will get block 40's...god damn just let the a-10 go.
It just can't survive on the modern battlefield.......and I dare any one to tell us otherwise



The time to retire the A-10 is when the next gen attack helicopter is being built, that's at least a decade away.


You may want to read through the thread... start on page 1.


I read through a fair amount of it. The limitations of the A-10 that people point out are valid. But close air support was requested of A-10's and Apache's repeatedly through the Iraq and Afghan Wars. There are not going to be enough F35's to be everywhere at once even if it can do the same job that the others can do.

An Osprey type gunship that can be refueled in the air would appropriately replace a lot of the missions of the A-10. But that is still in development.

Good point on the logistics of the AC130, hadn't thought of that.

Anyway, the argument seems to be either the F35 or the A-10. Well, of course, the F35 takes precedence over the A-10. But that doesn't mean there isn't a need. And if there's a need, then where is the savings coming from? Because as soon as we need it we'll spend a bunch of money on it, like we did with the MRAPs. The MRAPs are useless in a high level conflict, but they were necessary for Iraq. (granted we probably didn't need to spend 40 billion on them or buy thousands of them, but that's another point.)

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 00:46
by XanderCrews
I read through a fair amount of it. The limitations of the A-10 that people point out are valid. But close air support was requested of A-10's and Apache's repeatedly through the Iraq and Afghan Wars. There are not going to be enough F35's to be everywhere at once even if it can do the same job that the others can do.


CAS was requested of nearly every platform the last 13 years, its not unique to the A-10 and Ah-64. We are aren't really trying to say that of the entire arsenal of all 4 services only Apaches and warthogs got the call the last 13 years right?

An Osprey type gunship that can be refueled in the air would appropriately replace a lot of the missions of the A-10. But that is still in development.


Here is another thread on CAS that covers some ground on the topic,

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=24938

Also as I said on page one, we don't use A-10s like A-10s anymore. We don't do low/slow with visual ident anymore. The mere fact that we are talking about replacing the A-10 with a helicopter should tell you it doesn't have a niche anymore. Why should the USAF spend its own money on the A-10 when the army will spend money on a combat helicopter itself?

Anyway, the argument seems to be either the F35 or the A-10. Well, of course, the F35 takes precedence over the A-10. But that doesn't mean there isn't a need. And if there's a need, then where is the savings coming from? Because as soon as we need it we'll spend a bunch of money on it, like we did with the MRAPs.


Many platforms can do what the A-10 can, so its not the MRAP scenario. And if it became that, then as you point out the money will appear and the USAF will be all too happy to spend it. But in the mean time, the rich uncle is cutting back. So the USAF saying the A-10 will be on ice unless a future Iraqistan pops up in say ten years (or twenty, hopefully never) is fine with them, they will just save money and spend on what they need now in the mean time.

The MRAPs are useless in a high level conflict, but they were necessary for Iraq. (granted we probably didn't need to spend 40 billion on them or buy thousands of them, but that's another point.)


and A-10s are also useless in high level conflict so why use short sided spending, to justify more spending?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 03:43
by count_to_10
"Payloads over platforms".
If there is a nich that the is missing from the base F-35 (one that, say, the A-10 would have filled nicely), it's cheaper to develop a weapon for the F-35 that fills that nich than it is to keep the A-10 around for that contingency.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 05:27
by jimmer
XanderCrews wrote:
I read through a fair amount of it. The limitations of the A-10 that people point out are valid. But close air support was requested of A-10's and Apache's repeatedly through the Iraq and Afghan Wars. There are not going to be enough F35's to be everywhere at once even if it can do the same job that the others can do.


CAS was requested of nearly every platform the last 13 years, its not unique to the A-10 and Ah-64. We are aren't really trying to say that of the entire arsenal of all 4 services only Apaches and warthogs got the call the last 13 years right?

An Osprey type gunship that can be refueled in the air would appropriately replace a lot of the missions of the A-10. But that is still in development.


Here is another thread on CAS that covers some ground on the topic,

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=24938

Also as I said on page one, we don't use A-10s like A-10s anymore. We don't do low/slow with visual ident anymore. The mere fact that we are talking about replacing the A-10 with a helicopter should tell you it doesn't have a niche anymore. Why should the USAF spend its own money on the A-10 when the army will spend money on a combat helicopter itself?

Anyway, the argument seems to be either the F35 or the A-10. Well, of course, the F35 takes precedence over the A-10. But that doesn't mean there isn't a need. And if there's a need, then where is the savings coming from? Because as soon as we need it we'll spend a bunch of money on it, like we did with the MRAPs.


Many platforms can do what the A-10 can, so its not the MRAP scenario. And if it became that, then as you point out the money will appear and the USAF will be all too happy to spend it. But in the mean time, the rich uncle is cutting back. So the USAF saying the A-10 will be on ice unless a future Iraqistan pops up in say ten years (or twenty, hopefully never) is fine with them, they will just save money and spend on what they need now in the mean time.

The MRAPs are useless in a high level conflict, but they were necessary for Iraq. (granted we probably didn't need to spend 40 billion on them or buy thousands of them, but that's another point.)


and A-10s are also useless in high level conflict so why use short sided spending, to justify more spending?


1. Rotary wing budgets are being gutted. The army has no money to spend right now on new helicopters, the same reason that the USAF wants to cut A-10's is the reason it is needed in the short term.

2. The difference is that we already have the A-10's. I'm not proposing building new ones. They say eliminating all of them will save something like 4 billion. So keep 40 and it costs something like 2 billion. That's like a dozen F35s.

3. It's not like there is going to be an asston of F15s, F16s, and F35's to go around in 5 years. The numbers are scary as hell. Quantity has a quality all its own.

4. I'm not sure you're entirely correct that the A-10 isn't used for strafing runs anymore. http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... mbush.aspx Also, I've read interviews where Bogden said the A-10 solves certain tactical problems.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 11:19
by popcorn
So what happens when troops on the ground need CAS and A-10s respond only to be swatted out of the sky or otherwise denied access to the battlespace due to lethal, mobile missile/gun systems and MANPADs that even 3rd-rate militaries can afford? GW1 painfully demonstrated the vulnerability of the A-10 and thing have gotten worse in the decades since. Ironically, retaining the A-10 may only mean higher loss of lives, that of pilots and the troops they are trying to support.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 16:04
by mixelflick
As much as I love the A-10, have to concede its less and less survivable...

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 16:06
by XanderCrews
I posted this in another thread:

The USAF is being told to pivot to the pacific. This is not saying China/NorK but it is basically just that. The USAF is being told that they need to make drastic cuts, They are being told they need to be ready for a 21st century conflict. They are being told to make hard choices.

so the USAF recommends cutting the A-10. This is perfectly logical based on what they are being told to ready for with ever smaller budgets. When they actualy suggested cutting the A-10 (By a USAF chief who actually flew the damn thing) They got massive political push back because killing the A-10 means killing Guard and reserve units, maybe even whole bases.

So the USAF is being told by civilians in charge to cut deeply, but don't make any deep cuts that hurt. This is an obvious contradiction. The A-10 would not last 10 minutes on the future battlefields the USAF is being told to ready for. Its a 40 year old aircraft at the limit of its evolution.

So in short there is no "underlap" beyond other airframes that can do the A-10s job just fine, there is a near universal agreement that keeping the A-10s around so they can either be held back or go forth and die in the future is not helpful.

It must be frustrating for the USAF to be given an assignment that they complete based on their professional experience, and then be told "no not that, try again" by people who are selfishly trying to keep jobs in their district and could give a poo about the USAF's future needs.

If the USAFs was being told to "pivot to future Iraqistans" Then they would keep the A-10 and scrap something else (F-15Cs). We gave them an objective in the pacific and now they are making preparations to make that happen. They do not have the budget to do "all of the above" operations. They are picking the Hi intensity, conventional warfare mission because that is what they have been given.

There are no amount of A-10s that can win Iraqistans. Because Iraqistans are not won by airplanes. Billions of dollars spent to prop up shady corrupt "allies" in long wars with dubious objectives and murky results is a bigger problem than CAS aircraft whatever the type. And the best cost savings is to avoid them in the future, and by avoiding them in the future, you negate the need for the A-10 further saving money for the big wars where Airpower will be the key.

1. Rotary wing budgets are being gutted. The army has no money to spend right now on new helicopters, the same reason that the USAF wants to cut A-10's is the reason it is needed in the short term.


The only person who said they needed new helicopters was you.

2. The difference is that we already have the A-10's. I'm not proposing building new ones. They say eliminating all of them will save something like 4 billion. So keep 40 and it costs something like 2 billion. That's like a dozen F35s.


You recommend eliminating 330 A-10s at 4 billion so we can keep 40 at 2 billion?

3. It's not like there is going to be an asston of F15s, F16s, and F35's to go around in 5 years. The numbers are scary as hell. Quantity has a quality all its own.


In wars where you need F-15, F-16s and F-35s you won't need A-10s. In wars where you need A-10s you don't need an "asston" of airplanes anyway. How many aircraft do you think we had in afghanistan from all services at its peak? and how many were even A-10s?

4. I'm not sure you're entirely correct that the A-10 isn't used for strafing runs anymore. http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... mbush.aspx Also, I've read interviews where Bogden said the A-10 solves certain tactical problems.


I'm sorry, is it the only fighter class aircraft with a gun or did I miss something? Can't F-16s and F-15s strafe?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 16:09
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:So what happens when troops on the ground need CAS and A-10s respond only to be swatted out of the sky or otherwise denied access to the battlespace due to lethal, mobile missile/gun systems and MANPADs that even 3rd-rate militaries can afford? GW1 painfully demonstrated the vulnerability of the A-10 and thing have gotten worse in the decades since. Ironically, retaining the A-10 may only mean higher loss of lives, that of pilots and the troops they are trying to support.


My favorite "exit question"

what do you do when you have a ramp full of shot up A-10s and 48 CAS sorties ahead of you that day? Tell the troops "sorry"? tell em to call an F-16?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 18:36
by sorrydog
2. The difference is that we already have the A-10's. I'm not proposing building new ones. They say eliminating all of them will save something like 4 billion. So keep 40 and it costs something like 2 billion. That's like a dozen F35s.


It's not enough.

Unfortunately, the AF will be lucky if the A10 is the only platform to be cut. They can at least go back to the DoD and say they have already made major cuts... anymore and you really cut capability, which probably ain't far from the truth. Already in the planned cuts are thing like bottled water and cleaning reimbursements. If we can't afford Dasani and clean uniforms then things like F15's can't be far behind. Worse than that, pay is being capped and benefits for active and retired are being "reorganized" (code for cut).

Not that it affects me personally, but if the choice is between keeping 2 squadrons of A10's or maintaining the AF's promises on Gums tri-care benefits, as awesome as the GAU-8 is, I vote for Gum's healthcare.... maybe we can keep him around for a few more years and get a few more stories.

To reinforce what others have already posted above... here's the Air Force saying they can't implement the planned "pivot."

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140304/NEWS05/303040010/DoD-official-Asia-pivot-can-t-happen-due-budget-pressures

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 04:31
by jimmer
XanderCrews wrote:I posted this in another thread:

The USAF is being told to pivot to the pacific. This is not saying China/NorK but it is basically just that. The USAF is being told that they need to make drastic cuts, They are being told they need to be ready for a 21st century conflict. They are being told to make hard choices.

so the USAF recommends cutting the A-10. This is perfectly logical based on what they are being told to ready for with ever smaller budgets. When they actualy suggested cutting the A-10 (By a USAF chief who actually flew the damn thing) They got massive political push back because killing the A-10 means killing Guard and reserve units, maybe even whole bases.

So the USAF is being told by civilians in charge to cut deeply, but don't make any deep cuts that hurt. This is an obvious contradiction. The A-10 would not last 10 minutes on the future battlefields the USAF is being told to ready for. Its a 40 year old aircraft at the limit of its evolution.

So in short there is no "underlap" beyond other airframes that can do the A-10s job just fine, there is a near universal agreement that keeping the A-10s around so they can either be held back or go forth and die in the future is not helpful.

It must be frustrating for the USAF to be given an assignment that they complete based on their professional experience, and then be told "no not that, try again" by people who are selfishly trying to keep jobs in their district and could give a poo about the USAF's future needs.

If the USAFs was being told to "pivot to future Iraqistans" Then they would keep the A-10 and scrap something else (F-15Cs). We gave them an objective in the pacific and now they are making preparations to make that happen. They do not have the budget to do "all of the above" operations. They are picking the Hi intensity, conventional warfare mission because that is what they have been given.

There are no amount of A-10s that can win Iraqistans. Because Iraqistans are not won by airplanes. Billions of dollars spent to prop up shady corrupt "allies" in long wars with dubious objectives and murky results is a bigger problem than CAS aircraft whatever the type. And the best cost savings is to avoid them in the future, and by avoiding them in the future, you negate the need for the A-10 further saving money for the big wars where Airpower will be the key.

1. Rotary wing budgets are being gutted. The army has no money to spend right now on new helicopters, the same reason that the USAF wants to cut A-10's is the reason it is needed in the short term.


The only person who said they needed new helicopters was you.

2. The difference is that we already have the A-10's. I'm not proposing building new ones. They say eliminating all of them will save something like 4 billion. So keep 40 and it costs something like 2 billion. That's like a dozen F35s.


You recommend eliminating 330 A-10s at 4 billion so we can keep 40 at 2 billion?

3. It's not like there is going to be an asston of F15s, F16s, and F35's to go around in 5 years. The numbers are scary as hell. Quantity has a quality all its own.


In wars where you need F-15, F-16s and F-35s you won't need A-10s. In wars where you need A-10s you don't need an "asston" of airplanes anyway. How many aircraft do you think we had in afghanistan from all services at its peak? and how many were even A-10s?

4. I'm not sure you're entirely correct that the A-10 isn't used for strafing runs anymore. http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... mbush.aspx Also, I've read interviews where Bogden said the A-10 solves certain tactical problems.


I'm sorry, is it the only fighter class aircraft with a gun or did I miss something? Can't F-16s and F-15s strafe?



I agree with the top part of your response. I don't really agree with the whole pivot thing or the whole OSD notion that we won't be fighting protracted land wars in the future and neither do a lot of others. I agree the USAF is responding to LandSea.

By the way I'm not the only one that's brought up the rotary wing budgets, the Army's the one bringing that up. The "survivability" argument isn't valid because all systems have different levels of survivability and different missions.

The problem with the USAF all stealth strategy is that we are going to wind up with about 185 Raptors and 1,000 (if we're lucky) F35's, and that's it by 2030. That's why the Navy has hedged, quantity does matter at some point, and stealth doesn't change that.

You clown me for saying keep 40 A10's for 2 billion, well how many F35's are you going to buy and operate for that much?Probably about 5. Some of you are just as rigid as the F35 sucks nuts.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 06:06
by XanderCrews
I agree with the top part of your response. I don't really agree with the whole pivot thing or the whole OSD notion that we won't be fighting protracted land wars in the future and neither do a lot of others.


Well thats their opinion and they are welcome to it, luckily the US and allies are preparing for the big threats that matter, and not hinging a multi hundred billion dollar budget on the ability to not win operations militarily in 3rd world back waters. the costs of these campaigns have nothing to do with the difference of a few grand in CPFH.

If we are talking about a conventional campaign against an actual army and air force, than other aircraft are more suited to that than the A-10 as well

Iraqistans are to be avoided like the plague, especially politically. Again, the A-10 is not the only airplane that can fight protracted land wars either should it come to another one of those. The military is no hurry to have another any time soon I can tell you that. Which is again where the issue of many platforms being capable of pulling the A-10s weight. if it happens.

By the way I'm not the only one that's brought up the rotary wing budgets, the Army's the one bringing that up.


They're welcome to bring it up all they want as well. an Ah-64 will be just fine for the protracted land battle you mention, and a handful of A-10s isn't going to change that budget battle either. Other aircraft will support the army just as they have been the last 12 years. No A-10s doesn't suddenly mean the army is on its own out there, it means its getting support for non A-10s. And those Non A-10s might be more helpful as they can fly into hotter areas.

The "survivability" argument isn't valid because all systems have different levels of survivability and different missions.


I am a Marine so I am a little slow, and I used to shoot guns for a living for my brain rattles, but are you trying to say survivablity doesn't matter?

The problem with the USAF all stealth strategy is that we are going to wind up with about 185 Raptors and 1,000 (if we're lucky) F35's, and that's it by 2030.


The USAF is going to get more than 1,000 first off. I can say that because the price is coming down, and more countries are signing up as well. nextly the USAF will be keeping the Strike Eagle around for quite some time. If the USAF comes in at or under 1,000 then legacy aircraft will be leaned on for a longer period of time, commensurate to the needs of what civlian authorities expect the USAF to be prepared for. For example, the F-15Cs are still around, due to fewer F-22s being built. If the F-35 comes up short in numbers, then it will still be F-16s and not A-10s that are kept around.

That's why the Navy has hedged, quantity does matter at some point, and stealth doesn't change that.


and your 40 A-10s will shift the balance?

1,000 Stealth fighter bombers and 185 of the worlds greatest fighter for one service alone are not quantity? 20 stealth bombers, 60 B-1s, hundreds of strike eagles, UAVs, the list goes on... I would like to know what air force by 2030 will be competing with the USAF alone in quantity and quality? especially the future Iragistans? and how 40 A-10s would matter in all that.

You clown me for saying keep 40 A10's for 2 billion, well how many F35's are you going to buy and operate for that much?


Just so I am clear on your argument you are saying that quantity is important, but the USAF should overpay for fewer fighters in operation?

No one is "clowning you," its a simple question of value. Those are B-2 level prices, and I'm sorry to say the A-10 is no B-2. If the USAF isn't prepared to spend 4 billion for 330 why would it be ok with spending 2 billion for 40 on the grounds of quantity?

And that budget doesn't inherently go to F-35s either. how many B-52s do you operate? How many C-130s can you buy? And many Missilers can you train? how many PJs can you equip? How many CSAR birds can upgrade? What are the other tasks of the USAF? And how many of those tasks are a higher priority than paying vast quantities for a token force of less and less useful A-10s?

Just for the record CPFH for an A-10 is nearly $20K, and F-16 is $22.5K and an F-35A is projected to be around 24.4K. Again value. look at what an F-16 can do for an extra 2500 bones compared to what an A-10 can do. Then think about how A-10s are basically being used like F-16s now anyway. Then think about how for another 2,000 you get a next generation multi role stealth aircraft.

the bottom line is the A-10 is overkill for Iraqistans, its not a COIN aircraft, and at 20K an hour its expensive for what you get and its a liability in any war where the bad guys can actually shoot back. That is not a typo, its a liability in even small and medium conflicts where MANPADs exist.

Probably about 5. Some of you are just as rigid as the F35 sucks nuts.


I don't know why you feel you need to fling insults, but if you don't want to be treated like a logical adult, thats fine with me and I will make a note of it in future responses. A lot of this stuff has already been covered in this thread, much of it by people with actual military experience, and lots of that military experience from actual combat. I wish you had read through the whole thing, before posting something like this.

Even if there was no F-35 the A-10 is going away. There can't be any half measures. Its all or none.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 06:58
by popcorn
The Combatant Commanders aren't demanding A-10s, they want fighters and ISR capabilities thus AF has to mat h resources to needs. It's really that simple.


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... ption.aspx

The Best Bad Option

The greatest shortfall the Air Force is grappling with is its ISR and its fighter fleet, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told members of the House Armed Services Committee Friday. “Those are the two things that we can’t meet the demand on more frequently than anything else,” he said. That is why USAF is being careful about divesting its fighter fleet “too much,” and is focusing on single mission aircraft like the A-10 and U-2. “We are going to go to seven (fighter) squadrons below our requirement with this budget,” Welsh said, referring to the Fiscal 2015 President’s Budget. Any more reductions in fighter aircraft makes it less likely the Air Force can meet “standing war plans for our combatant commanders,” he added. Air Force leaders also considered divesting the entire B-1 and F-16 fleets, as well as some F-15Es, but determined that “would require a much higher number” of aircraft to reach the same savings, said Welsh. “We used the standard DOD planning scenarios and the result showed that cutting the A-10 fleet was the lowest risk . . . option,” he said. “No one, especially me, is happy about recommending divestiture of this great old friend [the A-10]. It’s the right decision from a military perspective.”

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 18:13
by alloycowboy
An article on the congressional hearings to mothball the A-10 fleet.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-defends-a-10-retirements-on-capitol-hill-397040/

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2014, 17:51
by maus92
Lawmakers readying legislation to block A-10 cuts
Apr. 10, 2014 - 06:00AM
By Brian Everstine
Staff writer

"Lawmakers in both the House and Senate are planning legislation to block the Air Force’s plans to retire the A-10.

The announcement comes during a week of contentious dialogue between the Air Force and Congress, with lawmakers alleging that the service is breaking the law by cutting back A-10 flying hours and by inflating its estimate of savings possible by retiring the A-10...."

".... a vocal group of lawmakers, led by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who say that cutting the A-10 would put troops’ lives at risk and that the Air Force has not sufficiently thought out or made the case for the Warthog’s retirement...."

"Ayotte, along with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.; and Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said they will craft and support amendments to the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act to block the cuts. Reps. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., and Ron Barber, D-Ariz., said they will support companion legislation in the House.

“We’re going to do away with the finest close air support platform in history, and we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much, with the F-35? That’s ridiculous,” McCain said. “That’s absolutely ridiculous.”


"Ayotte said that while she does not want to downplay the importance of other aircraft, the A-10 is the best choice for close air support. The other fleets are important, but the Air Force’s other options to make up the costs are “dramatic scenarios,” she said.

“Whenever anyone wants to defend their position, they always give you the most dramatic scenario of, ‘Well, this is your only choice,’ ’’ Ayotte said. “We are the Senate Armed Services Committee, we will look across the entire defense budget. There has been a history, there are certain programs that are certainly acquisition failures. There are many places that we will also look, beyond what the Air Force has presented us....”"

"On April 4, Ayotte and Sen. Saxby Chambless, R-Ga., sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James saying that plans to stop A-10 flights this year are illegal....."

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... ck-10-cuts

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2014, 18:00
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:Lawmakers readying legislation to block A-10 cuts
Apr. 10, 2014 - 06:00AM
By Brian Everstine
Staff writer

"Lawmakers in both the House and Senate are planning legislation to block the Air Force’s plans to retire the A-10.

The announcement comes during a week of contentious dialogue between the Air Force and Congress, with lawmakers alleging that the service is breaking the law by cutting back A-10 flying hours and by inflating its estimate of savings possible by retiring the A-10...."

".... a vocal group of lawmakers, led by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who say that cutting the A-10 would put troops’ lives at risk and that the Air Force has not sufficiently thought out or made the case for the Warthog’s retirement...."

"Ayotte, along with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.; and Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said they will craft and support amendments to the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act to block the cuts. Reps. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., and Ron Barber, D-Ariz., said they will support companion legislation in the House.

“We’re going to do away with the finest close air support platform in history, and we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much, with the F-35? That’s ridiculous,” McCain said. “That’s absolutely ridiculous.”


"Ayotte said that while she does not want to downplay the importance of other aircraft, the A-10 is the best choice for close air support. The other fleets are important, but the Air Force’s other options to make up the costs are “dramatic scenarios,” she said.

“Whenever anyone wants to defend their position, they always give you the most dramatic scenario of, ‘Well, this is your only choice,’ ’’ Ayotte said. “We are the Senate Armed Services Committee, we will look across the entire defense budget. There has been a history, there are certain programs that are certainly acquisition failures. There are many places that we will also look, beyond what the Air Force has presented us....”"

"On April 4, Ayotte and Sen. Saxby Chambless, R-Ga., sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James saying that plans to stop A-10 flights this year are illegal....."

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... ck-10-cuts


Well Mr. McCain, then decide which government pet project you're going to cut to fund it. (And, I know this is asking a lot, but let's have a better plan than, "it's in my area i.e. mah pork, so we need to keep it!!" )

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2014, 18:46
by XanderCrews
Im shocked, shocked I tell you that the US military is being told to make cuts by the same people who then make every effort to block the cuts they demand.

The elaborate childish dance continues! I know the USAF never tires of it. Rewriting and revising these proposals quarter after quarter just never gets old.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 00:59
by suavewatermelon
Howdy

Honestly this stupidity from congress doesn't surprise me in the least. It is common knowledge that congressmen tend not to understand the trappings either of military strategy or technology.

Here we have sentimentalists like John McCain who, to be honest, couldn't be bothered to actually research the benefits of necking down the USAF to a platform that can not only perform the missions of the F-16 and A-10 extremely well, but that can also do so much more.

If only research into situations for issues was mandatory, then maybe we would get slightly less stupid legislation (and maybe John McCain would learn that the F-35, in fact, does NOT cost 10 times that of an A-10).

Right now I would post some clever article but... I STILL don't know where you guys get half of the stuff you get. Any particularly good publications I should know about?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 01:16
by popcorn
They can save a lot of money by just abolishing the DoD and having the armed services report directly to congressional sub-committees. :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 03:32
by maus92
suavewatermelon wrote:
If only research into situations for issues was mandatory, then maybe we would get slightly less stupid legislation (and maybe John McCain would learn that the F-35, in fact, does NOT cost 10 times that of an A-10).


GAO calls F-35A PAUC: BY$161M. A-10 PAUC - FY94$11.4M (FY12$17.6M) You're right, it's not 10 times as expensive. It's only 9.2 times as expensive.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 03:54
by mk82
I think Senator McCain loves being shot down by surface to air missiles. He must be missing that floating feeling via a parachute :P and feels future fighter jocks should experience this at least once in their lifetime :P. Perhaps Ayotte and McCain can fly a two seat A10....what a date it will be! Oh yeah, Maus92, you are right.....McCain should get his facts right!

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 04:08
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
suavewatermelon wrote:
If only research into situations for issues was mandatory, then maybe we would get slightly less stupid legislation (and maybe John McCain would learn that the F-35, in fact, does NOT cost 10 times that of an A-10).


GAO calls F-35A PAUC: BY$161M. A-10 PAUC - FY94$11.4M (FY12$17.6M) You're right, it's not 10 times as expensive. It's only 9.2 times as expensive.


Watermelon, meet Maus. Maus, Watermelon. :)

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 05:15
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:GAO calls F-35A PAUC: BY$161M. A-10 PAUC - FY94$11.4M (FY12$17.6M) You're right, it's not 10 times as expensive. It's only 9.2 times as expensive.


Hmmm, Interesting. I'm curious as to the source of the A-10 FY12 value placed in parentheses?

The FY94 value I've seen before, including in a GAO report on Desert Storm. But the $16.6M value is remarkably close to the 'historic standard of living' adjustment for comparing relative 'income or wealth'. To paraphrase (with '$M' instead of just '$') the results from the Measuring Worth website http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php :

If you want to compare the value of a $11.4M 'Income or Wealth' , in 1994 there are four choices. In 2012 the relative
a) 'historic standard of living' value of that income or wealth is $17.7M
b) 'contemporary standard of living' value of that income or wealth is $18.5M
c) 'economic status value' of that income or wealth is $21.2M
d) 'economic power' value of that income or wealth is $25.3M

BUT!

If you want to compare the value of a $11.4M Project, in 1994 there are four choices. In 2012 the relative:
a) 'historic opportunity cost' of that project is $16.2M
b) 'contemporary opportunity cost' of that project is $18.5M
c) 'labor cost' of that project is $18.3M (using the unskilled wage) or $18.7M (using production worker compensation)
d) economy cost of that project is $25.3M.

And now the $2013 data are available at the website:

In 2013 the relative:
'historic standard of living' value of that income or wealth is $17.9M
'economic status' value of that income or wealth is $21.8M
'economic power' value of that income or wealth is $26.2M

and

historic opportunity cost of that project is $16.5M
labor cost of that project is $18.3M(using the unskilled wage) or $19.2M(using production worker compensation)
economy cost of that project is $26.2M

The relevant values for comparison are the 'economy cost' as it:
measures the consumption or production of a subject (commodity or project) against the output of the economy as measured by GDP, that is, the given monetary amount is computed as a percent of GDP. This measure indicates opportunity cost in terms of the total output of the economy. The viewpoint is the importance of the item to society as a whole, and the measure is the most aggregate of all the measures.


Therefore, we can correct Citizen McCain and make a more accurate observation:
The early LRIP F-35A costs are over 6 times the averaged costs for all A-10s bought, if we ignore the upgrade costs to create the A-10C to extend the lives of the A-10 since 1994, and ignore the A-10's sensor support costs accounted for separately in the case of the A-10 and part of the acquisition cost of the F-35.

There. All fixed. Not a bad exchange considering the A-10 is pretty much a one trick pony capability-wise (never mind the different ways we can parse 'air-to-mud', it is still just a 'air-to-mud-in-a-permissive-environment' plane)

As an aside...
The use and abuse of F-35 program cost figures bring this to mind every time it happens.
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
--Oscar Wilde

But when it comes to the misplaced complaints against the F-35 in all the many ways and forms thrown at it, this also comes up.
A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future. --Sydney J. Harris

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2014, 19:58
by jtcreate
Sorry guys I'm a new user but been reading some of the threads here. Its great coming across some of your threads which is very well balanced and educated.


So what happens when troops on the ground need CAS and A-10s respond only to be swatted out of the sky or otherwise denied access to the battlespace due to lethal, mobile missile/gun systems and MANPADs that even 3rd-rate militaries can afford? GW1 painfully demonstrated the vulnerability of the A-10 and thing have gotten worse in the decades since. Ironically, retaining the A-10 may only mean higher loss of lives, that of pilots and the troops they are trying to support.


I completely agree. I grew up with the A-10 on my wall before it became a popular item in the gulf war. Its been an incredible machine and there is a lot of sentimental value. That doesn't mean I want to start seeing pilots in coffins trying to defend ground forces that could have been protected in better ways. Its obvious we have other capabilities to provide CAS and I wouldn't be surprised if the DoD is working on a smaller close air support drones to fill any gaps left by the A-10. Cheap, affective, and life saving. I would rather see a drone system (or more than one) who's attacks can be guided by a higher flying F-35 holding at a higher altitude which would accomplish close support for ground troops and gathering additional intel for any additional strikes. At least if a MANPAD or SAM took out the drone, the F-35 would have a great fix on the source. We already have drones that can fly and land themselves and there has been confirmation that the F-35 can remote fire missiles from a different platform.

Just my humble opinion

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2014, 02:51
by count_to_10
jtcreate wrote:
I completely agree. I grew up with the A-10 on my wall before it became a popular item in the gulf war. Its been an incredible machine and there is a lot of sentimental value. That doesn't mean I want to start seeing pilots in coffins trying to defend ground forces that could have been protected in better ways. Its obvious we have other capabilities to provide CAS and I wouldn't be surprised if the DoD is working on a smaller close air support drones to fill any gaps left by the A-10. Cheap, affective, and life saving. I would rather see a drone system (or more than one) who's attacks can be guided by a higher flying F-35 holding at a higher altitude which would accomplish close support for ground troops and gathering additional intel for any additional strikes. At least if a MANPAD or SAM took out the drone, the F-35 would have a great fix on the source. We already have drones that can fly and land themselves and there has been confirmation that the F-35 can remote fire missiles from a different platform.

Just my humble opinion

They also took a stab at it with the networked NLOS missile system. That would basically have been on-demand CAS from missile batteries moved around by ground forces. Unfortunately, the technology was not quite up to the task at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non- ... nch_System

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2014, 04:22
by Corsair1963
Why not give a number of A-10's to Allied Countries. They could then pay the US for Support, Training, Logistics, and Maintenance. This would give us access to the A-10's in a major crisis and would even earn us money!



Right off the top of my head Poland and Romania could be good options. As they can't afford much but want a closer Defense Relationship with the US and NATO.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2014, 05:28
by JetTest
Romania is doing all they can to field a dozen used F16's, and you think they can afford to support our old A10's too?...Good luck with that one...

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2014, 05:45
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:Why not give a number of A-10's to Allied Countries...
Impractical... but if used in combat vs a decently armed opponent (read, Russia or China), it would definitively prove how utterly useless the things are against near-peers.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2014, 06:24
by XanderCrews
I don't think there would be that much demand for them honestly its an old design, not all of them are upgraded, they run about 20K an hour, an F-16 is about 23K an hour... So they are kind of expensive for what you get.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2014, 08:09
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:I don't think there would be that much demand for them honestly its an old design, not all of them are upgraded, they run about 20K an hour, an F-16 is about 23K an hour... So they are kind of expensive for what you get.

I always thought that if ever they were exported, it would be to South Korea but as you point out they aren't cheap to operate and the SOKORs are feeling the fiscal pinch as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 06:26
by popcorn
Future Threats Will Require Much More Than The A-10

Those fighting to save the A-10 jet fighter are missing the point. The U.S. Air Force is the best in the world at close air support in a permissive environment like Afghanistan, even without the A-10. In the future, elite U.S. forces can do without it as the military continues to chase terrorists across the Middle East and Africa, and the A-10 has even less purpose in any future high-end combat in more contested areas, like China, with rapidly improving air defenses..

More at: http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/04 ... f=d-skybox

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 01:07
by popcorn
Hard but Clear..

Grounding A-10s will save $4.2 billion, decision ‘clear’: USAF general

For months, US Air Force officials have used the adjective “hard” to describe their decision to ground entire fleets of aircraft in response to budget cuts.

But on 23 April, USAF chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh says a review of the service’s options showed “very clearly” that grounding its Fairchild Republic A-10s is the right choice.

Speaking at a National Press Club event in Washington, DC, Welsh says the service evaluated a number of cost-cutting options against a “very detailed operational analyses” before making decisions.

“We came very clearly to the conclusion that of all those horrible options, the least operationally impactful was to divest the A-10,” Welsh says. “It makes perfect sense from a military perspective if you have to make these kind of cuts.”...

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... af-398508/

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 20:11
by jtcreate
popcorn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I don't think there would be that much demand for them honestly its an old design, not all of them are upgraded, they run about 20K an hour, an F-16 is about 23K an hour... So they are kind of expensive for what you get.


Kind of curious why the A-10 cost almost as much as the F16 to run per hour?

lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Why not give a number of A-10's to Allied Countries...


I am not being sarcastic when I say this because I have thought about it a little bit. But if you lighten the A-10 by stripping out the cockpit and support gear, upgrading it with a sensor package and better countermeasures, install a drone control system and lower its operational costs, then (just maybe) you might have something worthwhile keeping. Whether what you get in return is worth it or not is questionable. I am only throwing out creative thought as I am not an expert. But my over-all point is to demonstrate how far along the A-10 has come and how much its outlived its usefulness. Its amazing the A-10 has flown in service this long and that is a marvel of success.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 22:07
by popcorn
Keeping the A-10 in service as a drone requires the AF to retain it's support infrastructure which is precisely what will generate the desired cost savings once the fleet is scrapped. F-16s make more versatile drones ,and Boeing has the conversion process down pat.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 22:35
by maus92
Air Force Logic - Multi-role versus Single-role

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 00:49
by coldman
maus92 wrote:Air Force Logic - Multi-role versus Single-role

That's selling the problem short.

We already have multiple airframes that can do the job of the A-10, while also being able to handle themselves in a wide variety of situations that an A-10 would be woefully inadequate in. That's why it is being axed, and we all know that.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 01:07
by cola
coldman wrote:We already have multiple airframes that can do the job of the A-10...

At what casualty rate?

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 02:37
by deadseal
cola wrote:
coldman wrote:We already have multiple airframes that can do the job of the A-10...

At what casualty rate?


Umm....what are you talking about? Are you stacking F-16s against modern IADs or are you putting F-16s against Su-30MKs?

Either way the A-10 gets hosed.

And by the way the A-10 can't do opposed AI.

In answer to the ultimate question "why is the F-35 replacing the a-10"...the answer is simple. Cause the
A-10 is an outdated piece of **** that can't go fast and has Apaches beating it to TICs. The F-35 can kill sh*t and survive.

Questions?

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 09:01
by cola
deadseal wrote:Cause the A-10 is an outdated piece of **** that can't go fast and has Apaches beating it to TICs. The F-35 CAN'T kill sh*t and survive.

There...fixed it for ya.
And if you wanna be blunt, the Apache is garbage.
They brought several to Croatia during the war but quickly changed their minds about letting them operate, after Croatian Hinds started returning loaded with AAA 20mm rounds.
Ya know...bad publicity is bad for business, if the US machine takes a dive where Russian didn't.

Questions?

Not really.
Arguing that A10 is slow is as silly as arguing that StuKa was slow.
I hear that here and there, but mostly from amateurs.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 10:34
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:Cause the A-10 is an outdated piece of **** that can't go fast and has Apaches beating it to TICs. The F-35 CAN'T kill sh*t and survive.

There...fixed it for ya.


Because of what? I see the ability to be very difficult to detect, track and engage using radar or IR systems and being able to jam or spoof those same systems increasing survivability a lot. Having excellent sensors definitely gives a lot of ability to see and kill sh*t. A-10 survivability measures were great for 1970's, not really so nowadays as any credible air defenses are almost entirely using missiles and it can't do much to avoid them.

cola wrote:And if you wanna be blunt, the Apache is garbage.
They brought several to Croatia during the war but quickly changed their minds about letting them operate, after Croatian Hinds started returning loaded with AAA 20mm rounds.
Ya know...bad publicity is bad for business, if the US machine takes a dive where Russian didn't and the Mi24 is, in spite of all its shortcomings, one tough mofo to bring down.


What an earth are you talking about? Do you mean them being deployed to Albania during Operation Allied Force in 1999? I don't think that showed any real deficiency in AH-64, but quite a lot of deficiencies in military planning. Care to elaborate what Croatian Hinds were operating there as I don't recall them being involved at all in that conflict? Two Serbian Mi-24s were involved, but I don't think anyone was afraid of that.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 11:27
by basher54321
maus92 wrote:Air Force Logic - Multi-role versus Single-role



Got to be the first time myself - or anyone for that matter has seen the F-15C labelled as multi role........ :shock:

Even if the A-10 did all those missions - it cant do a single thing in contested airspace.............

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 15:45
by Lightndattic
cola wrote:Arguing that A10 is slow is as silly as arguing that StuKa was slow.
I hear that here and there, but mostly from amateurs.


I'm glad you brought up the Stuka, since it's demise is precisely what the A-10 will experience. There was no greater CAS aircraft in WW2 (arguably until the IL-2 came along), yet for all it's success it was still slaughtered when encountering the fighters of the time. Once the Luftwaffe realized it could no longer survive that environment, it was replaced with a ground attack variant of their better fighters, the FW-190.

Maus- All those "missions" shown under the A-10 are essentially ground attack (maritime attack is also a stretch). All those missions can be better performed by other assets that are more survivable vs. a modern opponent.

The F-15C is not multi-role, nor have I ever heard it referred to as such, however, it's MISSION allows every other mission our ground/air forces do. It allows our ground forces to dedicate less resources to defensive measures, our intelligence methods to function effectively, and our logistics processes to function. None of these would be possible without air superiority.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:01
by maus92
basher54321 wrote:
maus92 wrote:Air Force Logic - Multi-role versus Single-role



Got to be the first time myself - or anyone for that matter has seen the F-15C labelled as multi role........ :shock:

Even if the A-10 did all those missions - it cant do a single thing in contested airspace.............


The CAS mission assumes local air superiority.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:05
by maus92
Lightndattic wrote:Maus- All those "missions" shown under the A-10 are essentially ground attack (maritime attack is also a stretch). All those missions can be better performed by other assets that are more survivable vs. a modern opponent.

The F-15C is not multi-role, nor have I ever heard it referred to as such, however, it's MISSION allows every other mission our ground/air forces do. It allows our ground forces to dedicate less resources to defensive measures, our intelligence methods to function effectively, and our logistics processes to function. None of these would be possible without air superiority.


I didn't author the graphic, but I thought it was amusing. The USAFs justification for retiring the A-10s is that they are not "multi-role." It appears that that only applies to sub-sonic aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
multi-role implies A2A and A2G. F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, heck even AV-8B+ are multi-role in that sense as they ALL have A2G sensors/weapons and can sling AMRAAMs for self defence if needed. If the A-10 is inbound to a target and a pop-up bogey pings them with radar and engages them all they can do is hope to survive long enough to point a Sidewinder at it and hope that works. I can tell you that they will not be banking and yanking like you see at airshows with a bombload as they will be a 4G aircraft at that point.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:49
by XanderCrews
cola wrote:
coldman wrote:We already have multiple airframes that can do the job of the A-10...

At what casualty rate?


Historically its most everything else has fewer casualties already

The aircraft that took the most hits in 1991 was the A-10, harrier, and Bronco. The Marines retired the OV-10 after the war, and have been in the process of retplacing the harrier post war as well.


cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:Cause the A-10 is an outdated piece of **** that can't go fast and has Apaches beating it to TICs. The F-35 CAN'T kill sh*t and survive.

There...fixed it for ya.
And if you wanna be blunt, the Apache is garbage.
They brought several to Croatia during the war but quickly changed their minds about letting them operate, after Croatian Hinds started returning loaded with AAA 20mm rounds.
Ya know...bad publicity is bad for business, if the US machine takes a dive where Russian didn't.


I guess a source would be nice here. The failing of the apaches and the reasons why was well documented, and the apaches got hit bad in 2003, so that would have been a better example there buddy instead of the garbage you pulled above. Stick with it, you can do it.

Questions?

Not really.
Arguing that A10 is slow is as silly as arguing that StuKa was slow.
I hear that here and there, but mostly from amateurs.[/quote]

Thats funny I know an A-10 pilot and she describes it as slow. I guess that makes sense, her being an amateur and all.

maus92 wrote:
Lightndattic wrote:Maus- All those "missions" shown under the A-10 are essentially ground attack (maritime attack is also a stretch). All those missions can be better performed by other assets that are more survivable vs. a modern opponent.

The F-15C is not multi-role, nor have I ever heard it referred to as such, however, it's MISSION allows every other mission our ground/air forces do. It allows our ground forces to dedicate less resources to defensive measures, our intelligence methods to function effectively, and our logistics processes to function. None of these would be possible without air superiority.


I didn't author the graphic, but I thought it was amusing. The USAFs justification for retiring the A-10s is that they are not "multi-role." It appears that that only applies to sub-sonic aircraft.


Which odd since they are talking about retiring the B-1s and retaining the B-52. Are B-52s super sonic?

Also the USAF attempted to replace the F-15C with the F-22, results varied. Lastly that graphic is stretching a lot of the same missions. If you want to do the same with the F-15C you can include dissimilar air training, CSAR (as much as an A-10) long with CAP, and interception.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 18:40
by maus92
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:I didn't author the graphic, but I thought it was amusing. The USAFs justification for retiring the A-10s is that they are not "multi-role." It appears that that only applies to sub-sonic aircraft.


Which odd since they are talking about retiring the B-1s and retaining the B-52. Are B-52s super sonic?

Also the USAF attempted to replace the F-15C with the F-22, results varied. Lastly that graphic is stretching a lot of the same missions. If you want to do the same with the F-15C you can include dissimilar air training, CSAR (as much as an A-10) long with CAP, and interception.


Both B-1 and B-52 are not tactical fighters, so it's not really a valid comparison - although the USAF occasionally uses B-1s for its definition of CAS, so maybe it's multi role after all. Yea, and it's pretty rare for a B-1B go supersonic anyway.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 18:46
by arcturus
maus92 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:I didn't author the graphic, but I thought it was amusing. The USAFs justification for retiring the A-10s is that they are not "multi-role." It appears that that only applies to sub-sonic aircraft.


Which odd since they are talking about retiring the B-1s and retaining the B-52. Are B-52s super sonic?

Also the USAF attempted to replace the F-15C with the F-22, results varied. Lastly that graphic is stretching a lot of the same missions. If you want to do the same with the F-15C you can include dissimilar air training, CSAR (as much as an A-10) long with CAP, and interception.


Both B-1 and B-52 are not tactical fighters, so it's not really a valid comparison - although the USAF occasionally uses B-1s for its definition of CAS, so maybe it's multi role after all. Yea, and it's pretty rare for a B-1B go supersonic anyway.


In your quoted text above you stated "It appears that only applies to sub-sonic aircraft. The tactical fighter caveat was not used. To have an honest debate lets avoid goalpost shifting.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 18:49
by exosphere
maus92 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:I didn't author the graphic, but I thought it was amusing. The USAFs justification for retiring the A-10s is that they are not "multi-role." It appears that that only applies to sub-sonic aircraft.


Which odd since they are talking about retiring the B-1s and retaining the B-52. Are B-52s super sonic?

Also the USAF attempted to replace the F-15C with the F-22, results varied. Lastly that graphic is stretching a lot of the same missions. If you want to do the same with the F-15C you can include dissimilar air training, CSAR (as much as an A-10) long with CAP, and interception.


Both B-1 and B-52 are not tactical fighters, so it's not really a valid comparison - although the USAF occasionally uses B-1s for its definition of CAS, so maybe it's multi role after all. Yea, and it's pretty rare for a B-1B go supersonic anyway.


Hold on, everybody! The goalposts are shifting again!

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 19:03
by spazsinbad
Goalposts? Wot goalposts.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 19:13
by archeman
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:Cause the A-10 is an outdated piece of **** that can't go fast and has Apaches beating it to TICs. The F-35 CAN'T kill sh*t and survive.

There...fixed it for ya.
And if you wanna be blunt, the Apache is garbage.
They brought several to Croatia during the war but quickly changed their minds about letting them operate, after Croatian Hinds started returning loaded with AAA 20mm rounds.
Ya know...bad publicity is bad for business, if the US machine takes a dive where Russian didn't.


Cola, do you have a quote for that information?
I ask because it doesn't jive with General Clark's recollections of the decision regarding the need or lack of need for Apaches. According to 'Waging Modern War...' Clark maintained that the Apache arrival (and the attendant ground forces) was used as part of peace negotiations brinkmanship game between his command and Serbian leadership. It was never clear that Clark had authority to actually deploy Apaches in the the combat zone or the other ground forces necessary to maintain Apaches and defend their operation site. So I'm questioning your suggestion as to why they weren't ultimately used (we would be embarrassed if the got shot down).

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 20:02
by basher54321
maus92 wrote:
The CAS mission assumes local air superiority.


Air sup is not a requirement for CAS by definition - so likely you might just have to go in and try to survive. Its obviously more effective if you have Air Supp provided by other assets doing SEAD and many other missions the A-10 cant do.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 21:32
by XanderCrews
Both B-1 and B-52 are not tactical fighters, so it's not really a valid comparison - although the USAF occasionally uses B-1s for its definition of CAS, so maybe it's multi role after all.


you said aircraft. not fighters.

Yea, and it's pretty rare for a B-1B go supersonic anyway.


Rare does not equal impossible.

I assume if we are pulling out all the stops to justify A-10s we can explore the full envelope for everyone else as well?

basher54321 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
The CAS mission assumes local air superiority.


Air sup is not a requirement for CAS by definition - so likely you might just have to go in and try to survive. Its obviously more effective if you have Air Supp provided by other assets doing SEAD and many other missions the A-10 cant do.


Just to add to this. Special forces typically operate behind lines where local superiority is not assumed, and well beyond the range of friendly arty.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 22:52
by maus92
Quibble as you may, but the basic tenet still stands - at least for for the intellectually honest.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 23:01
by maus92
basher54321 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
The CAS mission assumes local air superiority.


Air sup is not a requirement for CAS by definition - so likely you might just have to go in and try to survive. Its obviously more effective if you have Air Supp provided by other assets doing SEAD and many other missions the A-10 cant do.


"Conditions for effective CAS" as outlined in Joint Pub. 3-09.3 "Close Air Support"

"The conditions for effective CAS are: thoroughly
trained personnel with well developed skills, effective
planning and integration, effective command and
control (C2), air superiority (especially suppression of
enemy air defenses),
target marking and/or acquisition,
streamlined and flexible procedures, and appropriate
ordnance. Although not a requirement for CAS
employment, favorable environmental conditions
improve CAS effectiveness."

The point being that any platform providing CAS (rotary/fixed wing/UAV, etc) needs local AS to be effective. That doesn't mean that the platform providing the CAS needs to provide the AS.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 23:54
by cola
archeman wrote:...I ask because it doesn't jive with General Clark's...

I'm not talking about OAF, but ODF ('94/'95 in this particular case) and I don't think you'll find these things on Wikipaedia, since the entire war semi-legal with all sides involved being supplied with arms by major powers, in spite of standing embargo.
But as I said, a certain Army general gallantly offered help via Ah64 support, but as Croatian Mi24s begun to return drilled by anything from 12,7 to 20mm in a prelude to larger operations in North-West Bosnia, the word was the JCS got cold feet and pulled the plug on that offer...that's really all I can say on the subject.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 00:35
by count_to_10
basher54321 wrote:
maus92 wrote:Air Force Logic - Multi-role versus Single-role



Got to be the first time myself - or anyone for that matter has seen the F-15C labelled as multi role........ :shock:

Even if the A-10 did all those missions - it cant do a single thing in contested airspace.............

I guess the F-15E qualifies as multi-role, but was the 'C ever even qualified for any ground attack weapons?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 03:22
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Quibble as you may, but the basic tenet still stands - at least for for the intellectually honest.


Sorry in the future I will try to respond to what you are thinking and not what you actually write. I have to be honest though, my mind reading is not where I would like. So beware

cola wrote:
archeman wrote:...I ask because it doesn't jive with General Clark's...

I'm not talking about OAF, but ODF ('94/'95 in this particular case) and I don't think you'll find these things on Wikipaedia, since the entire war semi-legal with all sides involved being supplied with arms by major powers, in spite of standing embargo.
But as I said, a certain Army general gallantly offered help via Ah64 support, but as Croatian Mi24s begun to return drilled by anything from 12,7 to 20mm in a prelude to larger operations in North-West Bosnia, the word was the JCS got cold feet and pulled the plug on that offer...that's really all I can say on the subject.


American Military ops in the mid 1990's was characterized by an extreme aversion casualties. especially when it came to helicopters after Somalia in 1993.

What I am trying to say is that the Apaches being pulled back probably has a lot more to do with political hesitation and gutlessness than about the aircraft type. it could have been Cobras or blackhawks the result would be the same. The US Military is still trying to get away from the "tyranny of one casualty" mentality, even after Iraqistan. And The Former yugoslavia in particular was a farkin mess for years running with the US Military.

If you want to bash the Apache there are far better are more clear examples of combat failure to use than the murky example you provide above, moreover the Apache is still the Army's baby. It isn't going anywhere. So go nuts. throw it under the bus. The Army sure didn't hesitate to throw it at the republican guard in 2003 with some pretty nasty results.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 03:24
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
basher54321 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
The CAS mission assumes local air superiority.


Air sup is not a requirement for CAS by definition - so likely you might just have to go in and try to survive. Its obviously more effective if you have Air Supp provided by other assets doing SEAD and many other missions the A-10 cant do.


"Conditions for effective CAS" as outlined in Joint Pub. 3-09.3 "Close Air Support"

"The conditions for effective CAS are: thoroughly
trained personnel with well developed skills, effective
planning and integration, effective command and
control (C2), air superiority (especially suppression of
enemy air defenses),
target marking and/or acquisition,
streamlined and flexible procedures, and appropriate
ordnance. Although not a requirement for CAS
employment, favorable environmental conditions
improve CAS effectiveness."

The point being that any platform providing CAS (rotary/fixed wing/UAV, etc) needs local AS to be effective. That doesn't mean that the platform providing the CAS needs to provide the AS.


I guess ill just respond with this:

maus92 wrote:Quibble as you may, but the basic tenet still stands - at least for for the intellectually honest.


And as long as we are going for intellectual honesty a large part of chapter of the A-10 employment manual is about "Air Interdiction," (mentioned in the comic), and is defined as happening in higher risk environment --air superiority not achieved, dense SAMs, etc-- where losses are a given, and where the risk could potentially be high.

with the range of operations and the spectrum of possibilities facing american planners worldwide, permissive environments are getting more rare. There was no CAS flown in Libya, as we weren't supporting any grunts. But, there was plenty of air Interdiction flown in Libya, and the hog was kept out of it due to it being a less than a full permissive environment.

If Libya was considered too high risk an environment for the A-10, then you're definitely going to see A-10s on the bench for something like Syria or Iran. let alone if Ukraine were to gointo some kind of full blown War. can it execute air interdiction? Yep. Do they prepare for it? hell yes, in many exercises worldwide. will the JFACC accept the predicted loss rates of tasking A-10s for Air interdiction in those environments? hell no, because tasking them for those missions probably means A. the mission has a poor probability of being completed, B. loss rates will be too high for sustained ops. So those missions are going to go to other platforms.

Thank you A-10 pilot I know.

So we are once again in the "yes the A-10 can do it, but it will pay for it," and far more than other platforms to the point where it won't even be attempted lest they get a bunch of people needlessly killed. So is it the ideal choice to perform the many missions mentioned in the clever little comic? Nope!

"Any ship can be a mine detector once" as the grim saying goes, so I'm sure the A-10 can do it still or at least make an attempt, but don't expect repeat performances, whatever makes it back is gonna need some time in the shop. Which is why they pulled them back after they got knocked around in 1991. Its mentioned in Gen. Horner's book and SMSGT Mac has mentioned it a few times on his blog.

Lastly talking with her, it was interesting that the Internet fanboys seems to have a lot more faith in the A-10 in future scenarios than the person flying it that I talked to at least. She was well aware of the aircraft's short comings, looming obsolescence, and her own mortality. She was previously in F-16s before the hog and deployed with A-10s in Iraq.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 14:30
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:Quibble as you may, but the basic tenet still stands - at least for for the intellectually honest.


You posted a silly meme that completely underrepresented the issue at hand and you presume to berate others about intellectual honesty?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 15:05
by deadseal
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:Cause the A-10 is an outdated piece of **** that can't go fast and has Apaches beating it to TICs. The F-35 CAN'T kill sh*t and survive.

There...fixed it for ya.
And if you wanna be blunt, the Apache is garbage.
They brought several to Croatia during the war but quickly changed their minds about letting them operate, after Croatian Hinds started returning loaded with AAA 20mm rounds.
Ya know...bad publicity is bad for business, if the US machine takes a dive where Russian didn't.

Questions?

Not really.
Arguing that A10 is slow is as silly as arguing that StuKa was slow.
I hear that here and there, but mostly from amateurs.


When you say the F-35 CAN'T kill anything and survive, then you immediately demonstrate that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are not involved in the program. Have not talked to any engineers or pilots about the tactical application of the F-35 when it is on-line, and in general are a Troll. Instead of taking some clown of a journalist's opinion, have faith that very smart people are doing very cool things with this airframe.

And I will finally point out that wherever the F-35 "Can't" kill and survive, there is no way in hell the A-10 can. So anything you say about the A-10 is fundamentally retarded. Have you ever seen an A-10 push at Red Flag?

Let go of the past... look to the future.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 16:07
by XanderCrews
deadseal wrote:
When you say the f-35 CAN'T kill anything and survive, then you immediately demonstrate that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are not involved in the program. Have not talked to any engineers or pilots about the tactical application of the f-35 when it is on-line, and in general are a Troll. Instead of taking some clown of a journalist's opinion, have faith that very smart people are doing very cool things with this airframe.

And I will finally point out that wherever the F-35 "Can't" kill and survive, there is no way in hell the A-10 can. So anything you say about the a-10 is fundamentally retarded. Have you ever seen an A-10 push at Red Flag? Let go of the past....look to the future.


well put!

Its not the Air forces job to bend its entire force around protecting the A-10 and making up for its many and only increasing shortcomings. Oh and in the clever comic they left out "A-10 escort" under F-15 missions :devil:

And just to beat the deadhorse about this:

cola wrote:
coldman wrote:We already have multiple airframes that can do the job of the A-10...

At what casualty rate?



Historically what we have seen against opponents that can fight back with A-10s is
A. taking loses and being pulled back.
B. A-10s being held back anyway before they take losses.
C. A-10s still being used by in a very limited capacity to avoid losses.

where has the A-10 not taken losses? in Iraqistans. where there is almost no opposition whatsoever, and thus anything can survive, without the need of an armored bathtub or dual engines etc. and last I checked a 30MM cannon is overkill for most iraqistan opponants too. We really enjoy killing tanks with missiles and bombs, its easier. and when we run out of tanks to kill that just leaves men. 7.62 will work for them.

To put it simply the A-10 losses in the first gulf war that forced low flying to go away, and the shift in the US Military tactics in the air brought on with advancements in tech meant that the A-10 had to be more like an F-16 and less like an A-10.

The A-10 had to become F-16, and now its being retired because its not F-16 enough. And thats the A-10s real problem. It has nothing to do with the F-35 comparison cola. whine about the F-35 all you want. F-16 is what is taking the A-10s job. because it can do everything an A-10 can in iraqistans and elsewhere too. an F-35 is better than an F-16, but an F-16 is already well ahead of the A-10-- and its in service now obviously so you can spare us the quips. And Libya was the first LIC where we saw A-10s being left out.

So at what casualty rate? I can confidently say that in the tougher environments, you know the ones that matter, the A-10s will take higher casualties. dead and captured pilots, dead and damaged airplanes. Yes the A-10 has armor. unlike a tank though you don't need to penetrate the armor to kill it, you need only compromise the aircraft's ability to fly and let Isaac Newton do the rest. A-10s have been shot down with nary a scratch in the armor, but armor isn't what keeps an airplane airborne.

Lets let the A-10 go while its "on top" and people will lament its passing, and not retire it after it takes massive losses and is unceremoniously dumped and a historical note of what happens when you don't see the writing on the wall.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 17:17
by cola
deadseal wrote:You are not involved in the program.

Ermm well, I've been involved in actual airwar (and asymmetrical one, but not to our favor :D) and unless the F35 isn't a combat aircraft, it doesn't matter if I'm involved in the program or not...I've seen F16/18 doing the CAS and survived...the trouble is the ground forces that they supported *sometimes* (and I really wouldn't get into how often), didn't.
On the other hand, I hear from you nothing but LM talking points, so you can imagine me being somewhat skeptical.

EDIT: Got nothing against Apache and it's a great chopper, although perhaps not as sturdy as Hind, but better in other aspects...it's just pisses me off when ppl that got no idea what they're talking about start trashing A10.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 17:42
by mixelflick
I came into this thread an A-10 lover, but must concede in the new high threat environment - it's toast. The F-35 might not carry the same nostalgia, but it will be survivable and put bombs etc. on target.

It's a fiscal/evolutionary reality, and I hate it as much as you. But the point here about letting the A-10 go out on top is well taken. Let's let go of her, and remember the good times.

And there were many, like the time an A-10 chewed up a chopper with its GAU-8? :D

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 18:46
by basher54321
maus92 wrote:"Conditions for effective CAS" as outlined in Joint Pub. 3-09.3 "Close Air Support"
......................
The point being that any platform providing CAS (rotary/fixed wing/UAV, etc) needs local AS to be effective. That doesn't mean that the platform providing the CAS needs to provide the AS.



As I said it is not a requirement for CAS by definition (page I-1)
Also as said before - it may still have to be performed without Air Sup as stated - page (V-57) even states low level can be used without.....

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 19:18
by cantaz
cola wrote:Ermm well, I've been involved in actual airwar (and asymmetrical one, but not to our favor :D) and unless the F35 isn't a combat aircraft, it doesn't matter if I'm involved in the program or not...I've seen F16/18 doing the CAS and survived...the trouble is the ground forces that they supported *sometimes* (and I really wouldn't get into how often), didn't.


Oh really. You cite some ambiguous military experience and suggest that your position is more valid for it, but you decline to provide any details. I'm not sure how we're supposed to take that seriously, given the amount of people here that actually substantiate their position with their experience, not just the fact that there were there.

And are you implying that troops that receive A-10 support *always* survive? Can you support that position?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 19:38
by XanderCrews
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:You are not involved in the program.

Ermm well, I've been involved in actual airwar (and asymmetrical one, but not to our favor :D) and unless the F35 isn't a combat aircraft, it doesn't matter if I'm involved in the program or not...I've seen F16/18 doing the CAS and survived...the trouble is the ground forces that they supported *sometimes* (and I really wouldn't get into how often), didn't.


Yes of course you don't.

And you can decisively say that it would have gone differently with an A-10?

How do the ground forces do when the A-10 gets shot down in a less permissive enviroment?

And the long history of friendly fire incidents with A-10s?

How much can the results positive and negative , be decisively tied to the platform type?

On the other hand, I hear from you nothing but LM talking points, so you can imagine me being somewhat skeptical.


I like that you can dub so many first hand accounts from so many military people as LM talking points. Its 2014, more and more people in uniform are getting their hands on and in the jet, and the reports are very positive. You might have had a better chance at making a point back when it was just a small group of test pilots with a a lot of them working for LM a few years back. But its a wider group now, and pilots from multiple countries, and operational pilots (IE not test guys). And it is making progress with the future only getting brighter.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 19:40
by basher54321
count_to_10 wrote:
I guess the F-15E qualifies as multi-role, but was the 'C ever even qualified for any ground attack weapons?


Pass on qualified - I think they had the software early on - See page 6 of this

F-15_BirdOfPrey.pdf
(293.28 KiB) Downloaded 332 times


The 1979 -34 does actually mention A-G modes - and the munitions table in an F-15C Standard Aircraft Characteristics doc lists a ton of A-G ordnance.

I thought Israel had used the Cs for some strike missions - but looking it seems F-15B & Ds were actually used to drop GBU-15s in a few missions (wooden Leg) - so the Cs used for A-A only AFAIK.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 21:44
by outlaw162
I think they had the software early on....


I may have mentioned this before, but....

One morning in 1978 or 79, I checked in a little early at the Gila Bend ranges with a flight of 4 A-7s for Range 4.

I was told to remain clear while the flight on the range finished up. Listened in and it went something like this....

"Lead's in." "Cleared hot lead." "Shack, lead."

"Two's in." "Cleared hot two." "Shack, two."

"Lead's in, target 1." "Cleared hot lead." "62 hits lead."

"Two's in, target 2." "Cleared hot two." "81 hits two."

"Arm Safe Check complete" and they went past south of us on the way out eastbound as we entered the range....

Two robin's egg blue F-15Bs flown by....take a guess. Eagle was potentially as good A2G as the A-7...and it could go fast and turn, ala the E.

There's no rule that necessarily requires one to be slow and ugly for A2G, just accurate. :D

(edit: I should add that I've known some slow, ugly pilots also.)

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 22:38
by cola
outlaw162 wrote:There's no rule that necessarily requires one to be slow and ugly for A2G, just accurate. :D

Sure, until your targets sit somewhere among those trees, or even better - houses...
Image...when you can kiss shooting smart ammo from FL250 goodbye...and imagine - it's May.
Quite different from Nevada, or Iraqi desert.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 22:47
by count_to_10
The only thing firing unguided rounds into an urban environment is going to be a helicopter gunship. For anything else, it will have to be smart weapons, and the longer the range you can pick out the targets, the better, as there are likely to be MANPADs hidden on the roofs.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 23:01
by basher54321
outlaw162 wrote:
I think they had the software early on....


I may have mentioned this before, but....

One morning in 1978 or 79, I checked in a little early at the Gila Bend ranges with a flight of 4 A-7s for Range 4.

I was told to remain clear while the flight on the range finished up. Listened in and it went something like this....

"Lead's in." "Cleared hot lead." "Shack, lead."

"Two's in." "Cleared hot two." "Shack, two."

"Lead's in, target 1." "Cleared hot lead." "62 hits lead."

"Two's in, target 2." "Cleared hot two." "81 hits two."

"Arm Safe Check complete" and they went past south of us on the way out eastbound as we entered the range....

Two robin's egg blue F-15Bs flown by....take a guess. Eagle was potentially as good A2G as the A-7...and it could go fast and turn, ala the E.

There's no rule that necessarily requires one to be slow and ugly for A2G, just accurate. :D

(edit: I should add that I've known some slow, ugly pilots also.)



Nice thanks - so some evidence that Bs were at least tested by the USAF with A-G.

Another CAS expert in the A-7D would you say?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 23:20
by basher54321
cola wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:There's no rule that necessarily requires one to be slow and ugly for A2G, just accurate. :D

Sure, until your targets sit somewhere among those trees, or even better - houses...
Then you can kiss shooting smart ammo from FL250 goodbye...and imagine - it's May.
Quite different from Nevada, or Iraqi desert.



He is right there is no rule by definition of CAS that requires you to be low or slow - even in the desert on 91 the A-10 was mostly high and slow 15kft - but would dive to around 8kft for weps release.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 23:42
by outlaw162
....so some evidence that Bs were at least tested by the USAF with A-G.

Another CAS expert in the A-7D would you say?


Yes to the first, though I would bet any USAF guys that day were in the backseat as IPs, probably ex-Phantom folks that had 'dabbled' in A2G previously' and were supporting foreign customer requirements.

No to the second, I don't qualify as an A-7D CAS expert, just a peacetime dilletante, Gums is the expert....

however I have flown smaller and smaller and slower and slower little circles in an F-100 trying to keep a tree-line in sight under an overcast and failing miserably...recovered just in time. :D

(But I wouldn't have any reservations about taking an F-16 under an overcast in May and doing comparably to an A-10. Fast jets can slow up if necessary, slow jets are predictably, well err....slow.)

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 00:23
by maus92
cantaz wrote:
maus92 wrote:Quibble as you may, but the basic tenet still stands - at least for for the intellectually honest.


You posted a silly meme that completely underrepresented the issue at hand and you presume to berate others about intellectual honesty?


Yes, because everyone should know that we are talking about tactical aircraft, and not bombers. Besides, the USAF will still operate a raft of single mission a/c types even if they are allowed to scrap the A-10s.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 00:45
by cola
outlaw162 wrote:(But I wouldn't have any reservations about taking an F-16 under an overcast in May and doing comparably to an A-10. Fast jets can slow up if necessary, slow jets are predictably, well err....slow.)

I know you wouldn't, I didn't mean that way...
But even when you do slow down, what can you really do, except most likely get shot down by AAA or MANPADS?
We've tried to probe with fast chopper slashes (and the terrain was much 'easier') and it was only 10 tons of Russian steel that kept them in one piece back to base and the entire CONOPS needed to be rewritten.
F16/18/35/whatever would break like a cardboard box, under such fire and you wouldn't have neither the radius, nor weapons to do anything meaningful in these conditions, in spite of best of efforts.
This is what the A10 is bred for and you can't really find better tool for this job.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 01:56
by XanderCrews
cola wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:There's no rule that necessarily requires one to be slow and ugly for A2G, just accurate. :D

Sure, until your targets sit somewhere among those trees, or even better - houses...
Image...when you can kiss shooting smart ammo from FL250 goodbye...and imagine - it's May.
Quite different from Nevada, or Iraqi desert.


GPS guided bombs don't typically notice clouds, and I would trust a GPS guided bomb more than a pilot under fire at 250 slinging dumb bombs at house he "thinks" have bad guys in it. I would rather you just do low passes at that point and don't pull any triggers show of force, moral support. I've flown over the house I grew up in and had a hard time picking it out and that was in a low flying cessna 172 in peaceful skies.

JTAC Doctrine won't allow an an aircraft to visually identify targets from the air and attack them. This was a lesson hard learned (largely thanks to overzealous A-10 pilots in fact) Targets must be properly IDed and the Cleared by a JTAC. This is a common mistake of people who don't understand how JTAC Doctrine (IE modern CAS) works. And it really hurts your credibility.

Read more about CAS in an urban enviroment here:

http://www.sldinfo.com/lessons-learned- ... -part-one/

(note the awful weather)

http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/Fal ... Power.html

Yep, been there done that. Note the picture of the individual specific wall that was targeted and accurately hit. If you think you can do pick out an individual wall in an entire city in the mark I eyeball and a dumb bomb at 250, I am a little amazed. if seeing the correct wall would be a miracle, let alone hitting.

There is a reason we developed advanced optics and radios, and ISR, and PGMs in the first place. Its because they are better, and in crappy conditions, they are still better than manual previous methods.

The way the internet thinks CAS is done:

Aircraft flies low and slow, pilot identifies and shoots target.

Here is the JTAC doctrine --How it is actually done:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

If you think for a new york minute that the weather in Iraq is cooperative think again, not to mention A-stan.

You do realize that CAS has been provided through atrocious weather, low overcast, sand storms, and even *GASP* at night right? and still at thousands of feet above it all? Your whole BS scenario hinges on the Idea that the technology to operate through low clouds does no exist, and this hasn't been true in a long time. There is a reason they put targeting pods and other electronic gizmos on A-10s to begin with. Isn't it odd, that when it comes to upgrading A-10s it always been about enhancing there PGM and electronics/avionics and not adding more armor?

Can you do deploy smart weapons below FL250? no. But you don't have to go below 250 at all anyway. So its a moot point.

Furthermore even if the obstacle you are trying to set up, nothing fixed wing is dropping below 250. A helicopter is your best bet in the scenario you attempted to set up.

CAS isn't done like that, not even by the A-10.

There is not a single scenario where ANY aircraft would drop to 250 and the pilot would try to identify and attack an individual house amongst many using visual only without clearence or confirmation from friendly forces, with friendly forces anywhere near, and that is before we even talk about the attempting to do so with MANPADs and AAA in the area. nothing good can come from that.

But even when you do slow down, what can you really do, except most likely get shot down by AAA or MANPADS?


exactly! now you are getting it! Being low and slow is dangerous. and the fear of MANPADs is why A-10s didn't get to play with the big boys, in libya only a few years ago. Yep and A-10s are slow, which is why they don't fly them like A-10s anymore. A-10s are flown more like F-16s.

F16/18/35/whatever would break like a cardboard box, under such fire and you wouldn't have neither the radius, nor weapons to do anything meaningful in these conditions, in spite of best of efforts.

This is what the A10 is bred for and you can't really find better tool for this job.


Not anymore. And even when this was the mission envisioned in the fulda gap in the 1980s it was a worst case scenario. Only in the most dire of circumstances with no other alternative would an air commander accept the losses in any combat scenario. You just don't throw away men and machines like that. (I actually mentioned this on the previous page)

Nothing can get shot up and be out of the fight like an A-10 I'll give ya that, What happens the next day when you have 48 taskings and a ramp full of written off and damaged aircraft is always an interesting problem, and not one that most people bother to think about. Yeah its great it can make it back on one wing and all but ya hope thats the last mission of the war.

can you actually give a single example of any fixed wing fighter going below 250 in combat let alone an A-10 the last 20 years? And then actually deploy ordnance? And in an area where friendlies are? If that is "what an A-10 is bred for" it should have been retired 20 years ago because that mission set doesn't exist for fixed wing aircraft. Do you really believe the weather has been cooperative every CAS/strike mission the last 20 years?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 14:38
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:Yes, because everyone should know that we are talking about tactical aircraft, and not bombers. Besides, the USAF will still operate a raft of single mission a/c types even if they are allowed to scrap the A-10s.


The main contention against the A-10 is not its single A2G role, it was that it was deep in the low intensity-low tech conflict end of the spectrum, and that's assuming there are no MANPAD-wielding savages. You should already know that having followed this thread from the beginning.

All that meme did was to misdirect the issue into one of roles, and confuse the issue further by mixing up missions and roles.

Few types of A2A missions = fighter aircraft = one role

Many types of A2G missions = attack aircraft = still one role

And whereas the F-15C's limited mission set all go towards enabling air operation, none of A-10's missions contribute to permitting air operation (basically, lacking SEAD), not for others, not even to itself.

And to exclude bombers simply because they're bombers, even when they're performing tactical missions? The meme you posted opened the door when it included specific missions like CAS and BAI that bombers can and do perform.

So, we can either assume the content of this thread completely went over your head, hence why you thought posting that meme actually highlighted USAF malfeasance. Or you knew it completely misrepresented the issue, and you were being intellectually dishonest. Or you knew it was inaccurate, and posted it for troll value.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 14:41
by basher54321
outlaw162 wrote:however I have flown smaller and smaller and slower and slower little circles in an F-100 trying to keep a tree-line in sight under an overcast and failing miserably...recovered just in time. :D

(But I wouldn't have any reservations about taking an F-16 under an overcast in May and doing comparably to an A-10. Fast jets can slow up if necessary, slow jets are predictably, well err....slow.)


Thanks for that - I think Gums is probably fed up of writing about CAS on here :D

Read an account in 2003 (OIF 1) where a couple of F-16s have to get below clouds at night to aid a group of special forces - under fire and scattered all over the place. Only indication of speed is where he states they maintain 400 - 500 kts (in case of MANPADS) and altitude is given as 5000 ft (assume AGL). Here though the guy fighting for his life on the ground seems to have a light that the pilots can pick up in NVGs - so once picked up they dropped (LGBs dumb) on the agreed location from the reference and that did the job.

Since then A-10 & F-16 got some more toys like SADL which can take coordinates direct from the ground and be linked to the TGPs they both carry - can only hope they reduce situations like the above.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 15:37
by count_to_10
So, the A-10 would have been a great aircraft in Vietnam (or, better yet, Korea). It's probably something that should have been produced concurrently with the F-4.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 16:51
by stobiewan
cola wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:There's no rule that necessarily requires one to be slow and ugly for A2G, just accurate. :D

Sure, until your targets sit somewhere among those trees, or even better - houses...
Image...when you can kiss shooting smart ammo from FL250 goodbye...and imagine - it's May.
Quite different from Nevada, or Iraqi desert.


Yeah, for that, I'd want a jet with some sort of electro optical target system built in, and ideally, although I'm not sure such technology exists, maybe six cameras arranged around it's body, together with a very good AESA radar. Going right out on a limb, if all of the data from that and other assets could be fused into a single coherent picture, come night or day, that'd be amazing.

While we're in Buck Rogers mode, perhaps they could manufacture a small payload bomb with some sort of tri-mode seeker, allowing a small but very precise terminal effect?

Maybe one day this technology will be available but til then, I guess the next best thing is an aircraft flying very low, relying on the pilot looking out the window wearing a pair of NVG's.

Flights of fancy aside, CAS isn't going to be done by a pilot just flying around til they see something they think conforms to their internal description of "The Bad Guys" - unless a JTAC has eyes on the target, you're not releasing ordnance. If a JTAC or similar controlling authority *has* eyes on the target, the act of weapons release can occur from further away and at a safer altitude. I don't get why this is complicated - right now, artillery support is handled in the same way - no-one's driving an SPG up to the front door and cranking a round off into the house that's under consideration - they're yanking the laynard on an Excalibur round from twenty miles back.

Ditto, all the accounts I've read from Aghanistan - Ed Macy's excellent "Hellfire" is a pretty good primer - everything that shoots in support is layered in via a JTAC and no-one's taking a shot without being cleared. With that control mechanism in place, with all the target identification and location being handled off the aircraft, there's no need to go in low and slow.

And no-one goes in low and slow unless they need to.

Attack helicopters can hide in terrain, have ISTAR capabilities the A10 has never dreamed of.

If you want to know how that'd look in a shooting war, I refer you to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, during which the opposition had access to a pile of modern shoulder fired missiles, including the Stinger. Pretty much as soon as they arrived in theatre, everything that flew either got below 500 feet or above 15K - the bit in the middle was just too damn dangerous to occupy - and that included Frogfoot and Hind flights.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 18:19
by XanderCrews
stobiewan wrote:
Yeah, for that, I'd want a jet with some sort of electro optical target system built in, and ideally, although I'm not sure such technology exists, maybe six cameras arranged around it's body, together with a very good AESA radar. Going right out on a limb, if all of the data from that and other assets could be fused into a single coherent picture, come night or day, that'd be amazing.

While we're in Buck Rogers mode, perhaps they could manufacture a small payload bomb with some sort of tri-mode seeker, allowing a small but very precise terminal effect?

Maybe one day this technology will be available but til then, I guess the next best thing is an aircraft flying very low, relying on the pilot looking out the window wearing a pair of NVG's.

Flights of fancy aside, CAS isn't going to be done by a pilot just flying around til they see something they think conforms to their internal description of "The Bad Guys" - unless a JTAC has eyes on the target, you're not releasing ordnance. If a JTAC or similar controlling authority *has* eyes on the target, the act of weapons release can occur from further away and at a safer altitude. I don't get why this is complicated - right now, artillery support is handled in the same way - no-one's driving an SPG up to the front door and cranking a round off into the house that's under consideration - they're yanking the laynard on an Excalibur round from twenty miles back.

Ditto, all the accounts I've read from Aghanistan - Ed Macy's excellent "Hellfire" is a pretty good primer - everything that shoots in support is layered in via a JTAC and no-one's taking a shot without being cleared. With that control mechanism in place, with all the target identification and location being handled off the aircraft, there's no need to go in low and slow.

And no-one goes in low and slow unless they need to.

Attack helicopters can hide in terrain, have ISTAR capabilities the A10 has never dreamed of.

If you want to know how that'd look in a shooting war, I refer you to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, during which the opposition had access to a pile of modern shoulder fired missiles, including the Stinger. Pretty much as soon as they arrived in theatre, everything that flew either got below 500 feet or above 15K - the bit in the middle was just too damn dangerous to occupy - and that included Frogfoot and Hind flights.


This

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 19:54
by hobo
count_to_10 wrote:So, the A-10 would have been a great aircraft in Vietnam (or, better yet, Korea). It's probably something that should have been produced concurrently with the F-4.


It was... though I don't know if any of the latest production F-4s were for the US.

The F-4 went out of production in the US in 1979. (1981 in Japan)

The A-10 was in production from ~1975-1984.

The A-10 would have been a great aircraft for Vietnam, and those were really the requirements it was built around.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 20:21
by hobo
cola wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:(But I wouldn't have any reservations about taking an F-16 under an overcast in May and doing comparably to an A-10. Fast jets can slow up if necessary, slow jets are predictably, well err....slow.)

I know you wouldn't, I didn't mean that way...
But even when you do slow down, what can you really do, except most likely get shot down by AAA or MANPADS?
We've tried to probe with fast chopper slashes (and the terrain was much 'easier') and it was only 10 tons of Russian steel that kept them in one piece back to base and the entire CONOPS needed to be rewritten.
F16/18/35/whatever would break like a cardboard box, under such fire and you wouldn't have neither the radius, nor weapons to do anything meaningful in these conditions, in spite of best of efforts.
This is what the A10 is bred for and you can't really find better tool for this job.


Can we please dispense with this sort of stupidity? (is that too frank?)

The A-10 is a remarkably damage tolerant aircraft, and that is commendable, but it remains an aircraft. All aircraft, the A-10 being no exception, are fragile things and are absolutely not designed to absorb more than minimal punishment during the course of normal operations.

The A-10 has a greater capacity to withstand damage than your "cardboard box" F-16/18/35... but only slightly, and while surrendering other features that render those more modern aircraft far more difficult to hit. The trick to survivability in an aircraft, above all, is not getting hit in the first place.

So yes, it is impressive that some heavily damaged A-10s have made it home. What is less impressive is that they got shot up in the first place and that the A-10's overall level of survivability has proven to be poor.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 21:38
by XanderCrews
hobo wrote:
cola wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:(But I wouldn't have any reservations about taking an F-16 under an overcast in May and doing comparably to an A-10. Fast jets can slow up if necessary, slow jets are predictably, well err....slow.)

I know you wouldn't, I didn't mean that way...
But even when you do slow down, what can you really do, except most likely get shot down by AAA or MANPADS?
We've tried to probe with fast chopper slashes (and the terrain was much 'easier') and it was only 10 tons of Russian steel that kept them in one piece back to base and the entire CONOPS needed to be rewritten.
F16/18/35/whatever would break like a cardboard box, under such fire and you wouldn't have neither the radius, nor weapons to do anything meaningful in these conditions, in spite of best of efforts.
This is what the A10 is bred for and you can't really find better tool for this job.


Can we please dispense with this sort of stupidity? (is that too frank?)

The A-10 is a remarkably damage tolerant aircraft, and that is commendable, but it remains an aircraft. All aircraft, the A-10 being no exception, are fragile things and are absolutely not designed to absorb more than minimal punishment during the course of normal operations.

The A-10 has a greater capacity to withstand damage than your "cardboard box" F-16/18/35... but only slightly, and while surrendering other features that render those more modern aircraft far more difficult to hit. The trick to survivability in an aircraft, above all, is not getting hit in the first place.

So yes, it is impressive that some heavily damaged A-10s have made it home. What is less impressive is that they got shot up in the first place and that the A-10's overall level of survivability has proven to be poor.



Look at the "cardboard boxes":

http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/ ... 13-06l.jpg

midair

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/de ... ty/f18.jpg

Missile hit

http://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_11 ... 855076.jpg

http://www.chrisgood.com/aircraft/image ... -air02.jpg

http://www.chrisgood.com/aircraft/image ... -air03.jpg

Mid Air

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/ ... 5_wing.jpg

Midair

http://luckypuppy.bravehost.com/GALLERY ... 2cc-me.jpg

Aim-9 hit

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... f_War.jpeg

Flak

OA-10A 76-0543
Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF). The 23 US combat lost aircraft. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.


OA-10A 77-0197
Crashed on landing. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW. Aircraft had been hit by small arms and was attempting a landing at KKMC FOL while in Manual Reversion after loosing all its hydraulics and in extreme weather conditions. On landing the aircraft cat wheeled wingtip over wingtip flipped over on to its back killing the pilot Lt Patrick Olson. There was nothing left of the aircraft. The remains of the aircraft were buried at the FOL.

A-10A 78-0722
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353rd TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Lt James Sweet ejected and made Prisoner of War.

A-10A 79-0130
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353th TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire approx 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Capt Steven Phyllis killed in action. Capt. Steve Phyllis died while protecting his downed wingman, 1st Lt. Robert James Sweet.

A-10A 79-0181
Crashed on landing, wheels up, hard stick landing by pilot Capt Rich Biley on 22 Feb 1991.

A-10A 80-0248
Shot down in combat by 'optical AAA' fire 2 Feb 1991 shot down by ground fire or SAM 20 NM SW of Kuwait City, Kuwait. Pilot Capt Richard Dale Storr ejected and captured as POW Released 03/05/91. From 23rd TFW.



Can we please dispense with this sort of stupidity? (is that too frank?)


its just honest. The A-10 is being retired, drastically putting its internet perceived missions that it doesn't do in real life at serious risk. I'm still laughing at this 250 thing oh lawd. we need the A-10 so it can get schwacked by triple AAA and manpads while slinging dumb bombs in case of low overcast??

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 22:44
by mixelflick
Geez, I never knew our birds could take hits like that.

Especially the F-18 legacy Hornet! We build 'em strong... :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 22:53
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the 'missile hit hornet recovering with arrest (on speed)' pic. Do you know some details please? Tah.

Turns out this was a mid-air collision with other aircraft (nose gone) also recovered via arrest (see next page)...

http://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_11 ... 855076.jpg
&
http://www.chrisgood.com/aircraft/image ... -air02.jpg
&
http://www.chrisgood.com/aircraft/image ... -air03.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 23:08
by cola
http://youtu.be/Uq0RUZsNEC0
Unlike these muppets, you aren't even funny.

A few quick facts (not talking points) for further Wikipeadia study...
1) EO/IR/Laser can't see through clouds.
2) APG81 can't find personnel on the ground.
3) F16 doing CCIP run had a CEP of 10ft 30 years ago, while GPS guided JDAM today has a CEP of 45ft and when INS guided a whopping 100ft!
There are some psychopaths here that would shoot that into melee, when Excalibur round with 15ft CEP and a warhead several tens of times smaller than JDAM isn't allowed anywhere within 450ft of the friendlies.
Freaking muppets...luckily likes of you are not allowed nowhere near live ammo.
When it comes to JTAC...c'mon, what you call JTAC we called 'kum' (literal translation would be 'a godfather'), who used anything from binocs to drones, to guide artillery and aircraft fire - 25 years ago!

Now, I'm off to watch some more funny muppets.
Hobo, sry for 'cardboard box' analogy...didn't know you'd reply so apologies, again.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 23:10
by count_to_10
hobo wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:So, the A-10 would have been a great aircraft in Vietnam (or, better yet, Korea). It's probably something that should have been produced concurrently with the F-4.


It was... though I don't know if any of the latest production F-4s were for the US.

The F-4 went out of production in the US in 1979. (1981 in Japan)

The A-10 was in production from ~1975-1984.

The A-10 would have been a great aircraft for Vietnam, and those were really the requirements it was built around.

So, I actually meant starting production the same time the F-4 did, but I hadn't taken into account just how long the F-4 lasted.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 23:23
by count_to_10
cola wrote:http://youtu.be/Uq0RUZsNEC0
1) EO/IR/Laser can't see through clouds.

Weapons don't have to if guided to the basket by GPS and to the target by their own IR or lazer designators from friendly ground forces.
2) APG81 can't find personnel on the ground.

You sure about that?
That asked, going after individuals is more of a helicopter thing.
3) F16 doing CCIP run had a CEP of 10ft 30 years ago, while GPS guided JDAM today has a CEP of 45ft and when INS guided a whopping 100ft!

Which really only means that JDAMs probably won't by used for CAS.

You might want to tone down the invective. It makes you look like you are desperately upset about losing an argument.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 23:55
by basher54321
hobo wrote:The A-10 is a remarkably damage tolerant aircraft, and that is commendable, but it remains an aircraft. All aircraft, the A-10 being no exception, are fragile things and are absolutely not designed to absorb more than minimal punishment during the course of normal operations.

The A-10 has a greater capacity to withstand damage than your "cardboard box" F-16/18/35... but only slightly, and while surrendering other features that render those more modern aircraft far more difficult to hit. The trick to survivability in an aircraft, above all, is not getting hit in the first place.

So yes, it is impressive that some heavily damaged A-10s have made it home. What is less impressive is that they got shot up in the first place and that the A-10's overall level of survivability has proven to be poor.



Good & accurate summary really.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 01:01
by deadseal
cola wrote:http://youtu.be/Uq0RUZsNEC0

3) F16 doing CCIP run had a CEP of 10ft 30 years ago, while GPS guided JDAM today has a CEP of 45ft and when INS guided a whopping 100ft!
.


umm you are wrong on this number. Makes me wonder what else you have been wrong on thus far. If you are quoting some Janes numbers, then you should obviously preface it with that. If you are quoting JFIRE then those numbers are wrong, and FOUO so you should probably just go away before big brother comes and gets you. Take note of the folks who don't drop specific data. They are the ones to listen to.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 01:58
by XanderCrews
cola wrote:http://youtu.be/Uq0RUZsNEC0
Unlike these muppets, you aren't even funny.


ouch.

A few quick facts (not talking points) for further Wikipeadia study...
1) EO/IR/Laser can't see through clouds.


If only there were other ways!! ... WE have somehow managed to drop despite godawful weather in your very neck of the wood-- 99 kosovo. bosnia in 96, and so many other horrific conditions elsewhere as well. did any A-10s do what you claimed, in the exact place you are claiming they would need to?

Thank you in advance for talking big, admonishing us, and then not providing any links while accusing us of wikipedia references. If you would like to take the time to explain to us your personal experiences, or provide us other sources so we can learn that would be a lot more respectable than "I won't say but you are all wrong, so good bye muppets"

2) APG81 can't find personnel on the ground.


Can an A-10's radar? oh wait. so its moot. not only that but A-10 struggles to identify if people are even combatants, let alone which combatants are friend or foe no matter how low and slow. Thats why you need a steady eyes, and radios.

3) F16 doing CCIP run had a CEP of 10ft 30 years ago, while GPS guided JDAM today has a CEP of 45ft and when INS guided a whopping 100ft!


How about that F-16!! huh? Amiright? Why do we need the A-10 again?

Anyway I think we are also talking about consistency. If humans could do that consistantly across the whole of your air force, then we wouldn't need these PGMs. Ive seen archers shoot apples off the tops of peoples heads, and yet the long bow went the way of the dinosaur.

There are some psychopaths here that would shoot that into melee, when Excalibur round with 15ft CEP and a warhead several tens of times smaller than JDAM isn't allowed anywhere within 450ft of the friendlies


Hey whoa there! The P sub I is bigger with a JDAM

for example the P sub I on a 155MM round is:

.1 percent PI
at 450'

so:

The casualty criterion is the 5-minute assault criterion for a prone soldier in winter clothing and helmet. Physical incapacitation means that a soldier is physically unable to function in an assault within a 5-minute period after an attack.

A probabilty of incapacitation value of less than 0.1 percent can be interpreted as being less than or equal to one chance in one thousand

so at 450ft the odds of being incapacited for 5 minutes is 1 chance in 1000.

If I'm a muppet, you can call me "the count" "isn't allowed anywhere within 450ft of the friendlies" ?? child, please.

I would gladly take the 15ft CEP , rather than an A-10 randomly shoots where he thinks there might be bad guys while under fire himself using dumb munitions. A myriad of friendly fire incidents have occured this way, and its killed friendlies. Arty doesn't randomly shoot into a city with friendlies near by, as you propose the A-10 should do (again while under fire). I would rather have the round I call in, in a situ I understand than random strafing, risking an aircraft, and friendly fire to me and my people. but then again im a "psychopath"

Here is footage and recording of an A-10 pilot in a far less stressful situ killing a friendly, after he talks himself into thinking they are opfor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGx0eDdrnqc

more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuYmn_xYB78

lack of comms with supporting assets can get you killed.

i don't think you understand the context of the things you are proposing. I would rather take a RAP round I authorize, than an aircraft I have no control or even communication with. Establishing where you are is the first critical safety step in any CAS.

So simply comparing CEP and danger close ranges is (which appear to be false and that is putting it nicely. Misleading garbage would be another way of saying it) does not at all explain the context. The nice thing about comparing CEP, though is its a lot easier to do with PGMs --hell even guided arty. Dumb bombs are a lot less consistant, and also much more susceptible to weather and other factors. So you actually need far more ideal conditions to drop dumb. BTW the minimal distance for dumb bombs and CAS is no less than 1,000 meters.

And no one is going to attempt to do so at 250ft attack I can garuntee you that, at that range you have to drop them retarded-- remember Cola that blast radious and fragmentation goes in every direction as well and is not a 2D prospect.

King Muppet here though. I don't know what I am talking about.

Freaking muppets...luckily likes of you are not allowed nowhere near live ammo.


I think you can tell I know more about ammo than you.

I apologize for not exactly being impressed with the credentials you claim, and the example you attempted. Ive talked to an A-10 pilot and another friend (Living in a USAF friendly town can be cool) who is in charge of planning and did so in Iraq, and not surprisingly neither of them were very thrilled with the idea of flying headlong low into AAA and MANPADS because they would theoretically survive slightly longer. Not surprising both said if they attempted such a feat they would rather do so in an F-16.

I also noticed you weren't able to find my deploy dumb ordnance at 250' source. (shocking) and you were dead wrong on the excaliber and clearly don't understand what the hell you are talking about.

When it comes to JTAC...c'mon, what you call JTAC we called 'kum' (literal translation would be 'a godfather'), who used anything from binocs to drones, to guide artillery and aircraft fire - 25 years ago!


So you dont need a low slow aircraft?

JTACs are not just humans its a doctrine and universally way of doing things that have not surprisingly evolved in 25 years. so a rose by any other name...

Now, I'm off to watch some more funny muppets.

Hobo, sry for 'cardboard box' analogy...didn't know you'd reply so apologies, again.


I hope you have more apologies prepared.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 02:08
by spazsinbad
I wonder when our 'muppets' (and I just jest - these JTACs are the best!) are going to go even more hi-tech (or similar) not forgetting other futures for them, being able to access the same sight picture as the aircraft (F-35) and vice versa to go break things and even releasing weapons from their location from aircraft overhead (think stealthy flying trucks maybe?).

Air Force researchers test Google Glass for battlefield use
By Senior Airman Alexander W. Riedel, Air Force News Service 25 April 2014
http://www.peninsulawarrior.com/news/ar ... f887a.html

AFAIK the 'berserker' :mrgreen: was a JTAC also as well as the only flying F-22/F-35 head honcho USMC? He will be the one to quote when ready for all that new fangled JTACerie.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL DAVID R. BERKE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS “CHIP”

"Lieutenant Colonel Berke is a native of Poughkeepsie, NY. He is a 1994 graduate of California State University at Fullerton, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and his commission in the Marine Corps as a Second Lieutenant. His military education includes The Basic School, Naval Flight Training, Tactical Air Control Party School, F-16 Transition Training, F-22 Transition Training, and Naval Fighter Weapons School.

In June 1994, Second Lieutenant Berke reported to MATSG Pensacola for Naval Flight Training in Pensacola, FL, Meridian, MS, and Kingsville, TX. In June 1997, he was designated a Naval Aviator and reported to VMFAT-101 MCAS El Toro, CA for Replacement Aircrew Training as an F/A-18 Pilot. Captain Berke reported to VMFA-314, Marine Aircraft Group-11, MCAS Miramar in October 1998 and served as Scheduling Officer, Powerline Officer, Quality Assurance Officer, and Logistics Officer. During this tour, Captain Berke deployed aboard the USS John C Stennis to the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Southern Watch in 2000, and to the North Arabian Sea in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001.

Captain Berke reported to the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Fallon, NV in September 2002 for duty as a TOPGUN Instructor. During his tour, he served as an F-16 Instructor Pilot, Adversary Officer, Assistant Training Officer, and Training Officer.

In September 2005, Major Berke reported to 5th ANGLICO in Okinawa, JA. While at 5th ANGLICO, he served as Supporting Arms Liaison Team Leader and Forward Air Controller. During this tour, Major Berke deployed to Ramadi, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In September 2006 Major Berke returned to MAG-11 MCAS Miramar, CA. After completing refresher training at VMFAT-101, Major Berke reported to VMFA-314 in December of 2006. He deployed to MCAS Iwakuni as part of the Unit Deployment Program serving as the Operations Officer and Executive Officer.

Major Berke reported to Tyndall AFB, FL in February 2008, for transition training in the F-22 Raptor. Upon completion he was assigned to the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB, NV as an Operational Test Pilot. He served as the Commander of the F-22 Division.

In July 2011, LtCol Berke reported to Eglin AFB, FL where he is currently serving as Commanding Officer, VMFAT-501. He has accumulated over 2800 flight in hours in the F/A-18, F-16, F-22, and F-35."

SOURCE: http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/si ... -Berke.pdf‎ (45Kb)

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 02:15
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for the 'missile hit hornet recovering with arrest (on speed)' pic. Do you know some details please? Tah.


the F-18 blue and tan camo was a MidAir I believe it was the Omars in Virginia both aircraft recovered. The gray hornet with the shredded engines is a USMC hornet that got hit by a SAM

sorry I don't have more details

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 02:17
by spazsinbad
OK thanks - now I have some clues (photos misnamed/captioned I think) I can look for more info.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 03:06
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for the 'missile hit hornet recovering with arrest (on speed)' pic. Do you know some details please? Tah.

http://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_11 ... 855076.jpg
&
http://www.chrisgood.com/aircraft/image ... -air02.jpg


That looks like damage from a mid-air collision. No shrapnel damage, at least from what can be seen in the photo.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 03:17
by Prinz_Eugn
deadseal wrote:
cola wrote:http://youtu.be/Uq0RUZsNEC0

3) F16 doing CCIP run had a CEP of 10ft 30 years ago, while GPS guided JDAM today has a CEP of 45ft and when INS guided a whopping 100ft!
.


umm you are wrong on this number. Makes me wonder what else you have been wrong on thus far. If you are quoting some Janes numbers, then you should obviously preface it with that. If you are quoting JFIRE then those numbers are wrong, and FOUO so you should probably just go away before big brother comes and gets you. Take note of the folks who don't drop specific data. They are the ones to listen to.


Yeah, these numbers sound way off. I believe you can find the early CEP requirements in the literature, but JDAM is well known to have greatly exceeded the requirements.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 04:18
by spazsinbad
Here is the story about the mid air collision and recovery: [three photos on previous page are all about recovery]

Story now with extra cheese... :doh:
2 Oceana Jets Collide April 24, 1996|By WILLIAM H. MCMICHAEL Daily Press

"Pilots Manage To Return To Base After Accident Off N.c. Coast

OCEANA NAVAL AIR STATION — Two Navy jets collided while flying side-by-side off the coast of North Carolina Tuesday, but the pilots managed to fly their crippled F/A-18s - one minus its nose, canopy, and power from one engine, and the other part of its left wing and tail section - home to a safe landing in Virginia Beach.

The pilots, both Naval Reservists, were treated for minor injuries and released from the Oceana Naval Air Station clinic, said Atlantic Fleet Naval Air Force spokesman Cmdr. Kevin Wensing. They are Lt. Cmdr. Greg S. Anderson, 33, from Williamsport, Pa., a 10-year Navy veteran, and Lt. Cmdr. William G. Stubbs, 32, of Statesboro, Ga., an 11-year veteran.

Stubbs is a Select Naval Reservist one week into his required annual two-week training, Wensing said; Anderson is a full-time reservist stationed at Oceana who specializes in the training and readiness of other reserve fliers.

The collision adds yet another accident to the growing list of recent accidents involving Navy planes, including the crash of an F-14B last week at Oceana. Eighteen tactical jets have been involved in accidents involving loss of life or more than $1 million of damage since the beginning of the fiscal year, Wensing said.

The two F/A-18As are assigned to Composite Fighter Squadron 12, whose jets are used to play the role of enemy jets for Oceana's F-14 Tomcats. They were taking part in an "air combat maneuver training mission" in what Wensing described as good weather.

The collision occurred at about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, 35 miles east of the North Carolina coast and 65 miles southeast of Norfolk. While it's not yet known which plane initiated the contact, Wensing said the two planes were flying side by side at 15,000 feet when they collided - Anderson on the left, Stubbs on the right. The nose of Anderson's jet came into contact with the left side of Stubbs' plane, striking its tail, left rudder, and left wing.

Stubbs' jet lost the outer five feet of its left wing - cracking open the fuel cell inside - and three feet from the left side of its twin tail section. The top of the left rudder was also sheared off.

The collision also knocked the nose section and canopy off Anderson's jet, leaving a stubby front end and the front windshield. He flew home without power from the right engine, and without radio communication and some of his radar capabilities. Wensing said that debris from the collision may have caused the engine damage.

Still, the pilots managed to fly home, traveling at 165 mph, Wensing said. At slower speeds, he said, the plane becomes difficult to control.

"It's a tribute to the pilots to get their airplanes back," Wensing said...."

SOURCE: http://articles.dailypress.com/1996-04- ... in-wensing

Pilots Thankful To Be Alive April 25, 1996|By WILLIAM H. MCMICHAEL Daily Press

"Oceana Fliers Describe Collision, Landing Jets...

...Composite Fighter Squadron 12 [VFC-12 'Fighting Omars']. No cause or fault for the mid-air collision of the $28 million jets has yet been determined, a process that the Navy said could take months.

But whatever the outcome of those findings, one up-close look at the damaged jets at Oceana Naval Air Station was enough to convince anyone that the safe return of the jets was nothing short of remarkable. Anderson's aircraft was missing its nose, its canopy, and the use of its right engine; Stubbs' lost parts of its left wing and left rudder....

...The jets flown by Stubbs and Anderson were cruising side-by-side at about 400 mph when, Anderson said, "We collided."

"I saw it coming, and tried to maneuver to get out of the way," said Anderson, who was flying to the left of Stubbs. It was too late; he braced himself for the impact.

"I thought, `Well, it's my time'," he said. "I was shocked to find out that it wasn't."

Stubbs didn't see the impending collision. "It felt like a giant speed bump," he said.

The jets separated after the impact. Anderson careened into a left roll; he lost control for a few seconds, he said. He had lost his nose cone, his canopy, his hydraulics, his instrumentation, and power in one engine. "There was a lot of air in the cockpit," he recalled. His wristwatch was torn off his arm.

"It certainly makes you jump," he said. "You just think, `Settle down, evaluate what happened.' "

Stubbs' jet, flying on the right, also began to roll left; the impact tore a five-foot section of the left wing off his jet, bent the wing's rear flap up against the fuselage, and sheared three feet from the top of the left rudder.

Stubbs recalled a "momentary disorientation." Then he got a grip on himself, and instinct kicked in. Stubbs slowed to about 230 mph, and gave the jet "hard right stick and right rudder" to right himself.

Once the two jets were stabilized, each pilot did a quick damage assessment. Despite the wing damage, Stubbs wasn't in bad shape. He was leaking fuel from a small storage tank in the wing.

Anderson, flying with a blunted front end, had to slow down below 200 mph and crouch behind his windscreen. "My feet were constantly working the rudders to keep the airplane flying," he said.

Anderson remained aloft in part because the flight control computers compensated for the jet's losses. Stephenson said F/A-18s are equipped with two mission computers, a redundancy he said is reflected elsewhere in the jet - in the two rudders and two engines, for example - to increase its chances of survival in the event of a collision or missile strike.

Anderson was down to one scratchy radio, on one frequency. But help came in the form of another F/A-18 and two F-14s from VF-41 squadron, who pulled alongside and passed along valuable data. Anderson couldn't tell how fast he was going, if he was leaking fuel, or if his landing gear went down. All that information and more was radioed over from the other jets.

Because he wasn't leaking and was aware of his fuel stores prior to impact, "I knew I had plenty of gas to make it home at a slow air speed," he said. Anderson, familiar with the area, chose the least-populated route home, he said."

SOURCE: http://articles.dailypress.com/1996-04- ... llion-jets

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 05:24
by cola
deadseal wrote:umm you are wrong on this number.

Umm no I'm not, well unless Mr.Michael Dietchman, director of strike technology at the Office of Naval Research that actually developed it, isn't 'in the know'.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... M4161.aspx
So, the Office managed to reduce JDAM's CEP to 10ft, but not while GPS guided, but using IIR 'Damask' seeker, which again whadayaknow doesn't work in them darn clouds.

so you should probably just go away before big brother comes and gets you.
Take note of the folks who don't drop specific data. They are the ones to listen to.

Deadseal, get real and leave this rubbish for hobo kids on Wallmart's parking lot.
I like to think this is more or less, a serious forum...well as much as can be anyway.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 05:38
by mk82
Cola, as others have pointed, the last thing you want to do in your particular scenario is to sling dumb bombs at the target. Even if the external environment is benign (no crosswinds etc), friendly forces near the target will have to rely on the pilot NOT making any errors (even SLIGHT errors) with his/her CCIP aimpoint at the time of bomb release. A PGM will still be the way to go anyway in such a situation. If you don't trust GPS/INS JDAMS, LGBs are the way to go (it still works with CCIP delivery if you wish to fly low....fancy that). In fact LJDAMs are even better (GPS/INS/Laser). If adverse cloud cover/environmental factors are degrading the effectiveness of the aircraft's TGP, the JTAC/FAC can buddy lase the target on the ground. In fact, one can argue that ground buddy lasing allows an aircraft to employ a LJDAM from higher altitudes, even in overcast conditions!

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 07:37
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:umm you are wrong on this number.

Umm no I'm not, well unless Mr.Michael Dietchman, director of strike technology at the Office of Naval Research that actually developed it, isn't 'in the know'.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... M4161.aspx
So, the Office managed to reduce JDAM's CEP to 10ft, but not while GPS guided, but using IIR 'Damask' seeker, which again whadayaknow doesn't work in them darn clouds.


Maybe something more recent than 13 years old article might help: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-sars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Air_Force/JDAM_December_2012_SAR.pdf

Page 10: 13 m or 43 feet accuracy with GPS is threshold capability and JDAM has demonstrated 4.3 m or about 14 feet accuracy with it. I think advances in GPS receivers has allowed this level of accuracy.

INS accuracy is directly proportional to time and that means that 100 feet accuracy would be the accuracy from max range release which is about 15 nm or 28 km. When released from let's say 10 km range, the CEP would be about 35 feet or about 10 m.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 10:28
by XanderCrews
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:umm you are wrong on this number.

Umm no I'm not, well unless Mr.Michael Dietchman, director of strike technology at the Office of Naval Research that actually developed it, isn't 'in the know'.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... M4161.aspx
So, the Office managed to reduce JDAM's CEP to 10ft, but not while GPS guided, but using IIR 'Damask' seeker, which again whadayaknow doesn't work in them darn clouds.

so you should probably just go away before big brother comes and gets you.
Take note of the folks who don't drop specific data. They are the ones to listen to.

Deadseal, get real and leave this rubbish for hobo kids on Wallmart's parking lot.
I like to think this is more or less, a serious forum...well as much as can be anyway.



I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to all the other "facts not talking points" including your total non-sense claim with the artillery. it sure looks like all we are doing from that impressive little list is argueing about the CEP of JDAM, which even without the laser seeker is well withing tolerances for use, and still far more prefered and can be used closer to friendlies anyway. especially when compared to dumb bombs in the same conditions.

Are we really whining about a CEP of 43 feet?

Sincerely, a psychopathic muppet who shouldn't be allowed near live ammo.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 14:03
by stobiewan
XanderCrews wrote:Are we really whining about a CEP of 43 feet?



What's danger-close for JDAM ? Mile and a bit?

Bit puzzled about the discussion to be honest, no matter how anyone jukes the stats on PGM's, they're way way way (as in, several foot ball field's long) better than the unguided alternatives.

Either way, I think we're all convinced that the days of "bomb f*ck out of that field over there, as there may be a Tiger tank in it" are over and done. Well, nearly all of us :)

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 14:41
by deadseal
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:umm you are wrong on this number.

Umm no I'm not, well unless Mr.Michael Dietchman, director of strike technology at the Office of Naval Research that actually developed it, isn't 'in the know'.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... M4161.aspx
So, the Office managed to reduce JDAM's CEP to 10ft, but not while GPS guided, but using IIR 'Damask' seeker, which again whadayaknow doesn't work in them darn clouds.

so you should probably just go away before big brother comes and gets you.
Take note of the folks who don't drop specific data. They are the ones to listen to.

Deadseal, get real and leave this rubbish for hobo kids on Wallmart's parking lot.
I like to think this is more or less, a serious forum...well as much as can be anyway.


dude......dude.....dude
JDAM numbers are classified. sooo you are quoting "Janes" like numbers allowable for public consumption. Which means you don't have access to JFIRE or 3-1. Which means you don't know sh*t about CAS. Which ultimately means you don't have real access to tactical aviation. Which means you don't have the credentials to tell anyone about how/when/ or if they should use an A-10.
I am trying to be nice so i'll just say this. For the love of god, let the ****** pilots who train every ****** day of their lives studying, breathing, and consuming combat tactics tell YOU how best we can use the A-10. And I believe el numero uno piloto (Chief of staff of the Air force, and who was an A-10 pilot by the way) Is telling YOU, you dumbass ground pounding shoe clerk, how best to use Americas resources. Where the hell do you get off telling the USAF professionals how best to use their equipment?????? Good god , can you not see your ridiculousy narcissistic approach? I would never tell the army how best to use arty or agm-whatever the **** you were quoting. Unless you are a PILOT OR ACTIVE AVIATION TACTICIAN, YOU HAVE NO ****** SAY WHATS SO EVER! and you should recognize that.

Sorry...... I'm sure to get a warning on this one....I am sorry web masters, but I see in this guy a problem systemic in our entire government. Where people who have no clue what they are talking about try and shove ridiculous notions down the throats of the warfighter. People are going to get hurt/killed, and resources wasted with this kind of bullshit.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 17:04
by XanderCrews
What's danger-close for JDAM ? Mile and a bit?


"Danger close" is a technical term and it varies by weapon. However "Danger close" should not be confused with "calling it in on top of you" if you will. the danger close for an A-10 gun is 90M. So if you are within 50M of an A-10 strafing you are danger close. Its doesn't mean you will die, its just you reminding the pilot he needs to be on target because there are friendlies near. if you are 100M you don't need to call danger close, because the tolerances are not tight enough, and the pilot isn't expected to miss by that much.

For example the "Danger close" for 155 artillery, is 600M. so we shoot "danger close" all the freaking time, especially considering that the max effective range of an M-16 is 550M So if you are shooting at someone 500M away and calling in Arty on them you are "danger close" However the no joke you will die here blast/frag for the 155MM is about 50M.

However (trying to keep this simple) The CEP (circular error probable) comes into play So if the effect of the shell is 50M (kaboom!) and the CEP (we will land somewhere in this circle) is 50M. it can be dangerous. Artillery is also not linear. so as the distance increases, the CEP grows exponentially. this needs to be kept in mind when firing conventional arty.
In conventional artillery 50M is accurate/ good to go. So if you fire at a target ten miles away and it hits within 50M that is "on target" and you can go nuts.

Exacliber though is so accurate that CEP doesn't even come into play and gunners rely on "P sub I" that is the odd/percentage of friendlies that will be incapacitated by their proximity of the rounds. so its one less factor to worry about, at 450' the odds of being incapacitated by an excaliber are 1 in 1,000 so at 200M, I'm game. Safety being a relative thing in combat. It is not at all the poppycock that cola tried to sell. its not black and white. Its a spectrum of gray.

When you can get the CEP low, You can call in fire or drop bombs and only have to worry about the blast radious, because whatever is hitting is so wonderfully consistent and predictable and accurate. That is the beauty of PGMs

so rather than worrying about "will this shell/bomb land on me?" I can now say "when this shell/bomb lands on this specific target, how far away do I have to be to avoid casualties?" You take out a critical variable and make it a constant instead. There is a reason that PGMs are prefered. its removes a lot of human error and other factors like winds. If you think that peoples decision making and accuracy improves under stress and under fire and in poor weather I have bad news. Which is why its a wonder Cola would even go there. but to keep a 1980s airplane sensical, you have to employ 1980s ideas. A-10 tactics from the 1980s would be unrecognizable by today A-10s pilots. Save for the strafe maybe.

"so then I got low to find the tanks and avoid fire" is now "So I stayed at 15,000 to avoid fire while using my pods to pick out the potential hostiles and scan for IEDs" sure plenty of hand waving though I am sure. :mrgreen:

"Danger close" basically is you telling them to be accurate. In the case of CAS you establish your position first. This is one of those important ways of saying "shoot anywhere but here, because thats where we are, if you need to error, error to the outside of this position" Remember too that the JTAC/FO/FAC also tells and directs the aircraft from which direction to attack and will even confirm his position:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWuKse2LwI

A-10 CAS in A-stan. note in the first minute how the JTAC confirms and reconfirms his position for danger close cannon run.

Bit puzzled about the discussion to be honest, no matter how anyone jukes the stats on PGM's, they're way way way (as in, several foot ball field's long) better than the unguided alternatives.


Yes sir! and its 1,000M cushion for friendlies calling in CAS with dumb bombs --again unpredictability, means a larger margin of safety. so PGMs are much preferred. Can you still call it in under 1,000M? yes but its danger close.

Just bringing it back to the whole cola low clouds so we need A-10s post I think its pretty much been estabilished why that is not the show stopper he thinks. And an A-10 would attack it the exact same way as an F-16. Thats why A-10s have been upgraded with PGMs and targetting pods and some are even getting the "cosmic" (as gums would say) helmet.

The helmet features a new Helmet-Mounted Integrated Targeting system, or HMIT, which will provide targeting information to A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots, such as Holm. The HMIT generates an image in the eye piece in front of Holm’s right eye, which provides information on potential targets, while in flight....

...A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots with the 107th Fighter Squadron at Selfridge Air National Guard Base are implementing a new Helmet-Mounted Integrated Targeting system, or HMIT, which will shorten the amount of time needed to put bullets, bombs or missiles on target in a hostile environment.

"It adds a huge amount of capability," said Capt. Jason Holm, an A-10 pilot at Selfridge.


http://www.127wg.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123342790

Does this sound familiar F-35 fans? And its drastically better than using the mark. 1 eyeball you say? Shocking!

A-10 upgrades have been all about getting them caught up to the preferred modern methods of CAS. And those prefered methods have been electronics and avionics. not trying to get lower and slower. not trying to deploy dumb bombs so low you lose the aircraft. a-10s have actually been playing catch up, to the aircraft that already have more effective systems working now, especially integration with other assets.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 17:10
by cola
deadseal wrote:For the love of god, let the ****** pilots who train every ****** day of their lives studying, breathing, and consuming combat tactics tell YOU how best we can use the A-10.


We had more US personnel mingling around our military facilities even 10 years after the freaking war fishing for actual combat experiences and rewriting their (your) CONOPS, than our own soldiers and fed them (for kicks) with all sorta rubbish watching them latter scratching their heads when the result didn't add up.
And you think you're an absolute authority on CAS?
You think noone else flies CAS but you, just because he doesn't wave his hillbilly flag around?
I'm telling you where A10/F16/18 exhibited shortcomings and advantages, in the actual war.
Don't trust me? Get the f outta here and go ask real ppl that actually flew there.
The F35/PGM doesn't bring anything applicably new to 'weather' table that I'm talking about, because even LJDAM still boils down to laser and we that were there, know how that went.
Once the manufacturers start to put mm radars on bombs and corresponding cueing systems on the jets/ground, then we can start a serious talk about *all weather PGMs*.

If you don't get that, we're done...and no need to whine about warnings.
I got no problem with your tone. The content is another matter.

As for your (just had to laugh) 'classified' material ideas...it's the CONOPS that gets classified...hardware?...well let me put it this way; "Son, if you have to classify hardware, you're doing it wrong".
Several months ago we sent our jets to overhaul in the freaking Ukraine (do you even know where it is and what's going on there?) with NATO IFF/Comms transpoders installed!
Wtf will Ukrainians/Russians/Chinese do with them?
Get a freaking clue before opening mouth.

Anyway, when the manufacturer/DoD releases a certain figure, though it may not be 100% accurate it gives you a good idea of the capability (apart from obvious design/physical limitations) and yea, I may not know the exact accuracy of the JDAM, but I do know that if I have to drop one on a specific side of the house or street, it may and probably will go wide and possibly injure/kill my grunts down there, so it's a no-go for me and that's all I'm really interested in.

And stop breathing, imagining, thinking, (j*rking?) and whatever you do about CAS and start doing it.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 17:29
by XanderCrews
And you think you're an absolute authority on CAS?


I actually had the same question about you. You have been wrong on many details.


I'm telling you where A10/F16/18 exhibited shortcomings and advantages, in the actual war.


Which war? what experiences? you didn't say much. you posted a picture and then tried to say that an A-10 would be ideal to attack there, even with heavy resistance. In CAS? what examples?

NATO IFF/Comms transpoders installed!


Awesome, great work. what NATO country do you hail from?

The F35/PGM doesn't bring anything applicably new to 'weather' table that I'm talking about, because even LJDAM still boils down to laser and we that were there, know how that went.
Once the manufacturers start to put mm radars on bombs and corresponding cueing systems on the jets/ground, then we can start a serious talk about *all weather PGMs*.


and the A-10 overcomes this how?

Get a freaking clue before opening mouth.


tell me again about the 450' limit of artillery? would you like to cherry pick some more data, I can wait.

Anyway, when the manufacturer/DoD releases a certain figure, though it may not be 100% accurate it gives you a good idea of the capability (apart from obvious design/physical limitations) and yea, I may not know the exact accuracy of the JDAM,


So the JDAM CEP was just a red herring? you said "what about clouds?!" we said "JDAM" you said "JDAM isnt accurate enough it can miss by 43 ft" and now its this^^??

but I do know that if I have to drop one on a specific side of the house or street, it may and probably will go wide and possibly injure/kill my grunts down there, so it's a no-go for me and that's all I'm really interested in.


uh Yeah no sh*t. that goes with any munition. Why would you call anything that close unless it was that or certain death? and again how the A-10 with a dumb bomb mitigate that risk?

I am ready to learn.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 19:06
by stobiewan
cola wrote:Once the manufacturers start to put mm radars on bombs and corresponding cueing systems on the jets/ground, then we can start a serious talk about *all weather PGMs*.


You'd want Brimstone for that - although all the pilots and WSO's I've heard tell are a lot keener on laser guidance than radar as there's always the possibility the missile may pick up on something else in it's field of regard and go after that. Brimstone is a dual mode seeker so no issues with that. Ditto, PaveWay IV (GPS and INS) or perhaps in the future, for F35, SPEAR 3 (Stand off Precision Effects at Range) - Brimstone seeker mated to a longer range rocket assisted glide bomb.

Either way, unless I'm missing something here, that's already here and is combat tested (Brimstone took out something like 14 armoured vehicles in one pass in Libya for instance)

Again, in common with a few other people here, I don't see how dissing PGM's helps the case for lobbing iron bombs - their performance, historically, doesn't come close to PGM levels. In any event, we're talking about fielding aircraft with the sensors to pick out targets from altitude, in any weather and at any time of the day. F35 can give the pilot the whole picture, including input from blue force tracker.

Let's riffle the pages of history back to GW1, when a pair of A10's picked out what they felt was an Iraqi armoured column, and while flying at over 10Kft, launched two Mavericks, right at a bunch of what turned out to be my countrymen. We lost more of our troops to friendly fire incidents than anything the Iraqis could do. I'm not having a pop at anyone here - everyone I've ever talked to has said they were eternally grateful for the total air superiority and on tap air support available.

So,why, if low and slow was de rigeur, were the pilots flying too high to tell a pair of Warrior IFV's from the T55's they thought they were? Probably because by that stage of the war, they'd either been hit or had seen plenty of people in their own squadrons who *had* been hot by trashfire numerous times. Six aircraft lost, 18 hit. I'll grant you the A10 takes a beating like nothing else that flies, but I'd rather not be hit please...

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 20:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
And don't forget that the SAMs that have dropped the A-10 have all been short-range small-warhead heat-seekers.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 21:17
by XanderCrews
stobiewan wrote:
cola wrote:Once the manufacturers start to put mm radars on bombs and corresponding cueing systems on the jets/ground, then we can start a serious talk about *all weather PGMs*.


You'd want Brimstone for that - although all the pilots and WSO's I've heard tell are a lot keener on laser guidance than radar as there's always the possibility the missile may pick up on something else in it's field of regard and go after that. Brimstone is a dual mode seeker so no issues with that. Ditto, PaveWay IV (GPS and INS) or perhaps in the future, for F35, SPEAR 3 (Stand off Precision Effects at Range) - Brimstone seeker mated to a longer range rocket assisted glide bomb.

Either way, unless I'm missing something here, that's already here and is combat tested (Brimstone took out something like 14 armoured vehicles in one pass in Libya for instance)

Again, in common with a few other people here, I don't see how dissing PGM's helps the case for lobbing iron bombs - their performance, historically, doesn't come close to PGM levels. In any event, we're talking about fielding aircraft with the sensors to pick out targets from altitude, in any weather and at any time of the day. F35 can give the pilot the whole picture, including input from blue force tracker.

Let's riffle the pages of history back to GW1, when a pair of A10's picked out what they felt was an Iraqi armoured column, and while flying at over 10Kft, launched two Mavericks, right at a bunch of what turned out to be my countrymen. We lost more of our troops to friendly fire incidents than anything the Iraqis could do. I'm not having a pop at anyone here - everyone I've ever talked to has said they were eternally grateful for the total air superiority and on tap air support available.

So,why, if low and slow was de rigeur, were the pilots flying too high to tell a pair of Warrior IFV's from the T55's they thought they were? Probably because by that stage of the war, they'd either been hit or had seen plenty of people in their own squadrons who *had* been hot by trashfire numerous times. Six aircraft lost, 18 hit. I'll grant you the A10 takes a beating like nothing else that flies, but I'd rather not be hit please...


Definetly not confined to the british, at al nasirya USMC AAV-7 was hit with many killed just as Marines were starting a counter assualt that threw the whole thing into mess, an LAV at Al Khafji in 1991 was killed by an A-10. generally A-10s do not have a good reputation amongst Marines which is why I always get a kick out of "ask anyone on the ground" hyperbole.

one of the problems in the gulf war was the ID chevrons painted on tanks didn;t show below 5,000 and A-10s weren't flying that low. For as "low/slow" as the A-10 reputation is, its never been low or slow enough to avoid the kind of accidents from poor SA that low slow is supposed to prevent...

A part of it could also just be that the A-10 is involved in these incidents because its doing so much support and its getting the majority of the accidents because its doing the majority of the job-- fighter wise anyway. B-1s can be awesome CAS weapons. And with the loiter time you would think you died and went to have. it takes forever for them to run out of bombs or gas.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 21:20
by deadseal
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:For the love of god, let the ****** pilots who train every ****** day of their lives studying, breathing, and consuming combat tactics tell YOU how best we can use the A-10.

Ffs get a freaking clue, already...we had more US personnel mingling around our military facilities even 10 years after the freaking war fishing for actual combat experiences and rewriting their (your) CONOPS, than our own soldiers and fed them (for kicks) with all sortsa rubbish watching them latter scratching their heads when the result didn't add up.
And you think you're an absolute authority on CAS?
You think noone else flies CAS but you, just because he doesn't wave his hillbilly flag around?
I'm telling you where A10/F16/18 exhibited shortcomings and advantages, in the actual war.
Don't trust me? Get the f outta here and go ask real ppl that actually flew there.
The F35/PGM doesn't bring anything applicably new to 'weather' table that I'm talking about, because even LJDAM still boils down to laser and we that were there, know how that went.
Once the manufacturers start to put mm radars on bombs and corresponding cueing systems on the jets/ground, then we can start a serious talk about *all weather PGMs*.

If you don't get that, we're done...and no need to whine about warnings.
I got no problem with your tone. The content is another matter.

As for your (just had to laugh) 'classified' material ideas...it's the CONOPS that gets classified...hardware?...well let me put it this way; "Son, if you have to classify hardware, you're doing it wrong".
Several months ago we sent our jets to overhaul in the freaking Ukraine (do you even know where it is and what's going on there?) with NATO IFF/Comms transpoders installed!
Wtf will Ukrainians/Russians/Chinese do with them?
Get a freaking clue before opening mouth.

Anyway, when the manufacturer/DoD releases a certain figure, though it may not be 100% accurate it gives you a good idea of the capability (apart from obvious design/physical limitations) and yea, I may not know the exact accuracy of the JDAM, but I do know that if I have to drop one on a specific side of the house or street, it may and probably will go wide and possibly injure/kill my grunts down there, so it's a no-go for me and that's all I'm really interested in.

And stop breathing, imagining, thinking, (j*rking?) and whatever you do about CAS and start doing it.


Im still really confused....why do you think you know more than combat aviators on how to employ combat aircraft?

I wouldn't walk into an army base and start telling them that they really need the M1A1 or Kiowa. Why do you think you can do that to the USAF? I have very good friends from UPT flying the A-10 and they all understand why the USAF wants the F-35 and they may not like it, but they understand. Your actually not making sense anymore. Do you really think that specific JDAM numbers aren't classified? And yes I am an expert on CAS...in an F-16. good day sir and GFY

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 23:32
by stobiewan
XanderCrews wrote:Definetly not confined to the british, at al nasirya USMC AAV-7 was hit with many killed just as Marines were starting a counter assualt that threw the whole thing into mess, an LAV at Al Khafji in 1991 was killed by an A-10. generally A-10s do not have a good reputation amongst Marines which is why I always get a kick out of "ask anyone on the ground" hyperbole.

one of the problems in the gulf war was the ID chevrons painted on tanks didn;t show below 5,000 and A-10s weren't flying that low. For as "low/slow" as the A-10 reputation is, its never been low or slow enough to avoid the kind of accidents from poor SA that low slow is supposed to prevent...

A part of it could also just be that the A-10 is involved in these incidents because its doing so much support and its getting the majority of the accidents because its doing the majority of the job-- fighter wise anyway. B-1s can be awesome CAS weapons. And with the loiter time you would think you died and went to have. it takes forever for them to run out of bombs or gas.



As far as I recall, GW1 was the major factor in pushing forward Blue Force Tracker for the reasons discussed. The A10 spent a lot of time stooging around above trashfire alt, with the pilots using the seeker image from a Mav to pick out targets - bit like conducting a ground search with a drinking straw for a FoV.

You could take out half a tank division with a pair of F35 and a rack full of Brimstone from 12 nm away, what's the attraction of flying around in small circles trying to plink *one* with an A10?

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 11:49
by hornetfinn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And don't forget that the SAMs that have dropped the A-10 have all been short-range small-warhead heat-seekers.


Exactly. A-10 has been shot down with 35-50 year old missile tech with SA-9, SA-13 and SA-16 missiles, possibly also by Roland system. Many A-10s have been badly damaged by 12.7 mm, 14.5 mm and 23 mm AAA.

Modern gun systems (also Russian and Chinese) have 30 mm or 35 mm guns (there are also larger modern ones) whose projectiles have about 3-5 times the destructive power of 23 mm gun used in ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2. Of course they are also much more accurate and have about twice the effective range. They also have several times shorter reaction times and have effective computer controlled fire control systems. These would break even A-10 in half with just one or two direct hits.

Modern short range missile systems have missiles that have much higher speed (about 2-3 times the speed of SA-9 or SA-13), several times larger warheads, much longer range, 2-3 times higher maneuverability and much quicker reaction times (less than 10 seconds compared to 20-30 seconds of old systems). Another thing to note is that those old SA-9 and SA-13 missiles were using Amplitude Modulation (AM) in their seekers, meaning miss distance was most likely much bigger than with more modern missiles. Modern missiles are much more likely to hit the target and have several times the destructive power to take out the target.

All in all, even A-10 can not survive hits by modern air defense systems. It can take a lot of damage, but modern systems can dish out so much damage that even the tough A-10 gets easily killed by modern systems if hit. And it would get hit unless those threat systems were killed first through SEAD/DEAD or artillery/rockets as it doesn't have capabilities to avoid being hit. F-35 would easily get killed also if hit, but that's why it has many features to avoid being hit or even detected in the first place.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 15:45
by maus92
Long blog post, worth the read. Excerpts below:

Questionable Logic: Unacknowledged Risks Riddle Air Force Push to Retire A-10
Tony Carr / April 28, 2014 / JQPublic

"The A-10 spends its time willingly seeking out and placing itself into the middle of the fiercest gun battles on the planet. It is therefore only fitting that the Air Force’s decision to retire its only dedicated attack aircraft has erupted into a political, rhetorical, and budgetary firefight. On one side of this clash is a formation of Warthog champions arguing with a tenacity faithful to the combat traditions of the world’s most dominant close air support (CAS) weapon. On the other side is arrayed a phalanx of spreadsheet-wielding budgeteers, led from the front by General Mark Welsh, a former A-10 pilot himself now acting in the role of reluctant executioner. Like most national defense disputes arising from budgetary imperatives rather than strategic ones, this one makes continually less sense the longer it continues....."

"A true debate about the A-10’s future might involve potentially disruptive facts, such as:

The A-10 is not a single-role CAS platform as the Air Force has recently suggested. During the 100-day air war in Desert Storm, A-10s flew more than 8,000 missions, most of which were executed without any friendly ground forces in the fight. The A-10 fleet destroyed 3,000 tanks, artillery pieces, and combat vehicles, and was routinely tasked through and sometimes against surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft sites.

The Air Force’s nascent claim that the A-10 has flown “just” 20% of CAS sorties in Afghanistan is misleading. Because it delivers more payload on each sortie compared to other CAS platforms, the A-10 has employed more ordnance than other aircraft in spite of a lower sortie count. In recent years, the A-10 has been responsible for an estimated half of all CAS weapon employment in Afghanistan.

High-angle strafe, especially when performed at night, is an extremely difficult tactic. While other fighters can perform it, they typically don’t and can’t train to it the way the A-10 crew force does. This specialization is something upon which the outcome of a battle can hinge. Even when other fighters undertake this mission, the difference between their 20mm cannons (designed for use against other aircraft) and the A-10’s GAU-8 30mm Gatling gun (designed expressly for attack) is dramatic. Lives on the ground can be saved or lost based on this difference.

While it thrives in the low altitude environment, the A-10 is capable of altitudes that allow it to avoid the most common anti-aircraft and should-fired missile systems. The idea that it is more vulnerable to common threats is much more complicated than the public discussion has thus far acknowledged.

The A-10 crew force is the most expert body of CAS specialists in the world. They focus upon and train to the mission constantly, interacting with joint force partners and battlefield airmen to ensure they’re razor-sharp and ready for the next shooting war. If the plug is pulled on the A-10 years before the F-35 becomes operational, that experience is likely to end up diffused across the Air Force in a way that will prohibit pulling it back together when the replacement platform arrives. This could be a game-changer. Whether the Air Force owes its ground force and special operations partners a dedicated CAS crew force is arguable, and it should be argued."

Source: http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/questionab ... tire-a-10/

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 16:24
by sferrin
"During the 100-day air war in Desert Storm, A-10s flew more than 8,000 missions, most of which were executed without any friendly ground forces in the fight. The A-10 fleet destroyed 3,000 tanks, artillery pieces, and combat vehicles, and was routinely tasked through and sometimes against surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft sites."

There was a quote by an Iraqi tank commander that after 45 days of aerial bombardment he still had 42 of 45 tanks (or therabouts). He said he lost the rest in about 20 minutes when the Army showed up with their Abrams tanks. :lol:

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 16:32
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:"During the 100-day air war in Desert Storm, A-10s flew more than 8,000 missions, most of which were executed without any friendly ground forces in the fight. The A-10 fleet destroyed 3,000 tanks, artillery pieces, and combat vehicles, and was routinely tasked through and sometimes against surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft sites."

There was a quote by an Iraqi tank commander that after 45 days of aerial bombardment he still had 42 of 45 tanks (or therabouts). He said he lost the rest in about 20 minutes when the Army showed up with their Abrams tanks. :lol:


there are reports of Abrams killing 1,800 tanks. And large portions of the republican guard were able to escape the kills sack in 1991... so just how many tanks to the Iraqi Army have exactly? And A-10s were certainly not the only tank killers...

Thats 4800 tanks killed between 2 systems? and we didn't get them all...

How many tanks did it kill in libya doing these kinds of beyond CAS missions?

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 17:14
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:There was a quote by an Iraqi tank commander that after 45 days of aerial bombardment he still had 42 of 45 tanks (or therabouts). He said he lost the rest in about 20 minutes when the Army showed up with their Abrams tanks. :lol:

:shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 17:34
by mk82
cola wrote:
deadseal wrote:And yes I am an expert on CAS...in an F-16. good day sir and GFY

Yea, figured as much...you should put this up at the beginning of your tirade.
Would save me a lotsa typing.


Hey Cola, wake up and smell the coffee. Nowadays, A10 pilots rarely (if at all!) fly low and slow doing CAS as they don't enjoy eating flak, Manpads or AAA. This is not the 1970s/1980s anymore! Why does it matter that deadseal is an F16 jock? It doesn't mean that his ideas about CAS (or his CAS experience!) is irrelevant.....especially when the A10 deploys air to ground ordnance more like a F16 nowadays (A10 pilots evolve their tactics too like any good fighter jock). Specifically on the point of LJDAM, LGB and SDB II, have you heard of buddy lasing from the ground? Still works in your "scenario". Great precision. I know what you are going to say.....what if there is significant ground fog??? Guess what!! A JTAC/FAC is not going to call in air strike when he/she can't even visualise the target properly. Even a SDB 2 or Brimstone is a risky munition to use in such an environment. One thing is for sure, don't give me your bullcrap that an A10 shooting its big ol' gun or dropping dumb bombs (especially with ground fog) will be accurate and relatively safer for ground forces in adverse weather conditions even when low and slow.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 20:21
by cola
mk82 wrote:Nowadays, A10 pilots rarely (if at all!) fly low and slow doing CAS as they don't enjoy eating flak, Manpads or AAA.

Not really and I don't know where you're pulling this ideas of yours from, but you're pretty far off...
Nowdays (as always) planes (A10s too) fly the way it's safest, as long as it's getting the job done.
The difference is, the A10 can and does go down (and yes, gets shot down too) where other planes insta-turn to fireballs.

Specifically on the point of LJDAM, LGB and SDB II, have you heard of buddy lasing from the ground? Still works in your "scenario". Great precision. I know what you are going to say.....what if there is significant ground fog???

You know what I'm gonna say?? Don't make me laugh.
Any idea what's the min lase-time for the bomb to acquire and adjust?
Now, take the picture I posted, take your common LGB's entry angle and speed and figure how that works for your video game 'scenario'.
You think we didn't have ground lasing back in 94/95?
Get a freaking clue, already.

And yes, when there's a fog on the ground, there is nothing BUT a gun and iron, to work with.

One thing is for sure, don't give me your bullcrap...

I'm not giving YOU anything.
My posts were meant for Deadseal, with MuppetShow permanently meddling, where they don't belong.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 20:46
by lookieloo
Ayotte Goes Silent on Fight to Save A-10
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/29/ayott ... save-a-10/

Perhaps one of her staffers passed on my post from page 7 of this thread. :roll:

Of more interesting note is McCain "excoriat[ing] the service leaders for saying the B-1 bomber could help perform the A-10’s close air-support mission." That may seem like low-hanging fruit, but think about it. The very first American combatants sent into Afghanistan weren't supported by rugged, gun-slinging A-10s operating out of improvised dirt/highway strips, with pilots and ground-crews living out of tents like some WWII movie. They were supported by heavy bombers loitering with massive loads of JDAMs.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 21:35
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:Ayotte Goes Silent on Fight to Save A-10
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/29/ayott ... save-a-10/

Perhaps one of her staffers passed on my post from page 7 of this thread. :roll:

Of more interesting note is McCain "excoriat[ing] the service leaders for saying the B-1 bomber could help perform the A-10’s close air-support mission." That may seem like low-hanging fruit, but think about it. The very first American combatants sent into Afghanistan weren't supported by rugged A-10s operating out of improvised dirt/highway strips, with pilots and ground-crews living out of tents like some WWII movie. They were supported by heavy bombers loitering with massive loads of JDAMs.


B-1s deploy a ridiculous amount of ordnance and their loiter time is amazing. If they had a gun and armor the fanboys would wet themselves.

The difference is, the A10 can and does go down (and yes, gets shot down too) where other planes insta-turn to fireballs.


Other planes don't get hit with nearly the same frequency, they are also more capable of taking care of themselves without help from other assets.

And yes, when there's a fog on the ground, there is nothing BUT a gun and iron, to work with.


Pure poppycock:

Bomb on Coordinate:

If a BOC attack is planned based on the tactical scenario, then unnecessary exposure to
the threat by CAS platforms is avoided; and time is not wasted conducting targeting
confirmation. CAS aircraft are not required to be tally/capture the target when
conducting BOC attacks. Great care must be taken to ensure that the target location with
the requisite precision and accuracy determined in the commander’s tactical risk
assessment is obtained and entered into the weapon/navigation system. Aircrew will not
modify coordinates once read back. For a BOC attack, aircrew readback will be from the
weapon or aircraft system steering point, waypoint, or target point after the coordinates
have been entered from the CAS attack brief. Aircrew will provide the weapon/system
readback as requested by the terminal attack controller if the CAS aircraft systems are
capable of providing it.

A few bomb on coordinate attack examples include:

- Laser guided weapons employed into a laser basket with the intent to be guided by a
source outside the close air support (CAS) element, i.e., joint terminal attack controller
(JTAC)/forward air controller (air) (FAC[A])/another CAS element.

- Unguided ordnance dropped from medium to high altitude above an overcast with ability
to achieve the supported commander’s intent for CAS.

- Inertially aided munitions employed in an absolute mode on coordinates sufficient to
achieve the supported commander’s intent for CAS.

- Hybrid weapons employed on a Global Positioning System coordinate and then lased by
an off-board source/JTAC/FAC(A).


^^Right there in the manual I posted. ^^


again from the book:

The following scenario provides an example of how “bomb on coordinate” (BOC) may be
employed as part of a Type 2 attack.

- Weather is 500 feet above ground level, overcast, and joint terminal attack controller (JTAC)
visually acquires an enemy formation in a trench line with camouflage overhead. The JTAC has
a digital portable tactical targeting system but the trench line is not in the imagery and therefore
the JTAC cannot generate an accurate location. JTAC is able to terrain associate using his
1:50K map and derive a 6 digit grid with a high degree of confidence. At the direction of the Chapter V
V-30 JP 3-09.3
supported commander, the JTAC submits an immediate joint tactical air strike request (JTAR)
requesting rotary-wing (RW) close air support (CAS) or aircraft with coordinate seeking weapons
in order to bring CAS assets under the weather and engage the enemy formation. The ASOC
routes 2 AV-8B with 2 GBU-32s with DSU-33s as the quickest response option airborne.
- Attack aircraft check in and pass that they are carrying “1,000 lbs JDAMs with an airburst fuze
option”
- JTAC determines that he can create desired effects to the enemy personnel in the trench with
the current target location and the combination of the airburst fuze on the JDAM and decides to
employ the AV-8B Type 2 bomb on coordinate.
- AV-8B receive the CAS briefing

JTAC: “Latch 61, this is Broadsword 11, Type 2 in effect, bomb on coordinate advise when
ready for 9-line.”
- The JTAC does not have to ever say the term ‘bomb on coordinate’ to the CAS aircraft. By
passing BOC with the type of control just before the 9-line, the JTAC is telling the CAS S aircraft up
front that they do not need to gain visual or sensor SA to the target or be concerned with getting
under the weather.


The Manual for JTACs was probably written by muppets

You think we didn't have ground lasing back in 94/95?


oh sweetie please, 1994 was 20 years ago. before the JDAM, and certainly not the peak of PGMs, CAS, or JTAC tech. its kind of gotten better since then.

Get a freaking clue, already.


You have been embarrassing yourself, I have provided multiples official sources including my own experience that has shown you to be either lying, wrong or heavily misrepresenting and cherry picking facts.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2014, 22:38
by SpudmanWP
Don't forget the newest PGM lovechild, the SDB2.

With it's tri-mode seeker and two-way datalink, it can beam back images of the target site as it approaches and the pilot (or another controller) can modify the aimpoint. Given the acuity of the APG-81's SAR mode and abilities such as these from PGMs, it's just another reason why getting under the clouds is needed less and less.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 00:00
by maus92
lookieloo wrote:Ayotte Goes Silent on Fight to Save A-10
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/29/ayott ... save-a-10/

Perhaps one of her staffers passed on my post from page 7 of this thread. :roll:

Of more interesting note is McCain "excoriat[ing] the service leaders for saying the B-1 bomber could help perform the A-10’s close air-support mission." That may seem like low-hanging fruit, but think about it. The very first American combatants sent into Afghanistan weren't supported by rugged, gun-slinging A-10s operating out of improvised dirt/highway strips, with pilots and ground-crews living out of tents like some WWII movie. They were supported by heavy bombers loitering with massive loads of JDAMs.


McCain chides Air Force leaders over retirement of A-10 fleet

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday dressed down Air Force leadership for their plan to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet.

During a Senate Armed Services hearing, McCain noted that Congress had yet to receive a “comprehensive, detailed plan” on what aircraft might replace the A-10...."

"Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said close air support could be executed by F-16 and F-15 fighters, as well as the B-1 bomber and unmanned aircraft, but that response brought a quick rebuke from McCain.

“That’s a remarkable statement. That doesn’t comport with any experience I’ve ever had, nor anyone I know has ever had,” he said. “You’re throwing in the B-1 bomber as a close air support weapon to replace the A-10. This is the reason why there is … such incredible skepticism here in the Congress.”"

"You will not pursue the elimination of the finest close air support weapon system in the world with answers like that,” he added.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh leapt to the service’s defense, saying that the F-16 has carried out 40,000 close air support missions in Afghanistan since 2006, more than the A-10.

McCain asked that the four-star “not to insult his intelligence,” going on to say that he had not met a single Army commander who has responsibility for troops on the ground "that believes that a B-1 or an F-16 replaces the capability of the A-10."


He demanded that Welsh and James come up with “something that is credible to those of us who have been engaged in this business for a long, long time.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/ ... z30JpnE0sq
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 00:15
by lookieloo
The point appears to have sailed over Maus' head... The A-10's role has already been largely taken by heavy bombers and other aircraft with PGMs; and the fact is, if every last Warthog disappeared tomorrow, the USAF would still be able to support ground operations just fine.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 00:24
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:Ayotte Goes Silent on Fight to Save A-10
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/29/ayott ... save-a-10/

Perhaps one of her staffers passed on my post from page 7 of this thread. :roll:

Of more interesting note is McCain "excoriat[ing] the service leaders for saying the B-1 bomber could help perform the A-10’s close air-support mission." That may seem like low-hanging fruit, but think about it. The very first American combatants sent into Afghanistan weren't supported by rugged, gun-slinging A-10s operating out of improvised dirt/highway strips, with pilots and ground-crews living out of tents like some WWII movie. They were supported by heavy bombers loitering with massive loads of JDAMs.


McCain chides Air Force leaders over retirement of A-10 fleet

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday dressed down Air Force leadership for their plan to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet.

During a Senate Armed Services hearing, McCain noted that Congress had yet to receive a “comprehensive, detailed plan” on what aircraft might replace the A-10...."

"Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said close air support could be executed by F-16 and F-15 fighters, as well as the B-1 bomber and unmanned aircraft, but that response brought a quick rebuke from McCain.

“That’s a remarkable statement. That doesn’t comport with any experience I’ve ever had, nor anyone I know has ever had,” he said. “You’re throwing in the B-1 bomber as a close air support weapon to replace the A-10. This is the reason why there is … such incredible skepticism here in the Congress.”"

"You will not pursue the elimination of the finest close air support weapon system in the world with answers like that,” he added.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh leapt to the service’s defense, saying that the F-16 has carried out 40,000 close air support missions in Afghanistan since 2006, more than the A-10.

McCain asked that the four-star “not to insult his intelligence,” going on to say that he had not met a single Army commander who has responsibility for troops on the ground "that believes that a B-1 or an F-16 replaces the capability of the A-10."


He demanded that Welsh and James come up with “something that is credible to those of us who have been engaged in this business for a long, long time.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/ ... z30JpnE0sq
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


I wonder what his internet handle is.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 02:31
by mk82
A good internet handle for Senator McCain is "SAM lover or how I learn to love getting shot down by SAMs"

Senator McCain is a tool! Guess what Senator, B1Bs have been providing CAS effectively in A-stan since 2001. Keep up with the times Senator. It is highly probable that McCain (Mc Nobrains) has not discussed modern CAS with JTACs and pilots employing current and modern doctrine/tactics. Very simply McCain is talking out of his ****. I bet General Welsh would loved to chew the good (or not so good) Senator's **** out for his ignorance and stupidity.

Hell, I heard that McCain's peers in the Navy didn't think that McCain was a good aviator....back in the day.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 02:34
by hobo
cola wrote:The difference is, the A10 can and does go down (and yes, gets shot down too) where other planes insta-turn to fireballs.


You are again grossly overstating the extent of the A-10's advantage in surviving battle damage. There are very very few hits that would see an F-16/18/35 "insta-turn to fireballs, " that would not have the exact same result on an A-10, and those other aircraft would generally take fewer hits in the first place.

The A-10 has an advantage in surviving hits from the really small stuff, small arms and light AAA mostly, but any of the bigger stuff will shoot right through and/or utterly destroy any aircraft.

I can't help but conclude that you have just played way too many video games and are really struggling to grasp how CAS is performed in the real world. The A-10 does not equal CAS. Retiring the A-10 does not mean CAS goes away. Just look at the Marines, CAS is their #1 priority, and what do they use? F-18s and Harriers. What do they want for the future? F-35s.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 02:55
by spazsinbad
'mk82' I would agree that McCain is probably a senile tool today but saying this does not help:
"...Hell, I heard that McCain's peers in the Navy didn't think that McCain was a good aviator....back in the day."

His time in the USN and then in captivity as a POW for years was never for the faint-hearted nor the tools but as people age and go into politics they are no longer what the USN requires for sure.

I have read some literature/online stories about McCain in his USN days with comments online that somehow he was not good. Yeah right. That is a joke. As for the accidents then you would need to keep this in mind:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=270181&hilit=Rubel#p270181
"...The U.S. Navy’s education in carrier aviation came at a high price. From 1949 to 1988, “the Navy and Marine Corps lost almost twelve thousand airplanes of all types (helicopters, trainers, and patrol planes, in addition to jets) and over 8,500 aircrew,” according a section of the book “One Hundred Years of U.S. Navy Airpower” by Robert C. Rubel.

SOURCE: http://news.usni.org/2013/05/16/admiral ... r-than-u-s

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 03:10
by mk82
Hey Cola, still two points of contention with your reply. The beauty of LJDAM.....GPS/INS guidance to get the bomb into the basket for laser spot acquisition quicker...minimises the laser acquisition and course adjustment time further. SDB II would be even better (multi spectral seeker head).

Lets look back at your scenario (adverse weather and lets add significant ground fog to make it more interesting). A friendly pilot (perhaps you Cola in your favourite A10) providing CAS suggest deploying dumb munitions.....if I was a JTAC/FAC this will be my reply- thanks but no thanks! I request a PGM (at least a JDAM)! If you really want to, you can deploy a JDAM using CCIP...hell, the CEP of the JDAM will be pretty tight at such ranges (WVR).

I don't understand why you persist in promoting the use of dumb munitions in adverse weather conditions (more likely for aimpoint errors to occur. Good luck if there is distracting and hazardous enemy ground fire occuring as well) to promote the low and slow ability of the A10. In fact you are making the case for the A10 weaker ironically!

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 03:23
by lookieloo
mk82 wrote:A good internet handle for Senator McCain is "SAM lover or how I learn to love getting shot down by SAMs"

Senator McCain is a tool! Guess what Senator, B1Bs have been providing CAS effectively in A-stan since 2001. Keep up with the times Senator. It is highly probable that McCain (Mc Nobrains) has not discussed modern CAS with JTACs and pilots employing current and modern doctrine/tactics. Very simply McCain is talking out of his ****. I bet General Welsh would loved to chew the good (or not so good) Senator's **** out for his ignorance and stupidity.

Hell, I heard that McCain's peers in the Navy didn't think that McCain was a good aviator....back in the day.
Whilst I often find McCain's rhetoric mystifying, this is uncalled-for. He may be out-of-date and/or listening to the wrong people, but I'm not call a guy incompetent for being beaten in combat. War is a chaotic business and ordnance doesn't care if you're a "high-speed" or a "$hit-bag." The toughest, strongest, fastest billybadass in my company ended up a quadriplegic after being shot off of a roof one night in Ar Ramadi... sometimes your best just isn't good enough, even when it should be.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 04:34
by mk82
Point taken Spazinbad and Lookieloo. But Senator McCain's ideas are still puzzling...you would think that he would be in favor of new technology and new ways of doing things that will minimize the risk of combat air crew being shot down and becoming POWs given his experiences as a POW in Vietnam.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 04:42
by smsgtmac
RE:

Questionable Logic: Unacknowledged Risks Riddle Air Force Push to Retire A-10
Tony Carr / April 28, 2014 / JQPublic

http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/questionab ... tire-a-10/


Wow. That was so awful I had to look the guy up. A retired C-17 driver working on a JD. Explains all the fact-free appeal to emotion. The comments thread, of course, repeats much of the usual CAS mythology. I left my two cents worth.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 04:52
by smsgtmac
mk82 wrote:Point taken Spazinbad and Lookieloo. But Senator McCain's ideas are still puzzling...you would think that he would be in favor of new technology and new ways of doing things that will minimize the risk of combat air crew being shot down and becoming POWs given his experiences as a POW in Vietnam.


What you have to ask yourself in trying to understand McCain, is: "What's in it for McCain?"
all-about-mccain.jpg
It's All About McCain


If the Navy had just sucked it up and made him an Admiral like his Daddy and Granddaddy, we would never have had to deal with the 'Senator' in the first place.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 05:41
by XanderCrews
I don't question McCains service, and he was once a pretty well regarded man and even once a well regarded politician (think about what an accomplishment that is). He fell fast though. I like her, but someone told me that "from now on any question McCain has about how someone does their job should be answered with 'Sarah Palin?'" :D

He is grand standing.Remember too that McCain is from the American Party that is for a larger government and more government spending. (thats the joke) Apparently saying "no" and being a fiscal hawk is very confusing.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 05:45
by spazsinbad
Heheh. I know something about sons of admirables in the navy.... :devil: But that is in the long past now.

McCain is a politician playing politician games AFAIK. He must be doing something right to be in that job so long; but of course there are many other excuses for that longevity - senility probably is not one of them. Just to hear/see McCain do his political speech thing at the standing up of the YUMA F-35B squadron last year was enough for me to know McCain is just another politician looking to the next election.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 05:55
by lookieloo
mk82 wrote:Point taken Spazinbad and Lookieloo. But Senator McCain's ideas are still puzzling...you would think that he would be in favor of new technology and new ways of doing things that will minimize the risk of combat air crew being shot down and becoming POWs given his experiences as a POW in Vietnam.
I've said as much myself, and can only surmise that from his point-of-view, the US military will always find a way to be the best so long as it receives more funding than the next five military powers put together. This fungible perspective is popular with budget-hawks but ignores development/sustainment realities. In short... the kind of people who think nine women can make a baby in one month.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 08:28
by gtx
I find this whole argument for the A-10 akin to the arguments in the 1930s when some wanted open cockpit biplanes rather than going to closed cockpit monoplanes. Sure, the earlier generation (be that the biplanes or the A-10) were effective in their day. However, paradigms change. What was done in one era (such as the GAU-8) is no longer the only or even the best way to do the job. People need to move on. In this case, remember the A-10 as a great platform that did a good job (and I am sure there is no-one here who won't argue that it's gun was an awesome piece of equipment), but its day has come and it needs to exit the stage and let newer, better platforms take on the role in new ways.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 08:52
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:In this case, remember the A-10 as a great platform that did a good job (and I am sure there is no-one here who won't argue that it's gun was an awesome piece of equipment), but its day has come and it needs to exit the stage and let newer, better platforms take on the role in new ways.
Not so sure I'd even do that. The more I read, the more I realize that, while it would have been an awesome platform in Vietnam, advances thereafter made it something of self-licking ice-cream-cone. Its particular mission-set probably wouldn't exist if the USAF didn't need something for all these slow-a$$ planes to do.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 14:24
by maus92
lookieloo wrote:The point appears to have sailed over Maus' head... The A-10's role has already been largely taken by heavy bombers and other aircraft with PGMs; and the fact is, if every last Warthog disappeared tomorrow, the USAF would still be able to support ground operations just fine.


The point is not lost on me: the USAF's latest attempt to divest itself of A-10s is rightly called into question by Congressional leadership and a fair number of independent analysts because of its past attempts to do the exact same thing. Add their escalating estimates of predicted "savings," and the specter of a threat to their precious F-35 program, the well informed are skeptical of the USAF's plan at face value. Then the USAF uses lame arguments like "the F-16 flew 80% of CAS sorties," but conveniently leaves out the A-10s carried half the ord used in these missions (figure it out: A-10 carried heavier payloads and had an increased loiter time, reducing the number of sorties required vs. F-16) doesn't instill confidence in decision makers. If the argument truly is about survivability - which it isn't, then the USMC should retire its fleet of AV-8Bs now, because they are dead meat if they try to fly its CAS doctrine. Yea, and while the USAF artificially tries to keep its A-10s high, the Navy F/A-18s do the gun runs.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 14:27
by maus92
These personal attacks on John McCain are disgusting.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 16:12
by XanderCrews
The point is not lost on me: the USAF's latest attempt to divest itself of A-10s is rightly called into question by Congressional leadership and a fair number of independent analysts because of its past attempts to do the exact same thing. Add their escalating estimates of predicted "savings," and the specter of a threat to their precious F-35 program, the well informed are skeptical of the USAF's plan at face value. Then the USAF uses lame arguments like "the F-16 flew 80% of CAS sorties," but conveniently leaves out the A-10s carried half the ord used in these missions (figure it out: A-10 carried heavier payloads and had an increased loiter time, reducing the number of sorties required vs. F-16) doesn't instill confidence in decision makers.


I would like to see some sources if you don't mind. Because I was told by my mission planner friend that about 20 percent of the ordnance was deployed by A-10s amongst the fighter class, and that paled in comparison to say, the B-1 that hangs around and just drops all day long.

Maybe I'm confused, I have heard lots of different numbers.

If the argument truly is about survivability - which it isn't, then the USMC should retire its fleet of AV-8Bs now, because they are dead meat if they try to fly its CAS doctrine.


Yes and the USMC, isn't trying to replace the harrier or anything. Last I checked the harrier was the L-class ship fixed wing, if they had many other types that could operate from L classes, it would be an option to explore further. But since we aren't awash in STOVL machines... I guess the Harrier is it.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 16:42
by SpudmanWP
mk82 wrote:Hey Cola, still two points of contention with your reply. The beauty of LJDAM.....GPS/INS guidance to get the bomb into the basket for laser spot acquisition quicker...minimises the laser acquisition and course adjustment time further. SDB II would be even better (multi spectral seeker head).


Mid/High altitude CAS is getting more accurate and safer for the guy on the ground.

Case in point, LSDB (Laser SDB)

It takes the current SDB and adds the laser seeker from LJDAM. The laser will make the bomb more accurate and the SDB size makes it more appropriate (and safe) for CAS.

Image
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -contract/

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 18:27
by Prinz_Eugn
SpudmanWP wrote:
mk82 wrote:Hey Cola, still two points of contention with your reply. The beauty of LJDAM.....GPS/INS guidance to get the bomb into the basket for laser spot acquisition quicker...minimises the laser acquisition and course adjustment time further. SDB II would be even better (multi spectral seeker head).


Mid/High altitude CAS is getting more accurate and safer for the guy on the ground.

Case in point, LSDB (Laser SDB)

It takes the current SDB and adds the laser seeker from LJDAM. The laser will make the bomb more accurate and the SDB size makes it more appropriate (and safe) for CAS.

Image
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -contract/


Weren't there issues with SDB flight time in CAS situations or have they addressed them?

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 18:56
by SpudmanWP
It was a Time of Flight issue that was addressed in Block9 for SDB. Basically the original SDB was designed to maximize range using it's glideslope and Block9 gave it the option of a high-speed dive rather than a glide.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-308th-armame ... i-block-9/

SLD So the core program provided capability against fixed targets, but changing demands required a modification of the capability?

Lt. Col. Kato: They stopped using SDB I in July ’07 in the AOR for several reasons. First of all, some of the operations weren’t in urban environments where low collateral damage mattered. In fact, some of the missions needed a bigger boom, so 500 and 2,000-lb JDAMs were better weapons of choice for the targets that they were prosecuting. Secondly, because it’s designed as a stand-off weapon, it takes a long time to get there because the way it was developed is that it was intended to maximize its glide slope so that it could get the maximum range.

And there was the question of time to target. The pilot says, “Okay, released.” And the guy on the ground says, “Okay, how long?” And he says, “Four and a half minutes.” And the guy says, “What?” In a CAS fight, that’s not good, that’s not the best option if you’re the guy on the ground having to clear air space while troops are likely in contact with the enemy for that long.

Lt. Col. Kato: Yes, you can see why that was not particularly optimum. And really, that’s the genesis of the Block 9 software. So for Block 9, it’s totally a software change. It requires no physical changes to the weapon at all.

So we started that development effort about a year and a half ago and what it’s designed to do is to minimize the time of flight and give you that JDAM-like kind of capability in terms of getting there faster, again still with the accuracy of the current system and low collateral damage. Also, it expands the release envelope down to 10,000 feet. So those are the two main things that go into Block 9.

We completed all of our flight testing in January 2010.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 19:34
by Prinz_Eugn
SpudmanWP wrote:It was a Time of Flight issue that was addressed in Block9 for SDB. Basically the original SDB was designed to maximize range using it's glideslope and Block9 gave it the option of a high-speed dive rather than a glide.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-308th-armame ... i-block-9/

SLD So the core program provided capability against fixed targets, but changing demands required a modification of the capability?

Lt. Col. Kato: They stopped using SDB I in July ’07 in the AOR for several reasons. First of all, some of the operations weren’t in urban environments where low collateral damage mattered. In fact, some of the missions needed a bigger boom, so 500 and 2,000-lb JDAMs were better weapons of choice for the targets that they were prosecuting. Secondly, because it’s designed as a stand-off weapon, it takes a long time to get there because the way it was developed is that it was intended to maximize its glide slope so that it could get the maximum range.

And there was the question of time to target. The pilot says, “Okay, released.” And the guy on the ground says, “Okay, how long?” And he says, “Four and a half minutes.” And the guy says, “What?” In a CAS fight, that’s not good, that’s not the best option if you’re the guy on the ground having to clear air space while troops are likely in contact with the enemy for that long.

Lt. Col. Kato: Yes, you can see why that was not particularly optimum. And really, that’s the genesis of the Block 9 software. So for Block 9, it’s totally a software change. It requires no physical changes to the weapon at all.

So we started that development effort about a year and a half ago and what it’s designed to do is to minimize the time of flight and give you that JDAM-like kind of capability in terms of getting there faster, again still with the accuracy of the current system and low collateral damage. Also, it expands the release envelope down to 10,000 feet. So those are the two main things that go into Block 9.

We completed all of our flight testing in January 2010.


Cools, thanks. Good to know.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 01:51
by mk82
maus92 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:The point appears to have sailed over Maus' head... The A-10's role has already been largely taken by heavy bombers and other aircraft with PGMs; and the fact is, if every last Warthog disappeared tomorrow, the USAF would still be able to support ground operations just fine.


The point is not lost on me: the USAF's latest attempt to divest itself of A-10s is rightly called into question by Congressional leadership and a fair number of independent analysts because of its past attempts to do the exact same thing. Add their escalating estimates of predicted "savings," and the specter of a threat to their precious F-35 program, the well informed are skeptical of the USAF's plan at face value. Then the USAF uses lame arguments like "the F-16 flew 80% of CAS sorties," but conveniently leaves out the A-10s carried half the ord used in these missions (figure it out: A-10 carried heavier payloads and had an increased loiter time, reducing the number of sorties required vs. F-16) doesn't instill confidence in decision makers. If the argument truly is about survivability - which it isn't, then the USMC should retire its fleet of AV-8Bs now, because they are dead meat if they try to fly its CAS doctrine. Yea, and while the USAF artificially tries to keep its A-10s high, the Navy F/A-18s do the gun runs.


Hmm maus, I wonder why the USMC is keen to be the first service that achieves IOC with the F35(B). Oh yeah, the USMC do have a plan to replace the AV8B :D.

News maus, USAF A10s, F16s and 15Es do gun runs too.....many a time in the sandbox. Not just Navy and (USMC) F/A 18s. These gun runs were done in relatively permissive environments. If the enemy had decent SHORADs, your F/A 18 (or insert favourite plane here) will think twice before doing the gun run. Another point, F16s, F15Es and F/A 18s can fly FAST and low if they need to.....more usefully they can fly fast and climb fast if they need to get out of dodge quick. The A10....not so much even if its pilot wanted to!

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 02:11
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:It was a Time of Flight issue that was addressed in Block9 for SDB. Basically the original SDB was designed to maximize range using it's glideslope and Block9 gave it the option of a high-speed dive rather than a glide.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-308th-armame ... i-block-9/


I wonder if they could get significantly more flexibility in trading off between speed and range by adding a small rocket to the design.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 03:04
by cantaz
maus92 wrote: If the argument truly is about survivability - which it isn't, then the USMC should retire its fleet of AV-8Bs now, because they are dead meat if they try to fly its CAS doctrine.


You are talking nonsense. Don't mistaken your wayward definition for CAS with what the USMC actually practices. There's no requirement for CAS to be low and slow, it's been said a hundred times, get it through your skull.

During ODS the Harriers in fact had difficulties with MANPAD. At first, Harriers zoomed into the edge of MANPAD envelope, no lower than around 8k feet. However, losses mounted and altitude was adjusted upwards, but the missions didn't stop.

Instead of making sh*t up, try picking up a freaking book. Nordeen's Harrier II, to start?

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 09:52
by stobiewan
count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:It was a Time of Flight issue that was addressed in Block9 for SDB. Basically the original SDB was designed to maximize range using it's glideslope and Block9 gave it the option of a high-speed dive rather than a glide.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-308th-armame ... i-block-9/


I wonder if they could get significantly more flexibility in trading off between speed and range by adding a small rocket to the design.


We can sell you some Spear 3 if you like? Fit into the reduced bay of the B model very nicely and most of the design work was based around a longer version for the A/C models so if you want a full fat version..

We do you a special price my friend

http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue ... erformance

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 09:56
by stobiewan
cantaz wrote:
maus92 wrote: If the argument truly is about survivability - which it isn't, then the USMC should retire its fleet of AV-8Bs now, because they are dead meat if they try to fly its CAS doctrine.


You are talking nonsense. Don't mistaken your wayward definition for CAS with what the USMC actually practices. There's no requirement for CAS to be low and slow, it's been said a hundred times, get it through your skull.

During ODS the Harriers in fact had difficulties with MANPAD. At first, Harriers zoomed into the edge of MANPAD envelope, no lower than around 8k feet. However, losses mounted and altitude was adjusted upwards, but the missions didn't stop.

Instead of making sh*t up, try picking up a freaking book. Nordeen's Harrier II, to start?



This is the trick - both A10 and Harrier did a lot of missions in the two Gulf wars, and A10 had awesome availability rates, buuut..both got hammered when they went low. There's a quote I'm trying to relocate about A10 in 2003 where they had a look down the flightline, noticed almost every bird had daylight showing in one place or another and took the rather sensible decision to do business "some other way" - that being mid alt with stand off precision weapons.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 14:36
by basher54321
stobiewan wrote:

This is the trick - both A10 and Harrier did a lot of missions in the two Gulf wars, and A10 had awesome availability rates, buuut..both got hammered when they went low. There's a quote I'm trying to relocate about A10 in 2003 where they had a look down the flightline, noticed almost every bird had daylight showing in one place or another and took the rather sensible decision to do business "some other way" - that being mid alt with stand off precision weapons.


this?

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1991/June%201991/0691horner.aspx
Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?

A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.

Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.

Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.

Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.

Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.

Q: This conflict has shown that?

A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-IO. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Q: At what point did you do that?

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 14:39
by stobiewan
:Thank you:

I knew I'd read it somewhere but maddeningly couldn't trace it!

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 14:47
by cola
basher54321 wrote:The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else.

A10's speed is a function of its thrust? Seriously? :D
I sincerely hope Lt. Gen. Charles A. Horner got misquoted here.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 15:03
by spazsinbad
Sen. McCain: B-1s Really Do CAS! 01 May 2014 Jordan Thomas (ex-B-1 pilot)

"...former B-1 pilot, Jordan Thomas, a nonresident fellow at the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute, has to say about Close Air Support, especially to Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The Editor...

...The B-52 has flown CAS missions since 1967. Joint Publication 3-09.3 defines Close Air Support (CAS) as “air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.” So, by definition, CAS is a joint mission and not the purview of any single service or platform.

The idea of a B-1 flying close air support would not comport with Senator McCain’s honorable experience in the military. For the first 10 years of my 23-year career as a B-1 pilot, I would have agreed with the senator.

By then, the A-10 was the go-to aircraft for CAS, even though it was originally designed as a tank killer. Like the B-1, the A-10 was not originally designed for CAS. However, the tragedy of 9/11 blew away everyone’s paradigm of warfighting. Drastic times called for rapid innovation. So, to get the most airpower to protect our ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost every attack aircraft in the US inventory — the F-15E, F-16, F-18, AH-64, AC-130, RPAs, B-52s and even the B-1B — become close air support assets. Their aircrews received extensive training in the challenging tactics, techniques and procedures demanded by the role of bombing or shooting the enemy as they closed with American troops.

Advancements in technology; changes in training; and updates to CAS procedures were needed. Capabilities such as Global Positioning System (GPS), Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), targeting pods (e.g., SNIPER and LANTIRN), and satellite communications gave these aircraft the precision to conduct CAS.

Pilot training at the Red Flag war-games and the Air Force’s Weapons School was changed to emphasize CAS TTPs. Traditional CAS procedures were updated to take into account each plane’s capabilities and the needs of those on the ground, the Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTACs) who are embedded with ground troops. For many of the fixed-wing fighters, this was a relatively easy transition since many squadrons already trained for CAS as an additional mission. But for the B-1, training for CAS was a completely new ball game.

In 2001, the idea that B-1s could operate in a Close Air Support environment was more theory than practice. When B-52s and B-1s were deployed to Diego Garcia to kick off Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) bomber aircrews had to learn CAS procedures on the fly, working with Special Operations troops embedded with the Northern Alliance. As OEF progressed, the JTACs and bomber crews quickly built the trust both sides needed.

The B-1 and B-52 communities learned from A-10 pilots and met face-to-face with Army Special Forces units and Air Force Special Tactic squadrons. B-1s and B-52s were integrated into the Army’s Air Warrior exercises to improve their skills. By 2003, CAS training for bomber crews had become standard. In 2008, the B-1 was certified to fly with the SNIPER Targeting Pod…similar to the one used by the A-10. Thanks to funding from Congress, this pod greatly increased the B-1 aircrews’ ability to differentiate hostile targets from friendlies and to increase their weapons’ accuracy. B-1s and B-52s now drop laser-guided bombs (LGBs) with fighter-like precision and continue to operate in theater.

As I watched Senator McCain grill General Welsh about which platform would handle the A-10′s CAS mission, I imagined a stack of air power (B-1s, B-52s, F-15Es, F-16s, and F-18s) that was airborne providing Armed Over Watch of our ground troops, ready to answer their call for CAS."

SOURCE: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/sen- ... ly-do-cas/

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 15:47
by maus92
The B-1/52s were brought in for two reasons: one, the platform needed a mission in the GWOT, and two, they provided increased persistence when compared to fast jets. Unfortunately, they are very expensive to operate, way more than even F-35s.

The article implies that Sen. McCain did not realize that B-1s perform CAS (although on an extremely limited basis compared to other platforms.) If you watch the hearing, McCain was clearly irritated - his schtick when he detects BS - at the USAF Secretary and Chief of Staff at suggesting that B-1s et al could realistically be as effective as A-10s in the CAS mission.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 16:26
by mk82
Looks like Senator McCain yanked some chains.....an ex B1B jock's chains :D. An excellent response from Mr Thomas.

Maus, do you have an actual source indicating that B1Bs (and B52s) were used in a very limited way for CAS? Oh yeah, the Bone has advantages over the A10 in CAS...fancy that. Sure bombers have limitations in some some CAS scenarios but the USAF has different types of fighter aircraft to use in such situations (hint: not just A10s).

General Horner's interview on the A10's adventures during Gulf War 1 says it all. A required reading by Senator McCain I think.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 16:43
by SpudmanWP
count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:It was a Time of Flight issue that was addressed in Block9 for SDB. Basically the original SDB was designed to maximize range using it's glideslope and Block9 gave it the option of a high-speed dive rather than a glide.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-308th-armame ... i-block-9/


I wonder if they could get significantly more flexibility in trading off between speed and range by adding a small rocket to the design.

That would make the SDB too long to fit on the BRU-61 as the SDB is already a tight fit

Image



I think a better use of a motor on a bomb would be the Paveway/JDAM series, especially the 500 pound variety.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 16:44
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:The B-1/52s were brought in for two reasons: one, the platform needed a mission in the GWOT, and two, they provided increased persistence when compared to fast jets. Unfortunately, they are very expensive to operate, way more than even F-35s.


indeed, but they can do other things too, which again cuts to the crux of the USAF argument correct? and they can outlast and outdrop an A-10 correct? Earlier you made the point that it takes more f-16s to do the job of an A-10, whats the math on a B-1B vs A-10? How many A-10s do you need to "equal" one? And if it costs more and we are still in the "nothing's too good for our boots on the ground" argument, is it well worth it?

The article implies that Sen. McCain did not realize that B-1s perform CAS (although on an extremely limited basis compared to other platforms.) If you watch the hearing, McCain was clearly irritated - his schtick when he detects BS - at the USAF Secretary and Chief of Staff at suggesting that B-1s et al could realistically be as effective as A-10s in the CAS mission.


In this case the "BS" being his own ignorance?

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 01:03
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:It was a Time of Flight issue that was addressed in Block9 for SDB. Basically the original SDB was designed to maximize range using it's glideslope and Block9 gave it the option of a high-speed dive rather than a glide.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-308th-armame ... i-block-9/


I wonder if they could get significantly more flexibility in trading off between speed and range by adding a small rocket to the design.

That would make the SDB too long to fit on the BRU-61 as the SDB is already a tight fit

Image


I think a better use of a motor on a bomb would be the Paveway/JDAM series, especially the 500 pound variety.

Perhaps.
Though, I thought the tail of the SDB was hollow enough to stick a small rocket in.
By the way, did you hear about plans to put Hellfire missiles in VLS tubes on the LCS?

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 01:29
by spazsinbad
IMAGE no longer available at: http://sistemasdearmas.com.br/pgm/sdbf16.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 01:53
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:The B-1/52s were brought in for two reasons: one, the platform needed a mission in the GWOT, and two, they provided increased persistence when compared to fast jets. Unfortunately, they are very expensive to operate, way more than even F-35s.

The article implies that Sen. McCain did not realize that B-1s perform CAS (although on an extremely limited basis compared to other platforms.) If you watch the hearing, McCain was clearly irritated - his schtick when he detects BS - at the USAF Secretary and Chief of Staff at suggesting that B-1s et al could realistically be as effective as A-10s in the CAS mission.


"The article implies..."? Senator McCain made that implication by his behavior. His 'schtick' is cheap and transparent political theater.

B-1s and B-52s were used because they could provide provide enormous time on station and they had/have a enormous weapons payload. Throw a Litening pod on em (which they did) and now you have platform every bit as effective as an A-10 for many scenarios -- responsive and accurate.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 01:57
by popcorn
mk82 wrote:Looks like Senator McCain yanked some chains.....an ex B1B jock's chains :D. An excellent response from Mr Thomas.

I'm glad he took the time insult the good Senator's intelligence.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 15:55
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:
mk82 wrote:Looks like Senator McCain yanked some chains.....an ex B1B jock's chains :D. An excellent response from Mr Thomas.

I'm glad he took the time insult the good Senator's intelligence.



http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-a ... eployment/

Moar

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 16:57
by maus92
mk82 wrote:Maus, do you have an actual source indicating that B1Bs (and B52s) were used in a very limited way for CAS? Oh yeah, the Bone has advantages over the A10 in CAS...fancy that. Sure bombers have limitations in some some CAS scenarios but the USAF has different types of fighter aircraft to use in such situations (hint: not just A10s).


Put it this way: the bombers are normally based in Diego Garcia for operations in Iraq and AStan.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 23:01
by mixelflick
So the A-10 can't survive the modern battlefield.
Makes you wonder why the Russian's haven't reached the same conclusion, with the Frogfoot?

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 23:07
by count_to_10
Would it be ironic if it turns out to be the LRS-B that ends up taking over for the A-10?

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

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 23:34
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:So the A-10 can't survive the modern battlefield.
Makes you wonder why the Russian's haven't reached the same conclusion, with the Frogfoot?


Not really/no.

Take a look oh Russian aviation evolution post 1991. See if you notice anything.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 01:07
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:
mk82 wrote:Maus, do you have an actual source indicating that B1Bs (and B52s) were used in a very limited way for CAS? Oh yeah, the Bone has advantages over the A10 in CAS...fancy that. Sure bombers have limitations in some some CAS scenarios but the USAF has different types of fighter aircraft to use in such situations (hint: not just A10s).


Put it this way: the bombers are normally based in Diego Garcia for operations in Iraq and AStan.


No. The 'Footprint of Freedom' was 'home' while we were still fighting the governments instead of just the enemy without the protection of the governments. After the early years, Qutar played a larger part:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=461620

And speaking of how freaking awesome the B-1 is in the precision CAS role, somebody needs to wake up McCain and read him this (now 'old') article:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/21/cold-wars-b-1-bomber-emerges-as-effective-weapon-in-afghanistan/
..."Hawk Nine One, Hard Rock, we are taking casualties, request immediate support, need effective fire on the white building north of the objective, how copy, over?'' Over the strained voice of the Joint Tactical Air Controller (JTAC), an Air Force commando attached to the Army infantry unit, Grasso and Lord can hear the deep pom-pom-pom of .50-caliber heavy machine-gun fire. "Hard Rock, Hawk Nine One, good copy, request nine line and commander's initials, over."

The "nine-line'' is a standard form that lists nine critical pieces of information, including target elevation, location of friendly troops, which way the jet should approach, and the ground commander's initials, to document that he has requested and confirmed the air strike at a particular time on a particular point.

But it's on the B-1 crew to avoid unnecessary damage or outright error. When the JTAC reads off the coordinates of the target, at least two of the bomber's four-man crew double-check the numbers. They are checked again on the map displays on their computers, and compared with the video images of the target, visible by day and via infrared at night. Everything is reconfirmed once again with the JTAC on the ground.

That's easy because the JTAC on the ground and Lord at 18,000 feet are both looking at the same video image on their laptops. The JTAC can say, "Move your cursor left . . . a bit more . . . There! That's the target." ....


But break it to McCain and the rest of the 'A-10 forever' crowd gently. 'Modernity', to those suddenly brought into the current century can be so.... discomfiting.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 01:21
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So the A-10 can't survive the modern battlefield.
Makes you wonder why the Russian's haven't reached the same conclusion, with the Frogfoot?
Not really/no.

Take a look oh Russian aviation evolution post 1991. See if you notice anything.
Might also take a look at how often the things get shot down...

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 03:41
by popcorn
maus92 wrote:
mk82 wrote:Maus, do you have an actual source indicating that B1Bs (and B52s) were used in a very limited way for CAS? Oh yeah, the Bone has advantages over the A10 in CAS...fancy that. Sure bombers have limitations in some some CAS scenarios but the USAF has different types of fighter aircraft to use in such situations (hint: not just A10s).


Put it this way: the bombers are normally based in Diego Garcia for operations in Iraq and AStan.



Basing in DG had absolutely no effect on the B-1's ability to perform,the CAS Mission... 7 1 X 24 X 6 months of loitering CAS is outstanding and I struggle to see how some can characterize this as "limited".

From,XC's preceding link:

The airmen of the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron and 9th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit provided more than 25 percent of the total fixed-wing close-air support coverage for coalition ground forces in Afghanistan every day by launching the most B-1 sorties executed on a single deployment in more than 10 years of sustained conflict.

Over the course of the six-plus month deployment, the squadron flew more than 770 combat sorties, encompassing over 9,500 hours, to provide 24 hours of coverage every day.

They also responded to more than 500 troops-in-contact situations, with the enemy as close as 300 meters from friendly forces, and another 700 priority air requests, delivering more than 400 weapons on target.

“We were able to achieve these great stats through pure hard work,” said Lt. Col. Matthew Brooks, 9th Bomb Squadron commander. “Our squadron flew 130 more sorties than any B-1 squadron had flown in any other six month deployment. You don’t accomplish this by luck. It’s pure hard work and dedication from the aircraft maintainers, weapon builders and load crews, B-1 aviators, and the rest of the 7th Bomb Wing who deployed with us.”

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 12:14
by stobiewan
Blimey, didn't realise JTAC and the B1 crew could be looking at the same image - that's a bit good :)

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 12:53
by quicksilver
stobiewan wrote:Blimey, didn't realise JTAC and the B1 crew could be looking at the same image - that's a bit good :)


Stream video from shooter to Rover or other similar ground terminal. Some Vipers (and maybe some Mud Hens) had it during the 'Watch' ops in Iraq pre-OIF. Marine Harriers used it during recovery of Jessica Lynch et al during OIF. Just about everyone flying with Litening, Sniper or ATFLIR has now had it for some time.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 14:02
by popcorn
quicksilver wrote:
stobiewan wrote:Blimey, didn't realise JTAC and the B1 crew could be looking at the same image - that's a bit good :)


Stream video from shooter to Rover or other similar ground terminal. Some Vipers (and maybe some Mud Hens) had it during the 'Watch' ops in Iraq pre-OIF. Marine Harriers used it during recovery of Jessica Lynch et al during OIF. Just about everyone flying with Litening, Sniper or ATFLIR has now had it for some time.

So it's just a matter of time before JTACs perform actual weapons release?

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 14:22
by quicksilver
Absent the JTAC actually controlling the delivery platform, I doubt it.

There are a variety of things that must be monitored and confirmed within the delivery platform before a weapon is released/fired. Can be done from a distance (...like, Nevada) but even that has not displaced the pilot from the ability to monitor the health of the delivery platform systems.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 15:23
by maus92
popcorn wrote:
maus92 wrote:
mk82 wrote:Maus, do you have an actual source indicating that B1Bs (and B52s) were used in a very limited way for CAS? Oh yeah, the Bone has advantages over the A10 in CAS...fancy that. Sure bombers have limitations in some some CAS scenarios but the USAF has different types of fighter aircraft to use in such situations (hint: not just A10s).


Put it this way: the bombers are normally based in Diego Garcia for operations in Iraq and AStan.



Basing in DG had absolutely no effect on the B-1's ability to perform,the CAS Mission... 7 1 X 24 X 6 months of loitering CAS is outstanding and I struggle to see how some can characterize this as "limited".



Basing in DG has a great effect on cost and sortie generation rate. CPFH:

A-10: $17,716
B-1: $57,807
B-52: $69,708

Distance from DG to Kabul: ~2500nm
Assume 5 hours transit each way, and 5 hours on station: 15hrs * 57,807= $235,105 per sortie.

The one advantage of using B-1/52s is that they can remain on-station for a considerable amount of time, ready to respond to requests over a large operational radius. The stats that are missing is how many B-1 sorties were flown vs. other types. I would bet that the ratio is small, thus limited.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 15:32
by stobiewan
popcorn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
stobiewan wrote:Blimey, didn't realise JTAC and the B1 crew could be looking at the same image - that's a bit good :)


Stream video from shooter to Rover or other similar ground terminal. Some Vipers (and maybe some Mud Hens) had it during the 'Watch' ops in Iraq pre-OIF. Marine Harriers used it during recovery of Jessica Lynch et al during OIF. Just about everyone flying with Litening, Sniper or ATFLIR has now had it for some time.

So it's just a matter of time before JTACs perform actual weapons release?



That'd be a bit trickier to directly release the weapon in flight as the aircraft could be doing all sorts of things that it shouldn't be at that time (descending, turning into a racetrack pattern, that sort of thing.)

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 16:34
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
The one advantage of using B-1/52s is that they can remain on-station for a considerable amount of time, ready to respond to requests over a large operational radius. The stats that are missing is how many B-1 sorties were flown vs. other types. I would bet that the ratio is small, thus limited.



maus92 wrote: Then the USAF uses lame arguments like "the F-16 flew 80% of CAS sorties," but conveniently leaves out the A-10s carried half the ord used in these missions (figure it out: A-10 carried heavier payloads and had an increased loiter time, reducing the number of sorties required vs. F-16)


hmm

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 16:50
by quicksilver
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:
The one advantage of using B-1/52s is that they can remain on-station for a considerable amount of time, ready to respond to requests over a large operational radius. The stats that are missing is how many B-1 sorties were flown vs. other types. I would bet that the ratio is small, thus limited.



maus92 wrote: Then the USAF uses lame arguments like "the F-16 flew 80% of CAS sorties," but conveniently leaves out the A-10s carried half the ord used in these missions (figure it out: A-10 carried heavier payloads and had an increased loiter time, reducing the number of sorties required vs. F-16)


hmm


All of which (including the ludicrous idea of measuring CPFH in combat) ignore the fundamental point that CSAF and others are making -- there are plenty of other equally effective ways to provide CAS that also have broader utility across the range of potentialities that may require strike aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 20:51
by gtx
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So the A-10 can't survive the modern battlefield.
Makes you wonder why the Russian's haven't reached the same conclusion, with the Frogfoot?
Not really/no.

Take a look oh Russian aviation evolution post 1991. See if you notice anything.
Might also take a look at how often the things get shot down...


Indeed. So far (as far as I can tell) at least 37 (23 over Afghanistan, 11 over Chechnya, at least 3 over Georgia) and that's just the Russian ones. Moreover, many of these were lost to enemies that hardly had dedicated air defence systems or even necessarily well trained operators. They weren't all to SAMs either - some even fell to 12.7mm gunfire! Moreover, when it comes to the design itself, the Su-25 shares many similar survivability concepts with the A-10 including the use of relatively heavy armour, redundant systems etc. The sad reality is that the best way to avoid getting shot down is not to get targeted in the first place…something the F-35 will be far better to do than an A-10!

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 21:05
by count_to_10
stobiewan wrote:
popcorn wrote:So it's just a matter of time before JTACs perform actual weapons release?



That'd be a bit trickier to directly release the weapon in flight as the aircraft could be doing all sorts of things that it shouldn't be at that time (descending, turning into a racetrack pattern, that sort of thing.)

Autonomous drones. The aircraft will know what the JTAC is about to ask it to do, and will plan it's future maneuvers accordingly.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 22:56
by popcorn
More on the ROVER - JTAC evolution.




http://www.janes.com/article/31259/ripn ... the-ground

In the Yuma trial, KILSWITCH-derived 'sensor point-of-interest' (SPI) data was automatically passed to the Harrier pilot via the JTAC's TNR and the RIPN modem in the Harrier's Litening pod, this then being presented on the pilot's multi-function display. The pilot in turn triggered the targeting sensor in the Litening pod automatically to slew onto the SPI supplied from the ground, the 'pod's eye view' subsequently being transmitted back to the JTAC's display terminal to verify the correct target was in the cross-hairs. Once ratified by the JTAC, the target's updated and mensurated co-ordinates were programmed into the GPS/INS guidance system within one of the JDAMs under the aircraft's wing, immediately prior to weapon release.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 00:57
by maus92
A-10 Attack Jets Rack Up Air-to-Air Kills in Louisiana War Game
‘Single-purpose? Single-mission? My a$$,’ commander says of Warthogs
David Axe in War is Boring

"Two squadrons of A-10 Warthog attack planes scored a military record in Louisiana in March, shooting down unprecedented numbers of ‘enemy’ aircraft during an intensive war game...."

"The officer in charge of the semi-annual “Green Flag” exercise praised the 1980s-vintage A-10s. “They unleashed the Hogs,” Air Force Lt. Col. Brett Waring said of the Idaho and Louisiana squadrons.

Waring added a thinly veiled criticism of the Air Force, which wants to retire all 340 of the cheap, rugged Warthogs by 2019 and replace them with flimsy, pricey F-35 stealth fighters....."

"Waring rejected that assessment. “Single-purpose, single-mission? My a$$. That bird out there kicks a$$.” The armored A-10 carries missiles and bombs and packs a powerful 30-millimeter cannon. In 1991, a Warthog used its gun to shoot down an Iraqi helicopter. A-10s sank enemy warships during the 2011 international intervention in Libya...."

"The Army rallied, calling in the A-10s for intensive air strikes that turned the tide of the mock battle. “We had the most kinetic strike operations in the last three years of Green Flag, just in those last few days,” Waring said.

And in the course of their counter-attacks, the Warthogs shot down a record number of Opfor aircraft—presumably the Lakota gunships. The Idaho and Louisiana squadrons “now hold the Green Flag record for the most air-to-air kills,” Waring boasted...."

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a2299445b2a4


Same event, different story:

Unleash the hogs - Idaho’s A-10 Warthogs hold Green Flag record

"BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. – Pilots from the 190th Fighter Squadron and their supporting team of 124th Fighter Wing airmen, traveled to Exercise Green Flag East where they “unleashed the hogs.” From the operating base (Barksdale AFB, La.) they decisively turned a major ground maneuver exercise at nearby Fort Polk in favor of the “Blue Forces....”"

"Chase said Green Flag East was a beneficial exercise for everyone involved. “The tireless efforts of the 124th Fighter Wing allowed 133 personnel and nine A-10s to deploy only 55 days after being assigned to this exercise. The quality of this exercise is directly attributed to the professionalism of the men and women in our wing,” she continued, “and we supported every sortie with absolutely zero maintenance or operation cancellations.”

Although the A-10 “Warthog” is known for close air support and air-to-ground support, Green Flag Commander Waring confirmed that the 190th FS and Idaho’s A-10s now hold the record at Green Flag East for most air-to-air kills.

He said, “So what does that all mean? Single purpose, single mission? My a--. That bird out there kicks a-- because of what you all have done with it. The A-10 community has always been tight across the different shops, between ops, maintenance, munitions, support,” he continued, “Everybody knows what it means to load bombs onto that bird and see them come back without them.”"

Read more: http://www.dvidshub.net/news/128528/unl ... 2WBZXmwF8O#ixzz30hSxPYR2

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 01:03
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:A-10 Attack Jets Rack Up Air-to-Air Kills in Louisiana War Game
‘Single-purpose? Single-mission? My a$$,’ commander says of Warthogs
David Axe in War is Boring

"Two squadrons of A-10 Warthog attack planes scored a military record in Louisiana in March, shooting down unprecedented numbers of ‘enemy’ aircraft during an intensive war game...."

"The officer in charge of the semi-annual “Green Flag” exercise praised the 1980s-vintage A-10s. “They unleashed the Hogs,” Air Force Lt. Col. Brett Waring said of the Idaho and Louisiana squadrons.

Waring added a thinly veiled criticism of the Air Force, which wants to retire all 340 of the cheap, rugged Warthogs by 2019 and replace them with flimsy, pricey F-35 stealth fighters....."

"Waring rejected that assessment. “Single-purpose, single-mission? My a$$. That bird out there kicks a$$.” The armored A-10 carries missiles and bombs and packs a powerful 30-millimeter cannon. In 1991, a Warthog used its gun to shoot down an Iraqi helicopter. A-10s sank enemy warships during the 2011 international intervention in Libya...."

"The Army rallied, calling in the A-10s for intensive air strikes that turned the tide of the mock battle. “We had the most kinetic strike operations in the last three years of Green Flag, just in those last few days,” Waring said.

And in the course of their counter-attacks, the Warthogs shot down a record number of Opfor aircraft—presumably the Lakota gunships. The Idaho and Louisiana squadrons “now hold the Green Flag record for the most air-to-air kills,” Waring boasted...."

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a2299445b2a4

Same event, different story:

Unleash the hogs - Idaho’s A-10 Warthogs hold Green Flag record

"BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. – Pilots from the 190th Fighter Squadron and their supporting team of 124th Fighter Wing airmen, traveled to Exercise Green Flag East where they “unleashed the hogs.” From the operating base (Barksdale AFB, La.) they decisively turned a major ground maneuver exercise at nearby Fort Polk in favor of the “Blue Forces....”"

"Chase said Green Flag East was a beneficial exercise for everyone involved. “The tireless efforts of the 124th Fighter Wing allowed 133 personnel and nine A-10s to deploy only 55 days after being assigned to this exercise. The quality of this exercise is directly attributed to the professionalism of the men and women in our wing,” she continued, “and we supported every sortie with absolutely zero maintenance or operation cancellations.”

Although the A-10 “Warthog” is known for close air support and air-to-ground support, Green Flag Commander Waring confirmed that the 190th FS and Idaho’s A-10s now hold the record at Green Flag East for most air-to-air kills.

He said, “So what does that all mean? Single purpose, single mission? My a--. That bird out there kicks a-- because of what you all have done with it. The A-10 community has always been tight across the different shops, between ops, maintenance, munitions, support,” he continued, “Everybody knows what it means to load bombs onto that bird and see them come back without them.”"

Read more: http://www.dvidshub.net/news/128528/unl ... 2WBZXmwF8O#ixzz30hSxPYR2


air to air kills against what?

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Bert_48d521_2654880.gif

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 01:39
by popcorn
Unleash the hogs? Only if pork chops are going to be served.
We used to have a pet hog as kids but when she grew to 400lbs and we reluctantly had her butchered.. sad but it was the pragmatic thing to do ... and she tasted good too BTW..

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 13:59
by count_to_10
What were they flying against, crop dusters?

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 14:38
by quicksilver
That kind of chest beating goes on in all TACAIR communities faced with extinction.

You should have seen/heard the A-7 mafia when the F-18 showed up. Jet can't do this can't do that..can't go on a 500 mile low level and bingo into my favorite club for Happy Hour. Even wives accosting other wives at the Lemoore club, "...your husband is taking Naval Aviation down the road to ruin."

Comical some would say, given the way things turned out.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 14:38
by mk82
Nah....the air to air kills were against Lakota gunships......truly mighty air to air opponents :D

Unleash the hog....in the first few days of GW1, low and slow.....swiss cheese deluxe :P

David Axe is truly an idiot. No David, the A10Cs are not 1980s vintage A10s. They are A10s upgraded recently so that the pilots can avoid using 1980s vintage tactics!

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 16:50
by XanderCrews
count_to_10 wrote:What were they flying against, crop dusters?


Against, Helicopters... ?
Helicopters...?
Helicopters... ?
Helicopters... ?
Helicopters... ?

Doc-Rivers.gif

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 19:51
by gtx
mk82 wrote:Nah....the air to air kills were against Lakota gunships......truly mighty air to air opponents :D


Funny how that little tidbit of information was left out of the above reporting... :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 20:02
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:
mk82 wrote:Nah....the air to air kills were against Lakota gunships......truly mighty air to air opponents :D


Funny how that little tidbit of information was left out of the above reporting... :roll:



Who would have thought that David Axe would mention the helicopters but Dvids didn't?

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

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 20:20
by count_to_10
XanderCrews wrote:
gtx wrote:
mk82 wrote:Nah....the air to air kills were against Lakota gunships......truly mighty air to air opponents :D


Funny how that little tidbit of information was left out of the above reporting... :roll:



Who would have thought that David Axe would mention the helicopters but Dvids didn't?

It's like bragging that your high school basketball team racked up the highest score ever at a particular event, without mentioning that the event is normally restricted to kids 12 and under.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2014, 23:21
by spazsinbad
Some McCain remarks on the F-35 - overall it seems there is a need for concern for DoD programs - but not my concern being upside down and all....
REMARKS BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON THE CONTINUING NEED FOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION REFORM 05 May 2014

"...“Our ‘joint service’ programs have also faced profound difficulties. Even though the DOD has not completed developmental testing on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), that program is already well into production, exposing it to the risk of costly retrofits late in production.

“While today the JSF program is on a more stable path to succeed, during a recent Airland Subcommittee hearing on tactical aircraft programs, I asked the head of the JSF program, Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, what lessons the DOD learned from that program’s costly failures. He identified three lessons: (1) the danger of overly optimistic initial cost estimates; (2) the importance of reliable technological risk assessments; and (3) the complexity and costs of building next-generation planes while still testing them.

“That is, of course, a post mortem that we’re all very familiar with, including on some of the failed acquisition programs I just alluded to. For that reason, Congress enacted the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. That law instituted reforms to help make sure that new major weapons procurement programs ‘start off right’ with accurate initial cost estimates, reliable technological risk assessments, only reasonable ‘concurrency,’ and stable operational requirements.

“While GAO found that this law has had a ‘significant influence’ on requirements, cost, schedule, testing, and reliability for the acquisition of new major weapons systems, there is still much to do, especially on the so-called ‘legacy’ systems already well into the development pipeline. According to GAO, the costs of the Pentagon’s major weapons systems – about 80 in total – have swollen to nearly half a trillion dollars over their initial price tags and have average schedule-delays of more than two years...."

SOURCE: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/ind ... b4b9b31908

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 01:34
by smsgtmac
If McCain didn't apologize for his role in DoD acquisition the last 20 years or so, then 'Eff' him. I'm sick of his vaudeville schtick.
This is just more bloviating about the 'Concurrency' accounting LIE. I notice none of the nice numbers touted that highlight the mod costs avoided by delaying production numbers EVER factor in the increased costs for units for which production is delayed.

'Concurrency' Senator? I got 'yer 'concurrency' right here:
From: http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 26-027.pdf
1944:
The AAF definitively endorsed the P-80 on 4 April (2 months ahead of the XP-80A's first flight) with a LC [letter contract] that introduced the first production contract. This contract, as approved in December, called for two lots of P-80s (500 in each). Delivery of the first 500 was to be completed by the end of 1945; …

On 7 January North American presented a bold design based on the successful P-51. This design promised range, reliability, and less pilot fatigue (the two pilots could spell one another). The AAF endorsed it at once. In fact, a February letter contract to construct and test three experimental P-82s gave way in the same month to an order for 500 productions…

1945:
[In January] The AAF order covered 100 service test and production P-84 [ later redesignated F-84] airplanes-25 of the former and 75 of the latter. This was subsequently decreased to 15 service test articles, which were redesignated YP-84As. The production articles were correspondingly increased from 75 to 85 and redesignated P-84Bs. [The P-84 ‘mockup’ was viewed by the AAF for the first time the next month]

1946:
[20 December] Although the prototypes were still under construction, a production order was released. Unit cost of the first 33 P-86s [ later redesignated F-86] authorized for procurement was set at $438,999.00—more than twice the aircraft's eventual price.

1949:
Funds released by President Harry S. Truman in January 1949 enabled the Air Force to execute, during May of that year, a cost plus-a-fixed-fee contract amounting to some $48 million, excluding a fixed-fee of almost $3 million. The estimated costs stipulated in the contract covered modification of the second XF-89 (YF-89) and fabrication of the first 48 production aircraft (F-89As). [Note: the first XF-89 had severe development problems, flew little and was lost shortly after delivery of the second prototype]…

1951/52:
[October 1951] The Air Force Council pressed for the development of revised Sabre 45 [F-100]. This decision ran counter to the belief of key development personnel that the aircraft would not meet the simplicity and cost requirements, basic to a day fighter. To obtain quickly a new fighter that would substantially surpass the F-86, the Air Force Council also agreed with the Aircraft and Weapons Board's recommendations to buy it in quantity prior to flight-testing, even though this ran the risk of extensive modifications in the future…

Initial Contract Date 3 January 1952 The Air Force issued a letter contract for two F-100A prototypes…

First Contract for Production 11 February 1952 The Air Force rushed through a second letter contract to procure 23 F-100As with fiscal year 1952 funds...

Second Production Contract August 1952 Having found the revised mockup basically satisfactory, the Air Force directed procurement of 250 additional F-100As. 1953: The LCs, previously awarded to Convair, were superseded by a definitive contract. This contract, still based on the Cook-Craigie production plan, did not affect the number of aircraft initially ordered. Out of the 42 aircraft under procurement, several were earmarked for testing and two (F-102A prototypes) were scheduled for flight in October and December 1953, respectively...

1953:
The F-101 and F-102 which employed the Cook-Craigie approach (no prototypes) in the pursuit of trying to mature technology before committing to LARGE production quantities, while still committing to volume production as soon as possible. Subsequent jets of the original type were purchased in volume, in evolved forms as a result of lessons learned in operation and test.

How about the number of aircraft bought before the definitive type was fielded?
Precursor-Aircraft.jpg

Concurrency's not so much a 'modern' phenomenon is it? I can and have pounded this point all day long, along with the point that it is even best to have a level of concurrency (higher than now exists with the F-35 BTW) and (shockingly!) have never received a pushback on my assertions, much less a credible one. Purveyors of 'concurrency' tripe apparently fear exposure to data and actual history.

So when someone says incredibly stupid things like:
“That is, of course, a post mortem that we’re all very familiar with, including on some of the failed acquisition programs I just alluded to. For that reason, Congress enacted the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. That law instituted reforms to help make sure that new major weapons procurement programs ‘start off right’ with accurate initial cost estimates, reliable technological risk assessments, only reasonable ‘concurrency,’ and stable operational requirements.

....You have to ask yourself, how does some self-aggrandizing doofus think the estimators are going to do any better than they've been able to do to-date? Given the unknowns for ANY large enterprise, unless they've come up with a functional crystal ball, or at least recognize it is the EXTERNAL factors, like Congress tweaking everybody under the meddling mis-named as 'oversight' they won't. But I'll go so far to predict that risk aversion will drive more cost and schedule overruns in the future... if this a$$hattery continues.
Yes, I've beat this to death (see here, here, and here. But it can't be said too often or in too many places as long as the liars are misleading the ignorant, the stupid and the naïve.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 14:57
by maus92
maus92 wrote:Commentary: A-10 Still the Best in Its Field
May. 5, 2014 - 02:16PM | By CHRIS CHOATE
Defense News


"Remember the A-16? Don’t worry — the US Air Force doesn’t, either.

Without question, the stepchild of the Air Force is the A-10 “Warthog.” It isn’t pretty. Worse, it’s defined as a single-mission aircraft — a cardinal sin in today’s environment where even air superiority aircraft have to portray an ability to perform a secondary mission.

Yet, thanks to civilian control of the Air Force, the venerable and battle-proven A-10 is now approaching its fourth decade of service to the United States. Throughout its illustrious career, the Warthog has faced only one serious threat: the budget cutters within the Air Force.

Each trip to the gallows for the A-10 has been accompanied by the rationale that other platforms can adequately perform the close-air support (CAS) mission. The common denominators of the “other platforms” have been afterburning engines (read fast), air-to-air radars (read cool and highly desirable for Red Flag and other training at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.), and cannons either designed for air-to-air combat or added as an afterthought. In short: characteristics necessary for modern fighter aircraft but having little utility in the CAS environment...."

Enter the A-16.

"Critics of the A-16, flat-Earthers of the day [and "naysayers" in fanboy speak], were labeled as supporters of a nostalgic “mudfighter,” an upgraded A-10 or similar plane that was “slow and simple, but heavily armored.” According to the article, such a platform would not survive the battlefield of tomorrow and was not even capable of providing the “kind of air support the Army needs and says it wants.” Speaking at an Air Force Association symposium in January 1989, then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Larry Welch said, “The data does not say ‘mudfighter.’ No matter how you slice it, the data says A-16.”

Fast forward to 1991. Among the many types of aircraft sent to expel Iraq from Kuwait were squadrons of A-10s and F/A-16s of the 174th Tactical Fighter Wing. Modified with a 30mm gun pod, the F/A-16s would validate the $27 million study and show the doubters in Washington that the days of the mudfighter had passed. It didn’t work out that way. The A-10 performed brilliantly. The F/A-16 proved to be a near disaster, and the gun pods were downloaded within days of the start of the air war. And the A-16? It was never heard of again...."

"So what’s different this time? Not that much. Like the F-16, the F-35 will be a remarkable aircraft. It will excel in interdiction and is expected to be very capable in counter-air operations against near-peer competitors. Unfortunately, the ability to conduct traditional, primary, or in the words of the critics, glamorous air operations does not translate well into the CAS environment. “Traditional” air combat values speed; CAS does not. Traditional air combat is one pass and haul a$$; loiter time is a critical requirement of CAS...."

"....There is not one key aspect of the CAS mission where the F-35 will be better than the A-10. Not one.

No one envies the Air Force’s budget dilemma. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the wars we’re fighting today are ones where the enemy has more in common with a 19th century militia than a modern military. The low-end war is not going away, and to succeed, our nation will need to fight and bring home every son and daughter we possibly can...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... 01/DEFSECT

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 15:25
by popcorn
This guy sure is obsessed with guns. :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 16:02
by XanderCrews
oh lawd :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 16:32
by SpudmanWP
CHRIS CHOATE via maus92 wrote:"So what’s different this time?

How do I differentiate from thee, let me count the ways:
1. The F-35 was designed with CAS as a major mission capability
2. The F-35’s gun was designed for it as opposed to an afterthought
3. The gun on the F-35 is internal (no vibration issue)
4. Even the external gun on the F-35 is in a specially braced pod to mitigate vibration as opposed to bolting to a standard centerline location.
5. PGMs rather than a gun are now the preferred way of tank busting
6. PGMs are cheaper and more accurate now which enables #5

....There is not one key aspect of the CAS mission where the F-35 will be better than the A-10. Not one.

How I am better then thee, let me count the ways:
1. The F-35 is faster which means that it can arrive quicker in response to an emergency call
2. The F-35 can be forward deployed from austere environments and naval assets.
3. The F-35 has better networking capability and will have a more complete understanding of the battlefield
4. Better ESM allow it to detect, hunt, and destroy enemies based on EM emissions.
5. The F-35 has better sensors and can even detect mortar, MG, and arty fire in a 360 view
6. Better night vision capabilities
7. The F-35 has a better upgrade path
8. The F-35 is more survivable (better sensors and speed allow higher ops, no trash fire)
9. Better combat range

Note that I have not mentioned stealth yet, but now that you are thinking about it:
10. VLO airframe allows ops in contested airspace
11. No escort planes needed as it can take care of itself
12. Less chance of detection or interception and can spend more time on CAS.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 20:10
by outlaw162
How about the number of aircraft bought before the definitive type was fielded?


Actually an interesting post, but a small point about the graph showing the number of precursor aircraft built before the definitive type....

....Someone shirked their diligence, the F-100F was not the definitive type (just the final lettered suffix for the two-seater D) and the F was first produced well before the indicated ~1900+ production point.

What has the world come to, you just can't believe what you read in print anymore. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 23:20
by maus92
The HASC has proposed to allow the USAF to place A-10s in storage, although they are to be maintained so that they can be reactivated at short notice. Senate Republicans: Oh, no you don't!

GOP senators reject putting A-10 in storage
By Martin Matishak - 05/06/14 02:29 PM EDT | The Hill

"A group of Senate Republicans on Tuesday rejected a proposal in the House that would place the A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft fleet into storage.

“Putting the A-10s in Type-1000 storage is not a compromise; it is a codification of the Air Force’s short-sighted and dangerous proposal to divest their most combat-effective and cost-efficient close air support aircraft,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said in a statement...."

"McKeon proposed storage, rather than retirement of the A-10, to buy time for lawmakers to try and reverse the spending cuts under sequestration and save the plane.

Graham called that a “terrible decision.”

“I really respect Buck and I think he’s trying to illustrate this is a choice driven buy budget, but there is no substitute for the A-10 any time soon,” he told reporters on Tuesday. “I will fight that vehemently because the ground troops really need the A-10.”

Graham noted that airplane’s previously planned replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, “under the best of circumstances doesn’t come online until 2021 and I doubt if it will make it by then.”

McCain laughed at the idea of storing the A-10.

“With all due respect, I strongly disagree,” he told The Hill. “There is no adequate replacement for the A-10.”

McCain said he would attempt to block any move to retire or store the Warthog when the Senate Armed Services Committee marks up its version of the defense authorization bill later this month.

“Absolutely,” McCain said. “We will have amendments.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services panel, said he had not seen McKeon’s proposal.

“I’m happy to consider anything,” he told reporters."

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/20533 ... z30yc0Cxvq
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook"

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 23:24
by maus92
Army's Odierno: Troops 'believe' in the A-10
By Martin Matishak - 05/06/14 11:53 AM EDT | The Hill

"An F-16 fighter does not provide the same kind of close air support to troops on the battlefield as the endangered A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno told lawmakers on Tuesday.

“It is not the same,” the four-star general said when pressed by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) on which platform soldiers on the ground would prefer.

Odierno said troops “believe” in the A-10, affectionately known throughout the armed services as the “Warthog,” because “they can see it, they can hear it.” Support offered by the F-16, he said, “is not visible to them...."”

"In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that was supposed to focus on military compensation, Ayotte also grilled Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos on whether his service preferred the A-10 to the F-16.

Amos hedged, saying Marines would like to see a “blend” of F-18 fighters and Harrier jets to provide close air support. But “that doesn’t mean they didn’t appreciate the hell out of the A-10,” Amos added.

Earlier in hearing, McCain asked the service chiefs if it gave them “comfort” that the B-1 was being offered as a replacement to the A-10.

Odierno said he believed the Air Force would find the right mix of aircraft to make up for the Warthog, while Air Force chief Gen. Mark Welsh tried to make case for the B-1, arguing it can linger over targets for up to five hours at a time.

McCain retorted that it costs $54,000 per hour to fly the bomber, while the Warthog only cost $17,000. He also renewed a challenge he made to Welsh last week that Welsh find an Army or Marine Corps commander on the ground who would feel comfortable with the B-1, a test Welsh happily accepted."


Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/20531 ... z30yd9bU00
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

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

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2014, 23:36
by SpudmanWP
maus92 wrote:Graham noted that airplane’s previously planned replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, “under the best of circumstances doesn’t come online until 2021 and I doubt if it will make it by then.”


Idiot (and that's coming from a Conservative)

IOC schedule is F-35B in 2015 and F-35A in 2016.

I guess he thinks they will be sitting around taking up ramp space for 5+ years before they bother to field them.

You dipshits gave us this sequestration, now live with the consequences.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 02:25
by smsgtmac
outlaw162 wrote:
How about the number of aircraft bought before the definitive type was fielded?


Actually an interesting post, but a small point about the graph showing the number of precursor aircraft built before the definitive type....

....Someone shirked their diligence, the F-100F was not the definitive type (just the final lettered suffix for the two-seater D) and the F was first produced well before the indicated ~1900+ production point.

What has the world come to, you just can't believe what you read in print anymore. :mrgreen:


Hmmm. I'll pretend you were actually interested in the numbers shown and the larger point being made, and smart enough to ask a question about what you did not understand instead of attempting to pick a nit (it's called 'caviling' , and in the manner applied could be called a 'red herring' :nono: fallacy by the way). But anyhoooo...
A Relevant Question: Hey Mac, why did you use the F-100F as the definitive type? I don't get it. Wasn't it basically the 2-seat version of the F-100D?

Answer: That's a very cogent question! First, I was tempted to surround that graph the same way I did when I originally used it, as shown at one of the links I provided:
Some adjudication and ‘calls’ in the analysis had to be made, because the real world isn't tidy. For example, I elected to use the F-104G as the definitive model type, though the US never bought it, it was the most numerous and built upon all the prior developments. I didn’t include a lot of F-86 variants prior to the D model because they were really parallel efforts. The F-84F was different enough from the previous versions that if it had been designated during the F-106 era, it would have certainly been given a different number designation, but it was still the final evolution of a long line of F-84s.
[chart]
There were quite a few other types of aircraft, but not bought in 'major' quantities (except for perhaps the F-86H and precursors but I didn't want to over emphasize the F-86). The most important thing to take from this chart is NOT that in the past, we built aircraft as best we could, learned from them, and made them better in the next iteration.

The takeaway IS that we fielded needed technology as fast as possible knowing we’d learn something new, or possibly fall short (without fear), or learn we needed different or just ‘better’ technology. We then incorporated those lessons learned to get the systems we needed. Most of the time those precursor aircraft had limited front-line service lives and were seconded or scrapped less than a decade after they were built.


The aircraft on the chart actually survived the adjudication process of data I had already compiled for other purposes. (The data behind it was actually compiled for an analysis of relative service life lengths, which is even less tidy.) The F-100F was one of those 'calls' I noted above. The F-100D buy, as the source document linked above notes, was initially cut to add the F-100Fs to be built in parallel to meet a need for trainers. If the F-100F had only been a trainer, it would not even be considered a factor to, much less be on, the list. But it was a combat aircraft and the key to keeping it on the list was also found in the text at the link I provided: it met a need for a two-seater for training that the proverbial 'some' had originally wanted all along (and were "vindicated" in the acquisition) of the type AND still provided significant nuclear and conventional combat capability. Since I used the 'precursor' designation to include types that variants were derived 'from', even if they were 'produced' at the same time, that relationship holds between the D and the F. If I had made the call the other way in distilling the numbers and backed out the F numbers to call the D model the definitive type, there still would have been nearly 700 F-100s before the D model, so the point I was making still stands either way. I saw it as not worth my effort to muck with my database to distill or caveat further than I did for a blog post or comment thread when it didn't matter: my call when it is my time. Usually happy to answer honest questions though :D .

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 03:55
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:Army's Odierno: Troops 'believe' in the A-10
By Martin Matishak - 05/06/14 11:53 AM EDT | The Hill

"An F-16 fighter does not provide the same kind of close air support to troops on the battlefield as the endangered A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno told lawmakers on Tuesday.

“It is not the same,” the four-star general said when pressed by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) on which platform soldiers on the ground would prefer.

Odierno said troops “believe” in the A-10, affectionately known throughout the armed services as the “Warthog,” because “they can see it, they can hear it.” Support offered by the F-16, he said, “is not visible to them...."”

"In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that was supposed to focus on military compensation, Ayotte also grilled Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos on whether his service preferred the A-10 to the F-16.

Amos hedged, saying Marines would like to see a “blend” of F-18 fighters and Harrier jets to provide close air support. But “that doesn’t mean they didn’t appreciate the hell out of the A-10,” Amos added.

Earlier in hearing, McCain asked the service chiefs if it gave them “comfort” that the B-1 was being offered as a replacement to the A-10.

Odierno said he believed the Air Force would find the right mix of aircraft to make up for the Warthog, while Air Force chief Gen. Mark Welsh tried to make case for the B-1, arguing it can linger over targets for up to five hours at a time.

McCain retorted that it costs $54,000 per hour to fly the bomber, while the Warthog only cost $17,000. He also renewed a challenge he made to Welsh last week that Welsh find an Army or Marine Corps commander on the ground who would feel comfortable with the B-1, a test Welsh happily accepted."


I don't think I've ever had a point I've made on CAS reinforced so quickly as the one I noted in the thread here:

To the Army as an organization, the A-10 is, more than anything, a lien placed on the Air Force to service the Army’s own institutional insecurities/fears and absolute thirst for control over any asset that might affect the ground commander’s operations. Once you recognize the Army’s motivations, the CAS Controversy makes perfect sense.


...“It is not the same,” ...troops “believe” in the A-10
...“they can see it, they can hear it.”...
...McCain asked the service chiefs if it gave them “comfort”...


Ahhh 'comfort' and 'feeling good', I must have missed those deliverables in the requirements document. What a dog and pony show.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 04:05
by spazsinbad
:devil: I thought fast jets did low passes to scare the bad guys into retreating but maybe it is to make the other side 'feel good'? I'm confused. :drool: Drops some bombs already. :doh: That'll show 'em. :mrgreen: Time to GO! A-10! Your country needs you NOT!

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 09:28
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:1. The F-35 is faster which means that it can arrive quicker in response to an emergency call


It also allows F-35 to avoid being shot down with IR MANPAD and SHORAD missiles like Igla, Stinger, SA-9/13 which have shot down A-10s before. Of course it also has that 360 view with automatic missile detection and tracking to help the pilot to know that he is under attack and do something about it. On top of that F-35 will also have laser jammer to jam those pesky IR missiles. While DIRCM systems could be installed on A-10, the combination of DAS and DIRCM systems will offer much superior performance.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 14:10
by mixelflick
Put yourself in their shoes: Would I rather know an A-10's on the way, or F-35?

I'd bet on the A-10, because...

*F-35 difficult to see/track
*F-35 is faster, much faster
*F-35 doesn't need to get close (or as close), to engage target
*All of that makes the F-35 harder to shoot down..

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 15:15
by maus92
The USAF needs the A-10, but doesn't want it. Even with zeroing out other aircraft types, it can barely afford 26 F-35s in FY15 - how is it possibly going to afford 60+ a year for over 10 years? There won't be any aircraft left in the USAF to sacrifice, I mean retire....

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 16:46
by outlaw162
Mac,

Thanks for your response clarifying your methodology and pointing out that higher levels of accuracy can sometimes be irrelevant to the point being made.

My only additional comment would be that when bar graphs are utilized in a presentation, folks naturally tend to focus on and dissect the outliers. "Wow, look how long that one is."

One man's 'nit-picking' can be another man's 'quality control'. :D

(Don't take my caviling too seriously, at least someone made the effort to read everything that was presented and I considered myself fortunate to still be able to read the font size used vertically for aircraft type as it was.)

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 19:27
by gtx
maus92 wrote:The USAF needs the A-10, but doesn't want it.

:shock: :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 23:37
by lookieloo
outlaw162 wrote:Mac,

Thanks for your response clarifying your methodology and pointing out that higher levels of accuracy can sometimes be irrelevant to the point being made.
Not at all the case. However, it might do to validly dispute the point in question instead of just being an a$$hat... so try again.


As a refresher, here's Mac's point distilled to Barney-level: Concurrency is nothing new, and warplanes don't spring fully formed/armed from the head Zeus. That LM gave this fact-of-life a name and actually planned for it accordingly doesn't really change things much.

You also may have heard of a fellow named Chuck Yeager. Back in the 1980s, he wrote a book that I read as a child (parents didn't know what was in it :devil: ). Although it's been many years since then, I can still remember the F-100's development being mentioned. If anything, it serves as an example of a situation in which acknowledged concurrency would have saved some money and lives.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 00:10
by outlaw162
I get the impression he can speak for himself.

Barney

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 02:38
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:The USAF needs the A-10, but doesn't want it. Even with zeroing out other aircraft types, it can barely afford 26 F-35s in FY15 - how is it possibly going to afford 60+ a year for over 10 years? There won't be any aircraft left in the USAF to sacrifice, I mean retire....


You are joking right?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 03:07
by smsgtmac
outlaw162 wrote:Mac,

Thanks for your response clarifying your methodology and pointing out that higher levels of accuracy can sometimes be irrelevant to the point being made.

My only additional comment would be that when bar graphs are utilized in a presentation, folks naturally tend to focus on and dissect the outliers. "Wow, look how long that one is."

One man's 'nit-picking' can be another man's 'quality control'. :D

(Don't take my caviling too seriously, at least someone made the effort to read everything that was presented and I considered myself fortunate to still be able to read the font size used vertically for aircraft type as it was.)


I've moved on. It's not like we've been doing the Mausian Passive-Aggressive Slow-Troll Contrarian Dance ad nauseum.

If I ever use the data for something like another thesis, peer-reviewed journal or symposium (those guys really know how to cavil!) paper to prove a truism rather than to make a point, I'd more clearly define my terms. That would probably change more than the F-100 type and numbers on the list, and I know I would also include the F-15C/D (445 precursors), F-16C/D Block 30s (~1800 precursors),and F-18C/D (~700 Precursors).

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 07:29
by mk82
Chris Choate's article really boggles the mind. I wonder if he would like to fly an A10 "low" and "slow" (apparently that is the only and best way to do CAS) in enemy territory where the enemy has numerous and competently crewed SHORADs.....maybe he does :P. But Mr Choate is forgetting that a ZSU-23-4 can do very nasty things to an A10...we are not even talking about MANPADs or Tor M1s! Looks like the Choatester forgot what happen when the USAF used A10s "low" and "slow" against Republican Guard units in GW1.....Lt Gen Chuck Horner sure was not impressed with the excessively ventilated A10s (by enemy fire no less). The F16s were subsequently committed against Republican Guard positions as the A10 was pulled out of that fight....fancy that! F16s that are too fast and have multimode radars....shock.....horror!

And Chris Choate should not assume that America will always fight COIN conflicts in the future!

To Maus - Yes, the US Senators has a good chance of forcing the USAF to retain their A10s but you are still not convincing on the merits of retaining the A10 when the USAF has its budget cut significantly under sequestration.

Talk all you want Maus but lets take a simple test: Imagine you are a commander of an A10 squadron which is providing CAS to beleagued ground forces in an environment where the opposing/enemy forces has effective SHORADS that has not been suppressed effectively/totally. Would you direct your pilots to fly "low" and "slow" (supposed strengths of the A10) in such an environment? You can do that....but Opfor will try to make sure that your squadron will pay very DEARLY for flying "low" and "slow". Even if all your A10s make it back to the airbase with significant battle damage, your squadron wouldn't providing anything much less CAS due to relentless attrition from battle damage. Maus....you will probably say the A10s can engage from medium altitudes with PGMs.....the A10s can even be integrated with TGPs and datalinks. There is the rub...most other fast jets in the USAF can do that too! Not to mention that the A10s still require other "faster" multirole jets to sanitise the battlespace (air superiority/SEAD/DEAD). Your friend Choatester forgot that the F35 can do something better than the A10 in CAS....survive! To fight another day :D (proper/updated CONOPS and tactics is a must obviously)!

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 10:02
by hornetfinn
I wonder what kind of aircraft the A-10 proponents would design to replace it? I think it would look surprisingly lot like F-35 in the end.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 11:20
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:I wonder what kind of aircraft the A-10 proponents would design to replace it? I think it would look surprisingly lot like F-35 in the end.

I hear they want to replace the Titanium bathtub with Adamantium since Unobtainium is off the market for now. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 14:30
by Lightndattic
smsgtmac wrote:If I ever use the data for something like another thesis, peer-reviewed journal or symposium (those guys really know how to cavil!) paper to prove a truism rather than to make a point, I'd more clearly define my terms. That would probably change more than the F-100 type and numbers on the list, and I know I would also include the F-15C/D (445 precursors), F-16C/D Block 30s (~1800 precursors),and F-18C/D (~700 Precursors).


Or the B-52. I'd LOVE to see someone put the entire B-52 program into today's numbers to show the F-35 numbers aren't anything new. Imagine the cost for 8 previous versions of the aircraft before the definitive variant (the H model) was fielded, the construction cost for the bases, the billions of gallons of fuel required over it's lifetime, the MANY upgrades needed to be kept viable, the MANY structural programs needed to keep it in the air, the weapons programs developed for it that no other aircraft could carry, etc. 600+ airframes of the previous models were built before the first H model was delivered. Then you take all those costs and add 50 years of inflation to them to get to today's dollars. Then keep adding money through the end of it's service life in 20-30 years.

I think once the F-35 program is put in this kind of context, it will be proven a good investment when they reach service in the numbers wanted, serve the length of time projected and fight as effectively as thought. It'll also show how insanely stupid it is to even try to calculate the future cost of programs that far out.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 15:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I would like to see that too.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 15:18
by maus92
Last night in the markup hearing, the HASC voted 41 to 20 on an amendment to prohibit the USAF from retiring the A-10 for at least another year. It still must be approved by the *full House.*

"The F-35 I'm sure is going to be a wonderful airplane, but it's far from operational," said Rep. Bill Enyart (D-Ill.). "We can't afford to have that gap in capability for the next seven year."

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/20555 ... z318LxacmJ
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

OT: the asterisks were necessary because when I posted, the object within became a hyperlink, pointing to Amazon and dvd of an old school American TV show.... not sure why that happened...

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 15:52
by maus92
hornetfinn wrote:I wonder what kind of aircraft the A-10 proponents would design to replace it? I think it would look surprisingly lot like F-35 in the end.


Until its most recent opportunity to justify its phase out, the USAF planned to retire the A-10 in 2028. At any rate, it could stay around for another twenty years once the USAF completes the re-winging contract and its other planned upgrades. No need for a direct replacement at this point. Once they get a handle on operating costs for F-35, a decision on a potential A-10 successor will be made at that point.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 18:35
by spazsinbad
'maus92' said:
"....Once they get a handle on operating costs for F-35, a decision on a potential A-10 successor will be made at that point."
And all this time I thought the 'J.... STRIKE Fighter' was the A-10 replacement. Sheesh - where was I. What was I thinking.... Must have been reading USAF saying the F-35/JSF was the replacement. Oh well - wrong again.

Re: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10? GASP!

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 22:38
by Gums
Salute!

From the "been there, done that and got the t-shirt" crowd...............

Good grief, " the King is dead! Long live the King!".

So I'll review the bidding from the real world with bullets flying, grunts in trouble and a platorm to help them. Did it first in the A-37, and 5 years later in the Sluf.

- In-country, the mission was "easy", and we could reach an outpost or whatever faster than an A-1. Didn't carry as much ord and had a wimpy gun. Nevertheless, our documented accuracy was as good as the A-1 and better than the F-100 or F-5 or F-4. But a bigger A-37 would be a good deal back then - what became the Warthog. And our pilots were in the flyoff and some flew the production model of the Warthog later. The thing was an A-37 on steroids. It was a jet-powered A-1, with the same manual gunsight ( TLBR) and many ord stations. It was easier to maintain and carried a lot more than the F-100. One intent was to be a tank buster at the Fulda Gap, and thank God it never had to try that.

- So I go back in 1972 - 1973, and then 1975 for the real end of the war. The Sluf could not be based in-country due to the drawdown, so no "scramble" and get there in 10 or 15 minutes. Nevertheless, on a few occasions we could help some grunts and our computed delivery had the same accuracy as the A-37 and A-1. Also about 100 - 150 knots or so faster at a higher altitude. The Viper would have been just the same and even harder to be hit by the gunners.

- The Fulda Gap scenario went away. Hooray. So first combat was the Storm. Got to see battle damage and such, but I don't recall rave reviews by the grunts about the jet ( Lookie?). Further, the nature of warfare had changed, and the bad guys had pretty good guns and missiles than in 1968. They were not half as good as the Vee, but good enough.

We no longer had fixed outposts and such to defend/lend a helping hand. The battlefield was very fluid, and being able to zip from one place to another was important. A computed weapon delivery system helped immensely, and my opinion of the Warthog upgrades is very low. Nothing like the Sluf or the Viper had from the get go.

- So the 'stan comes along and the Warthog does good against a low threat adversary. The Vipers and Hornets seemed to do as well except for loiter time, possibly. Also had LGB's that could be used with grunt laser designators.

- then 'raqi II. Moving grunts, no outposts, very fluid.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
So we now move on to requirements and capabilities and $$$$$. Ya think?

That's how you structure your force, and pay for it.

IMHO, the liklihood of a stalled ground war as we had back in the 60's is non-existent. The liklihood of killing tanks with a great gun and limited defenses is nil. Best I know, the Taliban don't have tanks or ZSU-23's or SA-6 missiles. So what do we do with the Warthogs? Well, then it's time to go, then long live the Warthog! Use the $$$ for other requirements to meet the threat and implement the doctrine and national objectives.

Gums steps off the platform....

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 23:21
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'Gums'. :cheers: Here is the 'A-10 replacement' under test in the GhannyGhanStan: :devil:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... istan.html

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

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 23:48
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'Gums'. :cheers: Here is the 'A-10 replacement' under test in the GhannyGhanStan: :devil:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... istan.html

That looks like someone added an image of a toy and some flashes of light to a video of a bunch of bombs falling on a position.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 02:04
by delvo
maus92 wrote:Last night in the markup hearing, the HASC voted 41 to 20 on an amendment to prohibit the USAF from retiring the A-10 for at least another year. It still must be approved by the *full House.*
"Find a way to cut this amount of money... no, not that way!"

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 02:59
by XanderCrews
Just to add to what Gums said:


[The aircraft] had its glory days in an era when supporting troops on the ground was everything, and no other aircraft could get quite so close to the 'friendlies' nor engage [the enemy] adversaries with quite so much ferocity and accuracy... Our troops on the ground were glad when the aircraft coming to help them was [us]. The other fighters were less able to help them out of a tight spot. We had more time on station, and unlike them we could operate under cloud cover and in tough terrain that might have deterred a faster jet... [The aircraft] was well equipped for operations from primitive airfields and required little of the fancy, high-tech maintenance needed by more sophisticated warplanes... 'This was very personal to us. The ground troops just beneath us were personal. The enemy troops right in throwing a lot of metal up into the air in front of us were personal. We believed we were the very best close air support...' On a typical mission, the [aircraft] carried more ordnance than the [fast movers].


All of the above extracted from "Shake and Bake: Bombing in the A-37 Dragonfly," by Robert F. Dorr, Combat Aircraft Monthly, Vol 15, No3.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 14:12
by deadseal
delvo wrote:
maus92 wrote:Last night in the markup hearing, the HASC voted 41 to 20 on an amendment to prohibit the USAF from retiring the A-10 for at least another year. It still must be approved by the *full House.*
"Find a way to cut this amount of money... no, not that way!"


Its so sick it makes you want to puke....or go postal on the politicians

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 15:47
by maus92
deadseal wrote:
delvo wrote:
maus92 wrote:Last night in the markup hearing, the HASC voted 41 to 20 on an amendment to prohibit the USAF from retiring the A-10 for at least another year. It still must be approved by the *full House.*
"Find a way to cut this amount of money... no, not that way!"


Its so sick it makes you want to puke....or go postal on the politicians


The politicians are reacting to their constituents in this case, as well as the USAFs ludicrous plans to retire an entire fleet of viable aircraft that are combat proven in both high and low intensity conflicts. There is no longer a manufacturer lobby base for the A-10, unlike LM - who has an army of lobbyists - who sees threats from any type that can perform tacair missions.

Back in the day, the USAF found itself with a fleet of shinny new jets - the Century series - that were totally unsuited for the war in Vietnam. It had to scramble to adopt naval aircraft (A-1, A-7 and F-4,) and reconfigure trainers (A-37) to play effectively. The USAF is once again setting itself up to be caught without a proper mix of tactical aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 15:58
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
The politicians are reacting to their constituents in this case, as well as the USAFs ludicrous plans to retire an entire fleet of viable aircraft that are combat proven in both high and low intensity conflicts. There is no longer a manufacturer lobby base for the A-10, unlike LM - who has an army of lobbyists - who sees threats from any type that can perform tacair missions.



Bait set, his trap is now ready... he need only wait

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 20:27
by gtx
maus92 wrote: the USAFs ludicrous plans to retire an entire fleet of viable aircraft that are combat proven in both high and low intensity conflicts.


You really don't get it do you - the times they have a changed... :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 22:20
by count_to_10
Not everything has to do with corporate lobbying.
However, since we are on that topic, has anyone worked out what companies have contracts to maintain and upgrade the A-10 fleet? How about the districts that the A-10 is based in?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 13:03
by deadseal
[/quote]

The politicians are reacting to their constituents in this case, as well as the USAFs ludicrous plans to retire an entire fleet of viable aircraft that are combat proven in both high and low intensity conflicts[/quote]


How is an A-10 suppose to survive getting shot at by modern SAMs? Like say an SA-22? Or survive against a F-11B? :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 13:22
by popcorn
deadseal wrote:


The politicians are reacting to their constituents in this case, as well as the USAFs ludicrous plans to retire an entire fleet of viable aircraft that are combat proven in both high and low intensity conflicts[/quote]


How is an A-10 suppose to survive getting shot at by modern SAMs? Like say an SA-22? Or survive against a F-11B? :doh:[/quote]
Simple.. the F-35 will take out the SAM and obliterate the F-11B.. if only it could do the CAS mission as well..,hmmmm.., :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 16:14
by XanderCrews
reacting to their constituents


Very tactful way of saying that the A-10 jobs/welfare program is popular where A-10 Jobs/Welfare occurs. I'm sorry but this has little to do with A-10 future tactical relevance and everything to do with keeping people employed. If its that damn important, then the politicos should be rallying to end sequestration, not individual selfish consequences of it.

But I congratulate you Maus, You got a lot of bites on that, first class trolling. 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 16:31
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote: (Emphasis SMSgt Mac)The politicians are reacting to their constituents[1] in this case, as well as the USAFs ludicrous[2] plans to retire an entire fleet of viable [3]aircraft that are combat proven in both high [4]and low intensity conflicts. There is no longer a manufacturer lobby base for the A-10, unlike LM - who has an army of lobbyists - who sees threats from any type that can perform tacair missions[5].
Back in the day, the USAF found[6] itself with a fleet of shinny[sic] new jets - the Century series - that were totally unsuited for the war in Vietnam [7]. It had to scramble[8] to adopt naval aircraft (A-1, A-7 and F-4,) and reconfigure trainers (A-37) to play effectively. The USAF is once again setting itself up [9]to be caught without a proper[10] mix of tactical aircraft.


[1] An ‘undefined’ assertion. Perhaps if it were supported by one or more specific facts? What is it about their ‘constituents’ are they ‘reacting’ to? Their self-interest? A sense of patriotism? If patriotism, what makes it valid or misplaced? We can’t go forward on this point until you explain what you mean.

[2] Ludicrous: “amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity”. Do tell us why retiring an aging fleet of aircraft suitable for a narrow list of missions and only in permissive environments to free $ for more advanced systems that are not bound by those limited mission sets. Is ‘laughable’ or ‘absurd’. I contend your use of the word ludicrous in this case is a fallacious appeal to ridicule.

[3] Viable? In what way other than in a LIC (permissive environment) and even then only with continuous attention to the aging and weaknesses of the overall design?

[4] ‘Proven’ in high intensity conflict? Name one. Keep in mind that surviving getting you’re azz shot up compared to not getting shot up in the first place is a rather low standard of ‘proven’. Also keep in mind the highest intensity the A-10 has seen was in Desert Storm where it had the highest attrition rate of all allied aircraft, even though they were pulled off the tough targets when Gen Horner ‘had enough’. Makes one wonder if Horner did the right thing in the big scheme of things. He made a morally correct decision at the time of course. How could he have known that by saving the A-10 fleet from pending destruction he was setting the stage for some future politician to in effect campaign for office by advocating that future mothers’ sons should have to fly a marginal-at-best asset into an even a more dangerous future battlespace?

[5] This is a red herring argument bordering on a fallacious Appeal to Emotion(Save the Clocktower!) . And a particularly laughable one in light of all the emotional and fact-free lobbying for the A-10 by the Air Guard, the Army, and Congresscritters with ‘constituents’ affected by A-10 basing or Depot $, and the anti-military types--especially the so-called ‘Reform’ crowd.

[6] You apparently have no clue as to how the AF ‘found’ itself with the jets it did have for the war in SEA. But DO go on!

[7] I’ll correct you here: “unsuited for the way the US fought the war in Vietnam”. There are a host of alternative histories that we’ll never know how the aircraft would have performed. If you knew your history vs. possibly the Left’s narrative of same you wouldn’t have even trotted this claim out.

[8] Shotgunning a list of past aircraft types as if why and how the AF employed them all sprang from the same fount is unsupported by each of the aircraft’s histories, and is bad enough. But…

[9] Using it as a strawman to claim the current mix of aircraft and weapons have any imagined shortcomings that would render them ineffective in future LICs is unsupported by the evidence in hand. Example: 80% CAS is by 'Fast Movers' in the ‘Stan.

[10] Oh DO tell us what the “proper” mix of aircraft is. Especially the part about how people responsible for getting the mix right are wrong, and please, make certain you include your qualifications to second-guess them.

I don’t know how the others feel about your penchant for posting every obscure article or blog post making distorted or false claims against the F-35. Personally I like it because it keeps the board lively and good-humored: people seem to love to point at the stupidity in most of them. It is when you move beyond the passive-aggressive mode with the credible deniability (‘Who me? Hey I’m just posting what others are saying’...), and out of frustration you start dropping the unsupported and outrageous bombs like those above that I take exception to. Bombs that show you really have no consequential knowledge on the subject, nor observational skills to draw a proper description of the phenomenon under observation, nor the analytical chops to sort out the meaning of what you are seeing. The bombs do show us that for some reason you really want the F-35 to be the ‘failure’ you fantasize it is.
I’ve noticed you consistently appear unmoved by actual expert opinions from the inside, but glom on to every professional naysayer's throat-clearing, or pompous political bloviations (in an election year no less) as if it were manna from Heaven and the wellspring of the only True Virtue. You might be an incredibly bright fellow suffering from an intellect held captive by ideology, or it just may be you live too close to the DC Distortion Vortex. We cannot know the 'why' of your failures, only the 'what'.

IMHO You should probably stick to the passive-aggressive mode and stop trying to apply inconsequential knowledge to things beyond your ken. Frustrating or not, you may have noticed that usually doesn't work out well for you and comes off as rather troll-like:
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:The USAF needs the A-10, but doesn't want it. Even with zeroing out other aircraft types, it can barely afford 26 F-35s in FY15 - how is it possibly going to afford 60+ a year for over 10 years? There won't be any aircraft left in the USAF to sacrifice, I mean retire....


You are joking right?


Ever give Xander an answer?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 17:54
by Gums
Salute all!

c'mon, Mac, just tell us how you REALLY feel! Heh heh.

To get off-topic, here's an excellent article about the mother of the Warthog.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-avi ... 2/?no-ist=

+++++++++++++++++++++

I would have loved to fly the P-51 or the F-86, but those days are gone, and we should just let them go. You can't go back, you can never go back ( paraphrase from Don Henley's "Boys of Summer")

Other than Apache, we'll never have a low and slow attack aircraft, EVER!!!! So get over it.

Doctrine and $$$ and new threats do not envision a Warthog as a viable platform. Simple as that. Never flew the Warthog and politicked to stay away from it because I wanted to fly the Viper, and I was successful. "first in the F-16" was our motto.

I don't like the idea of an F-35 getting down and dirty, make no mistake. But the nature of conflicts has changed immensely since the A-10 was developed. Ask the U.S. Army about CAS, and Lookie has the best rationale about what the Air Force should do. Manuever warfare is the current doctrine, and we have embedded CAS platforms such as the Apache and such to handle a close engagement. We are not gonna see remote outposts and fixed encampments anymore. We may have a true ground war that involves "capturing the flag" sometime in the future, but I can't see the future ( predictions are hard, especially about the future, to quote Einstein and Berra).

+++++++++

Had a great, close up tour of the F-35 this week and will report on another thread.

Gums opines....

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 18:00
by spazsinbad
For the USN and USMC the new term is 'expeditionary' according to this article due to the Wide Pacific Sea:

Introducing America’s New ‘Expeditionary Fleet’
By Robert D. Holzer on May 09, 2014
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/intr ... ary-fleet/

Mentioned here earlier: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23222&p=271093&hilit=Holzer#p271093

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 18:38
by Gums
Salute!

Excellent article, Spaz.

That about sums up the change ( back to the future for the USMC and USN).

The big thing is "power projection". No emphasis upon standing in place or moving a FEBA as in WW2 or Korea for we yanks. 'raqi II was more like WW2, but was over real quick. And during Desert Storm, the other side was concerned about the USMC folks sitting just off shore. As of now and prolly the next ten years or so, the U.S. will remain the most capable military force to "project power" with the carriers and the buffs.

Except for the time it takes to get a carrier task force in place, the B-2 and the future long range strike platform, manned or unmanned, will be the first strike. Let's face it, the B-2 can be anywhere in the whole world in 12 - 18 hours or so. Well, maybe not Australia, heh heh. But the Aussies seem to have that well in-hand.

May need to move this discussion to another forum, but couldn't resist a comment.

Gums sends...

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

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 20:33
by gtx
smsgtmac wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:The USAF needs the A-10, but doesn't want it. Even with zeroing out other aircraft types, it can barely afford 26 F-35s in FY15 - how is it possibly going to afford 60+ a year for over 10 years? There won't be any aircraft left in the USAF to sacrifice, I mean retire....


You are joking right?


Ever give Xander an answer?


Of course not. He rarely gives answers when directly asked...

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 14:32
by cantaz
A permissive environment is always one 2-ton truck load of MANPADs away from being non-permissive.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 15:15
by count_to_10
cantaz wrote:A permissive environment is always one 2-ton truck load of MANPADs away from being non-permissive.

Another note: the A-10 had a number of design compromises to increase it's survivability against early MANPADs that aren't particularly effective against more modern ones.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 18:46
by jtcreate
maus92 wrote: The politicians are reacting to their constituents in this case, as well as the USAFs ludicrous plans to retire an entire fleet of viable aircraft that are combat proven in both high and low intensity conflicts. There is no longer a manufacturer lobby base for the A-10, unlike LM - who has an army of lobbyists - who sees threats from any type that can perform tacair missions.

Back in the day, the USAF found itself with a fleet of shinny new jets - the Century series - that were totally unsuited for the war in Vietnam. It had to scramble to adopt naval aircraft (A-1, A-7 and F-4,) and reconfigure trainers (A-37) to play effectively. The USAF is once again setting itself up to be caught without a proper mix of tactical aircraft.


With all do respect, I love the A10 since I was a teenager. But is sentimental value worth watching A-10 pilots coming home to their families in body bags? Or captured behind enemy lines by hostile fanatics? It hasn't helped that the F-35 has gotten such damaging press and of course Peirre Sprey overselling himself and his rhetoric. This is what the Pentagon gets for dropping the ball on the F-35's development.

USAFs ludicrous plans to retire an entire fleet of viable aircraft that are combat proven in both high and low intensity conflicts.


You really can't consider the A-10 "Viable" if its no longer "Viable". What the plane has done in the past is just that....In the past.

So what is the USAF left to do? Allow the A-10 fleet to sit in the background becoming a bigger financial hole in the USAF pocket every year that passes? Because the USAF is going to further restrict operations more and more every year with increasing threats. Now the USAF has a nice financial hole in their pocket while in need of those same funds to continue other much needed (and probably critical) modernization. How is all this viable? Or creating a tactical balance as you described?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 20:01
by Gums
Salute!

One thing that JT didn't mention was that we are moving Vipers to the Guard and Reserve as the F-35 comes on line. Sayanora Warthogs.

Of course, some units are now moving to drones, but what the hell.

Times are a changing, folks. We can't plan for the last war, and worse, buy/maintain stuff developed for the last war. Up to me I would try to sell the Warthogs to South American countries now flying the Dragonfly.

Gums opines....

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 22:35
by count_to_10
Gums wrote:One thing that JT didn't mention was that we are moving Vipers to the Guard and Reserve as the F-35 comes on line. Sayanora Warthogs.

Of course, some units are now moving to drones, but what the hell.

Times are a changing, folks. We can't plan for the last war, and worse, buy/maintain stuff developed for the last war. Up to me I would try to sell the Warthogs to South American countries now flying the Dragonfly.

Selling them has been mentioned before, but chances are that the same cost trade-offs apply to everyone else, too.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2014, 01:28
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

One thing that JT didn't mention was that we are moving Vipers to the Guard and Reserve as the F-35 comes on line. Sayanora Warthogs.

Of course, some units are now moving to drones, but what the hell.

Times are a changing, folks. We can't plan for the last war, and worse, buy/maintain stuff developed for the last war. Up to me I would try to sell the Warthogs to South American countries now flying the Dragonfly.

Gums opines....


Selling them has been mentioned before, but chances are that the same cost trade-offs apply to everyone else, too.


Top of my list would be South Korea but even they seem to be tapped out for now. Their priority also seems to have shifted to being able to take out at very short notice NOKOR strategic,assets deep within enemy airspace, leaving the tanks and artillery threats to be dealt with by other means.

http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2013/0 ... korea.html

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2014, 11:21
by popcorn
jtcreate wrote:[ But is sentimental value worth watching A-10 pilots coming home to their families in body bags? Or captured behind enemy lines by hostile fanatics?

Unfortunately, another,consequence is likely to be more grunts coming home in body bags as well or captured as they are left holding the bag when the A-10 is snuffed from the sky or driven off, unable to execute their CAS mission.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2014, 16:29
by XanderCrews
I don't think Maus92 is a troll, but his last post was very much a troll post. And it worked marvelously.

The USAF Basically sees the A-10 as an increasingly limited asset even in the narrow mission it occupies. Its less versatile in other roles and I don't care how many helicopters it shoots down, that doesn't mean its suddenly a CAP fighter. Even if the A-10 is underestimated in certain missions A multi role fighter is still going to do those other missions better. There are basically 3 options with A-10s in future combat in contested skies:

1. Accept the risk and send them in-- this is bad because it will cost men and machines, is not sustainable, and hurts more than it helps

2. Wait until conditions are safe enough to send the A-10s to operate

3. Make the safe enough conditions happen by pulling other assets to help/escort A-10s

for all the fanboys that chant guns and armor, and think that its the peak of 21st century attack and protection, I marvel at the ignorance.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 02:03
by maus92
Gums wrote:One thing that JT didn't mention was that we are moving Vipers to the Guard and Reserve as the F-35 comes on line. Sayanora Warthogs.

Of course, some units are now moving to drones, but what the hell.

Times are a changing, folks. We can't plan for the last war, and worse, buy/maintain stuff developed for the last war. Up to me I would try to sell the Warthogs to South American countries now flying the Dragonfly.


This is why many don't believe the rhetoric coming out of the current USAF leadership and industry sponsored think tanks (plus some members of this list): The USAF has planned - until very recently - to keep the A-10s in service through 2028. It is only because there is limited funding available for F-35 that the early retirement is currently being pursued.

No game changing technology has emerged in the past 3 years to make CAS any more dangerous now than it was when the decision to upgrade avionics and re-wing the A-10 was made. Unless the experts in the USAF were wrong 3 years ago about the survivability of the A-10, what this is really about is killing off a potential alternative to ramping up near term F-35 buys. If the USAF keeps the A-10 operational, it can be argued that the USAF doesn't need to buy the F-35 at the planned FRP rate - maybe some lower buy rate would suffice.

LM's lobbyists are hard at work trying to kill off the A-10 to make sure that their F-35 is the only option. So far, they have not prevailed.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 02:15
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:This is why many don't believe the rhetoric coming out of the current USAF leadership and industry sponsored think tanks (plus some members of this list): The USAF has planned - until very recently - to keep the A-10s in service through 2028. It is only because there is limited funding available for F-35 that the early retirement is currently being pursued.

No game changing technology has emerged in the past 3 years to make CAS any more dangerous now than it was when the decision to upgrade avionics and re-wing the A-10 was made. Unless the experts in the USAF were wrong 3 years ago about the survivability of the A-10, what this is really about is killing off a potential alternative to ramping up near term F-35 buys. If the USAF keeps the A-10 operational, it can be argued that the USAF doesn't need to buy the F-35 at the planned FRP rate - maybe some lower buy rate would suffice.

LM's lobbyists are hard at work trying to kill off the A-10 to make sure that their F-35 is the only option. So far, they have not prevailed.


What a crock o' crap.

These are budget decisions; narrow mission, difficult to deploy aircraft get the axe first. Welcome to budget realities on the backside of a war.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 02:32
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:No game changing technology has emerged in the past 3 years to make CAS any more dangerous now than it was when the decision to upgrade avionics and re-wing the A-10 was made.


....Other than the fact that the decision to upgrade the avionics of the A-10 to the C standard was plainly an overdue effort to address survivability issues against AD by improving PGM delivery capability?

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 03:55
by disconnectedradical
Well, here's a question. Is the A-10 really viable against a near-peer adversary? As far as I know they operate best in permissive environments, i.e. after air superiority has been established and hostile SAM sites knocked out. And if you are trying to deal with triple A, why bother going low when we have now progressed to the realm of SDBs? Especially given that F-35s can lase them with their EOTS? And in a permissive environment, is the A-10 really the most optimal platform? There are AC-130s, Apaches, and Reapers. What advantage does a 30 mm GAU-8 cannon have over, say, an SDB, or a Maverick, or a Hellfire?

If I recall, didn't the A-10 get most of its kills in the Gulf War with the Maverick missile? In that case, what makes an A-10 superior over, say, an F-16 or F-35?

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 04:33
by mk82
+110% Cantaz!

Maus92, its not game changing technology in the last three years that drove the A10 upgrades. Its a more fundamental problem with the A10....specifically how the A10 was employed initially. "Low" and "slow" ain't cutting it anymore in non permissive environments and that is the rub....other fast jets and bombers (wow!) can do CAS from medium altitudes just as well.

A10s are nice to have but not indispensable when the USAF needs to make hard decisions due to the sequestration...based on future threat environments, needs and requirements. It is not just a budget decision based on the whim of the USAF, strengths and weaknesses of every platform has been considered in the context of future conflicts the USAF may itself participating in. Frankly, Maus92, you are barking up the wrong tree. The pending retirement of the U2s are more significant than the "OMG" pending doom of the A10 in my humble opinion.

Looks like the A10 may survive to live another few years (hurrah for you Maus92 obviously). But you have never answered my scenario I posted to you previously. Very simply, would you still fly low and slow (only the A10 is the l33test with such tactics) in an environment rich in trash fire, AAA and manpads ala republican guard positions in GW1 (that even is not the worse SHORAD environment!). History tells us that the outcome was not good to put it mildly. You must be a strange guy Maus92...you must like the taste of 23mm lead and exploding short range SAMs. Don't be shy Maus92, you can tell us :D.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 04:41
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:This is why many don't believe the rhetoric coming out of the current USAF leadership and industry sponsored think tanks (plus some members of this list): The USAF has planned - until very recently - to keep the A-10s in service through 2028. It is only because there is limited funding available for F-35 that the early retirement is currently being pursued.

No game changing technology has emerged in the past 3 years to make CAS any more dangerous now than it was when the decision to upgrade avionics and re-wing the A-10 was made. Unless the experts in the USAF were wrong 3 years ago about the survivability of the A-10, what this is really about is killing off a potential alternative to ramping up near term F-35 buys. If the USAF keeps the A-10 operational, it can be argued that the USAF doesn't need to buy the F-35 at the planned FRP rate - maybe some lower buy rate would suffice.

LM's lobbyists are hard at work trying to kill off the A-10 to make sure that their F-35 is the only option. So far, they have not prevailed.


Whoa! That one set off the alarms
fail-detector.jpg


Pssst.... As much as I like having my points proven, the first rule when one finds oneself in a hole is: 'stop digging'.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 08:45
by popcorn
Hmmm, what could have changed in the past several years? On the money side, SEQUESTRATION comes to mind. On the strategic side of the picture, the PACIFIC PIVOT and the focus on dealing with peer/near-peer level threats and their A2/AD strategies as addressed by JOAC which provides a,master,template,for the investment decisions related to force structure going forward.

In sum total, I would describe the changes of the past several years as "seismic". The Armed Services must be given the flexibility to plan for the future as they see fit sans Congress' meddling.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 23:34
by spazsinbad
ON PAGE 34 of this self same thread we had some comments about McCain and his 'politician' comments about the F-35. Here he goes again.... BBuutttt in a good way - Buehler? Anyone?... viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&start=495
"...Sen. McCain Praises Plane’s Capabilities 13 May 2014 Colin Clark

...Meanwhile, one of the program’s harshest critics, Sen. John McCain, offered some positive comments about the F-35 when I asked him for his views at today’s annual Norwegian American Defense Conference.

“The aircraft itself is turning into a pretty good weapon system,” the senator said, saying that his earlier harsh criticisms of the program had been all about cost and schedule — not the aircraft’s performance. “I never questioned whether it would be a good weapon.”

However, I understand several potential and existing international customers had read about McCain’s criticisms and raised questions with the Pentagon about whether the plane was in good shape. As best I can tell, this is the first time the powerful senator has made positive comments in public about the aircraft’s capabilities.

However, there is absolutely no doubt that McCain believes — as do most reasonable people — that Lockheed Martin really screwed up the first seven years of the program.

“It’s a disgrace,” he said, adding that the F-35 “still isn’t fully operationally capable.” He added that he is “glad” other countries are buying the plane. But he ended his remarks about the F-35 by saying Lockheed and its F-35 brethren “should be ashamed and embarrassed” about their management of the program."

SOURCE: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/f-35 ... abilities/

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 23:48
by Gums
Salute!

What a great forum for the peanut gallery.

I refer to a famous question from a U.S. Senator at a hearing in the 60's with then SecDef McNamara RE: the TFX. I paraphrase, " just what, if anything, do you have experience with in these matters?" Slam dunk. The Double Ugly became the first effective multi-misson jet back then. And it sucked at CAS and worse in CSAR.

Luckily, USAF figured out the 'vaark was gonna be decent for low-alt interdiction and such and not a "do everything" jet. Years later, I flew the Viper, and it was a decent "do everthing" jet. Also flew a dedidcated CAS jet and then the Sluf in actual combat. Sluf had a good interdiction capability and CAS capability, and interdiction was much better than the Warthog. Not as good in CSAR as the A-1, or even the Warthog later, but enuf to get the job done.

As I moved up the experience and rank ladder, I got to see all the doctrinal issues, the $$$, the procurement process and on and on. I liked the Warthog for a low-threat environment as we had in 'nam, but would have not liked to fly it in the 80's Fulda Gap scenario. Thot it would be good in "The Storm", but most tank kills were with the Maverick at night when the other side had warm tank barrels radiating IR energy and the Warthog guys used their Mavericks as a poor man's LANTIRN. Talked with them personally over two decades ago. Also worked with the USMC on Cobra upgrades in early 90's. Ditto. Cobra's and USA Apaches were very effective for CAS, and Warthogs did O.K., but not as we had expected. The maneuver warfare had taken hold, and we did not have mass "insertions" of grunts as I saw back in 1968. So no LZ prep, and then hanging around. Most CAS missions were about an outpost under attack with the enema at the fence. Go look up the An Loc battle in early 1972 and see what small jet to save the day.

Keep on keeping on, romantic folks. Think about P-51's in Korea, and F-100's in 'nam. Thuds were non-players back then for CAS. Double Uglies were barely better, as several units were in-country and had better loadouts and experience. USMC A-4 jets were nice, BTW.

Gums opines....

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

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2014, 00:10
by maus92
mk82 wrote:+110% Cantaz!

Looks like the A10 may survive to live another few years (hurrah for you Maus92 obviously).


We'll see. The proposed A-10 retirement postponement will have a tougher time getting through the Senate. The way the House "paid" for its reprieve is a bit shaky (I think they are using OCO funds.) The Dems in the Senate have to go along with that funding strategy.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2014, 00:21
by spazsinbad
Heheh. USMC A-4s were 'expeditionary' with their jet engine powered catapults /and/or JATO bottles and mirror/arrestor gear on the AM-2 matting on what must have been a woeful beachy sandy runway at Chu Lai. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2014, 01:08
by count_to_10
maus92 wrote:LM's lobbyists are hard at work trying to kill off the A-10 to make sure that their F-35 is the only option. So far, they have not prevailed.

Surely you jest.
The Air Force decision to cut the A-10 is their attempt to maximize the effectiveness of their budget. The demand to keep it comes purely from lobbyists that represent vested interests.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2014, 06:17
by thepointblank
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
LM's lobbyists are hard at work trying to kill off the A-10 to make sure that their F-35 is the only option. So far, they have not prevailed.


Whoa! That one set off the alarms
fail-detector.jpg


Pssst.... As much as I like having my points proven, the first rule when one finds oneself in a hole is: 'stop digging'.

And that is considerably an ill-informed statement on the part of maus92 when Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the A-10C digitalization upgrades! If anything, Lockheed Martin would be lobbying hard to keep the A-10 in service so it can keep its contract!

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2014, 18:53
by maus92
Very long blog post about the USAF quest to retire the A-10, something that needs to read in its entirety, particularly by the neophyte posters on this forum:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-us ... 1562789528

Excerpt:

"What I am getting at here is that the current force size of the USAF has already been shaved down over and over and over again to what is now a skeletonized force considering the missions demanded of it. Cutting readiness and training is very dangerous both militarily and geopolitically. Last year, about one third of the entire Air Combat Command was grounded due to the sharp axe of sequestration, poor planning by the DoD, and totally screwed up budgetary priorities within the USAF. This is not acceptable as employing a complex fighter aircraft as a weapon is a perishable skill.

Thus the last thing we should cut is readiness with the force that we already have. So this all comes down to one glaring issue that has pushed the USAF to sacrifice incredible amounts of end strength and readiness in exchange for a capability that is questionable at best, antiquated at worst. That is once again the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

I don't want this piece to be hijacked by the F-35, but the F-35 program effects almost every other weapon system in the USAF at this point, and the A-10 is not immune in any way to its budget crushing weight. The realities surrounding the Pentagon's obsession with this controversial aircraft are alarming. Think about it in perspective, we are talking about cutting the A-10 entirely here, another three hundred combat aircraft gone from the USAF's dwindling inventory, and these are the most cost effetive out of the entire lot. All for the equivalent of buying just 30 F-35s.

The USAF's fleet of fighters has continued to be bled dry for this program while at the same time the USAF complains about a fighter gap and the age of its fleet. At what point is enough, quite literally enough? Is it more important to continue shoveling tens of billions of dollars at this program when we are actually discussing giving our soldiers on the ground "good enough" close air support? This is becoming a very unhealthy situation for the DoD and for the American warfighter. Considering we cannot even afford to fly and operate the relatively simple combat aircraft we already have now, how on earth are we going to afford to operate an aircraft that is at least twice as much to operate per hour than the aircraft they will replace? The uncertainty surrounding the F-35 is unbearable, the sacrifices are damning and the results have been questionable at the very best so far. And in reality, the one aircraft that the F-35 should never replace is the A-10.

When it comes to defense budgets, if you want to save money you don't do it by chopping the most cost effective assets you already own, and you don't do it through slashing training and readiness, you do it through making hard procurement decisions. If dropping thirty or so F-35As from the USAF's procurement initiative will send the eternally fragile program into an unrecoverable tailspin then we should not continue investing into such a volatile and questionable program. Unmanned technology is already the disruptor of a millennium when it comes to the F-35's most high-priority roles, those being striking fixed targets deep within enemy airspace and surveying the battlefield clandestinely, yet the Pentagon is betting the farm on a manned system that is supposed to remain effective for forty years.

For some perspective, forty years ago there was no stealth technology and your scientific calculator had more processing power than the vast majority of computers on earth. Considering that the F-35's low observability is already being questioned, and flying wing drones are much better suited for broadband stealth, is such a long-term investment into this vehicle logical in any way? At least we know the A-10's survivability via its low-altitude combat environment, ability to absorb fire, and plug and play jamming technology won't suddenly expire.

Finally, it is a hard to hear the Pentagon Brass act as if cutting the A-10 is the first thing that comes to mind in regards to balancing the books during sequester, especially when there have never been more command staff on the Pentagon's payroll. This executive heavy infestation is dubbed "star creep." So many "cooks in the kitchen," so to speak, may impede delivering a more efficient force. It seems like a new program office opens weekly headed by someone with a star of their shoulder and entirely new commands are proposed regularly. Maybe it is time for the USAF, and the DoD as a whole, to look at its own ghastly executive payroll as well as taking the clever to the force's end strength and procurement budget. Hey its all about "leading from the front" right? Right!?

The bottom-line here is that saving $3.7 billion dollars over next few years is not worth giving away the cheapest and most traditionally survivable attack aircraft in the USAF, yet along worth telling the kids we send to fight our bloody ground wars that their lives are not worth .0021% ($1.2B per year divided by $550B) of the annual Pentagon's budget. Quite frankly, I think it is alarming that we are even having this debate at all and it is indicative of just how diseased the USAF, and the Pentagon's overall priorities have become.

The A-10 is the best CAS platform mankind has ever designed, if the Air Force wants to chop its inventory of Warthogs to 200 jets and leave the rest in storage then fine. The war is wrapping up, we get it, an elastic force is understandable going forward. But should we choose to send the finest among us into harms way in a foreign land again — and seeing as how this new millennium has gone so far I doubt that really is a question — we should all demand that the finest air support possible go along with them, and that is unquestionably provided by A-10 Warthog."

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2014, 19:02
by cantaz
I think the idea that you'd advocate an article in which it's suggested that the A-10 be given AIM-9X capability pretty much says everything anyone needs to know about your position.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2014, 20:23
by gtx
When will we ever see an end to this romantic, nostaligic view of the A-10? :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2014, 20:29
by basher54321
Nice - just the same old over and over. There is not one single reason in that blog for keeping the A-10 - maybe it would better not to waste money on keeping unsurvivable obsolete jets like the A-10 in service.

Like the authors ability to engage with anyone that dare disagree with his opinion in the comments section :?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2014, 20:32
by basher54321
cantaz wrote:I think the idea that you'd advocate an article in which it's suggested that the A-10 be given AIM-9X capability pretty much says everything anyone needs to know about your position.


Yes just add dogfighter to its list of missions................ :D

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2014, 21:10
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Very long blog post about the USAF quest to retire the A-10, something that needs to read in its entirety, particularly by the neophyte posters on this forum:


Sweet Irony given your more recent posts

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2014, 22:52
by popcorn
... and the hole keeps getting deeper..

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2014, 01:22
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:Very long blog post about the USAF quest to retire the A-10, something that needs to read in its entirety, particularly by the neophyte posters on this forum:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-us ... 1562789528

:doh:
You call THAT a "very long blog post"? I suppose it might seem that way to some people. Did you think there weren't enough pictures?
Foxtrot Alpha? More like "Foxtrot Uniform". Par for Gawker/Puffington Host.

Thanks for trolling by though!

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2014, 01:28
by archeman
From the article...

The uncertainty surrounding the F-35 is unbearable,
the sacrifices are damning
and the results have been questionable at the very best so far.
And in reality, the one aircraft that the F-35 should never replace is the A-10.


The uncertainty is unbearable to whom? Hand-wringers who would be wringing their hands no matter what platform was selected for the A-10 replacement.

The sacrifice wasn't dictated by the AF & JSF program alone, it was driven primarily by congress budget management.

What is questionable regarding the 'results'? The only program results questions that remain are for items that are not part of the public need to know where imaginations may run riot.

It was always the plan for the JSF to replace the A-10, right from the beginning. That is not a new idea. It's just getting scary for congress members who have an interest in maintaining A-10 related activity for their constituents.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2014, 02:17
by mk82
The hole is so deep...I can't see your head Maus92 :D. Those clowns at Jalopnik should stick to writing about cars. Bashing the F35 (a lame **** effort at that!) is not going to magically improve the A10's less than stellar low level survivability in a SHORADS rich environment. Hey, why don't we time travel those clowns at Jalopnik to GW1 and get them to fly A10s low and slow into Republican Guard positions. No need to imagine the results, I will tell you....those clowns will screaming for their mummies and s******g their pants and perhaps "punching the silk" if they are lucky. And Lt Gen Chuck Horner will send F16s to strike the Republican Guard forces as the A10s were badly mauled (just like in real life!). Oh yeah, that comes to another point...what the use of surviving a mauling by SHORADs when your aircraft becomes mission ineffective. There will be no aircraft left to perform CAS after a few days of such mauling.

I am curious Maus92, are you a sales person for Almaz Antey or a Russian SAM manufacturer? Flying A10s low and slow will be great advertisement for the effectiveness of Russian SHORADS system! Power Rossiya :P!

Note to neophyte posters- please don't post dumbarse articles like Maus92!!

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2014, 08:49
by arcturus
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:Foxtrot Alpha? More like "Foxtrot Uniform". Par for Gawker/Puffington Host.


Tyler Rogoway seems to have found a new venue for the garbage he spews. Unsurprisingly his people skills towards those that disagree with him have improved not at all.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2014, 16:43
by smsgtmac
arcturus wrote:
smsgtmac wrote: Foxtrot Alpha? More like "Foxtrot Uniform". Par for Gawker/Puffington Host.

Tyler Rogoway seems to have found a new venue for the garbage he spews. Unsurprisingly his people skills towards those that disagree with him have improved not at all.


Yeah, I made one (that I remember) attempt at engagement with him, and on the A-10 retirement to boot back in October, My comment to his vapid RUSSIAN ROULETTE DoD STYLE: RETIRE ANYTHING TO PROTECT THE F-35 “PROGRAM”:
Not to pick a fight here, but you really ought to study up on the long ugly truth about CAS as well as Army and Air Force vision of control of same. There is the REAL conflict: it’s not about the hardware type and ownership. The A-10s are tired. They were born tired. They are dying on the ramp.
Since CAS is a mission and not a platform, the real question is how does one ‘do’ CAS 24/7, in good and bad weather and in something other than a permissive environment. The A-10 isn’t the answer, and senior leadership who flew it and are nostalgic about it also see the limited utility of keeping it any longer. That alone should tell you something.
I see you’ve got the usual flamers commenting and espousing bogus numbers, so I’ll leave you to them — but you don’t have to be like them. Seriously… Study. Learn. Know. Understand. Then opine.
F-35? Same thing

The results were as expected. He evidently read my profile and dismissed me with a speculative circumstantial ad hominem. Perhaps I shall add to my profile a caution:
Warning! I argue facts in the public domain. Who I work for and what I work on is inconsequential to those facts and the logic framework within which they are applied. Deal with it.
:D

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

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2014, 03:47
by delvo
Holy wow.

The reason we need to keep A-10 and ditch F-35 is because F-35 is "antiquated".

This just CAN'T be serious.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2014, 04:19
by suavewatermelon
delvo wrote:Holy wow.

The reason we need to keep A-10 and ditch F-35 is because F-35 is "antiquated".

This just CAN'T be serious.


Gee the world sure is hilarious sometimes huh? :roll: :bang:

The blogosphere just had to get their slice of Nostalgia/Opinionationaboutthingstheydontunderstand pie (yes I will make up a word, because this insanity clearly demands it). People really do have short memories sometimes too (as if other programs in the past somehow haven't already shown many of the flaws in their arguments).

I would laugh if I first didn't feel the urge to... :bang: :bang: :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 05:02
by maus92
Here's something we won't see F-35As doing:

A-10ldngonautobahn.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 05:13
by popcorn
Can't wait for the pics of the A-10 hovering or doing a carrier trap.. :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 06:54
by mk82
Wow, what a sexy shot of the A10s rear end...huhba huhba....you must be getting a hard on now Maus92. Yawn, I have seen F16s do that too.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 08:05
by johnwill
During F-16 flight test in 1977, some of our troops had moved over from Fairchild A-10 flight test to work F-16. They were great guys and brought some funny A-10 stories with them. The best was the story of an A-10 canopy bird strike incident. Neither the bird nor the A-10 suffered much damage, since the bird impacted the A-10 canopy from the rear.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 09:44
by gtx
maus92 wrote:Here's something we won't see F-35As doing:


Oh how rare...aircraft taking off from roads...




Shall I continue?

Do you want to claim that F-35s will never operate from a road?

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 20:28
by maus92
gtx wrote:Do you want to claim that F-35s will never operate from a road?


I'll go on record that F-35As won't be operating from roadways anytime soon, if ever. The A-10s were designed to operate from rough fields, unlike F-35As. But anything is possible, however impractical.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 20:32
by maus92
[Senate] Armed Services panel moves to save A-10
By Kristina Wong - 05/20/14 01:41 PM EDT

"A group of senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee plan to include a proposal Wednesday in the Senate's defense authorization bill that would delay retirement of the Air Force's A-10 fleet, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said.

The Pentagon has recommended cutting the A-10 fleet in order to save more than $4 billion in the next five years, but the proposal would postpone that from happening for at least a year.

Levin said the committee has found an offset for the delay, from various other places in the Pentagon's proposed 2015 budget. He said the proposal would have "a bunch of people" sponsoring it, including Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.)..."

Source: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/206653-armed-services-panel-to-save-the-a-10-in-2015#ixzz32HmyuZZo

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 21:32
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:I'll go on record that F-35As won't be operating from roadways anytime soon, if ever. The A-10s were designed to operate from rough fields, unlike F-35As. But anything is possible, however impractical.


You're talking nonsense. Using highway as runways has nothing to do with rough field capability. It's a matter of building suitable stretches of runway and having a mobile airfield support package to go with it.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 22:18
by Prinz_Eugn
maus92 wrote:
gtx wrote:Do you want to claim that F-35s will never operate from a road?


I'll go on record that F-35As won't be operating from roadways anytime soon, if ever. The A-10s were designed to operate from rough fields, unlike F-35As. But anything is possible, however impractical.


And A-10's must have used that capability, like, all the time, right?

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 22:50
by lamoey
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
maus92 wrote:
gtx wrote:Do you want to claim that F-35s will never operate from a road?


I'll go on record that F-35As won't be operating from roadways anytime soon, if ever. The A-10s were designed to operate from rough fields, unlike F-35As. But anything is possible, however impractical.


And A-10's must have used that capability, like, all the time, right?


If, and when, Singapore may use them on their roads, like they do with their F-16's from time to time

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

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 23:59
by maus92
cantaz wrote:
maus92 wrote:I'll go on record that F-35As won't be operating from roadways anytime soon, if ever. The A-10s were designed to operate from rough fields, unlike F-35As. But anything is possible, however impractical.


You're talking nonsense. Using highway as runways has nothing to do with rough field capability. It's a matter of building suitable stretches of runway and having a mobile airfield support package to go with it.


And with that rough field capability goes limited mx requirements - not something that was designed into F-35A.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 00:02
by maus92
lamoey wrote:
If, and when, Singapore may use them on their roads, like they do with their F-16's from time to time


Nah, they want -Bs, not -As at this point.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 01:44
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:And with that rough field capability goes limited mx requirements - not something that was designed into F-35A.


Pray tell, how has that prevented any other fighters without rough field capability from operating off highway strips?

You say that the F-35 cannot use highway strips, but the A-10 can. Obvious attempt to hold a supposedly A-10 capability over the F-35.

We point out that operating off highway strips is not about the aircraft.

You backtrack and lamely try to quibble.

Stop wasting our time. Three of your recent "contribution" to this thread were: 1. a meme based on misrepresentation; 2. suggesting a blog article that largely rehashed everything already covered here is informative (seriously, how you expect to have any credibility left after championing an article in favor of greater A2A role for the A-10? this is f-16.net, not keypubs); 3. your demonstration that you don't know how highway strips work.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 02:45
by mk82
maus92 wrote:
cantaz wrote:
maus92 wrote:I'll go on record that F-35As won't be operating from roadways anytime soon, if ever. The A-10s were designed to operate from rough fields, unlike F-35As. But anything is possible, however impractical.


You're talking nonsense. Using highway as runways has nothing to do with rough field capability. It's a matter of building suitable stretches of runway and having a mobile airfield support package to go with it.


And with that rough field capability goes limited mx requirements - not something that was designed into F-35A.


More irrelevant crap from you Maus92....how suprising! The last time I looked, A10s have always flown from well built airbases in all the conflicts the A10 had a role in. And F16s can be refueled and rearmed just as easily as an A10 on a highway strip....fancy that. If you limited to only using highway strips during a conflict, long term sustainment and maintenance of any jet aircraft (including the A10!) could potentially be a very significant problem. And good luck repairing large numbers of significantly battle damaged A10s on highway strips if the A10s survive being flown stupidly (i.e. low and slow to become Pantsir and Tor M1 fodder....even a Shilka will salivating).

Maus92, honestly, you are doing a s**t job of convincing us about the merits of soldiering on with the A10.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 09:45
by gtx
Actually Maus, please keep up arguing as you are...such ridiculous arguments simply weakens the Anti-F-35 case more and more. You are making our job all the easier. :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2014, 16:49
by maus92
cantaz wrote:
maus92 wrote:And with that rough field capability goes limited mx requirements - not something that was designed into F-35A.


3. your demonstration that you don't know how highway strips work.


That would be an inaccurate statement.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2014, 19:23
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
cantaz wrote:
maus92 wrote:And with that rough field capability goes limited mx requirements - not something that was designed into F-35A.


3. your demonstration that you don't know how highway strips work.


That would be an inaccurate statement.


Have you ever yawned so hard you dislocated your jaw? because I think i need some medical help here.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2014, 19:38
by spazsinbad
I was so overcome with ennui that I did not respond either. :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 00:33
by maus92
It's clear that some of the more vociferous fans of the F-35 here are living in an alternate reality. In the mass media, in professional military/aerospace publications and blogsphere, and most importantly, in Congress, the A-10 debate has decidedly swung in favor of retention. Why? USAF credibility with their numbers is one reason.

Critics accuse Air Force of manipulating data to support A-10 retirement
BY DAN SAGALYN May 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM EDT | PBS

Over the past five months, Air Force leaders have pointed to one key fact while advocating for their controversial decision to retire the A-10 Warthog, an aircraft specifically designed to provide support to ground troops. The service’s top leaders say the vast majority of so-called “close air support” missions conducted in Afghanistan since 2006 have been flown by a variety of aircraft that are not A-10s. Specifically, the leaders say that the 80 percent of these missions conducted by aircraft other than the Warthog shows that a variety of aircraft can do the critical mission of reinforcing ground forces with firepower from the air.

However, a number of observers challenge the Air Force’s claim that 80 percent of close air support missions are really conducted by non-A-10 planes. These observers assert that the service has deliberately manipulated the data to support its case.

The plan to retire the A-10 has sparked a firestorm of criticism from members of Congress, A-10 pilots and airmen whose job is to embed with ground forces and call in air strikes.

In fact, Congress is well on the way to rejecting the Air Force’s plans. The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday, rejecting sending the A-10s to the boneyard. The Senate is expected to do the same...

"“This is a classic case of using numbers as propaganda for some bureaucratic position.”“This 80 percent number is a total fabrication,” said Pierre Sprey, one of the key designers of the A-10 in the 1960s and 1970s. Sprey has recently been lobbying Congress to save the aircraft. “This is a classic case of using numbers as propaganda for some bureaucratic position.”

Among the data the Air Force provided was a breakdown of the number close air support sorties flown between 2010 to 1014: 121,653. Also included was the number of sorties with at least one weapon released: 8,691.

Sprey notes that of the 121,653 close air support missions conducted, “93 percent of them never drop a weapon.” Sprey says the Air Force is “counting a whole lot of fluff.”

“The Air Force is counting these missions or these activities in a way that biases strongly against the A-10,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional staffer with more than three decades of experience working for both Democrats and Republicans. Wheeler is now with the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit watchdog organization.

The Air Force is “not counting sorties where actual munitions delivery actually occurs,” he said. And they are “not distinguishing” between bombing fixed points on the ground from 20,000 feet and supporting troops that are moving while under fire from an enemy in close proximity. Wheeler said it is in situations like this “that really count” and where the A-10 outperforms all other aircraft...."

"The Air Force spokesman [Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis] defended his service’s counting of close air support missions flown that did not result in bombs being dropped. Sholtis stressed that having aircraft fly overhead and be available to ground commanders when they were needed was important.

“The purpose of most CAS missions is to have capable forces ready when coalition forces on the ground need airpower,” Sholtis said.

The spokesman also emphasized the positive psychological impact of close air support missions in which no bombs are dropped."

"But counting shows of force is stretching the definition of close air support, according to retired Chief Master Sergeant Russell Carpenter, a 30-year veteran and specialist in leading troops who call in air strikes. When you “look up the definition of close air support, shows of force doesn’t fit in there.” Carpenter said what the Air Force has “done is said there are a variety of ways we achieve air-to-ground effects. But guess what, call that something else. But it is not close air support.”"

"Another controversial aspect in the way the 80 percent number was generated is the time frame of when close air support missions are counted. According to Air Force data released to the NewsHour, the service counted missions flown between 2006 and October 2013.

The Air Force told the NewsHour “unfortunately we do not have information prior to 2006 available in our AFCENT Combined Air Operations Center database.” Other Air Force officers who asked that their names not be used in this article, because they were not authorized to speak publicly, also told the NewsHour that the Air Force has not maintained records from before 2006.

But critics are skeptical.

The date 2006 was not picked by accident,” said Sprey, the A-10 aircraft designer.

From March 2002 to December 2006, the only fixed-wing aircraft that could operate from the austere and dilapidated runways in Afghanistan were A-10s, according to the Air Force. Sprey believes counting close air support missions beginning in 2006 is suspect because that time period marks the point when different types of aircraft were beginning to operate out of the newly improved runways in Afghanistan.

“Before 2006, they couldn’t even get fighters into Afghanistan, they couldn’t land anywhere,” Sprey said. “They were totally dependent on the A-10 before and they don’t want to admit that, so they don’t tell you about it before 2006.”

"Another basis for the 80 percent number that has come under fire is the manner in which actual missions are counted. Fighter and attack aircraft such as F-15s, F-16s and A-10s take off in pairs, but the two aircraft are only counted as one mission. Oftentimes, A-10s and other planes split up and conduct operations independently of one another.

Meanwhile, B-1 bombers, and Predator and Reaper drones, which always fly by themselves, are also counted as one mission.

Several observers say this methodology undervalues the “double-duty” contributions of A-10s, and overvalues the B-1 bombers and drones when they fly CAS missions..."


And from the comments section:

"A close relative of mine who is an A-10 pilot has shared a very interesting fact that this article fails to cover. The AirForce has been delibritately writing the A-10 out of the current missions being flown. The area requirements have been edited and changed to favor that of the Vipers (F-16's Falcons) and Bones (B-1 Lancers). By doing such, they have direclty influenced the mission numbers drastically. These changes in mission profiles have helped provide the data the AF needs to prove that the Hog (A-10 Warthog) is no longer flying a high percentage of availabe CAS (Close Air Support) missions, thus is no longer needed. These sortie numbers are reported and on paper make it sound like the Hog is not longer needed as they hardly fly any of the missions."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/cri ... etirement/

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 01:57
by cantaz
maus92 wrote:It's clear that some of the more vociferous fans of the F-35 here are living in an alternate reality. In the mass media, in professional military/aerospace publications and blogsphere, and most importantly, in Congress, the A-10 debate has decidedly swung in favor of retention. Why? USAF credibility with their numbers is one reason.


You're the one living in an alternate reality and you don't even realize it, probably because your alternate reality neighbor Sprey is your poker buddy or something.

It's funny that you should play the credibility card, because:

“The date 2006 was not picked by accident,” said Sprey, the A-10 aircraft designer.

From March 2002 to December 2006, the only fixed-wing aircraft that could operate from the austere and dilapidated runways in Afghanistan were A-10s, according to the Air Force. Sprey believes counting close air support missions beginning in 2006 is suspect because that time period marks the point when different types of aircraft were beginning to operate out of the newly improved runways in Afghanistan.

“Before 2006, they couldn’t even get fighters into Afghanistan, they couldn’t land anywhere,” Sprey said. “They were totally dependent on the A-10 before and they don’t want to admit that, so they don’t tell you about it before 2006.


The above is a complete lie made up by Sprey. There is no reason the USAF would say that there were no other fixed wing strike aircraft in Afghanistan during that period because there were.

Among the first (if not the first) strike aircraft to go wheels down in Afghanistan were a pair of USMC Harriers in December of 2001, they were forward deployed at Kandahar overnight.

In October 2002 VMA-513 with 6 Harriers deployed to Bagram and was there until September 2003. The Harriers displaced NATO F-16s that were already there (not sure if they meant the element from 170 FS). The Harriers eventually replaced the A-10s at Bagram on night missions, since the A-10 was barely night capable (flares and the Maverick seeker).

USMC sustained their Harrier presence in Afghanistan ever since, and expanded to additional bases. RAF Harriers started showing up in 2004 as well.

Source: Harrier II, Nordeen, 2006.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... bat-02.htm

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 02:18
by exosphere
maus92 wrote:It's clear that some of the more vociferous fans of the F-35 here are living in an alternate reality. In the mass media, in professional military/aerospace publications and blogsphere, and most importantly, in Congress, the A-10 debate has decidedly swung in favor of retention. Why? USAF credibility with their numbers is one reason.


Wait... you actually believe that what Internet tough guys, journalists, or congresscritters believe is in any way affected by reality?

That's weird. Last I checked, their opinions are most affected by a desire to appear rebellious and confrontational towards authority, the desire to generate controversy (whether one actually exists doesn't seem to matter), and the desire to stuff their pockets/win the next election by trying to seem more "patriotic" than everyone else, respectively.

Honestly, if your argument is "bloggers, journalists, and politicians believe it, so it MUST be true!", then you've just about lost the debate.

Then there's Sprey... as others have pointed out several times before, he's just an egotistical moron who isn't above pulling "facts" out of his a$$ to make himself look knowledgeable.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 02:38
by popcorn
maus92 wrote:It's clear that some of the more vociferous fans of the F-35 here are living in an alternate reality. In the mass media, in professional military/aerospace publications and blogsphere, and most importantly, in Congress, the A-10 debate has decidedly swung in favor of retention. Why? USAF credibility with their numbers is one reason.

Really? You give greater value to the opinions of the the clueless mass media, biased pubs/blogsphere and politicians on matters of strategy, tactics, operations over that of the professional leadership and air staff of,the world's leading air forces? In a Court of Law, guess whose side would be considered
Expert Witness status and who would be laughed out of the Courtroom,if not held in contempt?

A person is known by the type of company he keeps and obviously Maus has some odious bedfellows.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 03:07
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote: RELEVANT EXCERPTS...

It's clear that some of the more vociferous fans of the F-35 here are living in an alternate reality. In the mass media, in professional military/aerospace publications and blogsphere, and most importantly, in Congress, the A-10 debate has decidedly swung in favor of retention. Why? USAF credibility with their numbers is one reason.

Critics accuse Air Force of manipulating data to support A-10 retirement
BY DAN SAGALYN May 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM EDT | PBS

....However, a number of observers challenge the Air Force’s claim that 80 percent of close air support missions are really conducted by non-A-10 planes. These observers assert that the service has deliberately manipulated the data to support its case.....

....“This is a classic case of using numbers as propaganda for some bureaucratic position.”“This 80 percent number is a total fabrication,” said Pierre Sprey, one of the key designers of the A-10 in the 1960s and 1970s. Sprey has recently been lobbying Congress to save the aircraft. “This is a classic case of using numbers as propaganda for some bureaucratic position.”

....Sprey notes that of the 121,653 close air support missions conducted, “93 percent of them never drop a weapon.” Sprey says the Air Force is “counting a whole lot of fluff.”

“The Air Force is counting these missions or these activities in a way that biases strongly against the A-10,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional staffer with more than three decades of experience working for both Democrats and Republicans. Wheeler is now with the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit watchdog organization....

...."Another controversial aspect in the way the 80 percent number was generated is the time frame of when close air support missions are counted. According to Air Force data released to the NewsHour, the service counted missions flown between 2006 and October 2013....

...“The date 2006 was not picked by accident,” said Sprey, the A-10 aircraft designer.

From March 2002 to December 2006, the only fixed-wing aircraft that could operate from the austere and dilapidated runways in Afghanistan were A-10s, according to the Air Force. Sprey believes counting close air support missions beginning in 2006 is suspect because that time period marks the point when different types of aircraft were beginning to operate out of the newly improved runways in Afghanistan.

“Before 2006, they couldn’t even get fighters into Afghanistan, they couldn’t land anywhere,” Sprey said. “They were totally dependent on the A-10 before and they don’t want to admit that, so they don’t tell you about it before 2006.”

....Several observers say this methodology undervalues the “double-duty” contributions of A-10s, and overvalues the B-1 bombers and drones when they fly CAS missions..."

....And from the comments section:

"A close relative of mine....."


Do I really have to tell you why Sprey and Wheeler are FOS? Or what is wrong with anonymous hearsay third-hand claims from the peanut gallery? Or why this is just more P.A.C.E. cr*p from P.O.G.O. etal? I see others have already touched on this already, so I won't give your post and troll-post preface the thorough beat down it deserves unless you push it and then maybe we'll explore the issue and sources via the Socratic method. It would probably be a short session, because I notice you're not big on giving answers, just throwing outré assertions unsupported by hard facts.
Linking in a puff-piece from a Proletariat Broadcasting Service 'journalist' who had the misfortune to get Spreyed (do you think the PBS guy really believes Sprey designed the A-10 ?) is pretty funny, but keep prefacing the cr*ptastic links with ever more identifiable troll-droppings like you've been doing lately. We'll see how well that works out for you in the long run.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 03:36
by Gums
Salute!

Good grief!!!!!!

Sprey did not design the A-10 or the F-16. Sheesh.

Back in the early 70's he was among a small group that were pushing for "cheap" , simple planes and large numbers of them. He co-authored an article for the Air University Review or maybe the Fighter Weapon Newsletter called "Quality, quantity or training" back in 1973 0r 1974. He got connected with Boyd and Riccione for the LWF program as the low end of the high-low mix, with the Eagle being the "high" end. Even then, he was not a major player in the design nor much else to do with the Viper. I would give more credit to Boyd, but even that is a gift to Boyd. There was a great deal of support for the LWF amongst we vets of the Vietnam era, and we saw the Eagle as something like the Raptor of today. Big, expensive and nothing else to do the day-to-day work. "not a pound for air to ground" was the mantra. We also needed an interdiction jet, and the Warhog was not intended for that role. So USAF changed the LWF to the ACF, and convinced the European folks to join in.

I think Sgt Mac has a lot more history about the Viper genesis, and maybe the Warthog.

I could go on and on, but not worth my time.

Gums opines....

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 04:01
by mk82
It's clear that some of the more vociferous fans of the F-35 here are living in reality. In the mass media (where journos frequently neglect to do proper basic research), in professional military/aerospace publications (frequently with their own agendas) and blogsphere (not all blogs are the same...case in point - David "underpants gnome" Axe) , and most importantly, in Congress (such selfless politicians.....not!!!), the A-10 debate has unfortunately swung in favor of retention.

There...corrected your preface Maus92. Looks better doesn't it.

Thanks for posting that laughable PBS article....funny that Wheeler et al does not back their assertions with hard facts or numbers either. Hmmm....did Sprey conveniently forget about the USMC Harriers in Afganistan (before 2006) or did he just lie straight out!? I know....he doesn't want to strengthen the case for STOVL F35Bs!

Actually, there is another aircraft better than the A10 at slow and low CAS.....the Apache....it can hover too!!! The ground pounders love it too...fancy that. And I suspect that the majority of JTACs do not think that the A10s is the only and greatest CAS platform.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 06:09
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:It's clear that some of the more vociferous fans of the F-35 here are living in an alternate reality.


F-35 or not the A-10 would be going away, you may notice this because the talk is about getting on with F-16s at the moment.

In the mass media,


oh please.

in professional military/aerospace publications


I have seen those cut many ways.

and blogsphere,


Because that matters :roll:

and most importantly, in Congress, the A-10 debate has decidedly swung in favor of retention. Why?


Because the A-10 has jobs in the districts that are being most defended by "concerned" congress people?

USAF credibility with their numbers is one reason.


Its a welfare program, if they cared about the USAF's numbers at all the A-10 would have been axed as per requested, but this isn't about doing what the USAF recommends (and the Army , who support the USAF decision)

Critics accuse Air Force of manipulating data to support A-10 retirement
BY DAN SAGALYN May 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM EDT | PBS

Over the past five months, Air Force leaders have pointed to one key fact while advocating for their controversial decision to retire the A-10 Warthog, an aircraft specifically designed to provide support to ground troops. The service’s top leaders say the vast majority of so-called “close air support” missions conducted in Afghanistan since 2006 have been flown by a variety of aircraft that are not A-10s. Specifically, the leaders say that the 80 percent of these missions conducted by aircraft other than the Warthog shows that a variety of aircraft can do the critical mission of reinforcing ground forces with firepower from the air.

However, a number of observers challenge the Air Force’s claim that 80 percent of close air support missions are really conducted by non-A-10 planes. These observers assert that the service has deliberately manipulated the data to support its case.


But critics are skeptical.

The date 2006 was not picked by accident,” said Sprey, the A-10 aircraft designer.

From March 2002 to December 2006, the only fixed-wing aircraft that could operate from the austere and dilapidated runways in Afghanistan were A-10s, according to the Air Force. Sprey believes counting close air support missions beginning in 2006 is suspect because that time period marks the point when different types of aircraft were beginning to operate out of the newly improved runways in Afghanistan.


Harriers aren't fixed wing?

Thank you for bolding that. It was helpful of you to really emphasize the section with the least credibility like that.



“Before 2006, they couldn’t even get fighters into Afghanistan, they couldn’t land anywhere,” Sprey said. “They were totally dependent on the A-10 before and they don’t want to admit that, so they don’t tell you about it before 2006.”


LOL so there was no fighters in afghanistan for the first 4 years of the conflict? Wow.

And from the comments section:

"A close relative of mine who is an A-10 pilot has shared a very interesting fact that this article fails to cover. The AirForce has been delibritately writing the A-10 out of the current missions being flown. The area requirements have been edited and changed to favor that of the Vipers (F-16's Falcons) and Bones (B-1 Lancers). By doing such, they have direclty influenced the mission numbers drastically. These changes in mission profiles have helped provide the data the AF needs to prove that the Hog (A-10 Warthog) is no longer flying a high percentage of availabe CAS (Close Air Support) missions, thus is no longer needed. These sortie numbers are reported and on paper make it sound like the Hog is not longer needed as they hardly fly any of the missions."


I heard from a guy who is a friends cousin nephews brother who comments on PBS articles full of rumors that this is not at all hearsay.

(PS you forgot to include internet commenters in your above list)

http://www.defenseone.com/management/20 ... f=d-skybox

Curiously, the Army has not formally objected to the Air Force’s divestment plan; nor have they asked Congress for funding to take over the A-10 system. Might this reflect an acknowledgment that, as the Air Force claims, the fire power has in fact been there when they needed it in Afghanistan and Iraq—either from an A-10 or from something else they perhaps did not even see?

As the primary “customer” of this Air Force mission, the Army’s voice is needed in the CAS debate. The Pentagon should conduct a joint Army-Air Force study of CAS, looking forward and back. They should look at the last ten years and get the facts of how well the air power has been delivered – from the air and the ground perspectives. They should also examine future CAS-oriented scenarios, from a joint perspective, to determine if losing the A-10 will create any “niche” gaps that cannot be covered by the rest of the inventory with existing or adapted TTPs. This holistic air-ground perspective will illuminate the nature of the risk, if any, being taken in divesting the A-10. It will also get Congress focused on the mission, not the plane.

Recent calls from Congress to delay A-10 divestment until a “capable replacement reaches full operational capability” miss the point of how this mission and the threat have changed and how technology has adapted. What Congress should be asking, in order to ease everyone’s minds, is how the Air Force intends to conduct the mission to the satisfaction of the Army with an array of twenty-first century platforms; not how it will replace, on a one-for-one basis, a plane originally intended to repel Soviet tank columns in the early 1970s.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 13:03
by maus92
The fact remains that A-10 funding has been restored by both defense subcommittees. That basically says that the Congress disagrees with the Administration about their plans to retire the A-10 at this time. The sport of discrediting sources doesn't matter, the lawmakers listened to their constituencies, and chose to override the USAFs decision - for a year. However, the SASC proposes to eliminate the re-winging program, which signals that at least some of the thin-skinned aircraft will be allowed to be retired at some point, leading to a smaller force of active aircraft to retain a unique capability.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 14:44
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:The fact remains that A-10 funding has been restored by both defense subcommittees. That basically says that the Congress disagrees with the Administration about their plans to retire the A-10 at this time.


indeed, but if we want to embrace the idea that whatever the congress critters do is just and right for selfless tactical reasons, Then the F-35 shouldn't be an issue whatsoever, in which case we thank you for your time here at F-16.net, Maus92 and the F-35 debate was over years ago...

The sport of discrediting sources doesn't matter,


Is this why you included the PBS report that accused the USAF of falsifying stats? I may be new to this, but I'm pretty sure the giving false info to congress is kind of a big deal. doesn't sound legal actually.

Internet comments and the blogosphere are sources now? previously discredited Guys claiming they invented aircraft they didn't are sources? Those same people making grand sweeping hyperbolic claims that are not true are sources? Ok Maus, this is not at all desperate.

the lawmakers listened to their constituencies, and chose to override the USAFs decision - for a year.


con$tituencie$

However, the SASC proposes to eliminate the re-winging program, which signals that at least some of the thin-skinned aircraft will be allowed to be retired at some point, leading to a smaller force of active aircraft to retain a unique capability.


Actually that ensures that no one loses their job so long as even a few aircraft remain, while getting diminishing returns for the grunts and while keeping jobs for those constituencies you mentioned. pretty good deal for them, poor deal for the taxpayer, grunts, and the A-10 the next time it actually runs into a force that can fight back. If its getting side lined in an LIC like Libya, the writing is on the wall. This is nothing more than federal welfare, which is the reason you see the most manufactured outrage/ "save the endangered grunt" out of A-10 home districts.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 15:22
by popcorn
I've suggested it before.,if Congress wants,to micromanage and second-guess the leadership,of the Armed,Services, they should just amend the Constitution putting them directly in charge..but, wait a minute.. that would,actually mean they would have to take responsibility for,the consequences,of,their,actions..whereas now others can be left holding the bag when the s--t hits the oscillating cooling device.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 15:47
by exosphere
maus92 wrote:The fact remains that A-10 funding has been restored by both defense subcommittees. That basically says that the Congress disagrees with the Administration about their plans to retire the A-10 at this time. The sport of discrediting sources doesn't matter, the lawmakers listened to their constituencies, and chose to override the USAFs decision - for a year. However, the SASC proposes to eliminate the re-winging program, which signals that at least some of the thin-skinned aircraft will be allowed to be retired at some point, leading to a smaller force of active aircraft to retain a unique capability.


Again, why you believe Congress does what it does out of any kind of knowledge of the subject is beyond me. Personally, I don't care whether or not Congress agrees with the military. Congress has no clue how to micromanage or plan any kind of military force, so using their opinion to "prove" something is an incredibly weak argument.

Congress is attempting to "save" the A-10 for one reason: it makes them look good to the American public. By supporting the A-10, they can make it look like they actually care about the grunt in the conflict (their actual level of concern hovers around zero), and they can make themselves look "patriotic" by supporting an iconic aircraft. Personally, I find that somewhat disingenuous, but I guess to a group of people whose entire lives revolve around securing votes for the next election cycle so they can be reelected for the umpteenth time and continue to make decisions without any regard for their affect on the country or their constituents (so long as their constituents think they're making good choices, that's all that matters), it makes sense.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 17:15
by maus92
exosphere wrote:
maus92 wrote:The fact remains that A-10 funding has been restored by both defense subcommittees. That basically says that the Congress disagrees with the Administration