4 ms·

Since air support "A10 style" these days means "dropping smart weapons from high altitude", the F35 will be doing it the same way. Doing anything at low-level i

by rjsw 7y ago

Since air support "A10 style" these days means "dropping smart weapons from high altitude", the F35 will be doing it the same way. Doing anything at low-level is expected to lead to the aircraft getting hit by a MANPAD.

throw0101a 7y ago
Is there any use of being able to engage targets at low altitude like the A-10 (sometimes?) does? If all that is actually needed is the high altitude stuff, then the F-35 may be sufficient, but is that a valid assumption?
- rurounijones 7y ago
  FACS (the guys on the ground to direct the aircraft fire), as far as I have read, say that it is quicker to get a slow mover like an A-10 or helo updated on the situation, familiar with the layout of the terrain, and make sure they know where the good guys and the bad guys are before they let the fly-boys start firing / dropping. One of the things that is supposed to make the F-35 as capable as an A-10 in CAS/COIN (counter-insurgency, despite the wildly different approach, is it's "Sensor Fusion" system. Basically it gives the pilot so much information that it offsets the "fast-mover" disadvantages (and then some). Whether it lives up to the claim is no something I can comment on. Of course, when it comes to recent wars, everything the US military uses is massive overkill and massively expensive (apart from drones, maybe). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa... is supposed to be the "cheap COIN" aircraft for these kinds of conflicts. There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long. This may be getting in "jurisdiction" issues, but if the USAF doesn't really want to do CAS/COIN, why can't the Army do it? The USAF keeps think clear at >3,500 feet (1000m), and Army CAS planes mops things up for the folks on the ground. If extra muscle is needed USAF ordinance can be dropped or an AC-130 be requested.
    - wkrp 7y ago
      You've just complicated your logistics and added a whole bunch of personnel requirements for the Army to have any significant amount of planes for use in combat. Not to mention, the Army has helicopters to perform this exact same function already.
      - throw0101a 7y ago
        Would there be a rise in total complexity, or 'simply' a shuffling of it? There are about a dozen A-10 squadrons: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... If their command responsibility was transfered to the Army instead of the USAF, how much would change on the logistical back-end? Curious: Are helicopters and CAS/A-10 planes effective in the same situations? How much overlap is there?
        wkrp 7y ago
        Well for one, the Army would have to start worrying about bases with full landing strips, pilot training, the bureaucracy and command structure that would be required to run the squadrons. They would need mechanics that know how to repair them, people that know how to arm and refuel them. You end up doing a good amount of work just to try and protect a very expensive plane from Air Force politics. Ideally, the Air Force would just settle on an inexpensive prop plane that could perform the same missions as the A-10 at much less of the cost. I'm not knowledgeable on how effective a helicopter is for CAS.
  - greedo 7y ago
    It has nothing to do with sex appeal. A prop plane used for CAS/COIN will siphon funds away from the F-35. That's fine, as long as you don't need to engage in combat with a near peer competitor like China/Russia etc. Planes like the Tucano (and the A-10) will NOT survive against a modern AD. Nor will Apache etc; witness the performance of the Apache when used in 2003. When assaulting the Republican Guard positions at Karbala (with rudimentary AD), the Apaches suffered an incredible amount of casualties: "Of the 29 returning Apaches, all but one suffered serious damage. On average, each Apache had 15-20 bullet holes. One Apache took 29 hits. Sixteen main rotor blades, six tail blades, six engines, and five drive shafts were damaged beyond repair. In one squadron only a single helicopter was fit to fly. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was ready to fight again. The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use.[11] Attack helicopters would henceforth be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes.[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
    - hindsightbias 7y ago
      The A-10 was designed for a hot war in Europe and would have been nothing more than a “speed bump” for a Soviet invasion in the Fulda Gap, let alone a modern peer. The problem is really casualty aversion - we lost 10’s of thousands of airmen in WW2 and that’s not sexy. The fighter mafias in the USAF and USN are real things, driving the specification of unrealistic capabilities in fiscally constrained universes. Fiscally affordable wars are going to require less bling and a higher tolerance for losses. Extending your thought we should expect F-35 shortcomings to lead to tactical limitations due to operational risks leaders will be unwilling to take when facing a real peer.
      - greedo 7y ago
        Yes, we've imposed tactical (and strategic) limitations due to operational risks in our current wars/engagements. The B-2 for example, will never fire a shot in anger since there are so few airframes. It'll be retired in short order after the deployment of the B-21. Same with the F-22. Other than a token deployment to the Mideast with a sortie or two in Syria, they won't see combat unless we get in a hot war with a peer. And until recently, they lacked the required capabilities to attack ground targets. No need to risk them for bomb truck missions. My real worry is that our risk aversion will cause a conventional war to go nuclear in short order, when a more robust conventional military would be able to prevent that. Imagine if we lost a CVN to the Chinese? 5000+ sailors and airmen dead.
tropo 7y ago
The A-10 is quite MANPAD resistant. Look carefully at the engines and tail, and remember how nearly every MANPAD operates. Almost every MANPAD uses an IR seeker, not radar. The A-10 engines are mostly hidden from the ground, inside a wrap-around tail. There are few angles from which the exhaust can be seen. It is in fact a very simple form of stealth. The aircraft turns of course, changing the view and causing simple heat seekers to loose the aircraft. Of course, the aircraft also carries flares and other decoys, and it can be accompanied by a Growler. If the A-10 does get hit, it will probably be fine. It has quadruple-redundant controls. It can fly with the loss of an engine, half the tail, and 2/3 of one wing. MANPAD explosive charges are small. The A-10 engines are spaced apart from each other, making it unlikely that a hit on one engine could disable the other. Experience shows that the aircraft is tough: they often return to base after getting hit by a missile even larger than a MANPAD, such as truck-mounted Russian equipment.
- greedo 7y ago
  The A-10 might be MANPAD resistant to the SA-7 (Grail class and variants), but it wasn't designed to survive anything newer. Yes it has redundant control mechanisms/engines, titanium bathtub and tails. But it's still easy to target with IR, not to mention radar. And against a modern AD system, it'll be toast. Whether it's a Tunguska or worse, it can't survive on the modern battlefield until these systems are attritted via SEAD.
  - tropo 7y ago
    They survive pretty well. Don't expect perfection. It's war. Check out the loss rates for WWII bombers over Europe, but we sent them anyway and they worked fine. The A-10 of course is capable of SEAD. It carries the equipment. However... There is no requirement that the A-10 go alone. It can be accompanied by the EA-18G or F-22. If it mattered, we could have the A-10 carry the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy system. The threat isn't serious enough to bother, but we could.
    - greedo 7y ago
      I'm sure the crews in the 8th AF who attacked Schweinfurt in WW2 would disagree. Until the P-51 and P-47 were able to escort the B-17s start to finish, the attrition rate was terrible. Daylight bombing was completely unproductive; the only good thing was that the escorting fighters eventually degraded the Luftwaffe. The A-10 is not tasked with SEAD. The only weapons it could use in that role would be Mavericks, CBU, dumb bombs, and the GAU. It carries the ALQ-131 pod, but that's only for self-defense (jamming). Also, the operational envelope for ALE50 is too high to be useful for the A-10, unless it's going to just be used as a bomb truck at medium altitude. Plus it only has two "buddies" so it's of limited use. If you can get your hands on some of the literature regarding it's intended deployment in Europe if the GSFG rolled through Fulda, you'd be horrified at it. Both it and the Apache would have attrition rates that would never fly with today's voters. And it's not that the threat isn't "serious enough to bother", but that it wouldn't be cost effective to increase the A-10s survivability. If the conflict gets too hot, the USAF simply won't deploy the A-10.

by rjsw 7y ago

throw0101a 7y ago

Is there any use of being able to engage targets at low altitude like the A-10 (sometimes?) does? If all that is actually needed is the high altitude stuff, then the F-35 may be sufficient, but is that a valid assumption?

rurounijones 7y ago
FACS (the guys on the ground to direct the aircraft fire), as far as I have read, say that it is quicker to get a slow mover like an A-10 or helo updated on the situation, familiar with the layout of the terrain, and make sure they know where the good guys and the bad guys are before they let the fly-boys start firing / dropping. One of the things that is supposed to make the F-35 as capable as an A-10 in CAS/COIN (counter-insurgency, despite the wildly different approach, is it's "Sensor Fusion" system. Basically it gives the pilot so much information that it offsets the "fast-mover" disadvantages (and then some). Whether it lives up to the claim is no something I can comment on. Of course, when it comes to recent wars, everything the US military uses is massive overkill and massively expensive (apart from drones, maybe). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa... is supposed to be the "cheap COIN" aircraft for these kinds of conflicts. There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long. This may be getting in "jurisdiction" issues, but if the USAF doesn't really want to do CAS/COIN, why can't the Army do it? The USAF keeps think clear at >3,500 feet (1000m), and Army CAS planes mops things up for the folks on the ground. If extra muscle is needed USAF ordinance can be dropped or an AC-130 be requested.
  - wkrp 7y ago
    You've just complicated your logistics and added a whole bunch of personnel requirements for the Army to have any significant amount of planes for use in combat. Not to mention, the Army has helicopters to perform this exact same function already.
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      Would there be a rise in total complexity, or 'simply' a shuffling of it? There are about a dozen A-10 squadrons: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... If their command responsibility was transfered to the Army instead of the USAF, how much would change on the logistical back-end? Curious: Are helicopters and CAS/A-10 planes effective in the same situations? How much overlap is there?
      - wkrp 7y ago
        Well for one, the Army would have to start worrying about bases with full landing strips, pilot training, the bureaucracy and command structure that would be required to run the squadrons. They would need mechanics that know how to repair them, people that know how to arm and refuel them. You end up doing a good amount of work just to try and protect a very expensive plane from Air Force politics. Ideally, the Air Force would just settle on an inexpensive prop plane that could perform the same missions as the A-10 at much less of the cost. I'm not knowledgeable on how effective a helicopter is for CAS.
- greedo 7y ago
  It has nothing to do with sex appeal. A prop plane used for CAS/COIN will siphon funds away from the F-35. That's fine, as long as you don't need to engage in combat with a near peer competitor like China/Russia etc. Planes like the Tucano (and the A-10) will NOT survive against a modern AD. Nor will Apache etc; witness the performance of the Apache when used in 2003. When assaulting the Republican Guard positions at Karbala (with rudimentary AD), the Apaches suffered an incredible amount of casualties: "Of the 29 returning Apaches, all but one suffered serious damage. On average, each Apache had 15-20 bullet holes. One Apache took 29 hits. Sixteen main rotor blades, six tail blades, six engines, and five drive shafts were damaged beyond repair. In one squadron only a single helicopter was fit to fly. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was ready to fight again. The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use.[11] Attack helicopters would henceforth be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes.[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
  - hindsightbias 7y ago
    The A-10 was designed for a hot war in Europe and would have been nothing more than a “speed bump” for a Soviet invasion in the Fulda Gap, let alone a modern peer. The problem is really casualty aversion - we lost 10’s of thousands of airmen in WW2 and that’s not sexy. The fighter mafias in the USAF and USN are real things, driving the specification of unrealistic capabilities in fiscally constrained universes. Fiscally affordable wars are going to require less bling and a higher tolerance for losses. Extending your thought we should expect F-35 shortcomings to lead to tactical limitations due to operational risks leaders will be unwilling to take when facing a real peer.
    - greedo 7y ago
      Yes, we've imposed tactical (and strategic) limitations due to operational risks in our current wars/engagements. The B-2 for example, will never fire a shot in anger since there are so few airframes. It'll be retired in short order after the deployment of the B-21. Same with the F-22. Other than a token deployment to the Mideast with a sortie or two in Syria, they won't see combat unless we get in a hot war with a peer. And until recently, they lacked the required capabilities to attack ground targets. No need to risk them for bomb truck missions. My real worry is that our risk aversion will cause a conventional war to go nuclear in short order, when a more robust conventional military would be able to prevent that. Imagine if we lost a CVN to the Chinese? 5000+ sailors and airmen dead.

tropo 7y ago

The A-10 is quite MANPAD resistant. Look carefully at the engines and tail, and remember how nearly every MANPAD operates. Almost every MANPAD uses an IR seeker, not radar. The A-10 engines are mostly hidden from the ground, inside a wrap-around tail. There are few angles from which the exhaust can be seen. It is in fact a very simple form of stealth. The aircraft turns of course, changing the view and causing simple heat seekers to loose the aircraft. Of course, the aircraft also carries flares and other decoys, and it can be accompanied by a Growler. If the A-10 does get hit, it will probably be fine. It has quadruple-redundant controls. It can fly with the loss of an engine, half the tail, and 2/3 of one wing. MANPAD explosive charges are small. The A-10 engines are spaced apart from each other, making it unlikely that a hit on one engine could disable the other. Experience shows that the aircraft is tough: they often return to base after getting hit by a missile even larger than a MANPAD, such as truck-mounted Russian equipment.

greedo 7y ago
The A-10 might be MANPAD resistant to the SA-7 (Grail class and variants), but it wasn't designed to survive anything newer. Yes it has redundant control mechanisms/engines, titanium bathtub and tails. But it's still easy to target with IR, not to mention radar. And against a modern AD system, it'll be toast. Whether it's a Tunguska or worse, it can't survive on the modern battlefield until these systems are attritted via SEAD.
- tropo 7y ago
  They survive pretty well. Don't expect perfection. It's war. Check out the loss rates for WWII bombers over Europe, but we sent them anyway and they worked fine. The A-10 of course is capable of SEAD. It carries the equipment. However... There is no requirement that the A-10 go alone. It can be accompanied by the EA-18G or F-22. If it mattered, we could have the A-10 carry the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy system. The threat isn't serious enough to bother, but we could.
  - greedo 7y ago
    I'm sure the crews in the 8th AF who attacked Schweinfurt in WW2 would disagree. Until the P-51 and P-47 were able to escort the B-17s start to finish, the attrition rate was terrible. Daylight bombing was completely unproductive; the only good thing was that the escorting fighters eventually degraded the Luftwaffe. The A-10 is not tasked with SEAD. The only weapons it could use in that role would be Mavericks, CBU, dumb bombs, and the GAU. It carries the ALQ-131 pod, but that's only for self-defense (jamming). Also, the operational envelope for ALE50 is too high to be useful for the A-10, unless it's going to just be used as a bomb truck at medium altitude. Plus it only has two "buddies" so it's of limited use. If you can get your hands on some of the literature regarding it's intended deployment in Europe if the GSFG rolled through Fulda, you'd be horrified at it. Both it and the Apache would have attrition rates that would never fly with today's voters. And it's not that the threat isn't "serious enough to bother", but that it wouldn't be cost effective to increase the A-10s survivability. If the conflict gets too hot, the USAF simply won't deploy the A-10.