The "Newest" A10. Is 30 years old, how many 1984 Oldsmobiles do you see on the road anymore? The Warthog is just getting old. Don't get me wrong, the ANG flies them over my house all the time. I think its a great Aircraft, the Gov just won't spend any more $$$ on it.
I, personally, don't consider B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, to be CAS platforms. They are worthy airframes, but true CAS is not carpetbombing or LGB dropping. It just isn't.
To put drones in that role, you either need alot more payload or a bunch more drones. But, you also need a human flying it (even if it is remotely). At least for the foreseeable future, algorithms aren't going to be able to figure out where to put the thing on the thing and pull the trigger.
I don't believed the Air Force ever wanted to to CAS in the first place. They took the role to keep the Army from getting heavier aircraft. ...
The Switchblade is designed as an expendable UAV to increase precision firepower for platoon-sized infantry units. It is 2 ft (610 mm) long and weighs 6 lb (2.7 kg) including the carrying case and launcher, making it small and light enough for one soldier to carry. The Switchblade is folded up inside a tube with wings unfolding once it gets airborne. It can be controlled up to 10 km (6.2 mi) but its small size limits its endurance to 10 minutes. This makes it unsuited for scouting roles, but it is useful for inexpensively engaging long-range targets and assisting in relieving units pinned down by enemy fire. The Switchblade uses a color camera and GPS locating to identify, track, and engage targets, as well as being able to be pre-programmed on a collision course. Its warhead has an explosive charge equivalent to a 40mm grenade to destroy light armored vehicles and personnel.
So.... suck it Air Force.The Army classifies it as a direct fire munition rather than a drone.
You know, this got me thinking - even about my own post. The A-10 role as we know it wasn't the actual designed role. Not really. It was a tank buster, pure and simple...
As a guy who's been "boots on the ground" I can attest, there is nothing more reassuring than hearing and seeing an A-10 shadowing your MSR.
The battlefield of today isn't Red vs Blue like days of old. Civilian bystanders can turnout to be enemy combatants within seconds. When the enemy is "Danger close" most support weapon platforms are out of the question. Given 15 feet distance an A-10 can go weapons hot with little chance of hitting friendlies.
Indeed, I just don't see drones bringing the firepower or intimidation. Just saying, things stayed real quiet and friendly any time an A-10 was over head.Spooky loitering at 3K making slow standard rate turns, Spads grumbling just above the trees, makes infantry feel like somebody up there really cares. Be sad to see the A-10 go.
My understanding is that it's intended CAS mission, while including anti-armor, has always been broader. I'm curious, do you have a source for this? I'd be interested in taking a look.
Indeed, there is a serious overlap tactically. My comment is more doctrinal - the Sovs had an advantage in armor that we had to negate. We just couldn't compete, even with our allies, in a pure armor-armor battle. The A-10 as well as helos provided force multipliers to staunch an armor attack.The fuselage of the A-10 is basically wrapped around the GAU-8/A Avenger cannon, which was intended at the outset to be the A-10's primary weapon. A detailed study conducted in the planning stages of the AX project showed that a heavy cannon was the most cost-effective means of killing armor. It was also the best weapon for frontline fights when friendly and hostile forces were mixed together, since picking out one from the other meant getting up close anyway, where the standoff range of an ASM was negated.