Why an F-35 will never be able to replace an A-10

[cosermann]

Um, because a purpose-specific-designed tool will beat a generalized tool every time.

The saying, "jack of all trades, master of none," comes to mind.

 

[PGRChaplain]

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.

 

[indykid]

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.

And the newest B52 is how old? And the newest B-1 is?

As a pilot and a federally licensed aircraft mechanic, the age of an aircraft cannot be compared to an automobile. When I sign an aircraft off as airworthy, there is no such thing as "if something goes wrong, give us a call and we will send out a tow truck." Aircraft cannot be compared to 1984 Oldsmobiles.

 

[ModernGunner]

Warthog!

Guess if I were gonna pick a 'favorite' that would be on a short list of 2: The A-10 variants or the AC-130 variants. Though, I suppose the stealth planes are 'sexier' to most folks.

 

[9mmfan]

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.
No aircraft we currently operate or will operate can to CAS as well as the A-10 can.
Do what a previous poster said. Make modern A-10's.
Even modernized A-10's will cost just a fraction of what an F-35 will run.
Eliminate the F-35, restart production of the F-22 and a modern A-10.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

Exactly. CAS, CLOSE air support is exactly that, close. The implied argument in the statement you addressed is much like assigning hand to hand combat to snipers. It, by definition, just simply isn't.

 

[T.Lex]

You know, there is one drone that is an interesting option for CAS/super duper close air support. I'm drawing a blank on the name, but a friend sent me a promotional vid for a portable (almost briefcase portable IIRC) drone that had short standby time and a good camera, but the selling point was a nose full of explosives. The idea was that a unit could launch it, get some aerial recon, then kamikaze the drone into the attacking force.

For a counterinsurgency type engagement, that could be a viable alternative - if you had enough of them.

 

[Trigger Time]

I have mad respect for this aircraft and it's crews. Many of an American and others are alive because of them and many scum bags are dead!

 

[Fordtough25]

There were 2 of the warthogs flying around highway 421 yesterday! Kids and I watched them for a few minutes then drove home, got our of the car and hear the 30mm buzz for a couple seconds. Wow what an awesome sound!

 

[cosermann]

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. ...

This is undoubtedly in play as well.

 

[T.Lex]

Found it - the Switchblade drone:
AeroVironment Switchblade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Pretty cool, actually. In service with the Army and USMC.

And this is a neat bit of bureaucratic nimbleness:

The Army classifies it as a direct fire munition rather than a drone.

So.... suck it Air Force.

 

[Crbn79]

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.

 

[T.Lex]

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. Nowadays, though, we have near real-time satellite imagery, stand off weapons, and technological advancements that can perform the tankbusting role well (arguably not as well as the A-10, but that's not the point). In reality, we hope, the A-10's original role is obsolete.

And, as so often happens, gov'ts and militaries tend to start fighting new wars with the same strategies they used in the last wars - even if they don't quite fit. I'm not sure what will happen in the next war. But, maybe the technology is moving towards giving platoon (or smaller) sized groups the firepower they need to be more effective than the A-10.

It pains me to say it, but maybe the USAF is on to something. Not with the F-35, but with other stuff actually doing the necessary things that the A-10 does now.

 

[cosermann]

Another reason might be, how does one replace 300 of the best close air support platforms ever, with 30 replacement planes (based on higher cost of the F-35 replacements)?

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...

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.

 

[Leadeye]

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.

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.

 

[Crbn79]

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.

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.

 

[miguel]

This one has more of a snake face than tiger / shark face. Miguel likey.

EDIT: Badass of the Week: The A-10 Warthog

 

[T.Lex]

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.

Excellent question. My comment was based on my recollection of reading Orders Of Battle and strategy papers in the late 80s and early 90s. I'll do some digging in my archive (what my wife calls my hoard), but here's some google-fu.
[1.0] A-10: Development & Description

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.

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.

I'll try to find those docs later.

 

[cosermann]

Thanks. As I recall, the need for a better CAS platform was brought out during the Vietnam war. Various things were pressed into service with various levels of success. Maybe the best thing tried was the old A-1 Skyraider. It seemed to do pretty well. One might even say, "The Skyraider in Vietnam pioneered the concept of tough, survivable aircraft with long loiter times and large ordnance loads." However, one thing in which the Skyraider was seen as deficient was anti-armor capability.

Actually, I came across this interesting PDF yesterday - http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf

Which contains this quote: "A better interim solution became available with the use of the semi-bsolete Navy A-1 Skyraider... The A-1 had good low-speed maneuverability, it could carry upwards of 8,000 lbs of bombs, and it was able to loiter around the battlefield and respond quickly to calls for support fires. 'Even many of those who favored the supersonic jets conceded that the propeller-driven A-1 was the CAS star.' Limitations of the A-1 were the limited number of them available from the Navy (production had ended in 1957) and its inability to destroy more heavily armored targets."

So, you take the concept of a tough, survivable aircraft with long loiter times, and large ordnance loads, and then ADD real anti-armor capability, and out pops the A-10.

 

[T.Lex]

Totally. The Spad earned total respect. I read something similar that specifically listed Skyraider-inspired characteristics as the template for the A-X RFP.

As I recall, strategically, the infantry air support was designed to be handled by helo gunships. Again, there was an overlap - the gunships had anti-armor capabilities (particularly by the mid-80s). And, given modern composition of forces (with infantry supporting armor and vice versa) there was no One Unifying Tactic. Supporting infantry (CAS) was part of the A-10s mission.

But, if you had A-10s and AH-1 Cobras and had an infantry engagement separate from an armor engagement, the idea was to send the A-10s to the armor and the AH-1s to the infantry. (Also made sense given which branch operated which asset.)

This kinda ignores the USMC assets. They are a thing unto themselves.

So, getting back to a "replacement" - I'm not sure the A-10 can be truly replaced. It is kinda the opposite of the F-4. The F-4 did a whole bunch of things well. The A-10 was basically the best in the business at what it did. Except....

... the Su-25 is awfully good, too. There's an argument that it is the A-10ski. And, interestingly, the Russians aren't replacing it with anything. They are still manufacturing them (I think). Kinda tells you how the Russians think the next war will play out, eh?

The loss of the A-10s reflects the larger strategic shift to the philosophy of first-strike, bomb them to the stone age (ironically), then commit troops once the enemy has been "softened."

"Everything old is new again."