A-10C Discussion

[OutOnTheOP]

Why do people not notice that this is merely an allegation by an EX- airman, who may well have been relieved for incompetence, or simply didn't make the cut on force drawdown, and may therefore just have a grudge against certain leadership?

 

Also, what's with the emotional attachment to the A-10? An AH-64 can put just as many rounds of 30mm on a target, only they can do it more accurately and the shells have a larger busting charger for greater explosive effect. The A-10 cannot survive in a near peer conflict, and is a bit extraneous for COIN

[wlee15]

Why do people not notice that this is merely an allegation by an EX- airman, who may well have been relieved for incompetence, or simply didn't make the cut on force drawdown, and may therefore just have a grudge against certain leadership?

 

Also, what's with the emotional attachment to the A-10? An AH-64 can put just as many rounds of 30mm on a target, only they can do it more accurately and the shells have a larger busting charger for greater explosive effect. The A-10 cannot survive in a near peer conflict, and is a bit extraneous for COIN

 

Air Force Command said that Post's comments were "hyperbole" which suggest that he did in fact say it.

[jcbak]

A10s deployed to Europe

 

http://theaviationist.com/2015/02/11/a-10s-return-to-europe/

[OutOnTheOP]

Air Force Command said that Post's comments were "hyperbole" which suggest that he did in fact say it.

 

Digging a bit deep there. Every article *also* includes an awful lot of "allegedly" and "reportedly". Don't be too eager to buy into it.

[wlee15]

Digging a bit deep there. Every article *also* includes an awful lot of "allegedly" and "reportedly". Don't be too eager to buy into it.

 

If the General did not say it or did not recall saying it they could have denied it a leave it a that. Certainly beats your baseless accusations.

[PFunk1606688187]

Can we just skip the whole "news stories are all lies and never substantiated by truth because they're all lying liars who lie and until someone provides three separate recordings with proof that they've not been tampered with we can only assume its a lying lie told by a liar" thing, please?

 

If it were never said the Air Force would flat out deny it. Denial is the simplest cleanest way to let a story die on the vine. Since they're not denying it outright it basically confirms that there is veracity to the claim.

[jcbak]

A10s in Kuwait

 

http://theaviationist.com/2015/03/03/a-10-loadout-kuwait/

[jcbak]

A10 Replacements?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/09/these-planes-could-someday-replace-the-a-10-if-the-pentagon-spends-the-cash/

[Sierra99]

Yeah... This discussion was had a few weeks back... Anyone who thinks this is a viable alternative has no clue what Close Air Support is...Or the dangers involved.

[rcjonessnp175]

Ya this literally makes me throw up in my mouth

[NaCH]

A Tucano or Texan a replacement for an A10!!!???????

 

 

UCAV has more chances to replace the A10 that those models.

[SilentGun]

I have an idea. why don't they put the avionics of an F-35 into the A-10, make some engine improvements and not replace it.

 

million dollar idea right there! The A-10D or E A-10E sounds better

[PiedDroit]

If you google "stealth A-10" and "futuristic A-10" you'll find some funny artworks/concepts :D

[Mike5560]

They should just put them back into production with upgraded engine and avionics and call it good.

[NaCH]

They should just put them back into production with upgraded engine and avionics and call it good.

 

Is too expensive.

 

For a non disputed Air space you should have UCAVs

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Unpopular opinion, but I think for the kind of COIN the A-10 is doing nowadays the Super Tucano is a viable and combat-proven alternative.

 

The aircraft was, after all, designed with this in mind - replacing expensive jets like the A-10 in low-intensity combat for a good price without losing in quality. The avionics are top notch, it's cheap to acquire, it's cheap to operate, and it was built to operate normally from remote airstrips and roads in the Amazon forest as needed.

 

It's not a tank buster or a flying tank, because it wasn't meant to be. It was meant to deliver quality COIN for a good price, and that it can do well.

 

Meanwhile in Eurasia, while I haven't heard anything about it ever since, Russia is (or was at least) developing a stealth CAS aircraft to replace the Su-25SM: http://sputniknews.com/military/20120221/171427430.html

[NineLine]

I'm surprised a modernized Ju-87 isn't in the running :P

[ricktoberfest]

It surprised me how eager the U.S. Air Force is to retire active, useful aircraft that cost less per flight hour- and keep incredibly expensive fighter aircraft flying (f15) that haven't engaged in air combat for years. Don't get me wrong- I like all military aircraft and I'm not an American. But unless you're fighting Russia or China, you need less fighters and more ground attack. Even Vietnam didn't engage the fighter aircraft in the furballs that they were made for. Most combat is now against small, lightly armed groups with nothing bigger than a few helicopters.

[OutOnTheOP]

I'm surprised a modernized Ju-87 isn't in the running :P

 

Funny that you should mention, because the same tired arguments that keep coming up about why the A-10 should be retained, are based around the same strengths as the Hs129, while the A-10 also shares most of its weaknesses.

 

That is to say that the Hs129 was a *dedicated* CAS aircraft designed around survivability, firepower (75mm tank cannon in some variants) and loiter time, but suffered from underpowered engines, poor high speed performance, and bad SA (resulting from poor cockpit layout in Hs129, vice lack of sensors in A-10).

 

As most of us know, as it happened, the Hs129 (and Stuka, another slow dedicated CAS bird) proved to be too vulnerable to both interception and ground fire, and the real stars of CAS in the war were designed as fighters.

 

 

For the last time, CAS means delivering ordnance with precision near friendly forces in contact. That does NOT require the delivering aircraft to bee either low OR slow. Just like field artillery evolved from direct fire over open sights in WW1 to indirect fire using spotters in WW2 as mapping, radio, and ballistics technology advanced, new technologies (mainly GPS and sensors) allow CAS to be performed in new ways without losing effectiveness.

[OutOnTheOP]

I'm surprised a modernized Ju-87 isn't in the running :P

 

Funny that you should mention, because the same tired arguments that keep coming up about why the A-10 should be retained, are based around the same strengths as the Hs129, while the A-10 also shares most of its weaknesses.

 

That is to say that the Hs129 was a *dedicated* CAS aircraft designed around survivability, firepower (750mm tank cannon in some variants) and loiter time, but suffered from underpowered engines, poor high speed performance, and bad SA (resulting from poor cockpit layout in Hs129, vice lack of sensors in A-10).

 

As most of us know, as it happened, the Hs129 (and Stuka, another slow dedicated CAS bird) proved to be too vulnerable to both interception and ground fire, and the real stars of CAS in the war were designed as fighters.

 

 

For the last time, CAS means delivering ordnance with precision near friendly forces in contact. That does NOT require the delivering aircraft to bee either low OR slow. Just like field artillery evolved from direct fire over open sights in WW1 to indirect fire using spotters in WW2 as mapping, radio, and ballistics technology advanced, new technologies (mainly GPS and sensors) allow CAS to be performed in new ways without losing effectiveness.

[Exorcet]

It surprised me how eager the U.S. Air Force is to retire active, useful aircraft that cost less per flight hour- and keep incredibly expensive fighter aircraft flying (f15) that haven't engaged in air combat for years. Don't get me wrong- I like all military aircraft and I'm not an American. But unless you're fighting Russia or China, you need less fighters and more ground attack. Even Vietnam didn't engage the fighter aircraft in the furballs that they were made for. Most combat is now against small, lightly armed groups with nothing bigger than a few helicopters.

 

You can pretty much engage in any kind of combat between F-15C and F-15E type aircraft. If all you had were A-10's, you'd be very limited in what you could do. Even if the bigger planes aren't shooting, they're a strong deterrent, and they're necessary if something like the A-10 wants to stand a chance in combat against another large military. The US's priority right now isn't nation to nation warfare, but at the same time they don't want to make themselves vulnerable in that area. While the A-10 is very useful right now, if you have to pick one or the other (F-15), the latter just makes more sense.

 

For the last time, CAS means delivering ordnance with precision near friendly forces in contact. That does NOT require the delivering aircraft to bee either low OR slow. Just like field artillery evolved from direct fire over open sights in WW1 to indirect fire using spotters in WW2 as mapping, radio, and ballistics technology advanced, new technologies (mainly GPS and sensors) allow CAS to be performed in new ways without losing effectiveness.

 

Very well put. As good as the A-10 is, being rugged, low flying, and slow aren't really [huge] advantages. They aren't necessary traits for the CAS task. The biggest draw for the A-10 is really how cheap it is in low intensity conflicts. And on that front, some of the alternatives mentioned start to make a lot of sense.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Exorcet

[Mike5560]

As the current US military's inventory stands right now, the best platforms for delivering CAS/CCA/ Armed overwatch (Attack helicopters, gunships and A-10s) are inherently more vulnerable to air defenses than multi-role fighters.

 

For the last time, CAS means delivering ordnance with precision near friendly forces in contact. That does NOT require the delivering aircraft to bee either low OR slow.

 

Precision is important, and any platform capable of CAS can do precision. Ideally, a CAS platform should:

-Be able to constantly observe a large area around the battlefield with yet enough fidelity to ID personnel, vehicles, smoke, tracers and vehicles yet be able to rapidly determine whether or not people are armed.

-Deliver not only mk-82 class bombs and PGMs but also engage with many small explosive weapons over an area large enough to attack an enemy formation within 100 meters of friendlies. The shorter the weapons' time of flight, the better.

-Be able to engage moving targets.

-Multi-spectral capability: Night vision, FLIR, low light TV and CCD (color CCD even better).

 

Low and slow will always have a CAS advantage until targeting pods can:

-Have color CCD, and see through clouds.......IDK, magic?

-Provide an extremely simple ease of use. A pilot with 100 flight hours on a jet can fly an orbit and monitor a large area and quickly reference points of interest without masking.

 

SDBs can somewhat saturate an area target close to friendlies as they have a smaller frag footprint than mk-82 class bombs and are typically carried in higher quantities. However, they have a long time of flight compared to guns and rockets and might not have moving target capability.

 

Hellfires and other LGWs can hit moving targets and can potentially have small frag footprints, but are not all weather capable and are limited to the number of different coded lasers.....hence, they cannot saturate an area target very well.

 

Cannons smaller than 30mm are good for suppression, and that's about it.

 

So......it's hard to replace the capabilities of the A-10, and fly fast, high and relatively safe from air defenses. A lot of things brief well to less than knowledgeable military procurers, generals and investors....but the technology is not quite there yet. until then, there will be compromises we can all argue about.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Mike5560

[PFunk1606688187]

There's also the factor that dedicated CAS platforms get to train exclusively for the CAS role while multi-role fighters are basically splitting their time between multiple jobs and they'll never have the time to focus on the task as well as the A-10 culture does. Its very much the same with dedicated air to air aircraft.

 

If you roll the A-10 culture into the F-35 culture or whatever other multi-role fighter you'll lose something thats not on any tech sheet. You'll lose a community of pilots who are close to single minded in their focus on precision ground attack with troops nearby. You can make the argument that losing thats worth it when you consider the budget, but I doubt you'd see the generals take the compromise if you told them they'd lose their dedicated A2A culture instead.

[Tirak]

There's also the factor that dedicated CAS platforms get to train exclusively for the CAS role while multi-role fighters are basically splitting their time between multiple jobs and they'll never have the time to focus on the task as well as the A-10 culture does. Its very much the same with dedicated air to air aircraft.

 

If you roll the A-10 culture into the F-35 culture or whatever other multi-role fighter you'll lose something thats not on any tech sheet. You'll lose a community of pilots who are close to single minded in their focus on precision ground attack with troops nearby. You can make the argument that losing thats worth it when you consider the budget, but I doubt you'd see the generals take the compromise if you told them they'd lose their dedicated A2A culture instead.

 

No, this is untrue,for example i hold ip the Hornet, whose squadrons were seperated between ground attack squadrons and air superiority. Common platform, different squadron role. This approach was taken specifically to address the training concern.

[Basher54321]

Precision is important, and any platform capable of CAS can do precision. Ideally, a CAS platform should:

-Be able to constantly observe a large area around the battlefield with yet enough fidelity to ID personnel, vehicles, smoke, tracers and vehicles yet be able to rapidly determine whether or not people are armed.

-Deliver not only mk-82 class bombs and PGMs but also engage with many small explosive weapons over an area large enough to attack an enemy formation within 100 meters of friendlies. The shorter the weapons' time of flight, the better.

-Be able to engage moving targets.

-Multi-spectral capability: Night vision, FLIR, low light TV and CCD (color CCD even better).

 

Low and slow will always have a CAS advantage until targeting pods can:

-Have color CCD, and see through clouds.......IDK, magic?

-Provide an extremely simple ease of use. A pilot with 100 flight hours on a jet can fly an orbit and monitor a large area and quickly reference points of interest without masking.

 

SDBs can somewhat saturate an area target close to friendlies as they have a smaller frag footprint than mk-82 class bombs and are typically carried in higher quantities. However, they have a long time of flight compared to guns and rockets and might not have moving target capability.

 

Hellfires and other LGWs can hit moving targets and can potentially have small frag footprints, but are not all weather capable and are limited to the number of different coded lasers.....hence, they cannot saturate an area target very well.

 

Cannons smaller than 30mm are good for suppression, and that's about it.

 

So......it's hard to replace the capabilities of the A-10, and fly fast, high and relatively safe from air defenses. A lot of things brief well to less than knowledgeable military procurers, generals and investors....but the technology is not quite there yet. until then, there will be compromises we can all argue about.

 

 

The OP is correct - the definition of CAS as defined by the forces has nothing to do with flying low /slow and is not platform dependent. Nothing is going to be flying low & slow over a half decent ground force today - and any observation will done from a safe distance unless things have really gone to pot in which case it's a suicide run!

 

Assuming you can ID ground troops with your eyes is ridiculous - and only leads to fratricide. This is why JTAC/FACA/CAS assets work as teams - and the guys calling shots when troops are close are the ones on the ground only - even in WW1 friendly ground troops had to mark out their positions on the ground.

 

Ok so a TGP potentially cant see through clouds - but under the clouds you still cant see through tree cover - and good luck working out who's who when the troops are intermingled (or not).

 

One reason a FACA uses a TGP because they can mark targets for the other guys they call in instead of having to give instructions open to misinterpretation.

 

An advantage of the A-10C using a TGP is that it can verify targets given from the controllers and has far more time to observe and work suitable attack vectors better than they would down lower.

 

Caliber size doesn't equate to muzzle velocity etc - and anything under that doesn't go through troops and vehicles you say??

 

An example from Iraq 2003 - a couple of F-16s got called in under cloud cover at night so had to go to about 5000ft - the troops were intermingled with each other. The SOF controller waved a light they could pick up in NVGs and they dropped (JDAM?) bombs unguided where the guy wanted from the ref point which did the trick. An A-10 or AV-8 etc could have also done this.

 

I suspect SDBs could be dropped unguided in the same situation - and yes SDB IIs have multiple seekers (GPS/Laser) for moving targets anyway.

 

hmmm

 

Edited March 14, 2015 by Basher54321