Did They Go Too Far with the C?

[GGTharos]

Only slightly, and quite pointless. It won't make B-1B's or A-10's go away, so in the end you're only adding cost.

 

But you would think that an Airbus A-330 is slightly cheaper to operate :)

[Zenra]

But you would think that an Airbus A-330 is slightly cheaper to operate :)

But not nearly as survivable in a battlefield environment, either - love to see an A-330 going evasive against a SAM launch...:helpsmilie:

[GGTharos]

It doesn't need to. It'll just pack DIRCM like a C-17. Got an incoming MANPAD? Show it your laser ... assuming that for some reason you are flying low enough for them to reach you.

 

It would also have a lot of room for ECM equipment against radar SAMs, but I somehow doubt that would be in any way necessary in the um, COIN role.

[Spartan1-1]

I think the C is perfectly suited for what we need these days. CAS has changed significantly with the modern COIN battlefield. Platforms need to be capable of surviving rapid BAI on a modern conventional battlefield against capable AA threats. Recently the requirement has surfaced that they also need precision strike capabilities, long loiter times, and advanced targeting systems. Instead of knocking out tanks in a linear battlefield they are now providing realtime surveillance in a tactical environment, and striking targets within meters of friendly forces on a true asymetric battlefield. Coming from personal experience, the A-10 is different than any other platform in that it will get into the weeds when called upon. Most of our birds, to include rotary wing, will not expose themselves to fire at all. Our more delicate multirole fighters will stay up at 10-15 agl no matter what. The A-10 platform combined with the pilots training and mindset allows for true close support. They still get shot at and hit. Trust me, insurgents have HMGs and in some cases intermediate caliber AA guns and MANPADS.

[MBot]

But not nearly as survivable in a battlefield environment, either - love to see an A-330 going evasive against a SAM launch...:helpsmilie:

 

But then that is to point. You don't need an expensive high-tech nuclear bomber to level mud huts in Afghanistan. Neiher you need high-tech jets for it. There is just so much overkill in COIN right now.

 

Admitted, the A-10 is probably the cheapest way to drop an LGB at the moment. But an Emraer 170 would do it even cheaper.

 

But in the end, drones are the future anyway...

[Cali]

It is an interesting point. I would say for todays mission, the A-10 is not really required anymore. Sitting at 15k feet and throwing around PGM doesn't specially require the airframe of the A-10.

 

My suggestion has always been to aquire a couple of Airbus A-330 or Boeing 767 and strap some targeting pods and a dozen of LGBs under its wings. And voila, you have the ultimate, cheap, 10 hours loiter time, CAS bomber :) The cannon could easily be replaced by a larger variety of bomb callibers.

 

Mbot, the A-10 is very much needed. There are videos showing them engaging enemy troops in close quarters with friendly troops. Would you want to drop a bomb in that situation? Dropping a bomb from 15k feet is gonna take how long to hit the ground? By that time lots of things can change. Now take the A-10 and use it’s gun, that will be a lot faster. Plus the enemy sees what is rolling in on them, that right there has a big impact on them. It’s called “show of force” and it is used a lot.

[Steel Jaw]

Airliners...meh, I cant believe I am seeing this.

[Cali]

Airliners...meh, I cant believe I am seeing this.

 

It's only talk and by people that can't do anything about that kind of stuff anyway.

[Steel Jaw]

It's only talk and by people that can't do anything about that kind of stuff anyway.

 

Thanks for the clarification. :megalol:

[y2kiah]

I don't think it would be cheaper to operate an airliner than an A-10 to drop LGBs in any circumstance. The only advantage would be longer loiter time, but we have armed UAVs for that.

[Yellonet]

The fulda gap scenario is quite unlikely nowadays, the 'A' was primarily a flying tank destroyer, the 'C' is more of a general CAS aircraft.

The A-10C is a more modern aircraft as much due to its role as its capabilities.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Yellonet
spelling and stuff

[Steel Jaw]

Now that's a good point: the A10A when designed/built was destined to fight over the Fulda Gap. Period. That was its raison d'être.

[GhostDog]

But then that is to point. You don't need an expensive high-tech nuclear bomber to level mud huts in Afghanistan. Neiher you need high-tech jets for it. There is just so much overkill in COIN right now.

 

Nothing that gets you out of a lethal situation in one piece as quickly as possible is overkill, and there's nothing like CAS for getting your nards out of a vice in a hurry.

[Gearbox]

 

They say to effectively fly an F-16 into combat you would require a Ph.D worth of knowledge. There is nothing simple about modern day fighter/bomber pilots.

 

I used to fly a lot of Falcon 4 AF, and now I'm getting into DCS A-10... so far it seems to me that the avionics and systems in the A-10C are a lot more complicated, and it doesn't even have a radar to deal with. There's a lot more crap on the HOTAS for one, yet I could easily and quickly operate all the F-16 systems on the Cougar HOTAS. It's likely that some of that is caused by DCS modeling the systems with more fidelity, but I don't know. I still need to finish reading the manual and doing the tutorials to boot.

[Gearbox]

Airliners...meh, I cant believe I am seeing this.

 

If nobody is shooting back it could work. Don't they take old B-52s and stuff them to the gills with JDAMs and GBUs?

[Gearbox]

I don't think it would be cheaper to operate an airliner than an A-10 to drop LGBs in any circumstance. The only advantage would be longer loiter time, but we have armed UAVs for that.

 

They have a long loiter time but they don't carry that much ordnance.

[siege00]

I think they used to call them 'hell-bats' or something.

 

I believe that you mean, "Devil's Cross." That's the nickname that I recall, though it's quite possible the other was used as well.

[hassata]

My original point was this: back when the A-10 was designed, it was a pure numbers game. A cheap way to throw hundreds of guns at the Fulda gap. Times change, and so do requirements or perception of requirements. Which was why the brass was ready to scrap the platform altogether pre-Desert Storm. But the A-10 plays an unprecedented role, so they decide they want it around for another iteration. Plinking (and post Kosovo, Stand-off) is the order of the day, so the platform gets upgraded accordingly. You end up with the C, which is formidable, but you no longer have your cheap, easy to field and maintain gun of yore. Granted Fulda is no longer in the cards (unless Putin decides to use Russia's immense wealth to start mass-producing real tanks instead of the blow-up kind), but how many planners have been bit in the ass after saying, "we're done with all of that"? And off-the-shelf, cost effective solutions (such as a retro-fitted 707) may be more critical than everyone thinks. If you divide the amount of money spent in Afghanistan by the number of Taliban killed, you allegedly get a figure of roughly 60 million per body. So you can when a war over there, but still go broke over here.

Edited October 21, 2010 by hassata

[Steel Jaw]

f you divide the amount of money spent in Afghanistan by the number of Taliban killed, you allegedly get a figure of roughly 60 million per body.

 

We would get a much better ROI if we used tac nukes. :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Poor argument. The C includes survivability upgrades, modern precision engagement capability aside. All this stuff would help it out in Fulda gap as well - new missile warning sensors, jammers, automated counter-measure dispensers, faster ways of finding and acquiring targets.

 

The battlefield has become faster, and thus the hog has become smarter.

 

The converted 707 thing is pretty much hogwash. All you're doing is adding cost by adding capability to yet another aircraft where you already have other aircraft not only fielding that capability, but giving you tremendous flexibility to do MORE.

[hassata]

Again, you are not taking into account cost. Which you should, given the economic straights the country is in. You simply would not be able to throw the same amount of C's as A's at a hypothetical mass tank attack through the gap. That was the thinking behind the A, right or wrong.

 

Also the airline hypothetical is just that. In an alternate universe with a less powerful military-industrial complex and saner acquisition committees, maybe a converted airliner would be fielded instead of B1's and B2's and even a couple of squadrons of C's (which could be mothballed until a more threatening enemy appears), when air superiority is unquestionable and all you need is a platform from which to plink. Maybe they'd even use Zeppelins.

[Bulletstop]

But it still comes down to, it can do the basic role as well as improved on weapons deployment. Maybe not cost effective in a civil econmony, so far the polic's have had no problem spending our money,lol.

The c is a more capable airframe but it still can do the same simple task it was made for. My 2 cents :).

 

 

Bullet

[GGTharos]

Russian military can't exactly throw high numbers of their advanced tanks around either for the same reason, so it works out. Low quality tanks will just get eaten right up.

 

Your point is basically moot.

 

Again, you are not taking into account cost. Which you should, given the economic straights the country is in. You simply would not be able to throw the same amount of C's as A's at a hypothetical mass tank attack through the gap. That was the thinking behind the A, right or wrong.

 

Also the airline hypothetical is just that. In an alternate universe with a less powerful military-industrial complex and saner acquisition committees, maybe a converted airliner would be fielded instead of B1's and B2's and even a couple of squadrons of C's (which could be mothballed until a more threatening enemy appears), when air superiority is unquestionable and all you need is a platform from which to plink. Maybe they'd even use Zeppelins.

[Zenra]

They have a long loiter time but they don't carry that much ordnance.

Yeah, not much ordinance...

[GGTharos]

Typical payload is 2 AGM-65 and 4x Bombs Zenra. Anything more tends to be a waste of gas :)