Here's a good argument for a high velocity, rapid fire 30mm (or 25mm) gun in a CAS platform.
A-10 Slams 9 Taliban Fighters | Military.com
A-10 Slams 9 Taliban Fighters | Military.com
Importance of A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog)
- Thread starter der_Master
- Start date
SteelTiger 177
New Member
I like the A-10.A long time age there was tslk of a pure cas variant of the F-16 but it never lived up to expectations.I think the USAF should at keeping this plane in service for along as if there's one "legacy" aircraft i'd like to see flying it's the A-10
x2. Its extremely cost effective with the amazing Gattling canon, and proven to be more survivable than helicopter gunships. I never understood why it would make sense to assume the F35 should fill this role, its too expensive for that (just like the F16's and F18's are now) and simply can't loiter for as long. UCAV's are taking a bigger role in close quarter combat support, but having a human making instant decisions in a low cost well armored aircraft at lower altitude still has a lot of value in an unconventional battle. I remember live TV during the Iraq war of these aircraft proving their worth in city battles. And unlike helicopter gunships, we didn't keep reading stories of them being wiped out by low tech ground weapons.
Why replace something that works? I think should just order more of them.
The purchase cost of an aircraft is not used to determine its role. No one in the A-10 force thinks of them as expendable because they were cheap to buy. And the F-35 can loiter longer than an A-10.
I think the OV-10 is an interesting preposal as this plane could fill several roles:
COIN (land based)
COIN (sea based)
COIN (minor airfield/limited support)
CAS (all?)
UAV coordination platform
Intel/survellance platform
In a package that many countries are familiar with and could be updated to take modern electronics. Its low operating cost would appeal to many nations who cannot afford a modern attack helicopter or who need to suppliment a modern attack helicopter.
Fitting it with the option with 30mm cannon, hellfire, sidewinder and SDB (500lb and less).
The A-10 is an impressive aircraft. But the us can proberly get by with what they have until a new unmanned platform arrives.
COIN (land based)
COIN (sea based)
COIN (minor airfield/limited support)
CAS (all?)
UAV coordination platform
Intel/survellance platform
In a package that many countries are familiar with and could be updated to take modern electronics. Its low operating cost would appeal to many nations who cannot afford a modern attack helicopter or who need to suppliment a modern attack helicopter.
Fitting it with the option with 30mm cannon, hellfire, sidewinder and SDB (500lb and less).
The A-10 is an impressive aircraft. But the us can proberly get by with what they have until a new unmanned platform arrives.
The OV-10 or any other LARA type can’t fulfil the mission of the A-10. They lack the lethality and survivability of the A-10. That is they can’t carry the ordnance and armour and are much slower so more vulnerable to being hit by GBAD fires. These types of aircraft are positioned more as a fixed wing attack helicopters and ISR assets offering improved flying performance (endurance, transit speeds) and lower operating costs than helicopters.
USAF seems fine replacing the A-10 with the F-35. With the 25mm gun the F-35 will be the only other US TACAIR with strafing performance near the A-10. Also that 600 NM radius of action provides for plenty of loiter performance at a 100-200 NM radius. The F-35 will also offer enhanced survivability against GBAD via higher speed, much better SA, including the EO DAS which will provide automatic warning and azimuth of any firing. While the A-10 relies on airframe strength and armour to survive hits the F-35 goes out of its way to avoid being hit.
Plus USAF intends on acquiring some 1,700 F-35s compared to about 300 A-10s left in service. While the F-35 will have many more missions than just CAS a much larger number of aircraft are available allowing for higher levels of commitment during permissive operations. Six times the number of aircraft able to perform the mission of the A-10 is a big improvement.
Agreed. Hence why I said they would be useful to nations with no helicopters or limited helicopters. Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines, South america etc. Also countries that work in this area that need island hopping capability, rough/short runway or a more general platform for policing/pirating duties. If such an aircraft was to become avalible perhaps even Australia and other western countries would concider it (RN as a mail/suppy aircraft,
I don't think the introduction of the F-35 would see the instant death of the A-10.
While the F-35 is wizzbang, stealthy, sensor aware, etc its going to be as prone to being hit by bullets as any other fighter type aircraft flying low, gunning down insurgents etc. While fast, it is actually possible to shoot down fast aircraft with guns if you fly low enough (low enough your aircraft gun platform is going to be effective). With a single engine, even a bird strike could be quiet nasty. In a situation where a F-35 can neutralise any 12.7mm or larger automatic fire and then go in to clean up then yes. But in areas where you can't be sure there isn't a 25mm or larger hiding then it would be the wrong tool. Automatic controlled 12.7 or larger guns are going to become more common so I would concider it a growing threat.
The USAF already has the A-10 and has enough numbers to keep it flying for a while yet. Its been updated somewhat. I can see the A-10 working in conjunction with F-35's, until its planned retirement date most likely near 2030. By 2030 UAV's will be avalible to do the risk clearing runs, again supported by F-35 and manned fighters. Its the sort of unique aircraft the US will proberly keep until its completely shagged or vunerable.
Don't you think though that the situational awareness of the F-35 will make a BIG difference to its vulnerabilities in this regard, though? Not only will it put ordnance on target more accurately from much higher altitudes than the A-10, but the chances of being ambushed with larger air defence guns would, I think, be somewhat neutralised by the fact that any orbiting F-35s would likely have picked up such systems via sensors.
In many cases these countries, most of which have armed helicopters, are better off with helos because of basing access considerations. Also for many other counties with attack helicopters the LARA type can be useful as it provides better endurance on target, transit to target and other considerations. Like lower audio signature (depending on type) which can be very important in night operations.
Well air and ground crews have to come from somewhere.
This is not how survivability analysis works. You have to take into consideration the probability of being hit and then the probability of said hit causing a kill. If (using made up figures) an A-10 has a 5% chance of being hit in a certain situation and that hit has a 20% chance of causing a kill then its overall Pk is 1%. Now if a F-35, in the same situation, that is hit has a 50% chance of causing a kill but only a 1% chance of being hit then its overall vulnerability Pk is 0.5%. Which is better.
There is no UCAV under consideration with a staffing capability. Yes the A-10 will fly side by side with the F-35 but when its retirement date comes up the role will be fully handled by the F-35. There is no CAS UCAV under development nor is there a need for it caused by retirement of the A-10.
Phasing out of A-10 would release crew to work with F-35. USAF can control how that happens fairly easily and depending on need.
A-10 is not likely to be disabled by a stray bullet. Twin engine, sealing and redundant systems. F-35 is going to be more prone to failure/mission kill by a stray bullet. F-35 is less likely to be hit, being faster, low observable, greater awareness etc. However the F-35 does not have many systems to deal with pot luck random trashfire/flack which really doesn't depend on anything the F-35 is designed to defeat.
Normally the F-35 would sanitise the space and then go in, but in some situations thats not going to be possible. You can't level civilian residential areas just to eliminate possibilities.
While no specific UAV is currently being developed, many could be adapted quiet easily. Even if it did the job poorly, it would then allow the F-35 to clean up and suprising fire and if required complete the job. 20 years is a long time in the UAV space. It would take significantly less to adapt a reasonable capable UAV the mission required (2-3 years). There is no point starting development now, because the need is not there until 2030. It may not even need any modification to perform this role.
A-10 is not likely to be disabled by a stray bullet. Twin engine, sealing and redundant systems. F-35 is going to be more prone to failure/mission kill by a stray bullet. F-35 is less likely to be hit, being faster, low observable, greater awareness etc. However the F-35 does not have many systems to deal with pot luck random trashfire/flack which really doesn't depend on anything the F-35 is designed to defeat.
Normally the F-35 would sanitise the space and then go in, but in some situations thats not going to be possible. You can't level civilian residential areas just to eliminate possibilities.
While no specific UAV is currently being developed, many could be adapted quiet easily. Even if it did the job poorly, it would then allow the F-35 to clean up and suprising fire and if required complete the job. 20 years is a long time in the UAV space. It would take significantly less to adapt a reasonable capable UAV the mission required (2-3 years). There is no point starting development now, because the need is not there until 2030. It may not even need any modification to perform this role.
Survivability design is not about stray bullets. Any stray bullet could penetrate the canopy from the side (armoured glass is only in the windshield facing forward) and kill the pilot outright with a head shot. Its all about not taking hits from people trying to shoot you down and surviving them if you do. Even if you are just worried about pot luck hits because the F-35 is faster it spends a lot less time within range of trash fire so significantly reduces the chance of a pot luck hit. You can’t just remove the probability of a hit from any probability of kill analysis.
As to the survivability of the F-35 if hit it would be very wrong to dismiss it has a glass jaw airplane. It may have a single engine but it is a much stronger engine than either on the A-10 and much harder to damage. Also the F-35 being a very heavily equipped aircraft has those systems positioned so as to absorb damage before more important things get hit. It is not the primary role of say for example the EODAS to be armour for the pilot but it does achieve this if being hit.
Actually there are no UAVs under development which would suit strafing attacks. None of them have the manoeuvrability to position for the run nor are solid enough to absorb the gun firing and none have anything like the yaw needed for flat turns to get guns on target. This includes all the various UCAV designs that have been proposed. Plus the idea that you would have a UCAV low and a F-35 high is pretty out there. Why send two planes to do the job of one?
There is nothing wrong with sendind the F-35 down into the weeds to front gun some bad guys. It has been designed for the job being a sturdy, tough fighter with a big gun. Its 25x137mm is the next best thing to a 30x173mm round of the A-10. It is also a better fighter strafe round than the ADEN/DEFA type short 30x113mm round. The higher velocity will enable a lot of accuracy and range in its shooting. The GAU-22/A installed will have the same 5 mil accuracy as the GAU-8 which is a lot better than the 8 mil accuracy of a M61 Vulcan. This is 2.6 times the accuracy of legacy strike fighters with the M61 without even factoring the aircraft’s flight performance and mission systems. The F-35 should be a lot more stable than most other fighters and of course provide the pilot with a lot better targeting information.
I suspect that aircraft attacks by strafing may be going the way of cavalry charges with lances.
- Sensors have improved to the point that you can frequently see more cruising at 10,000’ than zipping by at 100’. Communications and coordination between ground troops and aircraft has also improved to the point where eyeballs-on-target are not absolutely necessary.
- Missile/drone evolution appears to have already passed the mark for a $10,000/round AP missile and may achieve a $1000/round missile (weighing < 250 gr.) capable of taking out a single person in the next decade. Larger missiles capable of taking out any tank already exist.
- MANPADS continue to improve. The key factor here is that it does not take many MANPADS to make the loss rate unacceptable to western politicians. The best defense is to stay out of effective range. typically 8km horizontal, but only half that vertical.
For the most part I agree with Abe and Bonza, however if I may ask a few questions?
What ordnance would that be? I really struggle to see how a GBU12 or 38 dropped from a F-35 will be more accurate than that dropped from an A-10? Or JAGM or Maverick or any other precision munition.
If the helmet is accurate enough. The biggest problem I have with no HUD is relying solely on the helmet... I understand that it does some funky stuff with comparing images etc however if the helmet is more than 3mil (which is only 0.17 of a degree) off then you have com which is potentially worse given that with less dispersion you may just miss completely.
Please show me a video with someone yawing an aircraft to get their gun on.
Can you please explain why the F-35 should be any more stable?
Oh, I wasn't referring to the accuracy inherent to the ordnance itself, but the fact that the ordnance will be cued from sensors much more potent than that of an A-10 - and what I said after that, "from higher altitudes", is part of the statement too, meaning those sensors will allow an F-35 more options for the accurate delivery of weapons from high altitude than if an A-10 were to be used for a similar task.
Seemed relevant if one is considering things like trashfire envelopes - people seem to think that because the F-35 is replacing the A-10, it'll be operating in the same manner to the A-10. From what I understand this isn't the case, and it'll fill a similar tasking in a different manner, and in doing so the arguments for the A-10's capability at low altitudes and resistance to small-calibre weapons become less relevant when discussing how the F-35 will or will not fulfill a capability. Happy to stand corrected on some or all of that, but that's my understanding of it.
30 seconds in.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtTcU_P-5I"]F-16 AFTI Clip Collection - YouTube[/nomedia]
PS Yes I know I’m being a real dick for doing this! Yes it’s not a normal plane.
Than a UAV like Predator? More stabiliser area, more weight for surface area (hard to move with a cross wind), more thrust, more ‘fly by wire’ trim, etc.
Ohh yeah, wasn't trying to dodge, just 10 minutes ago was like so 1980s. Well still the same issues in particular the weight. The F-35 is around the same side surface area as an F/A-18 but about 30% more weight. Similar relationship with the F-16. Harder to move with cross winds and turbulence.
It's a bit of a shame no one seemed interested in the concept of a uparmored and upgunned version of the A-10.I believe that nomatter what it will always be cheaper to deploy subsonic jets vs supersonic jets.Besides the A-10 is build to operate from strips of grass. The F-35 requires an airfield.Value for money the A-10 is a beast once you have command of the air.Besides i'm curious if you can't make it an actual flying tank.Just increase engine power and you can carry more weight=more armor and weapons.If a C-17 can carry two MBT's then you can make a MBT plane fly.Let's see manpads defeat flying MBT's.
I've never thought it would do it in the same manner. But, a better question is, will it be a more effective manner? Even if from a purely technical standpoint the F35 can acheive the same results, how does it stack up from a cost / efficiency perspective? Yes, I know you can't put dollars on lives, but by the same token, spending millions more on guided smart bombs versus cheap rounds for a gattling gun, and a more expensive aircraft, takes dollars away that could be spent elsewhere in the forces (for example, better body armour for troops, more mine resistant vehicles, etc.).
I just don't get the value in replacing one of the most succesfull, proven and cost effective aircraft with something that costs a lot more. Save the more costly technology, for the roles that need that.