USAF considering O/A-10 CAS replacement [Archive]

Rotate too late

16th Feb 2015, 08:44

Is there really any problem with having something that is a one trick pony, but, actually does that particular trick bloody well. Don't forget, the A10 guys do the CSAR OSC as part of their bread and butter, and their PODs with downlink are as good as any for ISTAR for the guys on the ground. Having been in the overhead when they "have a chat with Terry" that gun scares the sh!t out of me, Lord knows what it's like at the other end! And as has been already pointed out, this aircraft is designed to take a kicking. And yes I am a fan.....big time.

RTL

Lima Juliet

16th Feb 2015, 09:30

I think the Scorpion team are offering a GAU/22 gun pod - General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems - Template (http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/mbw_GAU-22A.html)

It still frighten the crap out of me if I was laying in the dirt! :eek:

LJ

ORAC

16th Feb 2015, 09:42

Rutan Ares Mudfighter (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ares.htm)

zG9LlHcX8lg

Rhino power

16th Feb 2015, 11:57

When I read the following sentence in the Flight Global link...
The air force has said it cannot afford to continue operating what officials consider a single-mission aircraft.
I immediately thought of this!

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ovHVeJmq--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/qhqrpf36yuo5lbjkjoob.png

-RP

Martin the Martian

16th Feb 2015, 12:15

Comments on this, gents?

At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage? (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179)

Rotate too late

16th Feb 2015, 13:49

RP

COULDNT AGREE MORE!!!! Maybe their Airships could find a better way of putting this across?

RTL

Pontius Navigator

16th Feb 2015, 14:42

MtM, and before that, an F15 aimed at and hit the manned quadrant tower on our air weapons range, more recently a Tornado aimed at the same tower and got close. I am not aware of a similar A10 issue.

Finnpog

16th Feb 2015, 15:30

Interesting link MtheM

Turbine D

16th Feb 2015, 18:33

The best replacement would be a new A-10

But, only after spending 3-5 years and billions of $$$s can the quoted conclusion be reached. And that is dependent on study data furnished by the USAF not being fudged to influence or even derail the outcome…:suspect::E

GreenKnight121

17th Feb 2015, 00:23

I am not aware of a similar A10 issue.

Apparently, you didn't read this thread (http://www.pprune.org/8519458-post30.html) from June of last year, in which I mentioned:
Like the following examples of superior CAS by A-10s?
Desert Storm:
A-10 strafes U.S.Marine OP in Khafji (daytime) (4 dead)
A-10 Strafes U.S.Marine Convoy for 4 passes (daytime)
A-10 shoots U.S. Marine LAV with Maverick (daytime) 7 dead
Washingtonpost.com: Fog of War - Post Archive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post020391.htm) (I know a Marine who was with that unit at that time)
A-10 attacks British Marines convoy of Warrior vehicles (9 dead)

Iraqi Freedom:
A-10 attacks British Blues & Royals Warrior vehicles (daytime) (1 killed 5 wounded)
A-10 attacks U.S. Marine AAV (daytime) (up to 10 dead - 18 killed, some by Iraqis, some by A-10, and some by both. In the end only 1 was A-10 only, and that is the only "official" BoB fatality)
Friendly Fire Marred Iraq 'Battle' - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/friendly-fire-marred-iraq-battle/)
A-10s (2) attack NATO forces, killing 1 Canadian soldierAnd the point is, that when you look at the list of "friendly-fire" incidents, the A-10 leads with more incidents than any other platform in the same wars.

So no, the A-10 is not some magic infallible perfect aircraft.

tdracer

17th Feb 2015, 02:02

It's been far from a secret that the USAF hates the A-10 - they have since it's inception but have been unable to get rid of it because it keeps demonstrating that IT WORKS!:ugh: 30 years ago the USAF was claiming they didn't need the A-10, that the F-16 with anti-tank missiles could do the same mission. Except of course it's been repeatedly demonstrated in the sand box that they couldn't.:mad: Does anyone really believe that the single engine F-35 is going to be more effective at close air support than the A-10? After all, stealth doesn't matter that much when the guy shooting at you has visual lock!!!!

GreenKnight - the A-10 is dedicated to close air support - it wouldn't exactly be unexpected that an airplane dedicated to CAS would have a higher rate of friendly fire incidents compared to aircraft that seldom do CAS (by the way did you bother to read Martin the Martian's link?)

But the part that really gets to me is that Boeing - who has been manufacturing new wings to re-wing the A-10 - recently received a contract extension to manufacture another ~100 wing kits. Does the USAF left hand have any clue what the right hand is doing, with my tax dollars? :ugh::mad:

Willard Whyte

17th Feb 2015, 07:15

So no, the A-10 is not some magic infallible perfect aircraft.

Were the pilots asleep at the tme of these 'blue-on-blue' incidents then?

ORAC

17th Feb 2015, 07:28

It's been far from a secret that the USAF hates the A-10 - they have since it's inception but have been unable to get rid of it because it keeps demonstrating that IT WORKS! More on the line of a good negotiating gambit when budget cuts come around. The A10 Mafia always find some more money to save it.

We have to cut the A-10, to save the KC-10 fleet....

We have to cut the A-10, to save the C-5A fleet....

We have to cut the A-10, to save the B-1 fleet....

We have to cut the A-10, to save the etc....

At the end of the day more cash is found, the A-10 is saved, as are the other assets proposed to be cut.

BillHicksRules

17th Feb 2015, 07:35

Rhino Power,

CSAR with an A-10?

I can understand the CS bit but not the R!!

Where do the rescued sit? :E

Buster Hyman

17th Feb 2015, 08:23

GK121, out of curiosity, did you read Martins link above? That seems to discredit the theory that the A-10 was the worst offender in this regard.

(Not picking a fight, or taking sides. Genuine question from a simple Civvy that admires the A-10....as only a Civvy could, perhaps):ok:

Rotate too late

17th Feb 2015, 09:41

Hi GreenKnight,
I'm not sure that anybody is saying the A10 is infallible, it certainly has built a following, but from those that have served, I'm pretty sure that belief in what it can do is entirely justfied. For at least one of those "friendly fire" ( a terrible phrase) it came down to the man in the loop, ie, insufficient training of not being able to recognise your own coalition forces (without over simplification). Not sure you could level that criticism at the airframe, but certainly I agree, if you put the aircraft in the position where it could make a mistake, guess what, it may just happen.
Just as an aside, speaking to guys that have been on the receiving end of a blue on blue, in the main, they recognise that mistakes happen, and that actually the amount of times CAS aircraft have got them out of the sh!it, they wouldn't trade them for anything, I include the AH in this.
And just for accuracy, out of respect, it was Royal Regiment of Fusiliers not Marines in that Warrior.
That said I respect that there are different points of view.
Kind regards RTL

Martin the Martian

17th Feb 2015, 11:30

As with much military equipment of the late cold war the A-10 never had the chance to prove its capabilities until the 1991 Gulf War. I believe the plan to replace it with an 'A-16' variant of the Fighting Falcon had been underway before then, but after it showed what it could do in Iraq its place in the inventory was assured. I also think that had it still been in production at that point it may well be flying under other nations' colours today.

The USAF's argument that it would not survive in airspace where enemy fighters would be present is an odd one, as the same argument applies surely to the B-52, B-1 and AC-130, none of which are on the endangered list.

Lonewolf_50

17th Feb 2015, 13:18

Bill Hicks:
The mission is sometimes called SARCAP or SAR CAP and you are invited to look it up in order to educate yourself. (Smilie noted).

To all: I love the A-10. Just to think outside of your fixed wing boxes ... you also get a thing a lot like CAS from attack helicopters. There's more than one way to peel an onion. All in all, I would rather see the A-10 stick around. Why? It works.
From Martin's linked article: cynical, but with a ring of truth.
The truth is that the A-10's greatest flaw is that it is comparatively slow and ugly, and that it was so cheap to build, upgrade and sustain over the years. No major defense contractor made made windfall profits on it time and time again and we do not need to buy more of them, we simply need to maintain and upgrade the force we have already paid for. In other words, the Warthog is not a jobs program or a cutting edge technology for generals to hang their career on and they won't make any really good friends in the defense industrial complex wanting to pay them a big six figure salary once they hang up your uniform for defending it. It is not a sexy machine, it has no flames coming out of its tail and it is not meant to heroically shoot down other aircraft under high g-forces. What it is is an inexpensive, already owned and brutally effective tool at keeping our guys on the ground alive while making sure the other guy's troops end up dead.

Woff1965

17th Feb 2015, 13:36

I suspect that the "A10 replacement" USAF is looking at will turn out to be...The F35A.

The study will be full of "jointness", "data fusion" and "integration"; it will also be full of self serving bollocks to explain that the F35 is a perfect CAS platform.

BillHicksRules

17th Feb 2015, 13:50

LW50,

I thought the "buzzword" was ResCAP these days?

:ok:

West Coast

17th Feb 2015, 16:11

It has many names Bill, surprised given LW's background he didn't acronym you up with TRAP as well.

Lonewolf_50

17th Feb 2015, 17:07

Bill:
Crap, is my jargon manual edition out of date, yet again?
I suppose that happens when one has been out of the business for a while. :p

GreenKnight121

18th Feb 2015, 03:57

Buster, that article (which itself has issues) and I are talking about two different things.

I am talking about the number of separate incidents involving friendly military personnel - they are talking about "total numbers killed" including civilians (which the B-1 has primarily due to one 97-fatality incident) and "civilian fatalities per 100 missions".

Neither addresses my point - which was to reply to PN's claim that the A-10 had no record of "friendly fire" incidents.

In respect to "blue-on-blue" incidents involving allied military forces on the ground (NOT civilians) the A-10 does have the greatest number of separate incidents.

Buster Hyman

18th Feb 2015, 05:48

I am talking about the number of separate incidents involving friendly military personnel
Ok, understood. :ok:

Pali

18th Feb 2015, 05:52

Not that it would or should happen but what is your opinion if A-10 assets would be deployed to fight separatists in Ukraine? What impact would it have on the outcome? Just being curious...

melmothtw

18th Feb 2015, 13:34

Apologies, but I just don't get the argument that the A-10 should be retired because it has the highest 'blue on blue' kill rate.

Assuming this is correct (and reading around the subject I'm not sure that it is), surely the fault lies with the pilots and the procedures rather than with the airframe, no?

If you assigned an F-15C to do the A-10's role, with the same pilot training regimen and operating procedures in place then I'd imagine it would have at least a high 'blue on blue' rate, if not higher.

What am I missing?

BillHicksRules

18th Feb 2015, 14:15

Melmoth,

You are not missing anything at all.

It is a false argument and those "deploying" it know fine well.

It is the equivalent of Pro-Gun supporters arguing that people are killed by cars so lets leave everything as is after each spree killing that could have been avoided.

Biggus

18th Feb 2015, 15:05

Surely this is becoming an argument about statistics?

The A-10 may well have the highest number of "blue on blue" incidents, but if it flies the major proportion of CAS sorties then this is almost inevitable!

If you're going to look at the number of "incidents" rather than "numbers killed" then a valid comparison between different airframes would be in terms of "incidents" vs sortie numbers, maybe incidents per 100 sorties, or incidents per 1,000 sorties.

Duchess_Driver

18th Feb 2015, 15:07

Out of interest, how does the A10 BoB as a percentage compare with anything else used in the CAS task?

Yes, the actual number of incidents may be high, but if it's the vehicle doing 90% of the work then that wouldn't be unexpected. As has been pointed out, BoB is surely a factor or personnel/procedures more than airframe qualities or performance issues.

theonewhoknows

18th Feb 2015, 15:32

So, the USAF has been operating the A-10 for over 30 years. It has done an exceptional job. They want to replace it. Does anyone really think the USAF would want to do so if it was not the best course of action, considering future viability and cost. Come on guys, start being a bit more rigorous in your arguments. You may think your knowledge is up to date, but perhaps it isn't!

Heathrow Harry

18th Feb 2015, 16:40

but isn't a like-for-like replacement -

it's likely to be a several hundred zillion dollar a copy F-35 which is supposed to be invisible to radar with the endurance of a political promise

What the guys in the front line want is something that can haul a load of ordnance around for hours and is slow enough and well protected enough to give them more than 5 minutes cover

and it has to be as cheap as possible as you're going to want a lot of them

henra

18th Feb 2015, 18:14

They want to replace it. Does anyone really think the USAF would want to do so if it was not the best course of action, considering future viability and cost.

Your trust in others whose motivation you can't really know for sure (LW's excellent cited somewhat cynical paragraph should give you a clue, though) is amazing.

Can I sell you my used car? :}

Lonewolf_50

18th Feb 2015, 18:59

Does anyone really think the USAF would want to do so if it was not the best course of action, considering future viability and cost
The USAF was trying to dump the A-10 when Operation Desert Storm arose. Your presumptions about "what the US Air Force" collectively feels or thinks seem to not match what's actually happened.

The USAF like the Army (who recently had to bin the Kiowa Warrior because something had to go, budget constraints) is reviewing all of the kit that it can keep and what it can't, and then balance that against what budget money they think they'll have to work with in the near and mid term.

I don't doubt that "something has to go" is a truth. So, as they did before Desert Storm, they decided that the "something" is the A-10. If they close out that type model series completely, everyone in the logistic, training and operation chain can either be reassigned elsewhere or the billets closed out and a manpower reduction realized. (Another thing USAF has to deal with, like the other services).

As I noted elsewhere, CAS and airborne fires in general are not only delivered by A-10's. They come from a variety of platforms, attack helicopters being one of them. The A-10 is a unique platform that won't be replaced, as it can't be. Nothing does or will do quite what it does.

Does that matter to the Joint Force?
Well, there are enough differing opinions on that to where it very much depends whom is asked that question.

From a strictly functional point of view (which IRL isn't the only consideration) your bang per buck for an A-10 is hard to match.

Finnpog

18th Feb 2015, 18:59

If the plan is for F-35 style CAS to orbit at height and plink with precision guided munitions, then Reaper must surely by a better alternative for delivering effect on target.

Lonewolf_50

18th Feb 2015, 19:01

If the plan is for F-35 style CAS to orbit at height and plink with precision guided munitions, then Reaper must surely by a better alternative for delivering effect on target.
It is already an alternative to traditional CAS. There aren't infinite Reapers in service, however. My experience with armed UAV/RPV's is that they are a low density, high demand asset. A disadvantage of Reaper and other RPV's now in service is how freaking slow they are.
No dash speed.
The fast jets can get to more places in a given time segment.
That X plane the Navy has been working on lately would seem to overcome that limitation if it ever goes IOC.

GreenKnight121

19th Feb 2015, 00:33

Apologies, but I just don't get the argument that the A-10 should be retired because it has the highest 'blue on blue' kill rate.

Melmoth,

You are not missing anything at all.

It is a false argument and those "deploying" it know fine well.

It is the equivalent of Pro-Gun supporters arguing that people are killed by cars so lets leave everything as is after each spree killing that could have been avoided.

Who is making that claim?

Certainly not me - go back and re-read my posts if you think I am.

PN claimed the A-10 didn't have a history of "blue-on-blue" and I provided information to refute his statement.

Of course the A-10 has a high rate - most of its work is done in close proximity to friendly forces, that's what it does best: kill people who are shooting at friendly forces.

Sometimes you will miss - and the lower-tech your aircraft the greater chance of missing in the wrong direction. On the other hand, the further from the target the weapon is launched the the greater the chance of a malfunction causing a fatal miss - so there is a balance there, as the A-10 usually gets in close (but not so often any more).

The real point against the A-10 is simply what Lonewolf_50 discussed - with the reductions in the budget something has to go, and the A-10 has the more-limited role - a role that can be done almost as well by other assets (like the F-35 or attack helos or UAVs), while the A-10 cannot at all do the other roles (like air-air combat or penetrating strike against a functioning ADS) that the F-35 can.

West Coast

19th Feb 2015, 01:30

Curious how you arrived at the conclusion that the F35 is as good or nearly so at CAS as the A10.

glad rag

19th Feb 2015, 02:27

What a load of F35 codswallop GK.

What about battle damage survivability? is the airframe designed to actually have holes shot in it? Does it have an extinguisher system? Does it have electrical circuit protection? That's two items that were deleted to GUESS WHAT save weight.

But you just crack on after all it wont be you sitting in one will it?

Rotate too late

19th Feb 2015, 05:27

Just to point out, that sometimes, we have fallen into the trap of dropping these precision weapons on a tree line and actually they are too precise! That's where something like the GAU or the 30mm/CRV7 combo come to the party. Unless you are SF don't even think of calling for a Spectre! That said, if a Bone is on station then hey why not! If the A10 does go, then, it will be a shame because I truly believe that there is argument for dedicated weapons platforms....maybe:)

GreenKnight121

20th Feb 2015, 01:31

Most A-10 CAS is now delivered from middle altitude via PGM.

The F-35 will certainly be at least as good at that than the A-10.

The whole concept of recent CAS operations is to avoid that whole ground-fire issue by remaining out of range - and that includes A-10s.

Sorry to burst your WW2-era mindset, glad rag, but getting into "read the nametag on his uniform before you shoot him with your pistol" is no longer a viable CAS method.

glad rag

20th Feb 2015, 03:08

melmothtw

20th Feb 2015, 08:53

Most A-10 CAS is now delivered from middle altitude via PGM.

Having spoken very recently to serving A-10 pilots with operational experience in Afghanistan, I can assure you that this is not correct and that the gun is still very much the weapon of choice across the Warthog community.

A point also made by a USAF F-16 pilot I interviewed last year who quipped that the third word to come out of every A-10 jockey's mouth is "gun", regardless of the topic of conversation.

Lima Juliet

20th Feb 2015, 09:29

CAS needs to have a direct-fire weapons capability to be effective or it becomes excluded through RoE. Paveways and some other PGMs can take an eternity to release if a targetting board has to sit within the RoE. Some PGMs like Hellfire or Brimstone are deemed direct fire, but they are way more expensive than a gun or CRV-7. So using F35 as your CAS asset is very expensive in both terms of operating cost, weapons cost and also the chance of total loss of a very expensive asset.

Apache has done a pretty good job as has Reaper, but as said, they are both slower than even an A-10 (that is about 150-250kts slower than a normal fast jet). The A10 does have a good loiter time over target, better than any fast jet (except B-1, but that has poor lookout), but it is about 8 hrs less than Reaper. As ever in aviation, the A-10 is a compromise, and a very good one at that, which is probably why the best replacement for an A-10 is another A-10! If the Cessna Scorpion gets a proven gun capability, then it might be in with a shout as it is pretty close to an A-10.

F35 is not the answer to everything, just like the F16 wasn't. It comes pretty close, but there will still be a need for niche capability airframes like A-10, V-22, Apache, Reaper, etc... etc...

LJ

Rotate too late

20th Feb 2015, 09:42

LJ seconded! :ok:

Lima Juliet

20th Feb 2015, 09:50

Slight thread drift. Having just listened to Sir Michael Graydon on Radio 4 about our 27 fast jet squadrons diminishing over the past 20 years to just 7-gusting-6 squadrons, then cheap aircraft like the Scorpion is what NATO should be aiming at to augment its existing high tech fleet.

I quite fancy a UK Air National Guard equivalent...

LJ

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Textron_Airland_Scorpion_-_RIAT_2014.jpg/640px-Textron_Airland_Scorpion_-_RIAT_2014.jpg

Rotate too late

20th Feb 2015, 10:03

Off the shelf? No chance....

GreenKnight121

21st Feb 2015, 01:36

..show us the gun the F-35 will use, fitted and firing in a CAS role....it doesn't exist does it...

If you mean you want photos of an F-35 using its gun in actual combat, performing CAS - then of fu@king course there are none YET!

As for whether the goddam gun actually exists - the gun is the GAU-22/A, a 4-barrel development of the GAU-12/U of the AV-8B Harrier II (also in removable pods).
Every F-35A built is fitted for internal installation of one, and every F-35B/C built is fitted to carry (and use) the podded version (just like 95% of all F-4 Phantoms that performed CAS in Vietnam). Yes, the software to fire it safely has not yet been validated, that is part of the continuing development testing.

Here is a photo of the gun on a test-bench, and of the pod on an F-35B:
http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/f-35-lightning-ii-gatling-gun-and-weapons-stations.jpg

Here is a photo of a test F-35B flying with the gun pod (6 photos on the following link Photos of testing the removable centerline 25mm gun pod on the F-35 : theBRIGADE (http://thebrigade.com/2012/02/26/testing-the-removable-centerline-25mm-gun-pod-on-the-f-35-6-photos/) :

https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gun-test-f-35-500-3.jpg?w=762&h=630

Here is a photo of an F-35A showing the gun location (above the port intake, the bulge). Note that there is a door covering the barrel that opens inward when the gun is armed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/A_U.S._Air_Force_pilot_navigates_an_F-35A_Lightning_II_aircraft_assigned_to_the_58th_Fighter_Squad ron%2C_33rd_Fighter_Wing_into_position_to_refuel_with_a_KC-135_Stratotanker_assigned_to_the_336th_Air_Refueling_130516-F-XL333-404.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg
Here is another - note the shell ejection port at the aft end of the bulge:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/First_F-35_headed_for_USAF_service.jpg/800px-First_F-35_headed_for_USAF_service.jpg

LowObservable

21st Feb 2015, 06:45

Is the gun pod one burst or two?

LJ - Is the guided 70mm rocket a potentially useful CAS weapon? Accurate, supposedly easy to integrate with any pod/ball, lower CD than a Hellfire, cheaper and higher load-out.

F-35 for CAS is moot anyway until it is Rover-compatible, which does not happen before 2022-24 (Block 4A/B possible, but not confirmed). USMC will still have Hornets and Harriers for the job. And as has been pointed out here, the current EO setup (IR only) is not what people have become used to with dual-band pods or balls.

Scorpion's interesting - although in its present form it may be more like a bigger and faster OV-10 (NTTAWWT) than an A-10neo.

Lima Juliet

21st Feb 2015, 07:49

http://www.pixstel.com/harrier-mission-markings_pics227-22740.jpg

LO

As the only direct-fire capability on the Harrier GR7/9/9a during Op HERRICK as it never got its gun pod, then "yes" CRV-7 was a "useful CAS weapon. Above is a picture of Harrier with CRV-7 mission markings, I'm sure a bona mate will chime in soon to speak more about it...

LJ

Heathrow Harry

21st Feb 2015, 10:02

whatever they think the number of F-35's available for CAS (or whatever acronym you want to use) will be a hell of a lot less than the A-10's

glad rag

21st Feb 2015, 12:41

then of fu@king course there are none

:=

So along with having no "software" [$$$$ X10 to whatever], there is no evidence that the proposed gun system will be operationally viable.

Glad [:)] to see we have agreement on that little point.

Now about the lack of onboard electrical system protection and fire suppression systems that were deleted under the rather drastic weight reduction program would you care to comment on aircraft survivability under, say, CAS missions without either of the former attributes.....

busdriver02

21st Feb 2015, 15:30

What lack of electrical protection and fire suppression are you talking about?

West Coast

21st Feb 2015, 16:18

Green knight

Please explain your assertion the F35 will be as good or nearly so as the A-10 in CAS.

How do you arrive at this? I don't believe even LockMart claims this.

"Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don't think anybody believes that," Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Turbine D

21st Feb 2015, 17:11

Green Knight,
"Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don't think anybody believes that," Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Concentrating on these two guns (forget the lady for a moment), would you say the good Admiral has a valid point for starters?

F-35
http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/gun-test-f-35-500-5_zpsgqzv91g7.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/gun-test-f-35-500-5_zpsgqzv91g7.jpg.html)

A-10
http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/gau-8-a-30mm-gatlin-gun-vw-beetle-comparison_zps24833185.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/gau-8-a-30mm-gatlin-gun-vw-beetle-comparison_zps24833185.jpg.html)

glad rag

21st Feb 2015, 17:37

What lack of electrical protection and fire suppression are you talking about?

""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," officials wrote in the report."

The vulnerability of the F-35 to electrical system ballistic
damage remains an open question. Based on the F-35A
aircraft (AA:0001) in-flight incident in 2007, electrical arcing tests in 2009, and the flight-critical system-level test events
in 2012, DOT&E recommended that the program conduct
additional analyses to address the likelihood and consequence
of arcing from the 270-volt to 28-volt system. The Lockheed
Martin electrical power system team is currently working on a
response to these concerns.

Interestingly the report throws up this little gem..

The fuel ingestion tests did not simulate engagements
by ground-based or aircraft gun systems that are
possible during low-altitude close-air support missions
and within‑visual‑range air-to-air combat. A Concept
Demonstrator Aircraft engine test in 2005 showed the engine
could not tolerate fuel ingestion events representative of such
conditions (i.e., low-altitude, high-speed, high-engine thrust,
and higher leak rates). The program made no design changes
in response to those earlier test results and this vulnerability
remains in the final production engine design. A ballistic
liner in the fuel tank could mitigate this vulnerability, but the
program removed this feature during its weight-reduction
efforts, saving 48 pounds

Ref,
http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/01/2013DOTE_F-35_report.pdf

Report: Lightning a threat to the F-35 | Navy Times | navytimes.com (http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20130114/NEWS/301140305/Report-Lightning-a-threat-to-the-F-35)

some "interesting" discussion emerging from this article..

F-35 Stealthier Than F-22? | Ares (http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22)

"incoming" :hmm:

Donkey497

21st Feb 2015, 19:09

I wonder if we could give a home for the A-10s being scrapped off in the US over here in the UK for Army Air Corps / RAF as part of armoured support?

Fair is fair, after all, we gave the US our Harriers & we're more likely to need localised mud moving when Greece defaults and the Zombie apocalypse rolls over Europe.... :sad: :sad: :sad:

rh200

21st Feb 2015, 20:21

Fair is fair, after all, we gave the US our Harriers & we're more likely to need localised mud moving when Greece defaults and the Zombie apocalypse rolls over Europe....

You could, but would still need money to support them. Seemingly thats the whole point, you just have to find someone to give up part of their budget.

busdriver02

21st Feb 2015, 20:53

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/dod/2014f35jsf.pdf

They're making progress to fixing those same problems. I couldn't find reference to dry bay fire suppression in either report. I assume it's a reference to fuel tank inerting. Reference page 19 in the link.

I don't know why people keep thinking CAS=low altitude. CAS is by definition "air action against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and maneuver of those forces." If technology allows me to do that from higher altitude, it doesn't make it not CAS. The Marine Corps has been doing CAS for decades without an A-10 like platform, and that's basically the reason for Marine Air to exist at all.

Certainly, F-XX will not be putting around below the weather in mountainous terrain like an A-10 might, but an A-10 isn't survivable on a future battlefield so it won't be flying in that environment at all. I think a more reasonable approach is to admit that western democracies will most likely be faced with a multitude of "small wars" in the future; if history is to repeat itself anyways. I think we can abandon 1 or 2 squadrons worth of F-35 and buy a couple wings worth of light attack aircraft, that while not usable in a major conventional conflict would be very useful in the types of wars we're currently involved in, and the expensive fast jets can sit alert in smaller numbers and scramble if the need arises for bigger weapons.

Sidebar:
As for ammunition, Pele (http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl-defence/user_upload/flyer/PELE_21.10.10.pdf) was one of the alternates to the PGU-28 FAP (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/Wed16503Kerk.pdf)(check out page 16&17) round. Some crazy science fiction type **** going into the gun ammo.

Rotate too late

21st Feb 2015, 21:11

Bus driver,
I couldn't agree more, and a lot of the pro A10 rhetoric on here is largely agreeing with you on that score. The CAS piece is a bit of a non issue with respect to heights but I'd make the point that "sometimes" you WILL have to get dirty for the guys in the sh!t. Not just because of weather and geography but because the bad guys are that close. See how the Chechens did it against the Russians. Literally sticking to a formation like limpets....brave, clever and almost immediately rendering fire support useless.
It's not World War Two I grant you but my last danger close was two years ago, and I still have nightmares! And it went well thank god.
It may be a crap analogy but why drive around London as a taxi driver in an Aston Martin when there is something far far better for the job.....
I have absolutely no agenda regarding F35, it will kick arrse I'm sure, my first and only loyalty is to one bloke....the JTAC, If he wants it he gets it. I couldn't care less from which platform.

busdriver02

21st Feb 2015, 21:29

Rotate,
As a guy who's only weapon is a couple of .50cal HMGs, I truly get the argument that "sometimes you'll have to get close." I just don't agree. If the argument is that there won't be a JTAC available and the CAS pilot will have to sort it out on his own, sure but then why aren't we asking why are there not enough JTACs available to provide the required detailed integration?

Rotate too late

21st Feb 2015, 21:59

Mate I welcome your disagreement, and to be honest would be disappointed if it were any different! :ok:
No JTAC no CAS would be my first point, you would be into ECAS territory or going the other way with integrated joint fires planning....I DO NOT claim to be an expert (solid average!)
As for the levels of delivery I'm very comfortable to agree to disagree, it is what it is. I would still counter with survivability but hey ho.
Alternatively I'll concentrate on the very well made point of availability, in an infantry battle group(UK) the only fire support a BG Comd can guarantee is his mortars, I would argue that the F35 would be in very high demand, if so, what replaces it? From a Brit perspective it would be nice to have the hard choices the U.S. have got to make in the first place. We SO poooooor:{

typerated

22nd Feb 2015, 03:39

LJ,

Are you serious about Scorpion?

As it would be less survivable than an A-10 and would have to stay at home if we had a conflict with say Russia. So what use is it?

I imagine the best we could do along that road would be for a NATO wide buy of NG Gripens. Surely the already cheap price would fall quite dramatically and you get a very useful piece of machinery that would be at home in low or high intensity conflicts.

TR

Lima Juliet

22nd Feb 2015, 07:35

TR

Why would you say that? If you look at the basics, the Scorpion has 2 engines and the Gripen has 1 - single engine CAS sometimes doesn't work out well (look at the F16 lost in December).

Other than that, I can't fathom why Scorpion wouldn't be able to survive. It would come into service with a functioning set of defensive aids and has a better rate of performance to an A-10. So if the A-10 can survive in that environment at 300-350kts, then why not Scorpion with another 50kts in hand?

LJ

busdriver02

22nd Feb 2015, 08:59

Availability will always be an issue with aircraft of any type, that's all part of the balancing act between the various component commanders and the JFC's guidance. But I'll concede the point that if your fleet of aircraft "is better at that mission over there" there might be a tendency to focus there. Reading about Desert Storm, Horner seemed to piss off some on the Air and Ground side of the fence. So a decent balance has been done before.

BenThere

22nd Feb 2015, 16:38

Seems to me that every time the A-10 comes up for elimination the Army and Marines step up to volunteer to take over the mission and operate the aircraft.

Hmmm...wonder why that is?

The A-10 was always B team in USAF community. It never was whiz-bang speed, technology, strategic game changer, and didn't have a humongous price tag - none of that. But it worked. And the geopolitical situations that rose up after the cold war demanded it as a key weapon system pertaining to the combat environment in which we found ourselves.

So now we (USAF) want to drop it again. But ISIS (an Islamic Jihad world-wide) needs the A-10 to attack it. If you think the F-35 or whatever can do a better job, I think you're wrong. In fact, the A-10 and B-52 remain superlative and complementary components against all ground forces and targets. What we ought to be doing is conceiving and building the next generation CAS and Attack fighter to improve on what we did right with the A-10.

Turbine D

22nd Feb 2015, 23:48

BenThere,

:ok::ok::ok:

West Coast

23rd Feb 2015, 01:10

Well said Ben. I'm sure the Marines and soldiers can hardly wait to see a show of force pass from a reaper.

typerated

24th Feb 2015, 05:14

OK LJ,

Lets assume Scorpion is more survivable than an A-10.

But should we buy it?

I think there are 2 strong argument against:

1) The theory that if you look at the total cost of ownership there are a lot of fixed costs - running an airbase and associated personnel is somewhat irrespective of what aircraft you base on it. I remember reading an analysis (admittedly from the F-15 camp against the F-16) that you come up against the law of diminishing returns quite quickly (in terms of cheaper aircraft meaning cheaper budget or more airframes) - I imagine it was mainly spin but does seem pretty logical and came with some pretty convincing graphs!

2) I'd say for the first time since the cold war we are in a position where it is easy to imagine we could be in a conflict where we (the west) are very hard pressed to establish air superiority. How useful would Scorpions be then? If we bought a low mix combat aircraft I'd suggest it should be optimised for air-air. Far better to have air superiority and then a CAS aircraft that is not optimised to the job than other way around! What would have been better in May 1940 more Hurricanes or Fairey Battles?

TR

Finnpog

24th Feb 2015, 05:49

Good points TypeRated.
Another dimension that needs considering is the Force Protection angle.
Any aircraft might win a Top Trumps battle against any other - but in addition to the operating costs and the 'purchase' price, it has to be kept safe on the ground when / if deployed.

Having your low tech bad man lobbing shells onto the airfield is a pain and chuffing dangerous.

The attack on the USMC harriers showed what could be achieved if taking inspiration from the SAS's North African adventures in WWII. If fighting a more high-end enemy how much more will need to go into defending / protecting the flight line or even the crew rooms & accomodation?

I am sure that the TacEval flashbacks may now start for some. Sorry.

Lonewolf_50

24th Feb 2015, 12:12

I'd say for the first time since the cold war we are in a position where it is easy to imagine we could be in a conflict where we (the west) are very hard pressed to establish air superiority. That would make for a long fight. Joint (in which I include NATO joint) warfighting doctrine hinges upon combined arms, airborne fires included. You have to establish at least local air superiority for the rest of it to work. Establishing air superiority thus becomes "phase I" of a given operation.
Air dominance can be worked out in due course, perhaps.

rh200

24th Feb 2015, 19:23

I would presume eastern Ukraine will make a good modern wake up/case study of lack of air superiority in an area. Especially amongst forces that should resemble reasonable trained combatants.

BenThere

24th Feb 2015, 20:14

Should the event transpire, I'm quite convinced that even in our reduced state, air superiority and soon following, USAF air supremacy would prevail over the Ukrainian skies.

The Russians have never been tested and don't really know what they are doing. Their command and control doctrine is archaic, they have little real-time experience, and in a confrontation with USAF would be toyed with.

The big if is which side the US administration would be on.

rh200

24th Feb 2015, 23:39

Actually I was thinking more of whats happening now, before the "Rebels" mysteriously got a lot more ground to air defenses, it effectively neutered what advantage the Ukrainians had.

typerated

25th Feb 2015, 05:28

BT,

You might be right if the opposition was kind enough to give you warning and 6 months to deploy before kick off. But as they have concentration of force already in the area it might make deploying a bit problematic if they kicked off before telling you when the game was supposed to start.

It is no secret that the small Raptor buy and the maintenance of air superiority is a big headache in the Pentagon. In many ways it was a very arrogant decision to cut the F-22 buy. Certainly a lot is now riding on how well the F-35 works in air-air. No doubt it is a big gamble and the die cast for at least a couple of decades.

On the other hand, how well the F-35 works as a CAS platform will not have much sway on who gets on the winners podium.

BenThere

25th Feb 2015, 18:35

Appreciate the comments, typerated.

I would suspect the playout would be for USAF/NATO assets to deploy to ample Ukranian airfields built for air force operations, with developing tensions allowing for a steady supply and logistics positioning.

The ramp to US-Russian combat, I presume, and hope, will be long, and allow for an extended logistical chain, as we did in Berlin some years ago.

The facts today are that Russia can't support any sort of costly confrontation, tactically or economically. All Russia has is the retained throw-weight of its nuclear deterrent, which, reduced to its elements, is a suicide option.

The Russian Ukrainians so eager to throw in with the mother country today, will come to rue their short-sightedness as Ukraine evolves into a European nation, unencumbered by Islamist dominance.

Turbine D

3rd Mar 2015, 15:29

The Case For The Wart Hog

National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414635/case-warthog-mike-fredenburg)

Lowe Flieger

8th Mar 2015, 16:53

One-week study re-affirms A-10 retirement decision: USAF - 3/6/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/one-week-study-re-affirms-a-10-retirement-decision-usaf-409888/)

The linked Flightglobal report suggests that there will be no reprieve for the A10. It looks like its CAS role will pass to F16/F15 until F35 is available in sufficient numbers. The report suggests that F35's part in low-end CAS will then decrease as its evolution advances. After that, the USAF may be open to an additional lower cost asset (eg Textron AirLand Scorpion) for use in more permissive environments.

LF

Fox3WheresMyBanana

8th Mar 2015, 17:05

"We don’t know what’s going to happen next. We may need more capacity at the low end," Carlisle says.

translates as "We don't have a replacement for the A-10, but we're scrapping it anyway because we've been told to. When the F-35 comes on stream, we will order the enemy to only deploy very high value targets so we can justify using it." ;)

Presumably IS will be restricted to top-of-the-range pickups as technicals; you know, with the all leather interior and the satnav. And chrome-plated RPGs.