Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
RJMAZ wrote:Words
LyleLanley wrote:Hate to bruise your understanding, but the Taliban weren’t shaking in their sandals while looking up.
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
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. ...
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.
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.
RJMAZ wrote:How the Taliban Came to Hate (And Fear) the B-1 Bomber
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ber-178526The 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)?
muralir wrote:So now, the F-35 is going to be a bomb truck like the B-1B?
muralir wrote:but without needing an extra crew member.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
LyleLanley wrote:SDB is an absolute game changer in CAS, especially danger close.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
par13del wrote:see the billions the Army spent getting a twin engine turbo-pro cargo plane that the Air Force ultimately killed,
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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???
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.