9 ms·

There was a fantastic article and analysis I read some weeks ago that addressed this issue, and I'm trying desperately to find it. However, I remember the key p

There was a fantastic article and analysis I read some weeks ago that addressed this issue, and I'm trying desperately to find it. However, I remember the key points, and I'll surmise them here: - The A-10's survivability is overrated. The Air Force conducted studies after both Gulf Wars and found that the A-10 was taking higher damage per sortie when compared in '91 to '03. That Iraq's air defense was in shambles didn't seem to diminish the fact that the A-10 was becoming more vulnerable to more sophisticated weapons. Technology has made cheaper weapons more effective since the 1970s in which this was designed. In a higher threat environment, the lack of sophisticated sensors, threat identification, and ECM is seen as not boding well. - The A-29 is a fantastic plane. But it's giving the A-10 a run for it's money, not the F-35. In the low-threat COIN environment, it has all of the benefits of the A-10 with none of the drawbacks. That famous cannon isn't always idea against militants in the mountains when you're worried about spraying your own troops. That the A-19 can carry small guided weapons just like the A-10 gives it capabilities where it counts. And it's half to a third of the price to purchase and maintain. So the A-10 is getting squashed from two sides: The F-35 can penetrate the high-threat environment, and provide CAS in a lethal SAM environment, while the A-29 can provide CAS/COIN against militants in a low to non-existent threat environment. There is no middle ground. It left when air defense systems gained the sophisticated tracking and accuracy that wasn't there in the 1970s and 80s. The A-10 was a fantastic plane and well designed for the time in which it was envisioned to fight. But even I agree that it's time has passed. Like the F-14, it's sad to see it go, but I think it's the right call.

mycelium 11y ago
Who cares about A-29 vs A-10? Both got shitcanned. I agree the article's title sucks. The point is that military political dysfunction managed to get rid of all ground support airplanes while mumbling "F-35" when anybody asked about ground support.
- pooper 11y ago
  Is there much appetite for ground based forward operation without guaranteed aerial supremacy? Ground support planes would be nice but getting and maintaining aerial control is what prevents war, at least it used to be the case. What has changed?
  - detaro 11y ago
    It doesn't prevent a war you start, among other things ;) Getting aerial supremacy in Afghanistan and Iraq was easy enough, but there still was/is ground warfare going on for a long time. Aerial supremacy doesn't protect you against portable rockets or smaller AA guns, unless you are willing to just kill everything on the ground, which isn't really an option in the current scenarios. A bomber or fighter is relatively well protected against those by height and speed, close air support has to fly low and slow to properly engage targets.
  - kctess5 11y ago
    I suppose that war has also changed - you can't just go destroying cities from the air to get a few insurgents when there are civilians in the general vicinity.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      And all the Fallout fans reflexively thought, "War. War never changes," with music from the 1930s or 1940s playing in the background.
  - mcv 11y ago
    What use is air supremacy if you don't use it to provide ground support?
    - playeren 11y ago
      To prevent enemy Close Air Support (amongst other dangerous things).
emp_zealoth 11y ago
I find it funny that anyone believes F35 will be able to survive even in a range of a moderate quality SAM without massive support - it might be stealthy enough at this moment from the front, but it's rear is one huge bullseye for radar/ir
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  I think the important thing to understand there is that stealth is not a persistent, invulnerable defense. It's a mitigation; a defense with limitations. What it does do is give the F-35 the ability to get close enough to get the first shot, and eliminate the threat. In any air campaign, destruction of defenses is going to be prioritized, and hunting them will be the job of the F-35. That unfortunately is not something the A-10 can currently do.
  - yxhuvud 11y ago
    The problem with that argument is that the purpose of the CAS use case isn't to wage an air campaign - it is to wage a ground campaign. That mean the plane will have to be able to stick around in the air for more than a trivial amount of time. Which in turn means that there can be hidden or mobile air defences that may get deployed while the fight is ongoing.
  - imglorp 11y ago
    All true, but you're mixing up the profiles. In the Gulf era, you'd first send in stealth to take out C&C, AAA and SAM sites and get started on parked air forces. Then you'd send the fighters and escorted bombers to own the airspace and finish destroying their air force. That was the first few days. Then you'd be clear to go in with ground forces, which needed plenty of CAS against all the old Russian tanks. Then you'd be in for as many years as your budget allowed of going door-to-door and cave-to-cave on foot with CAS against "insurgents". The new profile is that last part, at least for our current problems. If we're going up against the Russians or Chinese, then we'll be back to F35's doing standoff at 100 miles.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    I thought that for the US destroying enemy air defence is the job of cruise missiles?
nikatwork 11y ago
War Is Boring have been running a series of articles over the past year or so about the effectiveness of the A-10 for CAS, and about how the F-35 is a "jack of all trades master of none" compromise that is also terrible at CAS. They paint a compelling picture that the Air Force is stumping to ditch CAS as "unsexy" so they spin as hard as they can against the A-10. Example: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/now-the-u-s-air-force-wants-you-to-believe-the-a-10-is-too-old-to-fight-87311b3bd95c https://medium.com/war-is-boring/now-the-u-s-air-force-wants...
- kosmic_k 11y ago
  War is boring's reporting on the F-35 has biased and is considered among defense reporting to be very un-reputable. "Jack of all trades master of none" is followed by "is better than master of one". It's replacing the F-16 which also was a multirole and did it damn well. The A-10 is just no longer an effective weapon. A turbo propt is better when you're fighting while having complete control of airspace and a F-35 is better when you're fighting in the presence of very advanced air defense systems. The A-10 is old and doesn't fit into modern warfare.
  - 67726e 11y ago
    So the question becomes, are we prepping to fight the next war or prepping to fight the last one? Do we think we're going to be launching sorties over Russia or China or do we think we're gonna be fighting another Iraq war against ISIS?
- tsotha 11y ago
  War Is Boring is a terrible site for military news and analysis. I've read several articles that included elements that were factually wrong and obviously so to anyone with even passing knowledge on the subject. A good example is their piece comparing aircraft carriers to battleships in the 1941, where they claimed the navy missed the danger of air attack on capital ships because it had never been done before. Ten minutes on Google would have been enough to keep someone from making that assertion.
ckozlowski 11y ago
Found it! Here's the article: http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/ http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-ai... There's a good follow-up on the F-35 as well, here: http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/03/23/f-35/ http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/03/23/f-35/
protomyth 11y ago
"The Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds"[1] The F-35 has no hope of doing sustained CAS. It is another Air Force "drop your bombs and fire a few shots then run home" plane. An A-10 can keep insurgents away from your troops for a fair amount of time. They should strip the Air Force of its CAS role and hand it back to the Army. Then the Air Force can concentrate on what it likes: strategic bombing and air dominance. 1) http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/ http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns...
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  Maybe you should also add, that the A-10 can carry 1,174 rounds for its front Gatling (from your link).
  - protomyth 11y ago
    The A-10 rounds are a tad bit more effective against insurgents hiding than the rounds shot by an F-35.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - chiph 11y ago
        It actually does. The 30mm is a heavier bullet (even without taking the depleted-uranium core into account), and the case holds more powder, so it has a higher velocity. Both of which add up to more energy imparted into the target.
      - danielvf 11y ago
        Take a cube, half the size of each edge, and the cube weighs one eighth as much. In this case, the 20% reduction in diameter, while keeping the same shape means the projectiles are less than half the size. In a counter-insurgency role, the A-10 fires roughly 65 13.3 ounce high explosive shells in one second. Roughly 54 pounds of high explosive shells per second. The F-35 is planned to fire 55 6.5 ounce projectiles per second. That's 22 pounds of shells per second. 54 lbs vs 22 lbs is a significant difference. Though, as others have said, it's the ammo capacity that is the major problem with the F-35's proposed gun. Only being able to make one or two guns runs before being out of ammunition precludes any kind of sustained ground support.
IanDrake 11y ago
What is an a-19? Google didn't help.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  Typo. Sorry about that.
neurotech1 11y ago
The article is surprisingly factual for an F-35 criticism. The A-29 is a very capable aircraft in the CAS/COIN role, and has the advantage that its relatively cheap. The A-29 can't take battle damage like an A-10, although A-29 has the major advantage in that its cheap to purchase (less than $20m for the Program Unit Cost) and cheap to fly. Two of the best CAS aircraft are the A-1 Skyraider and the A-37 Dragonfly. The propeller driven A-1 "Spads" were used to support the rescue of downed aviators over Vietnam. The A-37B (based on the T-37 Tweet) was flown by both USAF and South Vietnamese Air Force pilots quite effectively. These aircraft were cheap to operate, and accurate at weapons delivery. I'd even go as far as saying the USAF should seriously consider "replacing" the A-37 as the "low" part of the high-low mix with the F-35. Keep the same size and side-by-side layout, and use avionics and "stealth" features of the MQ-9C Avenger [2]. This would enable piloted CAS missions, where drones are impractical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_A-37_Dragonfly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_A-37_Dragonfly [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
tsotha 11y ago
>So the A-10 is getting squashed from two sides: The F-35 can penetrate the high-threat environment, and provide CAS in a lethal SAM environment, while the A-29 can provide CAS/COIN against militants in a low to non-existent threat environment. There is no middle ground. Oh, but there is. The A-10 was primarily designed as a tankbuster. While the A-29 is fine for the CAS role against irregulars, in a war against a country with lots of armor you'd really want to have the A-10.

mycelium 11y ago

Who cares about A-29 vs A-10? Both got shitcanned. I agree the article's title sucks. The point is that military political dysfunction managed to get rid of all ground support airplanes while mumbling "F-35" when anybody asked about ground support.

pooper 11y ago
Is there much appetite for ground based forward operation without guaranteed aerial supremacy? Ground support planes would be nice but getting and maintaining aerial control is what prevents war, at least it used to be the case. What has changed?
- detaro 11y ago
  It doesn't prevent a war you start, among other things ;) Getting aerial supremacy in Afghanistan and Iraq was easy enough, but there still was/is ground warfare going on for a long time. Aerial supremacy doesn't protect you against portable rockets or smaller AA guns, unless you are willing to just kill everything on the ground, which isn't really an option in the current scenarios. A bomber or fighter is relatively well protected against those by height and speed, close air support has to fly low and slow to properly engage targets.
- kctess5 11y ago
  I suppose that war has also changed - you can't just go destroying cities from the air to get a few insurgents when there are civilians in the general vicinity.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    And all the Fallout fans reflexively thought, "War. War never changes," with music from the 1930s or 1940s playing in the background.
- mcv 11y ago
  What use is air supremacy if you don't use it to provide ground support?
  - playeren 11y ago
    To prevent enemy Close Air Support (amongst other dangerous things).

emp_zealoth 11y ago

I find it funny that anyone believes F35 will be able to survive even in a range of a moderate quality SAM without massive support - it might be stealthy enough at this moment from the front, but it's rear is one huge bullseye for radar/ir

ckozlowski 11y ago
I think the important thing to understand there is that stealth is not a persistent, invulnerable defense. It's a mitigation; a defense with limitations. What it does do is give the F-35 the ability to get close enough to get the first shot, and eliminate the threat. In any air campaign, destruction of defenses is going to be prioritized, and hunting them will be the job of the F-35. That unfortunately is not something the A-10 can currently do.
- yxhuvud 11y ago
  The problem with that argument is that the purpose of the CAS use case isn't to wage an air campaign - it is to wage a ground campaign. That mean the plane will have to be able to stick around in the air for more than a trivial amount of time. Which in turn means that there can be hidden or mobile air defences that may get deployed while the fight is ongoing.
- imglorp 11y ago
  All true, but you're mixing up the profiles. In the Gulf era, you'd first send in stealth to take out C&C, AAA and SAM sites and get started on parked air forces. Then you'd send the fighters and escorted bombers to own the airspace and finish destroying their air force. That was the first few days. Then you'd be clear to go in with ground forces, which needed plenty of CAS against all the old Russian tanks. Then you'd be in for as many years as your budget allowed of going door-to-door and cave-to-cave on foot with CAS against "insurgents". The new profile is that last part, at least for our current problems. If we're going up against the Russians or Chinese, then we'll be back to F35's doing standoff at 100 miles.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  I thought that for the US destroying enemy air defence is the job of cruise missiles?

nikatwork 11y ago

War Is Boring have been running a series of articles over the past year or so about the effectiveness of the A-10 for CAS, and about how the F-35 is a "jack of all trades master of none" compromise that is also terrible at CAS. They paint a compelling picture that the Air Force is stumping to ditch CAS as "unsexy" so they spin as hard as they can against the A-10. Example: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/now-the-u-s-air-force-wants-you-to-believe-the-a-10-is-too-old-to-fight-87311b3bd95c https://medium.com/war-is-boring/now-the-u-s-air-force-wants...

kosmic_k 11y ago
War is boring's reporting on the F-35 has biased and is considered among defense reporting to be very un-reputable. "Jack of all trades master of none" is followed by "is better than master of one". It's replacing the F-16 which also was a multirole and did it damn well. The A-10 is just no longer an effective weapon. A turbo propt is better when you're fighting while having complete control of airspace and a F-35 is better when you're fighting in the presence of very advanced air defense systems. The A-10 is old and doesn't fit into modern warfare.
- 67726e 11y ago
  So the question becomes, are we prepping to fight the next war or prepping to fight the last one? Do we think we're going to be launching sorties over Russia or China or do we think we're gonna be fighting another Iraq war against ISIS?
tsotha 11y ago
War Is Boring is a terrible site for military news and analysis. I've read several articles that included elements that were factually wrong and obviously so to anyone with even passing knowledge on the subject. A good example is their piece comparing aircraft carriers to battleships in the 1941, where they claimed the navy missed the danger of air attack on capital ships because it had never been done before. Ten minutes on Google would have been enough to keep someone from making that assertion.

ckozlowski 11y ago

Found it! Here's the article: http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/ http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-ai... There's a good follow-up on the F-35 as well, here: http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/03/23/f-35/ http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/03/23/f-35/

protomyth 11y ago

"The Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds"[1] The F-35 has no hope of doing sustained CAS. It is another Air Force "drop your bombs and fire a few shots then run home" plane. An A-10 can keep insurgents away from your troops for a fair amount of time. They should strip the Air Force of its CAS role and hand it back to the Army. Then the Air Force can concentrate on what it likes: strategic bombing and air dominance. 1) http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/ http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns...

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Maybe you should also add, that the A-10 can carry 1,174 rounds for its front Gatling (from your link).
- protomyth 11y ago
  The A-10 rounds are a tad bit more effective against insurgents hiding than the rounds shot by an F-35.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - chiph 11y ago
      It actually does. The 30mm is a heavier bullet (even without taking the depleted-uranium core into account), and the case holds more powder, so it has a higher velocity. Both of which add up to more energy imparted into the target.
    - danielvf 11y ago
      Take a cube, half the size of each edge, and the cube weighs one eighth as much. In this case, the 20% reduction in diameter, while keeping the same shape means the projectiles are less than half the size. In a counter-insurgency role, the A-10 fires roughly 65 13.3 ounce high explosive shells in one second. Roughly 54 pounds of high explosive shells per second. The F-35 is planned to fire 55 6.5 ounce projectiles per second. That's 22 pounds of shells per second. 54 lbs vs 22 lbs is a significant difference. Though, as others have said, it's the ammo capacity that is the major problem with the F-35's proposed gun. Only being able to make one or two guns runs before being out of ammunition precludes any kind of sustained ground support.

IanDrake 11y ago

What is an a-19? Google didn't help.

ckozlowski 11y ago
Typo. Sorry about that.

neurotech1 11y ago

The article is surprisingly factual for an F-35 criticism. The A-29 is a very capable aircraft in the CAS/COIN role, and has the advantage that its relatively cheap. The A-29 can't take battle damage like an A-10, although A-29 has the major advantage in that its cheap to purchase (less than $20m for the Program Unit Cost) and cheap to fly. Two of the best CAS aircraft are the A-1 Skyraider and the A-37 Dragonfly. The propeller driven A-1 "Spads" were used to support the rescue of downed aviators over Vietnam. The A-37B (based on the T-37 Tweet) was flown by both USAF and South Vietnamese Air Force pilots quite effectively. These aircraft were cheap to operate, and accurate at weapons delivery. I'd even go as far as saying the USAF should seriously consider "replacing" the A-37 as the "low" part of the high-low mix with the F-35. Keep the same size and side-by-side layout, and use avionics and "stealth" features of the MQ-9C Avenger [2]. This would enable piloted CAS missions, where drones are impractical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_A-37_Dragonfly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_A-37_Dragonfly [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger

tsotha 11y ago

>So the A-10 is getting squashed from two sides: The F-35 can penetrate the high-threat environment, and provide CAS in a lethal SAM environment, while the A-29 can provide CAS/COIN against militants in a low to non-existent threat environment. There is no middle ground. Oh, but there is. The A-10 was primarily designed as a tankbuster. While the A-29 is fine for the CAS role against irregulars, in a war against a country with lots of armor you'd really want to have the A-10.