Glider
Captain
That has to be worth at least two congressional investigations
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #1,202
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Interesting , that could allow the F35 to fly high without fear of medium range missiles, in that way the could drop ordenance above the efective ceiling of tipical low intensity conflict flak like the 23 mmm twin mounting so fashionable with the islamic army.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Exactly! This is an argument for replacing the A-10, many people can't grasp the leap in technology. There's a misconception that its ok to send pilots into combat with an aircraft that flies low and slow and can get down in the dirt - what's missing is he's in an aircraft DESIGNED to get shot at. If it was me I'd rather not go into combat knowing that I'm a collateral target, regardless of the tub of armor protecting my butt!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Dunno Joe...perhaps I am old school or maybe just not right in the head (or both?), but if I had a choice between the two, I'd opt for the A-10 because it's a beast and scours the earth at will.
This is not to say the F-35 is not a capable platform, but the A-10 was designed to violently tear things on the ground apart with extreme prejudice.
And I like that...
This is not to say the F-35 is not a capable platform, but the A-10 was designed to violently tear things on the ground apart with extreme prejudice.
And I like that...
Only against a 2nd-rate (or worse) air defense.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
LMAO...yeah right...they took point-blank AA hits from soviet equipped Iraqi defenses and kept going.
Try again.
That's the point. They kept taking hits.
Modern air combat is in no way my 'thing' but the eye opener for me was the interview I was referring to back on posts 1158 and 1159 ... hopefully this link goes to the individual post:
some F35 info
Modern air combat is in no way my 'thing' but the eye opener for me was the interview I was referring to back on posts 1158 and 1159 ... hopefully this link goes to the individual post:
some F35 info
buffnut453
Captain
But that's the whole point...the F-35 doesn't NEED to take hits because it isn't operating in the environment where AAA is a threat. It's at higher altitude, "unseen" by SAM radars (the quotes are deliberate because, as we all know, stealth doesn't make an aircraft invisible...just much harder to engage with radar) hitting heavily defended targets almost at will. At least that's the evidence from the Mountain Home deployment.
I love the A-10. it's a great looking aircraft. Always enjoyed hearing them whistling overhead when I lived and worked near RAF Alconbury. However, they were designed against 70s era threats that have been eclipsed by more modern alternatives. Yes, the older AD weapons are still in some inventories but those will increasingly be retired and replaced. Looking at just MANPADS alone, the A-10 started with the SA-7 which wasn't that challenging to defeat...but nowadays it's the SA-18 with multiple detectors that's much harder to defeat.
The goal today is not to go "tank plinking" but to take out operationally significant targets like C3 and air defences so that our ground and air forces have freedom of manoeuvre while any adversary scuttles around unable to operate cohesively as a major force package (and hence can be defeated piecemeal).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I like that too but I'd rather do it in an aircraft that has a design aspect NOT to take hits while it's completing its mission. I've been shot at once, there's nothing more unnerving like the sounds small arms peppering 2024 aluminum!
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
I like the concept of the F35, I guess the problem is many people want that this machine could fullfill the most spectacular role of the A-10, that is a powerful strafer, certainly the 25mm gun is enough but the ammo capacity is much smaller and the "low altitude battlefield survivality" (damn...that was a good one) is much less, but the F35 was never projected fro that aniway.
The USAF does need a supersonic, stealthy derivate of the A-10, but after the volume of money expended on F35 programm...is very dubious we will ever see a warplane like that.
The USAF does need a supersonic, stealthy derivate of the A-10, but after the volume of money expended on F35 programm...is very dubious we will ever see a warplane like that.
Token
Senior Airman
Don't get me wrong, I love the A-10. I get to see them often, and they are one of my favorite aircraft…but that does not mean I am blind to the future.
As long as the A-10 is used in permissive combat airspace or in lightly contested combat airspace (as was primarily seen in Iraq / Afghanistan after the first week or so of the fight) then it will/has done fine. But it has never had to work in heavily contested combat airspace or in denied-access combat airspace, and in either of those it would take devastating losses.
Let me put it another way, although the A-10 has faced small arms, AAA, and uncoordinated, older generation, short range SAM opposition, it has never operated in an environment were it faced advanced short, medium, or long range SAMs, or SAMs and directed AAA, in an operating integrated air defense system. To the best of my knowledge the A-10 has never been shot at by anything more capable than the SA-13 or SA-18, the -13 is a system originally put in service in 1976 and the -18 went into service in 1981, and that only a few times. It has also never been in an environment with enemy aircraft attempting to interdict its CAS operations.
The F-35 may not be as good at shredding tanks with the gun (hard to imagine it could be) but short of that it can do any tasking the A-10 currently does and be MUCH more survivable in conditions the A-10 has, luckily, never had to face, but which are inevitable in any future symmetrical warfare situation.
The A-10 can't live in the medium and up altitude world of short to medium range SAMs or large caliber directed AAA, so it has to be low to survive. This forces it into the world of MANPADS, smaller caliber AAA, and small arms. This means it is not a matter of it might get hit, but rather it WILL get hit, so it has to be able to take the punch and keep going.
When the low altitude threat is high the F-35 has the option of attacking at higher altitudes where the A-10 could not survive. The F-35 can select its operating parameters to try and ensure it will not get hit.
Personally, I would rather try and not get hit, than to rely on robust structure to protect me if my only option is to almost certainly get hit. The threat has evolved a lot in the last 45+ years since the A-10 was specified. Some of the systems of the A-10 have also evolved, but not enough by far. The F-35 is designed with the current and some projected threat environment in mind. Further, the F-35 is not tied to ONLY that role. Maybe, just maybe, it can't do what the A-10 does as well as the A-10 does it, that remains to be seen, but it can absolutely do so much more that the A-10 community only wishes they could try … and live.
T!
buffnut453
Captain
Good summary, T.
The A-10s proponents will say that the grunts want the A-10 but that's often a safety blanket issue of needing to see your air support. I'm reminded of the soldiers coming back from Dunkirk who claimed the RAF abandoned them because they couldn't see the fierce air battles that were raging away from the beaches.
A-10 proponents will also cite the psychological effect and that's absolutely valid for certain missions within a permissive air threat environment. Unfortunately, there's nothing like buoying the enemy's morale like sending in aircraft that get shot down before they do any damage. I definitely feel the A-10 falls into this category.
The A-10s proponents will say that the grunts want the A-10 but that's often a safety blanket issue of needing to see your air support. I'm reminded of the soldiers coming back from Dunkirk who claimed the RAF abandoned them because they couldn't see the fierce air battles that were raging away from the beaches.
A-10 proponents will also cite the psychological effect and that's absolutely valid for certain missions within a permissive air threat environment. Unfortunately, there's nothing like buoying the enemy's morale like sending in aircraft that get shot down before they do any damage. I definitely feel the A-10 falls into this category.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Interesting summary, but let's not forget that the A-10's primary mission was to enter Soviet held territory and kill Soviet tanks.
Which means it was also designed with light, medium and advanced Soviet air defenses in mind.
It was also designed to work in conjunction with the modular battlefield component system, not as a stand-alone weapon platform.
It was introduced about the same time the F-15, F-16 and just a little ahead of the F-18 which are all "aging" but atill very formidible aircraft. Aircraft of which, were also built with Soviet countermeasures in mind.
During the Gulf War, the A-10 did encounter coordinated AA defenses ranging from small arms, to various grades of the SAM systems the Iraqi were equipped with. On the otherhand, we can also look at the list of fighter aircraft that were downed by Iraqi AA defenses, too. So arguing that the A-10 is overly vulnerable to AA doesn't hold much weight - especially if we go forward the the Kosovo action, where no A-10s were lost, but two fighters, an F-117 and an F-16, were each lost to an SA-3.
Which means it was also designed with light, medium and advanced Soviet air defenses in mind.
It was also designed to work in conjunction with the modular battlefield component system, not as a stand-alone weapon platform.
It was introduced about the same time the F-15, F-16 and just a little ahead of the F-18 which are all "aging" but atill very formidible aircraft. Aircraft of which, were also built with Soviet countermeasures in mind.
During the Gulf War, the A-10 did encounter coordinated AA defenses ranging from small arms, to various grades of the SAM systems the Iraqi were equipped with. On the otherhand, we can also look at the list of fighter aircraft that were downed by Iraqi AA defenses, too. So arguing that the A-10 is overly vulnerable to AA doesn't hold much weight - especially if we go forward the the Kosovo action, where no A-10s were lost, but two fighters, an F-117 and an F-16, were each lost to an SA-3.
buffnut453
Captain
Lots of generalizations in your post, Grau. Yes, A-10 was designed with light, medium and "advanced" Soviet air defences but the the capabilities of those defences were pretty basic compared to the modern battlespace. SA-7 is no match for SA-18. Similarly SA-6 relative to SA-11...and that's before we get into SA-10 or SA-20 territory.
Yes, the A-10 was supposed to operate as part of a wider capability package but that package included aircraft like Wild Weasels and EF-111s, neither of which are still in service. SEAD is a far more challenging function in a modern battlespace, primarily because modern, long-range SAMs can out-reach HARMs and so make the launch platform highly vulnerable...unless the launch platform is a stealth aircraft.
F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are still viable platforms but they typically operate in a very different environment from that envisaged for the A-10. Certainly the F-16 and F-15 pootle around at medium altitude, well out of AAA range. The only reason they've been able to do even that is because they haven't faced an adversary with modern capable SAMs. Put those same assets into a Ukraine/Russia environment and the tactical situation would be markedly different.
Per one of my earlier posts, the whole concept of "tank plinking" isn't really valid. For the most part, it's a waste of time and resources and is only embarked upon when there aren't any other more worthwhile targets to go after. Even then, existing assets can do the same job as the A-10 from higher altitude. The A-10's much-vaunted gun, while impressive, isn't particularly useful against modern armour. The main anti-armour weapon today is Maverick which can be launched from many airborne platforms.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think this sums it up!
Token
Senior Airman
I think it was more envisioned that it would be engaging those tanks at the forward edge of the battle space, rather than truly Soviet held territory with prepared air defenses in place. Remember what the perceived threat of the day was, what the NATO forces were preparing for, thousands of Warsaw Pact tanks rolling across the Iron Curtain into Western Europe. A fight on the move, until the speed bumps could slow the advance, and Operation Reforger could marry troops up to prepositioned equipment to kill the Soviet advance after they had run down troops and supplies.
What is the difference? The AD systems it would face would be mobile, short to medium range, systems that were designed to keep up with or slightly behind the tanks. While the systems were capable, the integration of the AD effort would be minimal.
I would agree with the exception of the "advanced" systems. The A-10A originally did not have a great suite of equipment to counter any AD systems (this was later partially corrected, never a "great" suite, but eventually not too bad). For the first 5 years of its life it had no really affective self protection jammers that could be used on the line and had limited RAW gear. The original ALR-69 was reasonably capable, for the day, but the installation on the A-10A had issues.
The A-10A had no MAWS to indicate to the pilot he was being engaged by an IR guided missile. Its only countermeasures with regards to MANPADS and SA-9/13 class weapons were the Mod 1 Mk 0 pilots eyeball. See the launch/missile, maneuver, deploy chaff/flares. It worked OK for forward quarter encounters...not so much for tail shots.
When it was specified the A-10 really had no need for a lot of fancy gear to defeat AD systems. The updated and modified spec that eventually became the A-10 went out in 1970, based on original specs from a couple years earlier. The Soviets did NOT have quick reaction mobile RF SAMS, like the SA-8, in use yet. The SA-8 entered service in 1971, although not in numbers for a few years. So the only missile threats the A-10 was going to face (at the time the spec was written) at the front was SA-7 and possibly SA-6. Of course there was an advanced RF guided mobile gun system, the ZSU-23-4. Everything else it was probably going to face at that time was direct fire, visually directed, weapons.
The "medium" and "advanced" Soviet AD systems would be well to the rear of the fight. Even the SA-6, being thin skinned, would be several km, or more, behind the tanks the A-10 was attacking.
The techniques the A-10 was originally expected to use for RF threats were pretty simple. It was low and maneuverable, so the exposure time for RF threats was short. RF threats, particularly Soviet systems designed in the 1960's, were very manual in nature. An RF threat had to find the target (acquire), establish a track (track), and get a missile off (engage). Each of these steps can take several seconds, with the acquisition taking the longest. Over the target, engage, off the target, before the AD systems can get a lock. With such a flight profile if they get a shot at you it will likely be on the outbound. So as you roll in on the target you punch the ALE-40 into automatic and chaff and flares are dispensed based on the timing selected. And you kill the AD systems you find on the early passes, because the tanks, BMPs, BTRs, troops, etc, have a much harder time hurting you.
The SA-7 could NOT shoot you in the face, it had to see your tailpipes. By the time the A-10 was in full production the SA-14, with a forward aspect capability, was in use...but the A-10 still had nothing for it other than the same thing it planned for the SA-7.
The SA-6 was well behind the line, and had limited possibility to engage something low over the line.
The ZSU-23-4 Shilka was as likely to be optically aimed as RF tracking, particularly so if the fight was on the move.
And other than verbal queuing none of these systems would be working in any "integrated" way.
Yes, it needed the other aircraft to support it. It was easy meat for fighters, so there had to be some suppression of enemy fighters. The afore mentioned SA-6 would be killed by SEAD aircraft, like the Wild Weasel.
But then no one fights in a vacuum. Lets look forward to a notionary time after the A-10 has been retired, and the F-35 has picked up some of its tasking. F-35's configured for SEAD can kill the SAMS, F-35's and F-22's on CAP can keep the enemy air off the CAS configured F-35's backs. And CAS F-35's working with attack helos can kill the forces on the ground.
But all these other aircraft were envisioned from day one to have to stay alive in an advanced air defense environment, and had at least a smattering of the gear on board to do it, if for no other reason than the Air Intercept radars of the fighters they would face had to be handled/detected similarly to the ground based air defense systems. Going to the Notch on a PD radar works the same, be that radar airborne or ground based, and you have to know the same basic information, no matter the source of that radar. So from a hardware aspect the same equipment that helps defend you in Air to Air also can help you in SAM defended air space. But also all of these platforms would be up in the envelope of the SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, and SA-6, from the day the first spec for those aircraft was written.
Ideally someone should have already killed the SA-2/3/4/5/6/11/17 before the A-10 is in the area. Even today, if the A-10 is facing an SA-10/20, someone already screwed the pooch.
And then there is the difference in job today from 1970. Today the A-10, close to the ground and over the tanks, has to deal with the SA-8, SA-15, 2S6, SA-16/18/24, etc. Threats that have advanced a long way since the A-10 was first fielded, categories of threats that did not exist when the A-10 was proposed.
I would argue that after the first 2 days of the fight there was no modern Air Defense system in the Gulf War. First remember it was 25 years ago, and although probably one of the top 10 AD zones in the World then it was not really modern by todays standards. And then look at the course of events, other platforms killed the C^2 nodes before the A-10 ever went into those kinds of areas, killing all but local coordination. Sure, the A-10 did face opposition, but not very "coordinated", other than at a local, and probably verbal, level.
The only comment I can really make about losses during OAF is that the A-10's flew a fraction of the sorties that the other aircraft did in zones or envelopes covered by SAMS, and for the F-117 and F-16 losses, even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.
Regardless, I don't really think that events of 25 and 17 years ago supply an indicator of how the A-10 would fair today.
T!
Glider
Captain
If its any interest the USAAF has started the process to replace the A10 with a new aircraft designed to do the job, not using the F35 or any other aircraft as the long term solution.
Token
Senior Airman
They have been looking for several years at aircraft like the A-29 / Super Tucano or the AT-6 to fill portions of this role, in fact at one time they placed a contract for 100 aircraft, but that got killed. Further, the A-X2 program would be based on a new design aircraft, instead of repurposing an existing airframe. I really think they are going to have problems getting that funded.
The existing aircraft approach would only fill part of the need, and would require an F-35/F-18/mystery aircraft combination to completely cover the tasking. The A-X2 program might actually replace the A-10 with a capable, modern, survivable aircraft...if it ever happens.
T!
