7 ms·

>And the F35 is the worst at CAS - high, fast and expensive with no loiter time. True, but it's there quick (compared to the A10, C130 and any helicopter) whic

>And the F35 is the worst at CAS - high, fast and expensive with no loiter time. True, but it's there quick (compared to the A10, C130 and any helicopter) which counts for a ton. Nobody ever called for air support and didn't need it now.

masklinn 7y ago
Being there quick is not useful when you do nothing of value and leave immediately though.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend that a modern multirole fighter can't be shoehorned into that role with reasonable effectiveness. Edit: You people (you know who you are) seem hellbent on interpreting what I have to say as being a much stronger statement than I am making. I am saying that aircraft like the F35 can do the job and that there are some pros to having those kind of aircraft do the job (namely speed). I am not saying they are better than a purpose built aircraft.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    > it's foolish to pretend that a modern multirole fighter can't be shoehorned into that role with reasonable effectiveness. I would say it is foolish to make such a broad generalization like that a plane being new and designated multirole is enough for it to fill all CAS roles (there's more than 1 type of CAS mission) "with reasonable effectiveness". In the case of F-35 replacing A-10, we know that it won't be able to fill some of those roles.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    You're wrong on several points. The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good. And the F35 has such a small production run that the Air Force would run out in months. Which they won't do for another agency for CAS. In Vietnam we learned that having airplanes in-theater are much, much cheaper to operate than carrier and remote-based aircraft that take multiple refuelings to arrive on target. For those not familiar with high-performance figher/bomber jets, they have to be refueled immediately after carrier launch and typically at least one more time after that before a bombing run. It's ridiculous, and exposes the tankers to risk.
    - varjag 7y ago
      > The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good. USAF had air dominance in all recent wars, and A10s suffered the highest losses. Going against an enemy with functioning air force and air defence with those would be unwise.
    - chipsa 7y ago
      You're wrong on enough points that I'm unsettling to put in the time to refute all of them... But the easy one is: there are 490 F-35s built, with the next 3 lots buying almost that amount more, for less than it'd cost to buy F-16s/-18s. It's not a small production run.
  - eaandkw 7y ago
    This is the same type of argument that people make over programming languages or EMACS/VIM. You could provide CAS with just about anything that flys. However a good CAS vehicle should be able to fly relatively slow and be well protected from ground fire. The A-10 if perfect and I really wish there was a way to make new ones. I even heard at one point the USMC was thinking of bringing back the OV-10 Bronco.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      > The A-10 if perfect The A-10 is a death trap in a modern air defense environment. The USAF hasn't gone against one of those since Kosovo, and even back then it was all high-altitude fast movers and stealth aircraft dropping ordinance because of the threat of Serbian AD. What the A-10 is perfect for is counter-insurgency, which is pretty much all the shooting action the US has seen since Kosovo. There's an argument to be made that, considering US engagements, a dedicated COIN aircraft is a good thing to have in the US inventory. It's a niche, though, and the US military is currently resistant to fielding niche systems.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        The A-10's counter-insurgency efforts would probably be well complimented by some Super Tucanos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano Unfortunately, they're largely too cheap and not sexy enough for the US to field.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important That is true but what is also true is that using expensive aircraft designed for near-peer conflicts for that mission burns through airframe hours at an unsustainable rate.
  - greedo 7y ago
    The B-1B bomber has performed a larger percentage of CAS missions than any other aircraft. In many ways they are the best airframe for this since they have a long loiter time, incredible load out, high speed to get to the fight. The only downside is no brrrp cannon like the A-10.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Isn't the job of getting there quick and delivering fire to the ground best left to missiles?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  That question is too broad. It depends on the situation. If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that village over there") then you set up artillery. It's accurate gets where you need it quick, is cheap and can't be shot down en-route. If you are fighting a war of occupation and patrolling basically everywhere and don't know where you'll run into a fight then you need some way of getting your extra firepower to the ground units that need it. This is traditionally handled by fixed and rotary wind aircraft carrying bombs or air to ground missiles. I'm unaware of surface to surface missiles being used in this role.
  - eaandkw 7y ago
    Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF. The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Ground troops have a hard time lasing a target they can't see due to being pinned down in a ditch by a machine gun.

masklinn 7y ago

Being there quick is not useful when you do nothing of value and leave immediately though.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend that a modern multirole fighter can't be shoehorned into that role with reasonable effectiveness. Edit: You people (you know who you are) seem hellbent on interpreting what I have to say as being a much stronger statement than I am making. I am saying that aircraft like the F35 can do the job and that there are some pros to having those kind of aircraft do the job (namely speed). I am not saying they are better than a purpose built aircraft.
- dmos62 7y ago
  > it's foolish to pretend that a modern multirole fighter can't be shoehorned into that role with reasonable effectiveness. I would say it is foolish to make such a broad generalization like that a plane being new and designated multirole is enough for it to fill all CAS roles (there's more than 1 type of CAS mission) "with reasonable effectiveness". In the case of F-35 replacing A-10, we know that it won't be able to fill some of those roles.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  You're wrong on several points. The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good. And the F35 has such a small production run that the Air Force would run out in months. Which they won't do for another agency for CAS. In Vietnam we learned that having airplanes in-theater are much, much cheaper to operate than carrier and remote-based aircraft that take multiple refuelings to arrive on target. For those not familiar with high-performance figher/bomber jets, they have to be refueled immediately after carrier launch and typically at least one more time after that before a bombing run. It's ridiculous, and exposes the tankers to risk.
  - varjag 7y ago
    > The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good. USAF had air dominance in all recent wars, and A10s suffered the highest losses. Going against an enemy with functioning air force and air defence with those would be unwise.
  - chipsa 7y ago
    You're wrong on enough points that I'm unsettling to put in the time to refute all of them... But the easy one is: there are 490 F-35s built, with the next 3 lots buying almost that amount more, for less than it'd cost to buy F-16s/-18s. It's not a small production run.
- eaandkw 7y ago
  This is the same type of argument that people make over programming languages or EMACS/VIM. You could provide CAS with just about anything that flys. However a good CAS vehicle should be able to fly relatively slow and be well protected from ground fire. The A-10 if perfect and I really wish there was a way to make new ones. I even heard at one point the USMC was thinking of bringing back the OV-10 Bronco.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > The A-10 if perfect The A-10 is a death trap in a modern air defense environment. The USAF hasn't gone against one of those since Kosovo, and even back then it was all high-altitude fast movers and stealth aircraft dropping ordinance because of the threat of Serbian AD. What the A-10 is perfect for is counter-insurgency, which is pretty much all the shooting action the US has seen since Kosovo. There's an argument to be made that, considering US engagements, a dedicated COIN aircraft is a good thing to have in the US inventory. It's a niche, though, and the US military is currently resistant to fielding niche systems.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      The A-10's counter-insurgency efforts would probably be well complimented by some Super Tucanos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano Unfortunately, they're largely too cheap and not sexy enough for the US to field.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important That is true but what is also true is that using expensive aircraft designed for near-peer conflicts for that mission burns through airframe hours at an unsustainable rate.
- greedo 7y ago
  The B-1B bomber has performed a larger percentage of CAS missions than any other aircraft. In many ways they are the best airframe for this since they have a long loiter time, incredible load out, high speed to get to the fight. The only downside is no brrrp cannon like the A-10.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Isn't the job of getting there quick and delivering fire to the ground best left to missiles?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
That question is too broad. It depends on the situation. If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that village over there") then you set up artillery. It's accurate gets where you need it quick, is cheap and can't be shot down en-route. If you are fighting a war of occupation and patrolling basically everywhere and don't know where you'll run into a fight then you need some way of getting your extra firepower to the ground units that need it. This is traditionally handled by fixed and rotary wind aircraft carrying bombs or air to ground missiles. I'm unaware of surface to surface missiles being used in this role.
- eaandkw 7y ago
  Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF. The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Ground troops have a hard time lasing a target they can't see due to being pinned down in a ditch by a machine gun.