Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

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 [Link pending approval] 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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35 to replace A-10?