USAF considering O/A-10 CAS replacement
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-conten...-35_report.pdf
Report: Lightning a threat to the F-35 | Navy Times | navytimes.com
some "interesting" discussion emerging from this article..
F-35 Stealthier Than F-22? | Ares
"incoming"
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....
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....
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...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 was one of the alternates to the PGU-28 FAP (check out page 16&17) round. Some crazy science fiction type **** going into the gun ammo.
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 was one of the alternates to the PGU-28 FAP (check out page 16&17) round. Some crazy science fiction type **** going into the gun ammo.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate I welcome your disagreement, and to be honest would be disappointed if it were any different! 
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
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
Last edited by Rotate too late; 21st Feb 2015 at 22:01. Reason: Predictive text!
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Air dominance can be worked out in due course, perhaps.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.