Forum: Program and politics

arkadyrenko wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the USAF never liked the A-10

Huh?? As someone that was in the Air Force, the service fought tooth and nail to KEEP the A-10's flying and to get them upgraded. Not sure where your getting your information, but the source is incorrect.

F-16.net Sponsor

cywolf32 wrote:

Based on what exactly Tac?? There are limits to CAS unfortunately. Being in the right place at the right time begets a wonderful scenario. I am all for man(pilot) in the loop, but a UAV that doesn't need speed but time or opportunity to engage a target at will is what counts. Read the headlines. Who is annoying these days to the war?? It's not the A-10...

Limited bandwidth datalinks, susceptibility to failure of satcom link, and other unreliabilities. I'm thinking AS needs to be manned at least in the near term. By near term, I mean this half of the century.

cywolf32 wrote:

Based on what exactly Tac?? There are limits to CAS unfortunately. Being in the right place at the right time begets a wonderful scenario. I am all for man(pilot) in the loop, but a UAV that doesn't need speed but time or opportunity to engage a target at will is what counts. Read the headlines. Who is annoying these days to the war?? It's not the A-10...

Actually you would be surprised. The A-10 is universally feared by the Taliban, particularly if in contact.

Again, my discussions with pilots and troops suggests otherwise about unmanned vehicles. There are significant limitations to using UAVs for CAS which will not be remedied in the near future. UAVs don't have nearly the level of situational awareness needed for operations, which prevents them from being utilized in danger close situations. The time lag is a serious issue as well. They are generally not favoured for Type I and II CAS, and generally restricted to Type III (since troops are not in contact and therefore out of danger.) Finally their weapons loads are not optimized for this role, with none carrying a gun or anything beyond a hellfire. Manned aircraft often carry a variety of munitions, from 2000 to 500lbs JDAMs, SDB, Rockets, and the M61.

Furthermore the operations going forward are likely not to resemble what has occurred in Afpak or Iraq. UAVs advantages like persistence and ability to slow loiter become very big liabilities in the face of even a mildly competent IADS. UAVs, even upcoming ones like the X-47B are comparatively flimsy aircraft that will be easy targets for our opponents.

Frankly, I think CAS will be one of the last roles that will be transitioned to unmanned aircraft. The danger and challenges are to the extent that it won't be easily remedied for some time.

These are mute points to be honest. Those datalinks are not subject to civilian use, and I am pretty sure redundancies are accounted for. The USAF simply would not give up a capability 5 squadrons that the A-10 offers otherwise. There needs to be a paradigm shift here.

Last edited by geogen on Jan 31, 2012 - 08:07 AM; edited 1 time in total

The point apparently being missed in respect to this story however, is that A-10s were already planned on being phased out down the road and replaced with F-35s as said A-10s were eventually able to be replaced with appropriate F-35 acquisition under assumed later FRP rates.

Yet, all this latest story is apparently saying is that higher than anticipated numbers of A-10s will be unilaterally early-retired over the next 10 years due to underestimated austere budget environments and as such, given the F-35's procurement delays and uncertainty, a miscalculated TACAIR gap will unfortunately now be accelerated and only widened in the mid-term. Moreover, early retirement of additional older block F-16 and even F-15C/D should not be a surprise in the immediate future either.

Anyway, perhaps the USMC could acquire transferred A-10s as part of down and dirty CAS requirements?

Last edited by cywolf32 on Jan 31, 2012 - 08:38 AM; edited 2 times in total

Fair points Tac. Good discussion. From Champaign myself by the way!!

cywolf32 wrote:

These are mute points to be honest. Those datalinks are not subject to civilian use, and I am pretty sure redundancies are accounted for. The USAF simply would not give up a capability 5 squadrons that the A-10 offers otherwise. There needs to be a paradigm shift here.

If you note, I'm talking about manned vs unmanned. There is no real paradigm shift as you suggest... F-16 and F/A-18s are commonly tasked for CAS today. As Geogen notes, A-10s are really supposed to be replaced by F-35s, not UCAVs.

I know, been there and done that..

This may be a shrewd political move on the part of the AF. Just as the AF provides funding for the expeditionary EA-18G squadrons this may force the hand of the Army to provide funding for the A-10 units. In any event until Congress passes the law it's not a done deal. Although some of the squadrons may go I see the drawdown being less than what has been proposed. The Army has a large and vocal support group in Congress. Think they may in part get this reversed.

Mark

If the CAS mission can be filled by dropping a smart bomb from 20,000+ ft then anything will do and quite often the least useful platform for this will be a strike fighter. Bombers and UCAS are more effective given the far greater loiter time. That said the notion that going low and slow is somehow going to be lost as a requirement part of the time is ridiculous. Weather isn't going away. Sometimes in order to positively identify a target a pilot is going to have to take his aircraft below the cloud base; moreover, there are still times strafing with a gun is the preferred or only option.

The USAF continually seems to forget it's a supporting service. Cutting a third of it's A-10 squadrons and eliminating the C-27 (after stealing the program from the Army which was created because the USAF wasn't prepared to support them with enough C-130 sorties). It will be interesting to see how Congress reacts especially given the A-10's are in good shape and thus the USAF will be asking for funds to SLEP F-16's that it has decided to keep instead of these 5 A-10 squadrons.

At the end of the day, I think it's simply a numbers game. If the USAF realizes that it needs X number of F-35s (what is the number they are floating, 1763?) and the only way it thinks it can protect that likelihood is through the early retirements of some aircraft, in this case, the A-10, then it makes sense to do so. They are not entirely divesting themselves of the A-10 as a whole, and the capabilities that the aircraft brings to the table will be retained. If anything, with the recent upgrades to C standard and re-winging, this cut in active 'Hogs could serve to lengthen the overall service life of the remaining aircraft, as aircraft about to be parked could be brought back into squadron service as older frames begin to expire in terms of hours and cycles.

They always new the decision to go to an all 5th Gen fleet was going to be hard, and the A-10 is in no way the only painful victim of this transition. However I think many can agree that the F-22/F-35 mix in the future will be something to behold.

HV

Looking at this from the perspective of the JOAC strategy, it seems to make sense. The legacy platforms being retired are of limited or no value in countering A2/AD measures that may be encountered in future conflicts.

cywolf32 wrote:

Fair points Tac. Good discussion. From Champaign myself by the way!!

Oh about that...I just go to college here. I'm actually from Normal, IL.

discofishing wrote:

That's a bunch of crap. the USAF just upgraded it's A-10 to C standard, right? These aircraft might do well in Army hands. I heard that almost happened too.

Agreed. BRAC is sheer idiocy in nearly every case. The only good thing it's ever done is realign Mountain Home into an F-15 wing from some insane composite freak show that must have required a colossal logistics train. I'd expect state legislators to fight pretty hard not to lose their squadrons.

PS: We're going to seriously regret this. Trust me, we're heading for a major war that'll make Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nam look like low-stakes cakewalks.

southernphantom - any support for that assertion?

As for the USAF not liking the A-10, look at their attempt to replace it with the F-16 before Gulf War 1 and the disproportionate hit that it took with this squadron reduction. 1 F-16 squadron, 1 F-15 squadron, 5 A-10 squadrons...

But, back to the A-10 and the JSF. My question is now, we've established that the JSF is less than ideal for the A-10's style of CAS, what would be an ideal aircraft to replace the A-10? Smart munitions are all well and good, but it can be certain that opponents are going to try and improve their own countermeasures. Also, cost per kill is not something to be scoffed at.

Forum: Program and politics

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