USAF takes another shot at A-10

[Backy 51]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4926/here-we-go-again-usaf-aims-to-stand-up-dedicated-f-16-cas-squadron-at-nellis-afb?iid=sr-link1

 

Would love to see that Nellis (WA) F-16D EURO ONE camo scheme for the DCS AI F-16s ...

[Tirak]

A-16s never got their updated avionics, which is part of the reason why the accuracy was so poor. :doh:

[Sierra99]

A-16s never got their updated avionics, which is part of the reason why the accuracy was so poor. :doh:

 

More to it than that...

 

"The F-16s from the 174th were deployed to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm, but the project proved to be a miserable failure. Precision aiming was impossible for several reasons:

 

The pylon mount isn't as steady as the A-10's rigid mounting;

The F-16 flies much faster than an A-10, giving the pilots too little time approaching the target;

Firing the gun shook the aircraft harshly and made it impossible to control;

Essential CCIP (continuously computed impact point) software was unavailable.

Pilots ended up using the gun as an area effect weapon, spraying multiple targets with ammunition, producing an effect rather like a cluster bomb. It took only a couple of days of this before they gave up, unbolted the gun pods, and went back to dropping real cluster bombs - which did the job more effectively."

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html

[Tirak]

More to it than that...

 

"The F-16s from the 174th were deployed to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm, but the project proved to be a miserable failure. Precision aiming was impossible for several reasons:

 

The pylon mount isn't as steady as the A-10's rigid mounting;

The F-16 flies much faster than an A-10, giving the pilots too little time approaching the target;

Firing the gun shook the aircraft harshly and made it impossible to control;

Essential CCIP (continuously computed impact point) software was unavailable.

Pilots ended up using the gun as an area effect weapon, spraying multiple targets with ammunition, producing an effect rather like a cluster bomb. It took only a couple of days of this before they gave up, unbolted the gun pods, and went back to dropping real cluster bombs - which did the job more effectively."

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html

 

Which is why I said part. The pylon mounting and the distance from the center of gravity were important as well, but the pilot had to walk their tracers onto a target, which only exacerbated the control problems brought about by the physical problems.

[Hummingbird]

Wonder how well the F-35 wil do in the same role, I saw they were testing a 30mm gunpod on it. Target approach speed will be as much a problem for it as with the F-16. As for pylon rigidity and vibrations, one would think they have learned from the A-16 project, so hopefully it's more rigid this time around.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

Wonder how well the F-35 wil do in the same role, I saw they were testing a 30mm gunpod on it. Target approach speed will be as much a problem for it as with the F-16. As for pylon rigidity and vibrations, one would think they have learned from the A-16 project, so hopefully it's more rigid this time around.

 

It's a dead end development, just like the A-16 gunpod was. They'd have to pull off some masterful tricky engineer shit to keep the vibrations and recoil from sending shells all over the place. As great as fly by wire is, there are some things it can't just smooth out for you, and while the F-35 is heavier, the mockups of gunpods I've seen for it are even further from the center of gravity, which will do them no favors. It's purely there to mollify the Gun CAS crowd and either will be cancelled or never fielded. 25mm APEX will be the only thing spat from F-35s until Lasers come about.

[SkateZilla]

The Big Gun on Small Plane Program will fail like it did the first time, lol.

[Kippy]

Holy hell, that statement at the end.

 

So next time you read a headline toting the USAF’s grand plans to replace the A-10, rest assured it is just more mental masturbation coming from a flying service in total denial of the fiscal realities that will continue to mount in the coming decade.

 

I could not agree more.

[The M]

The A-10 will be gone soon. Most of the things people say about the A-10 are because of emotional reasons instead of facts. There was another thread where alot of proof was collected, that showed the real track record. It wan't the #1 CAS plane in real conflicts, the gun is oversaturating the target area in COIN operartions and the speed argument is not that strong if you look at other aircraft in the same role.

Why does everyone believe to know everything obout the F-35 because of some videos and the fact that they don`t like it?

[Boagrius]

At the end of the day the F35 is a totally different class of aircraft so you can't expect it to perform CAS in the same way as an A10. That said, you wouldn't want it to - as modern SHORAD systems proliferate and get ever more sophisticated (Sosna, Verba, Pantsir, ZAK-57/Derivatsiya-PVO, LD2000 etc) I can only see the A10's once vaunted brand of survivability continuing to decline into obsolescence. Gun runs of any kind go out the window completely once OPFOR have anything remotely modern to shoot back with, at which point you're back to plinking targets from 15000ft+ with the other fast(er) movers in a jet sub-optimally suited to that flight regime. Frankly, something like APKWS makes FAR more sense than the GAU-8 going forward, and it isn't even a platform specific weapon (unlike the GAU).

 

Granted, the A10 has earned a tremendous reputation in the conflicts of the past (Iraq 2x, Afghanistan) and even present (Syria), but that doesn't mean this will continue into the future. When you consider the emerging threats that the USAF is trying to deter in Europe and the Western Pacific post ~2025, I can see why the Hog wouldn't be high on the priority list - love it though I do. I actually think the closing statement is extremely and excessively cynical tbh.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Boagrius

[Bullfrog_]

This may be a dumb question but if the USAF is being forced to keep the A-10, but cost is an issue. The USAF has also expressed interest in a dedicated COIN aircraft off and on through out the years.

 

Why don't they just downgrade the A-10C to decrease the cost footprint, keep the A-10 PR advantages and get a cheap COIN ship?

[Lehmen]

Granted, the A10 has earned a tremendous reputation in the conflicts of the past (Iraq 2x, Afghanistan) and even present (Syria), but that doesn't mean this will continue into the future. When you consider the emerging threats that the USAF is trying to deter in Europe and the Western Pacific post ~2025, I can see why the Hog wouldn't be high on the priority list - love it though I do. I actually think the closing statement is extremely and excessively cynical tbh.

 

Those are valid concerns, but most vulnerable aircrafts out there are combat helicopters. But they can't be replaced, because nothing can do a heli job. To certain extend, it is true for A-10 too: some stuff it can do, can not be done with other types of planes. Yes, it is mean they have to go close and personal, and become a subject to variety of threats. This is where other types of aircrafts should come to play. So, in the end it should be combat helicopters on the ground level, something like A-10 that can go low gun blazing and survive the attempt, and fighter-bombers high in the sky, to deal with advanced SAM systems, ensuring that the rest can do their tasks.

[Boagrius]

Those are valid concerns, but most vulnerable aircrafts out there are combat helicopters. But they can't be replaced, because nothing can do a heli job. To certain extend, it is true for A-10 too: some stuff it can do, can not be done with other types of planes. Yes, it is mean they have to go close and personal, and become a subject to variety of threats. This is where other types of aircrafts should come to play. So, in the end it should be combat helicopters on the ground level, something like A-10 that can go low gun blazing and survive the attempt, and fighter-bombers high in the sky, to deal with advanced SAM systems, ensuring that the rest can do their tasks.

 

This is the problem - post ~2025 it probably can't "survive the attempt". At least, not in a sustainable way. "Surviving the attempt" by regularly taking significant amounts of battle damage requiring extensive repairs and/or airframe withdrawal is not a viable way to operate a CAS fleet.

 

The A10's basic design is optimised to withstand vastly less capable weaponry (~23mm AAA, primitive SAMs) than will exist in the 2020s-30s. 57mm AA guns firing guided shells (ZAK57) or their own GAU-8 (LD-2000), SHORAD systems capable of reaching up to 40,000ft (Pantsir/Tor M2) and VSHORAD systems that are nigh on immune to flares and any other countermeasure the A10 can possibly carry (Sosna, Verba) are all very real emerging threats. In all likelihood they will render the A10's fundamental design increasingly (if not totally) obsolete before long. Hell, even the fire control systems on modern APC's and IFV's provide the capacity for defensive fire that could scarcely be dreamt of when the A10 was originally fielded.

 

Granted, the A10 is not and never was a "Day 1" aircraft - but even after SEAD/DEAD have done their work, there is never going to be a guarantee that such mobile, concealable and replaceable SHORAD systems have been eradicated or even driven to the point of scarcity. This potentially makes your GAU-8 dead weight for much if not all of the conflict. Low and slow CAS is not a smart thing to do in this environment, and I dare say you would probably need a brand new DIRCM/DEW/MSDM/SAR Radar equipped platform to pull it off going forward. Even then there may well be better ways of doing things. Hand wringing over what platform can do gun based CAS the best misses the paradigm changes that have been occurring in the CAS domain for 30 odd years now, with gun based CAS being only a very small (and I would argue diminishing) part of the bigger picture.

 

Every airframe has a shelf life, and if the USAF is focusing on the high end deterrence part of their capability set (and I think they are) then the A10 is rapidly approaching its own. Not bad for a jet initially conceived of in what? The 1960s!? I love the Hog as much as the next guy but I don't think I'm saying anything too controversial here.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Boagrius

[xaoslaad]

They tested those 30mm Gunpods on F-5's and F-20's as well and recall reading theybwere just as bad there.

 

Some Thai aircraft supposedly still use them.

 

I'd wonder if something heavier like a mudhen would have better luck with it.

 

And if that worked any better and they could modify the thming to sling rockets, mavericks, and/or whatever else would be needed to fill the roll, it seems just by the bomb loadouts that it would be able to haul the load and maybe just maybe do the job.

 

I'd guess loiter time would be better than the F-16, but issues with approach speed might be worse. I simply do not know. Two engines seems like a better idea for that kind of work as well. Anyway, probably never know; just my musings.

Edited August 29, 2016 by xaoslaad

[Lehmen]

The A10's basic design is optimised to withstand vastly less capable weaponry (~23mm AAA, primitive SAMs) than will exist in the 2020s-30s. 57mm AA guns firing guided shells (ZAK57) or their own GAU-8 (LD-2000), SHORAD systems capable of reaching up to 40,000ft (Pantsir/Tor M2) and VSHORAD systems that are nigh on immune to flares and any other countermeasure the A10 can possibly carry (Sosna, Verba) are all very real emerging threats. In all likelihood they will render the A10's fundamental design increasingly (if not totally) obsolete before long. Hell, even the fire control systems on modern APC's and IFV's provide the capacity for defensive fire that could scarcely be dreamt of when the A10 was originally fielded

It is tempting idea, to remove from battlefield most vulnerable crafts: attack helicopters, CAS specific planes, and do troops support dropping bombs from 6 kilometers in the sky. But in my opinion, doing that you going to save your planes, of course, but ground troops will suffer, because high altitude bombing is not enough.

 

Advanced antiaircraft systems have fundamental weakness: they need emitting radar to operate and they can not run. Hence, CAS planes can and should be protected from them. And I do not tell that CAS plane need to remain A10, but in my opinion something is needing to fill it role in the future. And that something can not be just bombs and rockets dropping from high altitude platform.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Lehmen

[Boagrius]

It is tempting idea, to remove from battlefield most vulnerable crafts: attack helicopters, CAS specific planes, and do troops support dropping bombs from 6 kilometers in the sky. But in my opinion, doing that you going to save your planes, of course, but ground troops will suffer, because high altitude bombing is not enough.

 

Advanced antiaircraft systems have fundamental weakness: they need emitting radar to operate and they can not run. Hence, CAS planes can and should be protected from them. And I do not tell that CAS plane need to remain A10, but in my opinion something is needing to fill it role in the future. And that something can not be just bombs and rockets dropping from high altitude platform.

 

Actually there are quite a few advanced SAM systems out there that don't rely on radar and are highly mobile - just look at Strela M3, Sosna or even Pantsir.

 

I'm not saying high altitude bombing is the only solution - medium altitude may suffice in many circumstances - but I really doubt that the A10 has what it takes to survive at low level against tomorrow's threats.

[HiJack]

The F-35 and SDB will be a good combination in CAS I think. Precise targeting, fast in, fast out, ready for new tasking. No one in harms way except the thugs.

[Lehmen]

but I really doubt that the A10 has what it takes to survive at low level against tomorrow's threats.

Plane that can emerge as replacement for A-10 would have tomorrow offense and defense capabilities for tomorrow threats. And I do not sure that F-35 can fully take over. Anyway, we shall see for ourselves, in 10 or 20 years :music_whistling:

 

PS And because I do not expect big all-out war between major powers, I'm convinced that A10-like planes would be greatly missed :cry:

Edited August 29, 2016 by Lehmen

[Boagrius]

Plane that can emerge as replacement for A-10 would have tomorrow offense and defense capabilities for tomorrow threats. And I do not sure that F-35 can fully take over. Anyway, we shall see for ourselves, in 10 or 20 years :music_whistling:

 

PS And because I do not expect big all-out war between major powers, I'm convinced that A10-like planes would be greatly missed :cry:

 

Maybe, but the importance of a conventional deterrent is still paramount, especially as the U.S and China continue to butt heads in the Western Pacific - a theatre where a short legged CAS jet would be nigh on useless. Even then, I dare say that an F35 with its belly full of SDB's and its wing pylons loaded up with JAGM, Brimstone or APKWS would be a pretty potent CAS platform post ~2025 regardless. If you're in a COIN situation (Afghanistan, post war Iraq, Syria) where the bad guys can't really shoot back worth a damn, then your A29 and Reaper/Avenger types may well be much cheaper yet sufficient. That question ultimately falls to the USAF force planners and what cost/benefit analysis they get.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Boagrius

[Lehmen]

Even then, I dare say that an F35 with its belly full of SDB's and its wing pylons loaded up with JAGM, Brimstone or APKWS would be a pretty potent CAS platform post ~2025 regardless.

Of course it will, it only deficiency is a gun. And despite all attempts to resolve it with external pods, it never going to be as efficient gunner, as A10 is. Regarding A29 and Reaper/Avenger, I do not believe in them. Have no idea how good their avionics is, but modern CAS plane need very advanced targeting and recon capabilities, smart weapons support, communications, datalinks and means for high situation awareness. All this stuff, if done correctly (not just a bunch of different devices installed, but integrated system, similar to what we see in A10C), can not be very cheap. Also, let not forget about descent payload and the gun.

[Boagrius]

Of course it (the F35) will, it only deficiency is a gun. And despite all attempts to resolve it with external pods, it never going to be as efficient gunner, as A10 is. Regarding A29 and Reaper/Avenger, I do not believe in them. Have no idea how good their avionics is, but modern CAS plane need very advanced targeting and recon capabilities, smart weapons support, communications, datalinks and means for high situation awareness. All this stuff, if done correctly (not just a bunch of different devices installed, but integrated system, similar to what we see in A10C), can not be very cheap. Also, let not forget about descent payload and the gun.

 

Not much of a "deficiency" in light of the bigger picture. Anyway, I already covered why I think gun-based CAS is, in all likelihood, losing its relevance going forward (particularly for the US with its monstrous PGM arsenal).

 

It's true that UCAVs probably aren't a solution on their own, but when tethered via datalink to a local "mothership" aircraft (AH64E, F35, some other ISR node) or even the troops on the ground themselves, they might go a long way. When you then consider other emerging technologies like next gen guided artillery or loitering munitions you have a lot of capability overlap (with the A10) where there once was little to none.

 

You also have to consider the USAF's over-arching CONOPS, and the fact that they are pursuing a distributed lethality model where just about any platform capable of moving mud is a potential CAS provider. I think you'll find this takes a lot of pressure (and need) away from ageing platforms like the Hog. Modern network enabled PGMs have changed the whole CAS ball-game in a big way... in many respects right under the Hog's feet.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Boagrius

[Solty]

In a conflict like Desert Strom or Afghanistan where USAF has enormous advantage, achieving air superiority within days, and fighting against ill-equiped and badly trained insurgets and partisans or retreating and already broken armies, the A-10 is capable enough.

 

But modern battlefield with tons of equipment like Pantsir, Tunguska etc., and possible enemy threat of many MiG29s and Su27s and many other aircraft, the A-10 is just a sitting duck.

 

It beares the name "Thunderbolt II" as in, it was to be successor to that great aicraft. You know what is different? P-47 was a fighter, that was adopted to be a ground pounder. A-10 is CAS only. P-47 was tough and reliable, and still some units lost 300% of their men in combat, and especially during ground attack. While still beeing one of the best fighter aircraft of WW2, beeing able to tackle Fw190 and Bf109 in combat. And that plane was realy resistant to the weapons of the 1940's.

 

But now, with all the new Radar guided and heat-seeking missles, the A-10 is going to go down quickly in any "normal" conflict. Assymerical conflicts do not show the real picture. Sure pilots can like it, and it might have fans. But just as the P-47 was phased out by jets. Just like that, A-10 will be phased out by the Stealth multipurpose aircraft.

 

To me, there are better means to do the job already. AH-64's that can fire 16 missles at the same time at 16 different targets and can realy stay within operational range of suported units and be rearmed in the middle of a field. UAVs that can use Hellfire missles and finaly a good laser designator for the F-35 to drop a LGB.

 

A-10 is old, and while it's cool, just as many aicraft before it. It is old and easy to kill on a modern day battlefield. It needs all other airfoce units to keep it alive and it still can get destroyed by typical ground fire like MANPADS and cannons from APC's, tanks, etc. It has to fly low, and it is kinda slow.:cry:

[Lehmen]

AH-64's that can fire 16 missles at the same time at 16 different targets and can realy stay within operational range of suported units and be rearmed in the middle of a field.

But also they are most vulnerable to systems such as Tunguska or Pantsir, and in many ways have very limited capabilities comparing with A10. Still, they can not be replaced with fast jets. The same goes to A10.

 

It needs all other airfoce units to keep it alive and it still can get destroyed by typical ground fire like MANPADS and cannons from APC's, tanks, etc. It has to fly low, and it is kinda slow.:cry:

The same is true for combat helicopters. But low and slow, gives helis and CAS-only planes capabilities, no one else have or could have.

[Tirak]

The advantage that low and slow CAS has is better information, something that can be mitigated with ever advancing technology.

[Boagrius]

The advantage that low and slow CAS has is better information, something that can be mitigated with ever advancing technology.

 

Indeed, and back when PGMs were either primitive or non-existent (ie. when the A10 was designed), you needed to get low for the sake of accuracy as well. Not so now.

 

I'd add that it's all a moot point when your A10s have to use PGMs with targeting pods from above ~15000ft (just like an F35... but without the speed... or stealth... or sensors... or self protection suite... or networking capacity...) to stay alive against an opponent with remotely modern SHORAD systems anyway. Even then they can only do so AFTER the whole AO has been thoroughly cleansed by SEAD/DEAD strikes...

Edited September 6, 2016 by Boagrius