F-35 to replace A-10?

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 01:53

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 06:16

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
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 09:07

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.
Offline

aussiebloke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post13 Jun 2020, 22:40

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?
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Jun 2020, 23:04

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
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Jun 2020, 22:26

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.
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 02:44

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 21:22

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.
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Jun 2020, 22:30

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.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3954
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post17 Jun 2020, 15:29

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...
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Jun 2020, 21:11

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.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2685
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Jun 2020, 22:22

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.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post18 Jun 2020, 01:18

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post18 Jun 2020, 02:19

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.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3094
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post18 Jun 2020, 12:26

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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests