Why does no other country operate the A-10?

[Ths]

I think the Australians - in case of an invasion - count more on funnel web spiders than A-10's.

But an interesting issue has been raised:

The boarders between services has to some extend been drawn by arbitrary technological differences - ship or no ship, plane or no plane - than by a rational difference, i.e. that of mission. And the Yanks are by far not the worst.

 

[icelord]

I think the Australians - in case of an invasion - count more on funnel web spiders than A-10's.

And snakes, we got plenty of those suckers running round, and of course, the drop bears around here are worse then anywhere else

As for the seperate Army Air wing, they operate all helos for the Army, tigers, Hawks, Squirrels, and the navy operates its own.
The army recieved them i think in the 70s and took full control, allowing the RAAF to concentrate on Fixed wing, which is its primary role, all Fixed wing do belong to RAAF but are badged Army or Navy for some, mainly VIP Aircraft. . I'm only speculating but would'nt the RAAF have to swap over its officers if they purchased Army bound A-10, as well as techs and crew.
The budget for RAR is good enough without adding a wasted cost of A-10 for them, and RAAF has all the techs for such aircraft, in short, its not worth the bloody hassle.

 

[Aussie Digger]

And snakes, we got plenty of those suckers running round, and of course, the drop bears around here are worse then anywhere else

As for the seperate Army Air wing, they operate all helos for the Army, tigers, Hawks, Squirrels, and the navy operates its own.
The army recieved them i think in the 70s and took full control, allowing the RAAF to concentrate on Fixed wing, which is its primary role, all Fixed wing do belong to RAAF but are badged Army or Navy for some, mainly VIP Aircraft. . I'm only speculating but would'nt the RAAF have to swap over its officers if they purchased Army bound A-10, as well as techs and crew.
The budget for RAR is good enough without adding a wasted cost of A-10 for them, and RAAF has all the techs for such aircraft, in short, its not worth the bloody hassle.

Just to clear a few points up on this. RAAF's UH-1H, Blackhawk, Kiowa and Squirrel helicopters were transferred to Army in the late 80's, much to RAAF's annoyance.

RAAF's Chinooks were retired from service, but after a hasty re-think (when Blackhawks couldn't lift what Sikorsky SAID they could lift) 4x former RAAF CH-47C's were re-manufactured as CH-47D's and issued to Army. A further 2x CH-47D's were acquired as new-builds, when Army complained that a fleet of only 4x Chinooks didn't allow it to simulataneously deploy an entire M198 artillery battery.

Army also currently operates 3x Beech 350 King Air's as it's sole fixed wing aircraft type. They are used in the liaison/light utility role (ie: flying Generals around the place) and conduct some basic surveillance taskings.

Army has since received the Tiger ARH (we have 6 in-service at present, with an additional 16x still to come) and an order for 40x new-build MRH-90 helo's (Australian version based on NH-90) has been placed. Speculation also abounds that an order for additional Chinooks and the re-manufacturing of our current CH-47D's to the CH-47F standard is "imminent" (ie: within the next couple of years).

RAN has operated it's own fleet aviation assets for "donkey's years". Current assets include: Squirrel, Seahawk and Seaking helo's. 9x Super Seasprite helo's have been delivered, with 1x remaining in the US and 1x development in Australia. These aircraft have been plagued with well known problems. A study to decide whether to keep or replace these helo's has reportedly been completed and is before Government at present. (I've got a feeling we'll be keeping the Sea Sprites, based on how much we've spent on them and the time it would take to obtain a replacement).

An order has also been placed for 6x MRH-90 helo's to replace the Sea-Kings as soon as possible. RAN has also just signed a lease for 3x A109E Power LUH helo's as an interim training aircraft to keep prospective Seasprite pilots qualified until that problem is resolved.

RAN operates no fixed wing aircraft to the best of my knowledge.

RAAF operates no helo's to the best of my knowledge, but has a lease for a number of civilian helicopters to perform search and rescue and "liaison" duties within Australia.

And now back to the A-10.

It's not needed in my opinion. Our CAS capability can be boosted much more cost effectively with further enhancements to our Hornet fleet and by boosting our Tiger ARH fleet.

 

[abramsteve]

And snakes, we got plenty of those suckers running round, and of course, the drop bears around here are worse then anywhere else

Drops Bears!!! Gets em everytime!

Loads of snakes around at the moment. One slithered its way into my work the other day, my boss took its head clean off with a spade. Made us all jumpy for hours!

For light CAS dutys, dont we use PC-9s? Or are they only for forward air-control?

Anyways I also cant see a need for us to aquire A-10s. Just like in another thread concerning F-22s, they might be nice, but they're not needed and money will only go so far...

I love the AC-130 idea though!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Drops Bears!!! Gets em everytime!

Loads of snakes around at the moment. One slithered its way into my work the other day, my boss took its head clean off with a spade. Made us all jumpy for hours!

For light CAS dutys, dont we use PC-9s? Or are they only for forward air-control?

Anyways I also cant see a need for us to aquire A-10s. Just like in another thread concerning F-22s, they might be nice, but they're not needed and money will only go so far...

I love the AC-130 idea though!

The PC-9's are only used to provide a "training" FAC capacity. They are FAR too vulnerable to be used in wartime.

That is the 2 seat F/A-18 Hornet's role in wartime.

I like the idea of using our Hawk Mk 127's for the CAS role though. I'd like to see them equipped with some form of targetting pod and therefore the ability to employ laser guided weapons (LGB's and Hellfire/Brimstone).

The AC-130 would be awesome, hopefully it'll happen one day and they don't just scrap the C-130H's...

 

[abramsteve]

Oh yea! The Hawk... completley forgot about them!

Thats seems to make a lot of sense to me, as they would be more than capable. Seems to me to be the closest equivalent of a modern day A-4.

The vulnerability of the PC-9s also makes sense. They do look like they mean business when they're painted grey with sharks teeth on the front though!

Is the two seater Hornet (C variant?) the type used for CAS by the US Marines?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh yea! The Hawk... completley forgot about them!

Thats seems to make a lot of sense to me, as they would be more than capable. Seems to me to be the closest equivalent of a modern day A-4.

The vulnerability of the PC-9s also makes sense. They do look like they mean business when they're painted grey with sharks teeth on the front though!

Is the two seater Hornet (C variant?) the type used for CAS by the US Marines?

The D variant, probably is, especially the "night attack" variants, with their improved targetting capabilities. Big-E might be able to elaborate further on this though...

 

[Whiskyjack]

I love the AC-130 idea though!

So do I, given the nature of ops that the west is now undertaking, i.e counter insurgency, the AC-130 is a potent weapon, I would like to see the UK and Canada look at it is well, hell even NZ for 2 (dreams are free)

 

[icelord]

But, BUT, are there not some problems with an AC-130, i know you have to turn on angle and so forth, minor pilot details, but in combat zones i heard from somewhere, probabley some Defence Today article that they do have some bugs, if not i withdraw my comment

 

[rjmaz1]

So do I, given the nature of ops that the west is now undertaking, i.e counter insurgency, the AC-130 is a potent weapon, I would like to see the UK and Canada look at it is well, hell even NZ for 2 (dreams are free)

The reports i have seen of the AC-130 protecting Australia troops overseas are very positive.

In one instance two AC-130's ran out of ammo, that would have been an impressive firework display

If the enemy has MANPADs though, the AC-130 is a sitting duck. Atleast it could take a direct hit and just keep flying.

What are the pro's and cons of both the AC-130 and A-10 for Australian service?

 

[chrisrobsoar]

The AC130U would be at risk to MANPADS but not a “sitting-duck”, they are protected by DIRCM.

The pods sticking out the sides have DIRCM turrets.

http://www.herkynoseart.com/images/6574_gunship_3.jpg

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=66

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/ac-130/ac-130_ext.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-aaq-24.htm



Chris

 

[Ths]

Using turboprop trainers seems to meet the bill.
What we should realise is that the materiel we use today is hardly the materiel we will go to war with (shouldn't be); baut CAS aircraft can be produced a lot quicker than the organisation and pilots needed to fly them.

 

[B.Smitty]

The AC130U would be at risk to MANPADS but not a “sitting-duck”, they are protected by DIRCM.

They are still at enough risk, at least according to the USAF, that they are only employed at night.

 

[alexsa]

The AC130U would be at risk to MANPADS but not a “sitting-duck”, they are protected by DIRCM.

The pods sticking out the sides have DIRCM turrets.

http://www.herkynoseart.com/images/6574_gunship_3.jpg

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=66

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/ac-130/ac-130_ext.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-aaq-24.htm



Chris

May be not a sitting duck but aircraft have been lost hence the 'fly by night rule" for the AC130 in Afganistan. During daylight they appear to rely on high altitude PGM (B-52 etc), fast movers, helecopters and A-10's.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

May be not a sitting duck but aircraft have been lost hence the 'fly by night rule" for the AC130 in Afghanistan. During daylight they appear to rely on high altitude PGM (B-52 etc), fast movers, helicopters and A-10's.

Yes I agree. Although the threat of MANPADS is relatively low it does drive most of the aircraft to medium and high levels during the day, where the weapon of choice has got to be PGMs. One of the difficulties in Afghanistan is that it is high and hot, making it very tough for helicopters and Harrier aircraft. For CAS in these conditions the A-10 carries out the task required by the troops on the ground. The proposed modifications to provide better “smarts” and more powerful engines will provide greater flexibility.

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread the US are looking at new weapons for the AC-130U to give it a greater stand-off capability.

An important characteristic of this asymmetric war is that we are using very expensive platforms to drop very expensive weapons and cheap targets. We need a more cost effective approach.



Chris

 

[Waylander]

You should not concentrate this much on MANPADs as the main threat at low altitudes.
Even during the Afghanistan campaign of the sovjets most planes and helicopters where lost due to AA-artillery, heavy MGs and small calibre fire.
And there the rebells where much better supplied with MANPADs.
Or look at how the Iraqis countered the Apaches. They also used AA-artillery and small calibre weapons in their traps.

 

[B.Smitty]

An important characteristic of this asymmetric war is that we are using very expensive platforms to drop very expensive weapons and cheap targets. We need a more cost effective approach.

Well, the AC-130 is an expensive and vulnerable platform firing cheap munitions at cheap targets. It may or may not be more cost effective, especially given the likely small numbers you could buy.

You could buy 20+ MQ-9s for the price of one new AC-130U.

Granted, conversion of existing aircraft would be less expensive, but you're prolly still talking $100-140 million to take a C-130H and transform it into a new AC-130H/U.

If there really is a gap in CAS/COIN coverage, the first step should be to take a step back and define exactly what that gap is. What range, persistence, sensor performance, sensor coverage, target sets, effects, etc. are desired, and in what threat environment.

Only then should you start talking about upgrading existing systems, or buying new.

Just MHO.

 

[Big-E]

I believe the Australian armed forces have the idea of working together, & combining their expertise. So the navy doesn't have an army, & the army doesn't have an air force. And they're happy to keep it that way. Let alone such idiocies as the navy seeking to establish a second army because its first one has got away, & established its own air force.

The USN did both... our army is the USMC and the air force is yours truly.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

You should not concentrate this much on MANPADs as the main threat at low altitudes.
Even during the Afghanistan campaign of the sovjets most planes and helicopters where lost due to AA-artillery, heavy MGs and small calibre fire.
And there the rebells where much better supplied with MANPADs.
Or look at how the Iraqis countered the Apaches. They also used AA-artillery and small calibre weapons in their traps.

To the list of treats you can add RPGs, ATMs (Beamriders) and even mortars.

Recently IEDs have been developed to attack helicopters (a small explosion fires the warhead 50 –100ft into the air where it detonates).

There are a wide range of threats, some are more important than others in different missions.

Chris

 

[chrisrobsoar]

If there really is a gap in CAS/COIN coverage, the first step should be to take a step back and define exactly what that gap is. What range, persistence, sensor performance, sensor coverage, target sets, effects, etc. are desired, and in what threat environment.

Only then should you start talking about upgrading existing systems, or buying new.

Just MHO.

I agree this is the right approach. The US appear to have followed this line of thinking in developing modifications and new weapons for the A-10 and AC-130U.


BTW The four C-130H converted to AC-130U for SOCOM were “borrowed” from the USAF and they are getting four new C-130Js in exchange.


Chris