A-10 vs F-35 - taking (virtual) bets

[Sweep]

Not applicable in all situations as it's still a bomb, also the A-10 is to recieve this as well.

 

Source, dude?

 

I kinda like this idea...:thumbup:

[Hummingbird]

Source, dude?

 

I kinda like this idea...:thumbup:

 

It's been part of the Precision Engagement upgrade plan for a while AFAIK.

[Hummingbird]

Btw: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35-cant-carry-its-most-versatile-weapon-until-at-leas-1688616599

 

Also I think this article pin points rather well why the A-10 hasn't been retired yet: https://warisboring.com/what-will-the-next-a-10-warthog-look-like-c74df57d747f#.vrd3zf3no

Edited May 4, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

Not applicable in all situations as it's still a bomb, also the A-10 is to recieve this as well.

 

I fail to see how it is not applicable in any situation where you'd call in a gun run. The weapon is deliberately designed to have a smaller radius of effect so that it can be used in urban centers and close to troops. In fact, it can be even more accurate than a gun run thanks to it being a precision guided munition, and not subject to the normal inaccuracies of using a gun. Use it in conjunction with a Laser Guidance kit for our SDBs, which we already are using, and you've got yourself what is essentially a laser guided gunrun without putting the aircraft in harms way, that can be aborted up until the last second if needed. And even assuming the A-10 gets it, that just brings us back to the fact that the A-10 can't do anything else except the close support role in a permissive environment.

[Raptor9]

Comparing the F-35 and the A-10 is comparing apples and oranges. They're designed on entirely different sets of principles. Like others have said, it really depends on a lot of things whether an F-35 would be more suited to a given mission versus an A-10. Each plane has vastly different strengths and weaknesses, and the right tool should be chosen for whatever "job" comes up. I think the reason the viability of an A-10 replacement is being studied is because a few smart individuals in the Pentagon realize that to chose the right tool for the job, you have to have a complete toolbox of options to chose from.

[Boagrius]

I fail to see how it is not applicable in any situation where you'd call in a gun run. The weapon is deliberately designed to have a smaller radius of effect so that it can be used in urban centers and close to troops. In fact, it can be even more accurate than a gun run thanks to it being a precision guided munition, and not subject to the normal inaccuracies of using a gun. Use it in conjunction with a Laser Guidance kit for our SDBs, which we already are using, and you've got yourself what is essentially a laser guided gunrun without putting the aircraft in harms way, that can be aborted up until the last second if needed. And even assuming the A-10 gets it, that just brings us back to the fact that the A-10 can't do anything else except the close support role in a permissive environment.

 

I would have thought something like APKWS could fill the void left by the GAU-8 to an ample extent. More precise, better on target effects (family of warheads that are bigger than anything found in a 30mm round) and the ability to fire from outside MANPAD/VSHORAD/trash fire range at relatively low cost.

 

[ame=

]

[/ame]

 

 

Load a MALE UCAV like Reaper/Avenger/whatever-comes-after-them to the gills with this and SDBs/JAGM and you've got yourself a cheap yet potent and persistent CAS platform for low intensity COIN ops. Likewise for the F35 using its external hardpoints (APKWS) along with internal bays (SDB etc).

Edited May 11, 2016 by Boagrius

[Hummingbird]

What it comes down to is that real combat is dynamic and as such there will be situations where you can't use smart bombs. It's described pretty well in the article I linked previously:

 

"There are times, and there will be future times, where you must provide very close air support to the troops on the ground who are often on the run or unable to provide coordinates. I have flown CAS missions in these conditions where the pilot must visually identify friendly forces and enemy combatants to hit the target and avoid fratricide. You cannot stand off in all CAS scenarios, even in the future."

 

And

 

"“These are the things we hold as the minimum requirements going forward in kind of a follow-on CAS platform,” one of the two A-10 pilots leading the group behind the prospective Warthog replacement project told me. “The slow speed and tight turn radius is what allows us to get below the weather and have a rapid rate of re-attack especially with the flexibility of the gun.”

 

As such, in a next-generation CAS aircraft, the pilot must have good visibility — which is why a round, expansive “bubble” canopy is crucial. “In an air-to-ground mode, being able to look out over your shoulder and behind you — not at threats, but the ground you just attacked or to keep an eye on the friendlies — is a critical capability,” the A-10 pilot said.

 

Because CAS missions often take place at very low altitudes and low airspeeds — anywhere from 150 knots to 300 knots — the aircraft must be able to perform a two-G sustained turn at a rate of five degrees per second with a turn radius of no more than 2,000 feet.

The instantaneous turn rate — that is, how quickly a plane can wheel around in the first few seconds of a maneuver — would have to be better than 20 degrees per second while pulling six Gs. The aircraft must also be able to remain less than one mile from a target between attacks while pulling no more than two Gs — except for the roll-in to the attack and the time it’s leaving the area.

 

“The tight turn is important so that we can not only operate in a narrow valley if we need to, but lets says it’s reduced visibility, and we’re kinda poking our way through that visibility, the ability to do that slowly and being able to turn when you see a big hill coming is important,” one of the pilots told me."

[Tirak]

What it comes down to is that real combat is dynamic and as such there will be situations where you can't use smart bombs. It's described pretty well in the article I linked previously:

 

"There are times, and there will be future times, where you must provide very close air support to the troops on the ground who are often on the run or unable to provide coordinates. I have flown CAS missions in these conditions where the pilot must visually identify friendly forces and enemy combatants to hit the target and avoid fratricide. You cannot stand off in all CAS scenarios, even in the future."

 

And

 

"“These are the things we hold as the minimum requirements going forward in kind of a follow-on CAS platform,” one of the two A-10 pilots leading the group behind the prospective Warthog replacement project told me. “The slow speed and tight turn radius is what allows us to get below the weather and have a rapid rate of re-attack especially with the flexibility of the gun.”

 

As such, in a next-generation CAS aircraft, the pilot must have good visibility — which is why a round, expansive “bubble” canopy is crucial. “In an air-to-ground mode, being able to look out over your shoulder and behind you — not at threats, but the ground you just attacked or to keep an eye on the friendlies — is a critical capability,” the A-10 pilot said.

 

Because CAS missions often take place at very low altitudes and low airspeeds — anywhere from 150 knots to 300 knots — the aircraft must be able to perform a two-G sustained turn at a rate of five degrees per second with a turn radius of no more than 2,000 feet.

The instantaneous turn rate — that is, how quickly a plane can wheel around in the first few seconds of a maneuver — would have to be better than 20 degrees per second while pulling six Gs. The aircraft must also be able to remain less than one mile from a target between attacks while pulling no more than two Gs — except for the roll-in to the attack and the time it’s leaving the area.

 

“The tight turn is important so that we can not only operate in a narrow valley if we need to, but lets says it’s reduced visibility, and we’re kinda poking our way through that visibility, the ability to do that slowly and being able to turn when you see a big hill coming is important,” one of the pilots told me."

 

Where an F-35 pilot looks, so too does his sensors, and his sensors can see through certain kinds of weather. In these circumstances, an SDB II with it's millimetric radar, which can see through weather, and the FLM package fills the role easily, with much less risk. The Pilot identifies the target using his 360 degree view, focuses his targeting systems on it, achieves an accurate detailed picture through weather, and employs a weapon that operates through that same weather without issue.

 

The SDB II with FLM package fulfills your requirement for accuracy and limited lethal radius in order to operate close to troops. Precision Guided weapons started life in order to help kill bridges, they will continue to evolve in order to help protect the soldier by being able to hit closer and more accurately to friendly positions in order to provide the pin point CAS he may need.

[Hummingbird]

I'm not sure how you can be so certain of this Tirak, one could almost be led to believe that you've flown an F-35 on a CAS mission ;)

 

I believe there's a very good reason the A-10 hasn't been phased out yet and is scheduled to stay in service until 2022. The military needs an aircraft that can effectively carry out the A-10's roles before it decides to retire it, which is also what's going on atm, i.e. the Pentagon are looking very hard into the development of a new dedicated CAS/FAC-A/CSAR aircraft.

[probad]

I'm not sure how you can be so certain of this Tirak, one could almost be led to believe that you've flown an F-35 on a CAS mission

as if you know any better yourself :music_whistling:

the pentagon had very good reasons to abandon the a-10, and your "good reasons" for keeping the a-10 come in the form of loudmouthed luddites fixated on myopic and dated notions on how to conduct warfare derailing that through congressional demagoguery

Edited May 5, 2016 by probad

[Hummingbird]

as if you know any better yourself :music_whistling:

the pentagon had very good reasons to abandon the a-10, and your "good reasons" for keeping the a-10 come in the form of loudmouthed luddites fixated on myopic and dated notions on how to conduct warfare derailing that through congressional demagoguery

 

Sure, what'ever floats your boat Probad :megalol:

[Sierra99]

I fail to see how it is not applicable in any situation where you'd call in a gun run.

 

Well let's see...I can expend $3000.00 or $4.000.00 in GAU-8 ammo OR drop a $287.000.00 bomb to achieve the same result. Do ya see it now?

 

And even assuming the A-10 gets it, that just brings us back to the fact that the A-10 can't do anything else except the close support role in a permissive environment.

 

You really don't have the first clue what you're talking about when you say permissive Enviroment, do you?

 

First ya need to do some research. WE...the US military have enjoyed Air Superiority in the Middle East since about the middle of February 1991. (I'm not gonna bother looking up the exact date Air Superiority was declared) Iraq was able to reestablish a pseudo Air Defense system during OSW and ONW but nothing like it was before and not during active combat operations. AND we eliminated the vast majority of the rebuilt SAMs just as early during Iraqi Freedom because we knew right where they were.

 

Second None of the SAM systems you find so vexing or threatening have EVER been an issue after the first few days of a conflict. Not during Desert Storm, Not during Allied Force (Kosovo) Not during Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) Not during Iraqi Freedom. You simply can not show me an example where once we established Air Superiority, we lost it. It simply hasn't happened. What that means is after the first few days of the war...all the nifty gizmos on the F-35 about as useful as spinning rims on a humvees. Expensive, useless bling.

 

I'm not sure what YOU believe "Permissive Enviroment means" but I think you need to quit tossing around buzzwords you read on the internet that you don't understand. If you'd do some research into US military doctrine and Order of Battle Ya might learn something. There are a whole lot of factors that go into planning combat operations you're obviously not aware of or taking into account.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Sierra99

[Sierra99]

as if you know any better yourself :music_whistling:

the pentagon had very good reasons to abandon the a-10, and your "good reasons" for keeping the a-10 come in the form of loudmouthed luddites fixated on myopic and dated notions on how to conduct warfare derailing that through congressional demagoguery

 

No. You're wrong. The pentagon does NOT have good reasons. They have admitted this is about channeling money to the F-35 program. Nothing more.

 

Retiring a perfectly capable airframe that is optimized for a mission for an aircraft that's not optimized for ANY mission that costs 4 times as much PER AIRCRAFT and lacks significant combat capability essential to the first aircrafts mission is NOT a good reason.

 

Not even close.

[HiJack]

The weapons threat from walking soldiers/terrorists in vehicles is greater now than for 25 years ago when the A-10 had its prime. Would you really fly low if the previous attacking A-10 was shot down by a SAM? The A-10 may stay in service but I believe it will need a heavy upgrade to discover new threats to survive new conflicts.

[Mike5560]

I fail to see how it is not applicable in any situation where you'd call in a gun run. The weapon is deliberately designed to have a smaller radius of effect so that it can be used in urban centers and close to troops. In fact, it can be even more accurate than a gun run thanks to it being a precision guided munition, and not subject to the normal inaccuracies of using a gun. Use it in conjunction with a Laser Guidance kit for our SDBs, which we already are using, and you've got yourself what is essentially a laser guided gunrun without putting the aircraft in harms way, that can be aborted up until the last second if needed. And even assuming the A-10 gets it, that just brings us back to the fact that the A-10 can't do anything else except the close support role in a permissive environment.

 

I understand there are counter-arguments to what I'm about to say, but I'm only playing devils advocate.

SDBs, specifically laser SDBs have a few limitations in regards to CAS in close proximity to troops compared to a 30mm strafe:

 

One is a longer time for weapons effects on target. SDBs have a longer time of flight than forward firing munitions or even traditional JDAMs. These could be critical seconds when troops are in close contact.

 

Laser weapons in general are dependent upon clear skies. Or at least require a cloud deck to be above X feet above the target. Broken/scattered clouds could complicate or delay employment. Of course the weapons could be released on a steerpoint only (like GBU-39/B), but that is a whole other discussion when enemy troops are moving, adverse weather, etc.

 

The 30mm can cover a fairly large area of troops in one strafe pass, and even more 15 seconds later when number two gets an adjustment from the JTAC. Multiple laser guided bombs spaced out in say, a 50m for simultaneous employment require detailed coordination. Even if the pilots can clearly see a dispersion of enemy troops and don't require a detailed description from the JTAC on where both bombs should go, there are a lot of things that need to happen. The flight lead is thinking:

"I need to have my wingman join close formation for a simultaneous release"

"I need to coordinate separate laser codes for both bombs and lasers"

"I need to talk my wingman's eyes or sensors onto his intended aimpoint"

"I should set up at a slant range and speed that allows the shortest time of fall for the bomb" and "We need to be in position, after we release to be able to lase the last 20-10 seconds as to where there are no clouds blocking our lasers, my pod or EOTS isn't masked and be able to adjust my crosshairs possibly for moving troops." -All while someone on the radio is potentially panicking with gunfire being heard.

 

To abort a laser guided weapon mid-flight requires that a Post Launch Abort plan be established prior to employment...something that a JTAC will probably not bother discussing when time is of the essence.

 

Whether or not an A-10 can operate and perform CAS in a non-permissive environment is highly situation dependent, although strong fanboys for or against the A-10 may argue otherwise.

[Mike5560]

Second None of the SAM systems you find so vexing or threatening have EVER been an issue after the first few days of a conflict. Not during Desert Storm, Not during Allied Force (Kosovo) Not during Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) Not during Iraqi Freedom. You simply can not show me an example where once we established Air Superiority, we lost it. It simply hasn't happened. What that means is after the first few days of the war...all the nifty gizmos on the F-35 about as useful as spinning rims on a humvees. Expensive, useless bling.

 

Desert Storm, OAF, OIF and OEF are not the end-all be-all evidence that we would be able to

maintain air superiority or knock out IADS to an incapable measure throughout a conflict with a so called "near peer" enemy, which the Iraqis, Serbs or Taliban were not.

 

Even if we were able to, those "nifty gizmos" on the F-35 are not useless. A 360 degree EO/IR view would prove invaluable in terms of mutual support for those pesky MANPADS that won't go away with growlers and HARM shooters....or maybe just identifying anything with a significant heat source at the turn of a head.

Or what about the highest resolution AESA air to ground radar ever put on a jet? The war doesn't stop with a cloud deck at 5,000 feet, and targeting pods would need to get within MANPADS range to see.

[Emu]

 

Second None of the SAM systems you find so vexing or threatening have EVER been an issue after the first few days of a conflict. Not during Desert Storm, Not during Allied Force (Kosovo) Not during Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) Not during Iraqi Freedom. You simply can not show me an example where once we established Air Superiority, we lost it. It simply hasn't happened. What that means is after the first few days of the war...all the nifty gizmos on the F-35 about as useful as spinning rims on a humvees. Expensive, useless bling.

Of the planes that were lost in Desert Storm, most were lost at low altitude. Low altitude attacks were favoured then as a product of Cold War attack strategy, however they were found to be flawed and dangerous. Saddam Hussein's military did not have huge amounts of IIR SAMs and MANPADS, which are far more prolific these days. I think the Crimean conflict demonstrated that flying around at low level isn't a good idea against an enemy of some sophistication. The best defence against these SAMs is altitude plain and simple, but that makes the GAU-8 quite literally a spinning rim.

[ENERG1A]

A-10 Warthog is the new Ju-87 Stuka, obsolete overall, but people/dictators with bad military knowledge still want it.

[RoflSeal]

Well let's see...I can expend $3000.00 or $4.000.00 in GAU-8 ammo OR drop a $287.000.00 bomb to achieve the same result. Do ya see it now?

.

 

If you want the cost argument how about considering that if you use the bomb, you can put it on an F-16 already in theater (or any 4-5th Gen multirole), instead of bringing an A-10 unit with the accompanying logistics (which is millions $$$$$)

Edited May 5, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Tirak]

Well let's see...I can expend $3000.00 or $4.000.00 in GAU-8 ammo OR drop a $287.000.00 bomb to achieve the same result. Do ya see it now?

 

I'd rather drop the 287,000 dollar bomb once then have put the pilot and airframe in a position it didn't need to be in. Your argument quite frankly is along the lines of "You can pick up a rock off the ground for free OR spend a few hundred dollars to give them rifles to achieve the same result."

 

 

You really don't have the first clue what you're talking about when you say permissive Enviroment, do you?

 

Not entirely sure what you're getting at but I'm game, let's see where this goes :music_whistling:

First ya need to do some research. WE...the US military have enjoyed Air Superiority in the Middle East since about the middle of February 1991. (I'm not gonna bother looking up the exact date Air Superiority was declared) Iraq was able to reestablish a pseudo Air Defense system during OSW and ONW but nothing like it was before and not during active combat operations. AND we eliminated the vast majority of the rebuilt SAMs just as early during Iraqi Freedom because we knew right where they were.

 

Yes, it took several days and man strikes with both cruise missiles, stealth fighters and multi role strikers to blast open the Iraqi air defense. During that time, A-10s were unable to effectively perform their duties as they could not operate safely, and were pulled off the front line to attack tertiary units where the air defense wasn't a threat. Now the Iraqi SAM threat was no joke, as our fearless F-16 and F-4G pilots will no doubt attest, as several of their number were shot down running the emissions that were needed to open up the area so that the low/slow A-10s could actually start doing things. Also, we didn't know 'right where they were'. We knew about where they'd be, but there was always a chance of a mobile system popping up in a place we didn't expect. I don't know if you know this, but that's what makes mobile systems dangerous, they can be moved around to attack from positions you weren't counting on. The Soviet Union produced a number of these systems which are both very lethal, and relatively easy to use. One of these was recently used by Ukrainian Rebels to shoot down a passenger air craft. Now of course that isn't an example of engaging a military target, but it does indicate how easy it is for such weapons to fall into non state actors hands. Another example of this is during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where the US provided the Mujaheddin with a great number of Stinger missile launchers, which were used to devastating effect against the low and relatively slow flying Mi-24 "Hind" helicopters, which were also armored against ground fire and designed for close in support.

 

I hope you're following along, because the point of all that means that a static battle line, the kind in which you can anticipate enemy SAM positions doesn't necessarily have to exist, for these weapons to play a role. Furthermore, when fighting an actor who is so incredibly far behind in military power, they will often adopt unorthodox tactics, such as during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraqi forces, knowing they had inferior equipment and stood no chance in a straight on battle with US Tanks, laid low, waited for the armor to pass them by, then attacked their lightly defended supply convoys. In this instance, the lightly defended supply convoy is the A-10, waltzing in low and slow, and getting destroyed because a few guys in a cave were hiding Strelas, or something bigger with tracks hidden in a cave.

Second None of the SAM systems you find so vexing or threatening have EVER been an issue after the first few days of a conflict. Not during Desert Storm, Not during Allied Force (Kosovo) Not during Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) Not during Iraqi Freedom. You simply can not show me an example where once we established Air Superiority, we lost it. It simply hasn't happened. What that means is after the first few days of the war...all the nifty gizmos on the F-35 about as useful as spinning rims on a humvees. Expensive, useless bling.

 

See my example concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet's held absolute air superiority, and shoulder fired weapons ended up destroying a great number of their armored low altitude CAS birds. Emu's taken care of the "spinning rims on a humvee" comment.

 

I'm not sure what YOU believe "Permissive Enviroment means" but I think you need to quit tossing around buzzwords you read on the internet that you don't understand. If you'd do some research into US military doctrine and Order of Battle Ya might learn something. There are a whole lot of factors that go into planning combat operations you're obviously not aware of or taking into account.

 

Exactly, the only difference between us is that I plan for a competent enemy, whereas you are convinced the only enemy that can possibly exist is an illiterate farmer wielding an AK-47 and maybe having a DsHK on a pickup truck. Your style of thinking is rooted in a great deal of tradition. A tradition of horrific losses on the side of those who refused to believe war could operate outside their expectations.

[Snoopy]

The weapons threat from walking soldiers/terrorists in vehicles is greater now than for 25 years ago when the A-10 had its prime. Would you really fly low if the previous attacking A-10 was shot down by a SAM? The A-10 may stay in service but I believe it will need a heavy upgrade to discover new threats to survive new conflicts.

 

A quick comment and obviously I can't go into detail but the A-10 MWS and RWR is one of the most advanced currently used in the USAF inventory.

 

So many people commenting but few here have inside knowledge of either airframe to make a realistic argument. I'm not trying to be rude but it's a fact. 99% of the people arguing are going off what they can fine in the public domain.

 

I leaned a lot about the F-35 from people who have worked it over the last few months, it'll be an amazing aircraft but again, it wasn't designed to do what the A-10 does. It can do it but like many have said it won't do it as well.

 

@Sierra99 great posts!

 

If you want the cost argument how about considering that if you use the bomb, you can put it on an F-16 already in theater (or any 4-5th Gen multirole), instead of bringing an A-10 unit with the accompanying logistics (which is millions $$$$$)

 

LOL, you realize 16's rotate in and out of theater just the same as A-10'a right? They bring the same support assets (more actually) than A-10's. Not giving specific numbers but for half the A-10's we deployed with the 15's brought more people to support them during.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Snoopy

[Emu]

A-10 Warthog is the new Ju-87 Stuka, obsolete overall, but people/dictators with bad military knowledge still want it.

And its success on the Eastern Front was never matched on the Western Front even in WWII.

[Hummingbird]

If the A-10 gets the sensor & weapon upgrades planned then I don't see any reason to retire it until well into the 2020's, and that's also the plan as far as I gather.

 

In the meantime the Pentagon is going to be hard at work on Warthog 2.0 and I've got a feeling it will come installed with a high capacity cannon armament as well.

[Hummingbird]

And its success on the Eastern Front was never matched on the Western Front even in WWII.

 

The Stuka was a success in environments with local air superiority or when there was sufficient fighter cover, and the coalition is going to be enjoying both in most of the concievable conflicts to come.

[HiJack]

So many people commenting but few here have inside knowledge of either airframe to make a realistic argument. I'm not trying to be rude but it's a fact. 99% of the people arguing are going off what they can fine in the public domain.

No offense Snoopy, I know you are in the loop on things but are you saying the A-10C don't need any upgrades and can just go in to the fight as it is? I'm pretty sure I have seen requests for upgrades that have been denied in the budget process. Needed new more powerful engines, new radar, new helmet, new radio etc. Much needed wing replacement being stopped by Obama also that ended some 4 squadrons due to old airframes. Are you saying this is not true? :huh: