Not So Stealthy Son of A-10

[xcraftllc]

Jarhead, I don't wanna come off as a Lakota hater. At the end of the day, the Lakota program will end up being quite a smart move, especially once it becomes the primary trainer and replaces all 58s, 67s, and Hueys, thus taking the Army down to a four helicopter fleet and saving a lot in the process (not to mention all airframes will have 2 engines). I'm just saying it's kinda limited in its mission and that's frustrating considering how it's a military weapons program.

Edited April 27, 2015 by xcraftllc

[JarheadBoom]

Didn't think that at all; from the outside looking in (with a bit more knowledge of the subject than most, but an outsider nonetheless) I thought the Lakota program was pretty much a success story after they got through the initial "growing pains", especially given the current state of DoD procurement.

[Lawman]

Didn't think that at all; from the outside looking in (with a bit more knowledge of the subject than most, but an outsider nonetheless) I thought the Lakota program was pretty much a success story after they got through the initial "growing pains", especially given the current state of DoD procurement.

It's had a lot of issues.

For one when the Army bought it they pulled the ECS system out because Pilots don't need A/C.... Then they started frying avionics.

Second the aircraft has an incredibly weak tail rotor when compared to other similar class helos. It works fine down in a good chunk of the states but in a scenario like say Mountain altitude SAR in Colorado it gets into loss of tail rotor effectiveness very easily. The French actually stopped flying them for a while because of this.

It's only really starting to pay off now and break even with the investment provided it's job as a trainer goes off well. Still the cost per flight hour is going to be significantly higher than a 67 just on the grounds of keeping and feeding two motors.

But yeah by comparison of other helo programs like ARH-70, the Marine Y/Z Huey program, and Comanche (our 12 billion dollar pile of shame) it looks like a model of success.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Lawman

[xcraftllc]

So now we're told this?: https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/04/28/air-force-keeping-a10-impact-16s/26519547/

At least toward the end of the article there is some rationalizing about how to make it work without destroying other programs:

"After the F-35 program executive Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan raised the issue last fall and said he was worried about the impact on IOC, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said there are other ways to move money and personnel to support both the A-10 and F-35.

"Suggesting that we must prematurely retire the A-10 to fulfill long-anticipated maintenance requirements for the F-35A is a false choice," Ayotte said in a statement to Defense News, sister publication of Air Force Times. "There are a variety of steps the Air Force can take to maintain the combat-proven and cost-efficient A-10, while also providing sufficient maintenance personnel for the F-35A.

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has vowed to reach initial operating capability on time, despite a possible issue with having enough maintenance personnel. This includes hiring contractors and increasing use of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel."

[Cooter]

A light attack aircraft that is cheaper than an A10, quieter than an A10, has a longer loiter than an A10, smaller MX footprint and less recognizable ramp profile, has more & better radios than an A10 and better off board data link and FMV capability and ability to match SPIs... Would be a very useful asset in our various wars.

BINGO

We can do this right now, it's not cosmic. BUT someone way higher than us needs to step up. I guarantee, you pair an equivalently networked (link/voice/data/FMV) light strike aircraft with an ISR platform they would do serious damage..

I've actually worked/talked with the Textron folks in a the last 6 months or so and I think they may be on to something. They need a buyer bad though. They are getting good inputs from folks with existing knowledge and hopefully are putting it to good use. It ain't sexy but it was purpose built and its operating costs are that of a King Air.

Look at it this way, are you gonna base a bunch of F-35s/22s in middle of no where Africa to hunt down a few guys causing trouble? Probably not. But if you have a light strike capability you can operate with a much smaller footprint at a fraction of the cost (pretty sure I saw $50K plus today for F-35 per hour). I don't think we can afford to not have the capability in the future.

And I'm sure the F-35 order won't be cut due to funding, that never happens. Or what is also likely is we get ourselves into something where we have to throw a plane together in less than a year and it still won't meet our requirements or will be just good enough.

I'm a small plane guy so I'm biased but I think we need to come up with something....OR we just keep spending $500k to blow up guys in Hilux's...

Cooter

[tac airlifter]

Light strike + ISR = serious damage to our current and near future enemy. Yup. But a lot of people have no idea that small planes are already crushing it regularly. We aren't looking at our current problem set logically, otherwise texatron or something similar would have already been bought.

Hopefully some of our sharp dudes in HQ can convince the GOs!

[Liquid]

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/.

Combat Dragon II will be killing ISIL in IZ by this summer.

[tac airlifter]

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/.

Combat Dragon II will be killing ISIL in IZ by this summer.

Any possibility of AFSOC getting a similar program?

[Cooter]

Light strike + ISR = serious damage to our current and near future enemy. Yup. But a lot of people have no idea that small planes are already crushing it regularly. We aren't looking at our current problem set logically, otherwise texatron or something similar would have already been bought.

Hopefully some of our sharp dudes in HQ can convince the GOs!

Agree 100%. My fight was the MC-12 vs U-28...handing off to a good dude in 30 days. His fight will be ISR next and light strike (hopefully). No more Staff for this guy!

Cooter

[HU&W]

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/.

Combat Dragon II will be killing ISIL in IZ by this summer.

We need this for the af.

[Liquid]

Any possibility of AFSOC getting a similar program?

Long shot. If it does well during combat validation (it should) perhaps the Navy or AF will pick up a few. Not a lot of service support so far. CENTCOM is championing it now. Navy pilots, will support SOF in IZ.

[Gravedigger]

It's not made in 40+ Congressional districts, capability is irrelevant.

I like that CENTCOM goes out and rapidly fields/acquires systems to fill gaps the services and national agencies are not adequately filling. Same thing happened when they bought their own satellite, ORS-1.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Gravedigger

[Boilermaker]

The X-32 is the product of the F-35 mating with a Pelican.

[pawnman]

The X-32 is the product of the F-35 mating with a Pelican.X-32 F-35.jpgPelican.png

It looks like a fighter jet from "Planes 3: The Budget Crisis".

[jice]

I've actually worked/talked with the Textron folks in a the last 6 months or so and I think they may be on to something. They need a buyer bad though. They are getting good inputs from folks with existing knowledge and hopefully are putting it to good use. It ain't sexy but it was purpose built and its operating costs are that of a King Air.

Looks like they may have a potential buyer.

https://www.janes.com/article/51099/carter-to-offer-scorpion-to-india-under-joint-development-plan

[xcraftllc]

A little more clarity/sense came out about the whole "we're gonna cut F-35s and F-16s if you don't let us can the A-10" thing:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/29/air-force-rescinds-a10-warning-memo/26606477/

[HU&W]

The X-32 is the product of the F-35 mating with a Pelican.X-32 F-35.jpgPelican.png

He looks so happy in that picture.

[xcraftllc]

He looks so happy in that picture.

The X-35 looks embarrassed to be seen next to it.

[Clark Griswold]

Ammunition for A-10 supporters (count me in).

Doing The Math: Saving A-10s By Cutting F-35s

By LT. COL. DAN WARDon August 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM

[dvlax40]

bah its always been that way, they will counter that the f-35 is a force multiplier (ing hate that phrase, like drill down, it doesnt mean anything) and that 20 f-35s are the equivalent of 1000 a-10s

[Majestik Møøse]

Great article, I'm glad someone is laying down the obvious math. FYI, the same math works for the U-2 and KC-10 examples as well. That last 1-2% of hypothetical F-35 purchases is threatening to kill a bunch of other extremely useful aircraft.

[Clark Griswold]

Anything will be sacrificed to the Golden Calf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xcraftllc]

I think at this point SLEP-ing the A-10 is a bandaid solution. There are no more A-10 wings left in the boneyard last I heard so next time an airframe issue crops up there is no "easy" fix.

Valid points about air frame age and lifespan, many of those arguments were mentioned in a recent Fighter Sweep Article: https://fightersweep.com/2038/the-a-10-warthog-debate-a-fate-worse-than-death/

As far as A-10 wings are concerned, apparently Boeing still makes them: https://www.boeing.com/defense/support/a-10-wing-replacement-program/index.page

Clark - I think the LTC makes some good points in that article but the AF is probably going to counter with how the 4.2 bil will only keep the A-10s flying for another 10 years or so but will keep the 30+ F-35s flying for 40+years as well as free up the maintainers for the F-35 (although the maintainer argument has some holes in it when you consider the amount of reserve/guard/civilian maintainers who could help).

Still totally hear what he's saying though. I think a small compliment of 100-200 or so A-10s (the lower time air frames) for the cost of 10 or less F-35s is a good compromise, and will free up enough high skill AF maintainers to cover down on creating the F-35 maintenance program, along with some help from some reserve/guard/civilian guys.

[Clark Griswold]

Valid points about air frame age and lifespan, many of those arguments were mentioned in a recent Fighter Sweep Article: https://fightersweep.com/2038/the-a-10-warthog-debate-a-fate-worse-than-death/

As far as A-10 wings are concerned, apparently Boeing still makes them: https://www.boeing.com/defense/support/a-10-wing-replacement-program/index.page

Clark - I think the LTC makes some good points in that article but the AF is probably going to counter with how the 4.2 bil will only keep the A-10s flying for another 10 years or so but will keep the 30+ F-35s flying for 40+years as well as free up the maintainers for the F-35 (although the maintainer argument has some holes in it when you consider the amount of reserve/guard/civilian maintainers who could help).

Still totally hear what he's saying though. I think a small compliment of 100-200 or so A-10s (the lower time air frames) for the cost of 10 or less F-35s is a good compromise, and will free up enough high skill AF maintainers to cover down on creating the F-35 maintenance program, along with some help from some reserve/guard/civilian guys.

Agreed but the F-35 could become self-aware and choke the pilot with the O2 hose and the AF would still talk about how it is the only answer to the CAS mission.

The only thing that will get the AF off it's duff and figure out a way to fund an affordable / supportable / capable CAS asset is to threaten to give that mission to the Army then suddenly they will figure it out

[Lawman]

I'm curious with this whole "how long will it last" rabbit hole.

Anybody talked to any engineers on the feasibility of upgrades and how far or many they would limit out at. I know that was the Navy's big problem with the legacy Hornets, they were literally out of places to put boxes and electricity to power them even if they did.

Theoretically F-35D/E/etc could happen but won't need to for decades with lot upgrades and architecture built wi the current standards. I wonder what kind of hell in acquisitions it would be to have Boeing make an A-10D 7 years from now so they could stay in the fight.