IMO a country that could use these surplus A-10 the Philippines. Long legs, durable and maintainable. Would make a good maritime patrol aircraft keeping an eye on the Chinese and then COIN against Islamic militants.

South Korea should have had them years ago. Or selling them to Taiwan - they might be the only fixed wing aircraft that could survive a Chinese swarm attack due to their ability to operate from austere airfields and roadways.

RJMAZ wrote:

Because the A-10 would start shooting down Russian fighters with AIM-9X. Things could quickly turn nuclear... As Maverick said: "The terrain will confuse his targeting system"...The A-10 radar warning receiver would provide great situational awareness... The A-10's would then be facing the threat and firing AIM-9X head on.

You are an ideas man, Steve.

Great to see that Aussie sense of humor at play on such a dark topic. Good on ya!

TWA772LR wrote:

The A10 is a hell of a plane and I don't want to think that Apaches and fighters could totally take over the role, all though they most likely can.

One thing I won't miss is the fan base. If I have to read another "brrrrrrrrrt" comment again, I'll punch myself in the face.

I think the the comments you dismiss as fanboy-ism are made for 2 very valid reasons.

1. The Air Force does not want to do CAS, as it's unsexy compared to dogfights and sexy exotic stuff like long range reconnaissance. This is a known political bias, one that the AF doesn't even really disagree with. So people are naturally wary when the AF is looking to retire the only air platform designed specifically for CAS. And this feeds into the second point:

2. Even to a civilian like me, when the AF suggests that F35's will take over the role, that's absolutely laughable. I'm genuinely surprised AF bigwigs can stifle a laugh when saying this out loud in Congressional hearings. If the AF presented a genuine, serious alternative to the A10 (like perhaps a combination of helicopters, drones, guided artillery, short-range missiles, etc.), that didn't reek of killing a program just to support their fighter jet obsession, then maybe I'd listen to them.

So yes, the AF's long-standing disdain for unsexy stuff like CAS means any solution they propose for it will not be given the benefit of the doubt and will be scrutinized much closer with the assumption that they're not really into supporting that mission. And then, when they propose to meet this higher burden of proof with stupid suggestions like using an F-35, which just happens to be the jet they'd sell their mothers to get, damn the consequences, then you can see why fanboys still cling to the A10.

I'm a huge fan of the A10 but I wouldn't call myself a fanboy. I think the criticisms of the A10 that commenters have made thus far sound very reasonable, especially the idea that the A10 was designed to withstand small arms, but not the manpads and other munitions that today's near-peer battlefield will have. So I'm not against retiring them, as long as the AF makes a reasonable proposal for what comes next. But if all they do is keep touting the F35 for it, then to me, that just means that CAS will be abandoned and when the soldiers on the ground need it, they won't have it. Better to have something old and outdated than nothing at all...

FWIW, I think the way to solve this is to accept the political inertia. AF will never care about CAS. It's not sexy, and the soldiers it's protecting, and the mission it's advancing, is not theirs. If CAS allows the Army to take a hill, then it's the Army that gets the credit. AF gets credit for shooting down other planes, establishing air dominance against the adversary's AF, running deep missions behind the frontlines to take out infrastructure, reconnaissance, etc. Taking out tanks doesn't really count in the AF glory games.

The only ones who really care about CAS are the ones whose butts are on the line, namely the Army. I think Congress should just recognize this and allow Army to design and procure their own fixed-wing aircraft for CAS. IMHO, the risk of mission creep is minimal. For the same reasons that AF is not interested in CAS, I don't think the Army will be interested in fielding a fighter jet. Army glory and medals comes from planting boots on ground, not dogfighting with other fighters and whatnot. No Army General is going to sacrifice money from a tank program to build the next SR-71 blackbird. But something that can support their troops, help advance their ground-based objectives, and doesn't cost so much that it swallows up money for their other priorities? They have every incentive to do that, unlike the Air Force.

CAS, done by any plane, requires a somewhat permissive environment. The A-10 was designed with missiles in mind—the engines in particular are of a type that minimizes heat signature and then the efflux is shielded by the twin rudders. It was fairly hard to get an IR lock-on with the older MANPADS. As small arms took a heavy toll in Vietnam, it was armored and many survival features built-in—redundant control paths, manual reversion, fuel tanks protected, gear designed for wheels up landings, etc.

The USAF, like any budgetary entity, doesn’t like spending its money on someone else’s mission. It was this bureaucratic imperative that drove the SR-71 retirement, the dislike of the A-10, the C-5, among other missions. The big fixed costs are borne by the USAF, while the variables benefit someone else.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CAS, done by any plane, requires a somewhat permissive environment. The A-10 was designed with missiles in mind—the engines in particular are of a type that minimizes heat signature and then the efflux is shielded by the twin rudders. It was fairly hard to get an IR lock-on with the older MANPADS. As small arms took a heavy toll in Vietnam, it was armored and many survival features built-in—redundant control paths, manual reversion, fuel tanks protected, gear designed for wheels up landings, etc.

The USAF, like any budgetary entity, doesn’t like spending its money on someone else’s mission. It was this bureaucratic imperative that drove the SR-71 retirement, the dislike of the A-10, the C-5, among other missions. The big fixed costs are borne by the USAF, while the variables benefit someone else.

Correct. CAS requires a permissive air environment. Otherwise, you'll end up with lots of shot down aircraft, which is expensive in terms of costs and lost manpower for every pilot shot down. No permissive air environment = no, or very limited CAS, with the CAS being heavily escorted by other assets.

I would also consider that counter air, and air superiority is one of the top missions of the USAF. CAS should be way down there on the priority list.

I would argue the priority list that the USAF is as follows:

1. Air superiority: Make sure that our troops don't have to face enemy CAS;

2. Interdiction: Make sure the enemy doesn't have the ability to easily resupply and reinforce their front line troops;

3. Transportation: Make sure our troops and their equipment get to where they need to be, along with all of their supplies;

4. CAS. Why so low on the list? Because if the USAF takes care of items 1-3 effectively, the boots on the ground will need less CAS.

Realistically, I would rather protect the capabilities of the first three missions (air superiority, interdiction of enemy forces, and transportation) than protect CAS because I can perform CAS with other platforms. I can't perform air superiority or interdiction with a platform that can only do CAS.

Dead is dead, whether it's from an A-10 strafe attack or a F-35 dropping a JDAM, we want the effect NOT the airplane. The ground troops like the platform that will give them the most effect, and they don't CARE what platform it comes from. CAS can come from any sort of platform, from helicopters, manned fixed wing aircraft, drones, etc, as long as we can deliver the effect in a quick, accurate, and timely fashion.

muralir wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

The A10 is a hell of a plane and I don't want to think that Apaches and fighters could totally take over the role, all though they most likely can.

One thing I won't miss is the fan base. If I have to read another "brrrrrrrrrt" comment again, I'll punch myself in the face.

I think the the comments you dismiss as fanboy-ism are made for 2 very valid reasons.

1. The Air Force does not want to do CAS, as it's unsexy compared to dogfights and sexy exotic stuff like long range reconnaissance. This is a known political bias, one that the AF doesn't even really disagree with. So people are naturally wary when the AF is looking to retire the only air platform designed specifically for CAS. And this feeds into the second point:

2. Even to a civilian like me, when the AF suggests that F35's will take over the role, that's absolutely laughable. I'm genuinely surprised AF bigwigs can stifle a laugh when saying this out loud in Congressional hearings. If the AF presented a genuine, serious alternative to the A10 (like perhaps a combination of helicopters, drones, guided artillery, short-range missiles, etc.), that didn't reek of killing a program just to support their fighter jet obsession, then maybe I'd listen to them.

So yes, the AF's long-standing disdain for unsexy stuff like CAS means any solution they propose for it will not be given the benefit of the doubt and will be scrutinized much closer with the assumption that they're not really into supporting that mission. And then, when they propose to meet this higher burden of proof with stupid suggestions like using an F-35, which just happens to be the jet they'd sell their mothers to get, damn the consequences, then you can see why fanboys still cling to the A10.

I'm a huge fan of the A10 but I wouldn't call myself a fanboy. I think the criticisms of the A10 that commenters have made thus far sound very reasonable, especially the idea that the A10 was designed to withstand small arms, but not the manpads and other munitions that today's near-peer battlefield will have. So I'm not against retiring them, as long as the AF makes a reasonable proposal for what comes next. But if all they do is keep touting the F35 for it, then to me, that just means that CAS will be abandoned and when the soldiers on the ground need it, they won't have it. Better to have something old and outdated than nothing at all...

FWIW, I think the way to solve this is to accept the political inertia. AF will never care about CAS. It's not sexy, and the soldiers it's protecting, and the mission it's advancing, is not theirs. If CAS allows the Army to take a hill, then it's the Army that gets the credit. AF gets credit for shooting down other planes, establishing air dominance against the adversary's AF, running deep missions behind the frontlines to take out infrastructure, reconnaissance, etc. Taking out tanks doesn't really count in the AF glory games.

The only ones who really care about CAS are the ones whose butts are on the line, namely the Army. I think Congress should just recognize this and allow Army to design and procure their own fixed-wing aircraft for CAS. IMHO, the risk of mission creep is minimal. For the same reasons that AF is not interested in CAS, I don't think the Army will be interested in fielding a fighter jet. Army glory and medals comes from planting boots on ground, not dogfighting with other fighters and whatnot. No Army General is going to sacrifice money from a tank program to build the next SR-71 blackbird. But something that can support their troops, help advance their ground-based objectives, and doesn't cost so much that it swallows up money for their other priorities? They have every incentive to do that, unlike the Air Force.

I you misunderstood me. The avgeek in me wants to see the A10 stay, but my inner pragmatic knows it's time is due. Sure the military won't have a dedicated CAS fixed wing platform, but they do their homework. The niche role that the A10 does well (the part with minimal overlap with other platforms) will be covered by the combined force of other aircraft, artillery, etc... An F35 and a Reaper are just as capable of shooting a Hellfire as an A10, an Apache is just as capable of shooting a salvo of 2.75 rockets as an A10, and a B52 is just as capable of dropping a JDAM (with a whole lot more quantity) as the A10. The F35 will be able to outrun a MANPAD, (and probably even an S400), the B52 will simply be out of range of the MANPAD, and the Apache is arguably as armored and survivable as the A10.

Sexy vs non sexy roles for politics aside, it is a weapons system that is overlapped by a lot of others. The only thing the A10 does that's unique is a strafing gun run, but an AF study concluded that those runs are only around 20% accurate (IIRC, I remember reading that on another thread). Retiring the A10 will save a lot of money that could be used elsewhere.

As far as the AF is concerned about getting credit for CAS in support of a ground assault, the very high ups at the Pentagon couldn't care less. As long as the battle is won, it's all good in their book.

I don't think you realize how integrated the US branches are when it comes to fighting a war these days, there are no lone wolves (except for maybe the Marines). An army infantryman can request an airstrike. The AF combat controller next to him will coordinate the strike. And a Navy F18 can carry out the strike. Even a Marine infantryman can call an airstrike and if any NATO air asset is around (B52, A10, Super Cobra, or even a Belgian or Dutch F16), the nearest platform will more than likely provide the strike.

That's the point of one of GalaxyFliers posts. The A10 only works on a converted effort with all assets. His point is everything is at play and reading between those lines, especially when he says an A10 just won't be flying around shooting at random without any support (radar jamming from a JSTARS, Patriot site to take out a surprise MiG in the area, infantryman with a javelin to destroy a mobile SAM launcher et al). All modern warfare from a western perspective is a joint concerted effort, one where lots of other platforms collectively and massively overlap the A10 making it very redundant, and in the Air Forces eyes (moreso than the political aspect) a waste of money.

Not trying to sound mean. This is just the main point of modern western military doctrine, that the A10 doesn't have much of it's own place anymore. For a 1980s scenario in Central Europe where they were expecting massive tank battles like Kursk to happen again, then yeah. But the technology as advanced enough to rule out the A10, especially in a peer/near peer conflict. A10s only reigned supreme in Afghanistan because the Taliban/Al Qaeda didn't have the ability to really take them out, and Iraq's air force was effectively shut down in just a few days. And now F35s and F22s are taking out ISIS targets from way further away and higher altitude in Syria, and all of that with the bonus of stealth. The Syrian situation is a little different with the Russians in play, but ISIS surly doesn't have the SAM capability of a peer/near peer would.

muralir wrote:

Even to a civilian like me, when the AF suggests that F35's will take over the role, that's absolutely laughable. I'm genuinely surprised AF bigwigs can stifle a laugh when saying this out loud in Congressional hearings

This basically shows your lack of understanding about the F-35 and how CAS is done.

In Afghanistan the B-1B was by far best CAS platform. It had a weapon on target quicker than any other platform. The B-1B didnt give the enemy a chance to run and hide. The enemy only knew there was an aircraft above when the bomb exploded on target.

As soon as the noisy and low flying A-10s turned up the enemy would hide among civilians knowing that 30 minutes later the fight would restart as soon as the A-10 was low on fuel.

Psychologically the difference between these two approaches are huge. With the A-10 or low altitude CAS solutions the enemy will fight hard until they hear noises in the sky. With high altitude CAS the enemy will always be in fear that something above will kill them without warning. This fear makes them paranoid and can deter a battle from even starting.

The B-1B had excellent endurance and high speed allowing it to provide CAS over a very large area for a very long time with a single aircraft. It also had an amazing targeting pod with a dedicated crew member to help identify targets on the ground because 10 years ago automation was not great.

The F-35 is performing CAS the same style as the B-1B. While the F-35 doesn't have the same endurance it is much cheaper per hour so a country could rotate 2 or 3 F-35 to cover the duration of the B-1Bs mission. Technology and automation allows the F-35 to identify targets on the ground without having to have a dedicated crew member using a targeting pod.

The USAF will have a straight face when they say the F-35 is the best CAS aircraft.

RJMAZ wrote:

Words

So the A-10 would make a great air superiority fighter in Ukraine, but sucked at providing CAS in Afghanistan??? Right… And I’m the one who regularly gets drug tested

Hate to bruise your understanding, but the Taliban weren’t shaking in their sandals while looking up. Nor did they “group up around civilians when the hogs circled”. Rather, they learned fairly quickly the closer you moved to coalition troops the safer they were from aircraft - the trick being to move close but not too close. I’d suggest you brush up on something called Probability of Incapacitation to understand the why. Hopefully the next war’s RoEs have an inverse relationship to its permissiveness.

CAS is an effect. I think most military professionals would agree it’s not platform specific and there are many ways to deliver fires effectively or efficiently, but there’s an emotional attachment to the A-10 that a jet dropping a JDAM or Brimstone can’t compete with on a visceral level... Try explaining those “brass level” concepts to the 18 year old kid being shot at that the sound of his enemy being torn apart, quickly followed by the reassuring “brrrrrt”, and the ecstasy of knowing you’re still alive isn’t the most effective method available.

LyleLanley wrote:

Hate to bruise your understanding, but the Taliban weren’t shaking in their sandals while looking up.

How the Taliban Came to Hate (And Fear) the B-1 Bomber

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ber-178526

The B-1 thus became a form of flying artillery orbiting overhead, on-call as ground troops ferreted out enemy positions and marked them for destruction. In 2008 B-1s were outfitted with Sniper-XR targeting pods under their noses so they too could designate their own targets.

Bones went on to deliver huge bomb loads in conflicts in Iraq, Libya and Syria

My post was 100% accurate and that article confirms everything I said.

There is no need to troll every post I make simply because I pointed out that you were wrong in the KC-46 thread.

CAS best aspect is the ability to get ordinance on target accurately and timely. If it can be done with a persistent UAV, then why not? With the proliferation of precision MLRL, and GLSBD and the ability to hit the back slope, some of these abilities can be placed directly in the infantry hands.

And you don't have to spend millions to train a pilot.

bt

Pass them off on down to the US Coast Guard. Would be a excellent platform for drug interdictions. They always get the other services hand me downs, the A-10 would be ideal for SAR and LEF missions.

Anyone given any thought to the Air Force and Army turning the CAS missions over to the professionals, namely the US Marines?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CAS, done by any plane, requires a somewhat permissive environment. The A-10 was designed with missiles in mind—the engines in particular are of a type that minimizes heat signature and then the efflux is shielded by the twin rudders. It was fairly hard to get an IR lock-on with the older MANPADS. ...

Totally agree. And with the modern, ubiqitious MANPADs, I really don't see how low level, in your face CAS can survive.

TWA772LR wrote:

The F35 will be able to outrun a MANPAD, (and probably even an S400), the B52 will simply be out of range of the MANPAD, and the Apache is arguably as armored and survivable as the A10.

Even a Stinger can fly Mach 2.2. I don't think an F-35 at low level gets even close to that speed. Also, one might shoot as it's approaching, not flying away. Remember, if it takes 100 MANPADS to shoot an F-35 that's a victory.

Now an F-35 up high is unreachable by MANPAD, but it costs $30,000/hour and a Reaper costs much much less.

kitplane01 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

The F35 will be able to outrun a MANPAD, (and probably even an S400), the B52 will simply be out of range of the MANPAD, and the Apache is arguably as armored and survivable as the A10.

Even a Stinger can fly Mach 2.2. I don't think an F-35 at low level gets even close to that speed. Also, one might shoot as it's approaching, not flying away. Remember, if it takes 100 MANPADS to shoot an F-35 that's a victory.

Now an F-35 up high is unreachable by MANPAD, but it costs $30,000/hour and a Reaper costs much much less.

The F35 will still probably be more capable of taking on a MANPAD anyway, speed still counts for something, not to mention countermeasures which admittedly the A10 has also. But still, a Reaper is just as capable as an A10 AND F35 at shooting a Hellfire

RJMAZ wrote:

How the Taliban Came to Hate (And Fear) the B-1 Bomber

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ber-178526

The B-1 thus became a form of flying artillery orbiting overhead, on-call as ground troops ferreted out enemy positions and marked them for destruction. In 2008 B-1s were outfitted with Sniper-XR targeting pods under their noses so they too could designate their own targets.

Bones went on to deliver huge bomb loads in conflicts in Iraq, Libya and Syria

My post was 100% accurate and that article confirms everything I said.

There is no need to troll every post I make simply because I pointed out that you were wrong in the KC-46 thread.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now. A-10s loud and having 30 minutes of play time before they're out of gas? Huh? Ever hear of yo-yo ops? B-1s quiet? They were cruising in the teens and low 20s at best, not trucking in the 30s or 40s like the B-52s. B-1s "by far the best in CAS"? The Dudes, Hawgs, and BUFFs might beg to differ. Great bomb truck and eventually became self-sufficient. That is when they could actually fly and weren't stood down for safety or low MC rates. There's a reason why the Dudes were the go-to for TF-373.

You have zero credibility. At this point you could say M&M's are made of chocolate and I'd double-check. No matter how many times you link Wikipedia-pilfering rag-sites like The National Interest that don't even reference what you wrote (written by some guy with a Masters in Conflict Resolution and taught the Peace Corps in China, so you know he's credible) or reference Top Gun 2 as a source that won't change.

kitplane01 wrote:

Even a Stinger can fly Mach 2.2. I don't think an F-35 at low level gets even close to that speed. Also, one might shoot as it's approaching, not flying away. Remember, if it takes 100 MANPADS to shoot an F-35 that's a victory.

Now an F-35 up high is unreachable by MANPAD, but it costs $30,000/hour and a Reaper costs much much less.

Flares and other systems can help out greatly against IR like a Stinger or SA-25. But even if you don't down it, a missed ToT can still be a mission kill.

Isn't one of the A-10's key aspects the fact that it comes in low and thus minimizes the amount of time it is heard and viewable by opposing elements? That gives less time to target with MANPADS etc. . Of course radioing reduces this but slow also means changes in course which affects that too.

It is vulnerable but I suspect if utilized properly can still be useful in armor combat situations.

With that however, I do think remote systems will be the future of CAS for contested space (how about a modified A-10?) Whether high altitude, orbiting bomb and missile laden drones or terrain hugging, AI augmented aircraft, remote systems would seem to be a good option to protect troops and pilots.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Isn't one of the A-10's key aspects the fact that it comes in low and thus minimizes the amount of time it is heard and viewable by opposing elements?

The original mission was to kill tank convoys. They did not have to worry about the proximity of friendly forces so they could easily get the job done flying at 200 feet.

CAS requires the A-10 to identify the enemy that often consisted of smaller units that could be hiding. That was incredibly difficult as they zipped past at 200 feet using their MK1 eyeball. To get a proper picture of the battle and the location of the friendly forces it required the A-10's to go right into the MANPAD sweet spot. That is why the A-10C received targeting pods to be able to perform CAS higher up.

10 years ago nothing could beat the B-1B for CAS as it had the best pod and a dedicated crew member to use it. Even if the A-10 received a pod as good as the sensors in the F-35 it would still lack the sensor fusion avionics and helmet to allow the pilot to use the pod perfectly.

RJMAZ wrote:

muralir wrote:

Even to a civilian like me, when the AF suggests that F35's will take over the role, that's absolutely laughable. I'm genuinely surprised AF bigwigs can stifle a laugh when saying this out loud in Congressional hearings

This basically shows your lack of understanding about the F-35 and how CAS is done.

In Afghanistan the B-1B was by far best CAS platform. It had a weapon on target quicker than any other platform. The B-1B didnt give the enemy a chance to run and hide. The enemy only knew there was an aircraft above when the bomb exploded on target.

As soon as the noisy and low flying A-10s turned up the enemy would hide among civilians knowing that 30 minutes later the fight would restart as soon as the A-10 was low on fuel.

Psychologically the difference between these two approaches are huge. With the A-10 or low altitude CAS solutions the enemy will fight hard until they hear noises in the sky. With high altitude CAS the enemy will always be in fear that something above will kill them without warning. This fear makes them paranoid and can deter a battle from even starting.

The B-1B had excellent endurance and high speed allowing it to provide CAS over a very large area for a very long time with a single aircraft. It also had an amazing targeting pod with a dedicated crew member to help identify targets on the ground because 10 years ago automation was not great.

The F-35 is performing CAS the same style as the B-1B. While the F-35 doesn't have the same endurance it is much cheaper per hour so a country could rotate 2 or 3 F-35 to cover the duration of the B-1Bs mission. Technology and automation allows the F-35 to identify targets on the ground without having to have a dedicated crew member using a targeting pod.

The USAF will have a straight face when they say the F-35 is the best CAS aircraft.

So now, the F-35 is going to be a bomb truck like the B-1B? Is there anything, pray tell, that the AF thinks it *can't* do? Can it deliver my pizza in under 30 minutes too? That's worth spending $100million for!

Seriously though, my problem is not with the B-1B. I never mentioned it. My problem is with AF's proposal of the F35. And you seem to agree by omission since you spend the whole response talking about how great the B-1B did, and then just saying the F-35 can do the same thing, although without the same endurance but without needing an extra crew member.

I actually agree with you that the future of CAS is probably going to be bomb trucks, be they B-1Bs, loitering drones, etc. working with on-the-ground or perhaps remote targeting. And if there's a need for low altitude, slow speed, long loitering time missions, that will likely be done with helicopters and drones. But nowhere in here do I see a role for an F35. Could it serve as a bomb truck? Sure! And I can nail in a nail with a screwdriver if I really wanted to. Doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job. And the AF, constantly proposing it as the be-all and end-all of all missions in order to shut down other programs to come up with money to feed their fighter obsession, loses a lot of credibility. If you don't believe me, wait until they finally get their next generation fighter approved. All of a sudden, we'll start hearing those same Generals talking about how crappy the F35 is for anything and why we need to ditch them all and move on to the next shiny toy.

TWA772LR wrote:

muralir wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

The A10 is a hell of a plane and I don't want to think that Apaches and fighters could totally take over the role, all though they most likely can.

One thing I won't miss is the fan base. If I have to read another "brrrrrrrrrt" comment again, I'll punch myself in the face.

I think the the comments you dismiss as fanboy-ism are made for 2 very valid reasons.

1. The Air Force does not want to do CAS, as it's unsexy compared to dogfights and sexy exotic stuff like long range reconnaissance. This is a known political bias, one that the AF doesn't even really disagree with. So people are naturally wary when the AF is looking to retire the only air platform designed specifically for CAS. And this feeds into the second point:

2. Even to a civilian like me, when the AF suggests that F35's will take over the role, that's absolutely laughable. I'm genuinely surprised AF bigwigs can stifle a laugh when saying this out loud in Congressional hearings. If the AF presented a genuine, serious alternative to the A10 (like perhaps a combination of helicopters, drones, guided artillery, short-range missiles, etc.), that didn't reek of killing a program just to support their fighter jet obsession, then maybe I'd listen to them.

So yes, the AF's long-standing disdain for unsexy stuff like CAS means any solution they propose for it will not be given the benefit of the doubt and will be scrutinized much closer with the assumption that they're not really into supporting that mission. And then, when they propose to meet this higher burden of proof with stupid suggestions like using an F-35, which just happens to be the jet they'd sell their mothers to get, damn the consequences, then you can see why fanboys still cling to the A10.

I'm a huge fan of the A10 but I wouldn't call myself a fanboy. I think the criticisms of the A10 that commenters have made thus far sound very reasonable, especially the idea that the A10 was designed to withstand small arms, but not the manpads and other munitions that today's near-peer battlefield will have. So I'm not against retiring them, as long as the AF makes a reasonable proposal for what comes next. But if all they do is keep touting the F35 for it, then to me, that just means that CAS will be abandoned and when the soldiers on the ground need it, they won't have it. Better to have something old and outdated than nothing at all...

FWIW, I think the way to solve this is to accept the political inertia. AF will never care about CAS. It's not sexy, and the soldiers it's protecting, and the mission it's advancing, is not theirs. If CAS allows the Army to take a hill, then it's the Army that gets the credit. AF gets credit for shooting down other planes, establishing air dominance against the adversary's AF, running deep missions behind the frontlines to take out infrastructure, reconnaissance, etc. Taking out tanks doesn't really count in the AF glory games.

The only ones who really care about CAS are the ones whose butts are on the line, namely the Army. I think Congress should just recognize this and allow Army to design and procure their own fixed-wing aircraft for CAS. IMHO, the risk of mission creep is minimal. For the same reasons that AF is not interested in CAS, I don't think the Army will be interested in fielding a fighter jet. Army glory and medals comes from planting boots on ground, not dogfighting with other fighters and whatnot. No Army General is going to sacrifice money from a tank program to build the next SR-71 blackbird. But something that can support their troops, help advance their ground-based objectives, and doesn't cost so much that it swallows up money for their other priorities? They have every incentive to do that, unlike the Air Force.

I you misunderstood me. The avgeek in me wants to see the A10 stay, but my inner pragmatic knows it's time is due. Sure the military won't have a dedicated CAS fixed wing platform, but they do their homework. The niche role that the A10 does well (the part with minimal overlap with other platforms) will be covered by the combined force of other aircraft, artillery, etc... An F35 and a Reaper are just as capable of shooting a Hellfire as an A10, an Apache is just as capable of shooting a salvo of 2.75 rockets as an A10, and a B52 is just as capable of dropping a JDAM (with a whole lot more quantity) as the A10. The F35 will be able to outrun a MANPAD, (and probably even an S400), the B52 will simply be out of range of the MANPAD, and the Apache is arguably as armored and survivable as the A10.

Sexy vs non sexy roles for politics aside, it is a weapons system that is overlapped by a lot of others. The only thing the A10 does that's unique is a strafing gun run, but an AF study concluded that those runs are only around 20% accurate (IIRC, I remember reading that on another thread). Retiring the A10 will save a lot of money that could be used elsewhere.

As far as the AF is concerned about getting credit for CAS in support of a ground assault, the very high ups at the Pentagon couldn't care less. As long as the battle is won, it's all good in their book.

I don't think you realize how integrated the US branches are when it comes to fighting a war these days, there are no lone wolves (except for maybe the Marines). An army infantryman can request an airstrike. The AF combat controller next to him will coordinate the strike. And a Navy F18 can carry out the strike. Even a Marine infantryman can call an airstrike and if any NATO air asset is around (B52, A10, Super Cobra, or even a Belgian or Dutch F16), the nearest platform will more than likely provide the strike.

That's the point of one of GalaxyFliers posts. The A10 only works on a converted effort with all assets. His point is everything is at play and reading between those lines, especially when he says an A10 just won't be flying around shooting at random without any support (radar jamming from a JSTARS, Patriot site to take out a surprise MiG in the area, infantryman with a javelin to destroy a mobile SAM launcher et al). All modern warfare from a western perspective is a joint concerted effort, one where lots of other platforms collectively and massively overlap the A10 making it very redundant, and in the Air Forces eyes (moreso than the political aspect) a waste of money.

Not trying to sound mean. This is just the main point of modern western military doctrine, that the A10 doesn't have much of it's own place anymore. For a 1980s scenario in Central Europe where they were expecting massive tank battles like Kursk to happen again, then yeah. But the technology as advanced enough to rule out the A10, especially in a peer/near peer conflict. A10s only reigned supreme in Afghanistan because the Taliban/Al Qaeda didn't have the ability to really take them out, and Iraq's air force was effectively shut down in just a few days. And now F35s and F22s are taking out ISIS targets from way further away and higher altitude in Syria, and all of that with the bonus of stealth. The Syrian situation is a little different with the Russians in play, but ISIS surly doesn't have the SAM capability of a peer/near peer would.

Thanks for your response. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure there's a need for a fixed-wing CAS platform either. Helicopters and drones are probably the future and that's not a bad thing. But honestly, I'd trust that conclusion if the Army was the one making it rather than the AF, simply because of the political biases at hand. We'll never know if a fixed-wing CAS plane is needed, because AF will never build one. Heck, they never wanted the A10 to begin with. You never know what might work unless you have someone actually dedicate some time and thought into coming up with something.

As far as the politics, I agree that on the battlefield, no one is going to leave a warfighter defenseless because he/she's in another branch. But inter-service rivalries are still alive and well. How many Generals in the AF were fighter pilots vs. A10 pilots, or even bomber pilots (nevermind non-pilots)? UAV pilots have lower promotion rates than manned pilots, despite often logging more flight time and kills. People gradually absorb the ethos of their workplace, and if all you see is fighter jets / pilots / missions being glorified, promoted, and expanded, then you'll soon come to see the world in the same way. Maybe I have a more jaded view, but the very high ups in the Pentagon absolutely do care about who gets credit for a battle being won. Maybe not the Joint Chiefs, but the service heads absolutely do. Sure, they'll work together during the actual battle (after having been dragged to it kicking and screaming for 20-30 years after Congress re-organized the Joint Chiefs structure), but the post-battle analysis used to decide which platforms / tactics were "effective" vs "non-effective" become savage as billion dollar budgets are on the line.

I have to ask, if not for politics, why does the AF still adamantly oppose the Army having fixed wing aircraft? The Navy and Marines have their own. And if the only thing that matters is joint effectiveness, then why not let them use some of their political capital and budget to lobby for a fixed wing CAS platform (assuming they want it, which they may not)?

muralir wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

muralir wrote:

I think the the comments you dismiss as fanboy-ism are made for 2 very valid reasons.

1. The Air Force does not want to do CAS, as it's unsexy compared to dogfights and sexy exotic stuff like long range reconnaissance. This is a known political bias, one that the AF doesn't even really disagree with. So people are naturally wary when the AF is looking to retire the only air platform designed specifically for CAS. And this feeds into the second point:

2. Even to a civilian like me, when the AF suggests that F35's will take over the role, that's absolutely laughable. I'm genuinely surprised AF bigwigs can stifle a laugh when saying this out loud in Congressional hearings. If the AF presented a genuine, serious alternative to the A10 (like perhaps a combination of helicopters, drones, guided artillery, short-range missiles, etc.), that didn't reek of killing a program just to support their fighter jet obsession, then maybe I'd listen to them.

So yes, the AF's long-standing disdain for unsexy stuff like CAS means any solution they propose for it will not be given the benefit of the doubt and will be scrutinized much closer with the assumption that they're not really into supporting that mission. And then, when they propose to meet this higher burden of proof with stupid suggestions like using an F-35, which just happens to be the jet they'd sell their mothers to get, damn the consequences, then you can see why fanboys still cling to the A10.

I'm a huge fan of the A10 but I wouldn't call myself a fanboy. I think the criticisms of the A10 that commenters have made thus far sound very reasonable, especially the idea that the A10 was designed to withstand small arms, but not the manpads and other munitions that today's near-peer battlefield will have. So I'm not against retiring them, as long as the AF makes a reasonable proposal for what comes next. But if all they do is keep touting the F35 for it, then to me, that just means that CAS will be abandoned and when the soldiers on the ground need it, they won't have it. Better to have something old and outdated than nothing at all...

FWIW, I think the way to solve this is to accept the political inertia. AF will never care about CAS. It's not sexy, and the soldiers it's protecting, and the mission it's advancing, is not theirs. If CAS allows the Army to take a hill, then it's the Army that gets the credit. AF gets credit for shooting down other planes, establishing air dominance against the adversary's AF, running deep missions behind the frontlines to take out infrastructure, reconnaissance, etc. Taking out tanks doesn't really count in the AF glory games.

The only ones who really care about CAS are the ones whose butts are on the line, namely the Army. I think Congress should just recognize this and allow Army to design and procure their own fixed-wing aircraft for CAS. IMHO, the risk of mission creep is minimal. For the same reasons that AF is not interested in CAS, I don't think the Army will be interested in fielding a fighter jet. Army glory and medals comes from planting boots on ground, not dogfighting with other fighters and whatnot. No Army General is going to sacrifice money from a tank program to build the next SR-71 blackbird. But something that can support their troops, help advance their ground-based objectives, and doesn't cost so much that it swallows up money for their other priorities? They have every incentive to do that, unlike the Air Force.

I you misunderstood me. The avgeek in me wants to see the A10 stay, but my inner pragmatic knows it's time is due. Sure the military won't have a dedicated CAS fixed wing platform, but they do their homework. The niche role that the A10 does well (the part with minimal overlap with other platforms) will be covered by the combined force of other aircraft, artillery, etc... An F35 and a Reaper are just as capable of shooting a Hellfire as an A10, an Apache is just as capable of shooting a salvo of 2.75 rockets as an A10, and a B52 is just as capable of dropping a JDAM (with a whole lot more quantity) as the A10. The F35 will be able to outrun a MANPAD, (and probably even an S400), the B52 will simply be out of range of the MANPAD, and the Apache is arguably as armored and survivable as the A10.

Sexy vs non sexy roles for politics aside, it is a weapons system that is overlapped by a lot of others. The only thing the A10 does that's unique is a strafing gun run, but an AF study concluded that those runs are only around 20% accurate (IIRC, I remember reading that on another thread). Retiring the A10 will save a lot of money that could be used elsewhere.

As far as the AF is concerned about getting credit for CAS in support of a ground assault, the very high ups at the Pentagon couldn't care less. As long as the battle is won, it's all good in their book.

I don't think you realize how integrated the US branches are when it comes to fighting a war these days, there are no lone wolves (except for maybe the Marines). An army infantryman can request an airstrike. The AF combat controller next to him will coordinate the strike. And a Navy F18 can carry out the strike. Even a Marine infantryman can call an airstrike and if any NATO air asset is around (B52, A10, Super Cobra, or even a Belgian or Dutch F16), the nearest platform will more than likely provide the strike.

That's the point of one of GalaxyFliers posts. The A10 only works on a converted effort with all assets. His point is everything is at play and reading between those lines, especially when he says an A10 just won't be flying around shooting at random without any support (radar jamming from a JSTARS, Patriot site to take out a surprise MiG in the area, infantryman with a javelin to destroy a mobile SAM launcher et al). All modern warfare from a western perspective is a joint concerted effort, one where lots of other platforms collectively and massively overlap the A10 making it very redundant, and in the Air Forces eyes (moreso than the political aspect) a waste of money.

Not trying to sound mean. This is just the main point of modern western military doctrine, that the A10 doesn't have much of it's own place anymore. For a 1980s scenario in Central Europe where they were expecting massive tank battles like Kursk to happen again, then yeah. But the technology as advanced enough to rule out the A10, especially in a peer/near peer conflict. A10s only reigned supreme in Afghanistan because the Taliban/Al Qaeda didn't have the ability to really take them out, and Iraq's air force was effectively shut down in just a few days. And now F35s and F22s are taking out ISIS targets from way further away and higher altitude in Syria, and all of that with the bonus of stealth. The Syrian situation is a little different with the Russians in play, but ISIS surly doesn't have the SAM capability of a peer/near peer would.

Thanks for your response. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure there's a need for a fixed-wing CAS platform either. Helicopters and drones are probably the future and that's not a bad thing. But honestly, I'd trust that conclusion if the Army was the one making it rather than the AF, simply because of the political biases at hand. We'll never know if a fixed-wing CAS plane is needed, because AF will never build one. Heck, they never wanted the A10 to begin with. You never know what might work unless you have someone actually dedicate some time and thought into coming up with something.

As far as the politics, I agree that on the battlefield, no one is going to leave a warfighter defenseless because he/she's in another branch. But inter-service rivalries are still alive and well. How many Generals in the AF were fighter pilots vs. A10 pilots, or even bomber pilots (nevermind non-pilots)? UAV pilots have lower promotion rates than manned pilots, despite often logging more flight time and kills. People gradually absorb the ethos of their workplace, and if all you see is fighter jets / pilots / missions being glorified, promoted, and expanded, then you'll soon come to see the world in the same way. Maybe I have a more jaded view, but the very high ups in the Pentagon absolutely do care about who gets credit for a battle being won. Maybe not the Joint Chiefs, but the service heads absolutely do. Sure, they'll work together during the actual battle (after having been dragged to it kicking and screaming for 20-30 years after Congress re-organized the Joint Chiefs structure), but the post-battle analysis used to decide which platforms / tactics were "effective" vs "non-effective" become savage as billion dollar budgets are on the line.

I have to ask, if not for politics, why does the AF still adamantly oppose the Army having fixed wing aircraft? The Navy and Marines have their own. And if the only thing that matters is joint effectiveness, then why not let them use some of their political capital and budget to lobby for a fixed wing CAS platform (assuming they want it, which they may not)?

Actually the AF didn't want the army to have a true CAS role, they wanted it for themselves. Look at the saga of the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force threw a fit and Congress decided to back them. The cancellation of that helicopter directly lead to the development of both the A10 and Apache.

Go to the 'Operational History' section, and then the 'Program Demise' subsection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne

muralir wrote:

So now, the F-35 is going to be a bomb truck like the B-1B?

Yes the F-35 will provide CAS like the B-1B. As the artical said: "flying artillery orbiting overhead".

The F-35 has a higher internal fuel capacity relative to empty weight of any fighter in history. When you combine the range and speed, a single F-35 could cover as much territory as multiple A-10. Cost should then not be compared 1 versus 1.

The F-35 can carry up to 24 SDB, the B-1B can carry 48 JDAM. I would say a pair of F-35 would be far cheaper to operate than a single B-1B. If one refueling tanker was allocated to the B-1B mission that single tanker would probably allow a pair of F-35 to have similar endurance.

muralir wrote:

but without needing an extra crew member.

If the F-35 program started and flew 10 years earlier it would probably have had a WSO like the Super Hornet. Computer automation and software has allowed the F-35 pilot to have similar workload to the B-1B crew.

People say drones can do CAS well they have zero pilots in the aircraft. The single seat F-35 will have far more situational awareness than a drone.

RJMAZ wrote:

People say drones can do CAS well they have zero pilots in the aircraft. The single seat F-35 will have far more situational awareness than a drone.

Check that. Future CAS drone will have an AI pilot.
Situational awareness can take a back seat if the drone is expendable.

With 4 cameras and front and back range radar, my car has more situation awareness me.

It still can't predict what that semi 50 meters ahead might do, but it would probably be quicker on the brakes if that semi decide to do something crazy.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

People say drones can do CAS well they have zero pilots in the aircraft. The single seat F-35 will have far more situational awareness than a drone.

Check that. Future CAS drone will have an AI pilot.
Situational awareness can take a back seat if the drone is expendable.

With 4 cameras and front and back range radar, my car has more situation awareness me.

It still can't predict what that semi 50 meters ahead might do, but it would probably be quicker on the brakes if that semi decide to do something crazy.

bt

Umm... there will likely be an F-35 or whatever platform, with a pilot or "op director" person overseeing the targeting and operation, sitting somewhere high above, observing from a distance.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Umm... there will likely be an F-35 or whatever platform, with a pilot or "op director" person overseeing the targeting and operation, sitting somewhere high above, observing from a distance.

Current predator drones are directed/controlled by ground control.

That function can probably be transfered to AEWC or some business jet with JSTAR function. It can even be delegated to ground troop forward comand.

An F-35 would not need be involved.

Now if we are talking about the 1000 or so wing man drones the Air Force just said they want to buy, then you have your CAS without risking your pilots.

But with that kind of automation why limit your drone control to the AF?

bt

An single F-35 can carry 8 SDB-II guided glide bombs internally. Meaning it can attack 8 different moving targets in 8 completely different locations with pinpoint accuracy while maintaining it's stealth. It can respond pretty much instantly to any CAS request over a large area, retarget on the fly, and downlink imagery to ground forces to confirm that the pilot and munition is looking at the same thing the ground forces are.

So yeah, the F-35 will be a perfectly fine CAS tool. The belief that CAS has to be done in the dirt is a strange mindworm that people seem to have. Close does not have to mean you can high five each other. Close is more about speed of response.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

An single F-35 can carry 8 SDB-II guided glide bombs internally. Meaning it can attack 8 different moving targets in 8 completely different locations with pinpoint accuracy while maintaining it's stealth. It can respond pretty much instantly to any CAS request over a large area, retarget on the fly, and downlink imagery to ground forces to confirm that the pilot and munition is looking at the same thing the ground forces are.

So yeah, the F-35 will be a perfectly fine CAS tool. The belief that CAS has to be done in the dirt is a strange mindworm that people seem to have. Close does not have to mean you can high five each other. Close is more about speed of response.

SDB is an absolute game changer in CAS, especially danger close. The infantryman's emotional ties to the A-10 are well founded, as the gun's low PI compared to a 1-2K class weapon is no joke, but the SDB should change the equation for the better. Most importantly, an F-35 can actually fly against a near-peer instead of being kept stateside or at Osan.

RJMAZ wrote:

People say drones can do CAS well they have zero pilots in the aircraft. The single seat F-35 will have far more situational awareness than a drone.

Compare:

1) One F-35 Pilot looking at his sensor data, plus whatever the network supplies. He has to fly the plane, do lots of coordination with others, and launch bombs.

2) A crew on the ground. They can see whatever the drone shows, plus whatever the network supplies. The crew can talk, discuss, and make decisions.

When I tell you option #1 costs 10x, and has less endurance, pick option #2.

Luckily, the military is already doing that.

LyleLanley wrote:

SDB is an absolute game changer in CAS, especially danger close.

If the Army wants to drop an SBD on a target, why not drop it using their own assets. The GLSBD and the new generation rockets for HIMARs can do that without having to loiter.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

People say drones can do CAS well they have zero pilots in the aircraft. The single seat F-35 will have far more situational awareness than a drone.

Check that. Future CAS drone will have an AI pilot.
Situational awareness can take a back seat if the drone is expendable.

With 4 cameras and front and back range radar, my car has more situation awareness me.

It still can't predict what that semi 50 meters ahead might do, but it would probably be quicker on the brakes if that semi decide to do something crazy.

bt

Situational awareness is EVERYTHING in CAS.

You need to have situational awareness to effectively and safely employ ordinance around friendlies.

The CAS manual, JP 3-09.3, specifically states in the executive summary that "Each participant must make every effort to identify friendly units, enemy forces, and civilians prior to targeting, clearing fires, and weapons release. Combat identification (CID) is the process of attaining an accurate characterization of detected objects in the operational environment sufficient to support an engagement decision. CID characterizations, when applied with rules of engagement, enable engagement decisions to use or prohibit lethal and nonlethal weaponry to accomplish military objectives."

In short, if you are using a weapon, you better be damned sure about what your target is, where they are, and where friendlies are.

And my point is, once the AI drone, and or GLSBD, is implemented, the person doing the targeting is the "friendlies" themselves. You take the pilot out of the loop.

The AI situation awareness should be much faster than a pilot and can be prioritized to press the attack to complete the mission over self preservation, as situation dictates.

bt

As for the situation awareness example.

I have two eyes in a head that can swivel 270 degrees. I also have three mirrors but can really only focus on one location at a time.

My car has 4 cameras that has 360 degrees coverage at all times. It still can't make judgement calls, but it seems to have better situation awareness than me most of the time.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

As for the situation awareness example.

I have two eyes in a head that can swivel 270 degrees. I also have three mirrors but can really only focus on one location at a time.

My car has 4 cameras that has 360 degrees coverage at all times. It still can't make judgement calls, but it seems to have better situation awareness than me most of the time.

bt

Which proves the point that seeing everything means nothing if you cannot or do not act upon what you are seeing, so making judgements.
We all recall watching Iraq forces crossing the border, the command center having multiple TV screens watching the force advance, knew that their forces in the town they were heading for had to evacuate, but with all the Air Force assets, artillery including MRLS, helicopters, the arsenal of freedom, nothing was available to prevent the battle that took place, what was the point of being all seeing and all knowing.

TWA772LR wrote:

muralir wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I you misunderstood me. The avgeek in me wants to see the A10 stay, but my inner pragmatic knows it's time is due. Sure the military won't have a dedicated CAS fixed wing platform, but they do their homework. The niche role that the A10 does well (the part with minimal overlap with other platforms) will be covered by the combined force of other aircraft, artillery, etc... An F35 and a Reaper are just as capable of shooting a Hellfire as an A10, an Apache is just as capable of shooting a salvo of 2.75 rockets as an A10, and a B52 is just as capable of dropping a JDAM (with a whole lot more quantity) as the A10. The F35 will be able to outrun a MANPAD, (and probably even an S400), the B52 will simply be out of range of the MANPAD, and the Apache is arguably as armored and survivable as the A10.

Sexy vs non sexy roles for politics aside, it is a weapons system that is overlapped by a lot of others. The only thing the A10 does that's unique is a strafing gun run, but an AF study concluded that those runs are only around 20% accurate (IIRC, I remember reading that on another thread). Retiring the A10 will save a lot of money that could be used elsewhere.

As far as the AF is concerned about getting credit for CAS in support of a ground assault, the very high ups at the Pentagon couldn't care less. As long as the battle is won, it's all good in their book.

I don't think you realize how integrated the US branches are when it comes to fighting a war these days, there are no lone wolves (except for maybe the Marines). An army infantryman can request an airstrike. The AF combat controller next to him will coordinate the strike. And a Navy F18 can carry out the strike. Even a Marine infantryman can call an airstrike and if any NATO air asset is around (B52, A10, Super Cobra, or even a Belgian or Dutch F16), the nearest platform will more than likely provide the strike.

That's the point of one of GalaxyFliers posts. The A10 only works on a converted effort with all assets. His point is everything is at play and reading between those lines, especially when he says an A10 just won't be flying around shooting at random without any support (radar jamming from a JSTARS, Patriot site to take out a surprise MiG in the area, infantryman with a javelin to destroy a mobile SAM launcher et al). All modern warfare from a western perspective is a joint concerted effort, one where lots of other platforms collectively and massively overlap the A10 making it very redundant, and in the Air Forces eyes (moreso than the political aspect) a waste of money.

Not trying to sound mean. This is just the main point of modern western military doctrine, that the A10 doesn't have much of it's own place anymore. For a 1980s scenario in Central Europe where they were expecting massive tank battles like Kursk to happen again, then yeah. But the technology as advanced enough to rule out the A10, especially in a peer/near peer conflict. A10s only reigned supreme in Afghanistan because the Taliban/Al Qaeda didn't have the ability to really take them out, and Iraq's air force was effectively shut down in just a few days. And now F35s and F22s are taking out ISIS targets from way further away and higher altitude in Syria, and all of that with the bonus of stealth. The Syrian situation is a little different with the Russians in play, but ISIS surly doesn't have the SAM capability of a peer/near peer would.

Thanks for your response. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure there's a need for a fixed-wing CAS platform either. Helicopters and drones are probably the future and that's not a bad thing. But honestly, I'd trust that conclusion if the Army was the one making it rather than the AF, simply because of the political biases at hand. We'll never know if a fixed-wing CAS plane is needed, because AF will never build one. Heck, they never wanted the A10 to begin with. You never know what might work unless you have someone actually dedicate some time and thought into coming up with something.

As far as the politics, I agree that on the battlefield, no one is going to leave a warfighter defenseless because he/she's in another branch. But inter-service rivalries are still alive and well. How many Generals in the AF were fighter pilots vs. A10 pilots, or even bomber pilots (nevermind non-pilots)? UAV pilots have lower promotion rates than manned pilots, despite often logging more flight time and kills. People gradually absorb the ethos of their workplace, and if all you see is fighter jets / pilots / missions being glorified, promoted, and expanded, then you'll soon come to see the world in the same way. Maybe I have a more jaded view, but the very high ups in the Pentagon absolutely do care about who gets credit for a battle being won. Maybe not the Joint Chiefs, but the service heads absolutely do. Sure, they'll work together during the actual battle (after having been dragged to it kicking and screaming for 20-30 years after Congress re-organized the Joint Chiefs structure), but the post-battle analysis used to decide which platforms / tactics were "effective" vs "non-effective" become savage as billion dollar budgets are on the line.

I have to ask, if not for politics, why does the AF still adamantly oppose the Army having fixed wing aircraft? The Navy and Marines have their own. And if the only thing that matters is joint effectiveness, then why not let them use some of their political capital and budget to lobby for a fixed wing CAS platform (assuming they want it, which they may not)?

Actually the AF didn't want the army to have a true CAS role, they wanted it for themselves. Look at the saga of the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force threw a fit and Congress decided to back them. The cancellation of that helicopter directly lead to the development of both the A10 and Apache.

Go to the 'Operational History' section, and then the 'Program Demise' subsection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne

I think you and I are saying the same thing here IMHO, the AF isn't really interested in CAS (never has been), but it also doesn't want the Army to take it over. It's a turf battle, and even though it's not one of their glory missions, the AF doesn't want to give it up to some other service. Giving up any mission, even non-priority ones, means less funding, fewer personnel authorized, etc. etc. It's the iron law of bureaucracies that you never willingly give up turf. That's why when AF proposes doing CAS with F35's, my natural suspicion is to suspect that that's maneuvering to use budgets allocated for CAS to fund what they really want, more fighter jets. Maybe I'm wrong and the F35 really is an awesome CAS platform, but thanks to AF's known biases, my standard of proof before accepting their proposed solution is much higher. That's why I wish Congress would just hand over the CAS mission to the Army and allow them to come up with the best platform for it, be it fixed wing aircraft, helicopter, drone, smart artillery, whatever. I'd trust the Army's intentions far more than the Air Force's when it comes to CAS.

par13del wrote:

Which proves the point that seeing everything means nothing if you cannot or do not act upon what you are seeing, so making judgements.
We all recall watching Iraq forces crossing the border, the command center having multiple TV screens watching the force advance, knew that their forces in the town they were heading for had to evacuate, but with all the Air Force assets, artillery including MRLS, helicopters, the arsenal of freedom, nothing was available to prevent the battle that took place, what was the point of being all seeing and all knowing.

Yes, and how worst it would have been if they were not able to "see". Besides if the assets that were overhead had human pilots, would not the decision to do nothing have been made by the brass on the ground?

With modern fighter, the pilot will have to get the same information from the sensors as would the AI. The only benefit from situation awareness that a pilot have is benefit of the eyeball when on the deck.

In most aspect, I'm begining to think MQ-28 on the deck is prefered as opposed to the F-35 an more so, the A-10.

bt

My take, the US Air Force will still be doing as much as they can to prevent the US Army from getting the long-range fires that they need to perform CAS.
When you look at the Ukraine conflict, one of the advantages now being enjoyed is the greater range of the "western" fires versus the opposing Russian equipment, let's leave accuracy out of the equation for now. How long will the Air Force allow the range of the Army fires to extend before they say it will interfere with their ability to perform rear area interdiction strategic missions?
In the battle for dollars, the inter-service rivalry is alive and well, and in some instances, is detrimental to what could be, when you look at how out-ranged the Paladin is by its western counterparts, I think that is / was deliberate to not ruffle feathers.

par13del wrote:

How long will the Air Force allow the range of the Army fires to extend before they say it will interfere with their ability to perform rear area interdiction strategic missions?

That ship has sailed. The US Army will have 150 km GLMRS as well as 155 mm guided hypersonic shells with up to 150km range in the near future.

https://www.aljundi.ae/en/new-weapons/b ... 2D150%20km.

It would be interesting to compare the time to target of a NAMMO 155 shell vs a GLMRS vs an F-35 with an SDB all loitering 20 km behind the front line.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

How long will the Air Force allow the range of the Army fires to extend before they say it will interfere with their ability to perform rear area interdiction strategic missions?

That ship has sailed. The US Army will have 150 km GLMRS as well as 155 mm guided hypersonic shells with up to 150km range in the near future.

https://www.aljundi.ae/en/new-weapons/b ... 2D150%20km.

It would be interesting to compare the time to target of a NAMMO 155 shell vs a GLMRS vs an F-35 with an SDB all loitering 20 km behind the front line.

bt

Hopefully no one does your study, my bet is it will be used to kill the Army project. Precedent?? see the billions the Army spent getting a twin engine turbo-pro cargo plane that the Air Force ultimately killed, new a/c straight to the bone yard, ultimately, they did allow the Coast Guard to get a few frames. So no, just because they are being purchased does not mean the ship has sailed.
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... ided-soon/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/c27j_spartan.htm

par13del wrote:

see the billions the Army spent getting a twin engine turbo-pro cargo plane that the Air Force ultimately killed,

I was not referring to air assets.

Since when does the Air Force have a say on what artilery ordinance the Army buys?

So if the Army will soon have 150km rockets and artilery rounds, my question is how many of those CAS mission they had in the last 20 years could have been done as artilery instead of A-10?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

see the billions the Army spent getting a twin engine turbo-pro cargo plane that the Air Force ultimately killed,

I was not referring to air assets.

Air assets are the key for the US Air Force, in the rivalry scheme of things, anything that threatens that is an issue.

bikerthai wrote:

Since when does the Air Force have a say on what artilery ordinance the Army buys?

So if the Army will soon have 150km rockets and artilery rounds, my question is how many of those CAS mission they had in the last 20 years could have been done as artilery instead of A-10?
bt

If the US Army has long range fires that can hit depots or assembly area's behind the lines, does that affect the US Air Force getting funds for more Mud Hens or their replacements?
Long range fires can encroach on targets that were previously the sole domain of air power, perhaps one should try to determine how much money in the Air Force budget is there to service the needs of the US Army, that would give a good idea of how important it is to protect those funds.
Look at the battle presently taking place between the Marines and the US Navy, why would the Marines need Naval Strike Missiles when the Marines do not have any boats or ships, why would the Marines want to deploy on islands where they can fire their Strike Missiles? In my opinion, its starts with funding and how the congress gets these services to play off against each other.

par13del wrote:

If the US Army has long range fires that can hit depots or assembly area's behind the lines, does that affect the US Air Force getting funds for more Mud Hens or their replacements?

Not more Mudhens, but F-15EX

But behind enemy lines? I thought that was the realm of Stealth?

Why not let the Army hit everything 100 miles behind the front line. You can get rid of the A-10 and the Army won't object because they have their artilery. It's a game of give an take for sure.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

If the US Army has long range fires that can hit depots or assembly area's behind the lines, does that affect the US Air Force getting funds for more Mud Hens or their replacements?

Not more Mudhens, but F-15EX

But behind enemy lines? I thought that was the realm of Stealth?

Why not let the Army hit everything 100 miles behind the front line. You can get rid of the A-10 and the Army won't object because they have their artilery. It's a game of give an take for sure.

bt

So far history has shown that the Air Force takes no prisoners when it comes to their funding in the inter-service rivalry, its not about the Army objecting, its about the Air Force objecting to any new weapon system for the Army that would put a dent in their CAS obligation.
100 miles is a good compromise, but when viewed from the Air Force perspective, how many fast jets would they lose? If they are trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35 and the Army says they no longer need the A-10 capability because they are going to develop a platform with 100 mile range and couple feet accuracy, I would expect the congress to see savings due to less F-35's for CAS, then the Air Force would go ballistic. Once the development cost for the Army platform - if LM subsidiaries have any involvement - approaches at least half of the cost of a F-35 block buy, the more bang for buck argument will appear. Gotta wonder if the Army really wanted their new light tank to be non-air droppable, how is the Air Force gonna get them in country to support the paras?? Interesting question, new air lifter???

muralir wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

muralir wrote:

Thanks for your response. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure there's a need for a fixed-wing CAS platform either. Helicopters and drones are probably the future and that's not a bad thing. But honestly, I'd trust that conclusion if the Army was the one making it rather than the AF, simply because of the political biases at hand. We'll never know if a fixed-wing CAS plane is needed, because AF will never build one. Heck, they never wanted the A10 to begin with. You never know what might work unless you have someone actually dedicate some time and thought into coming up with something.

As far as the politics, I agree that on the battlefield, no one is going to leave a warfighter defenseless because he/she's in another branch. But inter-service rivalries are still alive and well. How many Generals in the AF were fighter pilots vs. A10 pilots, or even bomber pilots (nevermind non-pilots)? UAV pilots have lower promotion rates than manned pilots, despite often logging more flight time and kills. People gradually absorb the ethos of their workplace, and if all you see is fighter jets / pilots / missions being glorified, promoted, and expanded, then you'll soon come to see the world in the same way. Maybe I have a more jaded view, but the very high ups in the Pentagon absolutely do care about who gets credit for a battle being won. Maybe not the Joint Chiefs, but the service heads absolutely do. Sure, they'll work together during the actual battle (after having been dragged to it kicking and screaming for 20-30 years after Congress re-organized the Joint Chiefs structure), but the post-battle analysis used to decide which platforms / tactics were "effective" vs "non-effective" become savage as billion dollar budgets are on the line.

I have to ask, if not for politics, why does the AF still adamantly oppose the Army having fixed wing aircraft? The Navy and Marines have their own. And if the only thing that matters is joint effectiveness, then why not let them use some of their political capital and budget to lobby for a fixed wing CAS platform (assuming they want it, which they may not)?

Actually the AF didn't want the army to have a true CAS role, they wanted it for themselves. Look at the saga of the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force threw a fit and Congress decided to back them. The cancellation of that helicopter directly lead to the development of both the A10 and Apache.

Go to the 'Operational History' section, and then the 'Program Demise' subsection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne

I think you and I are saying the same thing here IMHO, the AF isn't really interested in CAS (never has been), but it also doesn't want the Army to take it over. It's a turf battle, and even though it's not one of their glory missions, the AF doesn't want to give it up to some other service. Giving up any mission, even non-priority ones, means less funding, fewer personnel authorized, etc. etc. It's the iron law of bureaucracies that you never willingly give up turf. That's why when AF proposes doing CAS with F35's, my natural suspicion is to suspect that that's maneuvering to use budgets allocated for CAS to fund what they really want, more fighter jets. Maybe I'm wrong and the F35 really is an awesome CAS platform, but thanks to AF's known biases, my standard of proof before accepting their proposed solution is much higher. That's why I wish Congress would just hand over the CAS mission to the Army and allow them to come up with the best platform for it, be it fixed wing aircraft, helicopter, drone, smart artillery, whatever. I'd trust the Army's intentions far more than the Air Force's when it comes to CAS.

We could be lol.

But the point of my last post was to illustrate the Air Force wants to keep the CAS role all to itself. Whether or not they want a dedicated platform is the question.

par13del wrote:

Gotta wonder if the Army really wanted their new light tank to be non-air droppable, how is the Air Force gonna get them in country to support the paras?? Interesting question, new air lifter???

I'm hoping the Army has finally figured out they don't need the added structural weight and pain for airdrop certification, since the C-17s or 130s can just land at the recently taken airfield and combat offload in <5 minutes. But fewer airlift assets available for heavy equipment airdrop vs. simple delivery sounds more realistic.

Remember: only some C-17 units are capable of airdrop, and you can't fill the jet to the gills with airdrop pallets, but they all can land on NVGs and get more bang for the buck by filling up the cargo floor.

But, but, the parachute incentive matters. Decades ago, I was told the Army’s ego wouldn’t let the 82nd and 101st go because of history and the PAY. The USAF obliged as it meant more planes, more officers, more money. There are bureaucratic imperatives.

But, but, the parachute incentive matters. Decades ago, I was told the Army’s ego wouldn’t let the 82nd and 101st go because of history and the PAY. The USAF obliged as it meant more planes, more officers, more money. There are bureaucratic imperatives.

Way off topic, but at the other end of the speed range, is LM letting a secret out? Acknowledged?

https://twitter.com/lockheedmartin/stat ... LYPdmp_q-w

Hmm... The intrigue continues! Shame to have retired her in the first place.

Perhaps they mean 'Acknowledged' as it has an official speed record acknowledged by the Guinness Book of Records?

To stay on topic.
Love the look of the A-10. I remember seeing a few fly over me in fog heading to land. Spooky sight.

As we used to say, “what a marvelous cockpit, but sheesh, lead is flying an ugly airplane”. Now, we’d all come from the F-100 with its 1957 instruments shared with a Tweet and switches placed in accordance with various Vietnam-era IRAN shops in Asia. We really did have notes on semi-important switches like fire tests that said, “*some airplanes”.

RJMAZ wrote:

I think the A-10 armed with AIM-9X would have air superiority over Ukraine. Nearly every fight is within visual range.

Some possible reasons.
1) Russian radar doesn't work.
2) Russian missiles don't work.
3) They have no friend or foe system.
4) There is active jamming going on.

wow really?
you probably want to watch this analysis
https://youtu.be/xCEzEVwOwS4