Shhhh...Don't talk about the A-10

[Steve Davies]

1) Is this the investment the taxpayers want to make? Billions upon billions of dollars spent so that we can, *eventually*, be able to match the capabilities we already have? Am I taking crazy pills? When in history have we transitioned to next generation aircraft under the promise that the new generation will hopefully be as good as the last?

If this guy believes in the platform, he's got to speak to its advantages. Revolutionary technology, interoperability between services, etc. Something. ..... can you think of any really expensive investment you would make if someone told you they thought it might someday be as good as what you already had?

Hoss,

He clearly stated that in 10 years' time, the F-16 will be a flying target and that the F-35 is the answer to that.

My understanding has always been that the F-35's key role was never intended to be CAS - it was intended to be a door kicker on Day1 in a denied, double-digit SAM environment. No other airframe in the Air Force inventory can do that (at least, not in the white world inventory), so isn't that really what the F-35 must excel at?

If the F-35 is 'as good as' existing MDSs at CAS (and I note your caveats about that), but will be able to operate in a highly-advanced threat environment a decade from now, and if the Air Force has decided that it doesn't have the cash to splash on single-mission aircraft, then what is the solution?

[Majestik Møøse]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/10/fired-for-treason-comments/25569181/

Welp, thread's over then.

[xcraftllc]

I'm guessing he forgot the cardinal rule of "don't talk to the press.... Ever."

Listen, think, pause, respond, and stay inside your circle!

[di1630]

the F-35's key role was never intended to be CAS - it was intended to be a door kicker on Day1 in a denied, double-digit SAM environment.

Double digit SAMs have been around over 30 years, this is not some new emerging threat, legacy jets were always gonna have issues.

I doubt the F-35 ever kicks down the door. We have better options. As the envisioned $50m per copy LO, 2010 F-16 replacement, the F-35 was great. Now as a $140m per copy, 2022 to have the same capes as legacy fighters....just a shitshow.

It's not tough, do you want cheap, effective capes for the most likely threat (Islamic shitholes)? Or should we ditch the most cost effective, most used jets to prep for the unlikely war with China?

[MD]

...And again, this is in comparison to an F-16, which, not to start a dick-measuring contest, I would argue has a lengthy list of limitations and shortcomings in a CAS fight as it is.

In short, never speak to the media.

I think we need both platforms, for completely different reasons. And the F-16, it can do CAS, just as other aircraft can. Just not necessarily in the same way the A-10 does, or other planes do. Like anything, it has capes and lims.

As Hogs can't be everywhere, all the time; sometimes the best CAS aircraft, is the one overhead with ordnance when the crap is hitting the fan below.

[tac airlifter]

Great post HOSS. The political word games and outright dishonesty from our senior leaders on this and other acquisitions subjects is infuriating.

[Chuck Sargent]

I'm outside of my lane on this subject, but we talked about this alot in my firepower class this week.

I'm told the cost per hour of maintaining the Hog is what is driving it to its grave My land componenet peers love the Hog more than anything.

Would it make sense to open up an A-10 assembly line again? No improvements to the latest version to keep costs low. Just more units of firepower employed with fresh metal? Maybe stronger engines? That's the only thing anyone says about its shortcomings.

Bullet in their body should be the most important goal with CAS from what I see. We are trying to save money. What am I missing?

Very respectfully,

Chuck

[guineapigfury]

I'm outside of my lane on this subject, but we talked about this alot in my firepower class this week.

I'm told the cost per hour of maintaining the Hog is what is driving it to its grave My land componenet peers love the Hog more than anything.

Would it make sense to open up an A-10 assembly line again? No improvements to the latest version to keep costs low. Just more units of firepower employed with fresh metal? Maybe stronger engines? That's the only thing anyone says about its shortcomings.

Bullet in their body should be the most important goal with CAS from what I see. We are trying to save money. What am I missing?

Very respectfully,

Chuck

I think what you're missing is that there isn't an empty A-10 factory just sitting idle, waiting for someone to turn the lights back on. The real solution is to build a new and improved attack aircraft, without an asinine vtol requirement ruining everything.

[Lawman]

I'm outside of my lane on this subject, but we talked about this alot in my firepower class this week.

I'm told the cost per hour of maintaining the Hog is what is driving it to its grave My land componenet peers love the Hog more than anything.

Would it make sense to open up an A-10 assembly line again? No improvements to the latest version to keep costs low. Just more units of firepower employed with fresh metal? Maybe stronger engines? That's the only thing anyone says about its shortcomings.

Bullet in their body should be the most important goal with CAS from what I see. We are trying to save money. What am I missing?

Very respectfully,

Chuck

Yeah as GP said above, it's not possible.

One of the former Fairchild guys is on another forum and quashed this idea pretty well. Simply put there were literally rooms full of filling cabinets full of blue prints and production tooling designs to build the Hawg. And a factory full of guys with the knowledge and expertise on building it are all retired/extra retired. This stuff wasn't ever put on digits or filed away for posterity it was disposed of.

You would essentially have to reverse engineer the current Hawg and design the factory to build it. With the way we run acquisition programs over cost the normal way I can only imagine how much we would bolo that up.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Lawman

[busdriver]

Serious question for the Hog dudes and AC-130 types. If we were building a legit follow-on CAS aircraft, would a 30mm cannon be worth the 40% (rough I know) weight increase over a 25mm? I curious how small / light / cheap could you make this notional aircraft.

[17D_guy]

Yeah as GP said above, it's not possible.

One of the former Fairchild guys is on another forum and quashed this idea pretty well. Simply put there were literally rooms full of filling cabinets full of blue prints and production tooling designs to build the Hawg. And a factory full of guys with the knowledge and expertise on building it are all retired/extra retired. This stuff wasn't ever put on digits or filed away for posterity it was disposed of.

You would essentially have to reverse engineer the current Hawg and design the factory to build it. With the way we run acquisition programs over cost the normal way I can only imagine how much we would bolo that up.

That's like the original run aircraft carriers the Navy's moving away from now.

[hispeed7721]

Serious question for the Hog dudes and AC-130 types. If we were building a legit follow-on CAS aircraft, would a 30mm cannon be worth the 40% (rough I know) weight increase over a 25mm? I curious how small / light / cheap could you make this notional aircraft.

WRT the AC, having the 25 AND the 40 is orders of magnitude more effective than the 30 (not a W vs U thing, I've been told that by multiple JTAC's I've worked with).

Given that the new AC's will (hopefully/likely) have a large bore cannon to compliment it, you could make an argument for either the 25 or 30, and weight would not play a large part of the discussion.

I know that's not really an answer, but bottom line I think it could go either way depending on who you ask

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited April 11, 2015 by hispeed7721

[xcraftllc]

Serious question for the Hog dudes and AC-130 types. If we were building a legit follow-on CAS aircraft, would a 30mm cannon be worth the 40% (rough I know) weight increase over a 25mm? I curious how small / light / cheap could you make this notional aircraft.

(not trying to speak for the A-10 guys)

The main reason the Apache has a 30mm (and I'd imagine the A-10 as well) is to be able to take out armor. In short, I firmly believe that it would be a complete waste of time to build an attack/cas specific design with anything smaller than a 30. That is; you check in to a TIC in WWIII(or whatever) and there are five armored vehicles attacking some light armored convoy. Sorry guys, we only brought 4 armor penetrating bombs/missiles between us, looks like your F'ed. Aside from that, just in general can you imagine how frustrating it would be to have an A-series aircraft that can only attack armored targets with the same kind of bombs/missiles as any other air frame? (no offense harrier guys, I know 25mm API rounds technically work).

I'm curious to hear the A-10 guys opinion on this as well. Some other questions I would have would be; is the Avenger in the same boat as the air frame itself in that it would be cost prohibitive to build more for any such new air frame? Also how expensive/possible is it really to reset an A-10 air frame? I know they're doing such things with A and D model Apaches that are being converted to E models.

Edited April 11, 2015 by xcraftllc

[MD]

I'm outside of my lane on this subject, but we talked about this alot in my firepower class this week.

I'm told the cost per hour of maintaining the Hog is what is driving it to its grave My land componenet peers love the Hog more than anything.

Would it make sense to open up an A-10 assembly line again? No improvements to the latest version to keep costs low. Just more units of firepower employed with fresh metal? Maybe stronger engines? That's the only thing anyone says about its shortcomings.

Bullet in their body should be the most important goal with CAS from what I see. We are trying to save money. What am I missing?

Very respectfully,

Chuck

As was said, there is no assembly line for it and the tooling that had been stored at the boneyard has all been disposed of. Edited April 11, 2015 by MD

[Tex]

Wrt the 25 vs 30mm topic, in theory the right 25mm round could get you the kenitic affect of 30mm. It would take some design but I'm sure there is a big brain out there that could figure it out. Without getting into too much, bullett density accounts for much of the success against targets. It is why an average tactical burst from a hog is in the neighborhood of 100-200 rounds. Give me kenitic capibility and enough bullets and we can kill tanks. If I'm incorrect, I hope the AC130 guys will correct me, but the single barrel 30mm they have has a very different accuracy, rate of fire, and muzzle velocity compared to the GUA-8.

The last numbers we were quoted, the community is still significantly cheaper per hour than anyother fighter platform. But that is coming from within the community so take your choice if you want to believe the number.

As to the next CAS platform, there is rumor of a Boeing designed 90% scale hog that is light 200 rounds or so of the current 1150, sheds some weight of old wire bundles, and adds more efficient motors. Again pure rumor, but it was priced out below $20m. Take that for what you will.

[Lawman]

Wrt the 25 vs 30mm topic, in theory the right 25mm round could get you the kenitic affect of 30mm. It would take some design but I'm sure there is a big brain out there that could figure it out. Without getting into too much, bullett density accounts for much of the success against targets. It is why an average tactical burst from a hog is in the neighborhood of 100-200 rounds. Give me kenitic capibility and enough bullets and we can kill tanks. If I'm incorrect, I hope the AC130 guys will correct me, but the single barrel 30mm they have has a very different accuracy, rate of fire, and muzzle velocity compared to the GUA-8.

The last numbers we were quoted, the community is still significantly cheaper per hour than anyother fighter platform. But that is coming from within the community so take your choice if you want to believe the number.

As to the next CAS platform, there is rumor of a Boeing designed 90% scale hog that is light 200 rounds or so of the current 1150, sheds some weight of old wire bundles, and adds more efficient motors. Again pure rumor, but it was priced out below $20m. Take that for what you will.

Your not going to get the kind of high velocity high density effect with a Bushmaster family of 30m, at least not the one off the Apache. Your talking 2640fps at the muzzle. It's a low velocity gun for us because you can only handle so much recoil on the gun cradle with it being a turret and not hard mounted. I try to tell people all the time it's less a gun and more a grenade launcher. Now it does give you lots of greater non/light armor ability when it comes to target effect. 4m burst radius with good fragmentation against soft targets, and enough thump to punch into light armor like a BMP and start fires/set off ammunition. We even have an air burst round in the works to get over the loss of fragmentation in that moon dust in Afghanistan (Test results are insane). Still end of the day it's not an anti tank gun.

The 25mm on the Bradley/LAV will however chew up tanks (except front mantlet) with the AP loads. But if you've seen how big a Bradley's turret is, that's because the chamber and recoil requirements are so much greater with that guns recoil. The Bushmaster II is modeled off that but your talking a lot of gun to try and fit on a plane that isn't a cargo aircraft. Plus your not talking volume of fire like you get out of 200-300rd trigger pull burst.

While we are playing hypothetical A-X program requirements, arguably with the Hawgs history slinging stuff like Maverick and systems like Brimstone or whenever we get JAGM out and working do we need to go as heavy concentration on the gun needing to kill a T-72 from high angle, or would it be better to take a gun that's effective against anything up to an MBT, more effective against softer targets (because explosions woot) and packs more ammo for the game while saving weight for stuff like missiles and gas.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Lawman

[xcraftllc]

I can shoot, watch the impacts, and decide. If I missed, I adjust and shoot again. If I hit and see another target, I aim and shoot again. If I hit and there's no other targets, I'm off without having to overfly the target area.

That's also just a good point for the 173mm casing over the Apache's 113mm. The initial muzzle velocity is higher and the round carriers that velocity for a longer distance, which allows more immediate effects. Might sound like just a bunch of war mongering garbage to your average hippie but it matters. As Lawman was saying, the M230 is more of a grenade launcher, albeit one that can shoot out to 4200 meters and take out APCs. That's fine for a slow moving helicopter with a gun that's mounted on a turret, but a jet can't be waiting for 5 seconds until round impact on a strafing run, even if it is flying as slow as an A-10 can.

[Lawman]

As was mentioned, armor. Additionally, to me, what's important about 30mm is the range. I'm not a ballistics expert..... all I know is that I can shoot (soft skinned targets) from really far away. ... miles, literally, longer than my 20mm brethren. That's nice for several reasons. Namely, standoff and the ability to shoot more than once on the same pass.

I can shoot, watch the impacts, and decide. If I missed, I adjust and shoot again. If I hit and see another target, I aim and shoot again. If I hit and there's no other targets, I'm off without having to overfly the target area.

I've got HUD video of a bro shooting FIVE separate targets out of a single 60-degree high angle strafe pass in OIF. Again, I'm not a physics/ballistics expert, but a smaller round isn't going to give the pilot the same options WRT range, to say nothing of effects.

If anything, I'd be an advocate for a 40mm gun in the "super hog." For the reasons I mentioned above, and because. ...'Muricah! Seriously.

Don't worry though. The F-35 will be just fine with 180 rounds of 25mm. No capability lost.

I honestly think your going to start working against yourself with bigger bullets. Look at the 30 vs 20, you've got 70mm more casing and propellant to get that round to what is essentially the same muzzle velocity as a 20mm. Granted you keep it longer (like any bigger weight bullet will) but now step up again to a 40mm. How big is that casing going to have to be to get to 3500 fps. He old L70 round for the boffors was nearly 400mm long and it's actually slower than your round.

Then start figuring out how big the gun to take that massive recoil has to be, oh and we want high rate of fire to give you a good beating zone vs dispersion so we need multiple barrels. No standard breech is going to handle that much chamber pressure while maintaining high rates of fire (gotta keep the breach locked momentarily to dissipate pressure or it might grenade).

At some point you hit diminishing returns. Despite what most people would think thanks to pacific rim you can't just take the Gau-8 and multiply all the measurements x1.5 and make a 40mm avenger.

[MD]

I can shoot, watch the impacts, and decide. If I missed, I adjust and shoot again. If I hit and see another target, I aim and shoot again. If I hit and there's no other targets, I'm off without having to overfly the target area.

Talking HAS or LAS here? LAS incorporating three-target (or more) strafe nowadays?

I've got HUD video of a bro shooting FIVE separate targets out of a single 60-degree high angle strafe pass in OIF.

60 HARB, manual pipper, non-computed, mil-crank bombing with Mk-82s. Fun stuff. About as much as 10 pop CBU mil crank bombing.....as a qual event.

[waveshaper]

Your not going to get the kind of high velocity high density effect with a Bushmaster family of 30m, at least not the one off the Apache. Your talking 2640fps at the muzzle. It's a low velocity gun for us because you can only handle so much recoil on the gun cradle with it being a turret and not hard mounted. I try to tell people all the time it's less a gun and more a grenade launcher. Now it does give you lots of greater non/light armor ability when it comes to target effect. 4m burst radius with good fragmentation against soft targets, and enough thump to punch into light armor like a BMP and start fires/set off ammunition. We even have an air burst round in the works to get over the loss of fragmentation in that moon dust in Afghanistan (Test results are insane). Still end of the day it's not an anti tank gun.

Well stated. To defeat armor the Apache uses the M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEPD)/shaped charge/frag

Projectile with M759 Point Detonating (PD) fuze (Really a point initiating base detonating/spit back fuze). The A-10

uses the PGU-14/B API projectile and its Depleted Uranium (DU) Penetrator also produces a significant incendiary effect

throughout the impact/armor penetration event (the DU penetrator makes the worlds best/longest lasting fire starter/

flint). The M789 cartridge is 30mm x 113mm and the PGU-14/B cartridge is 30mm x 173mm (the cartridge also has a much

larger diameter). A simple side by side photo of these two cartridges would provide a simple visual explanation of why

there's such a significant difference in their respective velocities.

The fuze used in M789 HEPD projo is PD (Type By Function) and uses spit back to initiate the shaped charge event.

PD Spit back initiation of shaped charges are very inefficient/limit its penetration potential. The M789 is a minimally

effective shaped charge warhead to begin with and "EASILY" defeated by just about any modern enhanced armor protective

technology. The M789 projo with M759 fuze is basically the same PD/spit back fuze technology used in the "very old" M430 40mm HEDP grenade. Basically the PGU-14/B completely outclasses the M789 when it comes to defeating armor.

Note; The new 30mm Bushmaster 11 Mark 46 mod 1 can use the following 30mm ammo;

1. GAU-8 Ammo/all types; 30mm x 173mm; PGU-13 HEI, PGU-14 API, and PGU-15 TP.

2. Mark 238/266 Mod 1 HEI-T: 3,543 FPS.

Mark 240 SAPHEI-T: 3,543 FPS.

Mark 268 APFSDS-T: 4,544 FPS.

3. It can also fire RARDEN and Oerlikon KCB (30mm x 170mm) ammunition by changing the barrel, bolt and aft feed plate.

[busdriver]

According to wikipedia the GAU-22 is supposed to have 1.4mil dispersion. Assuming the bullet doesn't start tumbling that could make for some very long range strafing, my understanding is that the 25mm made it's way onto the AC-130 because the 20mm was doing exactly that, hispeed does that check?. Obviously that doesn't account for kinetic energy.

I guess my thought goes that if we built an airplane around the GAU-22 vice the GAU-8, how much more efficient could the whole thing be? Less weight in gun/ammo means less fuel to burn, less fuel weight means less structure to carry it, etc, etc, etc.

Based on :

"Carlisle was also briefed on the results of the second task to develop a list of requirements and capabilities for a new A-X CAS aircraft that could succeed he A-10.“These requirements look a lot like the A-10, what are we doing here?” he asked. "

I don't think A-X 2.0 stands a chance unless it's kept to the bare minimum required. That's what got me started down this cocktail napkin exercise.

[hispeed7721]

According to wikipedia the GAU-22 is supposed to have 1.4mil dispersion. Assuming the bullet doesn't start tumbling that could make for some very long range strafing, my understanding is that the 25mm made it's way onto the AC-130 because the 20mm was doing exactly that, hispeed does that check?. Obviously that doesn't account for kinetic energy.

Absolutely...one of the big pushes to move to the 25mm was the significant increase in slant range before experiencing any tumbling and being completely ineffective.

I can't really speak to how much of a difference that would make for the forward firing guys; there's way smarter bros who understand the ballistics of a run in vs orbit shooting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Based on :

Quote

I don't think A-X 2.0 stands a chance unless it's kept to the bare minimum required. That's what got me started down this cocktail napkin exercise.

Sounds like the "Bigger-Higher-Farther-Faster" mentality Boyd had to contend with. They just can't imagine that the new platform doesn't have to be XXX times greater than old one for insert whatever metric(s) you want here.

There is still a requirement for a CAS / Attack focused platform that can fly slow, turn tight and hang around while the TIC develops. It just needs to be a new aircraft with a sustainable MX base, improvements where needed to a realistic degree and reasonably affordable survivability built in.

Serious question and don't mean to sound too out of my lane but instead of an LO platform why not design the A-X with as much signature reduction as you can but focus on a robust ECM suite integrated into the aircraft from the beginning?

[busdriver]

I can't really speak to how much of a difference that would make for the forward firing guys; there's way smarter bros who understand the ballistics of a run in vs orbit shooting.

Side fire has vastly more complicated exterior ballistics; but velocity drop off due to slant range doesn't really change. The wikipedia article is actually pretty damn good.

[Lawman]

Serious question and don't mean to sound too out of my lane but instead of an LO platform why not design the A-X with as much signature reduction as you can but focus on a robust ECM suite integrated into the aircraft from the beginning?

See that's the funny thing about JSF/F35

Nowhere In the Marines requirement for a Harrier replacement did 5th gen LO become a requirement. It was a 4.5 gen program (like super hornet) to get a VSTOL aircraft that could do more than bring a single 500lbs bomb and a laser maverick to the fight. It was only when they (Congress and the Pentagon) folded 4 programs together to the JSF that 5th gen became something that had to happen with VSTOL.

So essentially we had a modernized digital age CAS specific plane in the works.... Then we decided to make it part of the do all Swiss army fighter that has turned into the biggest weapons program of all time.