AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[Steve Holt!]

I would like to see the A-10 stick around, but the arguments I've seen from most A-10 guys throwing around on here and facebook as to why it should stay are not convincing. A decade of COIN has us thinking that the Army cannot conduct ground operations without constant close air support. When we get into a real war, every time a grunt hears an AK-47, there will not be a dedicated two ship overhead within 5 minutes. Yes, it is the best airplane ever built for killing tanks. But the absolute best tank killer is..... another tank. Two target strafe against moving armor is badass, but once we finally get that anti-armor laser guided 2.75" rocket (technically a missile?), we will be able to create the same effects on the battlefield above tactical AAA and manpads from just about any airplane.

Seems to me that it is only a matter of time. If I were an A-10 dude, I'd be arguing pretty hard for a low cost medium tech LAS aircraft. And this is coming from a guy who wants to see A-10s still in the CAF a decade from now. I just don't see that happening.

The hog is capable of a level of CAS well above what's been needed in Afghanistan over the last decade. The first gulf war I think is a better example of the reason the hog was created.

Everyone's always keen to jump on the green and blue shit bandwagon for the future of the A/G bubbas, which I think is why "the bone is the best CAS platform to date." That's a lot of investment in a lot of systems that have to work right to get the job done. There are already plenty of stories of dudes who end up putting bombs in terribly wrong places when everything works normally, what happens when their colored shit doesn't work

Edited September 23, 2013 by Steve Holt!

[BFM this]

Chorwon Valley + "Korea VFR".

A lot of weight on the shoulders of our Apache brethren if the Hawg is parked.

It's ok, though, we could sit back and watch that fight unfold with GMTI.

[Pancake]

Like I said, valid, but did you see the A-10 in Lybia, either time? Kosovo at all? Panama on the least? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure if you're being serious... And I think it's "Libya." Unless you meant to use an "a" in place of that "y." In that case, no I did not.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Pancake

[Pancake]

Hyperbole much? As a fellow slow kid at play, I'm as big an A-10 fan as anyone but entire wars won't hinge on its existence.

You're right. But wars definitely hinge on capabilities. How would WWII have ended without dedicated long-range bombers? Would Vietnam have been different with a dedicated CAS airplane with more capability than the A-1? What would armor BDA from the Gulf War been without the A-10? How would the Cold War ended without the F-15, nuke aircraft carriers, and ICBMs. My point is, our edge in the world isn't that we have just have cool airplanes, it's that we have very skilled mission-specific operators, enabled by excellent mission-specific airplanes, that everyone else in the world rivals. We lose that edge when we're all flying multi-role fighters.

So yeah, the absence of the A-10 specifically doesn't mean anything. It's the absence of a dedicated, capable, CAS fighter, and the expertise its pilot cohort brings to the fight, that can change the entire outcome of a war. Same applies to a dedicated A/A fighter, long-range bombers, etc... Otherwise, why not just have 1 fighter that's responsible for every mission? Or 1 helo that fulfills both the role of the Blackhawk and Apache? Or 1 transport that covers C-5 and C-130 duties? Or 1 trainer that covers T-6, T-1, T-38 and C-12 syllabi? Or how about just 1 all-role airplane? See my point?

Funny thing is that amongst all this insistence that we can't fund mission-specific airplanes, there's no talk about cutting F-22s, C-17s, B-2s, and the like. That's why I don't buy the idea that the end of the A-10 will be the end of the dedicated CAS fighter. Again, IMO, this "can't fund mission-specific airplanes" argument is the line the leadership needs to use today to get a replacement tomorrow. The leadership sees a horizon with little immediate need for a dedicated CAS platform, but if they're even casual observers of military history and lessons-learned, they can't deny that mission-specific airplanes and their communities are essential to maintaining our relevance as a force, especially in relation to our sister services (i.e... CAS and transport). I personally think this is all posturing to get a fifth-gen CAS replacement in the next decade (and "stealth" is generally only one fifth-gen characteristic, the big one being battlespace interoperability).

One more thing... History has also shown that when the AF doesn't meet the Army's needs, it gets its ass kicked by DoD and Congress. If the Army insists on having a dedicated CAS airplane, whether today or tomorrow, the AF will have one. So unless the Army says "we're good," we (the AF) are not good. Something tells me the Army wants a dedicated CAS airplane...

Edited September 23, 2013 by Pancake

[AnimalMother]

You're right. But wars definitely hinge on capabilities. How would WWII have ended without dedicated long-range bombers?

The same.

[Lawman]

Chorwon Valley + "Korea VFR".

A lot of weight on the shoulders of our Apache brethren if the Hawg is parked.

It's ok, though, we could sit back and watch that fight unfold with GMTI.

Ok as one of those Apache brethren I'm gonna ring in here.

1. Nothing in our current fight reflects any manner of how we would be employed in a fit against any kind of force with near parity in firepower. We are aerial QRF, and so is CAS in theatre.

2. What does the A-10 drop at all of the other horses in the stable don't. Besides that bitchen gun you got, there isn't a weapon you carry that somebody else can't.

3. All this crap on desert storm and the great impact of whatever platform... That fight was 24 years ago. That fight predates 2S6, SA24, Gauntlet, and a host of other deadly ass shit that will literally bend over and rape any platform out there that gets in its WEZ titanium bathtub or no. Standoff, low observability, lots of expendables (which are getting less and less effective) is gonna be critical when you can buy a weapon with 4 fold better Pk than the weapon systems our aircraft were designed to take on.

Observations I've had...

I've been in the stack with Hawg... Other than that inaccurate (by our standards) gun they don't bring anything crazy awesome to the fight that couldn't be carried on another aircraft or a low cost idea like have been proposed. Your not there any longer because as the tanker orbits get fewer and firer between your on station time is offset by your slow cycle time in the yo-yo. You don't have a sensor that permits any better vid than the other aircraft (similar to how we have better eyes than the 58s). Will you be missed at Air Shows and by people with a place in their heart, sure. But the same is true of the Tomcat, and the sky didn't fall down when it was retired.

[Danny Noonin]

My point is, our edge in the world isn't that we have just have cool airplanes, it's that we have very skilled mission-specific operators, enabled by excellent mission-specific airplanes, that everyone else in the world rivals. We lose that edge when we're all flying multi-role fighters.

I don't entirely agree with you. I fully agree on the training part. But what you are saying is that you'd rather have F-15Cs do a fighter sweep instead of F-22s because the Eagles are single mission and the F-22s are not.

Otherwise, why not just have 1 fighter that's responsible for every mission?

Ummm...hello McFly. F-35? It's going to be awesome. I read about it in a powerpoint brief.

1 trainer that covers T-6, T-1, T-38 and C-12 syllabi?

It's being talked about, believe it or not.

amongst all this insistence that we can't fund mission-specific airplanes, there's no talk about cutting F-22s, C-17s, B-2s, and the like. That's why I don't buy the idea that the end of the A-10 will be the end of the dedicated CAS fighter.

So because we are not cutting our newest, most advanced airplanes you think that means we are going to start up a multi-billion dollar new acquisition program during unprecedented budgetary pressure? For a mission set we can do (on paper) with other airplanes?

I personally think this is all posturing to get a fifth-gen CAS replacement in the next decade (and "stealth" is generally only one fifth-gen characteristic, the big one being battlespace interoperability).

Sorry man, you are out to lunch in almost every regard here. First, it isn't posturing. It's just math. Second, you are on crack if you think we can produce a 5th gen anything in a decade. Third, battlespace interoperability? You're kidding right? You haven't the slightest idea what 5th gen actually means. I mean not even close.

History has also shown that when the AF doesn't meet the Army's needs, it gets its ass kicked by DoD and Congress. If the Army insists on having a dedicated CAS airplane, whether today or tomorrow, the AF will have one. So unless the Army says "we're good," we (the AF) are not good. Something tells me the Army wants a dedicated CAS airplane...

You must not be very old, because your view of history is pretty recently focused. Congress is the one cutting the money. And DoD has a little strategy called the "shift to the Pacific"...you may have heard of it. By the way, the Army is going to cut 130,000 active duty troops and cut brigade combat teams by 45%, so they understand the money crunch pretty well right now too. The Army gets to demand CAS. They do not get to demand CAS with an A-10.

[Pancake]

I don't entirely agree with you. I fully agree on the training part. But what you are saying is that you'd rather have F-15Cs do a fighter sweep instead of F-22s because the Eagles are single mission and the F-22s are not.

A-10s are multi-role too, you know. We carry AIM-9s! I know where you're going with your comment, but entertaining a multi-role label on the F-22 is strictly a marketing gimmick by leadership to justify the A-10 as a single-role airplane. BTW, who has more A/A victories, the A-10 or the F-22? Yeah, I know, helos don't count.

Ummm...hello McFly. F-35? It's going to be awesome. I read about it in a powerpoint brief.

I saw the unclass version. Badass, man...

It's being talked about, believe it or not.

T-38s for all my friends!

So because we are not cutting our newest, most advanced airplanes you think that means we are going to start up a multi-billion dollar new acquisition program during unprecedented budgetary pressure? For a mission set we can do (on paper) with other airplanes?

The AF will take delivery of a new dedicated CAS platform when the Army screams to DoD that AF CAS is inadequate, just like post-Vietnam. The end of OIF/OEF, and the pivot to the Pacific offers a CAS "peace dividend" that leadership wants to take advantage of. In other words, they don't think we'll need a dedicated CAS platform for any foreseeable conflict. This is probably true, but the same thing was said after the fall of USSR, and how many land wars have we been in since?

Sorry man, you are out to lunch in almost every regard here. First, it isn't posturing. It's just math. Second, you are on crack if you think we can produce a 5th gen anything in a decade. Third, battlespace interoperability? You're kidding right? You haven't the slightest idea what 5th gen actually means. I mean not even close.

Leadership can show us whatever numbers it takes to convince us this is a crisis. Instead, let's look at what's actually been cut. Flying hours? Temporarily, then turned back on when money was suddenly found. The Thunderbirds? Not in any way a calculated move to make a very visible, but generally meaningless budget cut. Oh, and they're flying again. Landscaping? Again very calculated, visible, and meaningless. WIC classes? Not sure how they made that decision, but it's a shame the T-birds fly while our best young IPs not only sit out WIC and don't get the training and earned opportunity, but absorb the hit that absence will leave on their PRF. TDYs? Red Flag? Did anyone miss out on pre-deployment spin-up?

I'm Guard now, so maybe I'm insulated, but I just don't see any meaningful cuts. Obviously, that will change as fleets are cut, but it looks as if the leadership is attempting to cut systems they have wanted to cut for years, and this budget "crisis" along with our general pull-back has finally given them the ammo to convince Congress these jets have got to go!

IMO, the AF shouldn't care about the airplanes themselves, but should care about the personnel and support resources needed to make these jets (A-10) effective on the battlefield. I said it in a previous post, but a fifth-gen data link and associated sensors not only makes a platform more effective, but eliminates the need for other platforms, and that's how the AF justifies the high price tag of the new tech... Ultimately, it'll be cheaper to buy an F-35 than to maintain the 3-4 other airplanes that older equipment (like the A-10) needs to operate in a contested environment. We're not just going to cut the A-10, B-1, and KC-10. My guess is that AWACS, JSTARS, and platforms of their ilk are next, especially as new tech eliminates the need for their services. And the real savings will be when we cut the corresponding number of people required to support all of those support airframes.

You must not be very old, because your view of history is pretty recently focused. Congress is the one cutting the money. And DoD has a little strategy called the "shift to the Pacific"...you may have heard of it. By the way, the Army is going to cut 130,000 active duty troops and cut brigade combat teams by 45%, so they understand the money crunch pretty well right now too. The Army gets to demand CAS. They do not get to demand CAS with an A-10.

Joint doctrine has made CAS a primary competency. We took just about everything we learned from Vietnam and doing CAS with A-1s/A-4s/F-100s/F-4s/OV-10s and poured that knowledge, combined with likely central European scenarios, into the A-10 and subsequently 3-09.3. Vietnam was 50 years ago. The AF isn't 70 yet. How far back do I need to go?

You're right, the Army doesn't get to demand the A-10. And really, it's not the Army who asks for the A-10, it's the BALO or JTAC filling out the ASR. I have seen many, many ASRs requesting "long loiter, 30 mm, TGP, Rx." And the MAP Cell meets those requests to the max extent. Never have I heard a MAP planner say,"They'll take what we give them and they'll like it."

In all seriousness, the Army asks for capability. When the AF can't meet that capability, we'll see a dedicated CAS replacement. Which, with the acquisition process we have, will come on line 10-15 years after the conflict that generated the request is over... No F-16, F-35 or F-22 (cough) is going to strafe armor, moving targets, troops in ridge lines with <1000' ceilings. Precision munitions have limitations. AC-130 has limitations. Faster airplanes have turn radius and target ID (more importantly, friendly ID) limitations. You can't weaponeer everything with GPS coords and laser codes. So, unless the F-35 has directed EMP capability or some seriously intense combat lasers, I don't see how the AF is going to meet Army CAS requirements in anything but another OEF-style conflict without a dedicated CAS platform and core/corps experience.

Now let's talk high intensity conflict. Do you really think the AF is going to assign F-35s and B-2s (after the B-1s are gone) to do CAS? Maybe the plan is to rely on Navy and Marine Corps Hornets to provide CAS... I don't know. A cut of 130,000 Army troops seems to make CAS an even higher priority in my mind. We absolutely cannot afford to lose an American soldier (in terms of numbers) when their value is increased by a smaller denominator!

The A-10 cut boils down to DoD doesn't foresee another ground war in the next decade. Hence the cut in ground troops, a non-nuclear bomber, older airlift, etc... I trust what the leadership is doing, although I don't particularly like how it's being sold, and there will be some pretty dire consequences if they're wrong. However, history suggests we will either have another dedicated CAS platform, or we'll pay for repeating 50-year-old mistakes.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Pancake

[Clark Griswold]

There almost was a somewhat low-observable attack aircraft once upon a time... McDonnell Douglas Modell 226-458 Quiet Attack Aircraft

Not saying that this is what needs to be replace the Hog but it is possible (if not financially but technically) to have a low signature if not true LO attack aircraft that will give you much better survivability and a dedicated attack / CAS platform but you have to do some horse trading to get it to happen.

Vertical cuts is the new line from the corner office, cut a whole MDS and the people / facilities to save much more money than a horizontal across an MDS cut that is less effective, one could make the argument to the Army and Congress that the JSTARS mission can be done cheaper by Global Hawk and cutting one of the legacy bombers, the Buff or Bone.

Maybe it would be enough money to develop a new platform or to get a dedicated attack / CAS platform from an existing and in-production aircraft, like a dedicated attack / CAS Super Hornet?

I doubt we will do anything but continue to put all our eggs in the F-35 basket, maybe it will work out maybe not but... CAS over a large maneuver force engaged in a force on force engagement, CAS in areas where rotary wing support may have trouble like in Anaconda, CAS over large areas requiring a quick transit time, CAS in contested areas requiring a platform that has at least a fighting chance against a shoot-n-scoot system like a SA-22 is not going away...

[Lawman]

Troll

Statistics. I can kill a BMP with a 10 round burst from 1500-1700 meters and expect 5 of those rounds to hit the front glasis. Fixed gun iron sights vs a turret with a weapons processor and constant laser range, it's technology man. I'm more accurate than any of my Rotory wing competition either.

I've been to Spangdalem and got the brief on how you shoot.... That line up the symbology buddy marking crap.... I'd go to jail if I did that.

[Vetter]

Statistics. I can kill a BMP with a 10 round burst from 1500-1700 meters and expect 5 of those rounds to hit the front glasis. Fixed gun iron sights vs a turret with a weapons processor and constant laser range, it's technology man. I'm more accurate than any of my Rotory wing competition either.

I've been to Spangdalem and got the brief on how you shoot.... That line up the symbology buddy marking crap.... I'd go to jail if I did that.

I'm confused. Are the saying the A-10 has fixed gun iron sights?

[Lawman]

I'm confused. Are the saying the A-10 has fixed gun iron sights?

No I'm saying anything physically bolted to the aircraft datum line starts off inherently less accurate than a system with full range of authority in az/el with a weapons processor that makes those compensations for you. Same reason my gun is more accurate than any of my helo brethren. Cobra doesn't have as expensive a Weapons Processor, and DAP shoots the same gun fixed from 1/6 the distance so they can hit accurately. Tell the truth do your gun scores get that way because your system is better than everybody else or because you spend so much more training working on it.

And what I'm saying is if people want to leverage the future of the A-10 off all the good it's done in the last ten years, they need to realize there are dozens of other aircraft capable of doing the same job and there are ideas out there OV-10X/A-29/etc that are better suited to this conflict than even the Hawg.

The people who think its gonna be pivotal to have the mud fighting down and dirty monster in the next war that has an actual FLOT though really need to go talk to some people about threat systems out there because that method of employment just got ridiculously more dangerous.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Lawman

[MD]

I'm confused. Are the saying the A-10 has fixed gun iron sights?

Is the STBY pipper still selectable in the HUD? Or HARS? Never flew the C model and my A model time started back in the WD-1/WD-2/EXP days of the HUD.

[Vetter]

Yep, he's a troll. We at Spang must have had our 1C give the Capes Brief because that's about his level of understanding of the Hog.

And your gun is still physically bolted to your airframe. Adding lots of servos adds lots of error, even if it's corrected by a computer. There is nothing more effective against a wide range of targets than a bore sighted GAU-8 with the proper type of rounds.

[Lawman]

Yep, he's a troll. We at Spang must have had our 1C give the Capes Brief because that's about his level of understanding of the Hog.And your gun is still physically bolted to your airframe. Adding lots of servos adds lots of error, even if it's corrected by a computer. There is nothing more effective against a wide range of targets than a bore sighted GAU-8 with the proper type of rounds.

Your gun has a wider dispersion at 1200 meters than mine does at 1700 (12m vs 3x3m mean dispersion). You can pull that off open source. It's math dude.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Lawman

[Vetter]

625 RPM vs 4200 RPM. It's math dude.

[Champ Kind]

Dick measuring that doesn't involve MAF guys flinging poo. Finally.

In all seriousness though, interesting discussion.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Champ Kind

[Lawman]

625 RPM vs 4200 RPM. It's math dude.

when your round has a 4m burst radius you don't need 300 of them in a beating zone.

[Vetter]

Okay dude. You win.

[Steve Holt!]

Just curious, how accurate are you guys when your lasers and whatnots don't work? Are you still allowed to play or do you call it and go home?

Let me know if this question puts us in weird opsec problems and I'll take it down

Edited September 24, 2013 by Steve Holt!

[DFRESH]

Slow day as SOF?

[Mark1]

I think the correct answer is, you both suck equally.

Who cares how accurate/inaccurate the guns are when inevitably you miss, or only kill half your targets between you and your -2, and it takes an eternity to get a re-attack accomplished.

Pylon turn for the win, bitches...as long as you don't involve the BMP.

[Lawman]

Just curious, how accurate are you guys when your lasers and whatnots don't work? Are you still allowed to play or do you call it and go home?

Let me know if this question puts us in weird opsec problems and I'll take it down

Me or them? It's an equation so garbage in garbage out, but there are work arounds that do start dwelling into OPSEC. The laser is just my best range source, not my only one.

Hoss, for ######ing Christ dude. Everybody gets replaced. The Sandy guys said exactly what ever hog guy is saying when it was their turn. The 111 guys said it about the mudhen, the 14s said it about the Rhino. The A-10 will someday go to the boneyard, the question posed is are you so irreplaceable either directly or by augmentation to make it worth it to keep you or start that process. If the whole world revolves around a gun nobody else has and the ability to get lower and slower and live in the WEZ of half a dozen systems light years ahead of the Gainful and Shilka that were top of the line when you were built then you'd better have something world beating, not just a different way to skin a cat.

Standards, I'm a maneuver platform not CAS, different doctrinal standard. Surgical is the pro word of the day, if I shot the way I've observed you and any other strafing fixed wing did I'd go to jail. When you've got JAG and BSOs trying to fry guys because he had rounds land on the other side of a fence it's infuriating to watch hammer pound away at a compound or see you guys strafe the ###### out of a target area and everything around it.

[Vetter]

Go away troll.

[Steve Holt!]

Lawman:

My question was directed at you. I've seen what the hog can do with ccip solutions, hars and iron sights, and I've seen hog pilots shoot with all 3 of them with the same level of accuracy. I guess it was a slightly loaded question, I was curious if you could still argue a 9 sq meter accuracy at your ranges without having nasa spaceship computers doing the aiming, since that seems to be the jut of your "the hog is a terrible platform" argument.

'Cause having to rely on all that stuff to get weapons off the jet would be a hell of a hindrance to your platforms effectiveness, wouldn't you agree?

*edit*

Also, dude, I don't think HOSS is upset by you thinking the hog should retired. The hog is an old and tired jet, and I wouldn't mind seeing a new A/G fighter built with the same level of care and design and purpose as the hog was back in the 70s, built with the same ideals that were put into the hog and flown by a community that gave a shit about the mission as much as the current hog community.. I think HOSS is upset by the fact that you seem to be full of shit.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Steve Holt!