F-35 to replace A-10?

[mixelflick]

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...

[charlielima223]

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.

[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.

[XanderCrews]

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...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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).

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.

[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.

[ricnunes]

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.

“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!

[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.

[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...

[XanderCrews]

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"

[XanderCrews]

“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

“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

[madrat]

What can OV-10 do a drone could not?