Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Just a note; there are more workable F-4s at Davis-Monthan than A-10s. Although the Warthog production tooling is allegedly stored out there.

F-16.net Sponsor

count_to_10 wrote:

We were talking about new production for when those ran out, weren't we?

No, just to carry out a really large campaign over a lot of territory.

Well, the long-range turbo props would probably be good at that.

count_to_10 wrote:

Well, the long-range turbo props would probably be good at that.

Or you could just have a single F-35 designate all the targets from ten miles up with the EODAS, and call in a few dozen Tomahawks from a sub or destroyer. Or, for faster delivery, a B-2 with a couple hundred SDBs on call orbiting with the F-35.
And of course both of these can easily beat IAD systems considered by many to be impenetrable.

The A-10 is great for the moment, but in a "massive war" senario, other more costly solutions perform better.

That's debatable.

In a World War scenario, we would need close-air support for the ground troops. We could use B-1B Lancers, B-2 Spirits, and F-35's for precision strikes against strategic targets, but we would still need capable attack aircraft. Harriers are nice, but they can't fly with over 20% of their wing surface shot up, and neither can an F-35. A-10's can cluster-bomb an area that's filled with anit-air, get shot up, and still return to base. That's why the F-4G variant was introduced, and that's the role the A-10 filled when the F-4's were retired; Wild Weasel.

I can't think of a more capable close-air support attack craft with a high survivability rate in an extremely hostile environment. And I think the snake-eaters would appreciate having some tough company on their side.

flighthawk128 wrote:

A-10's can cluster-bomb an area that's filled with anit-air, get shot up, and still return to base. That's why the F-4G variant was introduced, and that's the role the A-10 filled when the F-4's were retired; Wild Weasel.

Doesn't look like an A-10 to me.

flighthawk128 wrote:

That's debatable.

In a World War scenario, we would need close-air support for the ground troops. We could use B-1B Lancers, B-2 Spirits, and F-35's for precision strikes against strategic targets, but we would still need capable attack aircraft. Harriers are nice, but they can't fly with over 20% of their wing surface shot up, and neither can an F-35. A-10's can cluster-bomb an area that's filled with anit-air, get shot up, and still return to base. That's why the F-4G variant was introduced, and that's the role the A-10 filled when the F-4's were retired; Wild Weasel.

I can't think of a more capable close-air support attack craft with a high survivability rate in an extremely hostile environment. And I think the snake-eaters would appreciate having some tough company on their side.

As long as no SAMs are employed. The A-10 is a beast... but ain't exactly stealthy. Nothing beats never being hit in the first place. And if you're supporting snake eaters, you might not have the luxury of SEAD/DEAD already having killed the threats in the area. Then there's the argument of needing the C in CAS... I see some of the advantages of CAS (pure shock n' awe being one of them), but I don't think they're worth it with this new tech. Although I'd love to hear your points on the matter. Smile

Now, if only we could have a Stealth A-10...

That's a pretty aircraft, first, but stealthy it isn't: too many edges. A stealthy A-10 would probably look more like a B-2.

The A-10 works so close that any level of EW & IR stealth would be pointless, it's just too close to the action.

To make it more survivable in future battlefields it would need the following (my A-10 wishlist):

1. Networking and upgraded avionics (getting as part of A-10C program)
2. A Backseater
3. EODAS + HMD (at least in the lower hemisphere and forward)
4. Two DIRCM balls since IIR SAMS are it's greatest enemy
5. UAI to take advantage of newer weapons ASAP
6. Laser guided shells (allows for effective engagements from farther away and off-boresight)
7. DAGR/LOGIR

SpudmanWP wrote:

The A-10 works so close that any level of EW & IR stealth would be pointless, it's just too close to the action.

To make it more survivable in future battlefields it would need the following (my A-10 wishlist):

1. Networking and upgraded avionics (getting as part of A-10C program)
2. A Backseater
3. EODAS + HMD (at least in the lower hemisphere and forward)
4. Two DIRCM balls since IIR SAMS are it's greatest enemy
5. UAI to take advantage of newer weapons ASAP
6. Laser guided shells (allows for effective engagements from farther away and off-boresight)
7. DAGR/LOGIR

It would still have to deal with radar guided SAMs, as well as radar guided AA guns, and it would want to keep the effective ranges of those down as much as possible. Very high bypass turbofans hidden above a blended wing-body would help against IR SAMs. Mostly, you would want armor placement to cover the vital components, and to make sure it's made out of cheep and reparable/replaceable stuff.

Sufficient offboard jamming/EA would help negate/degrade radar-guided SAMs and AAA. If we had an N-UCAS (or whatever the squids are calling the damn thing) with NGJ, or a two-seat EF-35, Compass Call, or what have you loitering overhead, the A-10s would be able to work with reduced threats from radar-guided systems. Theoretically, the F-15Es/F-35s/F-22s can perform the penetration strikes that kick down the door, and the Warthogs will be more open to kill tanks and pull CAS.

(Also, the 190th replaced their F-4Gs with A-10As and transitioned to the CAS role; the A-10 has not taken up the SEAD role. Block 5x Vipers and (S)Hornets are the modern Wild Weasels. Whether a Viper is better than a properly-modernized F-4G is a topic for debate Wink

count_to_10 wrote:

That's a pretty aircraft, first, but stealthy it isn't: too many edges. A stealthy A-10 would probably look more like a B-2.

Probably true. It's just a fictional CAS craft from a video game I play... But it does have two GAU-8s... Cool

And I'm not a proponent of a stealth A-10. What's wrong with the B-2 with the SDBs and the F-35 giving targeting?

firstimpulse wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

That's a pretty aircraft, first, but stealthy it isn't: too many edges. A stealthy A-10 would probably look more like a B-2.

Probably true. It's just a fictional CAS craft from a video game I play... But it does have two GAU-8s... Cool

And I'm not a proponent of a stealth A-10. What's wrong with the B-2 with the SDBs and the F-35 giving targeting?

Numbers. The sortie generation for a Beak loaded with SDBs is going to be awful at best. The labor required to load each bomb will not be pretty, and with only 19 or so combat-coded jets...

Well, let's just say that there will be better options. I hope and pray for a long-range VLO heavy-class fighter/stealthy Aardvark that can also perform CAS.

southernphantom wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

That's a pretty aircraft, first, but stealthy it isn't: too many edges. A stealthy A-10 would probably look more like a B-2.

Probably true. It's just a fictional CAS craft from a video game I play... But it does have two GAU-8s... Cool

And I'm not a proponent of a stealth A-10. What's wrong with the B-2 with the SDBs and the F-35 giving targeting?

Numbers. The sortie generation for a Beak loaded with SDBs is going to be awful at best. The labor required to load each bomb will not be pretty, and with only 19 or so combat-coded jets...

Well, let's just say that there will be better options. I hope and pray for a long-range VLO heavy-class fighter/stealthy Aardvark that can also perform CAS.

Good point... but what about the masses of cruise missiles?

southernphantom wrote:

Sufficient offboard jamming/EA would help negate/degrade radar-guided SAMs and AAA. If we had an N-UCAS (or whatever the squids are calling the damn thing) with NGJ, or a two-seat EF-35, Compass Call, or what have you loitering overhead, the A-10s would be able to work with reduced threats from radar-guided systems. Theoretically, the F-15Es/F-35s/F-22s can perform the penetration strikes that kick down the door, and the Warthogs will be more open to kill tanks and pull CAS.

(Also, the 190th replaced their F-4Gs with A-10As and transitioned to the CAS role; the A-10 has not taken up the SEAD role. Block 5x Vipers and (S)Hornets are the modern Wild Weasels. Whether a Viper is better than a properly-modernized F-4G is a topic for debate Wink

Not too much debate on the F-4G versus F-16CJ debate methinks Twisted Evil

On the subject of offboard jamming ane EW support, you have to keep in mind that EW is very much a game of action and reaction, and no jammer or EW platform remains sufficient indefinitely. Having an asset completely reliant on the EW coverage of other assets opens you up for massive losses when the enemy finally develops sufficient countermeasures to your jamming (think about the Israeli losses to the SA-6 Gainful when it was first debuted, while it wasn't necessarily an EW issue, it highlights a similar such scenario). The the USAF has abandoned the oft-proposed, yet never acted upon, proposal for an EB-52 stand-off jammer suggests that the concept of true stand-off jamming, is in most cases, dead. Hence why you see the growth of Growler procurement numbers.

Your EB-35 proposal is an interesting one, and perhaps one that will someday see reality. At any rate, I think we are on the verge of changing how we view CAS. An A-10-esque platform may be the current golden standards, but that may soon evolve.

HV