Air Force considering A-10 replacement

a reply to: pheonix358

The Marines have CAS platforms, as does the Navy. The Air Force has always performed the mission, and done it fairly well. They'll keep doing it, because it would cost too much to create an Army fixed wing force.

originally posted by: pheonix358

“We have always, throughout our history, been dedicated to defense of the ground force from the air,”

Well that is utter crap.

The assets to provide CAS should belong to the army / marines.

The air-force has always been interested in fighters, bombers and nukes.

That is why they want to retire the A-10. They do not give a pork chop for the grunts on the ground. They never have.

Just look at what the army had to go through to arm choppers in the first place.

P

I agree, the air force likes to play PC, but they don't care about the guys on the ground.

The army should be in control of the CAS assets its guys need.

Then you have the branch with the guys on the ground developing for their guys on the ground.

Not just hoping the other guys are developing for your best interest instead of theirs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shamrock6

If they build it, and if they build it right, you'll have a dedicated platform as good if not better than the A-10, and able to survive against modern defenses.

Today but what about next week? I have to agree with you that the people that be are rabid about getting rid of the A-10 and it gives me pause. I am not an aircraft fanatic but this story has been all over my radar for the past few weeks, just letting you know that I have indeed read up on the situation. I will stay tuned just to read the facts a data.

Regards, Iwinder

The USAF are saying they want to retire the A-10 and save 4.2 billion. If they are looking to save dollars I doubt they will start a new project.
The F-35 is supposed to replace the A-10 and it can do the CAS role with 25mm gun and external stores. The A-10 has been a great plane but really what can it do other jets can't? The 30mm gun is about all. The F-16 can drop all the same stores with better PGM capability.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Air Force has always performed the mission, and done it fairly well. They'll keep doing it, because it would cost too much to create an Army fixed wing force.

With respect, the Air-force were brought screaming into the room in the first place.

They do it now only because they do not want the army to have fixed wing, it would take away a slice of their budget.

It all goes back to the damn stupid Key West agreement and that was all about a turf war.

P

a reply to: JimTSpock

Anti-tank, and long loiter CAS. The F-35 and others carry a couple of hundred rounds for the gun. The A-10 carries something like 1800 rounds. The A-10 is a dedicated CAS platform. The others can do the mission, but the A-10 is a specialist, where they're generalists.

a reply to: pheonix358

Be that as it may, the problem still is that it would double or triple the annual Army budget. Even more than that to begin with. The Air Force already has depot facilities in place, with their own people trained, as well as the facilities to do maintenance on the bases, the specialized equipment, etc. The Army would have to start from the ground up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Shooting tanks with the gun is probably not a very realistic scenario these days, and any AAA or MANPADs will make close range strafing dangerous.
Anti-tank guided missiles like AGM-65 Mavericks are better. F-16s and F/A-18s have been using their 20mm guns for CAS and they have 500 rounds, but you're right the internal 25mm on the F-35 only has 180 rounds.

Having said that though I'd like to see the old A-10 in service as long as possible but it can't keep going forever and will have to be retired at some point.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JimTSpock

Anti-tank, and long loiter CAS. The F-35 and others carry a couple of hundred rounds for the gun. The A-10 carries something like 1800 rounds. The A-10 is a dedicated CAS platform. The others can do the mission, but the A-10 is a specialist, where they're generalists.

Bingo, just what I have been thinking for the past few weeks, but I am a layman when it comes to air power.
You said it well and even I could understand that one:-) and agree with it!

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: JimTSpock

There have been several CAS missions over Afghanistan where the 1800 rounds of the GAU-8 saved the day. Anything else would have had to have multiple flights and left the ground guys uncovered until the next flight arrived. The two A-10s were able to stay overhead until they were able to break contact, because they had enough ammunition internally.

The AAA problem is the reason a replacement is necessary. The Hogs can't survive, but a new aircraft would be able to, while still being a CAS specialist that is necessary.

Totally tired of listening to the AF sling snot and weak talking points over why the A-10 has to go.

Like they don't get enough billions for platforms to face the mystical boogie men of advanced air-to-air. And whenever the latest gets fielded, guess what? That won't be good enough anymore. But no worries. There will be some defense contractors come along with yet the next "multi-role" wonder solution.

Remember this: the AF is a cog in the wheel, not the whole wheel. The A-10 fits awesomely in that wheel. If the AF brass wants to run around DC milking the taxpayer dry on BS programs, so be it. Just do not forget the Warfighter on the ground needs some help. They love the A-10 because it works.

Jeeze with all the drone activity youd think that a couple raptors with say three drones under their control could provide more and better CAS without endangering pilots or worrying about the ground fire or manpads too much.....
A simple flying cannon driven by a remote pilot who could run it dry and send it home while switching to controlling drone number 2 for the next pass....
Thata ways you get three loads off for one pilots work....as well as the raptor for top cover on the drones.....maybe....

I think the newer AC-130 gun ships can provide the same mission options as the old A-10 and they have far scarier weapons and sensors on board. Also most of the US missions now days are small theater ops with mostly night missions.

With Global Hawk on over watch and predators closer to ground and all sorts of robots and spy planes information war pretty much aces the old conventional ground campaign.

AC-130s can loiter out of range of most defenses and sustain ops for a long time. Heck they can in flight refuel to hang around on the edges of the battlefield and provide precision ordnance on the target or hefty conventional strike packages. The A-10 really is not needed in theater level operations that much any more.

a reply to: machineintelligence

An AC-130 would die faster than an A-10. They can stay out of range of most MANPADS, but a mobile launcher, or even a fixed launcher will eat them alive unless it's suppressed already, in which case, the A-10 could do the mission.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The concept of the A-10 if absolutely beautiful and useful. I understand that its survivability is limited now days, and a new CAS may be needed, but I hope they don't start from scratch.

I just can't see the F-35 serving the guys on the ground anywhere as well as the A-10 can.

A 30mm on a more powerful and stealthy airframe with electronic warfare capabilities is the only way to go IMHO.

ETA: or maybe a new 30mm design altogether. The 30mm has roughly 136,000ft/lb of energy already, but if its velocity could be increased to 4,000ft/s from 3,250ft/s it would have over 200,000ft/lbs of energy.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Gunships are sitting ducks when going up against any kind of halfway respectable air defense system. It's always been one of their Achilles heels. The newer gunships pack a lot of firepower, but don't quite have a stand off capability that would allow them to be useful in a contested environment.

What happens when the Global Hawks and Preds get shot down?

In the large scheme of things, the US isn't planning for a future of small theatre, COIN, and counter terrorism missions. They are gearing up to have the capabilities necessary to win a war against a peer state. SOCOM and other agencies are mostly taking the lead in those smaller wars.

I think its time for a drone CAS aircraft to work with the A-10s.

There are ways to counter triple A like 500,000,000 candlepower flash bombs that blind the gunners.
www.harringtonmuseum.org.uk...

This worked in Vietnam to protect AC130s when the US found this out by accident while doing photo recon runs on the Ho Chi Minh trail.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

replace the 30mm with two 20mm gatling guns. More rounds on target.....

My overall opinion on the subject?

There might not always be a place on the modern battlefield for the mighty A-10.

But there will always be a place for the GAU-8 Avenger. It is the mortal incarnation of the Grim Reaper's Scythe.

Does it need a redesign?

Nope... Its more than capable of engaging almost all targets with precise lethality time and time again. All that is needed is another airframe that is capable of taking that weapon to the battlefield. If the A-10 can do it then send the A-10. if not then its time to find other ways of getting the GAU-8 to the needed position and "unwanting" whatever is there whilst either being able to engage or deny the use of modern anti-air defenses to ensure its survival.

I have seen how much that gun is appreciated by those who have been supported by it and as long as it terrifies the enemy and makes the friendlies feel safe then long should it be in service.

The M-2 Browning and the 1911 pistol are still here the Avenger deserves to credited with that same distinction. It just plain works and that's the best thing about it

Regards,

M.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have never been to war.

However, of those I have spoken with who have been to war, and been on the ground during conflict, one of the things I have heard from them very often, is that the most reassuring sound a foot soldier can hear, is either the sound of a chopper coming to exfil their unit, or the sound of an A-10 strafing an enemy position or armour unit.

As long as the aircraft can do the job, it ought to continue to do the job. The Air Force being unwilling to maintain a single role airframe for bugetary reasons is perhaps the most irrelevant argument against continuing to use the A-10, or any other bit of military hardware that has a use, that I have ever heard.