A-10 Replacement

[Sierra99]

Ive been doing a lot of reading about the A-10 over the past few weeks since I started playing the game in ernst. One of the things that is usually mentioned it the expected service life of the A-10 (2028 8) ) and its potential replacement - The F-35.

 

Considering the time effort and thought that went into the design of the A-10 and optimizing it for CAS... does anyone think its a good idea to replace the Hog with an "Off the Shelf" aircraft that's not being optimized for anything? Neither do I... But whats the choice? (For the record, I'm not inclined to beleive ALL the hyperboyle surrounding aircraft accquisition programs... but the general impression is the F-35 is trying to be too many different aircraft and doing NONE of them well. Then it occured to me perhaps the replacement for the A-10 should be designed the way the Navy did with the FA-18E/F Super Hornets.

 

The Navy took a proven combat aircraft with some short comings and turned it into a monster. They Kept a good solid design, beefed it up in the places that needed it and more importantly, they didn't change the things that worked. If the Air Force took the same approach to the A-10... What would we keep and What would we change? Bigger engines? More Payload? New gun or Beefed up version of the GAU-8?

 

I know none of this amounts to a hill of beans... But I think it make's for an interesting discussion.

[joey45]

Well, the airframes themselves can not last forever and they don't make them anymore.

Edited April 20, 2012 by joey45

[EtherealN]

There's also the point that it's not only about having something that's "the best" at a specific job. This is something that has been going on since the 60's pretty much - specialized aircraft has slowly been retreating, with few exceptions. Basically, if you have a "jack of all trades" this can in itself become a "force multiplier".

 

Consider for example if you have a budget that's good for 1000 aircraft:

 

400 Fighters.

400 Strikers.

200 CAS.

 

You go in, clean up the enemy air force, you now have (effectively):

 

400 Strikers.

200 CAS.

 

Now you've hit their infrastructure, their air defences are gone, you're now locked into a dirsty assymetric ground war and what you really need is CAS. Well, at this point you're already in the stage where you end up either restricted to your 200 CAS aircraft, OR you also press the strikers into this role even if they're not optimal for it. This problem is lessened if the strikers in question had that kind of multi-role planning from the beginning. And if you make sure your fighters had that capability as well, they're not sitting in the sidelines either - they're available for the CAS job as well. Which means more aircraft available, which means your overall CAS capability might actually be better than it would have been otherwise even with specialized aircraft.

 

So given the financial considerations, I think the USAF is doing the right thing. They're getting two really good aircraft, both will have striking capability (though for the F-22 it really is a bit of an afterthought, but supercruise SDB's are no joke). They'll have a genuine Air Dominance fighter (I love the "classification creep" on that) to make sure the enemy air force dies if it dares go into the air, and it is also capable of interdiction, and then they have another good aircraft that will be able to perform pretty much all other roles (except area flattening, the B-2's, B-1's and B-52's are still around for that). Never underestimate the cost savings that can be had from reducing the amount of types involved in your logistics - and don't forget that those savings can be leveraged into "MOAR aircraft". :)

 

And, finally, don't underestimate the SA advantage an F-35 can give the warfighter compared to the A-10.

[Cedaway]

Each aircraft development is an increasing gap of $$$. Maybe they try to fulfill the requirement of a 'new' aircraft with an 'already' produced and well known aircraft (assuming the F-35 will be released before 2028 ;--)

The logistic chain is also vital during operations. With the F-35, this chain would be shared by USAF, USN and USMC.

On the other hand, I think it's sad that a whole air component has only 1 type of aircraft to operate increasing variety of missions (CAS, air defense,...)

Ok, there are other 'specialized' aircrafts such as the F-22 for the air dominance but in which case the US will engage this aircraft? They wouldn't send the Raptor in Lybia because they were afraid to loose one. Why? Because the cost of this aircraft is prohibitive and there are so many secret technology in it: stealth coating, softwares, hardwares, engines,...

Assuming that, I understand the US gov. want to take the advantages of a lightweight multirole fighter like the F-35. (But there is also very hi-tech in it, and the dev & prod prices are increasing each fiscal year so...)

 

The great advantages of the A10 are known by all of us, DCS A10c pilots: slow speed, highly manoeuvrable at that speed, high payload, great autonomy, great range,...

 

So the question is: does the F-35 can do better? at greater range? with an higher payload?

I think both aircraft have advantages and inconvenients. The goal is to fit with the 'CAS' role.

And what will be the 'needs' in 2028? What will be the 'doctrine' (ROE, theatre,...)?

 

(Maybe it's not very clear, non english native, but well it's my opinion and we're here to share ours ;-)

Edited April 20, 2012 by Cedaway

[EtherealN]

Well Cedaway, remember that it's not the F-35 alone that will "replace" the A-10. There's also the LAS program, which IMO is a good choice for low-intensity conflicts like Afghanistan where reducing the need for supporting expensive jets might be a big deal.

 

Another point to recall with F-35's is that they have one thing the A-10 does not have: speed. It can "get there" a lot faster. So when comparing the planes for the role it's important to not look exclusively at what the F-35 "doesn't have", but also remember those things that the A-10 cannot offer but the F-35 can.

[Sierra99]

Well, the airframes themselves can not last forever and they don't make them anymore.

 

True statement. However the 18E wasn't the same airframe...it was all new... Just the same basic design. That's kind of the track I'm following. We know the design is good. If we Were to build it today... Knowing what we know... What would or could we do differently?

[Sierra99]

So the question is: does the F-35 can do better? at greater range? with an higher payload? I think both aircraft have advantages and inconvenients. The goal is to fit with the 'CAS' role. And what will be the 'needs' in 2028? What will be the 'doctrine' (ROE, theatre,...)

 

That is an excellent point. I guess part of my pondering has to do with what most people first think of when they picture an A-10. (OK the first thing after ugly) The GAU/8. Obviously the F35 won't be carrying one BUT... Perhaps it won't be a necessary component of future CAS. New munitions are being developed and improved every day to deal with armor and hardened targets. Perhaps a 20mm would be sufficient when dealing with soft targets.

 

(Maybe it's not very clear, non english native, but well it's my opinion and we're here to share ours ;-)

 

My friend your "Non English native" English is way better than any attempt I might make at your native language. :smilewink:

[GGTharos]

First off, the F-35 is not an aircraft that 'is not optimized for anything'. It is optimized for strike missions.

 

Even A-10's currently do their work with PGMs, and the F-35 can carry all of those.

 

Here are some things an A-10 can do that an F-35 cannot:

1) Use GAU-8

2) Haul a whole bunch of mavericks

3) Loiter for a looooooooooooong time

 

Here are some things that an F-35 can do and an A-10 cannot:

 

1) Be stealthy

2) Get places fast

3) Use radar

4) Get superior SA

5) Shoot down other planes

6) Operate with good surviveability in high-threat areas

7) Significantly longer ranged stand-off weapons

 

 

Things that they both do:

 

1) Drop PGMs

2) Drop cluster munitions

3) Use guided missiles

 

 

So, both can plink tanks and other vehicles. With BLU-108s, the GAU-8 becomes practically moot, and the F-35A has a 25mm cannon to deal with targets of opportunity if necessary. Not as good, but adequate.

F-35 won't be able to do CAS quite as well, but AFAIK, soldiers prefer helis anyway for really close support.

F-35 won't have the same presence as an A-10 in conflicts like the current ones: It can't fire the GAU-8, make everyone pee their pants, and then loiter around making them wonder when the next explosive landscaping is scheduled for.

 

 

That is an excellent point. I guess part of my pondering has to do with what most people first think of when they picture an A-10. (OK the first thing after ugly) The GAU/8. Obviously the F35 won't be carrying one BUT... Perhaps it won't be a necessary component of future CAS. New munitions are being developed and improved every day to deal with armor and hardened targets. Perhaps a 20mm would be sufficient when dealing with soft targets.

[Cali]

GG, you need to fix your post..........the A-10 can shoot other planes down. :D

[GGTharos]

Technically, so can you with your M-16. ;)

[Cali]

Technically, so can you with your M-16. ;)

 

But, we are not talking about the M-16....are we? :joystick:

[ALDEGA]

Basically, if you have a "jack of all trades" this can in itself become a "force multiplier".

Jack of all trades, master of none = force multiplier?

 

A jack of all trades beating specialized opfor fighters?

[GGTharos]

It isn't a jack of all trades. It's a Strike fighter. It just so happens that it can also shoot AMRAAMs, intercept signals, and jam them, too. That isn't much different than an F-16, the difference being that the F-16 was primarily designed as a fighter first with air to air duties.

 

Can you beat specialized OPFOR fighters with an F-35? I recall a pair of F-18's blowing up a couple of MiG-21's while on an A2G mission, and then following through with said A2G mission ... so sure, you can, at least if they're not 5th gen fighters. 4.5 will give them trouble as well, no doubt.

[Impact]

F-35 won't be able to do CAS quite as well, but AFAIK, soldiers prefer helis anyway for really close support.

 

 

I don't think so, Tim. :lol:

[EtherealN]

Youtube video != talking to actualy soldiers.

[EtherealN]

Jack of all trades, master of none = force multiplier?

 

A jack of all trades beating specialized opfor fighters?

 

I invite you to read the whole post. :)

[Cali]

Youtube video != talking to actualy soldiers.

 

How many soldiers did he talk to? I have talked to a bunch when I was in Alaska and Marines when I was at Miramar. When they closed down Eielson AFB's runway and we spent the summer at Fort Wainwright. Most of the ones I talked to liked the A-10. The Marines just like seeing stuff blow up, as long as it was the bad guys they didn't really mind what was doing it. There is a reason why the A-10's life got extended.

[cichlidfan]

Never underestimate the cost savings that can be had from reducing the amount of types involved in your logistics

 

That factor probably has more effect on the decision making process than some people allow for.:thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Yeah, I spoke with a bunch too. There are plenty of targets where you don't care who delivers the boom booms.

 

There are some things CAS that only helis can do really well though, and usually this relates to very close air support. Most of those youtube videos do not depict such a situation.

 

I recall one video where some GBU's were dropped near US soldiers against targets right on the other side of some wall (well, 'right on the other side'). I don't think in that case there's much argument about a heli being able to deliver effective fire more safely for own troops in that situation, but hey, not like I know anything - I defer to the guys on the ground.

 

How many soldiers did he talk to?

[Sierra99]

First off, the F-35 is not an aircraft that 'is not optimized for anything'. It is optimized for strike missions.

 

Ya know you're right. I miss worded that statement a little... I think the point I was trying to make is The F-35 > Aircraft < is being marketed to the different services and buyers and then optimized for their particular role. (I.E. VSTOL for Navy and Marines, Strike capabilities for USAF) The Aircraft itself is pretty Vanilla.

 

Even A-10's currently do their work with PGMs, and the F-35 can carry all of those.

 

Agreed... I'd be curious what percentage of what ordanance has been discharged over the past 10 years...

 

So, both can plink tanks and other vehicles. With BLU-108s, the GAU-8 becomes practically moot, and the F-35A has a 25mm cannon to deal with targets of opportunity if necessary. Not as good, but adequate.

 

Ii didnt know it had a 25mm... Just assumed they would use the off the shelf fighter cannon they've used the last 20 years... Oooops

 

F-35 won't have the same presence as an A-10 in conflicts like the current ones: It can't fire the GAU-8, make everyone pee their pants, and then loiter around making them wonder when the next explosive landscaping is scheduled for.

 

LOL, Well where's the fun in that? Dont get me wrong I know in the end whatever is chosen will get the job done, just not as notably as the Hawg.

[EtherealN]

Agreed... I'd be curious what percentage of what ordanance has been discharged over the past 10 years...

 

Dangeous statistic to go by, since it assumes both capaiblitity and doctrine are intended to stay fixed.

[GGTharos]

Ya know you're right. I miss worded that statement a little... I think the point I was trying to make is The F-35 > Aircraft < is being marketed to the different services and buyers and then optimized for their particular role. (I.E. VSTOL for Navy and Marines, Strike capabilities for USAF) The Aircraft itself is pretty Vanilla.

 

Trying to accomodate all three has hurt it some, for sure. The question is, can it be compromised like that and still be a great fighter? Time will tel.

 

 

Agreed... I'd be curious what percentage of what ordanance has been discharged over the past 10 years...

I believe there might be some accounting regarding that in some publications ... no handy links though.

 

Ii didnt know it had a 25mm... Just assumed they would use the off the shelf fighter cannon they've used the last 20 years... Oooops

Yep. The A has it built in, the B and C will have it available as a podded armament. A gun plus ammo takes up a lot of space. You can get an external tank's worth of fuel in that volume. The gun just isn't as needed as it used to be.

 

LOL, Well where's the fun in that? Dont get me wrong I know in the end whatever is chosen will get the job done, just not as notably as the Hawg.

Well, it can be loud, and F-15E's certainly had done 'shows of force' by getting down and being loud. But it's not quite the same threat. Ok, so there's this dinky a-10 loitering up there with quiet turbofans ... until it decides to explain things to someone :D