Forum: Program and politics

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Feb 17, 2012 - 05:01 PM; edited 1 time in total

The F-35 is designed for 18k (vs 15k of the A-10) and has UAI.

UAI means that the F-35 will have the ability to use a weapon without the need to have its software changed to accommodate the new weapon.

What this means is that while the A-10 has a larger variety of weapons at F-35's IOC, the F-35 will quickly surpass the A-10 in variety and total weapons load soon thereafter.

F-16.net Sponsor

medicdwpa wrote:

I would like to point out that the F-35 can't carry half the weapons the A-10 can. Plus the A-10 fly in groups of two it would take 4 f-35 to carry anywhere close to the ordenence of two A-10's. Turn around time is turn around time, does not matter how high you can fly or how fast. Not to say anything of the gun after you drop all the bombs.

But when. you face an enemy that isn't armed with donkeys and AKs the A-10 would find it very difficult to get those eyes on target. And I am sure that men on the ground don't give a darn what aircraft gives them CAS as long as it is on target. If I recall correctly F-16s provided CAS for a special force unit with clusterbombs. So close to the point where dust from the bombs kicked up onto them.

CHICO Flight in 1973. GUN GUN GUN!!!!!!!!

svenphantom wrote:

[... the A-10 would find it very difficult to get those eyes on target.....

In my era "TET" will generate memories, these memories designed the A-10. Having a pilot in a titanium "bathtub" helping to save you does not go un-appreciated. Yes, CAS is effective by carpet bombing, etc. but you do not look-up a B-52 crew that is flying from the Phillipines to buy them a round of beer.

Agreed, CAS should be done by anyone that can get there first. I don't care if it is a C-130 dropping a daisy cutter, as long as the "bad guys" take it on the nose.

Put the A-10 out of business by developing something better. But!, you will have to prove it in the field to the troops, not in accuracy on a test range. In 2006 (only 6 years ago), we lost our last F-16CG CAS in Iraq. Two Cents

As the F-35 pushes into the CAS realm of the A-10, perhaps a lower speed, cheaper turboprop should be considered to cover the other end of the spectrum.

They are called drones Smile

Seriously though, there has been an on again - off again look at turboprop CAS for a long time. My fav is the OV-10(X) proposal.

we don't have the money....we need to have multirole airframes and that is just reality. Yes in a perfect world I would have a-10's to COIN cas and F-35's do High threat CAS..but that just can't happen anymore. I would much rather the USAF have 200 multirole F-35's Vice 200 A-10's that are really only survivable in a low threat environment. 4th Gen is dead. Period. Modern IADS coupled with budget constraints make this a fact.

SpudmanWP wrote:

They are called drones Smile

Seriously though, there has been an on again - off again look at turboprop CAS for a long time. My fav is the OV-10(X) proposal.

I was thinking something more like the XF-5U:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U
Pity it never went into production. The cancelled it to go for slightly faster turbojets that had much worse agility and stovl performance. The compact form makes it easy to armor, and the only problem they had was with the complicated transmission, something they have figured out wonderfully for the V-22.

Also, drones are only useful against a low-tech threat for CAS. The Russians would just jam them, so you need piloted CAS against anyone they are supporting.

There are several things that you can do to protect against jamming:
1. LPI datalinks, both being directional and freq-hopping
2. SATCOM

Both of these solutions require the jammer to get between the transmitter and the drone.

SpudmanWP wrote:

There are several things that you can do to protect against jamming:
1. LPI datalinks, both being directional and freq-hopping
2. SATCOM

Both of these solutions require the jammer to get between the transmitter and the drone.

I think those can still be jammed or otherwise compromised, even if you are not directly on the line of sight. Now, if the drones were fully autonomous, and able to pick out and attack targets on their own, it would be another story, but, until then, I think the required data exchange rate is too large to be robust.

The whole point of directional datalinks (to include SATCOM) is that they only process signals to and from a specific direction. This precludes and is highly immune to jamming or detection from any direction but between the send & receive points.

Question: The units that would lose their Hogs will get Lightnings later, right?? If so, I suppose this could be acceptable (with airlift and FSMs as interirm), but the other A-10 units should be retained as long as possible/feasible. Hell, IIRC we still have the A-10 tooling, so take that and run with it where you may...

SpudmanWP wrote:

The whole point of directional datalinks (to include SATCOM) is that they only process signals to and from a specific direction. This precludes and is highly immune to jamming or detection from any direction but between the send & receive points.

I wouldn't count on there being any satellites in a real conflict, and directional beaming has it's limits.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The whole point of directional datalinks (to include SATCOM) is that they only process signals to and from a specific direction. This precludes and is highly immune to jamming or detection from any direction but between the send & receive points.

Is this because there are antennas that won't receive a signal unless it comes in from a certain direction? Kind of like a phased array in reverse? I can see directional propagation working well to hide emissions from the enemy's passive receivers, but a jamming system is going to radiate spherically outward right? I figure the jamming signals would be hitting any subscriber on the datalink within LOS.

Forum: Program and politics

USAF retiring 5 squadrons of A-10s for F-35s