F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2004, 19:11
by Pat1
Hi everyone,

Just curious to hear what people think about F-35 replacing the A-10. My impression is that the F-35 is a more suitable replacement for the F-16, but just as the F-16 and A-10 are two different aircraft, I don’t think the F-35 will have the amazing qualities the A-10 has in its element (low speed/low altitude regime).

Is this due to changing tactics that have made A-10’s obsolete or am I wrong about the performance qualities of the F-35?

Pat1

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2004, 20:37
by elp
I have ranted on this already here............ so one more time won't hurt :lol:

( the old crew on the forum will now begin heckling and throwing stuff like beer bottles ( empty ) etc ) :lol:

-The A-10 is useful. Just less so. Maybe even a lot less so.

- Because it requires the Mk 1 eyeball so much, its frat recored from Desert Storm to OIF was little or no different. ( the only thing that scares Marines is when you tell them an A-10 is going to fill their job request :? ) Less of a problem recently by adding a LITENING pod to it to do some precision work. But if I am going to do that kind of work, I don't need a slow A-10. One of the big things in CAS is response time. 2 F-16's coming out of the stack to fill a CAS request will be there much faster than the pokey A-10. And oh by the way, they will be full NVG capable and have a pod that slews to the other sensors.

-The A-10 can take lots of damage and keep going. Hmmmm.. It got all that damage because it can't go very high with a full load of weps ( yeah that artwork on the plastic model box sure looks impressive ). and the weps it does have, like the gun and dumb iron and a few mavs requires going down and STAYING in a environment full of trashfire, AAA and small SAMS/MANPADS. All while an F-16 can drop a wep in near any weather from 30K and much higher and hit with a sub 4 meter CEP by request of the ground FAC or what ever. The A-10 mean while orbits slowly around at low level and gets shot to pieces by weps that can't touch the F-16 as described. If I am going to get up close and personal with a slow gun platform, I would prefer the AH-64 which, oh btw is now netcentric and can have target cues feed to its display by things like JSTARs before it even arrives and watch video from UAVs...and is a great night killer. Oh yeah, one more thing: When an F-16 comes down to strafe ( still needed these days ) it doesnt stick around, down fast --- gun --- up fast back on its purch out of ground threat range ( all my ranting here assumes large SAMS have been killed for the most part ). The A-10 doesnt have this option. More times than not, it is always in threat range from the usual suspects I mention. More: Because of its poor altitude performance, it aint going to be laser bombing from high like the other fixed wings. It is still in engagement range or near engagement range of stuff it has limited ability to avoid.

-The A-10 is a great tank killer. In its day yes, but at a cost ( re: the desert storm A-10s that were broken down and buried in the desert because they were so shot up ). Great for its day, but that day was a day where quanities of reliable PGMs and PGM shooters was limited. Today.... again without engaging trashfire, AAA, small SAMs/MANPADs, if there is a formation of tanks on the move, CBU-105 WCMD / SFW BLU-108b will kill off tanks by the bushel dropped from 30-40k and miles away. ( combat proven ). Tanks in fixed positions. Again, out of engagement of threats the A-10 has no option but to drive through.... tanks can now be plinked in near any weather from again..... 30-40k.

-A-10 by todays standards is over-rated. It is useful to get in and out of garbage fields in "Indian Country" ( I question the idea of basing them in an area where in one mortar attack, they can all get taken out in one roll of the dice a la Ben Hoa AB in Vietnam where in one night, we lost most of our night interdiction abilty, when a gaggle of B-57 night bombers got taken out on the base ) Plus all the supplies you have to fly in or worse....convoy in to make the unit of A-10s run. ( think about this all you follow_the_air_force_times_off_a_cliff_theologians who want to put the ultra expensive jump JSF in indian territory. ) We will see I suppose. COIN ops needs to be much thiner than we are running it anyway and I don't believe in dieing for dirt we dont intend to keep ( a complete dif subject :) )

-Well anyway, the A-10 is payed for. And if some good netcentric add ons are put on it where it can be yet another bandwidth eater :lol: to pass and recieve info in the netcentric world so it can aquire and kill better, I am all for it. Keep the jet and use it for our manned "indian country" bare base ops. Working with the AH-64, AC-130 gunship, UAVs / UCAVs, and fixed wing air with smaller and better PGMs, we are in spite of my endless annoying drone, on the right track more days than we are off.

-The goal shouldn't be to try and find a mission for JSF. The goal should be to cancel it outright. The money can best be used elsewhere.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2004, 21:44
by Pat1
Thanks elp, I guess there is no need for A-10s in between the apaches and falcons for firepower. Looks like nowadays the A-10's survivability is to protect it from its own deficiencies. Too bad... I love that plane

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2004, 21:57
by elp
Well as usual I am harsh. We have them. Go ahead and fund the program healthy that gives it all weather precision weapons and I am sure it will be useful.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2004, 23:35
by Lawman
Hey Elp, about that Marines CAS requirement.

Heres a D model Hornet from the Bats flying high level CAS over Fallujah. Swing Loaded for maximum flexability. You'll recognize the pod.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2004, 17:39
by elp
Squints...... Not from that distance lol. I did read some stuff that they were looking at LITENING sometime back.... is that one??

Oh yeah, I forgot. And any F-18 is way more useful than an A-10 also. :D

Thats a nice verstile Fallujah load out he has there: 1 JDAM-38 ( 500lb ) , 2 GBU-12s and a Mav of some sort. WTG !

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2004, 17:53
by lamoey
That load is impressive. It would do the job of a full strategic night and day attack during WWII all on its own.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2004, 20:04
by Lawman
Yeah Lightning II mounted centerline instead of in the intake rail like Nighthawk and ATFLIR. With all the ATFLIR going to the E/F groups the Legacy drivers made sure they had something better then Nighthawk to fill the time being. Its actually performing better then ATFLIR since it has the benefits of the kinks worked out already. Also the double Rack GBU-12 next to the GBU-38 was just a recent thing.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2004, 20:56
by 177SFSF16
The F-16 is a great airplane, but the A-10 still has a useful spot in the Air Forces order of battle. Everybody complains that its slow and flys to low, well thats what it was designed for. The A-10 can take huge amount of battle damage that would bring down a F-16/18 it was designed to get shot up and brought home. With all the high tech pods and pgms the F-16 outclasses the A-10 in the high altitude game. But if you read Combat Aircraft Vol 6 #2 a article about the A-10 said the Air Force is going to update its whole A-10 fleet up to a new A-10C version. A A-10 can operate from dirt roads or crumbleing runways, it was A-10s that set up FOLs in Iraq after Iraqi airfields were overrun to cut flying time over the battlefield a F-16/18 cannt do that. The F-16 didnt get into Iraq until the runways and taxi ways were repaired. The days of fighting huge tank units are over, but the A-10 is a low tech option to fight a low tech enemy hiding in caves or running around mountain tops. A-10s are stationed in Afganistan close to any fighting, F-16s have to fly in from outside the battle area. Im not trying to trash the F-16/18 Im just trying to say the A-10 is still valuable in todays Air Force, as for the F-35 replaceing the A-10 I dont think thats going to work.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2004, 20:58
by lamoey
With Lawman's picture in mind I don't think the A-10 is the threshold to beat, but rather C/D models of the Hornet, or should I say the "Busy Bee"... oh, perhaps that is what the F-35 should be called?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2004, 07:04
by parrothead
Am I mistaken, or can the A-10 loiter longer than most aircraft without refueling? I'd think that would be useful in itself. When combined with that wonderful cannon in the nose and some good hardware out on all those hard points, it seems like it would be a great Fast FAC and can still kill anything out there on the ground. Oh yeah, it's cheap, too!

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2004, 07:55
by Lawman
parrothead wrote:Am I mistaken, or can the A-10 loiter longer than most aircraft without refueling? I'd think that would be useful in itself. When combined with that wonderful cannon in the nose and some good hardware out on all those hard points, it seems like it would be a great Fast FAC and can still kill anything out there on the ground. Oh yeah, it's cheap, too!


It would make a lousy Fast Fac, for the simple reason that its not fast enough to be a fast FAC. Loaded an A-10 is going to be lucky to see the low 400's peaked out, and thats at altitude. Take away its forward remote bases and it is no longer an effective tool because by the time its in the fight, the Hornets, Vipers, and Beagles have already been up and down the area with better weapons.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2004, 08:51
by Pat1
cheap shoulder-mounted SAMs would probably make you think twice before having a-10s loiter around battle. I know many have survived direct hits but how useful are those?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2004, 16:44
by elp
Ground threats that can engage the A-10:

-Large SAMs
-Small Arms Fire ( trashfire )
-AAA ( anti-aircraft artillery )
-Small vehicle mounted SAMs like Roland, Rapier, SA-8, etc etc
-MANPADs SA-7s, and even more of a threat newer Ilgas and Chinese jobs.


Threats that can engage the F-14-18,* & **, B-52 etc when dropping near all weather PGMs like , JDAM, CBU-105 etc. and visual PGMs like the GBU-12:

Large SAMs


Now, once the enemy airpower is killed, and large SAMs beaten down. Its party time. As for loiter time, I'll take a B-52 with a LITENING pod, a handful of GBU-12s, JDAM, CBU-105, and in the near future when the whole bomb bay is smart bused, more of what I just mentioned. Plus in the future, Bundles of SDB, all dropped from 35k + through a 100mph jet stream and hitting the target within 4 meters or so in near any weather #. You see, A GFAC on the ground doesn't really give a sh!t what fills there job request, just as long as it gets killed. In order for an A-10 to be truely effective, it has to be on a very short leash. Waiting 15-20 minutes for one of those poky things to show up and the party could be long over already. In the future, UCAVs like the A-45 and A-47 ( oh yeah btw A-45 and A-47 are far more along in their abilty to fly and drop bombs than the J$F is ). Will provide even more sustained support of a GFAC. Interesting times we live in.

Having said all that. The A-10 needs to be around. It isnt the ultimate tool. It is just one of many useful tools in the bag. I like the idea of improving it, but to make it a uphigh laser bomber I dont think is too useful, especially when other fast fixed wings do that so much better. IMHO, I think if funds are ever put down for the JCM ( joint common missile ). A tri-sensor Maverick replacement that is smaller yet more capable. That a small dual sensor bomb kit ( both LGB /and GPS INS ) ( paveway IV or JDAM/Boeing is talking this up ) combined with JCM and you would have something that would make the Hog super great for its niche market. Any smart bomb stuff with the Hog now IMHO demands that ALL of the hardpoints are smart bused or why bother? The LITENING cant be on the centerline because of gun gas/debris so right now it takes up space. And again as mentioned, you start talking altitude and this thing can't haul big weight up high. And "high for it isn't much over 15k with a combat load. ( still in some of the engagement range of the usual suspects list of ground threats ). I don't know. I just wish people would keep the A-10 "real" and not over-hype it, while at the same time, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


*all of the threats above if strafing, but the fast movers don't hang around, they fly back up out of the engagement zone of most of the ground threats.

**Once you even spot visually, an F-14-18 making a dumb iron style CCIP , drop, the weapon is almost always already on its way, and the the jet is pulling off target.

#weather / bad vis, JDAM and SDB still hit the target.


A-10 frats

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2004, 04:17
by Dammerung
I would think, that, the A-10's greatest enemies are the SA-16 Igla, the Strela(SA-9?), and ZSU-23 Shilka. I don't think the A-10 can accuratly find and engage any MANPAD, because it's like a Needle in the Haystack until it's shot at you. The A-10 may be tough but it doesn't mean a pilot can count on taking a certain number of SA-7s or SA-16s :lol: The Strela is Vehicle mounted, and thus, more vulnerable. I assume A-10 pilots use their AGM-65s on these. I'm sure one missile from the Strela means a burning A-10 heading to the ground. And the Shilka, if not noticed, will tear the A-10 to shreds. It has 4 23mm Cannons and is radar guided. It doesn't matter how tough the A-10 is, one good burst from it and we no longer have an A-10, but swiss cheese.

Large Sams I wouldn't think are much of a Threat, as the BUFFs silence those, do they not? Stuff like S-300(SA-10?) and the like. Small Arms as well, I dont think anything smaller than .50 cal would do much to the hog.

But still the A-10 pilot needs to be very careful not to get within range of those threats if possible. Also not to hit friendlies. The A-10 pilot also has his Maverick Seekerheads, not just Mk1 Eyeball...

Still, it's loiter time is a great asset, which means a ground commander can put them where needed, and later use the same aircraft again exactly where they need them. Close Air Support means Close, dropping an LGB from 10000+ is different...

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 09:07
by JR007
The Hog...

The Mk 1 eyeball is still a Sierra Hotel War Fighting Instrument!

I wish I could get a copy of the tape of an A-10 Smoking a Viper at Red Flag for you kids...

Dudes, if it's it Air to Mud, give me a Hog Sqd and it will be dead...

Yes I know the "Anti Christ", JDAM, is here. But give me a Sierra Hotel jock sitting in a Hog, and I'll show you a perfect BDA!

Go Hogs!

No, and the fact I was at HawgSmoke 2004 has nothing to do with this message. :-)

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 14:04
by f16I
Umm I think some comments made about the A-10 are harsh. In looking at specs yes its a plane that dosent match up to F-16's, F-18's and such like. but in iraq well over 80%-90% of ground FAC's asked for the A-10 even when other platforms that on paper out shone it were in the same airspace.

I think the A-10 is by far the best CAS platform out there in a situation like Iraq, but these days are the most likely to be encountered. Even when in a danger zone an A-10 is really hard to shoot down. Look at examples from Iraq, an A-10 flown by Capt Kim ''kc'' Campbell had its engine flown of by a SAM and still managed to return home. Only one A-10 went down due to enemy action in the Iraq war, 1 out of 60 deployed at the height of operations. Other A-10's had been engaged and damaged but all returned home. For the job low level mud moving, nothings better in a war zone than an A-10 for getting in there.

From reports released its the only plane along with the harrier that operated from FOB's (forward operating bases) which in a ground war is something you can't do without. Its built to last, it can take hits, it can be flown around the clock, and above hit an enemy really hard.

So on paper yes its not great in a modern day war, but a war is a one of and can't be planned for nothing hardly went to plan in Iraq. Its a case of picking up what you got and letting it loose on the enemy even if that means planes going down.

You can't compare an A-10, its does what it dose.!!! KILL

PS: the question asked, no I don't believe the F-35 would replace the A-10 only protect it from doing its job, the A-10 will be around for a while yet.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2004, 16:18
by elp
JR007 wrote:The Hog...

The Mk 1 eyeball is still a Sierra Hotel War Fighting Instrument!

I wish I could get a copy of the tape of an A-10 Smoking a Viper at Red Flag for you kids...

Dudes, if it's it Air to Mud, give me a Hog Sqd and it will be dead...

Yes I know the "Anti Christ", JDAM, is here. But give me a Sierra Hotel jock sitting in a Hog, and I'll show you a perfect BDA!

Go Hogs!

No, and the fact I was at HawgSmoke 2004 has nothing to do with this message. :-)


LOL on the hawqsmoke.... btw.... the last part of hawgsmoke 2004 was canx because of wx wasn't it? :twisted: :twisted: Like I said. A-10 is useful. But if it is less then fun weather, A good modern GFAC can get stuff killed on request because of things like the JDAM. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2004, 16:29
by elp
f16I wrote:Umm I think some comments made about the A-10 are harsh. In looking at specs yes its a plane that dosent match up to F-16's, F-18's and such like. but in iraq well over 80%-90% of ground FAC's asked for the A-10 even when other platforms that on paper out shone it were in the same airspace.

I think the A-10 is by far the best CAS platform out there in a situation like Iraq, but these days are the most likely to be encountered. Even when in a danger zone an A-10 is really hard to shoot down. Look at examples from Iraq, an A-10 flown by Capt Kim ''kc'' Campbell had its engine flown of by a SAM and still managed to return home. Only one A-10 went down due to enemy action in the Iraq war, 1 out of 60 deployed at the height of operations. Other A-10's had been engaged and damaged but all returned home. For the job low level mud moving, nothings better in a war zone than an A-10 for getting in there.

From reports released its the only plane along with the harrier that operated from FOB's (forward operating bases) which in a ground war is something you can't do without. Its built to last, it can take hits, it can be flown around the clock, and above hit an enemy really hard.

So on paper yes its not great in a modern day war, but a war is a one of and can't be planned for nothing hardly went to plan in Iraq. Its a case of picking up what you got and letting it loose on the enemy even if that means planes going down.

You can't compare an A-10, its does what it dose.!!! KILL

PS: the question asked, no I don't believe the F-35 would replace the A-10 only protect it from doing its job, the A-10 will be around for a while yet.


The statements I make about the A-10 are harsh because war is harsh. A GFAC and grunts don't care what kills the enmey just as long as it goes a way. If that happens to be a B-52 dropping, GBU-12, JDAM, CBU-105 with SFW BLU-108bs, or F-14-18 dropping the same thing in adverse, vis because the mark-1 eyeball can't do it, thats just the way it is. You have to ask the question of why those A-10s got shot up. 1. because they couldn't fly out of an engagement zone fast. They have to sit there and take it. F-14-18 has done lots of straffing also in this op. Yet none have been shot down during strafing. Why is that? I'll tell you. The reason is when one of this flys down, it comes off the strafing run fast and climbs back up high, out of the range of trashfire, MANPADS, Small SAMs, AAA. It's total exposure to these threats on a stopwatch is a lot less.

Want to support Marines? I'd prefer F-18s and B-52s any day of the week. The A-10 is a one trick pony. Those two, with modern cheap PGMs and sensors are not.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2004, 20:03
by f16I
umm im unsure when it comes to talking about a threat from any G-A weapon in the sense of fighting in a built up area. In open country yes small arms fire, AAA, SAM's etc would be more of a threat to a A-10 than jets faster to it. However when it comes to fighting low in urban areas from the air, a ground threat has a very small window into which to engage an aircraft. Its shown in Iraq, most weapons have been fired from side streets and roof tops, this means buildings are around the person on the ground which will end up masking a low flying jet, very quickly making it hard for someone wishing to shoot at it have a clear and sustained period to get thier weapons away.

You are more likely to get hit from the ground if you are recovering your jet to a safe altidude from low level as anyone on the ground has a more clear view of your aircraft and can predict your flight path for a period of time.

I think its a case of understanding the area where you commit your air assets and the threat levels you incounter. In Iraq the A-10 was by far the better option in CAS at low level, even though its slow.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2004, 21:51
by Lawman
Those same building obstructions force the Hog to go high in an Urban scenario such as Fallujah, in order to actually be able to employ its weapons against targets both on the streets and rooftops. So now its either coming in slow at an angle that can easily be fired at, or it comes straight at a target at low altitude providing a nice flat angle to avoid that pesky need to lead a target. It cant go up into the higher altitudes and employ laser and GPS guided weapons against those targets with the impunity of more modern fast jets. Yes it can loiter, if you know your going to be hit in a city but that wont help if your driving a convoy out in the middle of nowhere. In that case you need speed not a big gun and armor, modern jets have that the A-10 doesnt.

In the first Gulf War the Marines did testing to see how an F-18 would perform the job of CAS, they found that a Hornet coming at a target from medium altitude could not be seen by the people on the ground until it was almost pulling off target, and while pulling of target the shooters are dead. So even when forced in low a modern jet is in a very good position to survive. An A-10 is just playing on the "If I get hit I should be fine" advantage, which honestly does not seem like a really assuring way to be strapped in for war.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2004, 22:15
by JanHas
Abandoning the A-10 is a unwise decission. The A-10C is developed at this moment and so it will some time around. Replacing the A-10 with the F-35 is the same discussion when those anti - A-10 folks at the pentagon wanted to replace it with the F-16.

A war with a good equiped and trained enemy would show what system would hold up.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2004, 20:58
by JR007
elp,

Dude, it was HawgWash... The boss took Sharkbait's son, an Air Force IP, out in the family model Zipper and beat up the pattern, but that was it for us. We did have a large time though, you know what you do when the weather does not allow air ops, go to the local watering hole.

I still want hawg’s in the inventory, I may not say that five years from now, but seven years ago the tank commanders could care less if they were playing against Vipers cause they never got a kill against the tanks, only the Hogs would kill them. But as you pointed out, technology is killing that advantage.

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2004, 22:14
by elp
Hey J.R.

Yeah. I don't want the A10 leaving. I want it put in reality and still be a square peg in the square hole when needed.

Its just that I am running out of air sick bags after reading stuff again and again about when CAS is mentioned the A-10 is mentioned as the tool. ( including the sound of trumpets and choir in the distance ).

If someone wants to push a division of tanks at us. They will die like so much dead meat..... without even pulling the A-10 from the tool belt, and in some cases crap visibility that would never be attempted before. Deep down I admire the A-10 big time. How could anyone not? But deep down, also I want the enemy killed with the best weapons that make a GFAC and/or a Grunt say "Holy *&$# !" over the radio in supreme appreciation of the killing support they just got. I don't care what killed the enemy. Just as they end up dead in the most convenient manner possible.

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2004, 04:12
by JR007
Elp,

Hehehe...

No worries it's just like anything else, she'll get old someday and have to be replaced.

Death is a great thing for any swine that wants to mess with the US, I concur!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2004, 18:29
by elp
Here is some good CAS 101 stuff as it is done today. ( don't know if I would want to be that close to a 2000lb'er but then again, I don't have the right stuff for this job. My hats off to them though.




Airman awarded Silver Star

A Camp Smith NCO wins acclaim for directing B-52 airstrikes from horseback in Afghanistan

By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com



....the B-52, which then put a string of bombs down that ridge line and took out 200 al-Qaida in one pass and had the warlord tell the young sergeant, 'I've been doing this for 15 years and I've never seen that many of my enemy die at one time in my life,'



The Air Force described the special-operations airman as a hero and pinned the military's third-highest award for combat valor -- the Silver Star medal -- on him for his work in opening Bagram Air Field by directing B-52 airstrikes within several hundred feet of his own spotting position.

Master Sgt. William "Calvin" Markham, who has been working operations at Camp Smith for the past year, has been in the Air Force for 18 years, 12 as an Air Force combat controller.

Combat controllers operate with Navy SEALs, Army Rangers and Army Special Forces teams to seize airfields and personnel, pinpoint enemy targets, and recover downed pilots and crews in hostile territory.

During the opening moments of the 2001 war in Afghanistan, Markham was the only Air Force member assigned to the Army special-operations team "Triple Nickel," also known as the Army Operational Detachment Team 555.

Earlier this week, Markham, 36, briefed the Hickam Company Grade Officers Council on the close air support missions that used B-52 Stratofortress and B-1 Lancer bombers for the first time to help take enemy guns and equipment pinpointed by spotters on the battlefield.

In a March 17 speech, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper said the military is "taking a completely different look at close air support."

Jumper said it's no longer slow-moving A-10 Thunderbolt and other airplanes close to the ground as was the case in Vietnam. Instead, the bombs were dropped from bombers flying at 50,000 feet.

"What we found in Afghanistan is that the young sergeant -- Sgt. Markham -- on the ground riding a horse with the warlords of Afghanistan as a special operator, who stopped and set up his tripod with his keyboard and his laser goggles and took a sighting on the enemy positions on the next ridge line and beamed them up to the B-52, which then put a string of bombs down that ridge line and took out 200 al-Qaida in one pass and had the warlord tell the young sergeant, 'I've been doing this for 15 years and I've never seen that many of my enemy die at one time in my life,'" Jumper said.

Markham said his Army special-operations team was flown by helicopter from Uzbekistan on Oct. 19 and then taken by horseback to the hills above Bagram.

"We flew below radar, with no armor," Markham said. "The only gear I had was in my backpack."

He estimated his backpack was about 80 pounds, half of which was devoted to weapons and food supplies. "I had a long gun, my M-4 carbine, radio, laser target designator, GPS and night-vision equipment."

In Afghanistan, Markham said he was met with 5,000 to 10,000 Northern Alliance fighters. He was able to call in the first B-52 air strikes in and around Bagram on Oct. 21.

"We were able to take out in the first 30 minutes targets the Northern Alliance had been trying to take out for the past 30 years."

Markham said after a week his team of four special-operations soldiers each had a $50,000 bounty on their heads.

"I was known as Calvin," Markham said. "I heard them on their radio always referring to Calvin."

In his Silver Star citation, which he received July 3, 2003, as a member of the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron, the Air Force credited Markham with directing 175 sorties between Oct. 14 and Nov. 20 that resulted in eliminating 450 enemy vehicles and killing more than 3,500 Taliban fighters.

The Air Force said the air strikes were decisive in supporting the Northern Alliance's ground offensive, which resulted in the liberation of the capital city of Kabul and the surrender of hundreds of al-Qaida and Taliban soldiers.

Markham said during the day his team would spot enemy movements near Bagram and then at night move to a vantage point overlooking the road to Kabul.

"The Taliban would move soldiers and equipment by convoy at night with their headlights on, and we would mark the positions and call down the air strikes. They continued to drive with their headlights on and we continued to call air strikes."

He said at one time there were six four-man special-operations teams in Afghanistan calling in close air support strikes.

Markham recalled one mission in which he was 600 to 1,000 feet away from the front lines of the Taliban when he called down a B-52 bomb strike.

But the bomber didn't have any laser-guided or GPS-guided bombs on board, "just 2,000-pound dumb bombs," Markham said.

"But the pilot was confident that he could place them on target," he added.

He watched as the B-52 flew overhead and estimated that it was six miles north of the target.

"I radioed the pilot and he said that he had to correct for winds ... then he gave me the countdown starting with four minutes and 30 seconds."

Within minutes, the B-52 made its first pass and dropped 14 2,000-pound bombs and then came back and dropped another 14.

The concussion from the bombs was tremendous, scattering debris all over his team. At that point, Markham said he thought, "This is it."


http://starbulletin.com/2004/12/19/news/story6.html

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2004, 00:01
by JanHas
The most stupid decission to make, replacing the A-10 by the F-35. You will always need an mk1 eyeball on the target. A-10 pilots where trained to to fly through the weeds. During the cold war they flew low to evade the SA-9. Now it are the SA-16 etc.. I think flying low is still effective if you want to see the target up and close, instead of some fancy sensor that can be folled.. HOG's FOREVER!!!!!

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 18:03
by phil
Fighters like the F-22 and F-35 can carry precision bombs to attack fixed targets but they are not equipped to fly low and slow to locate and attack moving ground targets, especially if those targets shoot back.

The USAF plans to keep 356 A-10s in service till 2028 thanks to upgrades. The F-35 is not designed or equipped for the close attack role. When aircraft were needed for ground support in Baghdad, the armored A-10s were sent, not the fast fragile fighters. A-10s were hit several times, but all returned home. (Like the one of capt Kim Campbell who was badly hit but still got home with only one engine.) I think no fighter can yet replace the A-10.

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 19:13
by CheckSix
ANd what you gonna do in a "kosovo-like" szenario, where enemy SAMs are not taken out and constantly moving?
You'll hit nothing?! (As they did)
Just imagine they were eqipped with stuff of the 90s not of the 70s...

No war or appeasement then? Or just stand-off wepons?

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 07:31
by swanee
Fellas,

I've asked my father about this just a couple of weeks ago. My father, who just retired as an O-5 (my mother didnt want to move again, so he gave up the O-6 slots) with 400 hours in the A-37, 1800 hours in the A-10 and 1000 in the F-16, and an integtral member of the 174th fighter wing F/A-16 program (that failed...). He went to fighter weapons school in 86 (holds the academic award, and the only guy in his class not to have to repeat a check ride) for the hog and the refresher for the F-16. I think he has a little expertise in the situation. but i'll stop bragging now...

he says (in a nutshell) the gold plated f-35 looks great on paper. But so did the viper at one point. The hog was to be replace by the viper. His unit was the test squadron for it. But it didnt work. Going fast and trying to ID ground targets is almost as easy as firing a .22 and hitting an apartment mailbox at 140 miles an hour out of the side of an SUV, which a scope. The reasons that the f-16 failed at CAS was because it couldnt handle the large gun, couldnt aquire targets and couldnt slow down becuase of the lack of armor. Even if we had all weather weapons like the litening2 and others, we still have bvr missles, but how often are we going to fire without visual ID???

If you read the Chuck Horner/Tom Clancy Book "Every Man a Tiger" a compilation of the biography of Gen. Horner and his concept for Air Power in the gulf war and consequently in the new century, he took a hard look at the A-10 and the B-52. He found that A-10s did get shot up at low levels, they were very good at plinking tanks, as many as 150(!) a night, and they were capable of releasing weapons at 20k. After the first couple weeks of bad hog wounds, Gen. Horner decided to keep the A-10 at a higher altitude until the ground war started, and it worked very well. Once the ground war started, they were back to strafing.

There is a psychological aspect to war as well. When asked what they were afraid of most, Iraqi prisoners pointed to pictures of B-52s and A-10s. So what you man say. Well, striking fear into your enemy can be more powerful than shooting him.

With the A-10c model upgrades, the A-10 will be able to fly higher, carry more weapons (those pgm's that ELP talks about (like a true jar jock should) :wink: ) They can fly high and aviod those threats, then turn in and visually see those apcs and tanks that they are hitting.

The idea of putting a 2000 lbs grenade in the palm of a grunt is a great idea, but it's still many many years away from implementation.

The air forces main objective right now is putting the bomb in the pickle jar. F-16s and 15es and 18s and (up until recently) 14s were all dropping bombs. The f-117 is a bomber, make no mistake about it. tell me again how old the b-52 is? A-10 to 2028, thats 50+ years of service...
Yes, the A-10 is pretty much a one peg hole airplane. But that one peg hole is much more complicated than you are making it out to be. Legacy fighters like the viper and eagle are circles and squares, with the right amount of force and software, the round peg will fit the square hole. But neither will fit the a-10 hole very well at all... you can say helicopters, but well, they're HUGE gas hogs. What about those supply lines for them? Give me the first deep strike of the f-117, the air interdiction of the 22 and the 15, the fast moving of the 16 and 35, let them nuetralize the airborn threat, let them perform the all weather bombings and tactical missions. (i hate tactical vs strategic) But when the sh*t hits the fan, and the boys down below are in trouble, give me the hog, and the spectre, and it will be cleaned up.

well, this was supposed to be short winded, but it turned out not to be. I apologize for that.


swanee

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 07:54
by parrothead
2!

A-10 vs.F-16/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2005, 03:16
by tman229
The A-10 wasn't designed for Air Interdiction missions using LGB's or JDAM's. Unfotunetly (for pilots), that is the direction the Air Force has taken over the last few years. The A-10 isn't an ideal platform for that mission, or those types of deliveries. However, the A-10 is an amazing weapon that can't be replaced by any F-type jet. The F-16, for example, lacks the fuel, survivability, and flexibility to operate and/or succesfully employ in environments where the A-10 thrives. Several responses to the initial post point out the F-16's ability to employ PGM's from high altitude, but neglect to mention the fact that operatinig at high altitude isn't always possilbe or preferable - for example, in the case of low weather, or a troops-in-contact scenario. Durinig OIF, there were several cases where both considerations were a player. Because of both the weather and proximity of friendlies, unguided bombs, mavericks, and LGB's were unuseable. Instead, the A-10's relied on the flexibility and reliability of the gun. They operated under a 4,000' ceiling, positivly identifyinig targets (to include armmor), and destroyed them over the course of approx. 45 minutes.....all while being shot at by AAA and small arms.
The F-16 lacks the capabilities of the A-10 in many ways. The F-16 doesn't carry enough fuel to loiter around the battlefield (especially at low alt) for any reasonable amount of time. The F-16's speed precludes it from being able to operate under low ceilings, or in close terrain. The F-16's design makes it especially susceptible to IR threats (because of its extreamly limited self protection flares, hot/exposed afterburning engine, etc.), and it lacks the redundant systems and armmor to ensure the jet or pilot will return home to fight again another day. The F-16 lacks flexibility and effectivness in it's weapons. It carries a small, 20mm cannon with less than half the rounds an A-10 does. Because of it's higher speeds, the F-16 lacks the ability to effectivly two-target strafe, or combat offset a miss on the same pass and fire again. It's 20mm rounds lack the ability to penetrate tanks or APC's, and have a much shorter effective range, forcing the single engine jet to press closer to the target, which it's small round is probably not going to destroy anyway. Besides the gun, the small jet occupies two hardpoints with fuel tanks, and a couple more with A/A missiles, leaving little room for it's LGB's or JDAM's, which again, are dead weight with troops-in-contact. Finally, it's my opinion that the majority of F-16 pilots lack the training, and thus, expertise in the Close Air Support mission. They realy heavily upon GPS/INS data rather than a map or talk-on, and have no ability to deliver in any degraded/standby avionics modes. Their "multi-role" training translates into extreamly limted time spent on CAS, and thus, a lower level of proficiency.
Both the F-16 and A-10 are amazing jets in their own right. My intention is to point out that they are designed for different missions, and comparinig one's ability to do the others mission is a tremendous excersise in futility. Afterall, you don't see A-10 pilots arguing that they are good/capable BFM platforms just because they carry a gun and Aim-9's.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2005, 12:17
by kilo111
Well, in the futures combats, the new enemy SAM will be more potent and eficient, so the A-10 wil be obsolete. Then the F-35A will have grate defense sistems, ECM ...

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2005, 17:43
by swanee
kilo111 wrote:Well, in the futures combats, the new enemy SAM will be more potent and eficient, so the A-10 wil be obsolete. Then the F-35A will have grate defense sistems, ECM ...



You wouldn't send an A-10 on a strike mission against a SAM site, That's suicide on a stick. Shoulder fired SAMs are what you are saying will make the A-10 retire? I am not sure I agree with you. ECM pods will continue to be upgraded with the same packages that will be going into the f-35, just tailored to a different airframe. Plus, the threat right now are things like RPGs, not guided very well at all. And, if they hit, the pilot of an A-10 has a pretty good chance of going home. If an f-35 gets hit, we just lost a $200 mil airplane and now we have to put the PJs at risk to go pick him up.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2005, 03:52
by johnqhitman
Sometimes, a role prohibits a fighter from being an air-to-air god, flying Mach 2 tearing holes in the sky, from having a pointy nose, and getting the pilot laid often.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2005, 17:02
by Laxman
Incorrect on some accounts about the Viper. Units do train for Facs to do verbal talk ons from Mark I or by pod. So if the Pod is TU, you can always look for it visually if that was how we were planning to start. Also, a Viper can always drop in CCIP outside of small arms and handhelds. Dont assume that there will only be one or even just two Vipers rolling around the area doing CAS. Now, the gun wasnt designed to do CAS. Its an A-A gun meant to shoot down other jets. If you need to do CAS in an enviorment where other A-A player might roll into your area, an A-10 is going to be sucking seat cushion if a Mig-29 or something similar is rolling in where as your Strike Pig, Viper, Hornet may just turn and shoot. BTW, who wants to see gun footage of a non-clean Viper gunning a Hog that has all the bullets taken out of the gun and no hardpoints at all(ie slick wings)? While the A-10 is a great aircraft for what it does, its definately not the end all be all machine. Also, its really not ideal for dropping the JDAM.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 03:21
by johnqhitman
This might anger (read royally piss off) USAF pilots, but I like the idea of giving the Army a small-fixed wing force of upgraded A-10s for close air support. And I also like the idea of A-10s carrying modified hell-fires...
A-10 shouldn't be armed with JDAMs since it is a CAS bird and JDAM shouldn't be used for CAS.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 04:39
by Guysmiley
johnqhitman wrote:and JDAM shouldn't be used for CAS.


Have to disagree with you there. A troop on the ground with a laser rangefinder + GPS gizmo (I forget the AN number) allows him to say "put a bomb HERE", then a pilot overhead can plug those coords in and drop the bomb right where it is needed. It's an incredibily effective setup.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 05:31
by swanee
johnqhitman wrote:This might anger (read royally piss off) USAF pilots, but I like the idea of giving the Army a small-fixed wing force of upgraded A-10s for close air support. And I also like the idea of A-10s carrying modified hell-fires...
A-10 shouldn't be armed with JDAMs since it is a CAS bird and JDAM shouldn't be used for CAS.


It will be a cold day in Hell when the Air Force will allow the Army to fly fixed-wing airplanes...

It is the same kind of fight as the Active Duty vs Guard, there are certain protocals that must be followed, stupid as they are, that ensure the checks and balances of the system. If you give an inch someone will take a mile, and then we will have the Army Air Corp all over again...

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 08:35
by Lawman
swanee wrote:
johnqhitman wrote:This might anger (read royally piss off) USAF pilots, but I like the idea of giving the Army a small-fixed wing force of upgraded A-10s for close air support. And I also like the idea of A-10s carrying modified hell-fires...
A-10 shouldn't be armed with JDAMs since it is a CAS bird and JDAM shouldn't be used for CAS.


It will be a cold day in Hell when the Air Force will allow the Army to fly fixed-wing airplanes...

It is the same kind of fight as the Active Duty vs Guard, there are certain protocals that must be followed, stupid as they are, that ensure the checks and balances of the system. If you give an inch someone will take a mile, and then we will have the Army Air Corp all over again...


And the Devil will wear ice skates the day the Marines make the same mistake the Army made to give up its Air. Sorry but Ive heard the Air Force talk of how they can do everybodys mission if they just get everybody elses funding. No dice, your guys track record with CAS sucks in comparison to the other fixed wing communitys. Now could these problems be taken care of? Yes. In some ways are they being handled through better training to use forces in conjunction? Yes. But there are plenty of times when the Air Force really needs another service to help some of the leadership pull its head out and find out they have to be a team player.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 14:54
by elp
johnqhitman wrote:This might anger (read royally piss off) USAF pilots, but I like the idea of giving the Army a small-fixed wing force of upgraded A-10s for close air support. And I also like the idea of A-10s carrying modified hell-fires...
A-10 shouldn't be armed with JDAMs since it is a CAS bird and JDAM shouldn't be used for CAS.


Note to the uninformed. CAS has been done SUCESSFULLY sometime now with JDAM. In many situations were no other weapon would do. (weather etc making a LGB impossible as well as other weapons. ) RE: A10 and JDAM. OK I guess but just remember when a A-10 is loaded, it is still going to get engaged by some battlefield SAMs. An F-16 with a SNIPER XR and all the PGM mix.... won't.

RE: The Army. Might as well write them off on that one. They don't have the NCOs at the aviation skill level to cut the mustard as well as our people. Giving them yet another airframe to manage is a disaster waiting to happen, especially with the poor leadership in the Army at ALL levels. Be a good way to wreck a bunch of airframes. USMC on the other hand, knows how to manage CAS airframes.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 16:49
by johnqhitman
I'm not saying JDAM is incapable of CAS. Remember Afghanistan, when someone muffed the coordinates in a JDAM drop and dropped it on top of friendly forces? That sort of makes it problematic. It would be nice for troops to have a hand-held device that can figure out the GPS coordinates for a JDAM drop and transmit those coordinates to air-craft overhead.

Yeah, the Marines perfected the art of close air support in WWII and Korea.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 20:46
by elp
Troops already have that.

PLGR now replaced with a smaller hand held device in progress. This device can also hook into ground laser designators so as to get a geolocated fix if needed. Reason you can't use a civilian off the shelf hand-held GPS unit is that the mil spec one has to be "spoof" proof. It needs to certify that the GPS signal it is getting is in fact a valid one.

USAF ETACs "GFACs" ( ground forward air controllers by any other name ) are highly skilled enlisted guys ( a few officers ) that are trained up to a grunt level of field service and go right along with the Army ground troops and/or various SpecFors or depending on the flavor of SpecFor they have their own guy. It is a high skill job that isn't just calling in a map grid. Full knowledge of the environmental conditions, being able to read the land, coordinated so there are no friendlies in danger, a full knowledge of using the right weapon for the job and numerous other skills including diplomacy sometimes ( he is the expert on what is safe and not safe,... not some Army Battalion C.O. ).

Marines have their own GFACs, of course here the CAS work is better integrated, yet USMC GFACs have to be multifunctional too, which means in a net-centric war where many times a JSTARS controls a lot of the stuff that will be sent out to a GFAC request, the menu selection a Marine gets could be anything, USN F-18s, USAF B-52s etc.

JDAM is a widely used staple for CAS work for a few years now. The bread and butter CAS PGM when weather permits is the GBU-12 ( 500lb LGB ) quoted by some who like the way it "flys" ( bigger LGBs have a less responsive flight?? ) and of course it isn't too large for a variety of jobs.

We are working on getting dual use PGMs out there to solve the logistics and/or availability issues. If you send out a PGM to the GFAC out of the JSTARS stack, better it be dual use ( either laser seeking or GPS/INS guided ) Enhanced Paveway, Paveway IV ( UK ) and Laser/JDAM allow for this nice versatility. Maybe a dual use SDB someday also.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 20:54
by FDiron
A-10 has a bad record with friendly fire incidents. Plus it fires radioactive ammunition. Right now there are hundreds of radioactive tanks in Iraq, which the civilians are selling the metal from.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2005, 23:16
by LordOfBunnies
Considering what most people consider bad friendly incidents, that means they have happened. It's record is not bad at all anymore. After that happened way back when, they changed their tactics a little to prevent it from happening. Hasn't happened to often, I believe in GW1 there were about as many friendly fire casualties as enemy fire casualties (don't quote me on that I can find a source if someone wants one, but that's what I recall off the top of my head). Also, its very difficult to puncture tank armor and DU is about the only thing that will do it effectively.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 00:20
by Guysmiley
FDiron wrote:A-10 has a bad record with friendly fire incidents. Plus it fires radioactive ammunition. Right now there are hundreds of radioactive tanks in Iraq, which the civilians are selling the metal from.


DU isn't really radioactive (not like glowing green, sterilize you radioactive, thats what the "D" means) It is however very toxic and very bad for you in a particle form, like most heavy metals are. Heck, tungsten dust is the same kind of bad for you too.

We could use Nerf foam AP rounds, but it just doesn't have the same penetrating effect.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 02:27
by aokeeffe
johnqhitman wrote:I'm not saying JDAM is incapable of CAS. Remember Afghanistan, when someone muffed the coordinates in a JDAM drop and dropped it on top of friendly forces? That sort of makes it problematic. It would be nice for troops to have a hand-held device that can figure out the GPS coordinates for a JDAM drop and transmit those coordinates to air-craft overhead.



Yes, unfortunately we know that with the human factor, S*** happens. Would you rather ADD to that problem nonprecision weapons? I guess you are hoping that when the pilot rolls in on the target that the unguided weapon will miss just in case the friendlies mistakenly give thier own posit as that of the target. Its not the GPS thats the problem, computers are only as smart as the operator.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 02:30
by aokeeffe
[quote="FDiron"]A-10 has a bad record with friendly fire incidents. Plus it fires radioactive ammunition. [quote]

It's kind of the nature of the beast. When the role of the A/C is to support troops who by hypothesis are engaging enemy in close range, the risk is there. It is the nature of the mission and not that of the airframe that causes this.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 02:40
by vinnie
The guy who lives across the street from me is a retired O-6 , he was a high time F-100 jock and was in the Fly off program between the A-9 and the A-10. He said that he picked the A-9 but all during the program the feeling was the A-10 was going to be chosen or nothing would. He has alot of stories about how things were run back then, way above our paygrades.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 15:51
by elp
LordOfBunnies wrote:Considering what most people consider bad friendly incidents, that means they have happened. It's record is not bad at all anymore. After that happened way back when, they changed their tactics a little to prevent it from happening. Hasn't happened to often, I believe in GW1 there were about as many friendly fire casualties as enemy fire casualties (don't quote me on that I can find a source if someone wants one, but that's what I recall off the top of my head). Also, its very difficult to puncture tank armor and DU is about the only thing that will do it effectively.


Unfortunately A-10 frat performance in OIF was a near repeat of Desert Storm. Few things scare a Marine unless you tell them an A-10 is the CAS they get that day. The A-10 community still has work to do.

RE: killing tanks en mass. A-10 is no longer king of the hill in that area. New PGMs are. A-10 has become an even more niche CAS asset. Many CAS jobs can be done.... without it.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 18:03
by NVGdude
FDiron wrote:A-10 has a bad record with friendly fire incidents. Plus it fires radioactive ammunition. Right now there are hundreds of radioactive tanks in Iraq, which the civilians are selling the metal from.


I wouldn't really call DU radioactive, certainly not to the point anyone should worry about it. On the other hand uranium is a toxic heavy metal, and breathing the dust is about as bad as breathing any other heavy metal (Lead etc.) dust, and should be avoided.

-MArk

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 18:27
by Guysmiley
:?

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2005, 18:28
by johnqhitman
I bet you there was fatricide as far back as the days of Thermopylae.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2005, 23:10
by LWF
The Marine fratricide incident that everyoneone is talking about wasn't the A-10's fault. A Marine FAC ordered the strikes on his own forces, and told the A-10 he was further north then any other unit, when he wasn't.
So you're blaming the A-10 for something that wasn't its fault.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2005, 03:30
by LordOfBunnies
See Persian army way back when. They had little or no armor and stabbing spears. They moved in a phalanx. You damn well better believe people got killed who didn't deserve it. As for the A-10, its not the only thing that's killed its own forces. More than once during OEF (that's Afghanistan right?) several sets of forces called strikes on top of themselves. Some friendly fire can be avoided, some can't without a lot more advances.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2005, 14:38
by elp
LWF wrote:The Marine fratricide incident that everyoneone is talking about wasn't the A-10's fault. A Marine FAC ordered the strikes on his own forces, and told the A-10 he was further north then any other unit, when he wasn't.
So you're blaming the A-10 for something that wasn't its fault.


Are we talking Desert Storm or OIF? Both were about the same/similar deal for A-10 frat performance.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2005, 01:28
by LWF
OIF I think.

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2005, 17:57
by Dammerung
LordOfBunnies wrote:See Persian army way back when. They had little or no armor and stabbing spears. They moved in a phalanx. You damn well better believe people got killed who didn't deserve it. As for the A-10, its not the only thing that's killed its own forces. More than once during OEF (that's Afghanistan right?) several sets of forces called strikes on top of themselves. Some friendly fire can be avoided, some can't without a lot more advances.


Persians weren't as cool as the Spartans who faught in Red Robes.

Can't blame the Pilot when the coordinates for his JDAM happen to be friendly forces.

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2005, 18:47
by elp
Dammerung wrote:
LordOfBunnies wrote:See Persian army way back when. They had little or no armor and stabbing spears. They moved in a phalanx. You damn well better believe people got killed who didn't deserve it. As for the A-10, its not the only thing that's killed its own forces. More than once during OEF (that's Afghanistan right?) several sets of forces called strikes on top of themselves. Some friendly fire can be avoided, some can't without a lot more advances.


Persians weren't as cool as the Spartans who faught in Red Robes.

Can't blame the Pilot when the coordinates for his JDAM happen to be friendly forces.



Well bombing frats come in all shapes and sizes. Precision or non-precision. ( the off-set practice bombing mistake by the B-52 in Africa that took out some friendlies with a stick of dumb iron.... BN used the roller thingy wrong and didn't set the offset cursor right, hitting the offset source instead of the target. ) As you mentioned with PGMs like JDAM. Well at least now they have a brutal object lesson in GFAC training. The A-10 community was supposed to improve and learn from Desert Storm. Unfortunately they didn't.

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2005, 19:12
by Swevo
Elp,

On your quote "In the future, UCAVs like the A-45 and A-47 ( oh yeah btw A-45 and A-47 are far more along in their abilty to fly and drop bombs than the J$F is ). Will provide even more sustained support of a GFAC. Interesting times we live in." I am just wondering if a guy on the ground would be happy having an unmanned machine above his head to give him support? :roll:
I would not feel to comfortable if I were him.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2006, 04:31
by jr1947
hello Pat1, jr1947 here, I just happened to catch your post dated Nov. 05th. 2004 and I immediately thought of the two different aircraft. The question that's I've been pondering is unless they completely revamped the airframe there is no way they could fit a g.e. f-136 or a pratt f-135 into the a-10. It was built to hold one engine and that engine was a g.e. tf-34. the f-135's and the f-136's compared to the a-10's tf-34 are not even a close match by any stretch of the imagination. I have the feeling that the "wart hog", a-10 is about to be laid to rest. I know in the past they have tried to retire that plane and it's come back a couple of times to fly up out of the ashes to say, " I'm still here" but unless there is some radical changes in the airframe to except the f-35's engines, weither it be g.e.'s or pratts's I suspect it's life expediency is comming to and end.. To bad though because it's proven itself many times over again. And that Gatling gun in it's nose spoke for it self period. I know the Iraq tanks weren't especially happy when that bird was "passing by". Well Pat, I'm off to snooze land now, it was a pleasure posting to you. best regards, J.R. :)

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2006, 04:47
by swanee
jr1947 wrote:hello Pat1, jr1947 here, I just happened to catch your post dated Nov. 05th. 2004 and I immediately thought of the two different aircraft. The question that's I've been pondering is unless they completely revamped the airframe there is no way they could fit a g.e. f-136 or a pratt f-135 into the a-10. It was built to hold one engine and that engine was a g.e. tf-34. the f-135's and the f-136's compared to the a-10's tf-34 are not even a close match by any stretch of the imagination. I have the feeling that the "wart hog", a-10 is about to be laid to rest. I know in the past they have tried to retire that plane and it's come back a couple of times to fly up out of the ashes to say, " I'm still here" but unless there is some radical changes in the airframe to except the f-35's engines, weither it be g.e.'s or pratts's I suspect it's life expediency is comming to and end.. To bad though because it's proven itself many times over again. And that Gatling gun in it's nose spoke for it self period. I know the Iraq tanks weren't especially happy when that bird was "passing by". Well Pat, I'm off to snooze land now, it was a pleasure posting to you. best regards, J.R. :)



I've said this many times before, and I shall say it again. A program to re-engine the A-10 exists, it just keeps getting cut because of lack of funding. The limiting factor is not the airframe, but the engines... You just can't get it above 400kts with the thrusties that it has.

That being said, the A-10 will be around until they all fall apart, simply because as soon as the AF retires them, the Army will buy them and use them. The AF won't let that happen.

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2006, 05:25
by LordOfBunnies
Um, the A-10 IS falling apart. The AF is having to remake wings for the airplanes. I think they've run out of retired A-10s in AMARC and they are having to fabricate parts. I only know this because my dad works with people who do this stuff. What I want to see is the F-35 with the GAU-8 :twisted: :twisted: . Anyone with photoshop want a laugh? Stealth? Who needs stealth when you're this well hung. I don't think anything can ever truly replace the A-10 in effectiveness. The potential number of targets hit by an A-10 is much greater than that possible with an *insert fighter/attack aircraft here*. The gun will chew through tanks, not to mention the thing carries bombs as well. Its low and slow, but that can be an advantage when doing CAS (long loiter over important area). Not to mention the high bypass turbofans should be more efficient than the engines on most fighters (low bypass turbofans).

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2006, 14:10
by Pat1
Thanks for the post J.R.

I can't say I'm clear about what will happen with the A-10

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2006, 14:48
by elp
LordOfBunnies wrote:Um, the A-10 IS falling apart. The AF is having to remake wings for the airplanes. I think they've run out of retired A-10s in AMARC and they are having to fabricate parts. I only know this because my dad works with people who do this stuff. What I want to see is the F-35 with the GAU-8 :twisted: :twisted: . Anyone with photoshop want a laugh? Stealth? Who needs stealth when you're this well hung. I don't think anything can ever truly replace the A-10 in effectiveness. The potential number of targets hit by an A-10 is much greater than that possible with an *insert fighter/attack aircraft here*. The gun will chew through tanks, not to mention the thing carries bombs as well. Its low and slow, but that can be an advantage when doing CAS (long loiter over important area). Not to mention the high bypass turbofans should be more efficient than the engines on most fighters (low bypass turbofans).


Someone correct me. The rewing has already been stated by experts to give the aircraft 25 years more of life. The re-engine thing is more of a reliability-(new engines)- combined with performance that gives it the ability to carry payloads with less effort ( hot and/or high environs etc ). This is all cheap money and a good investment in an airframe that while no longer the ultimate tank killer ( hello cheap PGMs I-can-touch-you-but-you-can't-touch-me, etc .... dropped from high alts the A-10 can't reach.... ) it is still a useful aircraft to have around.

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2006, 19:54
by snypa777
NVGdude wrote:
FDiron wrote:A-10 has a bad record with friendly fire incidents. Plus it fires radioactive ammunition. Right now there are hundreds of radioactive tanks in Iraq, which the civilians are selling the metal from.


I wouldn't really call DU radioactive, certainly not to the point anyone should worry about it. On the other hand uranium is a toxic heavy metal, and breathing the dust is about as bad as breathing any other heavy metal (Lead etc.) dust, and should be avoided.

-MArk


That had me floored :!: If you mean DU rounds, intact, before use don`t present a hazard..I see your point. They are certainly NOT safe after firng!. DU ammo has been around for a LONG time and people have always been worried by it.

It`s a really small world. In OIF, one Challenger tank had it`s turret knocked off at night by another Challenger tank from the same squadron. There were two fatalities. Of the surviving crew, one of the troopers caught some fragments from the DU round. He had radioactive particles swimming about in him afterwards. Doctors said it would take years off his life, he is only 21 years old.
Source? My best pal works with his brother.
Don`t believe anyone who says that blue on blue is just a "sh@t happens" topic.

Anyway, the F-35 with SDB, PGMs, better sensors and battlefield datalinks, in view of some posts I have read from those in the know... could do a LOT of stuff the A-10 cannot. We will have to wait and see. Cutting down on killing friendly forces would be an improvement!

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2006, 22:06
by LWF
I have one question. What happens if for some reason any F-35s in the area can't drop any precision munitions from on high. That leaves it two options, go down low, where it is highly vulnerable to small arms fire (as it is not heavily armored) which the AF won't allow given the expense, or it can run away with out helping. And what happens if a few PGMs aren't enough, it can only strafe a little, and not for very long, and must go low or risk hitting friendlies. Whereas the A-10 can loiter for a long period of time, beyond when it has run out of ordnance on the wings, because it has the Avenger with lots of ammo and plenty of stopping power.
Now, the F-35 has a maximum combat radius of 620 nautical miles (at less than maximum speed, and payload), and a max payload of somewhere between 13,000 lbs. (Marine) or 17,000 lbs. (Navy), but would most likely not operate very often with a maximum payload because it compromises stealth. It like the F-16 in Desert Storm would most likely be restricted to heights that preclude CAS work, because of the danger of visually targeted ground fire. It only carries 180 rounds for its internal gun, meaning less strafing can be done than the A-10, which carries 1,350 rounds. And as its turning circle is larger than the A-10's, CAS will be sporadic, as it comes in quickly but can't come back as quickly. And it must operate from airfields further in the rear because it cannot operate from unprepared airstrips, consuming what little loiter time it has because it expends much fuel flying at higher speeds.
Whereas the A-10 has a combat radius of 695 nautical miles (at 300 kp/h), and a max payload of 16,000 lbs. and usually operates at this. It operates as low as 1,000 ft. and sometimes lower, and can take large amounts of ground fire (only five were downed in Desert Storm, most by ZSU-23 Shilkas) Large SAMs are usually not a problem for the A-10 as these have a minimum altitude the target must be operating at. It carries 1,350 rounds for its gun (usually 4:1 AP, HEI mix) allowing quite a bit of strafing. It is quite maneuverable at low speeds and altitudes, allowing it to avoid some ground fire and attack many targets, sooner and with more accuracy. PGMs won't be needed as strafing is far less expensive. It can loiter on one engine for 1.88 hours in or near the combat area, allowing constant air support. And it operates mainly from forward airstrips, that other planes cannot operate from, allowing reduced time to target and extending loiter time.

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2006, 12:16
by snypa777
LWF, I used to share the same opinion as yourself about the F-35--A-10 in CAS. You said yourself that 5 A-10s were shot down in the Gulf war. I don`t think many F-35s would have been lost under the SAME circumstances. Principally because of the altitude the F-35 will operate at. Loiter ability may not be a problem with tanking available. Strafing? Dropping a 500 or 250lb PGM directly onto a fortified position is more effective than strafing it I would think? Safer for the friendlies on the ground as cannon rounds go where they want to! The GAU Avenger really gets the guys on the ground running for cover, ours and the enemy. Where the frontline is blurred, accuracy is king.( As long as the right buttons are pressed).

If you need something "down low", well that is what Apache/Cobra is for I guess! As you suggest, the A-10 is useful in a number of tasks and has it`s advantages. If you use fast jets instead, you need new weapons and tactics, that`s what the USAF has acquired. You employ your Vipers and Strike Eagles accordingly. The A-10 is a good aircraft, even though the guys who fly them need some vehicle recognition lessons..... :(

There are other ways to do CAS other than A-10 though...

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2006, 19:55
by swanee
snypa777 wrote:LWF, I used to share the same opinion as yourself about the F-35--A-10 in CAS. You said yourself that 5 A-10s were shot down in the Gulf war. I don`t think many F-35s would have been lost under the SAME circumstances. Principally because of the altitude the F-35 will operate at. Loiter ability may not be a problem with tanking available. Strafing? Dropping a 500 or 250lb PGM directly onto a fortified position is more effective than strafing it I would think? Safer for the friendlies on the ground as cannon rounds go where they want to! The GAU Avenger really gets the guys on the ground running for cover, ours and the enemy. Where the frontline is blurred, accuracy is king.( As long as the right buttons are pressed).

If you need something "down low", well that is what Apache/Cobra is for I guess! As you suggest, the A-10 is useful in a number of tasks and has it`s advantages. If you use fast jets instead, you need new weapons and tactics, that`s what the USAF has acquired. You employ your Vipers and Strike Eagles accordingly. The A-10 is a good aircraft, even though the guys who fly them need some vehicle recognition lessons..... :(

There are other ways to do CAS other than A-10 though...



Look up the damage that A-10s took in Desert Storm... As to the f-16 (and other fast movers) for CAS... reference one of my previous on page 2 of this thread about that. The comment about the guys who fly them is double edged. You also have to look at the FACs and ETACs on the ground directing CAS. Right now there are combat ID programs in development to get rid of friendly fire. THe technology is developing rapidly. However, they won't replace the MK1 eyeball. Apaches and cobras are gas hogs and the supply lines that are required to keep them running would be 10 fold longer than any airforce base line. Remember, you can fly stuff into an air force base, but you have to truck it to an FOL for apaches/cobras. The active duty Army doesn't fly cobras anymore either. They are strictly a guard/reserve airframe. (not to say the guard/reserves suck, on the contrary, Guard is the only way to go)

The with the A-10c upgrades, they have the ability to carry those PGMs. So more PGMs, more gun ammo, more loiter time, more combat radius, more armor... and with some new engines more payload and more performance... The only thing the f-35 has on the a-10 is speed and stealth. Stealth for CAS? I don't see the neccessity. Speed for CAS? Take it from my old man, fast doesn't work. (again, reference my earlier posting i believe on page 2 or 3)

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2006, 20:50
by LWF
Apaches and Cobras are awfully vulnerable to ground fire, and besides, in tests they found A-10s and helicopters work a lot better when used together.

You also conveniently ignore that the only way for the F-35 to approach the payload of the A-10 is to sacrifice stealth, so what's the point in making it stealthy when it's going to do close air support, in sight of every idiot with an AK-47. And just out of curiosity, how can you destroy say, a tank column with PGMs when you can only target one at a time, and what happens when the software or hardware or some other complex piece of F-35 stops working, suddenly you have to run on home.

I hold up for example Operation Anaconda, the last major operation of our war in Afghanistan. The only effective CAS came from AC-130s, A-10s, and attack helicopters. And then attack helicopters were heavily damaged, the AC-130s could only attack at night, and there weren't enough A-10s in theater. The F-15Es and the F-16s, and all the fast movers were useless most of the time, because they couldn't hit accurately enough, with enough force, or often enough to have much of an effect.
The whole operation would have worked better if there had been landbased artillery, and more A-10s and attack helicopters.

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2006, 21:53
by cutlassracer
Exactly! What is the point of buying a stealth aircraft that is only stealthy when basically unloaded. Kinda like buying a new ZO6 Corvette and pulling four spark plugs when you go to the track. It just don't make sense!

A-10's age various/retrofit

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2006, 23:38
by jr1947
hello Swanee, Pat10,Elp,&Lwf, jr1947. I've just read the recent posts about the A-10 with new engines, the A-10 vaersious the f-35's, the A-10's age and the AF's wanting it alive. Along with the allitude of the F-35's in comparision to the A-10's. All in all everyone has very good points. The only question/statement I had and have is if they go with and engine such
as Pratts F-135 or G.E.'s F-136 either engine is a completely different animal in comparrision to the Tf-34's with which it now has. The both versions of the F-35 are, in size, not anything like the Tf-34's, which are large bulky engines. Thrust wise the opposite is in play the TF-34's cannot compare with the new F-35's. The plane it self was built for close air to ground support. It can take some pretty heavy hits and still get you home. I'm just curious how their going to fit a round peg in a square hole. Chances are though one way or the other that Wart hog may still have life left in in yet. It's been a pleasure talking with all of you, hope to hear from all of you again. best regars, jr1947 :)

RE: A-10

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2006, 23:53
by mark
The A-10 is not getting new engines per se. IF it happens.....they will be getting new cores based on the CF-34 engine (civilian use). They will not be getting a new style or a new type of engine. Its just too cost prohibitive to fund a new engine much less the engineering nightmare of installing a new type of enigne on the jet, it aint gonna happen. The TF-34 just needs a little help producing more thrust. A couple thousand pounds total between both engines would be a huge increase. btw jr1947 the TF-34 is not a rather bulky enigine, actually its quite small, it just has a generous fan section (but then it IS a high bypass engine).

TF-34/CF-34

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2006, 06:23
by jr1947
Hello Mark, I've been retired now for appx. 10 yrs. and Prior to my retirement the largest engine being built, in size, that we worked on in development and later in production was both the TF-34 which is military and the CF-34, which is exactly as you stated (a commercial engine). I worked on a few engines in my 25 yrs. with G.E. such as the F-404, F-414, T-700, Ct-7, T-64, J-85 but I have to say, not in thrust, but strictly size, the
34's, military or commercial compared to the other engines, were the largest engines, in bulk size. I can only hope that I'm not misunderstood in what it is that I'm trying to say. What I'm saying is in the plant I had times seen all the engines I spoke of lined up and the two engines that stood out that didn't appear to fit the over all style were the 34's. They allways remined me of draft horses in comparrison to the other engines. I enjoyed working on them with the exception of going on a test call. I watched a 34 fan once literally walk around a test cell walls all most 360 degrees. I was working in development at the time and the test was on the fan casing to see just how much contanment it would withstand. The engine was intentionally built with the #1 lock nut not torqued. It didn't take very much time before the rotor decided to take a walk. The casing held up surprising well, for a while anyway, but cintrifical force and, I guess the law of physics prevailed, and the results were a site to see, which I did. Ever since then I had a whole new outlook any time we went on a cell call, "FOR ANY ENGINE"! As far as the A-10's I can't think of any other aircraft that can pull it's weight as far as close ground support and the hits it can take an still get the piolt home. Well Mark it's been a pleasure. best regards, J.R.

RE: TF-34/CF-34

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2006, 12:14
by snypa777
Swanee, good pointer there on the Apache/cobra usefulness in theatre and the fuel issue, thanks for that. Don`t the Marines still use the Cobra/Super cobra??? I can see how easy it is to make mistakes under pressure in combat, friendly fire is a heartbreaker.

I remember seeing a doc` about Apache`s in GW1 shooting Hellfires at a UK column where all the technology available was telling the crew NOT to shoot. One (senior) pilot was on his first and last live operation and couldn`t keep his finger off the trigger. They showed actual camera footage and voice recordings from the cockpit. The errors made were criminal. You would have to have seen the show to know what I mean, his crewmate advised him NOT to shoot but got overruled.
As technology improves, there is always the idiot factor within some of us that surfaces...thankfully those instances are few and far between but get a lot of publicity. The vast majority of the crews I would like to think are real pro`s.

LWF, I guess the way to attack a tank column en-mass is to use a weapon like the RAF`s Brimstone that uses up to 12 anti tank rounds carried on one aircraft. It is based on the Hellfire missile and is available for export!!!

Stealth is no deterrent to heat seeking manpads by the way! Or AK-47s...I don`t think stealth is the be all and end all when performing CAS sorties. The enemy knows you have CAS at hand when your ground forces are shooting at them! CAS won`t be the only mission for the JSF, so it will be stealthy when it needs to be, mission dependent.

I wonder how the Hog performed in "hot and high" conditions? i know certain aircraft have struggled up "high" in Afghanistan...

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 02:06
by jr1947
SNYPA777 - I can only speak in terms of development assembly and development test procedures, in regards to the hog's engines, the TF-34's.
When we tested them in high heat conditions there never was any issues with their overall performance. As far as height, altitude I don't recall one way or the other. I do know that for their intended purpose, as application to the A-10's they performed outstanding. They were built, along with, or I
should say, "AROUND" the gatling gun, which was also G.E.'s brain child. The whole airframe and engines were developed around that nose gun, and
what a gun it was and is. Any way, that old dinosaur was built, suppose to be buried, re-emerged, re-performed, again, destined to be buried again and "STILL" is alive. Bye the way, for it's size it's surprisingly quiet, that is untill it comes alive breathing fire from it's nose. From what I have read it can also carry a very capable payload. Just recently in a post I read that the muntions from it's nose gun were radioactive, how true that is I have know idea. I cannot honestly see the purpose of that especially watching the effects of what it does when it bursts at a tank. The devastation alone is just that , complete devastation, so why radiation, I have no idea. Well I
guess it's time for me to be hitting the sack. best regards, J.R.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 06:21
by snypa777
Thanks for that JR 1947! I didn`t think the Hog`s turbofans were wheezers!

The GAU-8 Avenger uses DU ammo. The materials in the 30 mil round (PGU-14/B API) are a U-238 penetrator casing. It uses depleted Uranium which is only slightly less dense than tungsten and is actually quite cheap and easier to machine. This density makes for a very good armour piercing round. In addition, DU expands violently with contact to air, the resultant dust ignites, enhancing incendiary effects. DU tank gun rounds were spectacularly effective in GW1.

The DU in the 30mm rounds is about 50% less radioactive than the Uranium found naturally occurring in ordinary rocks.
Like a lot of high fire rate weapons, you get misfires. I don`t know if the DU dust is exposed when this happens? I would be concerned for the ground crews whom have to clear jams!

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 06:37
by Person
snypa777 wrote:Thanks for that JR 1947! I didn`t think the Hog`s turbofans were wheezers!

The GAU-8 Avenger uses DU ammo. The materials in the 30 mil round (PGU-14/B API) are a U-238 penetrator casing. It uses depleted Uranium which is only slightly less dense than tungsten and is actually quite cheap and easier to machine. This density makes for a very good armour piercing round. In addition, DU expands violently with contact to air, the resultant dust ignites, enhancing incendiary effects. DU tank gun rounds were spectacularly effective in GW1.

The DU in the 30mm rounds is about 50% more radioactive than the Uranium found naturally occurring in ordinary rocks.
Like a lot of high fire rate weapons, you get misfires. I don`t know if the DU dust is exposed when this happens? I would be concerned for the ground crews whom have to clear jams!


I think you have this reversed actually. DU is less radioactive than natural occuring uranium. DU is, as you said, U-238 which has an extremely long half life, hence low radioactivity.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 12:12
by snypa777
Oops, those early morning posts before coffee always get me! Just edited that.
Of equal concern is the fact that DU is a heavy metal and is toxic, just like lead or cadmium.

There is an admission that the very worst place you can be, is in or around enemy vehicles AFTER they have been hit by DU rounds because of the residual dust and toxic by-products.

The navy stopped using DU rounds in the Phalanx CIWS because of operational reasons rather than health reasons. The trouble is they are so damn effective. I believe we should all be using something less dangerous, especially to our own guys in the field.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 15:49
by Guysmiley
Couple of things-

Vulcan style cannons like the GAU-8 don't jam on a misfire. Fired (and dud) cases are fed into the back end of the ammo drum. An externally powered Vulcan could care less if the round actually fires or not. Hang-fires however (where the round fires but doesn't have enough power to exit the barrel) would cause all sorts of unpleasantness, such as the next round from that barrel exploding.

DU dust is toxic, but so is lead and tungsten. M-1 crews handle DU rounds all the time. The danger is from powdered DU that you can ingest or inhale. Also, solid DU doesn't "expand violently with contact to air". DU dust will ignite in air, but it is not anywhere near as pyrophoric as say, white phosphorous. That the dust will burn is a bonus for high velocity AP rounds.

Another feature of DU for AP is that to a certain extent it is "self sharpening", when deformed DU tends to fracture along the axis perpendicular to the deformation rather than mushrooming into a flat point.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 16:23
by elp
What you have to consider now is how much armor is really going to be around for an A-10 to engage?

A typical airwar playbook where we attack first-


*Phase one- Achieve air domination by killing off air threats and large SAMs.

*Phase two ( if there are conventional armies of interest and we are going to send in ground troops ) Thinning of the herd. Where heavy equipment ( vehicles, AAA, arty, AFVs, etc etc ) are plinked, using a variety of PGMs by freight train after freight train of every fixed wing jet we have.... where A-10 isn't even needed. B-1, B-52, F-15, 16, 18, etc ) where trashfire, AAA, small SAMs/MANPADs and medium battlefield SAMs can't reach something dropping LGBs, JDAM, CBU-105 (SFW BLU-108B ) etc. I can touch you, but you can't touch me, and we sit there overhead and club baby seals all day.... take our time and then move on to the next unit. We have already proved this. That you can sit there for a day or so and make an enemy mech/armor division nothing but an unorganized mob. If armor tries to move en masse, it becomes even more of an entertaining target to murder at our leisure ( SFW ). So here the A-10 isn't even needed.

The other part of Phase two is other needed interdiction and strategic bombing.

*Phase three ( CAS ) where..... in the case of response CAS... many times when there is a surprise. The GFAC needs support now. So... A B-1 in the JSTARS stack that is 10 minutes away, beats the poky A-10 that might be 20 minutes away..... Response time. As for the A-10 taking punishment...well, it has no choice. It is slow and wanders around and makes for a tasty target. However if the phase two people did their work, There aren't many super battlefield AFV mounted SAMs, or slick new tech AAA around. So that helps. A-10 is useful when you assign it to a specific operation and it is very very near. We don't need to be sending in large amounts of ground troops until fixed wing air has thinned the herd.
Apache has transformed greatly. In small numbers a nice net-centric night killer linked to JSTARs and UAVs for off sensor situational awareness. Impressive stuff. Forget all the crap of sounding "Boots and Saddles" in broad daylight like the morons did with the charge of the light brigade at Karbala '03, getting a whole Apache unit shot up with trashfire for no gain. For large organized enemy conventional units... thin the herd first.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 17:23
by mark
The A-10 is being configured as we speak to be able to do the PGM mission if its required. I know from talking to grunts on the ground they would MUCH rather have an A-10 doing their CAS than a B-1 (or some other fast mover).

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 18:17
by snypa777
Guysmiley wrote:Couple of things-

Vulcan style cannons like the GAU-8 don't jam on a misfire. Fired (and dud) cases are fed into the back end of the ammo drum. An externally powered Vulcan could care less if the round actually fires or not. Hang-fires however (where the round fires but doesn't have enough power to exit the barrel) would cause all sorts of unpleasantness, such as the next round from that barrel exploding.

DU dust is toxic, but so is lead and tungsten. M-1 crews handle DU rounds all the time. The danger is from powdered DU that you can ingest or inhale. Also, solid DU doesn't "expand violently with contact to air". DU dust will ignite in air, but it is not anywhere near as pyrophoric as say, white phosphorous. That the dust will burn is a bonus for high velocity AP rounds.

Another feature of DU for AP is that to a certain extent it is "self sharpening", when deformed DU tends to fracture along the axis perpendicular to the deformation rather than mushrooming into a flat point.


Hangfire, misfire, well, my concern was for the crew that have the pleasure of sorting that out on the ground! Did I say solid DU ignites with air contact? Sorry, early morning post syndrome! When that high velocity DU penetrator rips through an armoured hull, the SOLID rod will disintegrate into particles, which "explode/ expand, when they come into contact with the interior space/air inside say, a tank.

Uranium, DU dust?? There is no PROVEN safe low level dose for radioactivity, ie, a level at which it will do no damge, so a big no thanks to DU dust for me! Radioactive material is even present on the outside of these rounds before use....in small amounts I have just read.

Anyway, I think the fewer radioactive rounds our armed forces use, the better. I didn`t realise the extent of use of DU. It is used in missile nose cones, all sorts of AP rounds, even radiation shielding...

Back to the topic, from which I digressed! I just think that a fast jet is far more versatile then the A-10, which can only be an attack aircraft. A fast mover can do Strike/CAS/CAP, if needed, be on station quicker, with tanking loiter for just as long, etc...just my two cents.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 19:07
by elp
mark wrote:The A-10 is being configured as we speak to be able to do the PGM mission if its required. I know from talking to grunts on the ground they would MUCH rather have an A-10 doing their CAS than a B-1 (or some other fast mover).


Which is all well and good if it is there. However the A-10 will never win the response time race when someone is calling for unplanned support now. Anything that shows up with PGMs soon is better than something this slow showing up later, when a firefight is already decided. As for PGM ability being equal after the upgrades: Yes and no. In a low threat environ it isn't as important, but where an F-15, F-16, F-18, B-1, B-52 can drop from 35k~40k ft and hit what the GFAC needs yet not be at risk to medium, small SAMs etc .... the A-10 still will not be able to go high enough carrying a warload to get out of the reach of those threats. It depends on many things.

Where I really like the A-10 is if you just absolutely insist on having a combat jet in a bare base in indian country. I am real curious how wise it is to put an expensive JSF-B at a bare base in indian country in the DUST and lose them to a brown out, at landing or take off, or the logic of putting something this pricey in indian country where a barrage of mortars can take out a bunch of them. We shall see. I don't like jump jets ( safety-attrition ) however if we have a gun to our head and have to buy this gold plated pig, maybe the B model is worth the effort. I don't know. I do agree though that we can keep the A-10 around a very long long time, and it doesn't have an equal for it's niche market. I am more excited about A-10 having more sensor and PGM ability on it so that it can operate at night even better. In a PGM A-10 world I am curious what you will put on the center hardpoint. As all the gun debris/smoke will not be so good for a sensor pod, or even the uncapped sensor of an optical style PGM. Maybe some munitions people can clue us in how a PGM A-10 will be suited up.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 20:51
by goatmilk
Referring back to the title: F-35 to replace A-10? Probably so, but I don't think the F-35 will perform the A-10s job as effectively. Let's face it, the A-10 is just in a class of its own and it's hard to compare it to other jets, fast-movers to be more specific. It's just something it wasn't designed to do. Therefore, there's no point in delving into its CAP abilities. It just wasn't made to patrol the skies for enemy fighters and using that as ammo against it is quite irrelevent. It's like putting a paraplegic in a ring with Mike Tyson. You've already set up the fight to win. Instead, the focus should be on what it was designed to do from the getgo. I agree with elp in its abilities to be deployed to rugged bases. The A-10 can withstand punishment from enemy fire as well as its surrounding environment. Not too many fighters can do that. We all know it's slow and hopefully, the plans to upgrade the engines will go through, but besides the 2(?) that were actually shot down in ODS, how many actually fell victim to SAMs/AA? And how many made it back safe after being hit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but even supersonic jets are in danger from SAMs and AA. If you take away forward bases, yes, the A-10 might not be as effective, but there is a reason why wars are strategized. The big boys pick and choose strategical locations to implement and take advantage the capabilities of their assets. The A-10 is an integral part of the Air Force with emphasis on the word "part". It's not the chosen one and it ain't gonna wipe out the whole entire insurgency, but it is an important piece to the big picture, especially in CAS. No, I'm not a diehard A-10 fanatic. Just wondering why it gets alot of flak (no pun intended :) ) when, in my opinion, it's done its job superbly throughout its history. Hopefully, the uprgrades will help with the capabilities it lacked.

I know there's no more threat from a mass tank invasion, but...

...you never know when you'll run into some. These photos were taken late last year by my good friend who is an LT and an M1A1 commander in the Army. He was leading his tank group this day when he spotted the ambush up ahead. The insurgents' tanks were dug in and began to attack. The M1s returned fire, but couldn't get close enough to get a good fix as there were foot soldiers waiting with anti-tank weapons, so they called in air support. The A-10s rolled in and, well, these were the results.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 20:58
by elp
Great photos.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 22:19
by swanee
Goat has pretty much hit the nail on the head. I think that the A-10 will be around for a while, doing what it does, nothing more. F-35 and F-16 are multirole, the can do it all really well, but not as well as the A-10, F-15, F-22, F-117, during each specific job. It is obvious that the airforce is looking at more multirole capability than single role, it saves money.

My dad on the A-16 program at the 174th. "I can get there fast (compared to the A-10) and I can drop some bombs, but I only get a couple passes and I can't hang around, and I'm not as accurate when I am going faster."

The global security website has a good summary of the engine upgrade requirements for the A-10. They basically want to be able to fly higher and faster with more payload. It's a 700 million dollar program, which will get about 3 gold plated raptors now, but it will keep the entire stainless steel hog fleet going for years to come. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

Here is another good site about it to (PDF)
http://www.ngb.army.mil/ll/analysisdocs ... engine.pdf

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 22:59
by snypa777
swanee I had to laugh at the title in your jpegs - Displaced tanks- :lol:
They got beat up pretty bad. The A-10 is a CAS expert, one day we will have to do without it though. Will we see a replacement for the Hog? Ie, a similar aircraft. I doubt it. I have nothing against the Hog, honest.

You got it right by mentioning multi-role is the way it is going. Better weapons and tactics in the future may make fast movers "better" CAS prospects.
As an asset, the F-35 will be more valuable because of it's possible multiple roles.

I don't really hold with the premise that a mud mover can't be used as a fighter, witness the Harrier, a mud mover that performed miracles as a fighter. The Sea Harrier, with the addition of a superb radar (Blue Vixen) and AMRAAM, is a capable air to air machine. Why can`t the same be done with F-35?

Even the Tornado eventually became an excellent interceptor in the twilight of it`s career with ASRAAM/AMRAAM combo datalink, etc.. Most of it's life it sucked in the fighter role. See, you CAN polish a turd!

An F-35 with Meteor/ 9x/ASRAAM combo coupled with AESA and state of the art avionics tools could be player. Not F-22 class but for some nations it could do a job.... 8)

A-10's/future/firepower/tanks

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2006, 23:22
by jr1947
elp, you hit that nail on the head with the Apache's, especially when it came to the gulf war. I worked on the T-700's and recall the playbacks on t.v. when the Apache squadrons were sitting there very low which was very easy because of the sand/air seperators built onto the jets, basiclly they can eat alot of sand without downing the chopper, anyway, back to them sitting there. when they got the word that eary morning within minutes Sadam's communication sytem was more or less non existant alot due to the roll the Apache's played, among others.

snypa777 - thanks for the info. on the munitions. Iknew the nose gun in the A-10's was extremely devastating but I never understood how it could practially melt the tanks. Now that you explained I can see why there's so much heat and it's effect.

swanee - the A-10's future I agree with you 100%. It may be reconfigured with different engines and obviously airframe transformations but over all that aircraft, I beleive will go down in history to be one of the best investments of all. I know the ground forces like to see them coming, especially when there's tanks around. Later people, chow time at my house. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2006, 14:45
by Arctus
Granted, the old fighter axiom "Speed is Life" leaves the A-10 wanting but have any of you guys ever been on the ground where A-10's are working? They're silent until they pop up over your ridge and you're had. The A-10 outperforms the viper and every other fast mover in the CAS role because its slow and because its the pilot and his Mk1 Mod0 eyeballs are visual with the guys they are supporting. And yes, the moment for which the Hog was built, Fulda Gap, has been reduced to an academic coulda-been but does not render the A-10 irrelevant. As long as war involves men on the ground there will always be a need for a rugged CAS platform that can loiter over the battlespace.

Lastly, if not the A-10 then who's going to escort the PJ's into a combat rescue. You guys have heard of the Sandy role haven't you. That mission alone is reason to keep the A-10 in service. A ground hugging Pave Hawk ingressing to your location, nestled snugly between two daisy-chaining Hogs is a thing to behold.

A-10

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2006, 07:19
by jr1947
For the overall picture of this aircraft just take a look at some of the pictures other nice folks have sent in and posted regarding this bird. It's true it's ugly, it's slow, it's like flying a buldozer with wings, but it's return rate after any sorties has an I beleive allways will be excellent. If anything I see down the road is more robotics along with much more advanced avenoics

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2006, 23:18
by Shonuff
When will the A-10C be ready to go?

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2006, 02:56
by jr1947
sorry Shonuff, I have no knowledge of this particular airframe. Maybe someone will post an be able to acknowledge your question. best regards jr1947

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2006, 03:31
by Shonuff
thanks anyway

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2006, 04:12
by apags27
Shonuff, I do not think there is a public timeline available. Someone please correct me if I am wrong!

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2006, 05:59
by swanee
Units are upgrading now.

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2006, 06:04
by mark
The PE (precision engagement) mod has started at Hill. Its quite a deal, and gives the aircraft some badly needed capabilities.

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 00:09
by jr1947
hello mark, jr1947 here question, is the A-10 going to try to incoperate the F-35 version as far as the engine transformation? reason I ask is I know alittle about the two engine versions, G.E. & Pratt an I can't possible imagine either engine fitting into the existing airframe. this whole A-10 being part of the JSF program doesn't somehow to fit the package. I allways thought the A-10 was strictly for close ground support. if you would please clearify, maybe i'm missing something here or got my information wrong. best regards,jr1947

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 02:21
by mark
JR...the A-10 is getting a modification to its avionics. Its not part of the JSF program. The F-35 will eventually replace the A-10, F-16, F-18 and the Harrier. The word is that the A-10 will be around in one form or another until 2028 (subject to change at any moment). The cockpit is getting a complete makeover, to include the aility to use litening2 and/or sniper pods. It is NOT getting new engines. If it ever happens the current engines could end up with new compressor cores and not much more.

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 04:20
by Arctus
The 355th at Eielson is already spun-up on lightening pods. They upgraded in winter 04-05

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 04:27
by mark
PE is much more than just a mod to litening pods. They are changing the configuration of the cockpit to include 2 color multi function displays, data link etc. Some of the units did what was known as a T-2 mod to allow their aircraft to fly with targeting pods. It was a bit of a stop gap thing to prove that it could be done. The jets coming out of depot after this mod get the designation "A-10C".

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 04:29
by swanee
mark wrote: It is NOT getting new engines. If it ever happens the current engines could end up with new compressor cores and not much more.


At least right now it isn't. The project has existed for years now, but it always gets cut due to budget. (when my old man started flying them in '79 there was talk about engine upgrades!) They want 750 mil for the entire A-10 fleet. Perhaps the avionics upgrades will show the need for better engines... Sure you can have the ability to drop PGMs, but you still can't fly above ~40K, and they don't like hot weather...

no relacement for A-10

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 11:06
by jr1947
I realize that the JSF program is futureistic an that it is going to be relacing alot of older aircraft but the thought of anything other than the A-10 for close ground support isn't anything i can imagine. granted it is an old work horse but it does what it does. the thing that impressed me the most is the hits the plane can take an the pilot, nothing taken away from them, can still get the bird home. the gattling gun speaks for itself. gotta run, later folks, best regards, jr1947 :)

RE: no relacement for A-10

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 11:17
by jr1947
hello mark, thanks for the information on the A-10. I was really confused about the whole matter. when I first had heard they were talking F-35's I thought that's going to be like fitting a square peg in a round hole. the whole airframe is going to be reconfigured. then I thought how is this plane going to be able to keep its current capabilities of close ground support with all this added thrust as far as manuverability. to keep it's current 34 engines and just change the compressor/core section makes since now. again best regars, jr

RE: no relacement for A-10

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2006, 15:08
by Guysmiley

RE: no relacement for A-10

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2006, 00:37
by jr1947
guysmiley, jr here. I'm very fimilular with the two different airframes as far as to look upon. It's the concept of one being a fighter and one being a close ground support aircraft an how they are considering combining the two that has had me confused. The F-35 is a high flight fighter and the A-10 is low ground slow flying combat support aircraft. I doubt they would risk any F-35's at their cost with hanging around the arena very long unlike the A-10's which can take alot of hits. Other than cockpit avanoics change and upgrading the Tf-34 engines I now see what Marks posts of May 22nd. are in regards to the A-10 future. Thanks for the pictures, regards jr1947

RE: no relacement for A-10

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2006, 01:17
by Guysmiley
Ahh, it sounded like you were talking about TF-34s in the F-35!

what a thought

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2006, 11:15
by jr1947
hi guy, j.r. here wouldn't that be a waste of technoligy. kinda like putting a prop job on a u-2. I pretty much got the idea now of what's being talked about with the o'l wart hog. we use to watch video archives of the plane during testing, in her hayday she was very impressive, especially with that nose gun. i don't recall off hand who told me but it was said that the shells had radioactive heads for heat penatration. i don't know anything about armament but it did seem as though when they hit a tank it was like a knife going through butter. that o'l dog came alive again during the gulf war if you recall. i'm sure the troops liked having that bird hanging around. well, gotta run. catch you later. best regards allways, jr1947 :)

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 04:29
by CAG
The GAU-8A Cannon fires a 30mm depleted uranium round, for the penetration capabilities. This is because of the higher density of the material as compared to any other penetrator, not because it is radioactive, which it isn't, thus the name depleted...

I would like to point out a few things to those here critical of the A-10...

If the A-10 was so ineffective, then why was the Army still trying to get control of them for their own use?

If A-10s were so vulnerable then why were more Harriers lost on the same type of CAS missions as those flown by the A-10s?

If F-16s speed to get to target was the most important, they why was the A-10s extensive loiter time capabilities more important to the men on the ground in Iraq?

Will the F-35 really replace the A-10? In capabilities, I doubt it. In effectiveness, unknown, it will all depend on what weapons it deploys and how effective they will be in the future environment.

An F-35 certainly couldn't survive the same mission profile the Hog flies, but with different weapons it shouldn't have to.

And to use it in the same manner would make no sense and strip it of its main advantage, its stealth...

hog's cannon

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 15:58
by jr1947
Hello cag, jr here, thanks for the info. on the nose gattling gun of the a-10's. i was all ways curious how there could be so much penetration. i had heard exactly what you had stated but wasn't sure if i had it confused with another plane, but you've cleared that up for me for once an for all. i go along with you as far as the future of this plane. for what ever reason/reasons i don't beleive we have seen the last of this o'l bird. :thanks:

RE: hog

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2006, 19:41
by RonO
Let me try:

Bad rumour. Army does not want A-10's, they don't have the money to pay for them.

Harriers need replacing too.

A-10's can't loiter over every possible target. So if you were unlucky, do you want to wait for an A-10 to arrive or an F-16?

A-10's will not be able to survive in high threat neighborhoods so if you don't replace it with something else your grunts will have no air cover. If environment is a lot more benign, the A-10 will continue to shine. All comes down to: do you want to equip for worse case or not?

I've spent many, many hours watching A-10's. They can fly in ways that no F-35 will be able to emulate. but as you said, they won't need to.

cheers

time will tell

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 02:46
by jr1947
hello ronO, jr here, I agree with you, the a-10's are up for the bone yard unless they can become cost effective. maybe that's what this updating is all about. Time will tell right. :2c:

RE: time will tell

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 18:48
by RonO
You got that right. Be nice to have both but I don't think there's enough money. Forced to choose I'd go with the one that can do more different things - F-35.

the all mighty dollar

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 10:48
by jr1947
I'm sitting here thinking of all are posts on this particular subjects, and there have been some very excellent ones, and we all know in the end it's going to be not how the money is spent but rather who is going to gain the most from the project. Hopefully just hopefully it will be us tax payers that make out for a change, an our military leaders think maybe just maybe these people know something other than how to put that pump nozzles into their cars :shrug:

RE: the all mighty dollar

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 21:09
by RonO
I think you are being over cynical. Choices are made on what's best for our military. Most of the time.

military spending

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 11:12
by jr1947
Hello ronO, I do sometimes become overwhelmed when I see some of the buracracey that goes along with the spending of our tax $'s, an it's not just one sided as to republicans or democrates. It just bothers me to read or listen to sub commitiee hearings. I begin to think that our officials think that we can't actually read between the lines. They attend college and become lawyers an learn all the $100 words but in the end it appears to boil down to, "WHO'S POCKET IS BECOME FATTER", not what's best for our military. Please forgive my skepitacal attitude. I love this country an wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I'd just like to beleive that there isn't as much wheeling and dealing going on behind the sceenes when it comes to how the $'s are spent. I guess we just have to put our faith an tust in there hands weather we voted for them or not, an that's when I get upset.
back to the A-10/F-35 issue, I hope one way or the other that o'l bird raises up from the ashes an screams " I'M STILL HERE", I allways liked that plane, especially that gattling gun in it's nose. best regards, jr1947 :? :)

RE: military spending

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 18:41
by RonO
Suggest some time with military folks chatting about their kit. After you get thru the banter you'll find they think highly of a great deal of it.

Re: RE: the all mighty dollar

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2006, 19:48
by swanee
RonO wrote:I think you are being over cynical. Choices are made on what's best for our military. Most of the time.


Like you said, "Most of the time"

*cough* *cough* bradley fighting vehicle *cough* *cough*


:roll:

RE: Re: RE: the all mighty dollar

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2006, 05:58
by RonO
I could give you 20 more examples of bad buys but they'd still be outnumbered 10 to 1 by world leading kit.

a-10 & future

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2006, 11:17
by jr1947
hello swanee, jr here, i know i get somewhat skeptical at times, especially when it comes out that some government program just spent some rediciously large amount of $'s on whatever just to end up canning the project for whatever reasons. i know we need development programs on the books other wise we wouln't eventually see planes like the u-2 - stealth - b1 an so forth. now we are going into the future with this jsf prgram an who knows where that's going to take us. well gotta run, time for work.
GOD BLESS U.S.A.
i don't agree with all that goes on here but here is my home, an i love it! :beer:

RE: a-10 & future

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2006, 11:21
by jr1947
RonO, jr here, i agree with you 100% if we didn't make any errors than we would become stale. we have had some pretty exciting things come out of those hush hush places. best regards, jr1947

Re: a-10 & future

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2006, 01:05
by swanee
jr1947 wrote:hello swanee, jr here, i know i get somewhat skeptical at times, especially when it comes out that some government program just spent some rediciously large amount of $'s on whatever just to end up canning the project for whatever reasons. i know we need development programs on the books other wise we wouln't eventually see planes like the u-2 - stealth - b1 an so forth. now we are going into the future with this jsf prgram an who knows where that's going to take us. well gotta run, time for work.
GOD BLESS U.S.A.
i don't agree with all that goes on here but here is my home, an i love it! :beer:


I agree totally. The BFV comment was intended to produce some laughs; after all, it was an Air Force O-5 who got the truth about it out.

Every airplane is built for a purpose, and a lot of those that never go into production have done remarkably just for being living proof that they can fly.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2006, 13:04
by DMWFFT
Its just that I am running out of air sick bags after reading stuff again and again about when CAS is mentioned the A-10 is mentioned as the tool. ( including the sound of trumpets and choir in the distance ).


Elp, you and I should go in together on a bulk order of airsick bags. Then I can use my half of the supply for every time I hear about how the F-16 can do every mission and can do it better than anyone.

Sorry Jack, but when the heavens part and Hogs comes down for CAS there is no trumpet and choir. This is all you hear…

http://www.a-10.org/video/_oif_hog_over_baghdad.avi

Nice article about ‘CAS 101’ “one ridgeline over”, sounds like interdiction to me. (Not that I’m taking anything away from the JTAC or B-52, great work, but CAS 101 it ain’t.)

Here is a story I was fortunate enough to be involved with.

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section= ... chive=true

The thank you email I got from 1Lt Boada, a few weeks after the sortie, never hinted at how scared he was that A-10s were filling his request. I guess he was just thankful that someone could get there, since the weather was too bad for helos and the enemy too close for bombs. Though, I’m sure the sound of fast movers circling overhead above the clouds and out of the fight would have been reassuring too.

Sad truth about real CAS is that if you do it long enough something bad is going to happen. But there is a big difference between hitting friendlies that the JTAC told you were enemy and hitting the wrong target entirely. The previously mentioned A-10 incidents involved guys on the ground, in the heat of the battle, getting confused and calling air in on friendly troops. In Desert Storm 70 percent of the Army vehicles hit were hit by Army fire. Since these same guys on the ground are the ones calling in the targets you can understand why CAS players are going to hit the wrong guys. That being said the pilots don’t always have to shoot when the JTAC tells them to. It is up to the pilots to use their SA to determine if each target can be safely hit. By not just blindly dropping a JDAM on whatever coordinates the JTAC sent me I prevented two frats. First on two Marines who had been declared hostile by their company commander and then on a village the JTAC didn’t even know was at the coordinates he passed me.

I wouldn’t throw around anecdotal evidence to support the slanderous statement that the A-10 community has a ‘bad history of frat’ and ‘didn’t learn the lessons from Desert Storm’. No community in the military is in the clear regarding frat. So if you have never been asked to pull the trigger, those of us who have will take none of your sh*t on the subject.

If you want a great read about JDAM, the wonder CAS weapon, look at ‘B-52 CAS’ in Combat Edge, July 06 (It’s the ACC safety rag.)

Lastly, regarding air to air, scoreboard…

http://www.rjlee.org/aakill.html

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 06:03
by beepa
Will post this here but probably should be in the "Basement dweller" thread.

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapo ... Zk.twitter

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 06:11
by spazsinbad
:devil: Is this the A-TEN ZOMBIE THREAD APOCALYPSE? Long Running A-10 Thread here: :doh:

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

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=395523#p395523

Thanks 'beepa' for putting your link t/here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=397723&hilit=basement#p397723

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 09:43
by Corsair1963
Honestly, I will be glad when this debate finally ends.... :shock:



Nonetheless, the F-35 was never designed as a direct replacement for the A-10! When the Warthog finally retires the USAF will use whatever is available. (F-15E's, F-16C's, F-35A's, AC-130's, B-1's, B-2's, B-52's, Drones, etc. etc. etc.)



This is "NOTHING" new at all.......Which, is why this whole A-10 vs F-35 debate is one big WASTE OF TIME. :bang:

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 11:17
by weasel1962
Its nice to know the F35 program doesn't know what they are talking about.

https://www.f35.com/about

Three variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least ten other countries.


http://www.jsf.mil/program/index.htm

•The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:

•U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 12:44
by shania
weasel1962 wrote:Its nice to know the F35 program doesn't know what they are talking about.

https://www.f35.com/about

Three variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least ten other countries.


http://www.jsf.mil/program/index.htm

•The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:

•U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22


He said direct replacement.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 18:20
by alloycowboy
Essentially the A-10 is going to get replaced by long range rocket artillery.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21 ... n-its-tail

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 19:34
by wrightwing
OA-X, rotary wing assets, various rocket artillery, for low end fight, and F-35 (F-15E, F-16, F-18, B-1, B-52, MQ-9, AC-130, etc...), for every other spectrum of warfare.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 01:45
by weasel1962
In desert storm, A-10s operated below 12k ft, some as low as 4-7k ft. 20 got hit out of the 65 aircraft casualties. After mostly low level hit, the coalition put a pause on low level ops and moved CAS to medium level altitudes. That was 1991. Post 1991, the development of 40k pods means medium altitude visual is much better than 1991. Since 1991, has low level AAA/SAM improved? Knowing all that, would the USAF then design a CAS aircraft to go low?

The F-35 is the direct replacement for the A-10. It was designed specifically to avoid the weakness of the A-10 in the CAS role. A squadron of A-10s was supposed to be replaced by a squadron of F-35s. That's as direct as one can get. That was also the plan from day 1 until Ayotte.

The A-10 is the best at what it does, no doubt. Those that argued for A-10's retention came with good intentions. The A-10 is like the 16inch guns of the battleship. No gun today is as good as the 16 inch, nor can any warship today (excepting the CV) has the same amount of armor protection nor can do the kind of shore bombardment that the battleship used to do. Does that mean the battleship should never have been retired or that the current warships aren't direct replacements?

Some people have been lulled by the fact that since 1991, the USAF hasn't been called to fight in any air ops contested environment. It doesn't mean that post 1991, that no other country has invested in IADS or air defence. All potential aggressors have, even North Korea. Forcing the USAF to keep the A-10 is just asking 20% of the force not to join a contested fight until the fight is almost over. Having said that, if there is any country that is rich enough to say that, it would be the US of A.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 01:50
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:In desert storm, A-10s operated below 12k ft, some as low as 4-7k ft. 20 got hit out of the 65 aircraft casualties. After mostly low level hit, the coalition put a pause on low level ops and moved CAS to medium level altitudes. That was 1991. Post 1991, the development of 40k pods means medium altitude visual is much better than 1991. Since 1991, has low level AAA/SAM improved? Knowing all that, would the USAF then design a CAS aircraft to go low?

The F-35 is the direct replacement for the A-10. It was designed specifically to avoid the weakness of the A-10 in the CAS role. A squadron of A-10s was supposed to be replaced by a squadron of F-35s. That's as direct as one can get. That was also the plan from day 1 until Ayotte.

The A-10 is the best at what it does, no doubt. Those that argued for A-10's retention came with good intentions. The A-10 is like the 16inch guns of the battleship. No gun today is as good as the 16 inch, nor can any warship today (excepting the CV) has the same amount of armor protection nor can do the kind of shore bombardment that the battleship used to do. Does that mean the battleship should never have been retired or that the current warships aren't direct replacements?

Some people have been lulled by the fact that since 1991, the USAF hasn't been called to fight in any air ops contested environment. It doesn't mean that post 1991, that no other country has invested in IADS or air defence. All potential aggressors have, even North Korea. Forcing the USAF to keep the A-10 is just asking 20% of the force not to join a contested fight until the fight is almost over. Having said that, if there is any country that is rich enough to say that, it would be the US of A.



The F-35 was never designed as a "direct" replacement for the A-10. It will just like many other platforms
perform a number of A-10 roles when it retires.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 01:54
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote::devil: Is this the A-TEN ZOMBIE THREAD APOCALYPSE? Long Running A-10 Thread here: :doh:

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

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=395523#p395523

Thanks 'beepa' for putting your link t/here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=397723&hilit=basement#p397723



As usual you're showing the rest of us. Who is the smartest of the bunch.... :wink:

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 02:36
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 was never designed as a "direct" replacement for the A-10. It will just like many other platforms perform a number of A-10 roles when it retires.


What role does the A-10 do that the F-35 can't? CAS, check. CSAR, check, FAC, check....hmmm but that's not direct enough.

The only role that the F-35 can do but doesn't want to do that the A-10 excels in (and is designed for) but strangely what some people want to see is the F-35 going low level at minimal speed popping up above the treeline and popping loads of gun lead/uranium into targets.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 03:39
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 was never designed as a "direct" replacement for the A-10. It will just like many other platforms perform a number of A-10 roles when it retires.


What role does the A-10 do that the F-35 can't? CAS, check. CSAR, check, FAC, check....hmmm but that's not direct enough.

The only role that the F-35 can do but doesn't want to do that the A-10 excels in (and is designed for) but strangely what some people want to see is the F-35 going low level at minimal speed popping up above the treeline and popping loads of gun lead/uranium into targets.



Your splitting hairs.....The A-10 will retire and the F-35 along with a very long list of other platforms will take over the role. In addition the F-35 "was" designed as a Multirole Strike Fighter from the start. So, hardly surprising that is can perform most A-10 Missions.


BTW The F-35A will replace a number of F-15C units in the coming decades. So, is it also a "direct" replacement for the "Air Superiority Eagle"???

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 04:11
by popcorn

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 04:18
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:POGO isn't happy..LOL :D
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... go-report/




Laughable........ :lmao:

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 04:37
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Your splitting hairs.....The A-10 will retire and the F-35 along with a very long list of other platforms will take over the role. In addition the F-35 "was" designed as a Multirole Strike Fighter from the start. So, hardly surprising that is can perform most A-10 Missions.

BTW The F-35A will replace a number of F-15C units in the coming decades. So, is it also a "direct" replacement for the "Air Superiority Eagle"???


The USAF position, not mine, is that the F-35A will replace the A-10 and F-16 from the start. Just because the F-35 is multi-role doesn't mean its not replacing the A-10 in the CAS role. It will regardless of whatever some people say in the A-10 squadrons that get replaced by the F-35As.

Since it has not announced any F-15C unit replacement with the F-35, this is merely an assumption or educated guess at this moment. It would be a good educated guess since no other fighter will be or planned to be built until 2035 at least. But the F-15C was not what the F-35A was designed to replace in the USAF on day 1.

If Congress and USAF chooses to replace any A-10 squadrons with something else, sure then the F-35 is not the direct replacement. Until that happens, then sure, claim all you want that the F-35 is not the direct replacement. Last I heard, even the LAS got canned.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 05:34
by Corsair1963
Still splitting hairs in my opinion.......



Nonetheless, we will just have to agree to disagree!



Respectfully 8)

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 06:33
by weasel1962
You got me wrong. I'm not here to agree anything with you. I'm just stating facts whilst you make claims.

Whether you agree or not, your claims are generally not factual. Examples have included: J-20 is an export fighter, F-35 flies further than an F-15 with CFTs, Japan is not developing a stealth fighter, F-35 is not directly replacing the A-10, USAF will retire the F-15C over the next several years etc.... are just some of the more recent ones.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 08:42
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:You got me wrong. I'm not here to agree anything with you. I'm just stating facts whilst you make claims.

Whether you agree or not, your claims are generally not factual. Examples have included: J-20 is an export fighter, F-35 flies further than an F-15 with CFTs, Japan is not developing a stealth fighter, F-35 is not directly replacing the A-10, USAF will retire the F-15C over the next several years etc.... are just some of the more recent ones.



1.) I just stated the J-20 and J-31 could be exported. So, considering both are early in development. Who knows if one or both will. Personally, I consider the odds to be high for the J-31 and low for the J-20. Yet, I was just making a point for sake of argument.

2.) I did express an opinion that the F-35A/C likely had better range than that the F-15E with similar payload. Which, I standby. This is easily supported from numerous sources. As F-15E easily grosses out with max fuel and anything much over 10,000 lbs of payload. This example is at gross........The F-35A/C could carry "6" - 2,000 lbs class weapons with less drag and well under gross.

F15ELD.jpg


3.) Japan isn't developing the "F-3" as originally envisioned. Yet, "may" co-develop a future 6th Generation Fighter with a partner or partners.

4.) The F-35 was not a "direct" replacement for the A-10. Which, is a dedicated CAS Attack Aircraft. Which, was designed to fly low and slow over the battlefield. (think tank with wings)

5.) The F-15C is on the chopping block and the USAF has made that very clear. Only thing that could save it. Is if the Congress overrules them. (doubtful in my opinion)

Honestly, I hardly care if you believe me or not. Yet, with a little time the "facts" as you call them will come out and trust me. I'll be right there to point them out..........


Again Respectfully 8)

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 10:24
by weasel1962
The J-20 could be exported as much as the F-22 could be. Sure it might happen in the corsair world. I didn't even bother to read the rest of the tripe.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2018, 05:52
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:You got me wrong. I'm not here to agree anything with you. I'm just stating facts whilst you make claims.

Whether you agree or not, your claims are generally not factual. Examples have included: J-20 is an export fighter, F-35 flies further than an F-15 with CFTs, Japan is not developing a stealth fighter, F-35 is not directly replacing the A-10, USAF will retire the F-15C over the next several years etc.... are just some of the more recent ones.





operaaperta

Newbie

Newbie

Posts: 16
Joined: 12 Jan 2017 08:42






Unread post28 Aug 2018 00:39

A couple of interesting quotes from Lt Col Christine Mau who has over 2000hrs in F15E and was first female F35A Pilot. Both quotes from presentation to Smithsonian.

At 1.04.33 when quizzed about CAS role and comparison to A10:


...as far as endurance goes...we’ve got a lot of gas, in fact the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E, based on my experience. Internally we carry 18,000lbs of gas on the A model, and we’ve got one engine, it’s pretty impressive.
At 57.40 when asked about M1.6 top speed of F35 compared to faster fighters:


...[in my whole flying career] let me just tell you this, I’ve never flown faster than M1.5, and the Strike Eagle can go faster than M2, so I just don’t know if there is a whole...I know there’s tactical implications for that, but it’s not something we’re typically relying on, on a daily basis.


Source- [YouTube]https://youtu.be/BmPAUdVNmXE[/YouTube]


viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53048&p=400721#p400721


NOTE: I never claimed the J-20 was an "Export Fighter". Nor, can you and anyone else provide a source to the contrary.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2018, 16:06
by weasel1962
Ayotte's out, McCain's gone. Now McSally's lost the Arizona bid. Is there anyone left in the senate that would champion the A-10? If no, I'd think the A-10 retirement will accelerate.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2018, 04:49
by weasel1962
Nice article on the Senate/A-10 support on defensenews.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ly-matter/

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 21:01
by charlielima223
Resurrecting a dead thread...
Image

The main thing that drew me here was the A-10 F-35 "controversy". At that time I was completely against the F-35 replacing the A-10. Then one day doing some online "research" I stumbled into this place. Peoples comments were more than just "big 30mm gun hurr durr durr" and "A-10 is built like tank durr hurr hurr". The statements and points of the members were laid out in a logical fashion pointing to strategy, tactics, mission requirements etc. I slowly started to come around to the F-35 before makin a near 180.

That said this is a good article over at BD... they still put out some good stuff now and again.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/a-s ... the-a-10s/
Because of this disparity, the Air Force is continuously forced to trade existing force structure to pay for modern weapons. It does not matter that the Air Force fields the oldest and smallest aircraft force in its history, or that nearly every mission area is coded “high demand, low density.” The Air Force leaders who sought to retire the A-10 in 2014 did not actually want to cut the aircraft, but they had no other choice due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. While that era has passed, the same dynamics are still at play— a service that is under-resourced, overtasked, compelled to retire aircraft to free up resources to modernize the remaining inventory of mostly geriatric aircraft.

With that background, it is important to understand the Air Force’s plan to cover the panoply of mission requirements that it faces. Defense leaders today are anticipating a broad array of future threats ranging from non-state actors like the Islamic State and Boko Haram on the low end, North Korea and Iran in the middle, and China and Russia as peer adversaries on the top of the spectrum. The overlapping concurrency of these challenges makes for a difficult balancing act given the chronic underfunding of the Air Force and the fact that dealing with each threat demands a different set of tools. 

This is precisely why the Air Force wants to retain the bulk of the A-10 inventory. They are planning on doing it in a smart way to achieve two primary goals. First, to assure sufficient capacity to ensure that when  combatant commanders need the aircraft the Air Force has enough aircraft so that one squadron can be continuously deployed for combat operations. Second, to assure sufficient capability, leaders are investing in re-winging all the remaining A-10 airframes, funding avionics improvements, and other critical upgrades. Taking these steps will ensure the A-10 can continue to fly and fight into the 2030s. The reason for this is simple: when it comes to effectively and efficiently dealing with certain missions in the low- to medium-threat environment, few aircraft can net better results than the A-10. These aircraft are incredibly precise, efficient to operate, can haul a tremendous load of munitions, and their ability to integrate with other aircraft as well as ground forces is legendary. 

However, when defense leaders consider operations at the higher end of the threat spectrum, the reality is that A-10 cannot survive. In such environments, commanders select appropriate capabilities rather than risking airmen or mission success. Close air support is a mission—not an aircraft—and it can be executed by many aircraft other than the A-10, particularly in higher threat scenarios. This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft. Commanders prudently decided to harness F-22s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, F-16s, and others to secure desired objectives because these aircraft could better defend themselves against those threats. 

Such sophisticated defenses require continued investment in aircraft like the F-35 and B-21. These are the sorts of aircraft—empowered with fifth generation attributes like stealth, advanced sensors, and computing power—that will be far better equipped to handle mission demands against potential adversaries equipped with the most advanced weapons coming out of China or Russia. 

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 21:21
by spazsinbad
This is the last post on a comatose A-10 replaced by F-35 thread: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=437296#p437296

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 22:02
by aussiebloke
charlielima223 wrote:Resurrecting a dead thread...

this is a good article over at BD... they still put out some good stuff now and again.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/a-s ... the-a-10s/
This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft. Commanders prudently decided to harness F-22s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, F-16s, and others to secure desired objectives because these aircraft could better defend themselves against those threats. 


David Deptula hasn’t been paying attention:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... syria.html
using only 12 A-10 aircraft throughout the deployment, "the 74 EFS struck 44 percent of all targets in OIR, which resulted in the liberation of Raqqa, the decimation of ISIS war-making revenue streams, and the elimination of ISIS from 99 percent of Iraq and Syria."

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 22:14
by spazsinbad
A Smart Approach To Retaining Most Of The A-10s
04 May 2020 David Deptula

"The Air Force leaders who sought to retire the A-10 in 2014 did not want to cut the aircraft, but they had no other choice due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. While that era has passed, the same dynamics are still at play— a service that is under-resourced, overtasked, compelled to retire aircraft to free up resources to modernize the remaining inventory of mostly geriatric aircraft.

Some were surprised to see the Air Force again trying in the latest budget request to retire 44 A-10s from, bringing the total force of 281 Warthogs down to 237.

Any discussion regarding the status of the A-10—or any other capability in the Air Force’s inventory—needs to start with the fact that the Air Force is seriously underfunded. Between 1989 and 2001, the Air Force absorbed the largest cuts of all the services as a percentage of the overall defense budget. Between 2008 and 2011, the Air Force received its lowest share of the defense budget going all the way back to the Eisenhower Administration. On top of those slim budgets, the service does not even receive all that is allocated to it in its total budget. Roughly 20 percent is removed from its control as a budget pass-through to the Intelligence Community. In 2020, that equaled $39 billion—enough to buy 400 F-35As....

...This is precisely why the Air Force wants to retain the bulk of the A-10 inventory. They are planning on doing it in a smart way to achieve two primary goals. First, to assure sufficient capacity to ensure that when combatant commanders need the aircraft the Air Force has enough aircraft so that one squadron can be continuously deployed for combat operations. Second, to assure sufficient capability, leaders are investing in re-winging all the remaining A-10 airframes, funding avionics improvements, and other critical upgrades. Taking these steps will ensure the A-10 can continue to fly and fight into the 2030s. The reason for this is simple: when it comes to effectively and efficiently dealing with certain missions in the low- to medium-threat environment, few aircraft can net better results than the A-10. These aircraft are incredibly precise, efficient to operate, can haul a tremendous load of munitions, and their ability to integrate with other aircraft as well as ground forces is legendary.

However, when defense leaders consider operations at the higher end of the threat spectrum, the reality is that A-10 cannot survive. In such environments, commanders select appropriate capabilities rather than risking airmen or mission success. Close air support is a mission—not an aircraft—and it can be executed by many aircraft other than the A-10, particularly in higher threat scenarios. This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft. Commanders prudently decided to harness F-22s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, F-16s, and others to secure desired objectives because these aircraft could better defend themselves against those threats....

...Preparing for the future demands adjusting the Air Force’s existing aircraft inventory in response to budget realities. Dialing up investment in fifth-generation aircraft is an essential requirement, especially given that too few B-2s and F-22s were procured in the past. The types of combat scenarios that defined the post-9/11 world occurred in permissive airspace at the low end of the threat spectrum. America’s interests demand a much more far reaching set of options able to operate and survive in high threat environments. That is why investments in A-10 modernization and newer designs like the F-35, B-21, and next generation air dominance aircraft are so important.

However, capacity still matters. The Air Force needs to be properly resourced so it does not have to gut the very numbers that will prove essential in future engagements. No matter the theater in which a fight may erupt, the type of combat action, or the scale of the operation, the need for numbers of airframes is a constant—the same cannot be said for surface forces. It is well past time for leaders in the Department of Defense, the White House and on Capitol Hill to start properly scaling Air Force resources to align for the actual mission demand required by our National Defense Strategy."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/a-s ... the-a-10s/

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2020, 01:08
by Corsair1963
Honestly, the solution is really right in front of us. I would "give" the A-10's to poorer NATO Members. Like say Bulgaria and/or Romania. (for example) Which, really want to upgrade their militaries. Yet, have limited resources to buy equipment. Especially, new advanced systems.


That said, while the aircraft themselves would be "free". Yet, they would still have to pay to support the aircraft. (Maintenance, Training, Infrastructure, etc.)


This in my opinion is a win-win. As it would strengthen the poorer Eastern European NATO Members. Without losing the A-10's....Which, would be available to the Western Alliance during any major Crisis or Conflict.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2020, 19:52
by lamoey
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, the solution is really right in front of us. I would "give" the A-10's to poorer NATO Members. Like say Bulgaria and/or Romania. (for example) Which, really want to upgrade their militaries. Yet, have limited resources to buy equipment. Especially, new advanced systems.


That said, while the aircraft themselves would be "free". Yet, they would still have to pay to support the aircraft. (Maintenance, Training, Infrastructure, etc.)


This in my opinion is a win-win. As it would strengthen the poorer Eastern European NATO Members. Without losing the A-10's....Which, would be available to the Western Alliance during any major Crisis or Conflict.


Keep in mind that smaller air forces can't afford one trick ponies, since the total number of aircraft will be so low. Only multi role aircraft makes sense, where Norway is a good example, replacing an older, very decent multirole aircraft, the F-16, with the latest multirole aircraft, the F-35.

Hardwired ground attack aircraft may be useful for countries where domestic terrorist groups is a bigger threat than some global (wanabee) super power next door.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2020, 20:45
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, the solution is really right in front of us. I would "give" the A-10's to poorer NATO Members. Like say Bulgaria and/or Romania. (for example) Which, really want to upgrade their militaries. Yet, have limited resources to buy equipment. Especially, new advanced systems.


That said, while the aircraft themselves would be "free". Yet, they would still have to pay to support the aircraft. (Maintenance, Training, Infrastructure, etc.)


This in my opinion is a win-win. As it would strengthen the poorer Eastern European NATO Members. Without losing the A-10's....Which, would be available to the Western Alliance during any major Crisis or Conflict.


FTFA:

This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2020, 23:55
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
FTFA:

This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft


NATO perform many missions that aren't against a near peer threat like Russia. With Afghanistan and Iraq being good examples. In addition the A-10's could operate as a stand off platform. If, forced to do so....

In short there is a place for the A-10 still....

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2020, 03:51
by lbk000
There can be a place for anything if you so choose, even for a kite like the Fairey Swordfish. Perhaps we should still be maintaining some old kites in the chance we get that one perfect white whale encounter again too?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2020, 05:01
by bring_it_on
Corsair1963 wrote:
In short there is a place for the A-10 still....


Sure there is. When funding is ample and the AF is well resources no one is going to question the need to keep it for the type of situations where it can perform its missions highly effectively. The problem of trading capability comes when there are budget constraints applied. Right now we have been in a situation where the USAF/OSD has been getting 60+ F-35A's a year compared to a much smaller ask, thanks to the Congressional additions. When budgets get squeezed and that Congressional backing goes away, the USAF will again have to find money from elsewhere to both buy the new fleet and to sustain it. 9 out of 10 times if forced to make that trade it will continue to choose the more modern, capable and more multi-role platform. This situation could play out sooner than we think (FY22 perhaps). If modernization accounts don't grow but the need to modernize still remains then you can either trade readiness or shed legacy programs. Those are really the only options one has.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2020, 09:16
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
FTFA:

This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft


NATO perform many missions that aren't against a near peer threat like Russia. With Afghanistan and Iraq being good examples. In addition the A-10's could operate as a stand off platform. If, forced to do so....

In short there is a place for the A-10 still....


Sure thing, but I think those smaller and poorer air forces would be better served with something like Super Tucano for cheap CAS/COIN or something like Textron AirLand Scorpion or Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master for higher performance. A-10 is still relatively expensive to operate compared to those and are old aircraft needing more maintenance and support. Of course those don't come with 30mm gun or have any real armour, but those seem rather limited advantages these days. For stand-off work, those aircraft would be good alternatives with very advanced avionics systems.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2020, 15:49
by mixelflick
I wonder why USAF never went with the up-rated OV-10 Bronco. For all the light attack testing they've done, it seems to have been the optimal aircraft for the job.

By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq and the Phillipines went exceptionally well. It should be a lot less expensive than maintaining a fleet of A-10's, and a more appropriate solution for those situations not requiring "overkill". Comparatively speaking, it would take up almost nothing in the budget to maintain a small fleet.

And with the breathroughs made in miniaturized guidance sub-munitions, its potential is only going to get better and better. Would give the CAS mission a more affordable aircraft, without eating as much into the F-35's planned buy.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2020, 17:02
by blindpilot
mixelflick wrote:I wonder why USAF never went with the up-rated OV-10 Bronco. For all the light attack testing they've done, it seems to have been the optimal aircraft for the job.

By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq and the Phillipines went exceptionally well. It should be a lot less expensive ... maintaining... Comparatively speaking, it would take up almost nothing in the budget to maintain a small fleet.
..


From my buddies that flew them, they were the perfect aircraft for simple maintenance. A teenage Vietnamese kid with a 9/16th inch open end wrench and a hammer could fix anything in 15 minutes while standing in the dirt at ground level. Or so they said ... :D ... and they could takeoff and land anywhere there was dirt ... or not even dirt ...

Was a good aircraft for what it was designed to do.
FWIW,
BP

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2020, 19:16
by quicksilver
“By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq...”

Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2020, 15:23
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:“By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq...”

Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.


This one..

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10 ... 1764407068

"OV-10s performed outstandingly in combat, racking up 134 sorties and 120 combat missions over 82 days while having a 99 percent availability rate..."

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2020, 19:01
by quicksilver
Ah, so ‘all accounts’ are those of Axe and Rogoway. Got it.

Cliff Acree and Guy Hunter might have tempering perspectives (although I think Hunter has passed).

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2020, 20:25
by southernphantom
hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
FTFA:

This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft


NATO perform many missions that aren't against a near peer threat like Russia. With Afghanistan and Iraq being good examples. In addition the A-10's could operate as a stand off platform. If, forced to do so....

In short there is a place for the A-10 still....


Sure thing, but I think those smaller and poorer air forces would be better served with something like Super Tucano for cheap CAS/COIN or something like Textron AirLand Scorpion or Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master for higher performance. A-10 is still relatively expensive to operate compared to those and are old aircraft needing more maintenance and support. Of course those don't come with 30mm gun or have any real armour, but those seem rather limited advantages these days. For stand-off work, those aircraft would be good alternatives with very advanced avionics systems.


I'd be very supportive of a significant buy of armed T-X derivatives for this reason. The airframe has enough performance for air policing and could easily carry a consequential payload for CAS. That performance also makes it more survivable in threat environments that include something higher-tech than a DShK. Its flexibility means that there is more of a role for that type of aircraft than the A-10, in my opinion, and several can be bought for the price of an F-35.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2020, 20:57
by pmi
quicksilver wrote:Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.


VMO-1 & VMO-2 flew over a thousand sorties with the Broncos in theater. They were by far the most used asset for FAC missions. The two losses were A models which lacked the IR suppression of the D. After the first loss, D models were primarily tasked with the higher threat missions.

Were they more vulnerable than faster/higher flying assets? Absolutely, but they didn't 'get the sh*t shot out of 'em'.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2020, 21:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
No, that was the A-10s that got the sh*t shot out of them.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2020, 10:33
by kimjongnumbaun
pmi wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.


VMO-1 & VMO-2 flew over a thousand sorties with the Broncos in theater. They were by far the most used asset for FAC missions. The two losses were A models which lacked the IR suppression of the D. After the first loss, D models were primarily tasked with the higher threat missions.

Were they more vulnerable than faster/higher flying assets? Absolutely, but they didn't 'get the sh*t shot out of 'em'.


Each VMO had 10 broncos. A 10% loss rate isn't something to be proud of, nor is it a ringing endorsement of the plane's suitability when faced against a 1970's era ADA system in the 1990s.

An airplane that had to fly low and has a cruise speed of 193kts got shot down a disproportionate amount compared to other aircraft in a desert environment that lacks terrain masking? I'm shocked.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2020, 14:13
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:Ah, so ‘all accounts’ are those of Axe and Rogoway. Got it.

Cliff Acree and Guy Hunter might have tempering perspectives (although I think Hunter has passed).


What gives boss?

I'm reading multiple sources saying they performed well. I don't have all day to determine "how good" XYZ writers are. Nor am I going to get into debating "how good" they are. That's an opinion thing. I like facts, not opinions. If I read something citing hard stats about missions flown, sortie rate, CPFH or mission availability rates - I assume they're not making it up. As even if they were... how do I check that and know? What website do I go to in order to determine the Bronco deployment was really a disaster, and both are lying? How long is it going to take me to go to find the information to expose them?? Maybe you have the time, but I don't.

But hey, if you have articles/references citing how poorly the Bronco performed during this deployment, by all means post them here. The more websites I can bookmark, the better...

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2020, 05:22
by charlielima223
quicksilver wrote:Ah, so ‘all accounts’ are those of Axe and Rogoway. Got it.

Cliff Acree and Guy Hunter might have tempering perspectives (although I think Hunter has passed).




Well apparently the operational combat deployment and evaluations of OV-10Gs used for Combat Dragon II program was good enough. USSOCOM proceeded with their own initiative to have a small fleet of specialized turbo-prop aircraft for their Armed Overwatch Program.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2020, 06:42
by weasel1962
When the OV-10As got shot up, the tactics changed. Same goes with the A-10s that when those started to get in the line of fire in DS, tactics changed to to raise the operating ceiling. If there is an identified vulnerability, tactics will change, even applies to both the A-10 & the F-35.

Even in heavily defended IADS where A-10s will get killed, it doesn't mean that the defenses cannot be suppressed (by f-35s) such that A-10s can operate. Of course its always best to have the best aircraft in the air at all times but even if the A-10s get fully replaced, there will still be other legacies out there. That's how big the USAF is.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2020, 07:42
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Ah, so ‘all accounts’ are those of Axe and Rogoway. Got it.

Cliff Acree and Guy Hunter might have tempering perspectives (although I think Hunter has passed).


What gives boss?

I'm reading multiple sources saying they performed well. I don't have all day to determine "how good" XYZ writers are. Nor am I going to get into debating "how good" they are. That's an opinion thing. I like facts, not opinions. If I read something citing hard stats about missions flown, sortie rate, CPFH or mission availability rates - I assume they're not making it up. As even if they were... how do I check that and know? What website do I go to in order to determine the Bronco deployment was really a disaster, and both are lying? How long is it going to take me to go to find the information to expose them?? Maybe you have the time, but I don't.



You don't have time, but trust known ignorant liars with agendas that have multiple times on multiple occasions passed on highly inflammatory aviation stories that turned out to be untrue?

How many times does someone have to get it wrong or outright lie before you stop trusting them as they are ignorant or liars or both?

Youre a more generous person than I am. I remember trying to describe their methods and "journalism" back in the early 2010s. This was before the term "fake news" existed

It was Axe that "Broke" the F-35 can't dogfight story and Rogoaway that wrote about the F-35s hot fuel truck problem. (rogoaway also republished the F-35 can't dogfight story) And those are just the most egregious examples I can think of at the moment.


sure theyve burned you 99 times, but that 100th time. just might be true...

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2020, 15:14
by mixelflick
Actually, I think MOST reporting in this country is fake news. Has been for some time, their agenda is obvious. Meaning they don't even pretend anymore about being objective. Walter Kronkite is dead, and in more ways than one...

Perhaps I haven't been reading articles by those 2 long enough, because no I can't recall instances where they got it wrong. I assume that like many journalists, they get things wrong from time to time. But now that I think about it...they also get some things right. TR was first to write about USAF buying "new" F-15's. And if memory serves, he was crucified here and elsewhere for it. Yet, that's precisely what's in the budget and looks to be happening.

The only aviaton writer I've followed for any length of time has been Sweetman. But I stopped following him when his anti-F-35 agenda started to take on Australian Air Power like proportions. I'm not sure why (ego, perhaps) but I've also never seen one aviation writer/"authority" say, "I was wrong" when the situation called for it. Look at Pierre Sprey. He couldn't have been more wrong about the F-15, for example. But here we are, 40+ years of absolute aerial domination later - and he still rails against "big" fighters with "big" radars, BVR weapons etc. etc..

It seems pervasive in the industry, at least from my perspective...

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 10:49
by hornetfinn
I've been thinking that a modern version of B-26 Marauder or De Havilland Mosquito would be great "replacement" for A-10. Just design a modern airframe and put modern turboprops on it (a lot lighter, economical and more powerful than WW2 engines). Add modern avionics and sensor suite. Things like internal targeting pod (like EOTS), EO DAS for wide area surveillance and MLD/MAWS, small AESA radar (like Leonardo Vixen series), full CNI suite and self-protection systems (RWR, laser warning, MLD/MAWS, chaff, flares etc). Use rest of the internal volume for fuel. This thing would be fast enough and would have very long range and especially endurance. It could also carry a lot of weapons internally and still have decent performance. I bet it could carry something like 16 SDBs or 2 JDAMs and 8 SDBs internlly as the original B-26s and Mosquitos could almost do similar weights in some variants.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 11:26
by quicksilver
“When the OV-10As got shot up, the tactics changed.“

This is the centroid of the matter, and it happened very early on.

I’ll say it again for emphasis — what looks good when one’s adversaries can’t shoot back (ie credibly threaten things that you’re flying against them), doesn’t look as good when they can. And, as a matter of force structure composition, ‘single mission’ assets have progressively found less favor over time because their utility is limited to those scenarios around which they were designed; when the real world doesn’t conform to what was once an envisioned future, single mission assets are at risk — either from budget cutters and/or from diminished relevance.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 11:34
by quicksilver
mixelflick wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Ah, so ‘all accounts’ are those of Axe and Rogoway. Got it.

Cliff Acree and Guy Hunter might have tempering perspectives (although I think Hunter has passed).


What gives boss?

I'm reading multiple sources saying they performed well. I don't have all day to determine "how good" XYZ writers are. Nor am I going to get into debating "how good" they are. That's an opinion thing. I like facts, not opinions. If I read something citing hard stats about missions flown, sortie rate, CPFH or mission availability rates - I assume they're not making it up. As even if they were... how do I check that and know? What website do I go to in order to determine the Bronco deployment was really a disaster, and both are lying? How long is it going to take me to go to find the information to expose them?? Maybe you have the time, but I don't.

But hey, if you have articles/references citing how poorly the Bronco performed during this deployment, by all means post them here. The more websites I can bookmark, the better...


“By-lines” matter to some of us dinosaurs because they tell us something about the credibility of the author — credibility established over time through quality reporting or opinion-ating. Those two authors fail the test.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 13:27
by lbk000
You don't even have to talk about the credibility of TR or DA, its just axiomatic that availability has precedence over capability. Even if you only have 30% of the capability per unit, having it be able to simply be there 99% of the time is far better than the gamble you take by having a 99% capability available only 50% of the time. Being able to be depended upon is what prevents failure cascades.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 14:06
by ricnunes
quicksilver wrote:I’ll say it again for emphasis — what looks good when one’s adversaries can’t shoot back (ie credibly threaten things that you’re flying against them), doesn’t look as good when they can.


Yes, indeed. But don't forget that the same also applies to the A-10. The A-10's also got the "sh*t shot out of 'em' in DS" with at least 6 of them shot down. If I'm not mistaken the A-10 was the type of aircraft in the USAF inventory that during DS was shot down the most.

Of course one can argue that the OV-10 is more vulnerable to small arms and higher caliber machine gun and cannon fire compared to the A-10 but then again modern and advanced sensors such as Targeting Pods and longer-ranged PGMs will allow an aircraft like the OV-10 to detect and engage the enemy outside the range of such enemy small arms, MG and cannon fire.

So, I trend to agree that the OV-10 could be an interesting solution as a cheap CAS aircraft which would be used in environments where the enemy doesn't possess Air-Defense Systems or resuming in counter-insurgency operations (COIN), being much cheaper than the A-10 while being equally as effective and not being any (or much) less vulnerable.


quicksilver wrote:“By-lines” matter to some of us dinosaurs because they tell us something about the credibility of the author — credibility established over time through quality reporting or opinion-ating. Those two authors fail the test.


Here, I fully agree with you!

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 15:35
by quicksilver
Some of you have swallowed all the bean counter bs about the virtues of ‘cheap’ and ‘efficient.’ If filling force structure w certain types was only that easy...

And ref the A-10, it would have been retired long ago save the age of networked information and the resulting ability of some to generate political leverage.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 23:41
by boogieman
The situation with the A10 reminds me a little of the F111 here in Aus. A beloved but ageing platform that needs to rely more and more on other assets to keep it relevant/alive. In some respects I don't hold the fact that the A10 got a bloody nose in GW1 against it, as getting a bloody nose was more or less in its job description. The A10 fleet always struck me as something of a sacrificial lamb - "we will put this fleet of aircraft into the Soviet meat grinder in exchange for x-thousand Soviet armoured vehicles".

A lot of time has passed since then though, and the reality is that the A10 will increasingly struggle to find relevance against Russia in the Baltics. In the Pacific (a scenario that is far more likely to kick off in the next 10-15 years) the Hog would be utterly irrelevant. If the modelling from places like RAND and CSBA is correct, what we really need is more 5th gen aircraft ASAP and fewer 4th gens in general.

https://csbaonline.org/research/publica ... ompetition
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... _PE260.pdf

In an environment where our land based aircraft could be significantly attritted and disrupted by enemy BM and LACM attack, I would prefer to see F35As taking up those precious parking spaces rather than Hogs.

Just my 2c...

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 01:47
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
Perhaps I haven't been reading articles by those 2 long enough, because no I can't recall instances where they got it wrong. I assume that like many journalists, they get things wrong from time to time. But now that I think about it...they also get some things right. TR was first to write about USAF buying "new" F-15's. And if memory serves, he was crucified here and elsewhere for it. Yet, that's precisely what's in the budget and looks to be happening.



I'm gonna stop you right there. These guys didn't just get story wrong they INVENTED stories. The USAF put out a puff piece about some airmen who painted a fuel truck white to keep the heat down and theoretically stop hot fuel from causing Potential unnecessary flight complication with Arizona's at the time new F-35s. Tyler Rogoaway took this story and then twisted it into some fanfiction that the F-35 couldn't take fuel from hot fuel trucks, and then parlayed that into the idea that Fuel trucks then couldn't sustain F-35Bs because the white would be tactically unsound and invite enemy attack. Thats the most obvious example of which there are MANY.

David Axe is patient zero of the F-35 can't dogfight story, based on his unterception of classified flight test info that turned out to be about flight control software, but only after he twisted it all over the internet and people like Rogaway reprinted it.


The idea that all the lies and fiction are acceptable because Tyler happened to, in rare instance actually manage to guess the F-15X right and poor F-16.net got it wrong doesn't mean a damn thing to me. given his history. Even a coin gets it right 50 percent of the time.


It seems pervasive in the industry, at least from my perspective...



The media is fake news since cronkite died and full of loud mouth fakes who elevate other loudmouth fakes that agree with their agenda. Conclusion: "seems to be a problem throughout the defense aviation industry"

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 02:05
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:
“By-lines” matter to some of us dinosaurs because they tell us something about the credibility of the author — credibility established over time through quality reporting or opinion-ating. Those two authors fail the test.


correct


quicksilver wrote:“When the OV-10As got shot up, the tactics changed.“

This is the centroid of the matter, and it happened very early on.

I’ll say it again for emphasis — what looks good when one’s adversaries can’t shoot back (ie credibly threaten things that you’re flying against them), doesn’t look as good when they can. And, as a matter of force structure composition, ‘single mission’ assets have progressively found less favor over time because their utility is limited to those scenarios around which they were designed; when the real world doesn’t conform to what was once an envisioned future, single mission assets are at risk — either from budget cutters and/or from diminished relevance.



correct.

the issue the COIN aircraft has been "resisted" and rightly so IMHO for so long is because its essentially purposeless outside dirtwars and even then that is debatable.

Its not talked about but there were and are massive efforts to stop the profileration of manpads throughout Mid east combat zones. had those efforts failed you would not be talking at all about propjobs over combat zones...

The issue with these airplanes is they are bastard children. They aren't jets, but all their attributes are generally achievable with UAVs already. The Jets are multipupose. OV-10 got a second life with SF because they have money, they don't intrude on conventional combat arms, and they have very mission specific and generally small taskings. even better theyre not exactly used alone. if an Ov-10 finds itself in trouble it calls in the big boys, which basically has the big boys wondering why they need the middle man. A-10 is the same way. "Hey I need a flight of jammers, fighters, and SEAD to clear things out for muh hogs"

"hey why not take the 10 airplanes we are sending anyway with the ordnance themselves and just park your hogs?"

it brings up a myraid of those old jokes too. "ok the coast is clear. tell the mighty tip of the spear hogs its safe to come to the fight"

these are extremely narrow circumstances. COIN plane is trying to thread needles. I don't think you ever see any actual and notable cost savings, while dramatically increasing risk. The US has spent 6 trillion on the GWOT. the idea that we could have saved even a billion here or there, is laughable if It wasn't so tragic. The coin aircraft don't typically have AAR, this hurts loiter time and persistance, range. their speed isn't anything special and there are times where that counts.

one of the ways i learned there were Special Operation troops in libya was they complained our harriers weren't giving them the coverage they would have preferred while they weren't operating there :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 02:28
by madrat
What can OV-10 do a drone could not?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 02:48
by boogieman
XanderCrews wrote:if an Ov-10 finds itself in trouble it calls in the big boys, which basically has the big boys wondering why they need the middle man. A-10 is the same way. "Hey I need a flight of jammers, fighters, and SEAD to clear things out for muh hogs"

"hey why not take the 10 airplanes we are sending anyway with the ordnance themselves and just park your hogs?"

it brings up a myraid of those old jokes too. "ok the coast is clear. tell the mighty tip of the spear hogs its safe to come to the fight"

Reminds me of the APA F111 crusade. They used to jump up and down about the F111's range and how nothing else could replace it. Problem was that by the end of its life the F111 had to be escorted by Hornets everywhere it went anyway. The RAAF went ahead and replaced it with Super Hornet. What a shocker.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 02:55
by quicksilver
“TR was first to write about USAF buying "new" F-15's.“

Here’s how it works brah. Apart from investigative journalism, writers essentially get handed the story by people who want them to write a certain piece (sometimes on spec) and know that the writer will write what they want them to write. It’s very mercenary.

Albeit on a different scale, it’s not unlike the quotes you see in many pieces from “the usual suspects“ — in that case the writer knows what he or she is going to write — or has already written the piece — and simply needs a good quote or set of quotes to fill in the blanks.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 02:58
by quicksilver
madrat wrote:What can OV-10 do a drone could not?


8)

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 03:56
by XanderCrews
boogieman wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:if an Ov-10 finds itself in trouble it calls in the big boys, which basically has the big boys wondering why they need the middle man. A-10 is the same way. "Hey I need a flight of jammers, fighters, and SEAD to clear things out for muh hogs"

"hey why not take the 10 airplanes we are sending anyway with the ordnance themselves and just park your hogs?"

it brings up a myraid of those old jokes too. "ok the coast is clear. tell the mighty tip of the spear hogs its safe to come to the fight"

Reminds me of the APA F111 crusade. They used to jump up and down about the F111's range and how nothing else could replace it. Problem was that by the end of its life the F111 had to be escorted by Hornets everywhere it went anyway. The RAAF went ahead and replaced it with Super Hornet. What a shocker.



thats what doomed the betty back in WWII as well. superb range--limited only by that of its escorts.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 04:29
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:“TR was first to write about USAF buying "new" F-15's.“

Here’s how it works brah. Apart from investigative journalism, writers essentially get handed the story by people who want them to write a certain piece (sometimes on spec) and know that the writer will write what they want them to write. It’s very mercenary.

Albeit on a different scale, it’s not unlike the quotes you see in many pieces from “the usual suspects“ — in that case the writer knows what he or she is going to write — or has already written the piece — and simply needs a good quote or set of quotes to fill in the blanks.


absolutely.

and I alluded to this about Axe's twitter storm. its copy paste journalism. The story is basically written and one fills in the blanks. sometimes they even get totally unbiased sources like those from lobbyists, and other company sponsored "alternative concepts". wouldn't you know it that every time a V-22 stumbled the critics would see fit to include these "alternate suggestions" all of them invariably from one company. a great example is Saabs infamously sponsored "janes study" about the Gripen being $4700 an hour.


this is one of the many reasons why journalism is dying. Axe and company aren't doing anything different than most poster do here. they take various articles, post selected and pertinent quotes, give their 2 cents, and link to the articles. the difference is here we have more education and first hand experience and resources, and of course no one is paying us.

The purpose of journalism is to sell advertising. You don't get that with nuance and intelligent conversation. You get that with "58 reason the F-35 sucks" and if you actually research and find out that pure garbage, you contradict the article (which also happens a lot still: "although we aren't sure if these 58 reasons actually make the F-35 suck and the F-35 has been successful in many areas, we can all agree they are problematic" oh so it doesn't suck?)


everytime I hear about "journalists" getting shafted or laid off I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling. I also make sure not to click ads and use blockers and run them through other sites to get past the paywalls because i refuse to support prostitution. :mrgreen:

They aren't contributing anything. talking about opinions on the internet is a pretty common thing millions do for free. They sacrificed their chance to keep above the fray with more accurate information with more sources and research vs sensationalism a long time ago.

A lot of these publications are completely on the take, and one of the big hints is when the media and politicians all just so happen to start using the same phrases and buzz words all at the same time. which makes them nothing more than defacto commercials and propaganda arms. Canada's ban on "assault style weapons" recently is a perfect example of that. I had never heard that exact phrase before, and low and behold the CBC and Truduea and all the Canadian press and politicians just seemed to use all at the exact same time, it just magically entered the media lexicon. and its completely unused outside of Canada that I can see and it all happened the exact same day. Almost like it was an agreed upon phrase... like they were told from on high and colluded.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 20:48
by charlielima223
Nice little video. There is no doubt that the A-10 is an engineering marvel (any functional/operational aircraft really). One thing I like about this video is what he says towards the end. It is something that many tend to overlook when debating/arguing about the A-10 vs *insert platform here*.

Hope you enjoy!

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 21:03
by quicksilver
Zzzzzzzz...and so tell us — what’s new in any of that? Same kinda sentiment that gets trotted out every time the jet’s existence is threatened.

:roll:

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2020, 02:47
by marauder2048
An A-10 was disabled for a day due to a Golden BB. Since they recovered the "bullet" that's what maybe an HMG?

https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/2172527/a-10-resumes-operations-after-engineers-assess-battlefield-repair/

It's the Golden BB has generally been the problem for aircraft in the face of ground fire.

Having said that even DOT&E (*spit*) assesses the F-35 as having superior survivability in the face kinetic threats
relative to the F-16 which has also been hit by small arms fire and AFAIK always managed to get back to base.

So it becomes a question of turnaround time for repairs.

Or avoiding ground fire by flying higher which is what the A-10 did in GWI and over Yugoslavia..which
rendered the gun useless.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2020, 11:06
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote: Or avoiding ground fire by flying higher which is what the A-10 did in GWI and over Yugoslavia..which
rendered the gun useless.


Someone reading the above would be forgiven for thinking it meant the A-10 was never able to use its gun over Yugoslavia/Kosovo.

All NATO aircraft were restricted to a minimum altitude of 15,000 feet over Kosovo from day 1 of the air campaign. This restriction was gradually lifted. A-10s were then able to use their guns and did so on multiple occasions.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 00:22
by kimjongnumbaun
The problem is that the A-10 is supposedly "built" around the gun. That makes less and less sense when you can't use your primary weapon, because you need to fly high (where you can't employ it) to avoid being killed.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 07:59
by aussiebloke
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The problem is that the A-10 is supposedly "built" around the gun. That makes less and less sense when you can't use your primary weapon, because you need to fly high (where you can't employ it) to avoid being killed.


There is no doubt the A-10’s gun is a weapon that is only effective at low level. By the 1990s, in both Desert Storm and Kosovo, for higher altitudes the A-10 operated effectively with the Maverick missile. A-10s fired 4,800 Mavericks in Desert Storm. This represented about 90% of the Mavericks fired in the campaign. By the 1990s the A-10 therefore had two primary weapons.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 14:46
by basher54321
Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 15:20
by mixelflick
basher54321 wrote:Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.


That's true, but there's another element to consider: Cost. A Maverick hit is a thing to behold, much more impressive than the gun IMO. But they're also expensive. Trashing armor with the gun is pennies on the dollar vs. most guided weapons, especially when the latter sometimes miss.

Of course, you can't use the gun at altitude, and even with complete air superiority there may be everything from ZSU-23-4's to MANPADS to S-300/400 batteries to contend with. I guess keeping a few hundred around for places like Afghanistan makes sense, but there's a cost to everything - and $ doesn't grow on trees. It's given out by Congress, LOL...

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 15:27
by ricnunes
basher54321 wrote:Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.


Exactly!

Since the A-10 first entered in service (late 1970's) the aircraft's main weapon has been the Maverick missile.
Currently, newer and other weapons such as the GBU-12 seem to be complementing (or even in some/many cases superseding) the Maverick missile as the A-10's main weapon.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 15:50
by basher54321
mixelflick wrote:
That's true, but there's another element to consider: Cost. A Maverick hit is a thing to behold, much more impressive than the gun IMO. But they're also expensive. Trashing armor with the gun is pennies on the dollar vs. most guided weapons, especially when the latter sometimes miss.





There is also the cost of losing the aircraft and the pilot which can be more in terms of political cost - then the slightly not so simple matter of trying to hit difficult to see tanks in the right place to stand any chance of going through the Armour especially years before decent IR systems became available. The A-10A only had a useful night targeting capability in Desert Storm due to carrying AGM-65D where it could use the missiles IR seeker view.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 15:53
by quicksilver
“Of course, you can't use the gun at altitude...”

Actually, you can, but a limiting factor comes into play — extended slant range. As we start to employ a gun at extended slant ranges, our ability to discern small targets is diminished, dispersion is increased, and for targets where penetration is required/desired, that effect is also diminished.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 21:55
by kimjongnumbaun
mixelflick wrote:
basher54321 wrote:Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.


That's true, but there's another element to consider: Cost. A Maverick hit is a thing to behold, much more impressive than the gun IMO. But they're also expensive. Trashing armor with the gun is pennies on the dollar vs. most guided weapons, especially when the latter sometimes miss.


But we're not comparing the cost of the ZSU-23 to the maverick. We're comparing the cost of the maverick to potentially losing the A-10 in a suicide gun run.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 03:49
by XanderCrews
basher54321 wrote:Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.


the 1973 war really clarified the lethality of anti-air, and taking A-10 over North Vietnam would be absolutely brutal as well.


That's true, but there's another element to consider: Cost. A Maverick hit is a thing to behold, much more impressive than the gun IMO. But they're also expensive. Trashing armor with the gun is pennies on the dollar vs. most guided weapons, especially when the latter sometimes miss.


absolutely not. financial cost is not a tactical factor. The only reason one would not use a Maverick (even after the first misses-- you fire another) is if there was some kind of shortage of the weapon and they were trying to husband their ordnance.

And guns miss plenty.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 10:14
by vilters
Missiles Always work perfect on test ranges.
In real life? ? It is pure luck if it hits anything at all.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 10:14
by kimjongnumbaun
XanderCrews wrote:absolutely not. financial cost is not a tactical factor. The only reason one would not use a Maverick (even after the first misses-- you fire another) is if there was some kind of shortage of the weapon and they were trying to husband their ordnance.

And guns miss plenty.



^^This

We were dropping $100k+ ordnance on dudes in sandals and I gave 2 *hits about costs. Literally, one of my guys told me, "Sir, you just used an $80k hellfire to kill those guys." My response, "300 million tax payers are helping me pay that off."

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 11:49
by hornetfinn
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
basher54321 wrote:Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.


That's true, but there's another element to consider: Cost. A Maverick hit is a thing to behold, much more impressive than the gun IMO. But they're also expensive. Trashing armor with the gun is pennies on the dollar vs. most guided weapons, especially when the latter sometimes miss.


But we're not comparing the cost of the ZSU-23 to the maverick. We're comparing the cost of the maverick to potentially losing the A-10 in a suicide gun run.


Besides any even remotely modern MBT, IFV, SPAAG, SAM system or even APC is going to cost more than Maverick, Hellfire or even SDB II. ZSU-23-4 is very old and limited system and there are multiple much more modern and deadlier AD systems around. Hell, nowadays even many IFVs and APCs can pack a very nasty punch against slow and low flying aircraft. Those have 25 to 40 mm guns with very capable fire control systems having thermal sights, autotrackers and laser range finders. There are a lot of upgraded BMP-2s around the world that have most of those features and can easily engage low flying aircraft. 2A42 gun in BMP-2 fires rounds that are almost 2.5 times heavier than those fired by ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2. Of course the rate of fire is a lot slower but accuracy and reach are much better.

Of course gun can be useful in situations where the enemy doesn't have such equipment around or if there is no other option. But even then I'd rather go with weapons like laser guided rockets (like APKWS) or laser SDBs most of the time.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 12:16
by madrat
In those situations there is no credible threat, the A-10 may as well be a drone.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 13:25
by aussiebloke
madrat wrote:In those situations there is no credible threat, the A-10 may as well be a drone.


Sometimes the situation calls for more than what a drone is capable of - even in a permissive environment:
The crew of Boar 51 distinguished themselves as two-ship A-10s, 354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, 447th Expeditionary Operations Group, Incirlik Air Base, Turkey in support of OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE.
On May 2, 2017, the crew of Boar 51 was re-tasked to support a troops-in-contact situation where 50 American and countless Syrian Democratic Forces were pinned down with heavy machine gun fire, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades. Boar 51 flight expended 1,500 pounds of ordnance and 1,300, 30-millimeter rounds on 19 targets, often inside danger close criteria. For over five hours, Captain Harvey and Major Schultz overcame communications degradation, severe thunderstorms and near-zero visibility, ultimately saving the lives of friendly forces. The distinctive accomplishments of Captain Harvey and Major Schultz reflect great credit upon themselves and the United States Air Force.


https://naa.aero/userfiles/files/docume ... 202017.pdf

These two pilots were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for their actions that day.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 13:39
by ricnunes
vilters wrote:Missiles Always work perfect on test ranges.
In real life? ? It is pure luck if it hits anything at all.


I would say that's exactly the opposite when compared to the guns.

I would also say that in 'test ranges' (actually, 'firing ranges') guns work 'almost perfectly' because the pilots know the range's exact location and therefore the targets exact locations (in the firing range) and moreover in firing ranges aircraft and their pilots don't have anyone on the ground shooting back at them when strafing with the gun. All of this means that pilots have the perfect conditions to deploy their guns against the (dummy) targets (enough time and space to perfectly align and aim their guns at the target). In real life?? It's nothing like this.

As opposed weapons such as guided missiles or bombs are dependent on the sensor's effectiveness. And they work exactly the same whether an aircraft/pilot is deploying then over a range or over an actually battlefield (a weapon sensor can't distinguish between both!).
The only negative impact of such weapons effectiveness in combat scenarios versus peacetime that I can think of would be if those weapons during the combat scenario are stored in bad/awful conditions.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 18:02
by XanderCrews
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
^^This

We were dropping $100k+ ordnance on dudes in sandals and I gave 2 *hits about costs. Literally, one of my guys told me, "Sir, you just used an $80k hellfire to kill those guys." My response, "300 million tax payers are helping me pay that off."


Image

havn't live until you call in a PGM on an individual wall to make a path for assault elements


aussiebloke wrote:
madrat wrote:In those situations there is no credible threat, the A-10 may as well be a drone.


Sometimes the situation calls for more than what a drone is capable of - even in a permissive environment:
The crew of Boar 51 distinguished themselves as two-ship A-10s, 354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, 447th Expeditionary Operations Group, Incirlik Air Base, Turkey in support of OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE.
On May 2, 2017, the crew of Boar 51 was re-tasked to support a troops-in-contact situation where 50 American and countless Syrian Democratic Forces were pinned down with heavy machine gun fire, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades. Boar 51 flight expended 1,500 pounds of ordnance and 1,300, 30-millimeter rounds on 19 targets, often inside danger close criteria. For over five hours, Captain Harvey and Major Schultz overcame communications degradation, severe thunderstorms and near-zero visibility, ultimately saving the lives of friendly forces. The distinctive accomplishments of Captain Harvey and Major Schultz reflect great credit upon themselves and the United States Air Force.


https://naa.aero/userfiles/files/docume ... 202017.pdf

These two pilots were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for their actions that day.



Theres no DFC write ups I can site where the A-10 has missed the target via strafing 3 times, and they call in the drone who hits it in the first shot. (and yes this has happened)

Its the same reason you hear cool stories about A-10s saving the day at the last second, vs an A-10 pilot listening to people get killed over the radio as they try to get there in time because A-10s are F-ing slow. (and yes this has happened)

We get very stilted views. Its the "survivors bias" at work. We talk about A-10 loiter time, never A-10 response time etc.


I've also done "search and replace" on citations like that for F-16s and F-15s and other aircraft and changed it to "A-10" and posted it on forums and people can't wait to tell you how only an A-10 could do such a thing and other Heil Hawg-isms


http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4591.html

this was one of my favorites.


pretty funny how conditioned we are.


vilters wrote:Missiles Always work perfect on test ranges.
In real life? ? It is pure luck if it hits anything at all.



You live in an era where guided munitions are actually more trusted than unguided human aimed ordnance. The fact that you still can't grasp this after 20 years of real world, actual combat, Close Air Support is a source of unending joy for me. you're forever stuck in the 1980s. I hope the music is good at least

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 20:22
by aussiebloke
XanderCrews wrote:

aussiebloke wrote:
madrat wrote:In those situations there is no credible threat, the A-10 may as well be a drone.


Sometimes the situation calls for more than what a drone is capable of - even in a permissive environment:
The crew of Boar 51 distinguished themselves as two-ship A-10s, 354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, 447th Expeditionary Operations Group, Incirlik Air Base, Turkey in support of OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE.
On May 2, 2017, the crew of Boar 51 was re-tasked to support a troops-in-contact situation where 50 American and countless Syrian Democratic Forces were pinned down with heavy machine gun fire, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades. Boar 51 flight expended 1,500 pounds of ordnance and 1,300, 30-millimeter rounds on 19 targets, often inside danger close criteria. For over five hours, Captain Harvey and Major Schultz overcame communications degradation, severe thunderstorms and near-zero visibility, ultimately saving the lives of friendly forces. The distinctive accomplishments of Captain Harvey and Major Schultz reflect great credit upon themselves and the United States Air Force.


https://naa.aero/userfiles/files/docume ... 202017.pdf

These two pilots were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for their actions that day.



Theres no DFC write ups I can site where the A-10 has missed the target via strafing 3 times, and they call in the drone who hits it in the first shot. (and yes this has happened)

Its the same reason you hear cool stories about A-10s saving the day at the last second, vs an A-10 pilot listening to people get killed over the radio as they try to get there in time because A-10s are F-ing slow. (and yes this has happened)

We get very stilted views. Its the "survivors bias" at work. We talk about A-10 loiter time, never A-10 response time etc.



On the question of the effectiveness of drones compared to the effectiveness of the A-10 in a permissive environment here is one person’s perspective:
How well has the MQ-9 performed as a CAS weapon since first being widely used in that way in Sirte, Libya from last August to December? “In an urban CAS environment, we absolutely give the A-10 a run for its money for who is the better urban CAS platform. I realize that is a bold statement, but Colin, our men and women and their equipment are a formidable combination,” 432nd Wing operations commander Col. Joe (we agreed not to use last names for security reasons) tells me in his fairly spartan office on this isolated base.

A-10 supporters, whose fervor can sometimes seem religious, need not worry that the MQ-9 is going to supplant the A-10 in other situations — yet. “In other CAS environments though, the MQ-9 isn’t where the A-10 is at. The A-10 has more weapons and the 30mm gun can do things we can’t do,” he concedes, a former F-16 pilot himself.


No hint of “survivor’s bias” there - just someone with actual experience assessing the two platforms dispassionately.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2020, 00:03
by XanderCrews
aussiebloke wrote:
No hint of “survivor’s bias” there - just someone with actual experience assessing the two platforms dispassionately.


I'm saying people don't tend to hear the "bad" of the A-10. You can see that in this thread with some posters where missiles miss and bullets never do. :mrgreen:

If you're trying to say that theres a number of CAS platforms all of which have their pros and cons, I don't think that's news and its many peoples jobs first hand to ensure they know the differences. I believe I even alluded to that. with loiter time vs response time. Very different for a B-1B in the area vs an A-10 300 miles away.

If there was a dispassionate assessment all across, A-10 would be relics in a boneyard. :wink:

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2020, 01:12
by kimjongnumbaun
vilters wrote:Missiles Always work perfect on test ranges.
In real life? ? It is pure luck if it hits anything at all.


Is this based on your personal experience? My guess is not even close and you are talking out of your a**. Missiles work fine and we have the body count to prove it.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2020, 10:03
by weasel1962
Sometimes its a question of context. Like adding the word "Soviet" in front.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2020, 12:17
by kimjongnumbaun
XanderCrews wrote:havn't live until you call in a PGM on an individual wall to make a path for assault elements


Not trying to one up you, but literally put a PGM on a HVT and it turned out to be a dud. When the dust settled there was a hole in the ground with two legs sticking out of it. Battle net went wild.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 00:34
by steve2267
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Not trying to one up you, but literally put a PGM on a HVT and it turned out to be a dud. When the dust settled there was a hole in the ground with two legs sticking out of it. Battle net went wild.


:devil: LMAO. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. Thank you for your service.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 03:41
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The problem is that the A-10 is supposedly "built" around the gun. That makes less and less sense when you can't use your primary weapon, because you need to fly high (where you can't employ it) to avoid being killed.


There is no doubt the A-10’s gun is a weapon that is only effective at low level. By the 1990s, in both Desert Storm and Kosovo, for higher altitudes the A-10 operated effectively with the Maverick missile. A-10s fired 4,800 Mavericks in Desert Storm. This represented about 90% of the Mavericks fired in the campaign. By the 1990s the A-10 therefore had two primary weapons.


And if the pre-war allocation of Mavericks had gone to the F-16s you would have seen the same results
in terms of Mavericks expended but with fewer aircraft lost.

But because the F-16s could carry the CBU-87 and the A-10s couldn't that's the way it went.

There's no unambiguous evidence in either of those conflicts that the gun ever killed armor.

The AP round relies on velocity and so does the HEI (sufficient impact velocity to activate the fuze).

Push the A-10 above 5,000 feet and the gun is useless as a practical weapon; its main use in GWI
was probing Iraqi tank revetments/burms: a spark on impact indicated something metallic which
justified the use of a Maverick vs. a non-spark which indicated a wooden decoy.

The amount of sparks on the metal decoys the Iraqis used was quite impressive.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 04:24
by quicksilver
Anyone know the slant range at which the projectile becomes unstable and begins to tumble?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 05:24
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:Anyone know the slant range at which the projectile becomes unstable and begins to tumble?


More than 9,000 ft

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 05:51
by marauder2048
steve2267 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Anyone know the slant range at which the projectile becomes unstable and begins to tumble?


More than 9,000 ft



Given that it depends on so many factors (like the trajectory, initial gyroscopic stability factor, aircraft velocity, atmospheric density) how did you come up with that number?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 07:01
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The problem is that the A-10 is supposedly "built" around the gun. That makes less and less sense when you can't use your primary weapon, because you need to fly high (where you can't employ it) to avoid being killed.


There is no doubt the A-10’s gun is a weapon that is only effective at low level. By the 1990s, in both Desert Storm and Kosovo, for higher altitudes the A-10 operated effectively with the Maverick missile. A-10s fired 4,800 Mavericks in Desert Storm. This represented about 90% of the Mavericks fired in the campaign. By the 1990s the A-10 therefore had two primary weapons.


And if the pre-war allocation of Mavericks had gone to the F-16s you would have seen the same results
in terms of Mavericks expended but with fewer aircraft lost.

But because the F-16s could carry the CBU-87 and the A-10s couldn't that's the way it went.


The Maverick allocation also favoured the A-10 in order to capitalise on A-10 expertise with this missile.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 07:57
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:
The Maverick allocation also favoured the A-10 in order to capitalise on A-10 expertise with this missile.


Which was hilarious in light of the A-10s inability to employ IIR Maverick effectively at night/at-range...where the
the A-10s survivability and the IIR seeker sensitivity would have been optimal.

No LANTIRN. No GPS. No Radar. No owning the night.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 10:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Aardvarks were the #1 tank killer in 91. They pretty much invented "tank plinking" with lgbs

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 12:43
by madrat
marauder2048 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
The Maverick allocation also favoured the A-10 in order to capitalise on A-10 expertise with this missile.
.

No LANTIRN. No GPS. No Radar. No owning the night.


We owned the night. They could run, but they only died tired. Lots of brrrrrrrrt at night, but not from the hogs. The A-10 just wasn't a part of all that.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 13:36
by aussiebloke
madrat wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
The Maverick allocation also favoured the A-10 in order to capitalise on A-10 expertise with this missile.
.

No LANTIRN. No GPS. No Radar. No owning the night.


We owned the night. They could run, but they only died tired. Lots of brrrrrrrrt at night, but not from the hogs. The A-10 just wasn't a part of all that.


Some A-10 squadrons flew night missions during Desert Storm, so the A-10 was in fact a part of all that.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 13:40
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
The Maverick allocation also favoured the A-10 in order to capitalise on A-10 expertise with this missile.


Which was hilarious in light of the A-10s inability to employ IIR Maverick effectively at night/at-range...where the
the A-10s survivability and the IIR seeker sensitivity would have been optimal.

No LANTIRN. No GPS. No Radar. No owning the night.


The F-16 also struggled to employ IIR Maverick effectively at night. The F-16s lacked the LANTIRN targeting pod. Priority for this pod went to the F-111. The F-16 had to rely just on the LANTIRN navigational pod. The two squadrons of F-16 that operated at night mainly carried dumb bombs.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 15:12
by basher54321
aussiebloke wrote:The F-16 also struggled to employ IIR Maverick effectively at night. The F-16s lacked the LANTIRN targeting pod. Priority for this pod went to the F-111. The F-16 had to rely just on the LANTIRN navigational pod. The two squadrons of F-16 that operated at night mainly carried dumb bombs.




Priority went to F-15Es for LANTIRN pods F-111s only used Pave Tack. It is correct as far is known that the few F-16 Block 40s there only had the NAV pod (AAQ-13) - that provides FLIR for the WAR HUD and Terrain Following Radar.


According to the various pilots interviewed for Will Smallwoods "Warthog" some (A-10As) were operating at night which was very different and a lot harder. Flying to given coordinates and using the AGM-65D seeker (described as a "soda straw") view to seek out vehicles basically.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 15:43
by marauder2048
basher54321 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:The F-16 also struggled to employ IIR Maverick effectively at night. The F-16s lacked the LANTIRN targeting pod. Priority for this pod went to the F-111. The F-16 had to rely just on the LANTIRN navigational pod. The two squadrons of F-16 that operated at night mainly carried dumb bombs.


Which largely misses the point: the navigation pod has a better probability, at a greater range
at detecting tank sized targets at *night* than the human eye does during the day.


We are talking about a difference of an 80% effective hit rate vs. 85% effective hit rate between the
F-16 and the A-10 for Maverick. Maverick isn't the easiest weapon to employ; you'll note the much
greater use of CBU-87s on the A-10s over Kosovo as a consequence (compare the standard load outs).

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 16:02
by aussiebloke
basher54321 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:The F-16 also struggled to employ IIR Maverick effectively at night. The F-16s lacked the LANTIRN targeting pod. Priority for this pod went to the F-111. The F-16 had to rely just on the LANTIRN navigational pod. The two squadrons of F-16 that operated at night mainly carried dumb bombs.




Priority went to F-15Es for LANTIRN pods F-111s only used Pave Tack. It is correct as far is known that the few F-16 Block 40s there only had the NAV pod (AAQ-13) - that provides FLIR for the WAR HUD and Terrain Following Radar.


According to the various pilots interviewed for Will Smallwoods "Warthog" some (A-10As) were operating at night which was very different and a lot harder. Flying to given coordinates and using the AGM-65D seeker (described as a "soda straw") view to seek out vehicles basically.



Thanks Basher. My mistake.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 17:14
by quicksilver
“Maverick isn't the easiest weapon to employ...”

By today’s standards, exceptionally difficult.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2020, 20:17
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote:Maverick isn't the easiest weapon to employ; you'll note the much
greater use of CBU-87s on the A-10s over Kosovo as a consequence (compare the standard load outs).


Greater use of CBU-87s on the A-10s over Kosovo isn’t that surprising. At the same pre-Desert Storm planning conference that gave priority allocation of Mavericks to the A-10 at the expense of F-16s the CBU-87 was allocated predominantly to the F-16. CBU-87 usage was so high that after two weeks all use was stopped in order to retain sufficient quantities once the land campaign commenced.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2020, 00:50
by steve2267
marauder2048 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Anyone know the slant range at which the projectile becomes unstable and begins to tumble?


More than 9,000 ft



Given that it depends on so many factors (like the trajectory, initial gyroscopic stability factor, aircraft velocity, atmospheric density) how did you come up with that number?


My father was a EE power supply wizard. Before he retired from BAE Control Systems (formerly Lockheed Martin Control Systems, formerly GE Control Systems) in Binghamton, NY, one time when I was visiting around Thanksgiving or Christmas, I got to go in for a little tour. The big draw was they had a full-up MH-60 simulator that I got to try and fly. (Take-off no problemo... hover / land... BIG problem for this fixed wing single fan yoke actuator.) But I also got to see a "new" gunsight that had been developed specifically for the A-10. There was a squadron of A-10s in the Air Guard up at Syracuse. They may have been the first to get to play with this gunsight. Anyway, given my fascination at the time with all things Viper, and it's "tracerline" and "gun funnel" gun sight... this new A-10 gunsight caught my eye. The story was some smart feller there in Binghamton had come up with some fancy schmancy new algo to make the A-10 gunsight more effective, and longer ranged. I forget the details. What stuck in my memory banks was: A-10, new gunsight, new algorithm, patented, and, take it FWIW (with a large pinch of salt -- or gunpowder) 9,000ft range.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2020, 03:31
by XanderCrews
marauder2048 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
The Maverick allocation also favoured the A-10 in order to capitalise on A-10 expertise with this missile.


Which was hilarious in light of the A-10s inability to employ IIR Maverick effectively at night/at-range...where the
the A-10s survivability and the IIR seeker sensitivity would have been optimal.

No LANTIRN. No GPS. No Radar. No owning the night.



This is the big counter point to the "The USAF hates the A-10 REEEEEEE" garbage one sees spewed everywhere. If they hated the A-10 they would have left it with its circa 1989 capability. Instead they upgraded it to fight and be useful on a 21st century battlefield. They actually upgraded it to the point where its hit the limit. Theres was a cockpit update I know they wanted to try but was discovered to be impossible to update due to age or something (I apologize I don't have those details, but maybe others do)

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2020, 21:27
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Maverick isn't the easiest weapon to employ; you'll note the much
greater use of CBU-87s on the A-10s over Kosovo as a consequence (compare the standard load outs).


Greater use of CBU-87s on the A-10s over Kosovo isn’t that surprising.


It is actually surprising given how draggy those stores are, particularly for an aircraft like the A-10
which doesn't like draggy stores.

Surely, if the A-10's efficacy with Maverick is what you claim (you said it was one of two primary weapons in the 90's)
why would they alter the loadout? After all, the A-10's claimed hit-rate should produce a Pk with the Maverick which is
going to be much larger than than the CBU-87.

And CBU-87 availability in Kosovo wasn't all that great.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2020, 06:18
by marauder2048
steve2267 wrote:
A-10, new gunsight, new algorithm, patented, and, take it FWIW (with a large pinch of salt -- or gunpowder) 9,000ft range.


I could see that for a low-altitude, low angle strafe; traversing a constant atmospheric density doesn't
have the impact that a high-altitude strafe would on gyroscopic stability.

At that slant range at higher altitude, the PGU-13/B will dud as evidenced by AC-130 experience with it.
PGU-46/B with its low velocity/high obliquity fuze has to be used and it's a very expensive round.

How much more expensive has been tricky to find out.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2020, 16:46
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Maverick isn't the easiest weapon to employ; you'll note the much
greater use of CBU-87s on the A-10s over Kosovo as a consequence (compare the standard load outs).


Greater use of CBU-87s on the A-10s over Kosovo isn’t that surprising.


It is actually surprising given how draggy those stores are, particularly for an aircraft like the A-10
which doesn't like draggy stores.

Surely, if the A-10's efficacy with Maverick is what you claim (you said it was one of two primary weapons in the 90's)
why would they alter the loadout? After all, the A-10's claimed hit-rate should produce a Pk with the Maverick which is
going to be much larger than than the CBU-87.

And CBU-87 availability in Kosovo wasn't all that great.


CBU-87 is an area weapon. Maverick is a point weapon. That the A-10 aircraft would be armed for maximum flexibility against a range of potential targets is to be expected. In fact the majority of A-10 sorties over Kosovo were Airborne Forward Air Control missions. The CBU-87 wasn’t carried on such missions. Nor did A-10s tasked with CSAR over Kosovo carry CBU-87.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2020, 17:35
by lbk000
XanderCrews wrote:This is the big counter point to the "The USAF hates the A-10 REEEEEEE" garbage one sees spewed everywhere. If they hated the A-10 they would have left it with its circa 1989 capability.


I wouldn't even engaging in and perpetuate sentimental concepts like that. There are only 'haves' and 'needs' in reality. You do the best you can with what you got.

They have the A-10, they did what they could with it. Now they got better.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2020, 19:29
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:
CBU-87 is an area weapon. Maverick is a point weapon. That the A-10 aircraft would be armed for maximum flexibility against a range of potential targets is to be expected. In fact the majority of A-10 sorties over Kosovo were Airborne Forward Air Control missions. The CBU-87 wasn’t carried on such missions. Nor did A-10s tasked with CSAR over Kosovo carry CBU-87.


So the AFAC loadout was primarily dumb bombs... is that your third primary weapon of the 90's?

"Maximum flexibility against a range of targets" which is just a way of explaining away the large
survival rates of Serbian armor. The A-10 was primarily tasked with destroying vehicles.

CBU-87 permits attacks on vehicles from the higher altitudes that the A-10 was pushed to.
And its efficacy doesn't depend on seeker contrast, pilot skill or reliance on an AFAC.

The A-10 was a complete flop as a CSAR bird over Kosovo; it was not much better in GWI.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2020, 23:47
by quicksilver
“Maximum flexibility against a range of targets" which is just a way of explaining away the large
survival rates of Serbian armor. The A-10 was primarily tasked with destroying vehicles.“

Perhaps, but Kosovo isn’t the open desert, and the Serbs did a very credible job of hiding stuff while simultaneously using decoys. This, of course, is before we start talking about finding stuff ‘from altitude’... without a tpod.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2020, 08:47
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
CBU-87 is an area weapon. Maverick is a point weapon. That the A-10 aircraft would be armed for maximum flexibility against a range of potential targets is to be expected. In fact the majority of A-10 sorties over Kosovo were Airborne Forward Air Control missions. The CBU-87 wasn’t carried on such missions. Nor did A-10s tasked with CSAR over Kosovo carry CBU-87.


So the AFAC loadout was primarily dumb bombs... is that your third primary weapon of the 90's?

"Maximum flexibility against a range of targets" which is just a way of explaining away the large
survival rates of Serbian armor. The A-10 was primarily tasked with destroying vehicles.

CBU-87 permits attacks on vehicles from the higher altitudes that the A-10 was pushed to.
And its efficacy doesn't depend on seeker contrast, pilot skill or reliance on an AFAC.

The A-10 was a complete flop as a CSAR bird over Kosovo; it was not much better in GWI.


In all three roles that the A-10 performed (AFAC, CSAR and strike) the A-10 standard loadout always included two Mavericks. The Maverick was the primary weapon. Depending on the role CBU-87, rockets or dumb bombs were added to the mix.

The CBU-87 can be used at a range of altitudes. It was used at low altitude by the A-10 In Kosovo as the tactical situation dictated.

Two USAF aircraft were shot down during the air campaign. Both pilots were successfully rescued. To impartial observers that would be considered a 100% success rate. The A-10 squadrons did not just participate in these rescues. They coordinated them. The F-117 rescue was the largest CSAR operation since Vietnam.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2020, 21:02
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:
In all three roles that the A-10 performed (AFAC, CSAR and strike) the A-10 standard loadout always included two Mavericks. The Maverick was the primary weapon. Depending on the role CBU-87, rockets or dumb bombs were added to the mix.


The loadout for all Kosovo configurations included 4 airburst-fuzed Mk-82s if the CBU-87 was not present.
Shouldn't that be a "primary weapon" if it was the most numerous and the most common?

Compare that to the ODS configs which were much more Maverick heavy.

This reflects the fact that the A-10 was using unguided weapons with smart fuzes against targets specified
by JSTARS and other surveillance assets; the combination of weather, Serb concealment (see above)
and altitudes-to-avoid-threats forced this.

aussiebloke wrote:The CBU-87 can be used at a range of altitudes. It was used at low altitude by the A-10 In Kosovo as the tactical situation dictated.


It wasn't; that's based on a nonsensical claim in the Kosovo account premised on the A-10 somehow achieving
a time-of-impact for the MK-82 that was below 5 seconds (the fuze arming time) which requires
a combination of dive angles, speed and incredibly low altitudes for which there is no evidence the A-10 can or did
achieve.

aussiebloke wrote:Two USAF aircraft were shot down during the air campaign. Both pilots were successfully rescued. To impartial observers that would be considered a 100% success rate. The A-10 squadrons did not just participate in these rescues. They coordinated them. The F-117 rescue was the largest CSAR operation since Vietnam.


The A-10s failed to escort the rescue helicopters in and failed to provide any suppression;
That's practically the most important thing that fix-wing RESCORT/CSAR does.

"They coordinated" is the face-saving compliment you give to units that were merely around those events but
arrived too late to really influence them.

*All* credit for those safe recoveries goes to the helicopter crews who were somehow able to
hover-out-of-ground-effect despite the massive size of their testicles.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2020, 23:33
by ricnunes
marauder2048 wrote:*All* credit for those safe recoveries goes to the helicopter crews who were somehow able to
hover-out-of-ground-effect despite the massive size of their testicles.


Indeed!

If my memory isn't failing me (resuming, if I'm not mistaken) the helicopter that rescued the F-117 pilot was shot up quite badly and relied solely on its defensive Machine Guns for protection during the evac stage. Is this correct?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2020, 23:57
by marauder2048
ricnunes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:*All* credit for those safe recoveries goes to the helicopter crews who were somehow able to
hover-out-of-ground-effect despite the massive size of their testicles.


Indeed!

If my memory isn't failing me (resuming, if I'm not mistaken) the helicopter that rescued the F-117 pilot was shot up quite badly and relied solely on its defensive Machine Guns for protection during the evac stage. Is this correct?


Both missions (including the one that rescued the current CSAF) took fire both on ingress and egress.
No A-10 suppression to be had.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 14:34
by aussiebloke
Here’s the reality of CSAR in Kosovo.

The PRCC [Personnel Recovery Coordination Center] was directed by an Air Force rescue helicopter pilot with no SOF support on his staff. CSAR plans were developed without input from the SOF elements that were tasked to conduct the actual missions. Fundamental differences in philosophy about CSAR tactics between SOF and the USAF combat rescue personnel manning the CAOC would inevitably arise during mission execution.

Vega 31 [the F-117 shootdown]
The helicopters, having just arrived at Tuzla, quickly refueled and launched toward the Serb border. In a situation similar to Iraq, the crews had pre-planned “spider routes” that would allow them to operate inside Serb airspace and save precious minutes of flight planning. The helicopters requested permission from the CAOC to execute the recovery without waiting for a CSARTF to be assembled – the single-unit method typically preferred by special operations units. The PRCC, without special operations representation, advised waiting until a CSARTF was ready, the normal method of employment within combat rescue. Frustrated, the helicopters – an MH-60 escorted by two MH-53s – orbited while the CAOC gathered the package.

The CAOC, however, was unaware that the helicopters were airborne. They quickly received a request from a flight of US F-15Cs to target some unknown helicopters flying near the Serb border. After some confusion, they were properly identified as the three-ship awaiting mission execution. The lead MH-53s transponder had not given the correct reply to the fighter’s interrogation system and the results could have been disastrous.

The Sandys had developed their own plan. They intended to send two flights of A-10s in; the first would locate and authenticate the pilot, while the second would escort the helicopters in. The timing would require the helicopters to launch as the second flight came off their tanker and was ready to proceed into Serbia.

The first flight, led by Sandy 30, [an A-10] verified the survivor’s position, and indicated that conditions were favorable for a pickup. By this time, the helicopters had been airborne for ninety minutes and were beginning to run low on fuel. The execution plan was held while an MC-130P rendezvoused on the border and topped off the helicopters.

Once refueled, the helicopters pressed in to the survivor’s location. Due to low clouds, the A-10s were unable to provide RESCORT to the ground-hugging helicopters. Despite an array of hostile fire, the rescue forces located the downed pilot and had him back in friendly hands as the sun was rising.

In the aftermath of the Vega 31 mission, the JSOTF made numerous efforts to smooth out mission execution issues within the PRCC and CAOC, including placing SOF crewmembers flying onboard the ABCCC to serve as a CSAR liaison.

Pages 17 and 18 of “ Evolution of Rescue: Personnel Recovery for a New Environment“ https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a475898.pdf

There were clearly problems. The A-10 wasn’t one of them.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 17:19
by aussiebloke
ricnunes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:*All* credit for those safe recoveries goes to the helicopter crews who were somehow able to
hover-out-of-ground-effect despite the massive size of their testicles.


Indeed!

If my memory isn't failing me (resuming, if I'm not mistaken) the helicopter that rescued the F-117 pilot was shot up quite badly and relied solely on its defensive Machine Guns for protection during the evac stage. Is this correct?


None of the helicopters, rescuing Lt Col. Zelko after his F-117 was shot down, were hit. There were unsuccessful SAM launches however.

The helicopters rescuing Goldfein after his F-16 shootdown also had SAMs launching against them but again none hit. At the end of the mission two bullet holes were found in a Pave Hawk.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 18:20
by lbk000
aussiebloke wrote:Due to low clouds, the A-10s were unable to provide RESCORT to the ground-hugging helicopters.

So what did they do?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 22:23
by wrightwing
lbk000 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:Due to low clouds, the A-10s were unable to provide RESCORT to the ground-hugging helicopters.

So what did they do?

They had to go without escorts.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2020, 23:27
by ricnunes
aussiebloke wrote:None of the helicopters, rescuing Lt Col. Zelko after his F-117 was shot down, were hit.


I didn't say 'shot down'! I did say 'shot up' or if you prefer they were 'hit' (by small arms fire). But perhaps I'm using the wrong term here?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 04:13
by lbk000
wrightwing wrote:
lbk000 wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:Due to low clouds, the A-10s were unable to provide RESCORT to the ground-hugging helicopters.

So what did they do?

They had to go without escorts.

Now would the F-35 be similarly disadvantaged in this scenario?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 04:44
by marauder2048
Doctrinally, the primary and principle role of RESCORT is the protection of rescue aircraft from surface threats
during ingress, in the rescue zone and during egress.

In both CSAR episodes, the A-10s failed to do that.

For Vega 31, the A-10 was defeated by: clouds.
For Hammer 34*, the A-10 was defeated by: its slow cruise speed

IOW, the failures of the A-10 in the RESCORT role were directly attributable to its fundamental limitations.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 05:12
by marauder2048
lbk000 wrote:Now would the F-35 be similarly disadvantaged in this scenario?


No. It can use SAR/GMTI maps generated by the big radar in the nose to generate coordinates for weapons.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 05:58
by kimjongnumbaun
marauder2048 wrote:
lbk000 wrote:Now would the F-35 be similarly disadvantaged in this scenario?


No. It can use SAR/GMTI maps generated by the big radar in the nose to generate coordinates for weapons.


This is really the best part about it. The F-35 can do it because it has a radar. The A-10 can't do it because it lacks space to fit an A2G radar...because there's this huge gun where the radar would go.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 06:06
by XanderCrews
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
This is really the best part about it. The F-35 can do it because it has a radar. The A-10 can't do it because it lacks space to fit an A2G radar...because there's this huge gun where the radar would go.


It might be hard to find it exactly but Gums came from flying A-7s in Vietnam with some pretty high speed (cosmic to use his exact word) avionics and radar, and then he was wedged into test flying an A-10 that then had none of that. To add danger to dysfunction, The Israelis proceeded to get hammered in 1973 by ground fire/SAMS and the A-10 really didn't look like the best idea. Luckily theres come kind of public acceptance and admiration that the A-10 will get absolutely blown to hell, yet magically not get shot down. Even though there was ample evidence the A-10s would get "attritioned" extremely rapidly in Fulda Gap.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 10:10
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote:Doctrinally, the primary and principle role of RESCORT is the protection of rescue aircraft from surface threats
during ingress, in the rescue zone and during egress.

In both CSAR episodes, the A-10s failed to do that.

For Vega 31, the A-10 was defeated by: clouds.
For Hammer 34*, the A-10 was defeated by: its slow cruise speed

IOW, the failures of the A-10 in the RESCORT role were directly attributable to its fundamental limitations.


The A-10 can’t be blamed for the organisational confusion that existed. An A-10 Sandy pilot was awarded a Silver Star for his role in coordinating this rescue on the outskirts of Belgrade. The cloud level was so low that it was remarkable that the helicopters were able to operate below it. No aircraft or helicopters were hit and the pilot was in fact rescued unharmed.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 12:16
by aussiebloke
ricnunes wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:None of the helicopters, rescuing Lt Col. Zelko after his F-117 was shot down, were hit.


I didn't say 'shot down'! I did say 'shot up' or if you prefer they were 'hit' (by small arms fire). But perhaps I'm using the wrong term here?


I didn’t say that you said “shot down”. Reread my comment.

The point I am making is that two bullet holes, potentially serious as that could have been, doesn’t support your claim that “the helicopter that rescued the F-117 pilot was shot up quite badly.”

[Edit: in fact I am confusing the F-16 Goldfein rescue with the F-117 rescue. A Goldfein rescue helicopter got the two bullets. The F-117 rescue helicopters were all untouched,]

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 21:32
by lbk000
Being unnecessary doesn't absolve one from being useless.

aussiebloke wrote:An A-10 Sandy pilot was awarded a Silver Star for his role in coordinating this rescue on the outskirts of Belgrade.

Oh, so conversely that means rescues can only be coordinated by the A-10?
I wasn't aware observation was something you can only do with the GAU-8! Those tpod guys must be absolutely retarded.

Just as "the weather isn't the A-10's fault" and "disorganization isn't the A-10's fault", the awarding of a Silver Star has absolutely nothing to do with the A-10's merits.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2020, 22:19
by XanderCrews
aussiebloke wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Doctrinally, the primary and principle role of RESCORT is the protection of rescue aircraft from surface threats
during ingress, in the rescue zone and during egress.

In both CSAR episodes, the A-10s failed to do that.

For Vega 31, the A-10 was defeated by: clouds.
For Hammer 34*, the A-10 was defeated by: its slow cruise speed

IOW, the failures of the A-10 in the RESCORT role were directly attributable to its fundamental limitations.


The A-10 can’t be blamed for the organisational confusion that existed. An A-10 Sandy pilot was awarded a Silver Star for his role in coordinating this rescue on the outskirts of Belgrade. The cloud level was so low that it was remarkable that the helicopters were able to operate below it. No aircraft or helicopters were hit and the pilot was in fact rescued unharmed.


he got a silver star for coordination?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 01:07
by weasel1962
Brig Gen John Cherrey, then captain when he got the award. Salute!

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2020, 06:21
by aussiebloke
XanderCrews wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:An A-10 Sandy pilot was awarded a Silver Star for his role in coordinating this rescue on the outskirts of Belgrade. The cloud level was so low that it was remarkable that the helicopters were able to operate below it. No aircraft or helicopters were hit and the pilot was in fact rescued unharmed.


he got a silver star for coordination?


Then Capt. John Cherrey’s citation:
Captain John A. Cherrey distinguished himself by gallantry in connection with military operations against an armed enemy of the United States near Novi Sad, Serbia, from 27 March 1999 to 28 March 1999. During this period, as overall Combat Search and Rescue Task Force Mission Commander and Sandy flight lead, Captain Cherrey courageously and repeatedly risked his life to rescue a fellow American pilot, shot down over hostile Serbian territory. With minimal time for mission planning, Captain Cherrey flew into the teeth of the Serbian air defenses, battling constant communication jamming and intrusion, deteriorating weather, repeated illumination by deadly SA-3 and SA-6 surface-to-air missile systems, and the threat from enemy aircraft only a few miles from the downed pilot's location. At extreme risk to his life, Captain Cherrey overflew unknown Serbian territory, fully exposed to surface-to-air threats, until he positively identified the pilot and his location. Captain Cherrey then orchestrated a plan to bring the rescue helicopters to the pilot's position, while providing them maximum protection. He deceived enemy radar and concealed the intended pickup site by maneuvering his formation away from the downed pilot's position and into the SA-3 and SA-6 lethal ranges, valiantly risking his life. Now critically low on fuel, Captain Cherrey refused to abandon his post. With impeccable courage, he stayed in an increasingly aggressive environment to be near the downed pilot until minutes before his rescue. By his gallantry and devotion to duty, Captain Cherrey has reflected great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2020, 17:15
by lbk000
The medal honors the man, not the airplane, else we really ought to be flying into battle with Garands and grenades.

Thankfully we do not weigh lives against medals. If flying an F-35 in such a scenario would have trivialized it to be beneath an award, then so much the better.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2020, 01:53
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Doctrinally, the primary and principle role of RESCORT is the protection of rescue aircraft from surface threats
during ingress, in the rescue zone and during egress.

In both CSAR episodes, the A-10s failed to do that.

For Vega 31, the A-10 was defeated by: clouds.
For Hammer 34*, the A-10 was defeated by: its slow cruise speed

IOW, the failures of the A-10 in the RESCORT role were directly attributable to its fundamental limitations.


The A-10 can’t be blamed for the organisational confusion that existed. An A-10 Sandy pilot was awarded a Silver Star for his role in coordinating this rescue on the outskirts of Belgrade. The cloud level was so low that it was remarkable that the helicopters were able to operate below it. No aircraft or helicopters were hit and the pilot was in fact rescued unharmed.


What organizational confusion? There was a clear recognition of the A-10s limitations.

And probably a tacit recognition that the A-10s were going to be gun-shy due to nearly losing an
A-10 to ground fire that very day.

Nothing can conceal the fact the A-10s failed in the primary RESCORT role.
And the failure was due to fundamental limitations of the aircraft.

And the claim about the A-10 being illuminated by SA-3 and SA-6 batteries makes no sense since the F-16 SEAD
aircraft in the area (part of Goldfein's flight) so far as I can tell never fired HARM. And it's completely inconsistent
with the accounts of the rescue helicopters.

The uncritical reading of sources really needs a strong corrective here.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2020, 06:16
by weasel1962
This was Col Phil Haun's first hand account (see pg 214 onwards). Cherrey was "buster". Nice read.

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/31/2 ... KOSOVO.PDF

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2020, 09:07
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:This was Col Phil Haun's first hand account (see pg 214 onwards). Cherrey was "buster". Nice read.

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/31/2 ... KOSOVO.PDF


The lurid accounts in that source, in general, are right up there with A-10 pilots claiming to have destroyed 60
SCUD TELs in GW1.

It's just hard to reconcile his claims with that of the helicopter pilots who don't indicate much of illuminator threat
after the F-16CJs had HARM'ed an emitter when the package was inbound.

AFAIK, none of the after action reports from this rescue have ever been made public.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2020, 22:40
by aussiebloke
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:This was Col Phil Haun's first hand account (see pg 214 onwards). Cherrey was "buster". Nice read.

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/31/2 ... KOSOVO.PDF


The lurid accounts in that source, in general, are right up there with A-10 pilots claiming to have destroyed 60
SCUD TELs in GW1.

It's just hard to reconcile his claims with that of the helicopter pilots who don't indicate much of illuminator threat
after the F-16CJs had HARM'ed an emitter when the package was inbound.

AFAIK, none of the after action reports from this rescue have ever been made public.


Perhaps the helicopter pilots didn’t get much of an indication of illuminator threats because they were flying at 50 to 100 feet while in Serbian airspace. The A-10s were flying above the solid overcast present at 3,000 feet.

Major Haun, one of the A-10 pilots flying in the Sandy role, mentions multiple times (in A-10s Over Kosovo) that he and his wingman received radar warnings after the launch of the HARM. He directly quotes radio transmissions. For example this:


“SAM active BAT 320/32.” Magic [a NATO AEW aircraft] informed us that another SAM was active. It was just northeast of our position.
“Sandy Five-One defending SAM east, 280/14 bull.” I was being tracked by the northeast SAM. I put out chaff, checked to see that my pod was working, and turned to put the new threat on my beam.
“SAM BAT 195/25 now reported as active.” The Serbs were turning on their whole SAM belt for us
.

Are you claiming that Major Haun fabricated these detailed accounts he gives?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2020, 23:04
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:This was Col Phil Haun's first hand account (see pg 214 onwards). Cherrey was "buster". Nice read.

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/31/2 ... KOSOVO.PDF


The lurid accounts in that source, in general, are right up there with A-10 pilots claiming to have destroyed 60
SCUD TELs in GW1.

It's just hard to reconcile his claims with that of the helicopter pilots who don't indicate much of illuminator threat
after the F-16CJs had HARM'ed an emitter when the package was inbound.

AFAIK, none of the after action reports from this rescue have ever been made public.


Perhaps the helicopter pilots didn’t get much of an indication of illuminator threats because they were flying at 50 to 100 feet while in Serbian airspace. The A-10s were flying above the solid overcast present at 3,000 feet.

Major Haun, one of the A-10 pilots flying in the Sandy role, mentions multiple times (in A-10s Over Kosovo) that he and his wingman received radar warnings after the launch of the HARM. He directly quotes radio transmissions. For example this:


“SAM active BAT 320/32.” Magic [a NATO AEW aircraft] informed us that another SAM was active. It was just northeast of our position.
“Sandy Five-One defending SAM east, 280/14 bull.” I was being tracked by the northeast SAM. I put out chaff, checked to see that my pod was working, and turned to put the new threat on my beam.
“SAM BAT 195/25 now reported as active.” The Serbs were turning on their whole SAM belt for us
.

Are you claiming that Major Haun fabricated these detailed accounts he gives?


So the terrain masking* the helicopters achieved rendered the radar guided SAM threat irrelevant
in which case the A-10s achieved nothing...

Is that what you are saying?

* which of course is completely irrelevant since the MH-53 had exquisite IDAS/MATT systems that give
them real-time updates of threat emitters and hostile weaponry in general via satellite update

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2020, 22:26
by XanderCrews
aussiebloke wrote:
Are you claiming that Major Haun fabricated these detailed accounts he gives?


I'm just still trying to figure out how that rated a silver star, but thats me. Aircraft were routinely exposing themselves and getting illuminated throughout ONW/OSW and later Desert Fox. They were actually fired at as a matter of routine as well.

There's heaps of bronze and silver stars awarded since 2001 with some pretty incredible stories too, but I digress.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2020, 02:44
by marauder2048
XanderCrews wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
Are you claiming that Major Haun fabricated these detailed accounts he gives?


I'm just still trying to figure out how that rated a silver star, but thats me. Aircraft were routinely exposing themselves and getting illuminated throughout ONW/OSW and later Desert Fox. They were actually fired at as a matter of routine as well.

There's heaps of bronze and silver stars awarded since 2001 with some pretty incredible stories too, but I digress.



In fairness, it's still valorous to jump on something you think is a grenade; given all of the old radars and radar decoys the
Serbs used (including commercial microwaves) who knows what the A-10s were detecting.

It just can't be reconciled with the accounts of the MH-53 crews who did have (for the time)
exquisite defensive/SA suites.

But the Air Force is also a big family and acutely conscious of neglecting a particular combat pilot community w.r.t
recognition.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2020, 21:22
by XanderCrews
marauder2048 wrote:But the Air Force is also a big family and acutely conscious of neglecting a particular combat pilot community w.r.t
recognition.



This must be the constant "hate" I have been hearing about the A-10 community all these years. giving them medals, upgrading their aircraft, anyone who was against the A-10 retiring decades ago. That kind of thing.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2020, 22:30
by marauder2048
XanderCrews wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:But the Air Force is also a big family and acutely conscious of neglecting a particular combat pilot community w.r.t
recognition.



This must be the constant "hate" I have been hearing about the A-10 community all these years. giving them medals, upgrading their aircraft, anyone who was against the A-10 retiring decades ago. That kind of thing.


No service appreciates the A-10's strengths more than the Air Force.
No service appreciates the A-10's limitations more than the Air Force.

It's just that the cheerleaders for it in the media (and alas some here) greatly amplify the former
beyond what the record supports and seek to ignore or explain away the latter.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2020, 15:29
by mixelflick
Here's an interesting question...

Why aren't countries lining up to buy our 2nd hand A-10's when they're retired? Aren't there at a least a few nations that could use such a devastating weapon?? They're getting new wings, so structural fatigue shouldn't be an issue. Spare parts? Have to believe there are plenty in the boneyard.

If I'm South Korea for example, I might have a role for them. Yet, nobody's clamoring for A-10's or from what I can see - even an A-10 like aircraft. Hmmm...

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2020, 21:11
by marauder2048
mixelflick wrote:Here's an interesting question...

Why aren't countries lining up to buy our 2nd hand A-10's when they're retired? Aren't there at a least a few nations that could use such a devastating weapon?? They're getting new wings, so structural fatigue shouldn't be an issue. Spare parts? Have to believe there are plenty in the boneyard.

If I'm South Korea for example, I might have a role for them. Yet, nobody's clamoring for A-10's or from what I can see - even an A-10 like aircraft. Hmmm...


Institutionally, many other Air Forces don't prioritize CAS. In particular, supporting infantry in close contact.

The Israelis, for example, do not view CAS as a particularly effective use of air power when compared
to say battlefield interdiction and when they do perform CAS it looks different:

Specifically, in the entire 2006 campaign, not a single fixed-wing CAS sortie employed strafing.

And as has been pointed out, any fast jet can employ smart munitions e.g. GBUs or AGMs in the anti-tank role.

Where the A-10 might shine would be a cheap killer of light-armor (BMP type) where PGU-14 would have enough
retained velocity to penetrate the (not reinforced by appliqué) top armor from reasonably safe standoff ranges.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2020, 22:22
by ricnunes
marauder2048 wrote:The Israelis, for example, do not view CAS as a particularly effective use of air power when compared
to say battlefield interdiction and when they do perform CAS it looks different:


The Israelis use armed helicopters, namely the Apache for CAS. Other nations such as UK, Netherlands and many others also use such assets (armed/gunship helicopters) for CAS.

IMHO, it's far better to have attack/gunship helicopters like the Apache than A-10s (or other similar aircraft) this for a myriad of reasons.

And then there's also armed UAVs...

So those and again IMO are more than enough reasons why no other countries select/purchase the A-10 or other similar aircraft.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2020, 01:18
by marauder2048
It's interesting how helicopter gunships fall under different services in different countries.

And Israel in particular seems to have really intensified their use of attack helicopters for CAS post-2006.

But I think it's a good point that most other countries see a combination of fast jet, UAV and attack helicopters
as satisfying the CAS requirements.

To which I would add some sort of tube or rocket delivered version of SDB FLM.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2020, 02:19
by weasel1962
Fixed wing take up valuable runway space. Helos don't need long runways. Even without APKWS, hydras are cost effective in dealing with most target sets. I can understand using a trainer as an LAS but a dedicated LAS requires a bit more justification.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2020, 12:26
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The Israelis, for example, do not view CAS as a particularly effective use of air power when compared
to say battlefield interdiction and when they do perform CAS it looks different:


The Israelis use armed helicopters, namely the Apache for CAS. Other nations such as UK, Netherlands and many others also use such assets (armed/gunship helicopters) for CAS.

IMHO, it's far better to have attack/gunship helicopters like the Apache than A-10s (or other similar aircraft) this for a myriad of reasons.

And then there's also armed UAVs...

So those and again IMO are more than enough reasons why no other countries select/purchase the A-10 or other similar aircraft.


And Israel also has huge number of artillery pieces (tube and rocket artillery) to support ground troops. Given the very small size of the area and ground fights being very close to home, helos, UAVs and artillery are great tools for supporting troops. Not much need for CAS aircraft in that environment.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2020, 13:04
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:And Israel also has huge number of artillery pieces (tube and rocket artillery) to support ground troops. Given the very small size of the area and ground fights being very close to home, helos, UAVs and artillery are great tools for supporting troops. Not much need for CAS aircraft in that environment.


marauder2048 wrote:To which I would add some sort of tube or rocket delivered version of SDB FLM.


Indeed!

And to add an example to the above (artillery) there are also guided rounds such as the GPS-guided Excalibur round which can be fired from a 155mm howitzer and which provides high precision support fire to the ground troops.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2020, 19:30
by marauder2048
hornetfinn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The Israelis, for example, do not view CAS as a particularly effective use of air power when compared
to say battlefield interdiction and when they do perform CAS it looks different:


The Israelis use armed helicopters, namely the Apache for CAS. Other nations such as UK, Netherlands and many others also use such assets (armed/gunship helicopters) for CAS.

IMHO, it's far better to have attack/gunship helicopters like the Apache than A-10s (or other similar aircraft) this for a myriad of reasons.

And then there's also armed UAVs...

So those and again IMO are more than enough reasons why no other countries select/purchase the A-10 or other similar aircraft.


And Israel also has huge number of artillery pieces (tube and rocket artillery) to support ground troops. Given the very small size of the area and ground fights being very close to home, helos, UAVs and artillery are great tools for supporting troops. Not much need for CAS aircraft in that environment.


They had nothing like GMLRS, PGK or Excalibur in their inventory until very recently.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2020, 01:37
by weasel1962
Accular from 2003. Extra from 2013. Topgun fuzes from 2017.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2020, 02:48
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Accular from 2003. Extra from 2013. Topgun fuzes from 2017.


Accular was DPICM only and therefore completely unsuited to close support.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2020, 19:06
by weasel1962
Per attached.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2020, 02:01
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Per attached.


Note the use of "was" in my statement. Accular* didn't gain a unitary warhead until comparatively recently
and wasn't in IDF service until after 2009.

* Confusingly there were two Accular rockets. The 160mm course-corrected via RF uplink non-GPS version
is the one that IOC'ed in 2003 and was subsequently abandoned for the one you posted.
The 2003 version only had SFM and DPICM.

So precision guided tube artillery and large caliber rockets were not a major feature of Israeli close
support fires until the last decade.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2020, 10:59
by hornetfinn
marauder2048 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:And Israel also has huge number of artillery pieces (tube and rocket artillery) to support ground troops. Given the very small size of the area and ground fights being very close to home, helos, UAVs and artillery are great tools for supporting troops. Not much need for CAS aircraft in that environment.


They had nothing like GMLRS, PGK or Excalibur in their inventory until very recently.


Sure but they have used attack helos since 1970s for precision attacks in ground support. They have also had long range (25 km) precision guided anti-tank/anti-fortification missile Spike NLOS since early 1980s. Another system they've had for about as long is 20-36 km range Nimrod missile which also has similar missions in mind. They've also had smaller and shorter ranged LAHAT and MAPATS for similar work. Of course they also employed their non-precision guided artillery for close support when extreme precision was not needed. Another system they have used for a long time is Delilah loitering munition. Early versions were used for SEAD/DEAD but later versions have been multi-purpose systems capable of attacking many kinds of targets.

Basically they made a close support system which was tailored for their spesific environment with very small land area, short distances and high population density. It would not be good for US military for example which has to cover the whole world. Their potential enemies also have had very dense anti-aircraft defences and CAS aircraft would have hard time surviving. And they have had the ability to do close air support with precision guided bombs and missiles from multi-role fighter aircraft like F-16 and F-15I (and now F-35 also) for a long time also. I think in their environment F-35 will be excellent CAS platform also but would likely have other priorities in all-out war.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2020, 18:53
by marauder2048
hornetfinn wrote:Sure but they have used attack helos since 1970s for precision attacks in ground support. They have also had long range (25 km) precision guided anti-tank/anti-fortification missile Spike NLOS since early 1980s. Another system they've had for about as long is 20-36 km range Nimrod missile which also has similar missions in mind. They've also had smaller and shorter ranged LAHAT and MAPATS for similar work. Of course they also employed their non-precision guided artillery for close support when extreme precision was not needed. Another system they have used for a long time is Delilah loitering munition. Early versions were used for SEAD/DEAD but later versions have been multi-purpose systems capable of attacking many kinds of targets.


So all of that is EO/IR or laser guided i.e. confused by obscurants/dust/weather.
Most of it is slow relative to tube or rocket artillery.
Most of it is anti-vehicle or anti-fortification (no programmable airburst).

So I don't see any evidence that Israeli doctrine relied on tube or rocket artillery for close support prior
to the mid-2010s.

hornetfinn wrote:Basically they made a close support system which was tailored for their spesific environment with very small land area, short distances and high population density. It would not be good for US military for example which has to cover the whole world.


A good chunk of US close support precision tube and rocket artillery came from
experience fighting in Iraq (both 1991 and 2003) and Afghanistan.

Are you suggesting those environments are dissimilar to environments in which Israel operates?

The minimum engagement ranges for all of the US tube and rocket precision stuff is well within engagement
envelopes for anything but the shortest range direct fire weapons you listed above.


hornetfinn wrote:Their potential enemies also have had very dense anti-aircraft defences and CAS aircraft would have hard time surviving. And they have had the ability to do close air support with precision guided bombs and missiles from multi-role fighter aircraft like F-16 and F-15I (and now F-35 also) for a long time also. I think in their environment F-35 will be excellent CAS platform also but would likely have other priorities in all-out war.


Like I said: the IAF did not regard CAS as good use of fixed-wing air power because battlefield interdiction is
generally easier and more effective in the Middle East. And the fact that the Israelis, historically, made extensive
use of captured equipment.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2020, 12:24
by hornetfinn
marauder2048 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Sure but they have used attack helos since 1970s for precision attacks in ground support. They have also had long range (25 km) precision guided anti-tank/anti-fortification missile Spike NLOS since early 1980s. Another system they've had for about as long is 20-36 km range Nimrod missile which also has similar missions in mind. They've also had smaller and shorter ranged LAHAT and MAPATS for similar work. Of course they also employed their non-precision guided artillery for close support when extreme precision was not needed. Another system they have used for a long time is Delilah loitering munition. Early versions were used for SEAD/DEAD but later versions have been multi-purpose systems capable of attacking many kinds of targets.


So all of that is EO/IR or laser guided i.e. confused by obscurants/dust/weather.
Most of it is slow relative to tube or rocket artillery.
Most of it is anti-vehicle or anti-fortification (no programmable airburst).


Sure optical systems have some limitations when it comes to obscurants/dust/weather but they need to be pretty tough conditions to make them inoperable. Precision weapons usually are meant against vehicles and fortifications and similar targets.

marauder2048 wrote:So I don't see any evidence that Israeli doctrine relied on tube or rocket artillery for close support prior
to the mid-2010s.


They didn't rely on only those. Like I said, they have used a lot of tube and rocket artillery for area targets and guided missiles and bombs against vehicles, fortifications and other pinpoint targets. They used mostly helicopters and ground launchers to launch missiles in close support because the ranges involved have been usually very short and there has been not much need for fixed wing CAS.

marauder2048 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Basically they made a close support system which was tailored for their spesific environment with very small land area, short distances and high population density. It would not be good for US military for example which has to cover the whole world.


A good chunk of US close support precision tube and rocket artillery came from
experience fighting in Iraq (both 1991 and 2003) and Afghanistan.

Are you suggesting those environments are dissimilar to environments in which Israel operates?

The minimum engagement ranges for all of the US tube and rocket precision stuff is well within engagement
envelopes for anything but the shortest range direct fire weapons you listed above.


Iraq has land area that is over 20 times larger than Israel. My point was that Israel has so small land area that fixed wing CAS aircraft like A-10 were really not needed in their environment. Another difference is that Israel can't be certain that they will always have total air superiority like USA can. USAF/USN/USMC have so much more aircraft and most advanced aircraft that will decimate any opponent very quickly. IAF is very powerful air force with very advanced equipment, but neighboring countries also have pretty advanced equipment and a lot of it.

Of course Israel is also a small country with much more limited resources and have to choose more carefully what brings them most bang for the shekel. Nowadays they also have all kinds of precision stuff for tube and rocket artillery and multi-mode seekers for their missiles and bombs.

marauder2048 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Their potential enemies also have had very dense anti-aircraft defences and CAS aircraft would have hard time surviving. And they have had the ability to do close air support with precision guided bombs and missiles from multi-role fighter aircraft like F-16 and F-15I (and now F-35 also) for a long time also. I think in their environment F-35 will be excellent CAS platform also but would likely have other priorities in all-out war.


Like I said: the IAF did not regard CAS as good use of fixed-wing air power because battlefield interdiction is
generally easier and more effective in the Middle East. And the fact that the Israelis, historically, made extensive
use of captured equipment.


I definitely agree with that. Most air forces around the world do that as there are so many other ways to provide support for ground troops that dedicated CAS aircraft are not necessary. Especially so with modern munitions and targeting systems.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2020, 14:28
by michaelemouse
hornetfinn wrote:And Israel also has huge number of artillery pieces (tube and rocket artillery) to support ground troops. Given the very small size of the area and ground fights being very close to home, helos, UAVs and artillery are great tools for supporting troops. Not much need for CAS aircraft in that environment.


The Israelis probably figure they can use their multipurpose fighters as good enough CAS if it's required. Whether we're talking about machineguns, rifles, armored vehicles or airplanes, the trend has been towards multipurpose tools rather than specialized ones e.g.: The HMG and LMG turned into the GPMG, battle rifle + SMG = assault rifle, infantry tank + cruiser tank + tank destroyer = MBT. The same is holding true for warplanes; Roles like night fighter, attack, EW, recon, air superiority, interceptor, interdictor, strike, bomber are being fused into a small number of broad purpose aircraft types.

I've read and watched some amount about the 6 Day War but haven't been able to find out what the Israeli fighter jets that took out radars/command centers/airfields did afterward. I'm guessing the Israelis didn't leave them sitting around after the early strategic strikes. Does anyone know what the fighter pilots did after they were done patting themselves on the back for bombing airfields?

Also, given that CAS usually involves hanging around the enemy while flying low and slow, I'm guessing the Israelis heavily favor using drones for CAS. You don't need a big gun for that anymore; Isn't it true that the A-10 itself relies on guided munitions more than its gun?

I mean, I like the 30mm BRRRRT gun as much as anyone but maybe it's going the same way as battleships' 16-inch guns.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2020, 08:52
by weasel1962
Generally A2G sorties out of ~3300 sorties in total (Author cited below being Kenneth Pollack). Pretty good sortie rate for a 200+ fleet. But 67 is not really a good citation for CAS considering the effectiveness of the aircraft back then. A single sqn of A-10s in that turkey shoot would do a lot more damage than the entire IAF did in 67.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2020, 12:55
by hornetfinn
weasel1962 wrote:Generally A2G sorties out of ~3300 sorties in total (Author cited below being Kenneth Pollack). Pretty good sortie rate for a 200+ fleet. But 67 is not really a good citation for CAS considering the effectiveness of the aircraft back then. A single sqn of A-10s in that turkey shoot would do a lot more damage than the entire IAF did in 67.


Aircraft involved in 1967 war were definitely not very well suited to CAS and A-10 would've done great there as the air defences were very poor then (only SA-2 and ZSU-57-2 for dedicated systems). Of course A-10 entered service a decade later and even Yom Kippur war would've already been much tougher with SA-7, ZSU-23-4 and SA-6. Naturally that was still pretty much the kind of threat environment where A-10 was envisioned to be used and likely would've done pretty well but taken losses like it did in Desert Storm against those same systems. Of course Iraqis also had newer MANPADS (SA-14/16/18) along with SA-9 and SA-13, all of which proved dangerous especially against A-10s.

I think nowadays A-10 is perfect for use in Iraq and Afghanistan where there the threat level is very low and land area large. So A-10 has a lot of advantages compared to helos with longer reach/endurance and faster response time against long distance targets.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2020, 13:23
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:I think nowadays A-10 is perfect for use in Iraq and Afghanistan where there the threat level is very low and land area large. So A-10 has a lot of advantages compared to helos with longer reach/endurance and faster response time against long distance targets.


While I agree with everything else you said, I don't quite or fully agree with the paragraph above.
Well, it's true that the A-10's have longer reach/endurance, that's a fact. But I believe that you're forgetting that in counterinsurgency scenarios such as Iraq and Afghanistan (and basically in all other similar scenarios) there's always lots of 'Firebases' (this was a term used in Vietnam, I'm not sure if it's used nowadays), FARPs and other similar bases dispersed across the theater of operations and helicopters due to their nature (they don't need runways) can and do operate from such bases which means that in practical terms helicopters will likely have faster response times most of the times since these bases are much closer to the troops in need of CAS compared to any base or airbase with a runway or resuming, this IMO offsets the A-10 speed advantage over helicopters.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2020, 19:08
by marauder2048
hornetfinn wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Generally A2G sorties out of ~3300 sorties in total (Author cited below being Kenneth Pollack). Pretty good sortie rate for a 200+ fleet. But 67 is not really a good citation for CAS considering the effectiveness of the aircraft back then. A single sqn of A-10s in that turkey shoot would do a lot more damage than the entire IAF did in 67.


Aircraft involved in 1967 war were definitely not very well suited to CAS and A-10 would've done great there as the air defences were very poor then (only SA-2 and ZSU-57-2 for dedicated systems). Of course A-10 entered service a decade later and even Yom Kippur war would've already been much tougher with SA-7, ZSU-23-4 and SA-6. Naturally that was still pretty much the kind of threat environment where A-10 was envisioned to be used and likely would've done pretty well but taken losses like it did in Desert Storm against those same systems. Of course Iraqis also had newer MANPADS (SA-14/16/18) along with SA-9 and SA-13, all of which proved dangerous especially against A-10s.

I think nowadays A-10 is perfect for use in Iraq and Afghanistan where there the threat level is very low and land area large. So A-10 has a lot of advantages compared to helos with longer reach/endurance and faster response time against long distance targets.


When we talk about CAS are we talking about close support for armor or close support for (dismounted) infantry?

The crucial difference is that the US Army, with the arrival of the A-10 completely changed the way it was going to engage Soviet armor. The target priority list for tank hunting teams (including Army aviation) changed to focus
on the "funnies" i.e. air defense elements and battery command vehicles.

Things like Copperhead were developed to focus on those high value targets and a lot of the
anti-armor weapons were going to be initially focused on SEAD. The scheme was going to eventually include
mortar delivered IR screening/obscurants against Soviet MANPADS positions.

In this sort of CAS, opposing forces are separated by kilometers so things like "danger close" (<= 200 m)
for supporting infantry are less relevant.

Post-2003 Iraq and Afghanistan have featured dismounted infantry-on-infantry battles which drove
the need for precision artillery and things like SDB FLM. And have featured aerial cannon more extensively.

For the Soviet threat the big concern was less local air defense units and more Soviet Frontal
Aviation leakers with look-down-shoot-down.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2020, 19:21
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote: But 67 is not really a good citation for CAS considering the effectiveness of the aircraft back then


"Not really a good citation" is rather an understatement since the number of air-to-ground sorties tells
you nothing about CAS beyond an absolute upper bound.

Example: a large chunk of the missions in GWI coded as "CAS" really weren't;
the opposing armored forces weren't even in contact.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2020, 09:44
by hornetfinn
marauder2048 wrote:When we talk about CAS are we talking about close support for armor or close support for (dismounted) infantry?

The crucial difference is that the US Army, with the arrival of the A-10 completely changed the way it was going to engage Soviet armor. The target priority list for tank hunting teams (including Army aviation) changed to focus
on the "funnies" i.e. air defense elements and battery command vehicles.

Things like Copperhead were developed to focus on those high value targets and a lot of the
anti-armor weapons were going to be initially focused on SEAD. The scheme was going to eventually include
mortar delivered IR screening/obscurants against Soviet MANPADS positions.

In this sort of CAS, opposing forces are separated by kilometers so things like "danger close" (<= 200 m)
for supporting infantry are less relevant.

Post-2003 Iraq and Afghanistan have featured dismounted infantry-on-infantry battles which drove
the need for precision artillery and things like SDB FLM. And have featured aerial cannon more extensively.

For the Soviet threat the big concern was less local air defense units and more Soviet Frontal
Aviation leakers with look-down-shoot-down.


Now you bring up very interesting point. If you do CAS with fixed wing aircraft like A-10 or Su-25, then SEAD is very crucial for survival and successfully accompishing missions in high threat environments. Of course it's also important for helos but they can better use terrain masking to avoid most threatening AD systems. Especially so if they can use their weapons without direct LOS to enemy units. For example AH-64 Apache can use Spike NLOS, Brimstone and possibly JAGM like that. It seems like Israel has been very keen to k

One big problem besides MANPADS for slow and low CAS is that IFVs nowadays have very capable anti-aircraft capabilities with 30-40 mm guns, thermal imaging sights, laser rangefinders and even getting air situation picture from AD sensors on their own screens. They are perfectly capable of shooting down aircraft and helos that come within range and there is usually a lot of them in ground formations. Nowadays Russian and Chinese vehicles are getting these capabilties and they are likely to become more widespread. In that kind of environment, a stealthy high-altitude platform like F-35 with great sensors and targeting systems would definitely be preferred. Especially so if enemy also has heavier AD systems and capable air force.

During Cold War the Soviet Frontal Aviation would definitely have posed a problem for NATO CAS and strike aircraft. But I think that the main threat would've still been the AD systems as the Soviets only had limited number of aircraft with real look-down shoot-down capabilities. Of course for example MiG-23 with rather limited capabilties in that area has shot down helicopters which proves that they would've definitely been a credible threat especially with their 4 IR guided missiles. So it depends on whether NATO was more capable in shooting down enemy aircraft or doing SEAD.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2020, 20:46
by XanderCrews
marauder2048 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Generally A2G sorties out of ~3300 sorties in total (Author cited below being Kenneth Pollack). Pretty good sortie rate for a 200+ fleet. But 67 is not really a good citation for CAS considering the effectiveness of the aircraft back then. A single sqn of A-10s in that turkey shoot would do a lot more damage than the entire IAF did in 67.


Aircraft involved in 1967 war were definitely not very well suited to CAS and A-10 would've done great there as the air defences were very poor then (only SA-2 and ZSU-57-2 for dedicated systems). Of course A-10 entered service a decade later and even Yom Kippur war would've already been much tougher with SA-7, ZSU-23-4 and SA-6. Naturally that was still pretty much the kind of threat environment where A-10 was envisioned to be used and likely would've done pretty well but taken losses like it did in Desert Storm against those same systems. Of course Iraqis also had newer MANPADS (SA-14/16/18) along with SA-9 and SA-13, all of which proved dangerous especially against A-10s.

I think nowadays A-10 is perfect for use in Iraq and Afghanistan where there the threat level is very low and land area large. So A-10 has a lot of advantages compared to helos with longer reach/endurance and faster response time against long distance targets.


When we talk about CAS are we talking about close support for armor or close support for (dismounted) infantry?

The crucial difference is that the US Army, with the arrival of the A-10 completely changed the way it was going to engage Soviet armor. The target priority list for tank hunting teams (including Army aviation) changed to focus
on the "funnies" i.e. air defense elements and battery command vehicles.

Things like Copperhead were developed to focus on those high value targets and a lot of the
anti-armor weapons were going to be initially focused on SEAD. The scheme was going to eventually include
mortar delivered IR screening/obscurants against Soviet MANPADS positions.

In this sort of CAS, opposing forces are separated by kilometers so things like "danger close" (<= 200 m)
for supporting infantry are less relevant.

Post-2003 Iraq and Afghanistan have featured dismounted infantry-on-infantry battles which drove
the need for precision artillery and things like SDB FLM. And have featured aerial cannon more extensively.

For the Soviet threat the big concern was less local air defense units and more Soviet Frontal
Aviation leakers with look-down-shoot-down.



yes the A-10 was designed for "Battlefield air Interdiction" BAI. What it would have been doing against IVAN in the Fulda Gap is not what we would term today CAS. And things have changed. For example we trust PGMs more than we do platforms. It seems to go completely unnoticed but one of my friends (no longer with us I'm afraid) was tagging along with American Forces in the early days of the 2001 Special Forces operations and was describing B-52s doing CAS. Thats remarkable, and it seems to have taken place without many civilians noticing what a "sea change" that was. Also cool story he was there to cover the soviets withdrawing over a decade prior.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2020, 02:50
by weasel1962
Battlefield networks are down to squad level which means that the location of friendlies are a lot more easily identified. CAS with PGMs can occur much more effectively at the FLOT esp during maneuver warfare. But with RSTA sensor improvements + increased range of weapons, the targets will also be further away from the FLOT. At that distance, Army already has a lot of firepower to deal with those threats from army aviation to arty. With increased engagement distances, I would think more BAI than CAS is needed/useful.

Marauder brings up a good point. Define CAS more narrowly and distinguish it from BAI. F-35s with its sensors execute BAI very well, better (more survivable) than legacy A-10s.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2020, 19:32
by michaelemouse
hornetfinn wrote:Now you bring up very interesting point. If you do CAS with fixed wing aircraft like A-10 or Su-25, then SEAD is very crucial for survival and successfully accompishing missions in high threat environments. Of course it's also important for helos but they can better use terrain masking to avoid most threatening AD systems. Especially so if they can use their weapons without direct LOS to enemy units. For example AH-64 Apache can use Spike NLOS, Brimstone and possibly JAGM like that. It seems like Israel has been very keen to k


Winged vs rotary seems analogous to ballistic vs cruise missiles: Winged/ballistic has higher altitude, time-on-station, speed, range, payload while rotary/cruise has higher stealth thru terrain masking.

Unless someone can find some other major advantage, it's interesting to me that altitude (and therefore one's own sensor range), time-on-station, speed, range, payload are all sacrificed for contextual (terrain-dependent) stealth.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2020, 21:09
by marauder2048
michaelemouse wrote:
Unless someone can find some other major advantage, it's interesting to me that altitude (and therefore one's own sensor range), time-on-station, speed, range, payload are all sacrificed for contextual (terrain-dependent) stealth.


Just about all SAMs have altitude minima. There have been several cases where the AH-64s survived MANPADS and
other SAM attacks by staying under the altitude minima.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2020, 21:44
by michaelemouse
marauder2048 wrote:
michaelemouse wrote:
Unless someone can find some other major advantage, it's interesting to me that altitude (and therefore one's own sensor range), time-on-station, speed, range, payload are all sacrificed for contextual (terrain-dependent) stealth.


Just about all SAMs have altitude minima. There have been several cases where the AH-64s survived MANPADS and
other SAM attacks by staying under the altitude minima.


You're right, thanks.

I suppose cruise missiles can also benefit from SAM altitude minima, thus only leaving laser/bullet-based defenses which are short-range, LoS and less amenable to networked warfare.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2020, 04:46
by weasel1962
Tech has improved. All Russian SAMs' minimum engagement altitudes are generally 10-15m. That includes the S400 and Buk, not just the manpads. Even the Pechora has gone down to 20m. There's even new weapons like Pishal.

Russia now uses mobile small sized radar like the 1L122-1E and dedicated low altitude radars like Kasta 2E2 which together with network sharing means one may not spot an emitter until its ready to engage/within engagement range supplemented by EO detection. Low level air ops is more likely to be prohibitive in most potential battlefields.

The decision to go medium altitude with the F-35 is a sound one. A-10s can do it at medium altitude but they lose their survivability there. The only fallacy is assuming that stealth with speed is sufficient. imho, sead may still be needed.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2020, 08:24
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Tech has improved. All Russian SAMs' minimum engagement altitudes are generally 10-15m. That includes the S400 and Buk, not just the manpads. Even the Pechora has gone down to 20m. There's even new weapons like Pishal.


Doesn't seem problematic given that 10m attack altitudes were not at all unusual for GW1-era Apaches.
And Pave Low IIIs were able to do under 5m in the 90's (albeit under NVG friendly conditions).

How-low-can-you-go in all-weather/all-conditions is where all intensive work on the Degraded Visual Environment +
TF/TA sensors will take us. So that all gets coupled with the route planners which are pretty sophisticated.

weasel1962 wrote:Russia now uses mobile small sized radar like the 1L122-1E and dedicated low altitude radars like Kasta 2E2 which together with network sharing means one may not spot an emitter until its ready to engage/within engagement range supplemented by EO detection. Low level air ops is more likely to be prohibitive in most potential battlefields.


Do you mean visually spot the emitter? I tend to think the greater danger to helicopters is really acoustic sensors;
the AH-64E is supposed to have a real-time acoustic footprint overlay display for this reason.

But definitely passives coupled with the harder to spot ATGM teams and towed AAA will be a big threat.

But that's where your long range fires like PrSM and ER-GMLRS are supposed to come in.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2020, 01:31
by weasel1962
It does help to extend the reach of the Apaches (e.g. Spike NLOS). ER-Hydras anyone?

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2020, 05:58
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:The only fallacy is assuming that stealth with speed is sufficient. imho, sead may still be needed.


Why? When F-15C sensors and weapons can't lock up and fire on a visual F-22 in exercise, I'd say the smaller newer F-35 picking its way through system sensor bubbles with EA, countermeasures and a towed-decoy is going to get through for a long time to come. Unless improving EO detection, tracking and targeting is what you refer to. In which case an engine upgrade optimized to fly higher and maybe a bit slower (uses less fuel, for more range and loiter) in colder air, cooling the leading edges and engine more at greater range will get it done for another generation of SAMs. We still don't see Russian kit in SAA shooting down a lot of F-16s and F-15s in the ME at medium altitude. As always the tactics matter more.