The Warthog stays alive...for now.

[Irelander]

Air Force pushes back A-10 retirement to 2022:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/22/legendary-10-warthog-wins-another-fight-vs-budget-ax.html?intcmp=hpbt1


Once again, the deadline for retiring the versatile plane has been pushed back, this time to 2022, when it would be replaced by F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. While the F-35 rollout has been less than smooth, the real reason the Warthog keeps avoiding mothballs is that it is perfect for raining fire down on desert-dwelling Islamic extremists.

Glad the Warthog lives to fight another day.

[Joe in PNG]

Why do I get the feeling that by 2022 they'll still be working the bugs out of the F-35?

[RJ]

Why do I get the feeling that by 2022 they'll still be working the bugs out of the MHS?

FIFY. :cool:

[Joe in PNG]

FIFY. :cool:

That too.

[RevolverRob]

I'm hoping by 2022 - They have come to their senses and actually gotten rid of the F-35 program and invested in Specialized platforms that work properly, like the A10. The A10 is an exemplification of what designed a specific platform for specif purposes can gain you. I get it - We don't need SR71 Blackbirds of even F117s anymore. We have satellites and unmanned aerial drones capable of providing considerable support/fulfill the same roles.

What it seems like we do need - is an aircraft like the A10 that can simultaneously provide close-air support and bomb/rocket/destroy strategic targets. In both roles, the A10 excels as a platform. If the airframe "needs" replacement, it needs to be replaced with another specialized aircraft of the same type and robustness. The trouble with the F35 is the trouble with most "multi-role" aircraft...they don't excel in the roles they end up being used for. Exceptions are things like the C130, A10, U/MH-60 Blackhawk. But what you find in all of those cases - you start with a robust, utilitarian airframe and then modify it, with carefully selected and designed, equipment for specialized purposes. Low and behold, if you build it like it's a lego-brick system that is adaptable - as opposed to a one-stop panacea of solutions, it works better.

Seems like someone could have told the Air Force that...hmm let's see...that guy Henry Ford seemed to figure that out with the Model T...

-Rob

[Dagga Boy]

I wish they would just give them to the Marine Corps and watch the fun begin.

[GardoneVT]

I wish they would just give them to the Marine Corps and watch the fun begin.

Fun aviation trivia- the Air Force initially didn't want it back in the '70s. When the Pentagon brass considered handing the jets over to the Army , that's when the AF Brass went "hale to the naw" and agreed to the program.

Insofar as the F35 goes, by the time 2022 rolls around the stealth tech will already be obsolete and the MXS troops will have filed suit against the Pentagon alleging that servicing the F35 constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment". You heard it here first.

[Shotgun]

Insofar as the F35 goes, by the time 2022 rolls around the stealth tech will already be obsolete . . .

I am wondering when pilots become obsolete. I think we may see a time when pilots are 18 to 25 year olds with extremely quick reflexes flying drone fighters from some remote ground base. Such drone fighters could withstand many more Gs than any human pilot ever could. Air war will turn into a video game.

Back to the original post, the Warthog is an awesome airplane for its intended purpose.

[PPGMD]

Why do I get the feeling that by 2022 they'll still be working the bugs out of the F-35?

It took over a decade to find a bug in the F-16 FBW system that killed at least one pilot


I am wondering when pilots become obsolete. I think we may see a time when pilots are 18 to 25 year olds with extremely quick reflexes flying drone fighters from some remote ground base. Such drone fighters could withstand many more Gs than any human pilot ever could. Air war will turn into a video game.

Once you can start bending the law of physics. Namely the speed of light.

[PPGMD]

I'm hoping by 2022 - They have come to their senses and actually gotten rid of the F-35 program and invested in Specialized platforms that work properly, like the A10. The A10 is an exemplification of what designed a specific platform for specif purposes can gain you. I get it - We don't need SR71 Blackbirds of even F117s anymore. We have satellites and unmanned aerial drones capable of providing considerable support/fulfill the same roles.

What it seems like we do need - is an aircraft like the A10 that can simultaneously provide close-air support and bomb/rocket/destroy strategic targets. In both roles, the A10 excels as a platform. If the airframe "needs" replacement, it needs to be replaced with another specialized aircraft of the same type and robustness. The trouble with the F35 is the trouble with most "multi-role" aircraft...they don't excel in the roles they end up being used for. Exceptions are things like the C130, A10, U/MH-60 Blackhawk. But what you find in all of those cases - you start with a robust, utilitarian airframe and then modify it, with carefully selected and designed, equipment for specialized purposes. Low and behold, if you build it like it's a lego-brick system that is adaptable - as opposed to a one-stop panacea of solutions, it works better.

Seems like someone could have told the Air Force that...hmm let's see...that guy Henry Ford seemed to figure that out with the Model T...

The A-10 has become a scared cow. The A-10's unique capabilities, namely the gun, and low level survivability are increasingly not being used. It was built in an era when the best way to take out a particular target was get down in the weeds. In fact the program was started in 1966, 6 years before the first combat use of a Laser Guided Bomb in 1972. Now a vast majority of CAS is delivered via AGMs with the targeting pods doing a much better job separating friendly troops from enemy than a pilot zooming along as low altitude. In fact the AC-130s is considered the best CAS platform, because it has much more accurate guns that are linked to day/night optics, the guns can be kept on target more easily, and it has the ability to launch missiles. And the best way to kill tanks is a 500lb LJDAM.

As far as stealth strike we will always been a F-117 type aircraft. Drones are good and all, but they have latency issues (who know the whole limitations in the speed of light) that makes their use on moving targets difficult particularly if they know that they are being targeted.

The F-35 is multirole in so far as it can do basic ACM, and can launch AAM. The F-35 is very much tailored toward strike, that is why it sucks at ACM against the fourth generation fighters which all started as pure fighters. IMO the fourth generation's ability to be both a fighter, and a strike platform is an anomaly. With the fifth generations emphasis toward stealth designers have had to choose between strike and ACM. And the F-22 and the F-35 are examples of each end of the spectrum without going full bomber.

I believe that the F-35 can take over much of A-10's mission set with little loss in overall capability. And almost no loss of capability if you factor in Army and Marine RW assets.

And that is just basing it on the USAF's mission set and the F-35A. The USMC will gain a tremendous level of capability with the F-35B over their AV-8Bs.

Now one thing that gets mentioned is drones, I do believe that drones are the future, but not in the same way that others do. Frankly there is no way to get over the limitations of the speed of light. So the idea that operators from America and basically play video games controlling drones in a war zone is unrealistic unless we are willing to give up the decision of when to release the weapon to an AI. I don't think my generation would be willing to.

What I do see is instead pilots operating more in a JTAC type role. Where using LOS links (which removes the latency issues) pilots/WSOs operating above the battle zone control the weapons of the drones. So instead of being limited to the ordinance on their aircraft they are only limited by their fuel load to stay airborne over the target. And where direct viewing isn't required or possible due to SAMs, MANPADs, or the urgency of the request controllers from a distance away or even in an AWACs could control the drones.

Now with that future I foresee that need of a purpose built aircraft. It would need long endurance, stealth, lots of sensors, and computing power.



Insofar as the F35 goes, by the time 2022 rolls around the stealth tech will already be obsolete...

Stealth tech isn't obsolete, they are tuned to specific frequencies. The Russians are working on low frequency radars to counter stealth (which are typically tuned for the higher frequency bands), but there are technical issues with using those radars (which is why they went to higher frequency radars in the first place). We can't just fly them with impunity anymore, but with proper mission planning they will stay relevant for years.

[SeriousStudent]

I wish they would just give them to the Marine Corps and watch the fun begin.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqyG3CcoLM

[GardoneVT]

PPGMD-
Among many reasons, this is one vital reason why the F-35 will never capably replace the A-10.
6097

Show me an F-35 which can still fly and safely land after taking that kind of punishment.

[PPGMD]

PPGMD-
Among many reasons, this is one vital reason why the F-35 will never capably replace the A-10.
6097

Show me an F-35 which can still fly and safely land after taking that kind of punishment.

I take it you didn't really read most post. These days there is few reasons to get down low enough that they can shoot you up like that. We've learned a lot in the last decade and a half of war, and we've improved our technology in both electro-optics and communications networks.

First all lets get one things out of the way the A-10's cannon, though impressive, is a piss poor CAS weapon and against modern MBTs it isn't very effective, so don't tell me about gun runs. In fact if I were designing a new A-10 if there was a gun it would be a more light weight more suited for AP (something like the 30mm M230), save that weight for more fuel or a higher payload capacity.

[Irelander]

I think you'll find there are a lot of boots on the ground that will extol the virtues of the A-10's cannon. Many a grunt has witnessed the saving power of the low air support capabilities of the A-10.

How about some more pictures. I love the rough looks of the A-10.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47624012/A101.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47624012/A1011.jpg

[hufnagel]

when they retire, I want one.
and an MC-130H
and an F-15E

and fun fact, there is a civilian version of the C-130... called the L-100

[PPGMD]

I think you'll find there are a lot of boots on the ground that will extol the virtues of the A-10's cannon. Many a grunt has witnessed the saving power of the low air support capabilities of the A-10.

The cannon may have the desired effect through fear, but it isn't the same as killing the enemy.

And yes it is impressive when an A-10 dives down on a target like an avenging angel, but then for another 2-3 minutes they are repositioning for another run, so if the first run of A-10s don't have the desired affect the troops might be waiting a while.

While other platforms like the AC-130 does their pylon turn of death on the target. Or a F-35, F-16, or F-15E does racetracks in the sky dropping bombs and missiles every 30 seconds.

Honestly as I mentioned I think the A-10 has become a scared cow with standing well above its actual usefulness. It could be a 100 years from now where commanders have the ability to call in orbital strikes that will arrive within 30 seconds or less with power available from a sniper's bullet all the way up to a tactical nuke. And there will still be people talking about how the A-10's cannon could do better.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While no expert - I read that the AC-130 works well in permissive environments. Faced with a sophisticated enemy they get shot down as happened in Iraq. There was a similar ambush on Apaches in Iraq which was a shake up for some. Just fighting folks with Ak-47s without MPADs, those worked ok.

Orbital strikes for some guys in a house or a ravine shooting at you? How much does that cost?

[PPGMD]

While no expert - I read that the AC-130 works well in permissive environments. Faced with a sophisticated enemy they get shot down as happened in Iraq. There was a similar ambush on Apaches in Iraq which was a shake up for some. Just fighting folks with Ak-47s without MPADs, those worked ok.

Orbital strikes for some guys in a house or a ravine shooting at you? How much does that cost?

The AC-130 is a bit vulnerable when down low enough to use their guns. The Air Force thinks that ECM have gotten good enough to start using them during the day unless the MANPAD threat is very high. But even in high MANPAD thread environments the AC-130 can stay at a higher altitude and launch AGMs.

Other aircraft will not get low enough to be threatened by MANPADs.

I was thinking of a future when we actually have spaceships, and space elevators. Though TBH with the low investment in space exploration I seriously am doubting that we have all routine interplantary travel, let alone interstellar travel before humanity kills itself.

[GardoneVT]

First all lets get one things out of the way the A-10's cannon, though impressive, is a piss poor CAS weapon ........

It's better then the F-35. The A-10 is tough and slow, two very useful traits in CAS work. It also has two engines to the F-35s one. I'd hope further explaination on why that's a good idea isn't needed.

Practical difference: when Johnny Insurgent mag dumps his AA fire at an A-10 its operator stands a chance of going home. The F-35 pilot gets to be a POW under a liberal administration.

[breakingtime91]

I take it you didn't really read most post. These days there is few reasons to get down low enough that they can shoot you up like that. We've learned a lot in the last decade and a half of war, and we've improved our technology in both electro-optics and communications networks.

First all lets get one things out of the way the A-10's cannon, though impressive, is a piss poor CAS weapon and against modern MBTs it isn't very effective, so don't tell me about gun runs. In fact if I were designing a new A-10 if there was a gun it would be a more light weight more suited for AP (something like the 30mm M230), save that weight for more fuel or a higher payload capacity.

So not to call bs but we had A-10 pilots doing gun runs way low to the deck to keep the heat off of us (by us I mean a lot of people in South Helmand in 2012)... Also not to be questioning your potential knowledge on the subject, A10s killed a lot of bad guys in 2010, 2011, and 2012 who were in vehicles and on the deck.. So idk how that weapon isn't good for CAS? I make it a point to try to meet A-10 pilots and bullshit with them. One of my fondest memories was when two A-10s came in and basically stalled in the air because the amount of hate they put out.

[Drang]

PPGMD: are you a grunt or a zoomie?

[RevolverRob]

There is one thing to consider that none of us want to consider...cost - Not in lives, but in dollars.

The A10 platform is an effective close-air-support platform, it exists, it is robust, and it is inexpensive to operate overall. The C130s are much the same. Even retrofitting the A10 with advanced targeting systems and avionics is cheaper than building a single F35. Is the F35 a superior aircraft in many respects? Absolutely. F35Bs are $104 million - each. The A10s are about $20 million a piece (originally, adjust for inflation and they are still ~35 million each).

A world where F35s supplant less expensive close-air-support platforms is a way off - regardless of what is going on. And in-fact, being a statistics guy - I wouldn't support the monetary expenditure to replace a working platform with something that is only a few percentage points superior in the vast majority of instances. It's simply not cost-effective. And given the trillions in debt we have now, continued expenditures in the billions of dollars range to DoD is unsustainable in the long-term. Which means something has to go.

-Rob

[will_1400]

My main issue with the F-35 is that it's basically repeating many of the same mistakes as the F-111 program by trying to fit too many roles into one basic airframe from the start. As a strike bomber, the F-111 was very good... but when they tried to make it into a fighter/interceptor for the Navy it wasn't up to snuff (and then the Navy used the F-111B's engines in the first runs of the F-14 which left it underpowered and plagued with compressor stalls which often threw the Tomcat into vicious spins much like the one that killed Goose in Top Gun). Meanwhile planes like the F-4, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 wound up starting as dedicated air-to-air fighters, but their performance was such that they could take on additional roles like CAS, interdiction, etc. You'd figure Lockheed Martin (who bought out General Dynamics, the group that created the F-111) would have learned not to try to do too much with one airframe.

[Drang]

There is one thing to consider that none of us want to consider...cost - Not in lives, but in dollars.

The A10 platform is an effective close-air-support platform, it exists, it is robust, and it is inexpensive to operate overall. The C130s are much the same. Even retrofitting the A10 with advanced targeting systems and avionics is cheaper than building a single F35. ...
That's part of the problem. None of the corporations that do combat aircraft support and maintenance like the Warthog because the things are so robust, and it has like the lowest maintenance cycle seen since the days of fabric fuselages. The contractors can't make enough money on the things.
On those days when my tinfoil hat is slipping, I suspect that aviation contractors have more to do than Air Force territoriality with the fact that the Army is still prohibited from deploying fixed wing combat aircraft: The maintenance cycle (and therefore government contract$) on rotary wing aircraft is insane.

[GardoneVT]

My main issue with the F-35 is that it's basically repeating many of the same mistakes as the F-111 program by trying to fit too many roles into one basic airframe from the start. As a strike bomber, the F-111 was very good... but when they tried to make it into a fighter/interceptor for the Navy it wasn't up to snuff (and then the Navy used the F-111B's engines in the first runs of the F-14 which left it underpowered and plagued with compressor stalls which often threw the Tomcat into vicious spins much like the one that killed Goose in Top Gun). Meanwhile planes like the F-4, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 wound up starting as dedicated air-to-air fighters, but their performance was such that they could take on additional roles like CAS, interdiction, etc. You'd figure Lockheed Martin (who bought out General Dynamics, the group that created the F-111) would have learned not to try to do too much with one airframe.

There was one multi-role aircraft that did get used by all the branches.

It was the F-4 Phantom II. Because it was that boss of an aircraft, period.
Fast enough to work air to air. Tough enough to withstand close range AA fire. Long enough range to be a strike aircraft.

If the goal is to make a truly multi service aircraft you can't do it by committee.

[PPGMD]

It's better then the F-35. The A-10 is tough and slow, two very useful traits in CAS work. It also has two engines to the F-35s one. I'd hope further explaination on why that's a good idea isn't needed.

Practical difference: when Johnny Insurgent mag dumps his AA fire at an A-10 its operator stands a chance of going home. The F-35 pilot gets to be a POW under a liberal administration.

The point went well over your head. The F-35 wouldn't put itself in a situation where it would take ground fire.

CAS has evolved, it isn't all low level runs with guns, rockets, cluster bombs, and retarded bombs anymore. A vast majority of CAS being delivered is by AGMs. They are more accurate and have a lower danger zone for the troops on the ground. And using modern optics, and the communications network they can very easily figure out where to put the missile instead of being walked in by a JTAC.


A world where F35s supplant less expensive close-air-support platforms is a way off - regardless of what is going on. And in-fact, being a statistics guy - I wouldn't support the monetary expenditure to replace a working platform with something that is only a few percentage points superior in the vast majority of instances. It's simply not cost-effective. And given the trillions in debt we have now, continued expenditures in the billions of dollars range to DoD is unsustainable in the long-term. Which means something has to go.

First one thing that is often forgotten is that the F-16s, F-18s, and AV-8Bs are worn out the F-117s are retired and were nearing the end of their service lives also. The F-35 isn't just meant to replace the A-10 it is meant to replace the F-16, the F-117, The AV-8B, and the early model F-18s. This will also relieve missions from the B-2 as currently it is our only stealth strike platform. In fact of all the aircraft that the F-35 is meant to replace the A-10 that isn't completely worn out, due to the recently wing replacement program.

If we want to talk about cost then lets talk about sortie rates. The F-35 doesn't require a dedicated CAP flight, it has the ability to self escort. That is four less aircraft required, which means a lower amount of tanker sorties, and less fuel. If the F-35 has to do air to air combat it doesn't have to drop it's internal ordnance. Which means it doesn't necessary have to abandon it's primary mission if it gets into ACM. Which means they don't have to dispatch additional sorties to take over the mission.

If we encounter another enemy with a sophisticated air defense network, the F-35 is much more suited to penetrate the network early on. While the A-10 would be blotted out of the sky (the larger SAMs shoot down the A-10 almost as easily as any other aircraft), the F-35 stealth allows it to go much closer to SAM without being detected, and even if detected the engagement ranges on stealth aircraft are much lower. And even during the later stages after the network is dismantled there will still be stand alone SAMs which means the A-10 would be much more likely to need Wild Weasel or ECM, which are additional sorties and more fuel.

On top of that the F-35 when carrying internal stores has almost its entire performance range available to it, including super cruise. The only other aircraft that can claim that is the F-22. All those super high end stats published for other aircraft are based on limited stores and they rarely achieve that when carrying a real combat load.

So if you want to get into costs, there are a whole lot of things to figure into the costs. And that is just comparing the F-35A to the A-10. You get into the F-35B vs AV-8B and it gets even more expensive.


My main issue with the F-35 is that it's basically repeating many of the same mistakes as the F-111 program by trying to fit too many roles into one basic airframe from the start. As a strike bomber, the F-111 was very good... but when they tried to make it into a fighter/interceptor for the Navy it wasn't up to snuff (and then the Navy used the F-111B's engines in the first runs of the F-14 which left it underpowered and plagued with compressor stalls which often threw the Tomcat into vicious spins much like the one that killed Goose in Top Gun). Meanwhile planes like the F-4, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 wound up starting as dedicated air-to-air fighters, but their performance was such that they could take on additional roles like CAS, interdiction, etc. You'd figure Lockheed Martin (who bought out General Dynamics, the group that created the F-111) would have learned not to try to do too much with one airframe.

The F-35 isn't the F-111. All there variants are heavily oriented toward the strike mission, being a fighter is a secondary mission. In fact if I were the DOD I would've named it the A-35 to make that more clear. The F-35 was conceived and selected after the F-22, with the idea that the F-22 would handle a vast majority of the fighter missions, and the F-35 would handle the strike missions with only a limited amount of overlap between the two.

And the fifth generation fighter isn't the same as the fourth generation fighter, due to the necessity of keeping weapons internally during stealth missions the aircraft really needs to be built to the mission.

As far as the variants, yes the F-35B did create some delays but it had no performance impact on the F-35A and F-35C.

[PPGMD]

Now I should mention I don't have anything against the A-10. In a perfect world where the USAF was given all the money it needed, it should be retained. There is a certain subset of missions that favors it, but those missions aren't common enough that in an era of shrinking budgets that it is super important. The same reason that the USAF doesn't have any ECM aircraft.

My biggest problem is the belief that the A-10 is the only aircraft that can do CAS. Modern times say over wise, because currently a vast majority of the CAS delivered in Afghanistan is with other platforms. Technology and ROEs have moved on, and perhaps it is time that the aircraft do too.

[Jeep]

PPGMD:

I am no aircraft expert, but I have some knowledge from a ground pounder's perspective. The reason that the Army/Marines love the A-10 comes from its ability to fly low and slow over hostile terrain. That 30mm gun might be outmoded for some CAS uses--for example it might no longer be the best for tanks. But infantry in the open? Or a convoy of technicals? While the F 35 is dropping one bomb at a time on them, the A-10 will be in there carving them up.

My experience is a bit dated, but I've talked to a lot of grunts from Afghanistan and while they liked all air power, they uniformly love the A-10 and the Apache because they can hang around, hit the target and put a huge amount of firepower on it. (Unfortunately most don't have much experience with the AC-130 because they weren't allowed to go out at night and play--which is a very strange way of fighting an insurgency but that's another topic). In other words, not only is it effective, but it is morale boosting (and morale busting for the bad guys). That is a very important consideration.

[PPGMD]

I am no aircraft expert, but I have some knowledge from a ground pounder's perspective. The reason that the Army/Marines love the A-10 comes from its ability to fly low and slow over hostile terrain. That 30mm gun might be outmoded for some CAS uses--for example it might no longer be the best for tanks. But infantry in the open? Or a convoy of technicals? While the F 35 is dropping one bomb at a time on them, the A-10 will be in there carving them up.

My experience is a bit dated, but I've talked to a lot of grunts from Afghanistan and while they liked all air power, they uniformly love the A-10 and the Apache because they can hang around, hit the target and put a huge amount of firepower on it. (Unfortunately most don't have much experience with the AC-130 because they weren't allowed to go out at night and play--which is a very strange way of fighting an insurgency but that's another topic). In other words, not only is it effective, but it is morale boosting (and morale busting for the bad guys). That is a very important consideration.

One assumption too many people make is the staying power. The F-35 carries a LOT of fuel. Internally it has almost twice the combat range as a F-16 with drop tanks, add in drop tanks it will have almost the same range as an A-10.

The F-35 doesn't just drop one bomb at a time. Only with laser guided weapons do they really have to spend wait for the weapon to hit before they drop another bomb.

[Hambo]

PPGMD: are you a lobbyist for Lockheed-Martin or do you just own an shitload of stock?

FIFY

[PPGMD]

FIFY

Because I have a different perspective on things I am a shill?

As seen by the likes this forum is very heavy on the grunt side. I get it you guys love the A-10 swooping in saving the day.

But have you considered that perhaps the USAF is looking at actual ROEs and current technology (lets not even consider new technology that is in development and being tested) that they believe that the F-35 can do the same missions?

This isn't the old days when you had fighter jockies, and at a lower class you had attack. These days nearly everyone on the ACC does strike to a certain extent (only exception is the F-15C which is on the chopping block also).

[Drang]

LOL! I stopped myself from going there a couple of times...

...Because, frankly PPGMD, you're basing your arguments on the superiority for the F35 on the idea that CAS will never be needed again. You sound just like a senior field grade or junior flag officer, or may be a Department of the Air Force deputy assistant undersecretary arguing budget/purchasing priorities disguised as doctrinal issues*.

Maybe we will never need a tank-busting airplane that amounts to a flying tank itself. Maybe we'll never need a plane that can fly low and slow and perform aerobatic maneuvers that would cause the wings of lesser birds to fall off.

But I look at Russia rearming and China thumping it's chest and north Korea still being run by lunatics and think the continued existence of the A10 is pretty reassuring.

*All the services do this, of course. There are "former naval persons" out there who will spend a great deal of time explaining to you just why it is vital that we recommission the USS Idaho...

[Drang]

Because I have a different perspective on things I am a shill?

As seen by the likes this forum is very heavy on the grunt side. I get it you guys love the A-10 swooping in saving the day.

But have you considered that perhaps the USAF is looking at actual ROEs and current technology (lets not even consider new technology that is in development and being tested) that they believe that the F-35 can do the same missions?

This isn't the old days when you had fighter jockies, and at a lower class you had attack. These days nearly everyone on the ACC does strike to a certain extent (only exception is the F-15C which is on the chopping block also).
Or maybe it's just because the Air Force does not like the idea that it has to spend a great deal of time flying unsexy missions like supporting grunts. I recall reading about a certain amount of consternation that the top grads of the Academy were opting for A10s and C130s, the latter in hopes of getting into SOF and/or AC130s.

[GardoneVT]

Because I have a different perspective on things I am a shill?

As seen by the likes this forum is very heavy on the grunt side. I get it you guys love the A-10 swooping in saving the day.

But have you considered that perhaps the USAF is looking at actual ROEs and current technology (lets not even consider new technology that is in development and being tested) that they believe that the F-35 can do the same missions?

This isn't the old days when you had fighter jockies, and at a lower class you had attack. These days nearly everyone on the ACC does strike to a certain extent (only exception is the F-15C which is on the chopping block also).

I wasn't a grunt. Just an active duty Airman in the same Air Force that flies the damn things. Others here have a lot more experience then I do .

Here's the cold, hard facts. The F-35 is a damn turkey. It cannot outfly the aircraft it is replacing. It sucks at ACM. It's a maintenance disaster waiting to happen, because bleeding edge tech has a habit of breaking in hostile territory. Bye bye advanced electro- optical-supergear.

Hello low altitude strafing. Or that'd be an option, except some genious stateside decided tasking a stealth fighter with the surviviability of tissue paper with low altitude missions was a good idea.

Because of bonehead ideas like "we don't need to fight because tech", we end up with situations like F-4s getting blown out of the sky by obsolete Soviet Migs. Can't wait to see the next war we fight against another ,actual nation. Maybe we'll see F-35s shot down by Mig 21s ?

[PPGMD]

...Because, frankly PPGMD, you're basing your arguments on the superiority for the F35 on the idea that CAS will never be needed again. You sound just like a senior field grade or junior flag officer, or may be a Department of the Air Force deputy assistant undersecretary arguing budget/purchasing priorities disguised as doctrinal issues*.

Actually I am not, I am basing my arguments that with technology and restricted ROEs the nature of how CAS is being delivered has changed. CAS is CAS whether it is dropped by an aircraft at 30,000 feet or an aircraft at 100 feet, the close in Close Air Support is about where the weapon lands, not from where it is dropped.

[GardoneVT]

Actually I am not, I am basing my arguments that with technology and restricted ROEs the nature of how CAS is being delivered has changed. CAS is CAS whether it is dropped by an aircraft at 30,000 feet or an aircraft at 100 feet, the close in Close Air Support is about where the weapon lands, not from where it is dropped.

What happens when the Targeting Pod fails and you've got troops in contact on the ground? Should the aircrew simply fly back to base ?

"Sorry guys, the software version of my JDAM doesn't match the version on the jet and we can get shot down by a .22 in the wrong place, so you're on your own.Deuces!"

[PPGMD]

Here's the cold, hard facts. The F-35 is a damn turkey. It cannot outfly the aircraft it is replacing. It sucks at ACM. It's a maintenance disaster waiting to happen, because bleeding edge tech has a habit of breaking in hostile territory. Bye bye advanced electro- optical-supergear.

It was never meant to out turn the F-16. OTOH it can fly faster with a combat load, and go farther. The only stealth aircraft designed for ACM is the F-22, and the weapons bays are too small to be a worthwhile strike aircraft.

Most of the technology in the electro-optics is already in targeting pods that are currently being used in combat. The only real new technology is the processing gear to bring all the cameras into a single cohesive picture.

So what is your opinion? Should we break out the F-86s because technology might break? You want to dominate the battlefield with the small numbers that we deploy with you need technology.

The more I think about it, if the crew here had known about the F-117 before ODS 90% of your would've have voted for it to be shit canned because it wasn't proven.

[PPGMD]

What happens when the Targeting Pod fails and you've got troops in contact on the ground? Should the aircrew simply fly back to base ?

"Sorry guys, the software version of my JDAM doesn't match the version on the jet and we can get shot down by a .22 in the wrong place, so you're on your own.Deuces!"

So all the targeting pods in a flight have an issue at the same time?

What if the A-10 gets the wrong gas, it freezes up at altitude and it crashes? What if a gazelle farts on a giraffe? You are starting to get into straw man territory.

[Kevin B.]

I have seen some really good work done by aircraft at 30k delivering PGMs. I have also been on the ground when aircraft at 30k delivering PGMs were unable to provide the effects we needed, despite putting the ordinance where we told them. In that case, low-level CAS was necessary to get the job done.

[DacoRoman]

The F35 is turning out to be one pathetic Turkey based on what I've read. A total super dud. A legend in its own mind. A jackoff of all trades and master of none. Maybe the A-10 is being kept around because the F35 is nowhere near ready or capable of taking over the A10 mission, or any other at this point.

[PPGMD]

The F35 is turning out to be one pathetic Turkey based on what I've read. A total super dud. A legend in its own mind. A jackoff of all trades and master of none. Maybe the A-10 is being kept around because the F35 is nowhere near ready or capable of taking over the A10 mission, or any other at this point.

LOL I remember reading the same things about a decade ago. "The F-22 is a dud", "The F-22 is over budget", "The F-22 has so many issues, it should be canceled and we keep the F-15s" et al. All leading up to the F-22 program being terminated before there were even remotely enough aircraft to even replace the F-15Cs, but only after SECDEF Gates forced two top level USAF Generals into retirement because they opposed him. Now a decade later the same military "experts" look back and realize "Maybe we were wrong."

Opponents of military programs will spin spin spin to get the program canceled, even from within the military and the MIC as they are hoping in favor of their program getting the budget. This isn't anything new it has been going on for years, Boyd (yes the same OODA loop Boyd) attacked the F-15 in favor of the E-M based F-16. Allies of Raytheon attacked the Hughes made AIM-120 leaking test showing that the AIM-120 didn't hit the target (never mind the fact that it was a launch test it wasn't supposed to hit the target drone as the software wasn't done).

Yes the F-35 had some legitimate issues that the program had to work out (which resulted in delays and cost overruns). And still has some objectives that are pending (namely the finalized versions of the flight control laws, the technology to incorporate all the cameras for the 360 degree picture, and the software for the gun ballistics). But it has successfully achieved a vast majority of the testing objectives. And the USMC has accepted the F-35B for IOC (basically end user testing), with the USAF accepting the F-35A for IOC being scheduled for later this year.

[Hambo]

have you considered that perhaps the USAF is looking at actual ROEs and current technology (lets not even consider new technology that is in development and being tested) that they believe that the F-35 can do the same missions?


I'm sure that somebody believes it can do the same missions as three other planes, but that's been more or less ongoing since McNamara was SecDef. I personally have no idea whether it will work as advertised or not, I was just wondering why you're all in on it.

[PPGMD]

I'm sure that somebody believes it can do the same missions as three other planes, but that's been more or less ongoing since McNamara was SecDef. I personally have no idea whether it will work as advertised or not, I was just wondering why you're all in on it.

Honestly I am actually willing to give the F-35 a chance, unlike most people. I'm familiar enough with military acquisitions to know that 90% of the negative stories on the F-35 are pure crap. And the remaining 10% are divided between normal issues that creep up with all military testing programs, and some legitimate issues that the program has to work through.

There are a ton of programs where you had many vocal opponents, and the program ended up working quite well. In my above post I give just two of many examples.

[Dagga Boy]

I will admit to being a big giant hairy fanboy of the A-10....but I see both sides. The world is a changing and some deep thinking folks have to come up with solutions for a war twenty years out. I am not smart enough or expert enough to have the debate. With that said.....everyone seems to forget that we are often involved in ugly little conflicts with evil savage assholes running weapons from the Cold War or before. A-10's and such are great for these folks. I am not a fan of using expensive laser guided smart things to kill 12 smelly guys in a truck with a belt fed on it. My experience with savages is also that scaring the crap out of them has a lasting effect. Hearing the great satan while seeing the brrrrrrrrrrrrt evaporate your fellow savages it wonderous for long term morale busting. I have a suspicion that when a bunch of smelly bearded dudes evaporate for no apparent reason from a very expensive munition from 30,000 ft simply becomes inshallah.

This is why I think giving the A-10's to the USMC would be fantastic. Cheap, easy to maintain, make lots of noise and breaks stuff. Workable from places that suck and would be great for small scale counter insurgency, embassy response, and other assorted missions. Heck.....contract the things from the private sector much like we do with fire fighting aircraft.

Anyways....back to the experts.

[Drang]

I will admit to being a big giant hairy fanboy of the A-10....but I see both sides. The world is a changing and some deep thinking folks have to come up with solutions for a war twenty years out. I am not smart enough or expert enough to have the debate. With that said.....everyone seems to forget that we are often involved in ugly little conflicts with evil savage assholes running weapons from the Cold War or before. A-10's and such are great for these folks. I am not a fan of using expensive laser guided smart things to kill 12 smelly guys in a truck with a belt fed on it. My experience with savages is also that scaring the crap out of them has a lasting effect. Hearing the great satan while seeing the brrrrrrrrrrrrt evaporate your fellow savages it wonderous for long term morale busting. I have a suspicion that when a bunch of smelly bearded dudes evaporate for no apparent reason from a very expensive munition from 30,000 ft simply becomes inshallah.
Mind you, 30mm depleted uranium rounds are overkill for that, but it should be simple enough to come up with something cheaper, possibly with a fragmentation effect as well.


This is why I think giving the A-10's to the USMC would be fantastic. Cheap, easy to maintain, make lots of noise and breaks stuff. Workable from places that suck and would be great for small scale counter insurgency, embassy response, and other assorted missions. Heck.....contract the things from the private sector much like we do with fire fighting aircraft.

Anyways....back to the experts.
It would need a tail hook.

[GardoneVT]

So all the targeting pods in a flight have an issue at the same time?

What if the A-10 gets the wrong gas, it freezes up at altitude and it crashes? What if a gazelle farts on a giraffe? You are starting to get into straw man territory.
Or maybe I've interacted with people who actually fix jets instead of blab about them online.

Here's the problem; the entire concept of "One Plane Fits All" fails logical evaluation. The job of the USMC and how they use their jets only marginally overlaps with the USAF, and in turn those branches use their jets in different places and ways then the Navy. It's like deciding to issue one handgun to everyone on PF.com regardless of local laws,user friendliness, sights, or any other characteristic.

"From now on everyone will carry a PT24/7 Taurus, as our stats indicate that the likelihood of armed combat is low and for the folks who will , well, it should survive long enough to deliver ordnance in a self defense situation"

Now there's only one case where a one size fits all jet works; that one was just badass enough that everyone found a use for it out of the box. The F-35 is faaaar short of that metric.


Further; you will NEVER see documented proof of issues with any frontline advanced US combat aircraft of the F-35s nature. That would mean someone would have to talk and/or release confidential data which says it sucks. Even if the information were public domain, the entire DoD brass is behind this project for good or ill. Anyone in a position to verify how bad of a project it is would be shortly unemployed thereafter.
Another relevant piece of aviation trivia; Colonel John Boyd (of OODA fame) went over the Air Force brass' head to get approval for the F-16 directly from the SecDef. That's why he retired a Colonel; the man sacrificed his career because he believed the F-16 was a winner, and the brass instead wanted big, complex aircraft that were money hog projects. Col. Boyd knew we needed an F-16 as badly as the bosses wanted it dead, so he did what had to be done.

History proved who was right in that debate.

Insofar as the F-22,B2, etc are concerned they do something the F-35 can't: surpass the performance of its predecessors. The F-35 can't even meet its own benchmark specs; the jet is adding weight like a sumo wrestler.

And it's supposed to outperform the A-10 in the CAS role?

Puh-leeze.

[PPGMD]

Further; you will NEVER see documented proof of issues with any frontline advanced US combat aircraft of the F-35s nature. That would mean someone would have to talk and/or release confidential data which says it sucks. Even if the information were public domain, the entire DoD brass is behind this project for good or ill. Anyone in a position to verify how bad of a project it is would be shortly unemployed thereafter.
Another relevant piece of aviation trivia; Colonel John Boyd (of OODA fame) went over the Air Force brass' head to get approval for the F-16 directly from the SecDef. That's why he retired a Colonel; the man sacrificed his career because he believed the F-16 was a winner, and the brass instead wanted big, complex aircraft that were money hog projects. Col. Boyd knew we needed an F-16 as badly as the bosses wanted it dead, so he did what had to be done.

You do realize that other than the core air frame the F-16 is vastly different from the YF-16 that Boyd had developed. And unlike Boyd's opinion, the F-15 ended up being very successful.


Insofar as the F-22,B2, etc are concerned they do something the F-35 can't: surpass the performance of its predecessors. The F-35 can't even meet its own benchmark specs; the jet is adding weight like a sumo wrestler.

Actually it can. Though on paper the F-35's specs don't appear to surpass the F-16C. The F-35A can achieve its specs with an actual combat configuration where as the F-16 only can achieve it's maximum specs in a clean configuration. On top of that the maximum range is better. The only spec that they can't beat the F-16C is in ACM.

Comparing the F-35B to the AV-8B is no contest the F-35B destroys the AV-8B in nearly every spec.

[Dagga Boy]

Mind you, 30mm depleted uranium rounds are overkill for that, but it should be simple enough to come up with something cheaper, possibly with a fragmentation effect as well.


It would need a tail hook.

Yea.....the tail hook....:confused: Seriously.......the USMC has entire units dedicated to making and taking airfields. One of my best friends ran one in Iraq. How many carrier operations are we doing lately. Most of the stuff we are doing dealing with stinky people we are doing from fixed locations.

The answer may be a great business opportunity. Some rich conglomerate needs to buy the fleet from the Air Force that hates them, and contract them to not only our folks, but others. Bet the Kurds could figure out what to do with them. South Sudan could return some serious hate to their northern neighbors. They would make great "Technicals" Killers. Oh, and the next time ISIS does one of their giant victory parades, the Kurds could make their own highway of death. Sort of a American Foreign Legion Air Force.

[GardoneVT]

You do realize that other than the core air frame the F-16 is vastly different from the YF-16 that Boyd had developed. And unlike Boyd's opinion, the F-15 ended up being very successful.



Actually it can. Though on paper the F-35's specs don't appear to surpass the F-16C. The F-35A can achieve its specs with an actual combat configuration where as the F-16 only can achieve it's maximum specs in a clean configuration. On top of that the maximum range is better. The only spec that they can't beat the F-16C is in ACM.

Comparing the F-35B to the AV-8B is no contest the F-35B destroys the AV-8B in nearly every spec.


Let's see you move these goalposts.

From the US DoD Program Review Report (https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/f-35-jsf-dote-fy12-annual-report.pdf):

The program’s most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses, the PAO shutoff valve,
and the dry bay fire suppression, also removed in 2008, results in the F-35 not meeting the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) requirement to have a vulnerability posture better than analogous legacy aircraft.


Report-speak for "it ain't better then the stuff we already fly."

Let's skip to the end for the recommendations, eh?

"Recommendations
• Status of Previous Recommendations. The program and Services are satisfactorily addressing four of seven previous recommendations. The remaining three recommendations concerning use of objective criteria for evaluating flight test progress, integrating flight test of an operational mission data load, restoring shut-off valves, and redesigning the OBIGGS are outstanding.
• FY12 Recommendations. The program should:
1. Make the corrections to Revision 4 of the JSF TEMP,
as described by DOT&E September 2012 memorandum disapproving the TEMP
- Include the electronic warfare test annex that specifically
required operationally-realistic threats
- Include adequate criteria for entering the final preparation
period prior to IOT&E
- Schedule the start of the final preparation period prior
to IOT&E to begin no earlier than the Operational Test Readiness Review, approximately 90 days prior to the end of the air-worthiness certification phase of development
2. Conduct dedicated ALIS end-to-end developmental testing of each incremental ALIS version that supports the production aircraft.
3. Assure modification and retrofit plans for OT aircraft make these aircraft fully production-representative.
4. Ensure the contractor is meeting VSim requirements for operational testing and is addressing data requirements to support the validation, verification, and accreditation during developmental testing.
5. Assure the schedules of record for weapons integration, VSim, and mission data load production/verification are consistent with the Integrated Master Schedule.
6. Continue with the OBIGGS redesign efforts to ensure the system has the capability to protect the aircraft from threat and lightning induced fuel tank explosions while on the ground and during all phases of a combat mission without compromised maneuver limits.
7. Continue the PAO system redesign efforts and reinstall a PAO shutoff valve to protect the aircraft from PAO-based fires.
8. Reconsider the removal of the fueldraulic fuses. The program should design and reinstate an effective engine fueldraulic shutoff system to protect the aircraft from fuel-induced fires.
9. Reconsider the removal of a dry bay fire extinguisher system from other than the Integrated Power Package dry bay. Prior F-35 Live Fire testing showed that the fire suppression system could be designed to successfully extinguish fires from the most severe ballistic threats.
10.Provide a higher-resolution estimate on how long the aircraft could continue to maintain controlled flight after a ballistic event. Remaining flight time, expressed in smaller time intervals (e.g., 30 seconds, 5 minutes, 30 minutes, etc.) is a more informative metric than the current “Loss of Aircraft” or “Return to FLOT” metric."

PPMG, would you fly a combat mission in an aircraft so awesome no one actually knows its surviviability after being shot at? Of course you'd have to hope the jet doesn't get hit by lightning during the sortie .

[RevolverRob]

So, I think PPGMD is making good solid points in favor of the F-35 in some respects. Certain aspects of the F35 show why we absolutely need new aircraft in certain roles. For instance, containing ordnance inside the aircraft, allowing it to achieve super cruise speeds fully armed. - I favor smart bombs, and laser guided everythings for the most part. They often maybe even most often get the job done, without endangering lives. That's all, excellent and important and it's something that "low and slow" can't do. But simultaneous to that - sometimes low and slow is what is needed. Big guns haven't lost their effectiveness - or we would have gotten rid of tanks and we wouldn't have well developed AC-130s.

War is changing - it absolutely is. And as our enemies gain technical advantages, we too must do the same. And certainly - we have spent far too long resting on our laurels so-to-speak with adequate technology in most realms. The trouble I - and most people - have with the F35 - it's full of promises that it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread as a multi-role aircraft. So much so - let's just kill off the other platforms we have that are functioning right now, to fund this panacea. That isn't giving the F35 a chance - that's cutting off the hand that feeds you. Yes, I recognize they were originally planning to "phase out" the A10, not just kill it tomorrow. But to kill it for an aircraft that isn't operational at a high level with promise, but limited application? I'll give the F35 a chance - We've already spent the money making this project "too big to fail" - let's get it out there and find out what it does and doesn't do...but I'm not going to go kill capable horses, because a new stud shows promise. Ya dig?

As for the whole multi-role single-plane philosophy, it's fundamentally flawed. You want to show me efficiency and multi-role capability? Start with an airframe that is robust and easy to maintain and fix. Then take that basic airframe and build 3-4 aircraft for fulfilling different missions roles on it. You could design a plane with bolt-on stealth panels or even start with an air-frame and skin them differently. But whatever you do, by starting at the same airframe, the same mechanical/hydraulic/power structure and adapting that airframe - you'll reduce costs of maintenance significantly. So much so, you can spent millions fine-tuning the craft and adapting it to various missions. You start with an adaptable, but repairable/maintable/stable airframe and then change it. That's how you get a multi-role capable airframe. You don't do it - by saying, "We want one jet that can do 10,000 things." -

Most importantly, you get it to function with a certain cross-section of the same engines and avionics. Thus reducing training time for mechanics and engineers and even pilots. Redundancy in that realm will allow you to reduce manpower on the ground - without compromising safety and efficiency.

-Rob

PS: If I could buy a decomm. A10 - I would sell everything I own to do it. Can you imagine flying around in that thing, just for funsies? I also love the idea of founding a private contracting company running a fleet of A10s, Super Turcanos, and various helicopter-based gunships.

[Dagga Boy]

The key is the statement "war is changing"......yep, and the change is hyper diverse enemies. What we need for the Russians and Chines is VERY different for what we need in some areas of the Middle East, Africa, and South and Central America. For dickheads in trucks with rigged up belt fed or whatever they can weld on, the A-10 is high tech and cutting edge. For guys massacring villages and fleeing on horse or camelback.....brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt is a very good answer. For large groups of stink ies with small arms and mortars attacking entrenched US forces..........brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt. For deep strikes into Russia, for pre emotive strikes on China's armed islands.......guided stuff from afar.

Heck, I am pissed we are out of cheap dumb bombs. This whole b.s. Of designing planes and ordinance around ROE's is the fricking problem......we didn't have RoE's over Dresden. That is not how you "win". I really think there are many places that could use a massive air strike with tons of B52's dropping tons of dumb bombs. Some places don't deserve for us to use the expensive stuff to blow them back to the Stone Age.

[GardoneVT]

Air Force Bones plus standoff cruise missiles would solve a lot of word security problems.

Of course , fighting to win is politically incorrect nowadays.

[Hambo]

Sort of a American Foreign Legion Air Force.

We had the model in the early 1940s: American Volunteer Groups in China.

[Dagga Boy]

We had the model in the early 1940s: American Volunteer Groups in China.

Bingo! Heck the teeth look better on the A10 than the P40.

[Irelander]

Yea.....the tail hook....:confused: Seriously.......the USMC has entire units dedicated to making and taking airfields. One of my best friends ran one in Iraq. How many carrier operations are we doing lately. Most of the stuff we are doing dealing with stinky people we are doing from fixed locations.

The answer may be a great business opportunity. Some rich conglomerate needs to buy the fleet from the Air Force that hates them, and contract them to not only our folks, but others. Bet the Kurds could figure out what to do with them. South Sudan could return some serious hate to their northern neighbors. They would make great "Technicals" Killers. Oh, and the next time ISIS does one of their giant victory parades, the Kurds could make their own highway of death. Sort of a American Foreign Legion Air Force.

I like the sounds of that.

[alohadoug]

Having been a "grunt" (ok, intel weenie) on the ground in AF when the A-10 and the Apache were the only CAS available (USAF wouldn't land F15/F16) in country and range was too far, the A-10 was a God-send for those on the ground.

Most telling for me was when Sen McCain met with pilots of the A-10 at Davis-Monthan AB in AZ. This would have been 2005/2006 time frame (I was at Ft Huachuca). He asked which the pilots would rather do, switch to the F35 or resign their commissions and transfer to the US Army (if Congress authorized the USA to begin fixed-wing combat operations). Not only did EVERY pilot in the Wing say they would, so did every ground crew and support personnel.

As for the F22, they made great photo ops in Hawaii when I left there. Last I heard from friends, the Hawaii ANG has ZERO faith in the F22 and only keep the bare number "ready."

Hell, they still haven't fixed the O2 system in that one yet...

Aloha

[PPGMD]

The key is the statement "war is changing"......yep, and the change is hyper diverse enemies. What we need for the Russians and Chines is VERY different for what we need in some areas of the Middle East, Africa, and South and Central America. For dickheads in trucks with rigged up belt fed or whatever they can weld on, the A-10 is high tech and cutting edge. For guys massacring villages and fleeing on horse or camelback.....brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt is a very good answer. For large groups of stink ies with small arms and mortars attacking entrenched US forces..........brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt. For deep strikes into Russia, for pre emotive strikes on China's armed islands.......guided stuff from afar.

Heck, I am pissed we are out of cheap dumb bombs. This whole b.s. Of designing planes and ordinance around ROE's is the fricking problem......we didn't have RoE's over Dresden. That is not how you "win". I really think there are many places that could use a massive air strike with tons of B52's dropping tons of dumb bombs. Some places don't deserve for us to use the expensive stuff to blow them back to the Stone Age.

Actually we do have plenty of cheap dumb bombs. For the most part smart bombs are nothing more than kits are are attached to the classic Mk80 series bomb.

IMO if the A-10 is retired it wouldn't be sent to the bone yard, it would likely be kept in the same flyable storage that the F-117s are kept in (and I do mean flyable the F-117s still go up on test flights periodically).

The problem with the Marines or the Army getting the A-10 is that they would have the same issue the USAF has, budget. The USAF isn't cutting the A-10 because they hate it, but because they have a limited budget and believe that due to overlap that the F-35A could do much of the A-10's mission.

As far as GordoneVT's report, that is a report that is about 4 years old. The latest vulnerability report 90% of the items are fixed. There is still concerns about fire suppression system for the dry bays, but only time will tell is that is a legitimate concern or not. None of our other fighters have fire suppression outside the engine.

[Jeep]

One assumption too many people make is the staying power. The F-35 carries a LOT of fuel. Internally it has almost twice the combat range as a F-16 with drop tanks, add in drop tanks it will have almost the same range as an A-10.

The F-35 doesn't just drop one bomb at a time. Only with laser guided weapons do they really have to spend wait for the weapon to hit before they drop another bomb.

First, let me make clear that I'm not claiming you are a shill in any sense, and I think it is good to have someone defend the F-35 here. Personally, since I am not a zoomie I have no idea whether the F-35 is a good, bad, or indifferent air frame.

That, being said, I am a former Army guy and I understand our tactical issues, so let's turn to those. The F-35 might have a lot of fuel capacity (I have no idea) but it will NOT be based out of the airstrips that the A-10 can and does use for the simple reason that the F-35 costs to much to risk basing in forward areas. In other words, the A-10 is likely to be able to hang around far longer than the F-35 or anything else besides the AC-130. Now, of course, that doesn't mean it will be always the case--sometimes we will be far from any airstrips--but the likelihood is that that will be a common occurrence.

And yes, the F-35 isn't limited to dropping one bomb at a time, but it will be stuck doing that when you are dealing with small, mobile targets. For example, suppose one of our SOF guys spots a convoy of 20 ISIS vehicles in the Syrian desert. The F-35 is going to be dropping one bomb at a time on them. It will take out the first vehicle by surprise and then have to try to target the rest as they madly scatter. It will be lucky to hit more than a few more. The A-10 by contrast will be able to use its gun and maneuverability to get a bunch of them. Maybe pretty much the whole convoy. And for infantry in the open, unless you can drop a bunch of 1000-2000 lb bombs set to air burst on them before they know you are there, the A-10 is going to be a better option.

Anyway, I personally wouldn't dream of demanding the USAF cancel any particular program--I don't know enough to know what new technologies will work. However, like many ground guys and former ground guys I'm quite willing to scream to my Congress critter "what are they doing?" every time the USAF says it will retire the A-10 because until there is a WELL PROVEN replacement the A-10 needs to stay in the inventory.

[NEPAKevin]

I recall from when I was a kid, one of the few occasions my old man talked about his time in the Korean war was when I was watching a movie on TV, the Hunters (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051750/) IIRC, and he got all beside himself over how when they got air support from the Air Force, the jets would make one pass, fire some rockets and be gone, but when the Navy sent Corsairs, they would "bomb and strafe the hell out of the Communists" until they ran out of bang or targets, then do a pass over the guys and wiggle their wings. It's nothing new that guys on the ground don't care how expensive, modern or sexy the air support is, they just want it bring the hurt and lay it on the bad guys and not on them.

[Drang]

Air Force Bones plus standoff cruise missiles would solve a lot of word security problems.
And also be a very expensive way to handle others. Thus, the A10.

When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
G.W. Bush

[BWT]

I guess my concern for the A-10's relevance is the threat of more modern military's Anti-Air capabilities.

Nyeti nailed it and somebody else did too (EDIT: Lack of words). Once we have guys that aren't shooting beltfeds, AK's, and RPG's but guided SAM's.

How relevant will they be?

I don't know enough to debate the merits of the A-10 versus anything else (and don't care to) but I do know that SAM's have been shooting down jets much faster and that travel at typically higher altitudes dating back to Vietnam.

God Bless,

Brandon

[PPGMD]

That, being said, I am a former Army guy and I understand our tactical issues, so let's turn to those. The F-35 might have a lot of fuel capacity (I have no idea) but it will NOT be based out of the airstrips that the A-10 can and does use for the simple reason that the F-35 costs to much to risk basing in forward areas. In other words, the A-10 is likely to be able to hang around far longer than the F-35 or anything else besides the AC-130. Now, of course, that doesn't mean it will be always the case--sometimes we will be far from any airstrips--but the likelihood is that that will be a common occurrence.

The F-35B will be operating out of unimproved air strips. Also the A-10 rarely operates unimproved airstrips, I know in Afghanistan it operates out of the same bases that F-16s and the other fighters do.


And yes, the F-35 isn't limited to dropping one bomb at a time, but it will be stuck doing that when you are dealing with small, mobile targets. For example, suppose one of our SOF guys spots a convoy of 20 ISIS vehicles in the Syrian desert. The F-35 is going to be dropping one bomb at a time on them. It will take out the first vehicle by surprise and then have to try to target the rest as they madly scatter. It will be lucky to hit more than a few more. The A-10 by contrast will be able to use its gun and maneuverability to get a bunch of them. Maybe pretty much the whole convoy. And for infantry in the open, unless you can drop a bunch of 1000-2000 lb bombs set to air burst on them before they know you are there, the A-10 is going to be a better option.

Targeting individuals? Have you flown in an airplane at low level? It doesn't work that way, the A-10 isn't going to chase down squiters during a convoy strafing run. Also I believe that the US should really figure out how to do cluster bombs without leaving a ton of UXO, as they would be perfect for common "A-10 gun roxxers scenarios."


Anyway, I personally wouldn't dream of demanding the USAF cancel any particular program--I don't know enough to know what new technologies will work. However, like many ground guys and former ground guys I'm quite willing to scream to my Congress critter "what are they doing?" every time the USAF says it will retire the A-10 because until there is a WELL PROVEN replacement the A-10 needs to stay in the inventory.

Congress rarely gives the USAF the budget really field two systems with identical missions concurrently. If an A-10 replacement is truly developed the A-10 would be retired progressively as that replacement is rolled out.




I guess my concern for the A-10's relevance is the threat of more modern military's Anti-Air capabilities.

Nyeti nailed it and somebody else did too (EDIT: Lack of words). Once we have guys that aren't shooting beltfeds, AK's, and RPG's but guided SAM's.

How relevant will they be?

I don't know enough to debate the merits of the A-10 versus anything else (and don't care to) but I do know that SAM's have been shooting down jets much faster and that travel at typically higher altitudes dating back to Vietnam.

Sure the design of the A-10 does make survival a little higher, but the warheads on SAMs are tremendously larger than the MANPADs that the A-10 was designed to withstand. And the general consensus is that a direct hit from a common SAM would destroy an A-10.

[Jeep]

Targeting individuals? Have you flown in an airplane at low level? It doesn't work that way, the A-10 isn't going to chase down squiters during a convoy strafing run.


In fact, I've often flown in low level aircraft--but normally helicopters (and my eyes were generally firmly closed). However, I was talking about going after scattering vehicles, not individuals.

[PPGMD]

In fact, I've often flown in low level aircraft--but normally helicopters (and my eyes were generally firmly closed). However, I was talking about going after scattering vehicles, not individuals.

I would probably have closed my eyes too, helicopter pilots are freaking nuts.

They might to be to target ones that have moved only slightly off the primary line of attack. But targeting any others would typically require a couple of minutes to reposition and do a second run. That is another advantage of higher altitude aircraft it is has a much larger engagement area, so it can more easily attack the vehicles that are attempting to escape.

Though TBH a helicopter, like a AH-1 or a AH-64, would probably be the best option. As they have the ability to aim their gun.

[TGS]

IMO if the A-10 is retired it wouldn't be sent to the bone yard, it would likely be kept in the same flyable storage that the F-117s are kept in (and I do mean flyable the F-117s still go up on test flights periodically).


The F-117s aren't kept for operational use though, right? I'm under the impression there is only a couple kept "flyable" just for the sake of being used as a test bed.

I certainly wouldn't understand keeping all of them semi-mothballed to be used operationally if needed....they can only carry two 2,000lbs bombs, very limited electronics abilities compared to the F22 and F35, and their stealth tech is not as effective.

Super cool jet, though. Even if it was very niche, it really sort of stands out to me as the pinnacle of America's golden age in establishing a supreme disparity in military power/technology.

[PPGMD]

The F-117s aren't kept for operational use though, right? I'm under the impression there is only a couple kept "flyable" just for the sake of being used as a test bed.

I certainly wouldn't understand keeping all of them semi-mothballed to be used operationally if needed....they can only carry two 2,000lbs bombs, very limited electronics abilities compared to the F22 and F35, and their stealth tech is not as effective.

Super cool jet, though. Even if it was very niche, it really sort of stands out to me as the pinnacle of America's golden age in establishing a supreme disparity in military power/technology.

My understanding is that the entire F-117 fleet at the time of retirement, minus one or two, is kept in flyable storage per a Congressional mandate. And that the idea was to keep them until the F-35, the true replacement for the aircraft, is fully operational. The F-117 maybe gen 1 tech with limited capabilities, but due to limitations on the F-22 and only have 20 B-2s, it isn't a bad idea to keep it around.

I would imagine that they aren't long for life though. With the F-35A entering IOC this year, I am sure plans are being drawn up to permanently dismantle them.

[Malamute]

Just saw this. The US is using two OV10 Broncos in the Iraq/Syria campaign, and apparently are very happy with the results. Very short prep time, very short take-off strip requirted, low cost to run, and works well in difficult terrain for close support. They run 120 missions in the past 3 months.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2878795/american-vintage-planes-take-on-isis-why-have-throwbacks-been-brought-back-from-retirement-to-bombard-terrorist-group-video/

[Drang]

Just saw this. The US is using two OV10 Broncos in the Iraq/Syria campaign, and apparently are very happy with the results. Very short prep time, very short take-off strip requirted, low cost to run, and works well in difficult terrain for close support. They run 120 missions in the past 3 months.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2878795/american-vintage-planes-take-on-isis-why-have-throwbacks-been-brought-back-from-retirement-to-bombard-terrorist-group-video/

Holy crap! Ice Pick flies again!

[JV_]

A great HD video from an A10. It's great for a full screen view.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4LOGfuuugc

[will_1400]

From what I've been reading, apparently the F-35 will also be carrying ordnance on external pylons in addition to its internal bay. Unless we come up with stealthy JDAMs or Mavericks, that's going to put a crimp in the F-35's stealth characteristics.

[PPGMD]

From what I've been reading, apparently the F-35 will also be carrying ordnance on external pylons in addition to its internal bay. Unless we come up with stealthy JDAMs or Mavericks, that's going to put a crimp in the F-35's stealth characteristics.

No, it CAN ordnance on external pylons, not that it must carry. It allows mission flexibility. In lower threat environments it can carry fuel, and weapons on external pylons. In high threat environments it goes completely internally. But unlike the F-22 it can carry a descent weapon load, and fuel load internally.

[Odin Bravo One]

Here's a novel concept: prove the F-35 can do it better before sending the others to the scrap pile.

I'm not a pilot,nor do I play one on TV, but I'm confident I've talked to more A/C while in need of their capabilities than most. There is nothing that has proven it does what an A-10 can do. Nothing.

[PPGMD]

Here's a novel concept: prove the F-35 can do it better before sending the others to the scrap pile.

I'm not a pilot,nor do I play one on TV, but I'm confident I've talked to more A/C while in need of their capabilities than most. There is nothing that has proven it does what an A-10 can do. Nothing.

What capabilities do you want it to prove? With exception of gun and rocket runs it can launch the same ordnance as the A-10. The targeting pods, and data links are all the latest available. Unless it is a mission that requires a low level gun or rocket run, the F-35 can do it. And the range of the F-35 is superior to all fighters that have come before it with at least 50% greater combat radius on internal fuel alone of the aircraft it is directly replacing which are using drop tanks(F-18, F-16, and AV-8B). IMO the primary CAS tools for the F-35 would be AGMs and LJDAMs.

And we can balance out the loss of the gun and rocket pods by bringing back cluster munitions. The new precision guided dispensers are supposed to be wind corrected, and not leave UXO all over the place.

[Odin Bravo One]

IMHO both of those CAS systems you mentioned suck for troops in close contact. But that is just one man's opinion.

[JTQ]

About 20 years ago I sat in on a "Roles and Missions" briefing from USAF Maj Gen Charles D. Link ( http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/106396/major-general-charles-d-link.aspx ). Close Air Support was one of the main topics of the briefing. Then, just like now, the USAF really wasn't keen on performing the CAS role, and was looking to get rid of the A10.

He commented that during his time working on the Joint Staff he asked the US Army guys to tell him what features they were looking for in a CAS aircraft. After listing their requirements, he said that sure sounds a lot like the Apache helicopter. The response was, "we can't risk using the Apache in that role, it's too valuable of an asset. We need it for deep strike (or deep attack, I can't remember, and I'm not an Army helo guy)." Maj Gen Link's response was why not use the Apache for CAS, which it is eminently suited for, and let the USAF send a couple of F16's in to do whatever "deep strike" the Army planned to do with their Apache's? Blank stares all around.

[Odin Bravo One]

We have used the Apache frequently for this role over the past fifteen years. An AWT is a two ship package of Apache's. It still comes up wanting in terms of CAS for a variety of reasons. The US Army are not the only ones in need of CAS, and 15 years after sustained war, the days of the Joint combat environment are not going back to the military philosophies of times past. It seems the Air Force are the only ones who didn't get the memo, which is surprising seeing the amount of heavy lifting they have done......in conjunction with other forces. By themselves, they are pretty low impact.

[PPGMD]

He commented that during his time working on the Joint Staff he asked the US Army guys to tell him what features they were looking for in a CAS aircraft. After listing their requirements, he said that sure sounds a lot like the Apache helicopter. The response was, "we can't risk using the Apache in that role, it's too valuable of an asset. We need it for deep strike (or deep attack, I can't remember, and I'm not an Army helo guy)." Maj Gen Link's response was why not use the Apache for CAS, which it is eminently suited for, and let the USAF send a couple of F16's in to do whatever "deep strike" the Army planned to do with their Apache's? Blank stares all around.

I've asked that question many a times in these A-10 debate. The USAF has something like 300 A-10s left, and they are going to reach the end of the service lives soon. The US Army between the Apaches and the OH-58s have about 1,200 helicopters. You bring in the DAPs and AH-6s and you probably have another 100-200 more. And yet the grunts are always screaming "Where is the Air Force with CAS?" when IMO they should be looking at their own Generals and ask where are the helicopters.

Since Sean brought up not just the US Army, then lets bring the AH-1 which there are about 200 of in USMC inventory. So that is 1,400-1,600 aircraft, not counting the non-dedicated conversion of UH-1s and UH-60s.

[Odin Bravo One]

For those so emphatically against the A-10, including the Air Force Generals so dead set against it:

When was the last time you called CAS?

If you think that is an irrelevant part of the discussion, you're part of the problem and have no business discussing the topic.

[PPGMD]

If you think that is an irrelevant part of the discussion, you're part of the problem and have no business discussing the topic.

Actually I do think it is irrelevant.

The retirement of the A-10 is going to happen in the next 10-20 years whether you like it or not. The youngest A-10s are over 30 years old. So unless Congress actually pays for a replacement program, which seems unlikely, the A-10 is going away.

That is going to force some shifting of the CAS mission. And the USAF thinks that they can deliver CAS within the current ROEs with higher altitude aircraft, and there is evidence to back it up. According to the Air Force currently in Afghanistan the primary CAS weapon are AGMs, often fired by AC-130s, and RPAs. They might also have to shift some of the CAS mission onto the rotary wing aircraft.

[JTQ]

For those so emphatically against the A-10, including the Air Force Generals so dead set against it:

I don't think there is anybody in the USAF, Generals included, that are emphatically against the A10. I think it's just they are limited to what they can have. They rack and stack their requirements, and what the USAF brings uniquely to the battlefield, and CAS is lower on the list.

These are the things the USAF uniquely brings to the table.

Air superiority. When was the last time our ground troops had to fear air attacks from an opposing force.

Strategic bombing. The only service with long range, large payload capability.

Inter/Intra theater airlift. The only service that can do that.

Long range air refueling.

Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance and Battle Management.

If the USAF could get all that stuff funded, and CAS (A10), they'd probably be fine with it. However, when money is being cut, and there are other services that can do the CAS role, and the USAF is the only one that can do the other roles, they are probably going list CAS as their lowest priority.

[Odin Bravo One]

This country, and the people in charge of both the military and civilian sides of it don't know how to fight or win a war anyway, so it is an academic argument at best. The day of America being a superpower are coming to an end soon. Hopefully continued lack of learning from experience and the idea that warfare is an mathematic problem with a mathematic solution speeds that process up.

[NEPAKevin]

And the USAF thinks that they can deliver CAS within the current ROEs with higher altitude aircraft, and there is evidence to back it up. According to the Air Force currently in Afghanistan the primary CAS weapon are AGMs, often fired by AC-130s, and RPAs.

Sounds a little like the logic they used when the F4 was designed sans a gun. From Wiki McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II)


The F-4's biggest weakness, as it was initially designed, was its lack of an internal cannon. For a brief period, doctrine held that turning combat would be impossible at supersonic speeds and little effort was made to teach pilots air combat maneuvering. In reality, engagements quickly became subsonic, as pilots would slow down in an effort to get behind their adversaries. Furthermore, the relatively new heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles at the time were frequently reported as unreliable and pilots had to use multiple shots (also known as ripple-firing), just to hit one enemy fighter. To compound the problem, rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Many pilots found themselves on the tail of an enemy aircraft but too close to fire short-range Falcons or Sidewinders. Although by 1965 USAF F-4Cs began carrying SUU-16 external gunpods containing a 20 mm (.79 in) M61A1 Vulcan Gatling cannon, USAF cockpits were not equipped with lead-computing gunsights until the introduction of the SUU-23, virtually assuring a miss in a maneuvering fight. Some Marine Corps aircraft carried two pods for strafing. In addition to the loss of performance due to drag, combat showed the externally mounted cannon to be inaccurate unless frequently boresighted, yet far more cost-effective than missiles. The lack of a cannon was finally addressed by adding an internally mounted 20 mm (.79 in) M61A1 Vulcan on the F-4E.[46]

[PPGMD]

Sounds a little like the logic they used when the F4 was designed sans a gun. From Wiki McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II)

No, not really. They as basing it on actual operations. While the decision to not include the cannon on the F-4 wasn't based on actual operations. Whether this is a good decision or not, only time will tell. But the bed was made when they canceled the A-10 replacement program a while ago.

Anyways at this point the question is not if, but when. As I mentioned the A-10 is going to be retired soon, the air frames probably have at most 20 years left on them. Heck we are already doing a whole sale replacement of the wings as the designed service life was exceeded in 2005 for most air frames. And it likely will be without a direct replacement based on the likelihood of Congress actually giving the USAF money to develop such a replacement.

[Odin Bravo One]

Clearly you know more about the topic of CAS. I'll bow out now.

[JDM]

God dammit.

[NEPAKevin]

No, not really. They as basing it on actual operations. While the decision to not include the cannon on the F-4 wasn't based on actual operations. Whether this is a good decision or not, only time will tell. But the bed was made when they canceled the A-10 replacement program a while ago.


So, you are saying that this decision is unequivocally based on unbiased facts of actual combat needs and not statistics that are the result of protocol created to follow the perceptions and desires of career management whose primary goal is to navigate the politics of making rank or acquiring lucrative job opportunities after retirement? For example, this Military Times article (http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/10/a10-pogo-air-force-statistics-casualties-fratricide/23177501/) discusses how the statistics put out by the Air Force which blame the A-10 for the most friendly fire deaths use time frames that conveniently fit the desired narrative. In any case if the Air Force really believes that the Army and Marines should take over the low altitude CAS mission, maybe they should give the Army and Marines that portion of their budget?

[Jeep]

So, you are saying that this decision is unequivocally based on unbiased facts of actual combat needs and not statistics that are the result of protocol created to follow the perceptions and desires of career management whose primary goal is to navigate the politics of making rank or acquiring lucrative job opportunities after retirement? For example, this Military Times article (http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/10/a10-pogo-air-force-statistics-casualties-fratricide/23177501/) discusses how the statistics put out by the Air Force which blame the A-10 for the most friendly fire deaths use time frames that conveniently fit the desired narrative. In any case if the Air Force really believes that the Army and Marines should take over the low altitude CAS mission, maybe they should give the Army and Marines that portion of their budget?

Historically, the USAF has been somewhat reluctant to concede that any portion of their budget should be used for CAS. Of course, back in the old days we used to say that the Air Forces budget priorities were (1) Officer's clubs; (2) Officer's golf courses; (3) Officer's housing; (4) Mess facilities; (5) fighter jet stuff, and if any money was left over it could be used on bombers, transport, and the rest, and--on a good day--close air support.

Of course, a lot of that was just jealousy after seeing an Air Force officer's club or two and eaten in an Air Force mess facility. The ones I ate in were like civilian cafeterias, except nicer--a distinct contrast to an Army mess hall.

The guys who put a lot of effort into CAS were the Marine pilots. As the saying went, they got grass stains on their wings.

[PPGMD]

So, you are saying that this decision is unequivocally based on unbiased facts of actual combat needs and not statistics that are the result of protocol created to follow the perceptions and desires of career management whose primary goal is to navigate the politics of making rank or acquiring lucrative job opportunities after retirement? For example, this Military Times article (http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/10/a10-pogo-air-force-statistics-casualties-fratricide/23177501/) discusses how the statistics put out by the Air Force which blame the A-10 for the most friendly fire deaths use time frames that conveniently fit the desired narrative. In any case if the Air Force really believes that the Army and Marines should take over the low altitude CAS mission, maybe they should give the Army and Marines that portion of their budget?

The person that gave me that information was neither for, not against the retirement of the A-10 though he favored keeping it.

But even if the numbers are skewed, it is actually based on real numbers. While the decision to not put a gun on the F-4 was a bone headed move based on gunnery exercises. So I don't think it will be seen nearly as stupid if it is proven to be a bad one.

As far as the USMC or the Army getting the CAS portion of the budget. Yeah once Congress authorizes soon budget for CAS. Congress and the Executive wants all this capability while at the same time constantly slashing the budgets.

[will_1400]

This will be my last post before bowing out. The F-35 remains unproven, overpriced for an "inexpensive multirole aircraft", and has features that pretty much make it's "stealth" characteristics not so hot. For maximum stealth, it would have to go internal bay only which, per open source, is two bays with two pylons each with a total capacity of 3000 lbs. Given that there is finite room inside those bays, that means configuring it to carry one or two AAMs for self defense and leaving only two or three pylons for bombs. For a deep strike mission, that would work, but the majority of this plane's payload is going to be on the pylons, which will increase it's radar cross section. And it's vulnerability on the deck is still a consideration as it is entirely possible for the plane to have to come in on the deck to make sure they hit the right target. The low ammo carriage for it's cannon also concerns me as if everything goes wrong, that gun is going to be very important and having only 200 rounds to work with compared to the over 500 that the F-15/16/18s carry (to say nothing of the over 1,000 rounds the A-10 carries) is a drawback.

Back in Vietnam, one of the lessons we learned is that using a fast-mover for CAS in support of troops in contact was not ideal but the A-1 Skyraider, with its slower speed allowed the pilot to retain better situational awareness of what was happening on the ground. The lesson that a slower aircraft is more ideally suited to CAS is much of the reason why the A-10 was designed the way it was. Obviously, technology has improved greatly since then, but the F-35's seeming reliance on the whizz-bang new tech is not a good thing, especially if the enemy figures out how to disrupt those systems. Not to mention the huge maintenance issues that are likely to crop up, a lesson NASA learned with the Shuttle because they insisted on the most bleeding edge of technology for that it seriously increased the costs of keeping the Shuttles flying and reduced the flight rate.

Finally, I'll reiterate the issue of trying to cram too much into an airframe from the start. The F-4 was designed purely as a Fleet Defense Interceptor for the Navy. It's speed and payload requirements while having enough agility to fight off enemy fighters is what allowed it to also be used in ground attack missions. The F-16 was designed purely as a lightweight, low-cost fighter to supplement the F-15. Because General Dynamics decided to go above and beyond in engineering the F-16, it had the capability to take on the ground attack and Wild Weasel roles. The F/A-18 was originally designed as the YF-17, the F-16's main competitor in trials and again was designed to be a low-cost lightweight fighter to supplement the F-14. Northrop's experiences with the F-5 allowed them to squeeze out some impressive performance figures in a lightweight fighter and the later modifications made to make the plane suitable for carrier ops allowed it to take on the ground-attack roles (plus those modifications were already in the works early on as there were originally supposed to be two separate variants, but the performance requirements were so close that consolidating them into one airframe was feasible). The flip-side is the F-111: due to McNamara's obsession with making sure all services used the same equipment, he mandated that the F-111 be the Air Force's new deep strike bomber and the Navy's new interceptor. That wound up being a failure in that the F-111B couldn't get the job done for the Navy because the performance requirements for deep strike vs interceptors/fighters are very different, to say nothing about the difference between carrier ops vs. land-based ops and the stresses involved on the airframe.

In closing, I'll just leave this here: http://aviationhumor.net/air-force-logic/# . Now the F-35 may well be as good as its promoters claim and if it is, I'll keep an industrial-sized bottle of sriracha handy to help choke down all the crow I'd have to eat. But if it turns out to not be as hot, then I reserve rights to say "I told you so". I'm out.

[Jeep]

Back in the day I saw some very impressive performances by F-111's. It was a very accurate bomber and could actually be used for CAS. But like you say it was no fighter and the idea that it should be one was a classic piece of McNamara one-size-fits-all delusion.

His guys had the same idea for the M551 Sheridan, which was supposed to be air droppable and a useful armored reconnaissance vehicle. It turned out it could be air dropped--but only once, and so they had to come up with the LAPES idea to pretend they were kinda air-droppable. Meanwhile, by making it light enough to be supposedly air droppable, they used an aluminum engine block which turned out not to work. In the end, the 82nd got one battalion of unreliable light tanks and the cavalry got an over gunned, under armored vehicles that had no chance of surviving an engagement with Soviet armor. The irony is that once they put a cast iron block engine it, the engine/tracks worked well, and could have been used with a better armored vehicle.

It was a classic case of politicians designing weapons systems using "modern management techniques."

[PPGMD]

This will be my last post before bowing out. The F-35 remains unproven, overpriced for an "inexpensive multirole aircraft", and has features that pretty much make it's "stealth" characteristics not so hot. For maximum stealth, it would have to go internal bay only which, per open source, is two bays with two pylons each with a total capacity of 3000 lbs. Given that there is finite room inside those bays, that means configuring it to carry one or two AAMs for self defense and leaving only two or three pylons for bombs. For a deep strike mission, that would work, but the majority of this plane's payload is going to be on the pylons, which will increase it's radar cross section. And it's vulnerability on the deck is still a consideration as it is entirely possible for the plane to have to come in on the deck to make sure they hit the right target. The low ammo carriage for it's cannon also concerns me as if everything goes wrong, that gun is going to be very important and having only 200 rounds to work with compared to the over 500 that the F-15/16/18s carry (to say nothing of the over 1,000 rounds the A-10 carries) is a drawback.

The internal capacity is a valid criticism. Yes, it can has a limited internal capacity while remaining stealthy, OTOH it has the same air to ground capacity as the F-117 2 racks capable of carrying up to a 2,000lb bomb (with a planned rack that can carry 4 small weapons on each pylon). But we also will have over 2,000 of the compared to the 60 F-117s. So early on in the war the capacity will be lower but they can go places that non-stealth aircraft wouldn't consider going, and as SEAD clears more airspace aircraft tasked for the cleared areas can attach external pylons and have more capacity. I should note that the A-10 is designed to survive AAA and MANPADs, more traditional SAMs will swat the A-10 out of the sky.

The cannon was designed to be an air to air last ditch self defense weapon. Yes the capacity is low, but the DOD looked at fighter gun usage since Vietnam, and found that we haven't had a gun kill in many many years (leaving out the A-10 shooting down the helicopters it would be 1968). So to save weight they cut down the ammunition.

As far as coming down on the deck, that isn't as necessary anymore. The targeting pods provide a much better view than a pilot flying by at 200-300ft at 200-300 knots. People constantly talking about the A-10 being able to take abuse, often forgotten is that a shot up A-10 is still a soft kill until it is completely repaired (which can often take quite a bit of time). That is why the A-10 often carries a load out heavy with AGMs in environments where there is a high chance to encounter AAA or MANPADs.


Obviously, technology has improved greatly since then, but the F-35's seeming reliance on the whizz-bang new tech is not a good thing, especially if the enemy figures out how to disrupt those systems. Not to mention the huge maintenance issues that are likely to crop up, a lesson NASA learned with the Shuttle because they insisted on the most bleeding edge of technology for that it seriously increased the costs of keeping the Shuttles flying and reduced the flight rate.

Most of the actual systems on the F-35 are second or third generation technology. The only real innovative feature on the aircraft is the new software to integrate all the systems into a single cohesive picture. So it is possible for the F-35 to be a maintenance intensive like the F-14, but since many of the systems are mature it does have a good chance of working. Heck even with the radar glitch they had recently the MTBF for the radar system exceeded older air frames.


Finally, I'll reiterate the issue of trying to cram too much into an airframe from the start. The F-4 was designed purely as a Fleet Defense Interceptor for the Navy. It's speed and payload requirements while having enough agility to fight off enemy fighters is what allowed it to also be used in ground attack missions. The F-16 was designed purely as a lightweight, low-cost fighter to supplement the F-15. Because General Dynamics decided to go above and beyond in engineering the F-16, it had the capability to take on the ground attack and Wild Weasel roles. The F/A-18 was originally designed as the YF-17, the F-16's main competitor in trials and again was designed to be a low-cost lightweight fighter to supplement the F-14. Northrop's experiences with the F-5 allowed them to squeeze out some impressive performance figures in a lightweight fighter and the later modifications made to make the plane suitable for carrier ops allowed it to take on the ground-attack roles (plus those modifications were already in the works early on as there were originally supposed to be two separate variants, but the performance requirements were so close that consolidating them into one airframe was feasible).

IMO the only reason that fourth generation fighters become excellent multirole aircraft was PGMs. Without the Paveway kits and the LANTIRN targeting pod I don't think that the US fourth generation fighters would've been able to replace the third generation specialized ground attack fighters.

With the fifth generation, with the desire to bring stealth we see a greater degree of specialization coming back. As in order to carry the weapons internally for stealth you have to decide do you want a larger weapon bay to carry bigger weapons, or more wing area so the aircraft is more maneuverable. The F-35 was built with strike in mind, it can do some air to air combat, but that is a secondary role as when it was designed the F-18 and the F-22 were meant to be the primary air to air fighter for their respective services (SECDEF Gates screwed that up for the USAF). So IMO your comparison to the F-111 is a good warning, but I think that the DOD took it to heart. The only issue is, that people from the outside looking in don't realize that the F-35 wasn't meant to be a primary air to air fighter.

[PPGMD]

I think it's pretty fucked up that the one guy in this thread with real, and extensive, experience with CAS felt the need to bow out in the face of so many "experts".

I could not agree more with the following sentiment:

There are more things in play than the usual line of "The Air Force hates CAS, and wants to get rid of the A-10."

Once again this is a major problem with the SME program. He may be a SME on the pointy end of the spear, but he isn't even remotely an aviation SME. He is no more an expert on it, than I am an expert on room clearing.

The hilarious part is that I was one of the A-10 absolutists and believed that the F-35 is a turkey until I actually did some research on it, and found that the Air Force has a compelling case that they can achieve most of the CAS missions with the F-35. And though the F-35 has some issues, it actually is doing pretty well.

[JDM]

There are more things in play than the usual line of "The Air Force hates CAS, and wants to get rid of the A-10."

Once again this is a major problem with the SME program. He may be a SME on the pointy end of the spear, but he isn't even remotely an aviation SME. He is no more an expert on it, than I am an expert on room clearing.

The hilarious part is that I was one of the A-10 absolutists and believed that the F-35 is a turkey until I actually did some research on it, and found that the Air Force has a compelling case that they can achieve most of the CAS missions with the F-35. And though the F-35 has some issues, it actually is doing pretty well.

Dear god.

All the things are wrong with this post. All of them.

[PPGMD]

Dear god.

No the dear god is with you. You want this to become a big A-10, the Air Force and F-35 sucks circle jerk. Literally only myself and one other person has posted anything than that.

I may not be a military aviation expert (nor would I profess to me), but I know more than the people constantly attacking the F-35.

But if that is what you and the other grunt oriented people want, and the likes seem to show that perhaps I'll bow out and you can return to the usual anti-Air Force and F-35 bashing unimpeded by someone presenting the opposing side.

[JDM]

No the dear god is with you. You want this to become a big A-10, the Air Force and F-35 sucks circle jerk. Literally only myself and one other person has posted anything than that.

I may not be a military aviation expert (nor would I profess to me), but I know more than the people constantly attacking the F-35.

I don't give two shits if the Air Force starts using balsa wood gliders to drop water balloons on the terrorists. That is not even close to what I was getting at with my post.

[LSP552]

Once again this is a major problem with the SME program. He may be a SME on the pointy end of the spear, but he isn't even remotely an aviation SME. He is no more an expert on it, than I am an expert on room clearing.



Perhaps you will explain to us your education, work history or military service that makes you such an SME on close air support?

[PPGMD]

That is not even close to what I was getting at with my post.

No you want the Lightfighter BS, where if a SME says anything, even if there are things are other things to consider that they don't mention in their post and/or it is outside their SME area, you should shut up or be banned.

[JDM]

Oki doki.

[El Cid]

No the dear god is with you. You want this to become a big A-10, the Air Force and F-35 sucks circle jerk. Literally only myself and one other person has posted anything than that.

I may not be a military aviation expert (nor would I profess to me), but I know more than the people constantly attacking the F-35.

I'm curious - what is your background? How do you know so much about the F-35? You're speaking with such authority - I really hope you have the proper background and don't tell us you read about how "awesome" the F-35 is online.

Nothing in service or on the drawing board can do what the A-10 does. Nothing is even close. You make statements that flying low and having the necessary protection to doing so isn't necessary... how did you reach that conclusion? For good and effective CAS the pilot needs to be able to see who is who on the ground. The F-35 would stall and crash of it flew slowly enough to do that.

Just because we have pressed other platforms such as the F-16 into ECAS doesn't mean it's a good option. I'm not a pilot, but I spent over a decade in the Air Force. Most of that time was working the C2 side of Rescue. I was exposed to a wide variety of conventional and SOF missions and there is a reason the folks on the ground always ask for the A-10. Doesn't matter if it's a big Army grunt unit or an A-team. They need a platform overhead that can stay there for long periods, deliver lots of ordnance, and SEE them!

I was at ACC HQ and can tell you first hand the AF treats CAS (and Rescue) as a step child. The "leaders" want to go fast and they tend to think they will be the next Robin Olds. In CSAR we always wanted the A-10 for RESCORT duty. If it wasn't available we asked for Apaches or Super Cobras. We often had to make do with fast movers, and the only platform in that realm that was decent was the F-15E. Yes, if the friendlies on the ground have time and distance they can do great work with JDAMs. But when our guys are in close contact or on the run while being pursued, the F-35 is not going to save the day.

I have an analogy from when I argued this garbage with the Viper mafia (we called the F-16 the lawn dart), but it applies equally to the F-35. Using an F-35 for CAS/RESCORT is like buying a Corvette to move your spouse, kids and dog from NY to CA. Yes, you'll look sexy and enjoy driving it - but it won't accomplish the mission.

The only thing I've seen you get right is the A-10 has a finite service life. But what's needed is a true replacement with the same or better capabilities. The F-35 will never be that. I've never been so embarrassed to have worn the AF uniform than after seeing the brass selling their souls to convince people the F-35 can replace the A-10.

[PPGMD]

You know how there are people that, no matter what the person they are talking to says, are convinced that other person is saying something completely different than they are because they entered into the conversation with their minds already made up? And it's how it's totally annoying and totally futile to try to discuss things with them? I call it the "I'm not an expert but I'm still going to lecture you about it for as long as you'll let me" syndrome.

Will_1400 has made the same F-111 comparison at least 3 times. At least 2-3 people have made the similar F-4 comparison on different pages. Numerous talks about getting it to the weeds. It is literally the same arguments over and over again. As far as I can see no one in this thread is entering this with the idea that they are going to change their minds.

The fact is that there are no SMEs in military aviation let alone CAS involved in this thread (unless Sean is a JTAC and didn't tell us). And 99% of the posters are anti-F-35. I am often the only person attempting to defend the F-35 and the Air Forces position. Thus I have a lot more posts than most others posters in this thread.

The hilarious part is that many of the actual military aviation SMEs I've talked to (namely pilots) are in the same camp as I am. It might work, it might not, but the A-10 is going to have to retire soon regardless so it is all academic.

If you want this to go back to the anti-F-35 dog pile so be it, it will be my last post in here.

[El Cid]

If you want this to go back to the anti-F-35 dog pile so be it, it will be my last post in here.
So we will never learn what YOUR background and expertise is? That's interesting.

And for the record, Sean doesn't need to be a JTAC to have relevant experience on this topic.

[PPGMD]

Did you read the quoted portion of your post before writing this?

I did and I gave examples how this thread is mostly just a collection of monologues, with both sides arguing at each other without really approaching it with an open mind.

Honestly this is like arguing Republican vs Democrat, 9mm vs 45ACP, or Striker vs DA/SA. Each side already has their mind made up, and are just arguing.

[will_1400]

Ok... I know I said I was bowing out, but with PPGMD's recent posts, I feel I should shed some light on my experience. In a post I made ages ago, I said I was in the "2" shop at a COCOM HQ. For those not familiar with the jargon, that means I'm intel and was previously assigned to a combatant command headquarters. Currently, I'm in an RPA squadron where CAS is one of our top priorities and I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of CAS as I'm a part of the kill chain when the call goes out. Not nearly to the same level as SeanM, but I know it fairly well and from the Aviation side instead of the "grunt" side and the "grunts" I've worked with who call it in are also very familiar with what a plane can and can't do as it's literally their ass if they don't.

As for the tech, PGMs can be defeated, sensor suites can be disrupted, and planes break. Technology is a wonderful thing until you're in a situation where it's not working right and relying on it too much is a weakness. And comparing the F-35 with the F-117, the F-117 was designed to internally carry 2000 lb class bombs while I'm not sure the F-35 has the same design requirement. It's also supposed to replace the F-16 which in its purest, original role was to be used in swarms to dogfight with enemy fighters at close range (Sidewinder and gun range) as a supplement to the F-15 instead of being a bomb truck carrying AAMs for self-defense.The F-35 seems to be a bomb truck that people claim can fight as well as or better an F-16 at knife-fight ranges, but I'm just not seeing it. Strafing outside the A-10 might indeed be a desperation scenario, but shit happens and having to get on the deck and put guns on a target is a very real possibility if all hell breaks loose and the ability to absorb damage is going to be key. On top of that, the F-35's single engine is a detriment to ground attack for good reason: if that engine goes tits up, then that pilot is in some seriously deep shit. With twin engine aircraft, they at least have a chance if they can jettison their payload and limp home. Back in the day, there was the F-16XL, a badass variant of the standard Viper with amazing payload, vastly increased range, and even improved maneuverability with almost no trade off in airspeed. It was passed up on in favor of the F-15E because making the XL Viper variant would be very costly and the single engine setup was considered a deal-breaker. That same single-engine setup is also a big reason why the Navy developed the YF-17 into the F/A-18 rather than navalizing the F-16. CAS, CSAR, SCAR, RESCORT, etc all are roles that are tough to do and having a plane not suited to those roles by design (as in the F-35 which would make an amazing deep strike attacker/interdiction bomber) as your only option is hugely unnecessary risk And RPAs like the Pred and Reaper can only do so much because of the nature of how they're operated.

Bottom line, the Warthog has a very unique set of capabilities that go beyond the "strafing tanks" role (they also can mount the same PGMs that are so highly touted), and is the most versatile ground attack craft we ever designed (can do CAS, SCAR, anti-maritime, CSAR, FAC-A, etc), is tough as hell, and can bring the hate in a way that only Apaches and Cobras can but in more vulnerable and limited packages and has no direct replacement. I maintain that the F-35 is our generation's F-111 (damn good strike bomber, but sucks at everything else) and I got that bottle of sriracha handy in case I need to eat crow... but replacing the F-16, F/A-18, and A-10 with one platform? Not possible in a manner that would be remotely considered effective given what each of the older platforms can do.

[PPGMD]

So we will never learn what YOUR background and expertise is? That's interesting.

I never made any claimed that I was an expert on this subject. And when there is an expert, I deffer to them.


And for the record, Sean doesn't need to be a JTAC to have relevant experience on this topic.

True I simplified, but he himself says it himself that he isn't an expert. IIRC the quote was "I'm not an expert but I've called for CAS a few times." The A-10 vs F-35 is an argument that is more than just putting bombs on the ground. You have budgets, force capabilities, procurement, and service lives to consider. And ultimately it comes down to the fact that all the arguing won't change the fact everything was decided over a decade ago, when none of the attempts at getting an A-10 replacement got any money from Congress.

[El Cid]

I never made any claimed that I was an expert on this subject. And when there is an expert, I deffer to them.



True I simplified, but he himself says it himself that he isn't an expert. IIRC the quote was "I'm not an expert but I've called for CAS a few times." The A-10 vs F-35 is an argument that is more than just putting bombs on the ground. You have budgets, force capabilities, procurement, and service lives to consider. And ultimately it comes down to the fact that all the arguing won't change the fact everything was decided over a decade ago, when none of the attempts at getting an A-10 replacement got any money from Congress.

But I still don't know how you are so knowledgable about the F-35. You mentioned "talking to pilots" and nothing more. How do you know what you think you know about F-35's and A-10's? That you won't answer this (I've now asked 3 times) is an indicator to me that you're way outside your lane and don't want to admit it.

Honestly I feel like I'm debating this with a 16 year old JROTC kid who knows it all because he saw Top Gun and Iron Eagle too many times.

[PPGMD]

And comparing the F-35 with the F-117, the F-117 was designed to internally carry 2000 lb class bombs while I'm not sure the F-35 has the same design requirement.

Go back and read the RFQ, responses, and see the aircraft they down selected. Ultimately both aircraft they selected to proceed to the fly off were capable of carrying two 2,000lb bombs internally, along with a pair of AAMs and enough fuel to equal a typical F-16's combat radius with a strike package. If you follow the process it is quite clear that strike was the main consideration with ACM to be a secondary consideration.

This is further proven by the fact that the plan has always been for the Navy was to keep the Rhinos for fleet defense as the Navy F-22 program was cancelled before the program that led to the F-35 even started. And the fact that one of the programs that led to the F-35 was a joint program with the USMC to replace the AV-8B.

[PPGMD]

nvm..

[Odin Bravo One]

baffling.

[PPGMD]

But I still don't know how you are so knowledgable about the F-35. You mentioned "talking to pilots" and nothing more. How do you know what you think you know about F-35's and A-10's? That you won't answer this (I've now asked 3 times) is an indicator to me that you're way outside your lane and don't want to admit it.

Honestly I feel like I'm debating this with a 16 year old JROTC kid who knows it all because he saw Top Gun and Iron Eagle too many times.

This is exactly what I mean about how these conversations are monologues.

At no point do I claim to be a SME on this, I am no more of a SME on this subject than just about anyone else in this thread. If you want creds like "I am a military fighter pilot with 10,000 hours in the A-10" or" I was the USAF program director for the F-35 program" I don't have that, nor did I claim to.

Personally I am on the fence, I think the F-35 and the retirement of the A-10 could be a good decision or a bad one. I think both sides have points, but that the bed was made over a decade ago and the decisions that lead us here were made by people no longer involved in the process (exception being some really long serving politicians).

[Odin Bravo One]

As a matter of fact CID, I am a JTAC. 16 years worth. Called in 450,000 lbs one day in early 2002. That was just one day as a young JTAC. Since the. I've been to Iraq four times, Afghanistan three times, Somalia in 93-94, and again as a JTAC in 2012. Even went to Libya in 2011 where one of my jobs was...... You guessed it. JTAC. I'm also currently at a location in the Middle East, which I will not divulge for hopefully obvious reasons. (Also why I have so much time to post recently....only so many weights you can lift in a day).

Apparently when j said I had "talked to more CAS platforms than most" others read that as "called CAS occasionally".

[PPGMD]

As a matter of fact CID, I am a JTAC. 16 years worth. Called in 450,000 lbs one day in early 2002. That was just one day as a young JTAC. Since the. I've been to Iraq four times, Afghanistan three times, Somalia in 93-94, and again as a JTAC in 2012. Even went to Libya in 2011 where one of my jobs was...... You guessed it. JTAC.

Apparently when j said I had "talked to more CAS platforms than most" others read that as "called CAS occasionally".

Whatever. Some people get stuck on stupid.

Then I apologize not sarcastically but truly.

My goal in this thread was just to try to stop the usual "F-35 is crap" circle jerk. Which is how a vast majority of these threads go.

And it points out exactly my problem with the SME program, I have no idea what areas the SME is a SME in. I thought you were another SEAL or SF.

[El Cid]

This is exactly what I mean about how these conversations are monologues.

At no point do I claim to be a SME on this, I am no more of a SME on this subject than just about anyone else in this thread. If you want creds like "I am a military fighter pilot with 10,000 hours in the A-10" or" I was the USAF program director for the F-35 program" I don't have that, nor did I claim to.

Personally I am on the fence, I think the F-35 and the retirement of the A-10 could be a good decision or a bad one. I think both sides have points, but that the bed was made over a decade ago and the decisions that lead us here were made by people no longer involved in the process (exception being some really long serving politicians).
Ok. So you still won't tell us your background as it relates to aviation. I never said you are or need to be an SME. I wanted to know how you arrived at your conclusions about the subject. Especially since you defend it with such vigor.

You stated this on page 10:



The hilarious part is that I was one of the A-10 absolutists and believed that the F-35 is a turkey until I actually did some research on it, and found that the Air Force has a compelling case that they can achieve most of the CAS missions with the F-35. And though the F-35 has some issues, it actually is doing pretty well.

What research did you do? Aviation journals? News articles? I've seen the AF's "case" online and I know from my time in uniform they are spinning a bunch of BS to get their desired end goal of F-35's and no more A-10's. How do you know what you claim to know??

And I've seen you use acronyms that aren't exactly common outside the community. You knew the F-14 was doomed by maintenance issues. Why won't you say what your aviation background is?

[Odin Bravo One]

Then I apologize not sarcastically but truly.

My goal in this thread was just to try to stop the usual "F-35 is crap" circle jerk. Which is how a vast majority of these threads go.

And it points out exactly my problem with the SME program, I have no idea what areas the SME is a SME in. I thought you were another SEAL or SF.

I am. Doesn't change the fact that MARSOC, SEALs, and Army SF/Rangers have their own JTACs.

[PPGMD]

What research did you do? Aviation journals? News articles? I've seen the AF's "case" online and I know from my time in uniform they are spinning a bunch of BS to get their desired end goal of F-35's and no more A-10's. How do you know what you claim to know??

And I've seen you use acronyms that aren't exactly common outside the community. You knew the F-14 was doomed by maintenance issues. Why won't you say what your aviation background is?

I was involved in the aviation industry for a short while before deciding that I wanted a more stable career path. I still maintain friends in the industry, along an interest in the direction and health.

As far as particulars on the F-35 I don't know anything classified. Everything I've read has been released publicly (though not necessarily on the internet), and AFAIK I've never been told anything classified (and I certainly would hope not as many of the conversations were via text and email).

[Josh Runkle]

How do you know what you claim to know??

And I've seen you use acronyms that aren't exactly common outside the community. You knew the F-14 was doomed by maintenance issues. Why won't you say what your aviation background is?

I'm guessing Civil Air Patrol?

Fire, meet kerosene.

[El Cid]

I'm guessing Civil Air Patrol?

Fire, meet kerosene.

Lol! I was CAP in my younger days. Mostly in PA though so we were always focused on ground SAR.

[El Cid]

I was involved in the aviation industry for a short while before deciding that I wanted a more stable career path. I still maintain friends in the industry, along an interest in the direction and health.

As far as particulars on the F-35 I don't know anything classified. Everything I've read has been released publicly (though not necessarily on the internet), and AFAIK I've never been told anything classified (and I certainly would hope not as many of the conversations were via text and email).

Still pretty vague. But remember the industry has a goal of selling its products. Just because Boeing or whoever builds an airframe doesn't mean they know how to best employ it. Yea they often hire retired mil folks, but I knew lots of Lawn Dart pilots who thought they were awesome at the Sandy and CAS roles. They were still never anyone's first choice. How many former A-10 guys helped develop the F-35?

I'll give you another analogy. A firearms manufacturer develops a new rifle for the military. They hire retired snipers to help them with the design. They market this rifle as a do everything weapon and don't understand when the door kicking crowd says it isn't right for their needs and they want to keep the model X rifle they've been using with great success for decades. Just because the top brass (all snipers) is on board with the new marketing crap doesn't make it the right decision. Yo have to listen to the boots on the ground. When they are screaming that the folks in the puzzle palace are wrong it's not because they want to get promoted. It's because they want to stay alive to see their families and have their brothers and sisters in arms stay alive.

The only political argument in the A-10 vs F-35 debate is on the F-35 side.

[LittleLebowski]

And it points out exactly my problem with the SME program.

However, it does showcase that our SMEs aren't chosen randomly :D We literally cannot post their resumes for the world to see but we can assure you that they are people of integrity with experience and knowledge that eclipses most. We can either end the SME thing or we can enjoy their contributions to the community. By "we," I mean the folks that run this place and by "can" I mean that it's already self evident which path we chose.

As a general rule, I assume that when one of our SMEs post, that they know what they're talking about. This thread illustrates that in spades.

Back to being on topic. PM me if you have any questions.

[PPGMD]

But remember the industry has a goal of selling its products. Just because Boeing or whoever builds an airframe doesn't mean they know how to best employ it. Yea they often hire retired mil folks, but I knew lots of Lawn Dart pilots who thought they were awesome at the Sandy and CAS roles. They were still never anyone's first choice. How many former A-10 guys helped develop the F-35?

Probably none, because at the time there was an active A-10 replacement program.

There is always politics in DOD programs from both sides. Have you considered the possibility that much of the attacks are coordinated by other sections of the industry or the DOD that might gain something from the program getting attacked getting cut or canceled?

Examples of who could benefit from F-35 vs A-10 fight: an interim option like more AH-64s might be purchased, more A-10 maintenance contracts could get awarded, or another A-X program could be started. And within the DOD, the officers responsible for those programs would get a boost in the size of their kingdoms or get to keep their kingdoms. The last time this came up, in order to keep the A-10 in service as demanded by Congress Boeing got an over $1B contract to replace the A-10's wings. I am willing to bet that with the latest round that in the next year or so there will be another large contract awarded for another heavy cost prohibitive service on the A-10. At this rate we will probably spend as much on A-10 MX as it would cost to replace the airplane.

[Ed L]

The problem with replacing the plane is that it takes forever and will be more costly. The way the bureaucracy in the Air Force works, it would probably be at least a decade before they got a replacement fielded, plus with funds tight and given their attitude toward the A-10 I could easily see them cancelling the replacement program. I think the only reason that they are setting it up is because they want an excuse to retire the A-10.

[NEPAKevin]

The problem with replacing the plane is that it takes forever and will be more costly.

One way to save R&D cost and time would be to buy Sukhois modified to run with our munitions. Probably wouldn't go over well with Lockheed-Martin.

[11B10]

This country, and the people in charge of both the military and civilian sides of it don't know how to fight or win a war anyway, so it is an academic argument at best. The day of America being a superpower are coming to an end soon. Hopefully continued lack of learning from experience and the idea that warfare is an mathematic problem with a mathematic solution speeds that process up.

[El Cid]

One way to save R&D cost and time would be to buy Sukhois modified to run with our munitions. Probably wouldn't go over well with Lockheed-Martin.

Surely you don't mean the Su-25 that was a lame copy of the YA-9 that lost to the A-10? Hard to tell but in hoping you're joking. Lol! The Frogfoot is the opposite of what is needed as it would be a step backwards.

[11B10]

This country, and the people in charge of both the military and civilian sides of it don't know how to fight or win a war anyway, so it is an academic argument at best. The day of America being a superpower are coming to an end soon. Hopefully continued lack of learning from experience and the idea that warfare is an mathematic problem with a mathematic solution speeds that process up.



I had responded to Sean's post ^^^ and wanted to delete my response, but I left his words here. An honest mistake and I meant no disrespect to him. Let me just say that I had totally ignorant views of warfare until I was drafted in 1967. After that, I couldn't agree more with Sean.

[Odin Bravo One]

Bravo, it has been my experience that most people hold very ignorant views of warfare. Especially the 99.9% of the population who have never practiced it.

Thank you for your service. Whether you wanted to or not.

Welcome home.

[El Cid]

I am. Doesn't change the fact that MARSOC, SEALs, and Army SF/Rangers have their own JTACs.

Exactly. Unless it's changed (I've been out of the game a decade now), JTAC is a DoD qualification and not an MOS. There are CCT and TAC-P's in the AF who do that as a full time gig. But they may or may not be a certified JTAC. I guess when he was reading Aviation Week to become an F-35 advocate they didn't cover the folks on the ground.

PPGMD, few pilots like to admit it, but when they are performing CAS they are not the tip of the spear. They are a support element. For the AF brass to ignore the ground combatants because they "think" the F-35 is a suitable replacement shows they are ignoring the customer. When I was in the JSRC in 2001 we (and the folks who were on the ground) were literally begging for A-10's to be brought into theater for OEF. Instead the CFACC (a Viper guy) tasked the F-16's out of Kuwait who were deployed for OSW. So after we talked the tanker LNO off the ledge... We had lawn darts flying missions from Kuwait to Afghanistan. Three mid-air refuelings to get there. To drop 2 bombs and be on station for 10 minutes. Then 3 mid-air refuelings on the way back.

Best part was we didn't need more Tac air. We had 3 boats providing all we could use. But when a fighter pilot decides unilaterally what the guys on the ground need, it's a recipe for disaster.

[Jeep]

But when a fighter pilot decides unilaterally what the guys on the ground need, it's a recipe for disaster.

Indeed. Any time command (including the politicians at the top) decides to ignore what the guys doing the fighting say they need, and instead substitutes the stuff command thinks they need its a recipe for disaster, and its a recipe that the US has followed countless times over the last 200 years. When you have over-centralized command and control and micromanagement is not only accepted but actively encouraged, even the best commanders have an easy time falling into this kind of thing.

Getting back to the subject here, the A-10's design was driven in part by former Vietnam/Laos Skyraider pilots who really did talk to Han Rudel about what had worked on the eastern front in WWII. Since Big Air Force (if I can use that term) really didn't care about the project the micromanagement that is the norm for things like the F-35 was at least partly avoided, and a terrific CAS aircraft was created. The F-35, by contrast, has had more three and four stars and more politicians hovering around it than is possibly healthy.

Unfortunately, while delegation is probably taught in ever military leadership school there is, we historically have not done it well (because of fear that mistakes will be made that command will be blamed for) and we continue to pay the price for the resulting micromanagement and over centralization.

[Jeep]

I'm also currently at a location in the Middle East, which I will not divulge for hopefully obvious reasons.

Thank you for your past--and current--service and hope that you don't mind if those of us who pray say some prayers for the safety of you and the others in your unit.

[JTQ]

They are a support element.

Except for nuclear war, the USAF is the support element for just about everything. They may not like it, but they know it. Nearly everything the USAF does is in support of one of the other branches of the service. They do a pretty good job.

[NEPAKevin]

Hard to tell but in hoping you're joking. Lol!

Yup. Even if Trump got Putin to give him the deal of the century, I'm pretty sure there would be some ill feelings from more than just the F-35 fanbois. I'm hoping that somewhere out there, the son or daughter of a hog driver is studying hard at math and science so he or she can grow up to design the Thunderbolt III, with even more endurance, payload and burrrt to make generations to come of America's enemies shit themselves on their way to paradise.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

More F-22s may be proposed:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/173157/congress-mulls-restarting-f_22-production.html

[LittleLebowski]

I had responded to Sean's post ^^^ and wanted to delete my response, but I left his words here. An honest mistake and I meant no disrespect to him. Let me just say that I had totally ignorant views of warfare until I was drafted in 1967. After that, I couldn't agree more with Sean.

Welcome home.

[LittleLebowski]

Some in this thread could benefit from history; to be precise, Colonel John Boyd (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FA5UEG/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000FA5UEG&linkCode=as2&tag=ratio07-20&linkId=AN7F2LOPTTUI47Y6).


The ("Fighter Mafia") group's uncompromising disdain of and campaign against advanced weapons, radars, ECM, and multi-role designs, what they characterized as "gold-plating", would prove erroneous. For example, the Fighter Mafia argued that the ground attack mission should be handled by more appropriate, dedicated aircraft such as the A-10, which has had an outstanding record in that area and that the addition of more electronics to F-16 caused its weight to rise to the point where it lost its edge in dogfighting, the mission for which it had been designed.

[TGS]

What about using the A37b, Hawk 200 series or Super Tucano as a replacement for the A10?

Low cost, reliable CAS platforms for permissive airspace.

[El Cid]

More F-22s may be proposed:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/173157/congress-mulls-restarting-f_22-production.html

And there is the other part of the problem (besides fight jocks making decisions) - Congress. They stopped production of the F-22 early and the AF didn't get nearly the number it wanted. Now that article says Congress wants the AF to consider reopening the production lines? Good grief.

[El Cid]

What about using the A37b, Hawk 200 series or Super Tucano as a replacement for the A10?

Low cost, reliable CAS platforms for permissive airspace.

None of them come close to the capability of the A-10. In fact many units traded in their A-37's for A-10's. All the T-37's were retired several years ago so there is no longer any logistical tail. None of those other airframes are in the system and would require significant ramp ups. We already have A-10 parts, trained maintainers, etc. One of the arguments the AF is using to kill the A-10 is the cost of maintaining and operating it. A new airframe will play into that. The A-10 has better armor and survivability, as well as various other upgrades that link it with the battlefield.

I am happy to see the OV-10 back in the mix but it would be great as a partner to the A-10. It can't replace it.

[11B10]

Bravo, it has been my experience that most people hold very ignorant views of warfare. Especially the 99.9% of the population who have never practiced it.

Thank you for your service. Whether you wanted to or not.

Welcome home.


It is a true honor to have my six years acknowledged by someone with your creds, Sean. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate what you've done. Me? I didn't want to go, but I got better. Now? No hesitation. Most sincere thanks.

[GardoneVT]

Except for nuclear war, the USAF is the support element for just about everything. They may not like it, but they know it. Nearly everything the USAF does is in support of one of the other branches of the service. They do a pretty good job.

This speaks to part of the Air Force's cultural and institutional issues.

For most of the USAFs history, we've been a strategic instrument.The USAF bureaucracy and officer culture comes from a time when nuclear launch drills were more then just the title of a dusty old procedures binder. On the fighter side, USAF planes were in many cases going to be the first line against a Warsaw Pact invasion.

Then the Big Bad Enemy goes away. With it debatably went our strategic mission and esprit de corps.

Now it's been replaced with a corporate groupthink culture -while keeping the infrastructure and staffing system intended to fight WWIII .

Officers are now promoted not based necessarily on time spent Doing Missions, but time spent in classrooms on Uncle Sam's dime.By no means is this an Air Force only problem, but what I saw were cases of people who got promoted ahead of actual operational experts because the latter personnel were out "working" while the Command Staff groupies took online classes and planned the Squadron Picnic.

Thus the Operational Pros get sidelined at the promotion board, because Major Papermover checked all the PC boxes while Major Busthisass was overseas in a combat zone. When the Promotion Board asks Major B why he doesn't have community service time on his record, they won't like the answer of "umm I was fighting the nations enemies".

They will, however, love Major Papermover. He knows the difference between an Epson and a Cannon color cartridge on sight, volunteered at ten squadron picnics, helped deliver baby seals on TDY and acquired two online Associate Degrees instead of deploying.


Thus , Lt Colonel Paperpusher ends up boss over people far more qualified to get things done. Worse, when Lt Colonel Paperpusher sits on the other side of the desk and is picking who to promote, he's gonna select someone just like him; so now the competence rot is perpetuated going the other way. That subordinate then grows up, picks another Paperwork Groupie, and pretty soon your entire command staff is composed of decision makers who've seen the insides of more printers then jets.

[LSP552]

Officers are now promoted not based necessarily on time spent Doing Missions, but time spent in classrooms on Uncle Sam's dime.By no means is this an Air Force only problem, but what I saw were cases of people who got promoted ahead of actual operational experts because the latter personnel were out "working" while the Command Staff groupies took online classes and planned the Squadron Picnic.

Thus the Operational Pros get sidelined at the promotion board, because Major Papermover checked all the PC boxes while Major Busthisass was overseas in a combat zone. When the Promotion Board asks Major B why he doesn't have community service time on his record, they won't like the answer of "umm I was fighting the nations enemies".

They will, however, love Major Papermover. He knows the difference between an Epson and a Cannon color cartridge on sight, volunteered at ten squadron picnics, helped deliver baby seals on TDY and acquired two online Associate Degrees instead of deploying.


Thus , Lt Colonel Paperpusher ends up boss over people far more qualified to get things done. Worse, when Lt Colonel Paperpusher sits on the other side of the desk and is picking who to promote, he's gonna select someone just like him; so now the competence rot is perpetuated going the other way. That subordinate then grows up, picks another Paperwork Groupie, and pretty soon your entire command staff is composed of decision makers who've seen the insides of more printers then jets.

Trust me, it happens all the time in law enforcement also.

[Jeep]

Officers are now promoted not based necessarily on time spent Doing Missions, but time spent in classrooms on Uncle Sam's dime.

It has been going on forever. After Vietnam, a number of outstanding officers who had spent years in combat and had been awarded DSC's (and in at least one case, the Medal of Honor) were forced out because they didn't have college degrees, while majors who had conned the Army into sending them off for a masters in some obscure field were more favorably considered for promotion because advanced degree.

The results were, and are, predictable. If anyone wants to see a classic case, check out then-Colonel Kaplan and the loss of the Central Highlands in 1975. While not much of an advisor or tactician, Kaplan was hell-on-paper and kept getting promoted.

[11B10]

It has been going on forever. After Vietnam, a number of outstanding officers who had spent years in combat and had been awarded DSC's (and in at least one case, the Medal of Honor) were forced out because they didn't have college degrees, while majors who had conned the Army into sending them off for a masters in some obscure field were more favorably considered for promotion because advanced degree.

The results were, and are, predictable. If anyone wants to see a classic case, check out then-Colonel Kaplan and the loss of the Central Highlands in 1975. While not much of an advisor or tactician, Kaplan was hell-on-paper and kept getting promoted.


As the Brits say: SPOT ON!

[11B10]

Thanks, LL.

[11B10]

However, it does showcase that our SMEs aren't chosen randomly :D We literally cannot post their resumes for the world to see but we can assure you that they are people of integrity with experience and knowledge that eclipses most. We can either end the SME thing or we can enjoy their contributions to the community. By "we," I mean the folks that run this place and by "can" I mean that it's already self evident which path we chose.

As a general rule, I assume that when one of our SMEs post, that they know what they're talking about. This thread illustrates that in spades.

Back to being on topic. PM me if you have any questions.



LL, to me, two things set p-f's SME'S apart: the extreme depth of their knowledge - and - their unselfish attitude. I've never seen them talk down to someone. They genuinely want us to learn. Love it!

[RevolverRob]

No worries the F-35 will not have any issues engaging the world with its bleeding edge avionics and targeting system - http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f-35-software-system-gao-report/index.html

The idea that a single, a single server is used for coordinating the programing for 2500+ billion dollar jets, without backup...isn't disturbing at all. And when the developer says, "We're in development! These kinds of things will be dealt with." It doesn't inspire confidence. Because...that means they didn't intend for there to be redundant backups initially...

I am not shitting you. I think I could take over the F-35 program tomorrow and if given autonomous control, we could have the best jet in existence in 5-years. But it wouldn't be a cobbled together pile of crap made by four-dozen different contractors who can't debug their own house. Seriously, this isn't the kind of shit you screw around with. No wonder the Russians and Chinese are starting to best us technologically. We're so busy lobbying for money, schmoozing politicians, and getting cut-rate bids for materials, that we haven't bothered to get a group of smart people with a ruthless manager to sit down and handle the technical challenges of this process. This can't be done by a bunch of executives making demands of office-working ants. This is the kind of thing where you get the dozen smartest people in the room to lay out a set of needs. Then define them as goals. Then setup benchmarks. Then you go the engineers and you say, "You, Dr. Jim-Bob, you are the overseer of this airplane. Anything that goes wrong with it...you die. I want you to build me an airframe that meets X, Y, and Z benchmarks, and has A, B, and Q maintenance protocols. I want the names of every single individual that is responsible for every system of this weapon system. Literally, I want the list of people who designed this plane to be small enough to fit on an 8.5x11" sheet of paper. Because responsibility is the key issue here."

And then you do it. I mean...that's how we sent people to the moon. But hell...what do I know.

-Rob

[RJ]

Just a couple images I saw today while you guys take a break to sharpen your arguments. :cool:

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160423/fd2964f776b0318a62dcd3457a7312ec.jpg

This one is for LL:

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160423/195558803cb7644239b7dcb8969f73dd.jpg

:)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Read that they are sending some A-10s to the South China Sea area to fly around the Chinese new construct islands.

http://atimes.com/2016/04/get-ready-china-lethal-a-10-warthogs-are-patrolling-south-china-sea/

[RevolverRob]

Read that they are sending some A-10s to the South China Sea area to fly around the Chinese new construct islands.

That's interesting. Very interesting.

[ranger]

I can only imagine what 30mm does to a modern (lightly armored) ship.

[El Cid]

I can only imagine what 30mm does to a modern (lightly armored) ship.

I love the A-10, but in that AO it will need some F-22's nearby if we are going to rattle sabers there. There have already been images of Chicom fighters on the island. I seriously doubt the current administration will do much though.

[Odin Bravo One]

In seven years the only things this administration has done militarily are:

1) Lost two wars.
2) Allowed the creation and continuation of ISIS
3) Handed Iran the capability to make a nuclear weapon while pursuing a delivery method.
4) Turned our backs on the only real ally we have in the Middle East.
5) Arranged for pre-World War levels of military personnel and equipment.
6) Traded five top tier shitheads for one low level piece of shit traitor.
7) Armed our enemies in Syria, Lebanon, and Libya.
8) Created a new human rights crisis in South Sudan.
9) Gave $227 million to Hamas
10) we could go on and on and on.

The man is the enemy of this state. No one is that retarded or that much of a coward. No one.

[11B10]

In seven years the only things this administration has done militarily are:

1) Lost two wars.
2) Allowed the creation and continuation of ISIS
3) Handed Iran the capability to make a nuclear weapon while pursuing a delivery method.
4) Turned our backs on the only real ally we have in the Middle East.
5) Arranged for pre-World War levels of military personnel and equipment.
6) Traded five top tier shitheads for one low level piece of shit traitor.
7) Armed our enemies in Syria, Lebanon, and Libya.
8) Created a new human rights crisis in South Sudan.
9) Gave $227 million to Hamas
10) we could go on and on and on.

The man is the enemy of this state. No one is that retarded or that much of a coward. No one.


When I read words such as these ^^^, coming from a person so eminently qualified to KNOW, I become enraged. The best country that ever existed - MY country - the country I love - has been allowed to slide so far that it's now dominated by the most self-centered, selfish group of hyporcrites ever born. It's far worse than "me first" - it's me ONLY. Where in God's name is that love of country, the love of your brother, the selfLESS sacrifices, done for the common good - so all may be free? The greatest generation does live on, but only in fits and spurts in 2016. The "United" States are no longer united. Without that unity, it cannot survive.

[Josh Runkle]

In seven years the only things this administration has done militarily are:

1) Lost two wars.
2) Allowed the creation and continuation of ISIS
3) Handed Iran the capability to make a nuclear weapon while pursuing a delivery method.
4) Turned our backs on the only real ally we have in the Middle East.
5) Arranged for pre-World War levels of military personnel and equipment.
6) Traded five top tier shitheads for one low level piece of shit traitor.
7) Armed our enemies in Syria, Lebanon, and Libya.
8) Created a new human rights crisis in South Sudan.
9) Gave $227 million to Hamas
10) we could go on and on and on.

The man is the enemy of this state. No one is that retarded or that much of a coward. No one.

Could not agree more.

[NEPAKevin]

10) we could go on and on and on.

The man is the enemy of this state. No one is that retarded or that much of a coward. No one.

This could be another "game for the ages" thread.

[Odin Bravo One]

You won't start it. Chicken.

[Jeep]

Let me try, then (expanding it to include foreign policy stuff with military overtones):

10) Did everything it could to help the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt as the same time its members were leading mobs to destroy Coptic Christian churches.

11) Names as his best friend among foreign leaders, Turkey's Erdogan, who (a) is busily destroying Turkey's democratic institutions; (b) wants to be Caliph and built himself a Caliph's palace in Ankara; (c) of and on has been ISIS' primary foreign backer; (4) has a son who is the leading smuggler of ISIS oil into Turkey.

12) Drew a "red-line" in Syria that he disavowed once it was crossed, thereby showing himself to be wimp to the rest of the world, which already thought he was an idiot for drawing the line in the first place.

13) Supported a revolution in Libya which predictably left the country in a chaotic mess, and then--when four Americans died because of the mess--participated in the knowing lie that it was caused by a non-existent film by a Coptic film maker. He then had the Copt sent back to jail on a questionable parole violation to make clear to Arab mobs that he would do his best to suppress the free speech of those "who criticize the prophet of Islam."

14) Changed American policy to tilt in Iran's favor (Iran--the country building a bomb) and against the Gulf Arabs, apparently out of peevishness against the Arabs (who now will need to buy bombs from Pakistan to offset the Iranian weapons) because they failed to support Obama's preferred Egyptian leader--Morsi of the Moslem Brotherhood.

15) Pursues a policy in the Department of Defense that has spent tens of billions on phone "green energy" projects (most of which will never pay back their costs), and creating "gender neutral" combat units, but has cut the training budget year after year.

16) Returns salutes from his armed forces guards but can't be bothered to learn how to salute properly.

[TGS]

An answer to equal opportunity currency that everyone can get behind....

7469

[NEPAKevin]

You won't start it. Chicken.

Braaawk!

17)

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1208/tell-obama-vik-battaile-republican-democrat-obama-politics-1346188656.jpg

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Look up my G. W. Bush kissy face picture. What else is new? The Saudis would have had Jeb or Mitt squealing like a pig (oh - oops - bah-ing like a lamb).

As far as an A-10 -
http://youtu.be/XnscJMzQXFs . Watch the fun to fly it.

[PPGMD]

Some in this thread could benefit from history; to be precise, Colonel John Boyd (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FA5UEG/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000FA5UEG&linkCode=as2&tag=ratio07-20&linkId=AN7F2LOPTTUI47Y6).

Boyd got a lot of things right, but he also got some things wrong.

IMO if we stuck too closely to the YF-16's design, the F-16 would've joined the F-5 in the boneyard at Pima a long time ago. As Boyd advocated for a day fighter with no radar or any of the advanced avionics that the USAF added when they missionized the F-16. Which means no PGMs nor radar guided missiles, without the ability to use those it would've been supplanted by the F-15 (an aircraft that didn't end up being the turkey that Boyd thought it would) in CAP roles, and the F-111 in strike roles.


The idea that a single, a single server is used for coordinating the programing for 2500+ billion dollar jets, without backup...isn't disturbing at all. And when the developer says, "We're in development! These kinds of things will be dealt with." It doesn't inspire confidence. Because...that means they didn't intend for there to be redundant backups initially...

Doesn't surprise me, government IT expenditures always seem to be cluster fucks. The government doesn't seem to understand how to really manage these projects and don't allow the people that do know how to manage them to actually be in control.

[msh]

I just finished the Boyd book by Coram not too long ago.

At one point the AF didn't even want guns on their fighters. Somebody looked at the Israeli fighter successes in the Arab wars and not one missile was fired.

They called an Israeli in to ask why and not wanting to get involved in the contention that comes with multi billion dollar acquisition programs, the Israeli replied "Why waste a missile on an Arab".

Good book but a bit hostile to the big AF machine. There's some interesting stuff in there.

[Odin Bravo One]

Speaking the truth is not necessarily being hostile.

I know the college students on the forum ar probably look for a safe place to be insulated from your mind now that you read a book about fighting.......but fuck em.

[will_1400]

So I did a bit of digging on the cost factor. From what I've found, the flyaway cost of a Viper in 1998 was $18.8 Million (which is about $27.5 Million in today's dollars). The A-10's flyaway cost is also listed as $18.8 Million (for sake of argument, I'll bump that up to $27.5 Million as well since no year was given for the Warthog's price tag). So to buy a Viper and a Warthog is something on the order of $55 Million and each aircraft is very good at what they do. Right now, the F-35A costs $98 Million and is projected to get down to $85 Million just in flyaway costs (and I'm very skeptical of those projections). So we're talking about an aircraft with lots of known issues and is nearly twice the combined price of the aircraft it's intended to replace while at the same time not being as good as either aircraft (can't dogfight like an F-16, can't bring the hate like the A-10). Just not seeing how this "wonder fighter" is supposed to replace the two benchmarks of performance in their respective classes (F-16 as a relatively low cost dogfighter than is also a good fighter-bomber and the A-10 which is the king of single-seat ground attack craft).

Time will tell, but I'll remain skeptical until the F-35 has some operational sorties under its belt.

[PPGMD]

So I did a bit of digging on the cost factor. From what I've found, the flyaway cost of a Viper in 1998 was $18.8 Million (which is about $27.5 Million in today's dollars). The A-10's flyaway cost is also listed as $18.8 Million (for sake of argument, I'll bump that up to $27.5 Million as well since no year was given for the Warthog's price tag). So to buy a Viper and a Warthog is something on the order of $55 Million and each aircraft is very good at what they do. Right now, the F-35A costs $98 Million and is projected to get down to $85 Million just in flyaway costs (and I'm very skeptical of those projections). So we're talking about an aircraft with lots of known issues and is nearly twice the combined price of the aircraft it's intended to replace while at the same time not being as good as either aircraft (can't dogfight like an F-16, can't bring the hate like the A-10). Just not seeing how this "wonder fighter" is supposed to replace the two benchmarks of performance in their respective classes (F-16 as a relatively low cost dogfighter than is also a good fighter-bomber and the A-10 which is the king of single-seat ground attack craft).

Time will tell, but I'll remain skeptical until the F-35 has some operational sorties under its belt.

I believe your numbers are WAY off the mark. The new wings alone are about $5M for each A-10 and replacing the engines in 2001 was about $6M each aircraft. So that is $11M out of your $55M without even getting to the really expensive stuff. But there is an example of a fourth generation fighter being made will all the new technology.

The F-15 was a $25M fighter, the latest F-15 to rolls off the assembly line for Korea, the F-15K, were $100M each. All the new technology that we've been adding to the fighters like air to ground data links, targeting pods, et al are expensive. And that doesn't even factor in the cost of restarting the production line for the aircraft.

My estimate of the cost of a new A-10 probably around $70-80 million each, but I doubt USAF is going to just buy a new production A-10, they will likely start an A-X program. And the unit cost will probably be $90-100 million each. I believe it will be that expensive because in addition to other avionics improvements they are probably going to add a radar, so it can use the radar guided mode on the JAGM (the missile that is replacing a whole bunch of AGMs), and it will be a low production aircraft with less than 500 being made.

The rest of your F-35 vs F-16 stuff was been gone over previously so I am not going to repeat it because it annoys the mods.

[El Cid]

So I did a bit of digging on the cost factor. From what I've found, the flyaway cost of a Viper in 1998 was $18.8 Million (which is about $27.5 Million in today's dollars). The A-10's flyaway cost is also listed as $18.8 Million (for sake of argument, I'll bump that up to $27.5 Million as well since no year was given for the Warthog's price tag). So to buy a Viper and a Warthog is something on the order of $55 Million and each aircraft is very good at what they do. Right now, the F-35A costs $98 Million and is projected to get down to $85 Million just in flyaway costs (and I'm very skeptical of those projections). So we're talking about an aircraft with lots of known issues and is nearly twice the combined price of the aircraft it's intended to replace while at the same time not being as good as either aircraft (can't dogfight like an F-16, can't bring the hate like the A-10). Just not seeing how this "wonder fighter" is supposed to replace the two benchmarks of performance in their respective classes (F-16 as a relatively low cost dogfighter than is also a good fighter-bomber and the A-10 which is the king of single-seat ground attack craft).

Time will tell, but I'll remain skeptical until the F-35 has some operational sorties under its belt.


The F-16 does one thing well - dogfighting, which is extremely rare in modern combat. It does everything else they've pressed it to do somewhere between horribly and mediocre. We'd be light years better off buying more F-15E's.

Reading the article that hit today about a competition between the F-35 and A-10 shows the brass is under the misguided idea that precision munitions will somehow help the F-35 win. This proves they don't understand what is needed for a CAS/RESCORT airframe. The pilot needs to be low enough and slow enough to VID good guys and bad guys. To do that requires armor and survivability through redundancy. The F-35 offers none of that, and neither does the F-16. Honestly I think anyone who green lights a single engine combat aircraft for production should have all decision making authority permanently revoked - forever.

ETA: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/air-force-f-35-vs-a-10-showdown/index.html

[TR675]

I don't know much about much, but I do know that trying to make one thing fill more than one role effectively is a recipe for boondoggle stew. And, the brightest minds in our military procurement system have a real taste for boondoggle stew.

The F35 will replace the A10 just like the M14 replaced the grease gun.

[msh]

Speaking the truth is not necessarily being hostile.

I know the college students on the forum ar probably look for a safe place to be insulated from your mind now that you read a book about fighting.......but fuck em.
There wasn't a whole lot of fighting in that book. There was an awful lot on boondoggles and bureaucratic politics.

[Jeep]

The F35 will replace the A10 just like the M14 replaced the grease gun.

Not in tank turrets it didn't. The grease gun stayed in inventory until the 1990's, though it should have been replaced a generation earlier. Despite an effort by a unit at Fort Bragg to turn it into an effective assault weapon, it had a lot of issues. The M4 is far more effective.

The M-14, by contrast, remains in inventory (and if you are mainly shooting at a distance, it can still be an effective weapon). Still your point is correct. One-size-fits-all works no better with weapons than with anything else.

[TR675]

Never mind.

[LittleLebowski]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/808301935728230404


The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.
1,808 replies 3,321 retweets 10,115 likes

[RevolverRob]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/808301935728230404

Ha...I won't hold my breath.

But if Trump is effective in curbing expenditures in plane acquisition and instead getting things refurbed/rehabbed/updated at less cost, I'll be ecstatic to eat my hat.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I hope he looks the LCS and Zumwalt disasters for the navy.

[TGS]

Glenn, I fixed it for you:


I hope he looks the USS Langley disasters for the navy. First US aircraft carrier, basically useless.


I hope he looks the M1895 Lee-Navy disasters for the navy. First bolt action rifle in the Navy/Marines, with its share of problems and a resultant short service life.


I hope he looks the F2A Buffalo disasters for the navy. Ironically the fighter with the highest kill ratio in WW2 due to Finnish use, but overall a "disaster" as the first US Navy monoplane fighter.


I hope he looks the AIM-54 Phoenix disasters for the navy. Horribly unreliable, pushing the envelope for threat engagement beyond the horizon......

Among others.......

Progression doesn't happen without faults. Almost every major milestone in military history was first started through a "disaster", both financially and combat effectiveness wise.

Personally, I find it mildly annoying that everybody criticizes current improvement programs as "disasters," as if 1) They could do better, or 2) They know better. It's pretty easy to be the arm-chair quarterback but not easy to be the engineer, technician, strategist, etc who is trying to make things better.

"Credit is due to the man in the ring"

[GardoneVT]

Glenn, I fixed it for you:

First US aircraft carrier, basically useless.

First bolt action rifle in the Navy/Marines, with its share of problems and a resultant short service life.

Ironically the fighter with the highest kill ratio in WW2 due to Finnish use, but overall a "disaster" as the first US Navy monoplane fighter.

Horribly unreliable, pushing the envelope for threat engagement beyond the horizon......

Among others.......

Progression doesn't happen without faults. Almost every major milestone in military history was first started through a "disaster", both financially and combat effectiveness wise.

Personally, I find it mildly annoying that everybody criticizes current improvement programs as "disasters," as if 1) They could do better, or 2) They know better. It's pretty easy to be the arm-chair quarterback but not easy to be the engineer, technician, strategist, etc who is trying to make things better.

"Credit is due to the man in the ring"

The F-35 is no SR71.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Zumwalt disaster might be fixed by modifying the guns to fire another 155 mm round at half the cost but half the range. Progress is an interesting concept when the programs fail (like the A-12) or end up with much reduced buys (B-2s, F-22s, etc.). The shrinking of the carrier's effective range is another. My view comes from the military press analyses of the shortfalls. For example, the USNI blog has a great piece on the antiship missle programs. I think they know what they are talking about. I think those experts are trying to make things better. The companies, brass and politicians have intertwined financial interests, so I don't take them at face value.

My favorite was the Sgt. York, AA tank. From someone who worked on it - it had a radar that supposedly picked up Doppler shift of helicopter rotors. Never really worked. Supposedly (I just know the guy who worked on it) - on a test run, they had a bunch of brass watching it and a helicopter target was supposed to come over to be shot down. Well, by the Brass they had a Port-a-Potty with a fan on top. The York 'saw' that, tracked its guns across the Brass and blew up the john. Hilarity ensued.

[RevolverRob]

Personally, I find it mildly annoying that everybody criticizes current improvement programs as "disasters," as if 1) They could do better, or 2) They know better. It's pretty easy to be the arm-chair quarterback but not easy to be the engineer, technician, strategist, etc who is trying to make things better.

I've personally found your posts re: F35 mildly annoying, because you're operating under the assumption that those who are critical couldn't do it better. Because the bottom line is, the ones doing the work right now are hard-pressed to do it WORSE than they currently are.

I know I could do it better. I'm not just telling you that, because I am overconfident. It's an interesting logistical challenge and I've never met one I couldn't hang with yet. Given resources and time, I could definitely do it better than those currently in charge. But then given appropriate resources and time, I'm actually quite confident I could do just about anything I put my mind too. The exception being some physical activities that I may never possess the necessary talent to pass...but given enough anabolic steroids and gym time that might change too...

Anyways, my point is, I actually take offense at the thought that I'm not some how qualified to criticize the trillions in tax dollars spent, because I may not be able to do it better. I am certain I could assemble a team of smart fucking people to get it done faster, better, and with less cash spent. But simultaneously, it doesn't matter if I couldn't do it better, because the idiots currently doing it are spending MY MONEY to do it. And that is all of the justification necessary to be critical of the process.

[Lon]

This thread needs more pics:

12338

[NEPAKevin]

http://brrrt.com/a10.jpg
from brrrt.com :)

[Jeep]

My favorite was the Sgt. York, AA tank. From someone who worked on it - it had a radar that supposedly picked up Doppler shift of helicopter rotors. Never really worked. Supposedly (I just know the guy who worked on it) - on a test run, they had a bunch of brass watching it and a helicopter target was supposed to come over to be shot down. Well, by the Brass they had a Port-a-Potty with a fan on top. The York 'saw' that, tracked its guns across the Brass and blew up the john. Hilarity ensued.

Glenn: Here is the problem. For decades the Army has had very little anti-aircraft capability. It has gone from one short-term "fix" to another. Luckily we haven't had to fight any opponents with much in the way of air power since the Korean war, but if we did we'd have severe problems.

The Sgt. York was supposed to be an anti-helicopter fix, and the guns worked fine and had the power to shoot down an armored Hind. Unfortunately, like you say the radar wasn't effective and the program was properly killed. But we still don't have a replacement and one day that might come back to bite us. I don't know what the fix is (perhaps a laser targeting system) and if a new AA system were designed now we'd no doubt use a lighter chassis. But the basic idea behind the Sgt. York was valid even if they couldn't get the technology to work.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I read that the Russian quad 23 mm was effective against the Israelis. The Germans built a twin 35MM Orelikon mobile gun. I think it's gone nuts a couple of times and shot up the area. Once was in South Africa but I might misremember.

[Ed L]

I read that the Russian quad 23 mm was effective against the Israelis. The Germans built a twin 35MM Orelikon mobile gun. I think it's gone nuts a couple of times and shot up the area. Once was in South Africa but I might misremember.

You must be misremembering. The German twin 35mm radar controlled rapid fire cannons was mounted on a leopard 1 tank chasis. It has never been to South Africa.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I was wrong about it being a mobile version. The gun was a towed model that went berserk from a malfunction

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/9-killed-in-army-horror-374838

Some of the stories said there was another accident but weren't clear on that.

[Jeep]

I read that the Russian quad 23 mm was effective against the Israelis. The Germans built a twin 35MM Orelikon mobile gun. I think it's gone nuts a couple of times and shot up the area. Once was in South Africa but I might misremember.

The Soveit ZSU 23-4 was a very effective short-range AA platform. It worked not only against the Israelis but against our planes over North Vietnam and Laos. However, it doesn't have enough range and the radar was primitive.

Modern AA guns have a lot of difficulties to overcome. They need to throw a big enough shell to break what they hit, and they need to be able to throw it at a very fast speed for a long enough distance. In addition, they need to have a rapid cyclical rate. That means a lot of recoil operating very fast, which means any working system is going to be heavy. And, of course, they have to be able to traverse fast, which means you need a very good hydraulic system, which adds more weight and complexity.

Given all that, the design problems are staggering. That is why we have gone to shoulder fired missiles and a variety of stop-gap measures, but none of those really do the full job.

Designing a working tank or IFV is a staggering task. Designing a moveable and useful AA platform is an order of magnitude or two more difficult, and we might not be able to develop one unless we perfect lasers or something like that. Lasers have the big advantage of hitting instantaneously, which eliminates one very big set of problems (and have the disadvantage of how to deal with the intervening air, not to mention the energy and storage issues).

[rayrevolver]

The Soveit ZSU 23-4 was a very effective short-range AA platform. It worked not only against the Israelis but against our planes over North Vietnam and Laos. However, it doesn't have enough range and the radar was primitive.

A ZSU 23-4 shot down my dad in Vietnam. Yeah he was on our side, ya jerks!:cool:

I need to come back and read the whole thread and catch up. No I am not on F-35 but have been on a few "successful" ACAT 1D programs. I use quotes because they all ran long and went over budget.

Hey man, this aint your pappies Cadillac car!

[Jeep]

What was your father flying?

[rayrevolver]

What was your father flying?

F-4B. Martin Baker was kind enough to give him a pin and certificate! He was actually in VMFA-542 in 1966. I am glad I did a search, I found a digital version of his cruise book which I haven't seen since I was a kid.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/F-4B_VMFA-542_DaNang_1966.jpg

[Lon]

Badass:

12398

[rayrevolver]

I went through the first 11 pages and really enjoyed the discussion. I have written about 4 different posts and erased them all. Gonna keep my trap shut.

Possibly 2 A-10 related things you might not have heard about:

1) A-10 lost in flight test. Was actually gonna write a quick story but I found a short description online. Man, everything is on the internet these days!

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/A-10/Gideon/Gideon_A_10.htm

2) A-10B N/AW. When I first saw this I assumed it was a trainer of some sort... wrong!

http://aviationintel.com/it-could-have-been-the-a-10b-naw/

[Drang]

Instapundit » Blog Archive » A-10 WARTHOG UPGRADES FOR COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE MISSIONS: A short but informative article. … (https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/a-10-warthog-upgrades-for-combat-search-and-rescue-missions-a-short-but-informative-article/)

Insty,of course, primarily posts links to other people's longer stuff: A-10 looks like it's here to stay after Air Force upgrades - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/a10-air-force-upgrade-2017-1)

In another positive sign for the beloved A-10, Air Force maintainers at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona have outfitted the Warthog with an upgrade for combat search and rescue missions, or CSAR.

Dubbed the lightweight airborne recovery system, the upgrade helps A-10 pilots "communicate more effectively with individuals on the ground such as downed pilots, pararescuemen, and joint terminal attack controllers," according to an Air Force statement.

Of all the fixed-wing aircraft in the US Air Force's inventory, no plane carries out CSAR missions like the A-10.

CSAR missions jump off with little warning and often involve going deep into enemy territory, so becoming certified to perform CSAR missions takes tons of training, which only A-10 pilots undergo.
Interestingly, according to the graphic accompanying this article the Warthog's call sign in this role is Sandy, which some of us old timers will remember was the call sign assigned to A1 Skyraiders in Nam.

(Here's lengthy background article by, I think, Jim Dunnigan, link also found at Instapundit: Leadership: Can Popularity Save The A-10? (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/20160331.aspx))

[rayrevolver]

Since this is the A-10, JSF, F-4 thread...

http://defensetech.org/2016/12/23/watch-f-4-phantom-bids-fond-farewell-final-flight/

[Trigger]

Hmmm. Having difficulty saying nothing in this thread.

I will say PPGMD's cost estimates are pretty good.

[minengr]

FWIW, the plant I work at manufactures ammo for the A-10. I've personally had a hand in making many projectiles. The HEI rounds are impressive in every way imaginable.

[Drang]

Spotted at Small Wars Journal (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/watch-grunts-in-the-sky) (which is back after an apparent hiatus, November-December.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCvySLGuOA

[revchuck38]

As a retired doggie who was aggressed by them in Germany in the late 70s and helped by them in AF 25 years later, I've always had a soft spot for them. Great video!

[rayrevolver]

"The Air Force Is Re-Winging A-10s After All"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a15914932/the-air-force-is-re-winging-a-10s-after-all/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But some folks say this is just an attrition plan to get rid of them: https://taskandpurpose.com/plot-against-a-10-warthog/

[rayrevolver]

I figured I would post in here since this seemed like our catch-all aviation thread.

Saw this and didn't know what the hell it was. I couldn't quite read the N number yesterday but figured it out this morning.

https://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/10/scaled_composites_model401_2.jpg

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19935/exclusive-images-unmask-name-of-scaled-composites-mysterious-model-401-son-of-ares-jet

[OlongJohnson]

Is it really stealthy? Has someone independently pointed a radar at it?

[Borderland]

I figured I would post in here since this seemed like our catch-all aviation thread.

Saw this and didn't know what the hell it was. I couldn't quite read the N number yesterday but figured it out this morning.

https://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/10/scaled_composites_model401_2.jpg

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19935/exclusive-images-unmask-name-of-scaled-composites-mysterious-model-401-son-of-ares-jet

Beechcraft Bonanza?

[RJ]

Is it really stealthy? Has someone independently pointed a radar at it?

Hard to say. Radar Cross Section is affected by quite a few factors (surface design, orientation, material, etc etc).

One suspect RCS data would be unlikely to be found in the open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drang]

The A-10 Warthog Lives To Fly Again (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28786906/a-10-new-wings/)

The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing a contract to manufacture new wings for the A-10 Warthog. The jets, most of which date back to the 1980s, were in danger of being permanently grounded unless their aging wings were replaced. The new contract means the service’s entire fleet of 281 ground attack jets will get new wings, allowing them to fly through the 2030s.

...

In August, the USAF announced it had completed rewinging 173 A-10 of the 281 A-10s in service with the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. The effort, launched in 2011, had Boeing manufacturing new wing sets for A-10, sets that were then installed by A-10 maintainers at the Ogden Air Logistics Complex in Utah and Osan Air Base in South Korea.

The new wings are good for an additional 10,000 hours of flying, but only six of nine A-10 squadrons got them. That left open the possibility the Air Force could retire the remaining 108 jets or so. The Air Force has tried to replace the A-10 for decades, but each time the jet’s supporters in Congress and the other armed services rally to keep the planes flying.

[MistWolf]

They've also just started a new program to beef up the A-10 fuselage

[Drang]

Ditching the A10 seems kind of like finding a replacement for the M16 or the Abrams: Yes, there is better technology, but how much would it cost, how long would it take, and how much of an improvement are we buying for how much money? The Warthog may not be an ideal CAS platform for what in my day we used to call "Low Intensity Conflict", but it was designed with a peer- or near-peer full on war in mind, and since suddenly people have rediscovered the possibility of a near-peer conflict...

[Drang]

Strategy page: Morale: The Customer Is Definitely Right (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20190901.aspx)

September 1, 2019: Twelve years after the U.S. Air Force decided to spend about $8 million per aircraft to repair and reinforce the wings on 252 A-10 “Warthog” ground attack aircraft, work was finally completed, in mid-2019, for the first 173 aircraft. The air force has issued a contract to have the remaining aircraft get the new wings. The wing replacement was part of series of refurbishment and upgrade programs designed to keep the A-10s flying for another twenty years or, as an air force official recently admitted; “indefinitely.” This is another sign of how much the air force attitudes towards the A-10 have changed. Not only that but in 2007 the feeling was that the A-10 may well be the last manned American ground attack aircraft, and the entire fleet was to be upgraded with new electronics, to make the aircraft as effective as possible until the unmanned replacements arrived. But before this 2007 decision could be implemented, factions in the air force leadership sought to once more get rid of the A-10. The main reason for the 2007 refurbishment decision was the fact that the A-10 was the most heavily used ground support aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the most popular with the troops doing the fighting. It still is. The 2007 refurb plan got delayed by a decade of air force efforts kill the A-10 rather than fix its wings and keep it flying. Most air force leaders recognized that getting rid of the A-10 would not only anger and disappoint many of their army colleagues, but also the A-10 pilots and ground crews as well as the thousands of air force ground controllers who saw the success of the A-10 up close.

In late 2016 the senior leadership of the U.S. Air Force finally agreed that the A-10 was actually worth keeping. The air force leadership had learned that the A-10 was more than just a popular and effective ground support aircraft. Reserve squadrons revealed that they had quietly developed additional uses that were popular with all combat pilots. With A-10 off death row a lot of uses that had been kept quiet were now not only out in the open but getting more financial support. Chief among these is CSAR (Combat Search and Rescue). To that end the air force has, so far, equipped 19 A-10Cs with the LARS V-12 emergency radio signal locator. All American warplanes are equipped with an emergency radio that pilots carry and when they eject and are on the ground this handheld radio broadcasts a special signal. Rescue aircraft (usually air force CSAR helicopters) have LARS and the latest (V-12) version quickly tells the LARS user what direction the signal is coming from and how far away it is. Even before the 2016 decision to stop trying to retire A-10s there were plans to equip a lot (perhaps all) A-10s with LARS.

The air force leadership, during the decades they were dedicated to retiring the A-10, did not like to discuss the usefulness of A-10s in CSAR missions. Yet this was a very popular use of the A-10 because when a pilot had to eject and was on the ground, they quickly learned that if you had the enemy nearby looking for you, what you wanted to see first was not a rescue helicopter, but a heavily armed and armored low-flying “hog” that would make sure the rescue chopper and the downed pilots were not hurt. The A-10s regularly came in low and slow seeking out enemy troops and was, unlike most aircraft, designed and armored to deal with a lot of enemy fire and keep fighting.

[Andy in NH]

Long live the A-10!

The A-10 Warthog Will Fly Into the 2040s (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32212953/a-10-warthog-2040/)


The U.S. Air Force has decided to keep the A-10 “Warthog” close air support jet in service until 2040. The jet, designed to dominate Cold War battlefields, will still be flying 50 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s the good news. The bad news? The service is downgrading the jet’s mission, from one flying over tank columns on the ground to bombing bandits and insurgents in lightly defended airspace.

[Trigger]

That’s because the Hog would not last very long in contested airspace. But it is handy to have around for low-intensity conflicts. And the cost to keep it is lower than the cost to replace it.

[El Cid]

That’s because the Hog would not last very long in contested airspace. But it is handy to have around for low-intensity conflicts. And the cost to keep it is lower than the cost to replace it.

What’s your definition of contested? It’s certainly more robust and survivable than anything we have when it comes to taking hits. And it was never intended or designed to fly alone into an integrated air defense. That’s why we have other platforms responsible for SEAD/DEAD, CAP, etc.

[Joe in PNG]

Ditching the A10 seems kind of like finding a replacement for the M16 or the Abrams: Yes, there is better technology, but how much would it cost, how long would it take, and how much of an improvement are we buying for how much money? The Warthog may not be an ideal CAS platform for what in my day we used to call "Low Intensity Conflict", but it was designed with a peer- or near-peer full on war in mind, and since suddenly people have rediscovered the possibility of a near-peer conflict...

The BUFF also comes to mind.

[El Cid]

The BUFF also comes to mind.

There are pilots now flying the same B-52 their grandfathers flew. As in the exact same plane/tail number. Lol!

[Trigger]

What’s your definition of contested? It’s certainly more robust and survivable than anything we have when it comes to taking hits. And it was never intended or designed to fly alone into an integrated air defense. That’s why we have other platforms responsible for SEAD/DEAD, CAP, etc.

The common discussion when I left the headquarters was the threat environment could be broadly divided into three levels: permissive, contested, and highly contested. Permissive allowed air operations with very little opposition, and our air assets could operate as desired. Contested meant considerable enemy action to prevent/contest our conduct of air operations. 4th generation aircraft could operate and conduct missions, but they would be resisted by a potentially robust 3rd/4th generation enemy Air Force and IADS. We would have to fight for air superiority and air dominance. A highly contested environment represents a peer/near-peer threat with a large modern Air Force and a robust highly integrated modern IADS with the latest sensors, data links and weapons. 4th generation aircraft cannot survive in this arena, and even 5th gen aircraft are challenged to survive and employ. The goal is to knock back a highly contested environment to a lower level, allowing us to bring more of our legacy resources and capabilities to bear. We do not have enough 5th gen capability to sustain a highly contested battle over time, but if we can knock the enemy back to a contested environment, then we are much better positioned to prevail. Kick in the door, knock back the IADS, defeat them in detail.

The A-10 cannot survive long in even a contested environment. But the hope is we will not have to do CAS in a contested threat arena for long, that we will be able to knock it back to permissive, if only in certain parts of the AO. High-threat CAS is a very difficult task, requiring lot of moving parts to work correctly. The more we can push the threat back, the better we can support the ground commander.

[TOTS]

Reading the article that hit today about a competition between the F-35 and A-10 shows the brass is under the misguided idea that precision munitions will somehow help the F-35 win. This proves they don't understand what is needed for a CAS/RESCORT airframe. The pilot needs to be low enough and slow enough to VID good guys and bad guys. To do that requires armor and survivability through redundancy. The F-35 offers none of that, and neither does the F-16. Honestly I think anyone who green lights a single engine combat aircraft for production should have all decision making authority permanently revoked - forever.

ETA: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/air-force-f-35-vs-a-10-showdown/index.html

So I read the first 11 pages and ended up with a million thoughts. I’m not one to get my blood boiling over internet arguments, especially when I check the date and realize I’m 4 years late. PPGMD makes good points for the advancement in technology and the capabilities of the 35s.

A couple of insights though:
Firstly I contend with PPPGMDs remark that CAS has evolved. The fundamentals will be the same as long as troops get in contact. The technology does evolve. However new munitions don’t change the fact that sometimes simpler is better. An example; Air to ground gunfire won’t have the standoff issues GBUs will. The GAU-8 makes a great weapon against area targets that don’t warrant HE. Eg; relay towers on hilltops in Afghanistan. Try getting an FSC to authorize a $$$ munition to destroy a $10 target.

I liken CAS to what Chuck Pressburg and Dagga Boy use to describe snubbies; ‘get off me-guns or get away from a fight-guns’(apologies to either if I’m putting words in their mouths). Thus, the “close” in ‘close air support’. You need a front row seat for the SA required when you are delivering fires to support troops in contact or providing supporting fires. That’s why you have the qualifications of FAC/JTAC; to have eyes-on while arty or other platforms are delivering munitions. Even the PGMs being discussed are going to be the result of a ‘control’ called in from the ground (or air via FAC/A) or target designated from the ground.

The A-10 provides more roles than just CAS. As bolded above, RESCORT is something I have had first hand experience with. I have had both A-10s and F-15s provide detached escort (though not with F-35s- I contend the 15s have complementary capabilities/ limitations). While not true attached escorts, the A-10s can be hybridized into a very similar fashion.

Finally, in summary, CAS/ rescort/ scar/ etc is best served via rotary wing assets - fight me! The farther away from helos you get, the less suited for the role a platform is. Due to its design, the A-10 is just better in this area than other jets. In ways that technology can’t make up for.

[El Cid]

The common discussion when I left the headquarters was the threat environment could be broadly divided into three levels: permissive, contested, and highly contested. Permissive allowed air operations with very little opposition, and our air assets could operate as desired. Contested meant considerable enemy action to prevent/contest our conduct of air operations. 4th generation aircraft could operate and conduct missions, but they would be resisted by a potentially robust 3rd/4th generation enemy Air Force and IADS. We would have to fight for air superiority and air dominance. A highly contested environment represents a peer/near-peer threat with a large modern Air Force and a robust highly integrated modern IADS with the latest sensors, data links and weapons. 4th generation aircraft cannot survive in this arena, and even 5th gen aircraft are challenged to survive and employ. The goal is to knock back a highly contested environment to a lower level, allowing us to bring more of our legacy resources and capabilities to bear. We do not have enough 5th gen capability to sustain a highly contested battle over time, but if we can knock the enemy back to a contested environment, then we are much better positioned to prevail. Kick in the door, knock back the IADS, defeat them in detail.

The A-10 cannot survive long in even a contested environment. But the hope is we will not have to do CAS in a contested threat arena for long, that we will be able to knock it back to permissive, if only in certain parts of the AO. High-threat CAS is a very difficult task, requiring lot of moving parts to work correctly. The more we can push the threat back, the better we can support the ground commander.

Makes sense. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I was at ACC/DOTO but I was in the Rescue section and it was also 19+ years ago. If I understand what you wrote, all our F-15’s and F-16’s as well as Navy Hornets would have the same or similar troubles the A-10 does then. Or has the AF upgraded their black boxes while ignoring the A-10’s?

When I was still in we had different levels of a CSARTF that we would tailor to the threat. As you know in OEF and OIF we didn’t need much extra protection. But against a more modern enemy we will, and let’s face it... if we can’t protect the A-10’s to let them do their job, we likely can’t protect the helos or Ospreys to make the pickup either.

My chief gripe has always been that no matter how good the crews are in F15E’s, 16’s, 35’s, etc they don’t have the view of the ground, the TOS, or payload the A10 does. I remember some of the Aviano 16 squadrons were getting Sandy certified and while that’s better than a non-Sandy crew we always preferred the A10 when it was an option.

And I agree to a point with what TOTS said about helos for RESCORT. We were testing that with Apaches during JREX98 (really dating myself there!) and they did well. OPFOR had a more difficult time finding the survivor because the rescue force was less highlighted than with fixed wing assets. But the escort helos take longer to get overhead. The A-10’s can race ahead of the HH-60’s to locate, authenticate, and protect the survivor while the helos are en route. They can also put eyes on scene in case we want to jump PJ’s in from the HC-130’s.

I do get it - technology advances for us and the enemy. And I’ve been out of the game for well over a decade. But I still cringe when I hear people say the A-10 can be replaced by a fast mover. And I know the Air Staff is likely still not willing to give the technological upgrades to the A-10 it needs and deserves. They’ve been trying to get rid of it since I was in middle school.

Thanks for your service and keep fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.

[TOTS]

I agree to everything you posted and to the information you quoted. To expand a little; I question the doctrinal validity of conducting CAS at all in highly contested AOs. We have just begun a drift into a discussion of DAS (deep air support) and Air Superiority to “prep the battlespace”. That’s what the Airforce does. Before everyone starts yelling that the AF runs CAS missions, allow me to stipulate I know they do and offer the context of an aviation perspective and not that of embedded JTACs, etc. And further, I’m comparing the role to the role of Marine aviation which revolves around the Infantry. So, primarily, CAS is what the Marines/ Army AH/UH units do (at the risk of oversimplifying the branches; I’m fully aware that Marine and Navy FW have mission sets that overlap with the AF)

El Cid
As to the Apaches, they are primarily anti-armor. But I’m sure they would work as escorts. A package of little birds and gunned-up 60s makes a very effective escort using Army RW. I’m partial to a Huey/ Cobra package myself!!!

What you were describing is the benefit of using FW as detached escorts. Which they are effective at. They move too fast to serve as attached escorts which travel along the route as part of the Assault Package. Thus, helos, which can be used in either fashion.

[El Cid]

I agree to everything you posted and to the information you quoted. To expand a little; I question the doctrinal validity of conducting CAS at all in highly contested AOs. We have just begun a drift into a discussion of DAS (deep air support) and Air Superiority to “prep the battlespace”. That’s what the Airforce does. Before everyone starts yelling that the AF runs CAS missions, allow me to stipulate I know they do and offer the context of an aviation perspective and not that of embedded JTACs, etc. And further, I’m comparing the role to the role of Marine aviation which revolves around the Infantry. So, primarily, CAS is what the Marines/ Army AH/UH units do (at the risk of oversimplifying the branches; I’m fully aware that Marine and Navy FW have mission sets that overlap with the AF)

El Cid
As to the Apaches, they are primarily anti-armor. But I’m sure they would work as escorts. A package of little birds and gunned-up 60s makes a very effective escort using Army RW. I’m partial to a Huey/ Cobra package myself!!!

What you were describing is the benefit of using FW as detached escorts. Which they are effective at. They move too fast to serve as attached escorts which travel along the route as part of the Assault Package. Thus, helos, which can be used in either fashion.

Yessir. Little Birds are my favorite helos, but I’m not sure they have the legs for many of the missions that we ask of the HH-60’s. There is also the component issue. Little Birds and DAP’s belong to the CFSOCC. According to the doctrine when I was in, each component was responsible for recovery of its own assets. If they couldn’t do that or needed help from another component, then the C2 of the mission rolled up to the JSRC which is where I worked. We would work to draft whatever we needed to protect the survivor and conduct the recovery. If that means Marine Cobras, RAF Tornados, or B-52’s we try to source it. Hell one night we re-rolled a B-1 full of JDAM’s to protect our folks. Weather was zero vis and there was nothing else around.

As far as detached vs attached escort those weren’t the terms we used when I was on active duty. At least not in the Personnel Recovery business. And DAS? Is that what we used to call Interdiction? Strike Eagles on deep strike missions? But like I said - I’ve been away from that world for a long time. Some days I miss it. A lot.

[Trigger]

Thank you gents for a good discussion!

I was in ACC/DOTO from 02-04 as the F-16 FAM, ACC Safety as the fighter guy from 10-13, and later in ACC/A589/GPA from 14-16 as the Fighter and Weapons FAM (Contractor). Now I’m an airline guy. I was an F-16 pilot my whole career, including roles as a FAC/A, FAC/A Instructor and instructed at one point or another on all the missions the F-16 employs. A couple tours overseas, some combat time, and lots of TDYs for training thrown in. That said, things have evolved, so my information is a few years dated.

CAS by definition means weapons employment in close proximity to friendly forces, and requires detailed integration into the ground commander’s operations. Is does not mean to be platform specific. This was written so that a FAC is a FAC is a FAC: an Air Force FAC has the same qualifications as a Marine FAC or a Navy FAC, and all should be able to control, coordinate air assets and weapons to support the ground commander. J-Fire Manuals, JP3-09.3 and 9-Lines were all built to support this. The FAC/A is the airborne traffic cop organizing and controlling employment. CAS fighters are there as flying bomb trucks. Two different roles.

CAS does not mean I can look up and see fighters overhead. CAS focuses on weapons effects, and tries to be platform agnostic. This is how we have non-traditional CAS platforms (B-52s, B-1s, MQ-9s, Harvest Hawks, Ospreys) doing CAS. JTACs are cheating when they request 30mm gun as the weapon, because it means they only want A-10s overhead.

Now a majority of CAS is visually based, and serially executed: I do 9-line, I see target (eyeball or targeting pod), I bomb target. Takes a while to do a lot of killing. Wash/rinse/repeat. Let’s leave JAAT and buddy-lasing for another discussion. Now imagine if I could do CAS with a sensor/weapon capability analogous to the Longbow Apache: I see multiple targets with my advanced sensor suite, I zap that data to the JTAC graphically, he/she comments/highlights/concurs and zaps the data+9line back to me. I subdivide the targets and zap half to my wingman. Then my airplane recognizes the targets in the 9-line and automatically allocates some of my weapons to those targets. My wingman and I are immediately ready to employ, and call “In from the south” looking for clearance to release. Much faster to employ, and multiple targets are killed on a single pass/single 9-line. I call this parallel CAS.

The disadvantage of the A-10 is it is stuck doing serial CAS. It does not have the sensors or datalink to do parallel CAS. Guess which airplane does? F-35. Why go below the weather if my sensors can see through it? Why get low to the target/in the enemy MEZ if I can stay high/offset and use my sensor suite to see things my eyeballs can’t? The F-35 actually makes a pretty good FAC platform in concept. It has great sensors, great datalink, great SA, and great endurance. Loaded out with external weapons stations, it can actually carry a shitload of ordnance. But I would not expect the F-35s to be CAS fighters. SEAD, yes. SAT, yes. FAC/A, maybe.

Sandy RESCORT? Yes the A-10 is a much better platform. No argument. But in a contested or highly contested environment, I would argue that you won’t see a lot of CSAR. Tell the downed pilot to bring a box lunch, he/she is going to be there a while. I can’t do CSAR in a modern SAM MEZ. So gimme some time to fix that first, and then I’ll get back with you about pickup.

“The A-10’s can race ahead of the HH-60’s“. Heh. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an A-10 race anywhere. That is one of their drawbacks, when the A-10s are here, and the troops in contact call for CAS is 250 miles over there, the Hogs take twice as long to get there as other jets. (Light Attack planes are even worse)

Oh, and I agree that we need inexpensive and accurate CAS weapons. Killing $10000 Hiluxes with $250k weapons makes no sense. The Guns on the Hog is awesome not just for its capability and effects, but also for its cost. A full load of gun costs $30k. A Hog can kill a shitload of targets for $30k.

[JTQ]

JTACs are cheating when they request 30mm gun as the weapon, because it means they only want A-10s overhead.

Also a common "game" played between the warfighter and the force provider.

[LittleLebowski]

As a matter of fact CID, I am a JTAC. 16 years worth. Called in 450,000 lbs one day in early 2002. That was just one day as a young JTAC. Since the. I've been to Iraq four times, Afghanistan three times, Somalia in 93-94, and again as a JTAC in 2012. Even went to Libya in 2011 where one of my jobs was...... You guessed it. JTAC. I'm also currently at a location in the Middle East, which I will not divulge for hopefully obvious reasons. (Also why I have so much time to post recently....only so many weights you can lift in a day).

Apparently when j said I had "talked to more CAS platforms than most" others read that as "called CAS occasionally".

I still love this post :)

[El Cid]

Thank you gents for a good discussion!

I was in ACC/DOTO from 02-04 as the F-16 FAM, ACC Safety as the fighter guy from 10-13, and later in ACC/A589/GPA from 14-16 as the Fighter and Weapons FAM (Contractor). Now I’m an airline guy. I was an F-16 pilot my whole career, including roles as a FAC/A, FAC/A Instructor and instructed at one point or another on all the missions the F-16 employs. A couple tours overseas, some combat time, and lots of TDYs for training thrown in. That said, things have evolved, so my information is a few years dated.

CAS by definition means weapons employment in close proximity to friendly forces, and requires detailed integration into the ground commander’s operations. Is does not mean to be platform specific. This was written so that a FAC is a FAC is a FAC: an Air Force FAC has the same qualifications as a Marine FAC or a Navy FAC, and all should be able to control, coordinate air assets and weapons to support the ground commander. J-Fire Manuals, JP3-09.3 and 9-Lines were all built to support this. The FAC/A is the airborne traffic cop organizing and controlling employment. CAS fighters are there as flying bomb trucks. Two different roles.

CAS does not mean I can look up and see fighters overhead. CAS focuses on weapons effects, and tries to be platform agnostic. This is how we have non-traditional CAS platforms (B-52s, B-1s, MQ-9s, Harvest Hawks, Ospreys) doing CAS. JTACs are cheating when they request 30mm gun as the weapon, because it means they only want A-10s overhead.

Now a majority of CAS is visually based, and serially executed: I do 9-line, I see target (eyeball or targeting pod), I bomb target. Takes a while to do a lot of killing. Wash/rinse/repeat. Let’s leave JAAT and buddy-lasing for another discussion. Now imagine if I could do CAS with a sensor/weapon capability analogous to the Longbow Apache: I see multiple targets with my advanced sensor suite, I zap that data to the JTAC graphically, he/she comments/highlights/concurs and zaps the data+9line back to me. I subdivide the targets and zap half to my wingman. Then my airplane recognizes the targets in the 9-line and automatically allocates some of my weapons to those targets. My wingman and I are immediately ready to employ, and call “In from the south” looking for clearance to release. Much faster to employ, and multiple targets are killed on a single pass/single 9-line. I call this parallel CAS.

The disadvantage of the A-10 is it is stuck doing serial CAS. It does not have the sensors or datalink to do parallel CAS. Guess which airplane does? F-35. Why go below the weather if my sensors can see through it? Why get low to the target/in the enemy MEZ if I can stay high/offset and use my sensor suite to see things my eyeballs can’t? The F-35 actually makes a pretty good FAC platform in concept. It has great sensors, great datalink, great SA, and great endurance. Loaded out with external weapons stations, it can actually carry a shitload of ordnance. But I would not expect the F-35s to be CAS fighters. SEAD, yes. SAT, yes. FAC/A, maybe.

Sandy RESCORT? Yes the A-10 is a much better platform. No argument. But in a contested or highly contested environment, I would argue that you won’t see a lot of CSAR. Tell the downed pilot to bring a box lunch, he/she is going to be there a while. I can’t do CSAR in a modern SAM MEZ. So gimme some time to fix that first, and then I’ll get back with you about pickup.

“The A-10’s can race ahead of the HH-60’s“. Heh. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an A-10 race anywhere. That is one of their drawbacks, when the A-10s are here, and the troops in contact call for CAS is 250 miles over there, the Hogs take twice as long to get there as other jets. (Light Attack planes are even worse)

Oh, and I agree that we need inexpensive and accurate CAS weapons. Killing $10000 Hiluxes with $250k weapons makes no sense. The Guns on the Hog is awesome not just for its capability and effects, but also for its cost. A full load of gun costs $30k. A Hog can kill a shitload of targets for $30k.

Very cool! Do they still do the Friday afternoon Jeremiah Weed craziness? lol! I left there in 2001 for a deployment to the CAOC/JSRC. Originally OSW, but then we rolled into OEF. We helped move the CAOC from a 5 fold tent at Eskan Village to the giant modern facility at PSAB (that is now long gone).

The new systems you explained sound amazing! And I really hope they do what they are advertised to do. I genuinely mean that. But it made me think about our military as we entered Vietnam and had fighters relying on missiles only because dog fights and aerial gunnery were a thing of the past. My concern would be what happens if the systems fail? Or they get jammed / hacked by a more advanced foe? Do we then tell the folks on the ground good luck because the F-35's can't do what the A-10 can?

Thanks for your explanation of serial CAS vs. Parallel CAS. The idea that we are coming up with ways to schwack multiple bad guys at once makes me warm and fuzzy! lol! And the things I've seen open source about using B-1's as bomb trucks to be designated by 5th gen fighters makes me giggle sometimes. But even that requires we achieve air superiority or possibly air dominance before letting the "bomb trucks" orbit overhead to be tasked.

And while I don't want to get into TTPs or things that should not be shared on an open forum... I wonder if all 4th Gen fighters have those updated sensors and links you mention? And if so, why was the A-10 not upgraded with them? Much of that is rhetorical since it was well above my pay grade and I'm presuming yours as well. The bottom line is I fully support new tech and better ways to defeat our adversary whether they get around in a pickup truck or a Su-35. But I don't think we should sacrifice the capability of putting a Mk1 eyeball over the trees to kill bad guys the way we know will work every time.

[Trigger]

Very cool! Do they still do the Friday afternoon Jeremiah Weed craziness? lol! I left there in 2001 for a deployment to the CAOC/JSRC. Originally OSW, but then we rolled into OEF. We helped move the CAOC from a 5 fold tent at Eskan Village to the giant modern facility at PSAB (that is now long gone).

The new systems you explained sound amazing! And I really hope they do what they are advertised to do. I genuinely mean that. But it made me think about our military as we entered Vietnam and had fighters relying on missiles only because dog fights and aerial gunnery were a thing of the past. My concern would be what happens if the systems fail? Or they get jammed / hacked by a more advanced foe? Do we then tell the folks on the ground good luck because the F-35's can't do what the A-10 can?

Thanks for your explanation of serial CAS vs. Parallel CAS. The idea that we are coming up with ways to schwack multiple bad guys at once makes me warm and fuzzy! lol! And the things I've seen open source about using B-1's as bomb trucks to be designated by 5th gen fighters makes me giggle sometimes. But even that requires we achieve air superiority or possibly air dominance before letting the "bomb trucks" orbit overhead to be tasked.

And while I don't want to get into TTPs or things that should not be shared on an open forum... I wonder if all 4th Gen fighters have those updated sensors and links you mention? And if so, why was the A-10 not upgraded with them? Much of that is rhetorical since it was well above my pay grade and I'm presuming yours as well. The bottom line is I fully support new tech and better ways to defeat our adversary whether they get around in a pickup truck or a Su-35. But I don't think we should sacrifice the capability of putting a Mk1 eyeball over the trees to kill bad guys the way we know will work every time.

Yeah, we did Friday lunch at the ‘Hawk until it closed in 04. Still do Jalapeño popcorn during the day, and a little Weed (Devil’s Urine) on Fridays. More or less the same as most fighter squadrons. Yes newer systems have vulnerabilities, and we work to identify and minimize/close them. Datalink is a wonderful force multiplier, as long as the enemy does not take it away. Adding datalink (beyond the current SADL/EPLRS) to the A-10 is possible, but costs money. The capability I described with parallel CAS takes more than datalink, it requires integration into avionics and weapons, an integrated tablet for the JTAC, data security for the links, etc... It would cost too much to upgrade a legacy Hog, Viper, Mudhen, etc... A new Viper would cost $70M+. The F-35 is ~$85M. It just does not justify the cost.

[El Cid]

Yeah, we did Friday lunch at the ‘Hawk until it closed in 04. Still do Jalapeño popcorn during the day, and a little Weed (Devil’s Urine) on Fridays. More or less the same as most fighter squadrons. Yes newer systems have vulnerabilities, and we work to identify and minimize/close them. Datalink is a wonderful force multiplier, as long as the enemy does not take it away. Adding datalink (beyond the current SADL/EPLRS) to the A-10 is possible, but costs money. The capability I described with parallel CAS takes more than datalink, it requires integration into avionics and weapons, an integrated tablet for the JTAC, data security for the links, etc... It would cost too much to upgrade a legacy Hog, Viper, Mudhen, etc... A new Viper would cost $70M+. The F-35 is ~$85M. It just does not justify the cost.

Makes sense. Thanks!

[TOTS]

Triggerf16
Your long post was very well explained re differences bt the platforms. I almost threw up in my mouth a little when you mentioned the “dot-3” and other joint pubs...Marines shouldn’t be responsible for that much information! But I did walk out to my garage and look in the old helmet bag to flip through my J-Fires manual. It is pretty incredible that we can speak the same language over different branches with experiences years apart. Your discussion wasn’t dated at all; specifically, the discussion of serial vs parallel CAS and its immediate relevance; our upgrade AH/UH platforms are very much focusing on digital interoperability to quicken the kill chain. Some of your points, I couldn’t decide if you were agreeing with me or not. I will say, though, that A-10s definitely race ahead when you’re doing 120 kits in a helicopter!!

LittleLebowski
I actually laughed way louder than I should have in public when I read Giving Back s post. It was definitely a strong post!! I can attest to his amount of controls if he was in Libya in 11. I was in E Africa coordinating with our MEU who’s Harriers dropped more ordnance in that one engagement than in the previous 10 years combined. It was ridiculous.

Giving Back
Re your deployment to Somalia in 12...I was with SOCCE a little ways N of you during that same time period. I wish we could swap some stories....I definitely have some questions that were left unanswered!

[Andy in NH]

According to Mark Felton, top German ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel "consulted in the development of the American A-10 Thunderbolt tank busting aircraft" (8:33 (https://youtu.be/zZHCvPim0eA?t=513)).


https://youtu.be/zZHCvPim0eA

[Andy in NH]

Long live the A-10!


Lawmakers Just Saved Dozens of A-10 Warthogs from the Boneyard

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/12/09/lawmakers-just-saved-dozens-of-10-warthogs-boneyard.html?ESRC=eb_201210.nl

[rdtompki]

Ancient History - 40 years ago or so I spent time at Edwards troubleshooting our equipment on a 2-seat A-10 that was equipped with a raster head-up display and Westinghouse radar providing terrain following capability. Fairchild was trying to sell this configuration to Saudi Arabia, but never succeeded in doing so. We provided the updated HUD and simple fire control; that Gau-8 gatling gun could really reach out and touch the bad guys. If you're in the avionics business as a relative youngster there is nothing like crawling around military aircraft, think A-10, F-14, A-6, F-15, F-18, F-22, F-117, B-2, and XXX.

[Andy in NH]

68376

[Balisong]

68376

This thread always fuggin delivers. Still my favorite plane.

[314159]

Rudel's influence on the A-10 is wildly exagerated. Mark Felton is fun but he rarely goes too deep on his research.

Apparently, Pierre Sprey (onetime Fighter Mafia blowhard, non-pilot, non-engineer, non-military buddy of Col. Boyd and lastly a record producer of all things) recommended that everyone involved on the A-X program read Rudel's book. That's it as far as I could find on his influence.

Rather than repeat an earlier rant of mine in its entirety: suffice to say the autobiography on an unrepentant Nazi who literally put in his unverified combat claims for medals, profit, and Nazi glory is a bad place to start for anything at all. Repeating myself, he was a weasel.

[314159]

PS: I love the A-10.

[Guerrero]

Pics of the "Heritage Hawg"

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6661120/heritage-hawg

[NEPAKevin]

Pics of the "Heritage Hawg"

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6661120/heritage-hawg




The heritage A-10 bears the name of Flight Officer William Gorman, the only member of the 405th Fighter Squadron never laid to rest by his comrades, he went Missing In Action on 7 August 1944.

[APS-PF]

Very cool! Never thought I'd see Invasion Stripes on an A10.

[Andy in NH]

From IG:

The 122nd Fighter Wing unveiled this incredible black and dark gray paint scheme.
74160

[Guerrero]

^^^Nice

[Andy in NH]

More on the Black & Gray A-10.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CROpIKmDFWS/?utm_medium=share_sheet

[TiroFijo]

According to Mark Felton, top German ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel "consulted in the development of the American A-10 Thunderbolt tank busting aircraft" (8:33 (https://youtu.be/zZHCvPim0eA?t=513)).


https://youtu.be/zZHCvPim0eA

Only watch Mark Felton for entertainment purposes, not historical truth... ;)

[TiroFijo]

I saw Rudel once here in Asunción, back in the late `70s... buying stuff in the pharmacy like any normal citizen.

He was a good friend of the scumbag dictator Alfredo Stroessner, who was also a very good friend of the USA like all south american dictators.

Funny in the same era or earlier this area of south america (Chile, Argentina, south of Brazil and Paraguay) was full of european jewish refugees and nazis alike.

[Andy in NH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX89-MgOvTw

[KellyinAvon]

Tail number 80244. That's a 1978 manufacture date, and it's still kickin ass!!

[HCM]

Only watch Mark Felton for entertainment purposes, not historical truth... ;)

True but even a stopped clock is right twice a day and in this case, it's well documented elsewhere that Rudel was consulted during the conceptual stages of what eventually became the A-10.

[Paul D]

Why black besides that obvious aesthetic reasons? Wouldn't you want to paint it grey or bluish to blend into the sky? Or does it not really matter.

[SiriusBlunder]

Why black besides that obvious aesthetic reasons? Wouldn't you want to paint it grey or bluish to blend into the sky? Or does it not really matter.

It's a Commemorative paint job: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41483/behold-the-awesomeness-of-this-black-a-10-warthog


An A-10C Warthog ground-attack aircraft has emerged in a striking black and dark gray paint job. The scheme on the jet, assigned to the Indiana Air National Guard’s 122nd Fighter Wing, was created to help mark the 100th anniversary of Indiana National Guard aviation operations.

The jet, serial number 80-0244, also retains the distinctive snakehead nose art found on all A-10Cs that belong to the 122nd Fighter Wing, which is nicknamed the Blacksnakes. The complete scheme also has a number of other symbolic touches.

[DMF13]

It's a Commemorative paint job: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41483/behold-the-awesomeness-of-this-black-a-10-warthogHow.much are these useless shenanigans costing the taxpayers?

These are weapons for the defense of our nation, not hotrods for fun and show.

[Doc_Glock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX89-MgOvTw

I like it! What is up with the snake face up front? Are Warthogs known as anything else? (Kind of like Falcon or Viper both referring to F16)

[Doc_Glock]

It's a Commemorative paint job: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41483/behold-the-awesomeness-of-this-black-a-10-warthog


Nevermind, disregard last post. Thanks for the answer.

[DDTSGM]

How.much are these useless shenanigans costing the taxpayers?

These are weapons for the defense of our nation, not hotrods for fun and show.

I can see your point. I would just like to throw out that there is probably a morale building aspect/goal behind the paint job.

[Andy in NH]

How.much are these useless shenanigans costing the taxpayers?

These are weapons for the defense of our nation, not hotrods for fun and show.

In 2018 the USAF painted an A-10 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day (https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-flew-painted-a-10-over-normandy-74-years-after-d-day-2018-6).

74811

[NEPAKevin]

I like it! What is up with the snake face up front? Are Warthogs known as anything else? (Kind of like Falcon or Viper both referring to F16)

Thunderbolt II which I believe is in reference to the WWII era Republic P47 Thunderbolt.

ETA: sorry, didn't see the disregard post until after posting. :)

And FWIW, I have much less of a problem with tax payer money being used to paint planes than on Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Sexual Reassignment and promoting Wokeness in the military in general.

[RevolverRob]

How.much are these useless shenanigans costing the taxpayers?

These are weapons for the defense of our nation, not hotrods for fun and show.

1) The planes have to be repainted regularly. So, whatever?

2) I guarantee that repainting A10s occasionally is cheaper than a single F35.

So, perhaps we should focus our outrage on tax expenditures on the places where it can best be focused - Like...airplanes that are far too expensive (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html), boats that we cannot afford the ammunition for (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/), or useless things like pistols that are already broken (https://sofrep.com/news/dod-evaluation-says-armys-new-sig-sauer-p320-service-pistol-riddled-issues/).

[MistWolf]

Tail number 80244. That's a 1978 manufacture date, and it's still kickin ass!!

80-0244 was ordered in fiscal year 1980.

It has snake nose art because it belongs to the 122nd Fighter Wing, nicknamed Blacksnakes.

[vcdgrips]

"How.much are these useless shenanigans costing the taxpayers?

These are weapons for the defense of our nation, not hotrods for fun and show."


To quote Sgt. Hulka- "Lighten up Francis!"

To dovetail of a post above-actual likely additional cost to the taxpayer=0.

1. We had to paint the plane at some point anyway
2. Somebody needed the training/practice etc painting said plane.
3. The Service members who painted said plane were coming to work anyway.
4. It is a matter of public record that many Air National Guard Units have historically maintained the same or better readiness standards than active units because the folks want to be there as opposed to having to be there and/or tend to be very experienced and very good at what they do.

That Unit also goes to war.

https://www.122fw.ang.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001951477/

[Andy in NH]

Senate to Air Force: You’re gonna keep your A-10 Warthogs and you’re gonna like it! (https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/air-force-a-10-warthog-funding/?__twitter_impression=true)


Like a hoarder with separation anxiety, Congress just can’t let go of the A-10 Warthog, the aging but legendary attack plane the Air Force has tried and failed for years to start to get rid of.

In its most recent attempt, the Air Force tried to cut 42 A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft from its fleet of 281 airframes. The move was supposed to free up maintenance costs on the aging platform which the branch could then use to buy more advanced aircraft like the F-35A, which the Air Force thinks has a better chance of surviving against high-tech anti-aircraft weapon-equipped countries like China.


But not if Congress had anything to say about it, which it did. In its proposal for the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, the bill which will set the funding levels for the U.S. military next year, the Senate Armed Services Committee prohibited the Air Force from retiring any A-10 aircraft in fiscal year 2022.