A-10 a political bargaining chip again

docmirror said:
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/gov...cle_cb078b2d-0c9c-5b3c-af0a-d03945841dc9.html

Will it stay, will it go? Wanna keep it? Is the F35 really suitable?

Never flew one, but they are pretty susceptible to SAM ground fire. Sort of the anti-stealth platform.
Click to expand...

IMO from listening to pilots and other military members the F-35 is not a "good" replacement.

Loiter time is worse, flies to fast, survivability, payload, and it lacks a nice big 30mm

2 A-10s can have a nose on target something like every 10-15 seconds, I doubt the F-35 can manage that.
 
docmirror said:
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/gov...cle_cb078b2d-0c9c-5b3c-af0a-d03945841dc9.html

Will it stay, will it go? Wanna keep it? Is the F35 really suitable?

Never flew one, but they are pretty susceptible to SAM ground fire. Sort of the anti-stealth platform.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, the JSF is staying. Even with all of the hefty cuts to defense spending in the President's budget, JSF remains intact...and there are several other big items that are getting chopped in addition to older assets like A-10s under that budget. You could say JSF is 'too big to fail'. Sickening yes, but it is reality.
 
I remember well how a damaged A-10 landed in Montenegro after being hit by a Serbian missile over Kosovo. And I always thought that American way to fight has to be a way to fight smart: otfly, outshoot the opponent. Don't macho it, because you're always badly outnumbered. Look how Su-25s performed in a real hot conflict 8/8/8, titanium armor and all, and notice that it's not like Georgians had the best theater defence. From that point of view F-35 is essential and A-10 needs to go. If only F-35 wasn't a bloated, mismanaged program of pork and gravy. Also, having an airframe is necessary, but not sufficient. What are our standoff weapons? SDB? Are we going to buy Spice bombs in Israel? Everyone in the press is so focused on the small stuff (like the arresting hook) that as a citizen I don't get any picture on the weaponry and overall program progress.
 
Stand off weapons appear to be drones. I'm guessing the new mil budget will be chock-full-o-drone money.
 
docmirror said:
Stand off weapons appear to be drones. I'm guessing the new mil budget will be chock-full-o-drone money.
Click to expand...
I don't know about 'chock-full'. The bulk of UAVs are relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things. JSF, on the other hand, sticks out like a sore thumb.
 
zaitcev said:
From that point of view F-35 is essential and A-10 needs to go.
Click to expand...
As discussed in previous JSF threads, from a defense standpoint, nothing about the F-35 is 'essential' with the exception of providing a viable replacement for the AV-8B for the USMC (which is being gutted by the President's budget, go figure).

zaitcev said:
What are our standoff weapons?
Click to expand...
TLAMs
 
Fearless Tower said:
Like it or not, the JSF is staying. Even with all of the hefty cuts to defense spending in the President's budget, JSF remains intact...and there are several other big items that are getting chopped in addition to older assets like A-10s under that budget. You could say JSF is 'too big to fail'. Sickening yes, but it is reality.
Click to expand...

Without the A-10 platform, the next major conflict will not turn out well for the USA.... IMHO...

Once again the guvmint is pennywise and pound foolish...:mad2::mad2:..
 
the only good thing that could come of retiring them is they finish re-winging them and then put them to work fighting fires. would make an awesome fire bomber
 
The problem with the Hawg is that it's single mission is tied to the Key West Agreement. I'm active AF and control CAS for a living since I left (by choice) the flying side of the AF.

Trust me, anything that ties the AF to Army needs is pretty much bottom of the barrel unless SOF is involved. In fact, based on my operational experience, if it wasn't for SOF missions that called for some of the Hawg's particular strengths, the Hawg would have been gone a while back. Why? SOF helps defray the cost for the capability.

However, just about any airframe in today's inventory that has hard points or a gun can perform the Hawg's mission. Just look at the Marine inventory. Except for two or three vertical lift platforms, everything, including KC-130s, can (and do) perform the CAS mission today. Most of them with do it just as effective as the Hawg does.

In the field, the only advantage the Hawg gives me is that it's the easiest fixed wing platform for me to assess nose geometry while inbound to the target.

Sucks, but it's true.

As for JSF, is it perfect? No. Except for the Super Hornets, there hasn't really been a new strike/CAS platform in the inventory that I can recall in my 17 years. There has to be a replacement sometime and with today's threats, it's going to have to be more JSFish than Hawgish.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
All the talk of the A-10 as if it's the only CAS platform out there. For every grunt who says an A-10 saved their bacon, you can find just as many who say an F-15, F-16 etc came to save the day.

In theater the A-10 is just one many CAS aircraft that ground commanders have at their disposal. By memory I can recall 9 different CAS platforms on my CAS card. You look down on your kneeboard and see who just happens to be working your kill box. Could be an A-10, could be a B-1. I suppose it's loiter time without tanking and its durability sets it apart but it's still just another jet with a PGM. A lot of times they can't drop anyway. Apaches, KWs and Cobras saw far more action.
 
A-10 was for an era when we were concerned about divisions of red armor rolling through the Fulda Gap. That's not the concern anymore, now it's J-11B/20, SA-20, T-50, etc, and the fact that they'll be sold to anyone. Not exactly the sort of environment you'd want to be in with an A-10.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
As for JSF, is it perfect? No. Except for the Super Hornets, there hasn't really been a new strike/CAS platform in the inventory that I can recall in my 17 years. There has to be a replacement sometime and with today's threats, it's going to have to be more JSFish than Hawgish.
Click to expand...

Problem with the JSF is that (with the exception of the case with the AV-8) it isn't a replacement. It will augment Hornets in the same squadron.

In a way, you could say it adds capabilities to Hornets, but it is not a replacement. That is a pretty ridiculously huge expense for a small return.
 
TCABM said:
The problem with the Hawg is that it's single mission is tied to the Key West Agreement. I'm active AF and control CAS for a living since I left (by choice) the flying side of the AF.

Trust me, anything that ties the AF to Army needs is pretty much bottom of the barrel unless SOF is involved. In fact, based on my operational experience, if it wasn't for SOF missions that called for some of the Hawg's particular strengths, the Hawg would have been gone a while back. Why? SOF helps defray the cost for the capability.

However, just about any airframe in today's inventory that has hard points or a gun can perform the Hawg's mission. Just look at the Marine inventory. Except for two or three vertical lift platforms, everything, including KC-130s, can (and do) perform the CAS mission today. Most of them with do it just as effective as the Hawg does.

In the field, the only advantage the Hawg gives me is that it's the easiest fixed wing platform for me to assess nose geometry while inbound to the target.

Sucks, but it's true.

As for JSF, is it perfect? No. Except for the Super Hornets, there hasn't really been a new strike/CAS platform in the inventory that I can recall in my 17 years. There has to be a replacement sometime and with today's threats, it's going to have to be more JSFish than Hawgish.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



The A-10 was designed like an aircraft should be. It wasn't sexy, but it fulfills the mission better than anything else out there now or likely to be there for the next decade or so. It handles battle damage better and protects the pilot better. And that gun is simply awesome.

People whine about DoD costs. Which is cheaper, an anti-tank missile or the appropriate number of rounds for the GAU-8? (how many rounds does the average engagement need to kill a hard target?)
 
Bob Noel said:
People whine about DoD costs. Which is cheaper, an anti-tank missile or the appropriate number of rounds for the GAU-8? (how many rounds does the average engagement need to kill a hard target?)
Click to expand...

In this case it isn't so much the cost of the weapon but rather the cost of maintaining and operating the delivery vehicle.

I like A-10s, but any aging airframe costs a significant amount to keep in operation and you do that in return for only one mission capability.

Congress is more likely to agree on the price tag of the JSF because it can do more than one mission and it provides a lot of jobs for contractors in their districts.
 
Could you strip the gun out and put some fuel pods on it and make it a refueler like the Navy does with the Hornets?
 
It had a great run. I think it did it's job very well, but maybe time to retire. The F35 only carries something like 4-8 seconds worth of gun ammo so that's one or two good passes. The A-10 carried tons of big bullets. If memory serves the story is the gun was set up on a stand, and then the plane was basically built around it to serve the gun.

I think the F35 gives a lot of benefits for anti-air but for ground support, my opinion is it will be found sorely lacking. Although there may be many different arrows in the quiver for the ground forces to call up, not all CAS is created equal. The A-10 got a rep for on time, on target, and with serious intent. Let the smoke clear, and give em another visit if needed. Other platforms, maybe not so robust.
 
JB1842 said:
Could you strip the gun out and put some fuel pods on it and make it a refueler like the Navy does with the Hornets?
Click to expand...

I suppose you could but then it would only be good for fueling Navy / Marine aircraft. They need it because they're operating far out to sea autonomously without tanker help. Air Force has tankers strategically positioned all over the world. A big reason why we got Krgyzstan was to position tankers there. Now that it's no longer needed, it'll be close by the end of the year.
 
Velocity173 said:
I suppose you could but then it would only be good for fueling Navy / Marine aircraft. They need it because they're operating far out to sea autonomously without tanker help. Air Force has tankers strategically positioned all over the world. A big reason why we got Krgyzstan was to position tankers there. Now that it's no longer needed, it'll be close by the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Good point. But if you can have the capability for a smaller tanker that can deploy with a unit, then you don't need to position large tankers all over the world. Granted a converted A-10 won't be able to fuel the same amount of aircraft as a large tanker, but you could probably fuel a few planes from it.
 
JB1842 said:
Good point. But if you can have the capability for a smaller tanker that can deploy with a unit, then you don't need to position large tankers all over the world. Granted a converted A-10 won't be able to fuel the same amount of aircraft as a large tanker, but you could probably fuel a few planes from it.
Click to expand...

I agree that could work for some missions but the tactical tanker wouldn't work for long distance ferry flights over the ocean.

The Air Force is set on its global tanker capabilities. No way they're going to give up on the KC-46 now. Kinda like the F-35; far too much invested at this point.
 
I think the AF has been trying to get rid of the A10 for a long time. They don't seem overly concerned with frontline troop support.
 
JB1842 said:
Good point. But if you can have the capability for a smaller tanker that can deploy with a unit, then you don't need to position large tankers all over the world. Granted a converted A-10 won't be able to fuel the same amount of aircraft as a large tanker, but you could probably fuel a few planes from it.
Click to expand...

But then you still have the problem of supporting an aging airframe that can refuel aircraft that don't need the additional refueling capability. The CVW already brings it's own tankers and as mentioned, an A-10 is not going to be able to refuel AF assets.
 
steingar said:
I think the AF has been trying to get rid of the A10 for a long time. They don't seem overly concerned with frontline troop support.
Click to expand...

The AF has not been overly concerned with anything outside of the AF....which is a large reason why they have been dealing with significantly deeper cuts than the Navy. The AF largely did that to themselves.
 
steingar said:
I think the AF has been trying to get rid of the A10 for a long time. They don't seem overly concerned with frontline troop support.
Click to expand...

The Air Force has always been concerned with providing support to frontline troops. The AF just differs from the Army in the way to provide it. Just about every airframe that drops bombs or shoots bullets the Air Force has on the line can provide CAS and each trains for it. Unfortunately, the A-10 is a one trick pony that is getting long in the tooth. I think it does what it does very well as long as the opponent doesn't have any advanced air defense weapons. So do organic Army rotor wing assets.
 
JB1842 said:
Good point. But if you can have the capability for a smaller tanker that can deploy with a unit, then you don't need to position large tankers all over the world. Granted a converted A-10 won't be able to fuel the same amount of aircraft as a large tanker, but you could probably fuel a few planes from it.
Click to expand...

Buddy refueling by the Navy is an attempt to eke out some additional range from fighters that are extremely range limited to begin with. I would hazard a guess that Air Force tankers provide considerably more refueling to Navy aircraft than what they get doing buddy refueling. Just about every AF tanker these days has the capability of refueling Navy aircraft and does so regularly.
 
Witmo said:
Just about every AF tanker these days has the capability of refueling Navy aircraft and does so regularly.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. If there is a KC-10 in the AOR, I know without asking that it carries drogues. A KC-135, on the other hand, may or may not be configured to refuel Navy jets. If thinking about requesting a -135, you have to ask for the drogues.
 
The A-10 was designed and built for one mission. During the cold war, the Russkies outnumbered us in tanks by a large margin... It was a daytime, VFR tank killer meant to nail T-72's coming through the Fulda Gap.. The Apache was the army's answer to the same problem.

Everything else the aircraft has done has been an adaptation from its original mission.

I love the 'Hawg.. Its ugly but deadly and (OVER)built to fulfill the tank killing/close air support mission. But in the era of multi-role, multi-mission, all weather aircraft... its a dinosaur.
 
Which is why they should weld the gun shut, put a G600 in the panel and sell them to rich guys like me (some day). That way when I'm solo I can leave the fantasy PC12 in the fantasy hangar and arrive in style. I pity the lineman that tries to put me in back with the piston singles where I normally go. I'd park that thing right in front of the G5 at TEB and move it when I'm damn good and ready.
 
Hawgs would be a poor choice as a tanker. They are too slow to refuel just about any fighter/bomber/transport.
 
EvilEagle said:
Hawgs would be a poor choice as a tanker. They are too slow to refuel just about any fighter/bomber/transport.
Click to expand...

But......... As the other poster said....

They would make a GREAT fire bomber...:yes:
 
Bob Noel said:
The A-10 was designed like an aircraft should be. It wasn't sexy, but it fulfills the mission better than anything else out there now or likely to be there for the next decade or so. It handles battle damage better and protects the pilot better. And that gun is simply awesome.

People whine about DoD costs. Which is cheaper, an anti-tank missile or the appropriate number of rounds for the GAU-8? (how many rounds does the average engagement need to kill a hard target?)
Click to expand...



The Hawg is a fine plane, but it does not fulfill the CAS mission better than anything else. Yes, the GAU is impressive, but honestly guns kills are few and very far between against anything that isn't soft. When I target armor, there are a multitude of more efficient and effective options than the gun.

Here's the deal: the current focus is swinging back to fighting a conventionalish war against a near-peer threat. That means we are going to fight against a technologically advanced, highly skilled enemy that probably outnumbers us 3:1 and has very effective air defenses. The Hawg doesn't survive in that fight.

The other issue is funding. Until Congress and the President fully fund the services for all their requirements, multi-tools will be the flavor of the day, not the Ka-Bar.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Problem with the JSF is that (with the exception of the case with the AV-8) it isn't a replacement. It will augment Hornets in the same squadron.

In a way, you could say it adds capabilities to Hornets, but it is not a replacement. That is a pretty ridiculously huge expense for a small return.
Click to expand...


I agree and should have better worded my thought. Replacement was a bad choice in words.

Each JSF partner will employ the JSF according to the role(s) and mission(s) supported by the capability provided.

JSF isn't a true replacement for anything in the AF. We will (most likely) retire one tactical fighter platform and replace it with a multi-role fifth gen fighter. If anything, JSF is more of a replacement for the Viper, much like the F22 was (supposed) to be for the Eagle.


And, like the F22, we can't buy enough for a 1:1 swap, even after adjusting for the drawdown. That calls for a residual capability requirement for the Viper and/or the Strike Eagle and not for the A-10.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TCABM said:
I agree and should have better worded my thought. Replacement was a bad choice in words.

Each JSF partner will employ the JSF according to the role(s) and mission(s) supported by the capability provided.

JSF isn't a true replacement for anything in the AF. We will (most likely) retire one tactical fighter platform and replace it with a multi-role fifth gen fighter. If anything, JSF is more of a replacement for the Viper, much like the F22 was (supposed) to be for the Eagle.


And, like the F22, we can't buy enough for a 1:1 swap, even after adjusting for the drawdown. That calls for a residual capability requirement for the Viper and/or the Strike Eagle and not for the A-10.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is assuming the JSF will perform as advertised and the motors will not fail often..... Till that proves viable, then all bets are off..

ps... the USA has throw boatloads of money at the program and still it has not reached the designed specs...:no:
 
N801BH said:
This is assuming the JSF will perform as advertised and the motors will not fail often..... Till that proves viable, then all bets are off..

ps... the USA has throw boatloads of money at the program and still it has not reached the designed specs...:no:
Click to expand...


Yes; I follow the program pretty closely. One of my buddies is intimately involved in syllabus development at Eglin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TCABM said:
The problem with the Hawg is that it's single mission is tied to the Key West Agreement. I'm active AF and control CAS for a living since I left (by choice) the flying side of the AF.

Trust me, anything that ties the AF to Army needs is pretty much bottom of the barrel unless SOF is involved. In fact, based on my operational experience, if it wasn't for SOF missions that called for some of the Hawg's particular strengths, the Hawg would have been gone a while back. Why? SOF helps defray the cost for the capability.

However, just about any airframe in today's inventory that has hard points or a gun can perform the Hawg's mission. Just look at the Marine inventory. Except for two or three vertical lift platforms, everything, including KC-130s, can (and do) perform the CAS mission today. Most of them with do it just as effective as the Hawg does.

In the field, the only advantage the Hawg gives me is that it's the easiest fixed wing platform for me to assess nose geometry while inbound to the target.

Sucks, but it's true.

As for JSF, is it perfect? No. Except for the Super Hornets, there hasn't really been a new strike/CAS platform in the inventory that I can recall in my 17 years. There has to be a replacement sometime and with today's threats, it's going to have to be more JSFish than Hawgish.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Can you explain your nose geometry comment?
 
nddons said:
Can you explain your nose geometry comment?
Click to expand...


In a general sense, when conducting CAS, one of the things the controller (either ground or air) does is visually assess the geometry between the attacking fighter, the target, friendly locations, and the laser safety fan (if laser is employed) to determine whether to clear (approve) the engagement or abort it.

The A-10 is easier to see, and because it's slower, gives more time to assess those factors. Smaller, faster platforms such as the Viper and Hornet tend to be more difficult to get eyes on and, because it's happening much faster, leaves less time to assess.

I hope that answers your question.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TCABM said:
In a general sense, when conducting CAS, one of the things the controller (either ground or air) does is visually assess the geometry between the attacking fighter, the target, friendly locations, and the laser safety fan (if laser is employed) to determine whether to clear (approve) the engagement or abort it.

The A-10 is easier to see, and because it's slower, gives more time to assess those factors. Smaller, faster platforms such as the Viper and Hornet tend to be more difficult to get eyes on and, because it's happening much faster, leaves less time to assess.

I hope that answers your question.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Interesting. And thanks for your service.
 
nddons said:
Interesting. And thanks for your service.
Click to expand...


Your welcome, I've enjoyed all 17 years. Was just out on the our local range Wednesday. We dropped inert high drag 500 pounders, live conventional 500 pounders, and did a couple of simulated LGB passes with F16s from the CO ANG.

Topped it off with 'panel checks' where the fighters go into an overhead pattern at very low altitude. From they wheel, the ingress in full AB with the goal to break overhead to a vertical climb over our marked position.

Just another day at the office.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TCABM said:
Your welcome, I've enjoyed all 17 years. Was just out on the our local range Wednesday. We dropped inert high drag 500 pounders, live conventional 500 pounders, and did a couple of simulated LGB passes with F16s from the CO ANG.

Topped it off with 'panel checks' where the fighters go into an overhead pattern at very low altitude. From they wheel, the ingress in full AB with the goal to break overhead to a vertical climb over our marked position.

Just another day at the office.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why did ya leave the flying side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top