some F35 info (1 Viewer)

[GrauGeist]

I agree...the Army and the Marines could use the A-10 for close ground support missions, but from what I am seeing, the Army isn't interested and for it to be acceptable for USMC use, it would most likely have to be navalized.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree...the Army and the Marines could use the A-10 for close ground support missions, but from what I am seeing, the Army isn't interested and for it to be acceptable for USMC use, it would most likely have to be navalized.

The Army is not interested because helicopters are better suited for what they need. Simple as that.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Army is not interested because helicopters are better suited for what they need. Simple as that.

Well, I don't think it's actually as simple as that. And bear with me for a minute here while I play Devil's advocate.

Since WWII (and to a lesser degree, Korea), the U.S. has not fought a large-scale war against a technically equal opponent. During the Gulf wars, the U.S. was against Soviet trained and Soviet/French equipped Iraqi forces, but certainly not on a level of the Soviet Union of the cold-war era.

So all the U.S. has been against in recent years, is assclowns in Afghanistan and Iraq playing cat and mouse in a low-tech hide-and-seek brawl.

We should not assume that this will be the face of warfare in the future, especially with Putin playing from Hitler's playbook and China playing the silent game over in the corner.

I give alot of credit to rotory wing aircraft, they have proven their value time and again on the battlefield but how well will the attack helos do against top of the line Russian T-90 tanks with their reactive armor, Kontact-5 ERA and Shtora countermeasures? And when Russian armor deploys, it is in a composite group that includes mobile AA batteries (like the BUK system) and is all well drilled and co-ordinated. With the T-90, comes the equally capable T-80 and upfit T-72.

On the other end of Asia, China has some serious stuff like Norinco's Type 99 and to a lesser degree, the Type 98. These forces are not a bunch of clowns wearing sweatsuits, yelling and waving RPGs or riding in the back of Toyota pickups armed with MGs...these are some serious contenders.

For attack helos to get into the mix with Soviet style deployments (ground forces supported by an AFV mix) would be a difficult and costly proposal without heavy backup in the form of a dedicated armor hunter/killer like the A-10. Which, by the way, would rip any of the afore-mention AFVs to shreds.

The armed forces need to stop and rethink the cold war possibilities and keep real threats in mind.

 

[Lucky13]

The A-10 can deliver a far greater punch than just about any combat helicopter around (except perhaps, for the Mi-24VM) and has a far greater survivability margin than any rotary wing aircraft.

When the A-10 takes AA over a target, remains on station until misson accomplished and then returns to base intact with it's pilot unharmed, you have just gotten a 100% return on your investment.

Not many other aircraft (of any type) can match that.

Skyraider!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well, I don't think it's actually as simple as that. And bear with me for a minute here while I play Devil's advocate.

Since WWII (and to a lesser degree, Korea), the U.S. has not fought a large-scale war against a technically equal opponent. During the Gulf wars, the U.S. was against Soviet trained and Soviet/French equipped Iraqi forces, but certainly not on a level of the Soviet Union of the cold-war era.

So all the U.S. has been against in recent years, is assclowns in Afghanistan and Iraq playing cat and mouse in a low-tech hide-and-seek brawl.

We should not assume that this will be the face of warfare in the future, especially with Putin playing from Hitler's playbook and China playing the silent game over in the corner.

I give alot of credit to rotory wing aircraft, they have proven their value time and again on the battlefield but how well will the attack helos do against top of the line Russian T-90 tanks with their reactive armor, Kontact-5 ERA and Shtora countermeasures? And when Russian armor deploys, it is in a composite group that includes mobile AA batteries (like the BUK system) and is all well drilled and co-ordinated. With the T-90, comes the equally capable T-80 and upfit T-72.

On the other end of Asia, China has some serious stuff like Norinco's Type 99 and to a lesser degree, the Type 98. These forces are not a bunch of clowns wearing sweatsuits, yelling and waving RPGs or riding in the back of Toyota pickups armed with MGs...these are some serious contenders.

For attack helos to get into the mix with Soviet style deployments (ground forces supported by an AFV mix) would be a difficult and costly proposal without heavy backup in the form of a dedicated armor hunter/killer like the A-10. Which, by the way, would rip any of the afore-mention AFVs to shreds.

The armed forces need to stop and rethink the cold war possibilities and keep real threats in mind.

I will disagree. For the Army's role and it's mission the helo os more adaptable than a fixed wing aircraft. Each branch has it's purpose, and nothing is more suited for the Army's boots on the ground occupy land and push through force.

The branches themselves work with cohesion, and the A-10 while important is never going to land in the field anywhere and be a force multiplier for the Army Division commander.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Greyman,

Everyone focuses on the A-10 and yet it's the F-16 and F/A-18 that have provided the bulk of air-to-ground CAS-type munition delivery in recent conflicts. The A-10 simply isn't needed anymore - other aircraft can drop the same ordnance and its gun isn't much use for current operations (spreading depleted uranium across terrain that's being used by ordinary folk trying to scratch a living isn't going to win the hearts-and-minds campaign). The biggest problem with the A-10 is its lack of utility for larger-scale operations against a well-developed adversary (too easily detected, too slow to evade and, despite its legendary toughness, not sufficiently survivable - it's SAM fodder). Simply put, the cost of maintaining a specialized platform like the A-10 isn't justified.

You have some valid points there Buff - many folks will sing the accolades of the A-10 but understand that when you are flying that machine you are putting yourself out there to be shot at. Without a doubt the "titanium bathtub" is a great selling point to the confidence and survivability of A-10 pilots, but having worked with a few of them, I think that they (and many others) would rather fly an aircraft where speed will mitigate being hit by ground fire rather than flying in an armored bathtub where you're hearing to hits on your aircraft as you fly along. I equate to a boxer who would rather bob and weave and use speed to avoid getting punched rather than being a bruiser who would just take the beating to eventually win the fight.

And then you also have the "golden BB."

 

[gjs238]

Has Air Force lack of enthusiasm for CAS and the like been a driver of rotary wing aircraft like the AH-64?
I.E., if we can't depend on the USAF, then we better field our own air support.

 

[gjs238]

And then you also have the "golden BB."

Hey, save that for the P-51 thread

 

[gjs238]

The biggest problem with the A-10 <SNIP> despite its legendary toughness, not sufficiently survivable - it's SAM fodder).

Could the same be said for the Apache Cobra?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Has Air Force lack of enthusiasm for CAS and the like been a driver of rotary wing aircraft like the AH-64?
I.E., if we can't depend on the USAF, then we better field our own air support.

Our combined forces work very well together and in cohesion. That is kind of why I say the Army does not need the A-10. It needs rotary wing aircraft that are in the field on the front line. When it needs more, the A-10's are a radio call away.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think its safe to say that the army boots on the ground are going to say they don't need the A-10 in their arsenal, the bean counters at the pentagon may say differently.

 

[gjs238]

Then how does this jibe with the Marines who have both organic rotary and fixed wing air support?

 

[ScreamingLighting]

To each man his own, including to their opinions on the A-10. I'm just going to say that the A-10 is the kind of ac which can do this:
Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush > U.S. Air Force > Article Display

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To each man his own, including to their opinions on the A-10. I'm just going to say that the A-10 is the kind of ac which can do this:
Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush > U.S. Air Force > Article Display

No one is denying the A-10 is not a great acft. I personally love it. A guy I used to fly with in the Army is now an AF A-10 piot. He loves it as well.

I am just saying that every acft has its role, and each of our branches utilizes the acft they use based off of their needs and type of mission.

As for your example, I have seen personally several other types of acft do the same thing. Including rotary wing types.

 

[ScreamingLighting]

No one is denying the A-10 is not a great acft. I personally love it. A guy I used to fly with in the Army is now an AF A-10 piot. He loves it as well.

I am just saying that every acft has its role, and each of our branches utilizes the acft they use based off of their needs and type of mission.

As for your example, I have seen personally several other types of acft do the same thing. Including rotary wing types.

The A-10 is considerably less vulnerable. But beyond the point. The problem I'm having is that some people are claiming that acft like the A-10 aren't necessary anymore. Especially top-brass at the pentagon who are trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35, which I find vile on every level.

 

[buffnut453]

The only aircraft in the world that's even remotely "like" the A-10 is the Su-25 which, apart from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, is not operated in serious numbers by any other air force (most export locations have a single squadron or less which doesn't make a compelling case for operational efficiency - how many airframes out of 12 purchased would actually be operational at any one time? Maybe 4?).

Although the CAS role is still entirely valid, the need for a dedicated low-n-slow attack aircraft is far less compelling...other aircraft can do that job sufficiently well to neutralize the benefits from maintaining a discrete type dedicated to getting up-close and personal (I'd rather stay as far away from the enemy as possible and neutralize him with a long-range pointy stick than get up close in a knife fight where luck may not be on my side). The only way to make the A-10 affordable is to restart production, and begin re-equipping squadrons on a much larger scale with an airframe that can only do CAS. The financial case for such a course of action simply isn't there.

I like the A-10. It's cool. I'll never forget watching one on a live fire exercise and hearing the gun sounding like a huge zipper being drawn. Unfortunately, in a high-threat layered air defence network it simply is not going to survive. It spends way too much time being visible and can't get out of the way quick enough (and I don't mean dodging missiles...I mean its exposure between periods of terrain masking, such as when attacking targets). Necessary, needed and affordable are 3 very different things. I can believe that the A-10 is needed but not that it's either necessary or affordable (under current fiscal constraints).

 

[GrauGeist]

The A-10 was built during the cold war, so it was designed with a layered defense system in mind. It's ECM/countermeasures afford it a level of protection and it does have a many-times proven ability to absorb damage that would down most other aircraft.

Also, the Russian and Chinese tanks have a layered reactive armor system that will resist many types of air launched missiles, however, the GAU-8 of the A-10 is unique in the fact that it's rate of fire literally overwhelms the Kontakt system and allows a breach in the armor.

It was originally projected that the Air Force would keep the A-10 until 2028 and quite honestly, if the U.S. can keep the B-52 in operation for 60 years, then another ten for the A-10 shouldn't be unreasonable.

It might be interesting to see the losses of the A-10 in a combat environment compared to rotary wing attack and fighters

 

[buffnut453]

Some of us remember the Cold War only too well. From initial deployment of the A-10 and thru most of its life, the bulk of the air defences comprised ZSU-23/4s, SA-13s, SA-8s, SA-6s and SA-7/14 MANPADS. Today it would go up against systems with longer ranges, considerably faster reaction times and far more capable radars like the 2S6 (with SA-19), SA-11 and SA-15 (and the SA-18 MANPAD). It's a much tougher environment.

ECM can help but faster platforms can also carry that protection...and they'd present less open shoot target time to these threat systems. Personally, I wouldn't want to go up against modern SAMs in any aircraft. The Cold War vision of A-10s swooping down to destroy enemy tank formations was always overblown. To use the GAU-8, the aircraft needs to be in a dive - you can't strafe flying horizontally - which means the aircraft has to pull up, right into the sweet spot of all these rapid-response AAA and SAM threats. It's also worth bearing in mind that you don't need to penetrate the armour of a tank to neutralize it. There are M- and F-kills (mobility and firepower), and the mobility part is always a vulnerable spot for missiles and even guns on other fighter aircraft...but I still wouldn't want to try it.

In a future war, if we want to stop a massed enemy armoured advance, the best targets are probably fuel and ammo dumps in rear areas rather than plinking individual tanks. Those fuel and ammo dumps are pretty ideal targets for a platform like the F-35.

Again, I'm not anti the A-10 but we also have to be realistic about its operational effectiveness in a modern force-on-force war.

 

[buffnut453]

As for combat loss statistics...the sample size is so small as to be irrelevant but here you go based on a Wikipedia listing of Desert Storm losses (this is the most representative since all aircraft were operating in the same theatre at the same time):

A-10 - 4
AV-8B - 4
F-16 - 3
A-6E - 3
F/A-18 - 2
F-15E - 2
AH-64 - 1

 

[GrauGeist]

Hitting fuel and ammo dumps don't help the guys in the holes that are staring down advancing enemy armor