Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

The whole deal about the A-10 here has absolutely zilch to do with its combat effectiveness and everything to do with psychology. There's the business of killing stuff and then there are threat displays. A low observable platform delivering a low observable weapon simply does not communicate much to the spectator. The A-10 on the other hand, makes itself seen (why do you think they're obsessed with the low flying bit?) and heard (haha muh BRRRT memes!) as a representation of power, and this is a form of conflict resolution far more relatable for Joe Public who doesn't quite connect with the business of killing threats.

I've been thinking this might be a hidden issue that might actually hamstring a high technology military, at least in terms of the whole 'hearts and minds' business. I think it's totally possible a PGM dropped from some unseen drone may well be a total non-sequitur to spectators uninitiated with the whole kill chain complex behind it; it simply becomes an unfortunate act-of-god accident -- the killing does not serve any sort of effective discouragement to others simply because it's so alien.

Salute!

Good points LB. Although I don't think the folks I bombed on the base camp fence in my A-37 were scared...... burning chunks of flesh don't think too much.

I double post to get some clues to you all about the A-7 system we had over 5 years before the Hog became operational with a basic A-1 or A-37 or F-100 or A-4 system. More over on the Cold War thread/forum.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... air-combat

Gums sends...

imho, A-10s have a viable combat role playing defense in Korea. Psychologically, its also a deterrence against any NK misadventure. Any idea why the Koreans never took it into service? They are already providing depot support in Busan. From ROK point of view, it certainly beats keeping the F-4/F-5s in service and it frees up a few USAF squadrons.

The whole deal about the A-10 here has ... everything to do with psychology. There's ... threat displays. A low observable platform delivering a low observable weapon simply does not communicate much to the spectator. ... this is a form of conflict resolution far more relatable for Joe Public who doesn't quite connect with the business of killing threats.

I've been thinking this might be a hidden issue that might actually hamstring a high technology military,...

I'll defer on CAS to folks like Gums, and my brother (who commanded a group with both A-10's and stealth fighters in it).

However .... when it comes to psychological impacts, stealth is a whole new level of it's own. F-22 pilots can fly CAP drinking beer in the O Club because the adversary is unnerved with a "do you see them, yet !!? " head swivel distraction. Drones and high altitude B-52 carpet layers literally drive troops on the ground into hiding in basements and tunnels. I can dodge a "BRRRT," especially if I hear it coming ... but that Hellfire from above makes me sleep in different beds every night. That's a psychological impact, too.

"Threat Displays" include watching your supreme commander's SUV go poof in a cloud of smoke, or watching your armored patrol instantly become a junk yard on the highway with unseen "rain" from above.. Yeah, that's psychological.

Just saying,
BP

Salute!

I gotta go with Blind's thots about this.

"Threat Displays" include watching your supreme commander's SUV go poof in a cloud of smoke, or watching your armored patrol instantly become a junk yard on the highway with unseen "rain" from above.. Yeah, that's psychological.

I feel that the warm feeling by grunts when seeing/hearing the Hog is more on our side than the "fear" on the part of the enema.

My friends in 'raqi 1 talked about plinking tanks with the IR Mav from medium altitude during the night. Didn't take many nights and the tank crews slept well away from their steed. My son's high school friend was an Army Ranger and designated tanks and such for the 'varks to hit with MK-82 LGB's.

So I think stealth and surprise may be more effective than seeing and shooting at the Hog as it gets low and slow.
========================
All that being said, if USAF could maintain a wing of Hogs for a decent price, and make an overwhelming case for its effectiveness in a likely scenario, then I'm all for it.

Gums sends...

Some nice counterpoints, thanks.

I feel that the warm feeling by grunts when seeing/hearing the Hog is more on our side than the "fear" on the part of the enema.

Truly, the GAU-8 is a most elaborate wardrum.

Salute!

My fellow A-37 folks on the A-9/A-10 flyoff and later development loved the big gun.

Halfway decent attack pilots can easily get the 25% of the rounds within a 20 x 20 foot panel from min range, and the GAU-8 could do that at 4,000 feet. So the USAF made all kindsa claims to Congress about the plane being a tank killer and could drop bombs down a pickle barrel without computers. Cheaper than the SLuf or F-4 or 'vaark. Dirt cheap. And that's what they got---- a dirt cheap plane that was really a jet-powered A-1 and didn't even have an inertial or autopilot. More like a big A-37 than anything.

Gums sends...

Salute!

Good points LB. Although I don't think the folks I bombed on the base camp fence in my A-37 were scared...... burning chunks of flesh don't think too much.

I double post to get some clues to you all about the A-7 system we had over 5 years before the Hog became operational with a basic A-1 or A-37 or F-100 or A-4 system. More over on the Cold War thread/forum.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... air-combat

Gums sends...

Nothing you weren't telling us LONG ago Gums, LOL. The War Zone just added some pretty pictures.

Shame really, the A-7F wasn't put into service. I always thought even the "stock" A-7 was way underestimated with 2 AIM-9's, nevermind the A-7F with so much more "oomph" from that engine. It would have been no easy picken's, especially as more advanced sidewinders capable of "head on" and high off boresight shots were brought into the inventory.

And I second the potential of a S. Korean buy. Hell even today, A-7F's in S. Korean service would be head and shoulders over most N. Korean aircraft...

Salute!

Thanks, mixel....

USAF could have put a great computed weapon delivery system in the Hog for only a few bucks. The thing did not need the cosmic array we had in the Sluf - doppler backup, extra UHF radio, FLR with terrain following and bombing interface with SMS and HUD, etc. The map would have been priceless, and it was already designed to interface with the inertial via a simple computer. All our subsystems were analog and required dedicated connections to the central computer. That was about to change! A neat little jet was developed and tested about the time we had the A-7 v A-10 flyoff tragedy. It used a mux bus and didn't have a ton of dedicated wires to all the subsystems.

To solve the bomb/strafe problem, you only need body vector WRT the earth and one way to input slant range or altitude above tgt. So the inertial provides the vector and a simple radar like the F-86 had for its gunsight can provide slant range to the "pipper". You could also tell the computer the tgt altitude and use the altimiter to determine HaT. So the original Hog could have had CCIP before the Sluf!! Oh well, I wan't a consultant for several companies and weapon systems until '85.

Gums sends...

*edited*, wrong thread.