Yet another round in the debate over the tried and true A-10 airframe vs the controversial F-35. There are some interesting points in the conversation; the murkiest one being cost-effectiveness. The F-35 is obviously expensive both in terms of raw cost and the logistical issues needed to get it into the field. What is unclear to me is whether it is actually cheaper in the long run to fly a single multi-mission, highly expensive airframe, or two or three specialized designs. Is the cost savings worth the reduced ground support effectiveness? Are there any real cost-savings at all?
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 03:02:54 PM
The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 04:55:35 PM
On the other hand that lesson has been learned over and over again. Ground attack planes from the IL-2, To A-1, SU-25 and A-10 has one thing in common, they were designed to work low and slow. It inevidably leads to casualties but a slow, well armoured plane still is more effective than a fast fighter. U dont go low and slow unless u can go really low and slow. Using F-35 for CAS will lead to casualties, it will fall victim to AAA just as often as the A-10. Down low u are not that helped by stealth technology.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: USCH on June 29, 2015, 05:09:21 PM
The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.
how many 10's have been shot down in the 10 years of the last wars? To say that they are no longer viable is mind numbingly dumb. Clearly you have not looked at what the 10 CAN do vs. the 35. Not to mention I don't thing the 35 has tripple redundancy. And as others have said, stealth doesn't work when you can see the damned thing with your own eyes. The only way the A-10 should be replaced is to have a "new and improved" version of what works. Replacing the 10 is just as dumb as using the B-1 to replace the B-52 for its roll. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
To replace the A-10 with anything that has been currently built is just dumb. I'm not training in my Z-28 for a Corvette, why? Because I need 3 seats... It doesn't make the vette a bad car but its not correct for the roll that needs to be played.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: USCH on June 29, 2015, 05:11:41 PM
The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Hajo on June 29, 2015, 06:24:27 PM
The Luftwaffe built many planes to be a jack of all trades. Didn't work out to well as I recall.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 06:48:18 PM
On the other hand that lesson has been learned over and over again. Ground attack planes from the IL-2, To A-1, SU-25 and A-10 has one thing in common, they were designed to work low and slow. It inevidably leads to casualties but a slow, well armoured plane still is more effective than a fast fighter. U dont go low and slow unless u can go really low and slow. Using F-35 for CAS will lead to casualties, it will fall victim to AAA just as often as the A-10. Down low u are not that helped by stealth technology.
How many slow ground attack planes did the western allies produce? Fast, powerful Typhoons and P-47 were the right choice in WWII. The Il-2 was a death trap.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 06:50:28 PM
how many 10's have been shot down in the 10 years of the last wars?
How many world powers have the A-10 fought in that time period? None. Like I said, the A-10 is still a good COIN aircraft. Against goat herders it does quite well.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 06:52:24 PM
The Luftwaffe built many planes to be a jack of all trades. Didn't work out to well as I recall.
The Fw 190 and Ju 88 were excellent multi purpose aircraft.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 06:55:18 PM
On the eastern front, had IL-2 been used in the west it had been much more succesful. But fast and powerful in WW2 is no way near fast and powerful today. The A-10 can go as faster than a pony.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 07:15:40 PM
Against modern air defenses like MANPADs aircraft are far more vulnerable now than in WWII. The Il-2 would have been just as much dog meat on the Western front as in the East.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: icepac on June 29, 2015, 08:08:37 PM
The A10 only flew missions after air superiority cap was established by faster fighters.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 08:19:31 PM
Against modern air defenses like MANPADs aircraft are far more vulnerable now than in WWII. The Il-2 would have been just as much dog meat on the Western front as in the East.
Except that there would have been very few enemy fighters around to intercept it. Not even the C-47:s in the airborne attacks in -44 were attacked by German fighters in any numbers.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 08:46:46 PM
The Luftwaffe made the 2nd TAF and the 9th AF their primary target over the western front post D-Day. You sound like you think there was no Luftwaffe in the west after D-Day.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Guppy35 on June 29, 2015, 08:57:32 PM
The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.
Which war do you think we are going to fight? Odds are pretty good it will be more of the same where low and slow still makes more sense then fast, unproven and expensive.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 09:10:47 PM
The Luftwaffe made the 2nd TAF and the 9th AF their primary target over the western front post D-Day. You sound like you think there was no Luftwaffe in the west after D-Day.
The losses during D- day were 127 planes in 14,674 sorties, a loss rate of 0,87% (to all causes)....
Edit: But if u dont like the Il-2 as an example u can take the A-1. same concept.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Wolfala on June 29, 2015, 09:21:34 PM
I think it's still a relevant airframe.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 09:23:29 PM
Which war do you think we are going to fight? Odds are pretty good it will be more of the same where low and slow still makes more sense then fast, unproven and expensive.
The USAF don't want the A-10, but I guess you know better.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Volron on June 29, 2015, 09:28:57 PM
:headscratch: Something tells me that the F-35 will not accept small arms fire as well as the A-10, let alone AAA. Down low, the bigger threat are bullets, not missiles.
The "Jack of all Trades" is more cost efficient since you don't have to train three different people on three different airframes. Not to mention parts for repairs and upgrading.
That being said, I do not think it is effective in the long run. While an argument can be made that we have the Apache, it is much slower and fly's lower than an A-10. This makes it far more susceptible to small arms and AAA. Not to mention is isn't as tough as the A-10, though you can't thumb your nose at it.
All in all, I think an upgrade to the A-10's, be it further improvement to the existing airframe or development of an entirely new airframe, is something that would be useful. Something with as much, if not better/more, durability and loiter time, as well as ordinance.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on June 29, 2015, 09:37:34 PM
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 09:38:05 PM
The USAF has abandoned "down low" to drones and smart weapons. The A-10's in service are flying up their few remaining hours and soon they will no longer be serviceable.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 09:40:10 PM
Of course there were German Air activity over france post D-day, but against the 14,674 sorties the allied flew during D-day the Germans managed to fly 172 sorties... And the odds werent becoming any better afterwards. There were rare occasions of success for the Luftwaffe but they still lost 50% of their fighter force in france between 6-30 of june.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 09:44:35 PM
The USAF has abandoned "down low" to drones and smart weapons. The A-10's in service are flying up their few remaining hours and soon they will no longer be serviceable.
just like they abandoned guns when AAM were introduced...
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 09:53:55 PM
After D-Day the Luftwaffe more or less withdrew from directly confronting the western allies in numbers until they had transfered fresh units from the eastern front and rebuilt their forces in the fall of 1944. During Operation Market Garden the Luftwaffe inflicted significant losses on the Allied air bridge claiming 209 Allied aircraft destroyed. Despite Allied air superiority they lost 144 transport aircraft in the space of a handful of days.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 09:54:37 PM
The USAF don't want the A-10, but I guess you know better.
They never did. They tried to kill it when first proposed. You see, if it isn't a strategic bomber or (edit grammar) Sierra Hotel fighter, it doesn't fit the USAF self interest. They don't like having to support the Army unless it's flying razzle-dazzle fighters. They had no choice but to take the A-10, and they've resented it ever since.
The fact remains that the A-10 was designed for battle over the Fulda Gap, where MANPADs (SA-7 and SA-14 and now SA-18) would be as common as trees. Tactics were developed to minimize risk. At least one A-10 was hit by SA-14 in Iraq, and it shrugged it off, more or less. As it was engineered to do. It was flown back to base, engine replaced, minor damage repaired and back flying in three days.
As a side note, the SU-25 is still in service and I've not seen any reported plans to retire it. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it's still the best aircraft in Russian service for the envisioned mission? I'd say so.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 10:04:33 PM
After D-Day the Luftwaffe more or less withdrew from directly confronting the western allies in numbers until they had transfered fresh units from the eastern front and rebuilt their forces in the fall of 1944. During Operation Market Garden the Luftwaffe inflicted significant losses on the Allied air bridge claiming 209 Allied aircraft destroyed. Despite Allied air superiority they lost 144 transport aircraft in the space of a handful of days.
And how many of those low and slow C-47 were brought down by AAA?
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/38158-new-book-about-us-c-47-losses-in-operation-market-garden/ Here there are a long list of C-47 losses during Market-Garden, the word "fighter" is not mentioned once... Not a single confirmed kill of a C-47 by a fighter on that list...
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on June 29, 2015, 10:07:31 PM
The USAF has abandoned "down low" to drones and smart weapons. The A-10's in service are flying up their few remaining hours and soon they will no longer be serviceable.
No it hasn't. Where do you get such nonsense?
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 10:27:23 PM
Many. Like I said the Luftwaffe claimed 209 aircraft.
Any sources to back it up? As i stated in previous post it looks like the overwhelming majority of C-47:s downed were shot down by AAA. The numbers of total Air victories for luftwaffe was 122 http://www.defendingarnhem.com/Luftwaffe.htm On the 17th of september Luftwaffe did not manage to break trough the fighter screen, I havent found any report of that happening until the 21st of September.
In fact: Most sources support my claim that Allied fighter had almost total air superiority.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Guppy35 on June 29, 2015, 10:47:40 PM
The USAF don't want the A-10, but I guess you know better.
That was a fantastic non reply that makes absolutely no sense is response to my comment.
I seem to recall the Air Force thought dogfighting was obsolete and that they didn't need a gun on the F-4. How'd that work out for the pilots having to complete the mission? Oh that's right. Everything that followed had a gun and could turn tight.
How often did the ground guys beg for A-1s that could get low and slow and not drop bombs on the friendlies because of it?
Generally history shows us that the higher up the chain and further away from the bullets guys make the decisions not based on what's best, but what looks good to them at the time. Ask all the bomber guys who died to try and prove the pet theory of the go it alone bomber generals. The list goes on and on.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 10:50:45 PM
Any sources to back it up? As i stated in previous post it looks like the overwhelming majority of C-47:s downed were shot down by AAA. The numbers of total Air victories for luftwaffe was 122 http://www.defendingarnhem.com/Luftwaffe.htm On the 17th of september Luftwaffe did not manage to break trough the fighter screen, I havent found any report of that happening until the 21st of September.
In fact: Most sources support my claim that Allied fighter had almost total air superiority.
"During Operation Market Garden, the Allied attempt to end the war in 1944 by forcing a route through the Netherlands and into the Ruhr region of Germany, Luftwaffe fighter forces managed to inflict significant losses on Allied planes transporting paratroopers and supplies into battle, but their own losses were serious. The Jagddivision's operational in the area claimed 209 Allied aircraft destroyed, including only 35 transport aircraft. In return the Luftwaffe lost 192 fighters.[105] The Allied operation failed, and the Luftwaffe survived into the following year."
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 29, 2015, 11:05:18 PM
How can 35 claimed out of several thousand sorties be concidered significant? 35 claimed c-47:s for 192 lost fighters - that only support my opinion even more. The Allied fighters were able to prevent Luftwaffe from causing serious losses among the transport planes.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 11:14:12 PM
209 aircraft in less than a week is not significant in your opinion. Compared to 192 losses that even gives the Luftwaffe a positive kill ratio. "Significant" must mean something different in Sweden.
Btw. I was wondering why you've removed your Sami flag avatar?
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on June 29, 2015, 11:14:36 PM
Inasmuch as the B-52 and B-1 have danger close distances exceeding two kilometers, how can they classify that as close support? It's pure nonsense. Ditto on Predator and Reaper (we manufacture their weapon's release system). Drones are not and will not be significant CAS aircraft in the immediate future. They are entirely too detached and very high risk for blue on blue error, not to mention inadequate payload.
When we look at the A-10, operational cost is well below that of a fast mover. Moreover, the fast movers are not coming down low. Thus, identifying opposition fighters is always difficult. If there's any significant TripleA threat, the AC-130s will be marginalized as well.
Compared to the F-16, the F-35 is very limited on weapon selection....
As to the Air Force's claim that they can accomplish a genuine CAS role without the A-10... I like this summation:
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 11:18:46 PM
209 aircraft in less than a week is not significant in your opinion. Compared to 192 losses that even gives the Luftwaffe a positive kill ratio. "Significant" must mean something different in Sweden.
Btw. I was wondering why you've removed your Sami flag avatar?
209 is still not anything else than claimed kills, and no, By WW2 standard losses <1% of sorties is not significant. Luftwaffe failed to interrupt the operations during market-garden in any significant way.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Saxman on June 29, 2015, 11:30:07 PM
If you were a guy on the ground under heavy fire in need of air support, which would you rather see coming to your aid? As an enemy combatant, which is more likely to make you @#$% your pants? An F-35 10,000 feet above the battlefield lobbing a smart weapon? Or an A-10 swooping in and spewing 4000 rounds per minute of hot 30mm death?
The A-10 is NOT a deep-strike craft. It's NOT designed for penetration of enemy air space. It's designed to loiter and directly support the ground troops right on the front lines, while the hotter and sexier rides take care of the rest. And it does its job very, VERY well.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 11:33:11 PM
209 is still not anything else than claimed kills, and no, By WW2 standard losses <1% of sorties is not significant. Luftwaffe failed to interrupt the operations during market-garden in any significant way.
I'll consider your opinion on the matter with all the weight it deserves.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 11:36:41 PM
If you were a guy on the ground under heavy fire in need of air support, which would you rather see coming to your aid? As an enemy combatant, which is more likely to make you @#$% your pants? An F-35 10,000 feet above the battlefield lobbing a smart weapon? Or an A-10 swooping in and spewing 4000 rounds per minute of hot 30mm death?
The A-10 is NOT a deep-strike craft. It's NOT designed for penetration of enemy air space. It's designed to loiter and directly support the ground troops right on the front lines, while the hotter and sexier rides take care of the rest. And it does its job very, VERY well.
True. However, the A-10 is old and won't be around for long no matter how much anyone wants it to. Production shut down 30 years ago, the company no longer exists and the people who worked on it are retired or dead.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on June 29, 2015, 11:40:18 PM
Not CAS.... You have a group of Taliban on a rocky, tree covered slope. Ground troops can't see them, but are drawing fire. How does a B-1 at 20k locate them? You can't target what you can't see. You can't see squat from 20k, targeting pod or otherwise. The only way is to get down in tree tops. Helos are too damn vulnerable to ordinary small arms fire to do that. What's left? An F-35 at 400 knots? No dice.... This is the environment where the A-10 is irreplaceable. Point in fact, when attacking this kind of enemy, old fashioned dumb bombs often do a better job. Frequently, an old Warthog guided by the Mk.I eyeball is still the best CAS option.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2015, 11:45:34 PM
The USAF seems to want to change that. Like I said, they're leaving the low and slow approach.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Saxman on June 29, 2015, 11:57:21 PM
The USAF seems to want to change that. Like I said, they're leaving the low and slow approach.
I want Yvonne Strahovski and Jennifer Lawrence to knock on my door looking to do dirty, dirty things to me, but it's not gonna happen.
The USAF can WANT all they, well, want. That doesn't mean they CAN.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on June 29, 2015, 11:59:14 PM
One more point.... Northrop Grumman has a contract to support the A-10 through 2016. Rumor is that they will propose a thoroughly updated, complete rebuild of the entire fleet of A-10s that would cut operational costs and increase operational availability. This would extend service life to 2035 or longer. I would not be surprised if this was floated before the end of summer. You can bet it will get a lot of support due to it's potential bang for the buck.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the rumor is based in fact.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2015, 12:04:57 AM
I want Yvonne Strahovski and Jennifer Lawrence to knock on my door looking to do dirty, dirty things to me, but it's not gonna happen.
The USAF can WANT all they, well, want. That doesn't mean they CAN.
Unlike your little fantasy there (who wouldn't want THAT), it is in fact the USAF that perform these CAS missions and it is for the most part within their power to change how they do things.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: USRanger on June 30, 2015, 12:18:07 AM
I wouldn't be alive today if not for if not for the A-10. My children would be fatherless if the F-35 had been there instead. All I have to say on it. :salute
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Karnak on June 30, 2015, 12:22:12 AM
The USAF seems to want to change that. Like I said, they're leaving the low and slow approach.
You keep saying this like it is a new thing. The USAF has wanted that since the day the A-10 was proposed.
I am not opposed to a replacement for the old A-10, but it needs to be a replacement that works, not pressing a fast mover into a role it can't adequately fill.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2015, 12:47:09 AM
The majority of CAS missions the USAF flies are done with other aircraft according to the article I posted.
That chart is meaningless as there is not any detail about the kinds of CAS each did. Nobody is saying the F-35 can't handle some, or even most, CAS situations. We're saying it, and other fast movers, can't handle 100% of CAS situations. Wishing otherwise doesn't make those 10-20% of situations not happen.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2015, 12:54:30 AM
Can you describe a "CAS situation" only the A-10 could handle?
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: JVboob on June 30, 2015, 12:59:19 AM
F16s have a ton of check marks. :neener:
The 16s from my unit have done a bunch of CAS missions. The 16s are very effective at it, but it doesnt have the payload or the fear factor of Mr. Burrrrrrrrrp.
The A10 is the most efficent CAS plane IMO. If what wide wing said is true then I hope it stays around EVERY one of my friends in USA or USMC have said the A10 has saved their arses. The F35 F15 F16 F/A18 C130s AH1s or AH64s will never beable to CAS as well as the A10 can. Untill a new plane can fill that role as effective or more effective the USAFs only option should be is to leave the Hog alone and let it do what it was designed to do.
And ive heard praise of the 16 as well and come to find out a bird from my unit was the one that made a run for my marine buddy.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2015, 01:17:08 AM
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: artik on June 30, 2015, 01:49:11 AM
The question is how CAS is performed. Yes, there always were slow low good ground support aircraft, starting from Stuka and armored IL-2 up to modern A-10 and Su-25 that can have great deal of punishment and get close to targets.
However what is common to Ju-87, IL-2, A-10 and Su-25? They can operate when you have local air superiority, otherwise they are canon fodder - this is right for Aces High and for modern combat.
Now the question is if you need to get close to the target low and slow? It is good question - if you think that you don't need to get low and slow than you probably don't need choppers like AH-64 & AH-1 - that are even more vulnerable than A-10 or Su-25 at modern battle field.
If you use this argument that A-10 and Su-25 are dangerous in modern combat environment than retire all combat choppers fleet - so I don't buy this argument.
On the other hand if you operate F-16 like aircraft in that role - you can always drop your bombs and go on equal terms against opponents, A-10 and other specialized type of aircraft would need air cover.
A-10 and other similar aircraft are very efficient in CAS and probably do stuff better than F-16 in their role. F-16s + drones + choppers can substitute them by different means - as everybody already do it.
Now it is question of budget and goals. Can you afford to keeps specialized aircraft or can't? For example USAF is only operator of A-10. Su-25 is operated by much wider range of countries (outside CIS as well) but I assume Su-25 is cheaper to build and operate.
So bottom line:
- So would retiring A-10 jeopardize CAS abilities - no - almost every other force does CAS without it, also it may look different and may cost more at war time in comparison to dedicated aircraft. - Would be it more cost effective to operate F-16 and other aircraft types in CAS role in long term (not, I'm not talking about F-35) - it is a question to to USAF.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: artik on June 30, 2015, 02:40:55 AM
BTW an example of really good CAS for both targeting and situational awareness (without A-10)
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Patches1 on June 30, 2015, 03:10:27 AM
This entire discussion can be closed by the execution of one simple deed: give the A-10 to the Marines! The Marines will show you what Close Air Support is all about, since they invented it! :evil:
And aerial evacuation of wounded? Yep! The Marines invented that!
Oh! And the use of helicopters to move troops around the battlefield? Yep! The Marines invented that, too!
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: JVboob on June 30, 2015, 04:55:21 AM
Operationally the A10 is cheaper than your fast movers. But like artik said vulnerable with out air superiority. F16s 15s 18s ect can work them over till reasonable air superiority is aquired then pass the torch to the A10s and continue CAP.
As the chart above stated the A10 is $4,000~ cheaper to operate per hour than a 16 (second cheapest non-drone). Keep the A10s grounded and when its 80% CAS sorties operate them. The problem is maintaing the ageing fleet.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: TOMCAT21 on June 30, 2015, 05:24:26 AM
Guys on the ground , like myself, appreciate the fact that at any given time, the reliable warthog is on station to provide us the CAS we may need. The A10 is still a much viable aircraft in todays world. It's proven itself over and over. If ain't broke why bother to fix it ? A10's can take the damage and still bring the pilot home safe.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Skuzzy on June 30, 2015, 06:57:05 AM
True. However, the A-10 is old and won't be around for long no matter how much anyone wants it to. Production shut down 30 years ago, the company no longer exists and the people who worked on it are retired or dead.
This is just nonsense. The age of a plane has nothing to do with the ability to support it. The newest B-52H was built in 1962, but continued upgrades will keep them flying to 2040.
"The A-10 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program began with the initial A-10 OEM development contract, with the definition of materials and processes, design analyses, component and full scale testing, and data collection and analysis on an aircraft by aircraft basis, to validate analyses and accurately predict fatigue damage for the optimization of inspection intervals and maximization of aircraft availability. The A-10 OEM Team continues to be a key member of the A-10 ASIP Team, providing loads and structures analysis, performing full scale and component testing, developing structural reinforcements and non-destructive inspection techniques to prevent structural failure, analyzing manufacturing methods for aircraft improvements and providing overall weapons system expertise for the support of the warfighter."
The is no reason why the A-10 cannot be supported, as long as there is deemed a need for them.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Hajo on June 30, 2015, 07:45:29 AM
This is just nonsense. The age of a plane has nothing to do with the ability to support it. The newest B-52H was built in 1962, but continued upgrades will keep them flying to 2040.
"The A-10 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program began with the initial A-10 OEM development contract, with the definition of materials and processes, design analyses, component and full scale testing, and data collection and analysis on an aircraft by aircraft basis, to validate analyses and accurately predict fatigue damage for the optimization of inspection intervals and maximization of aircraft availability. The A-10 OEM Team continues to be a key member of the A-10 ASIP Team, providing loads and structures analysis, performing full scale and component testing, developing structural reinforcements and non-destructive inspection techniques to prevent structural failure, analyzing manufacturing methods for aircraft improvements and providing overall weapons system expertise for the support of the warfighter."
The is no reason why the A-10 cannot be supported, as long as there is deemed a need for them.
There's a significant difference between the B-52 and A-10. The A-10 is subjected to high G-loads and was originally designed for a service life of only 4000 flight hours. That has been extended to 8000 hours, but these hours are quickly being used up. The Plan is to extend it further to 18,000 hours to allow the Hog to serve into the 2020's by giving it new wings. However, at some point it will be more expensive to extend the service life than building a new plane. Most of the 716 A-10's that were produced have already been retired, and scrounged for parts to keep the last remaining 173 planes flying.
Call it nonsense if you like, but it won't change the fact that most A-10's are already in the graveyard, and the days, or rather hours, are numbered (literally) for the last few remaining.
Me210 and 410 come to mind. Both highly inadequate.
Both are the same aircraft, and the 410 version did ok as a fast bomber and bomber interceptor. Not quite as successful as the Mosquito, another good multipurpose aircraft.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2015, 08:03:51 AM
Oh, and of those 173 still in service only 54 are in active duty. The rest are in the reserve or National Guard.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 30, 2015, 08:26:35 AM
F-35 can still not provide much CAS except against a low tech enemy like in A-stan. If we talk about a full scale armored warfare its no way near as good in the CAS/tank buster role as the A-10.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Skuzzy on June 30, 2015, 08:41:37 AM
There's a significant difference between the B-52 and A-10. The A-10 is subjected to high G-loads and was originally designed for a service life of only 4000 flight hours. That has been extended to 8000 hours, but these hours are quickly being used up. The Plan is to extend it further to 18,000 hours to allow the Hog to serve into the 2020's by giving it new wings. However, at some point it will be more expensive to extend the service life than building a new plane. Most of the 716 A-10's that were produced have already been retired, and scrounged for parts to keep the last remaining 173 planes flying.
Call it nonsense if you like, but it won't change the fact that most A-10's are already in the graveyard, and the days, or rather hours, are numbered (literally) for the last few remaining.
I will not get into the wing loading differences between the two planes. That has nothing to do with sustainability.
The ones in the graveyard are a choice. It is not that they cannot be sustained. Most of the total B52 fleet is also in a graveyard, by choice.
There is no engineering or technical reason why a plane cannot be sustained indefinitely. Everything can be replaced. It is a matter of choice as to whether to do it or not.
Quote
Production shut down 30 years ago, the company no longer exists and the people who worked on it are retired or dead
This is absolutely nonsense as the reason why any plane cannot be sustained. If that reason was true, the B-52, could not be flying today, given the B52 production shut down 63 years ago.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Karnak on June 30, 2015, 09:53:02 AM
Both are the same aircraft, and the 410 version did ok as a fast bomber and bomber interceptor. Not quite as successful as the Mosquito, another good multipurpose aircraft.
"not quite as successful" is an interesting way of saying not nearly a success, unlike the very successful Mosquito.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on June 30, 2015, 10:36:00 AM
In Vietnam when real close air support was required, the preferred aircraft were the Spad and Sandy (Skyraider). Why? Low speed target acquisition, compact maneuvering, vast and diverse ordnance load-out and loiter time. No jet was able to perform that role as well. Even the Air Force conceded that when they ordered the aircraft.
Some believe that the A-10 is too vulnerable to air attack. Any aircraft flying a strike profile faces increased vulnerability. Typically armed with a pair of all aspect AIM-9s (as required), it presents a danger to all aircraft within the missile's envelop. Flying at tree top level, and highly maneuverable, many missile radars struggle to maintain lock on the Warthog. The A-10's low IR signature, along with effective countermeasures, makes it a challenge for IR seeker weapons. Killing an A-10 is far from a slam dunk. It was engineered to operate over what was deemed the most dangerous environment they could anticipate; facing a massive Soviet/Warsaw Pact attack through the Fulda Gap with air superiority unlikely.
The IAF should consider the A10.. Boeing wants to sell refurbished A-10s abroad.....
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Serenity on June 30, 2015, 10:41:01 AM
I'm noticing a trend: If you have any recent combat experience at ALL, you wholeheartedly support maintaining the A-10, and think there is no real REPLACEMENT for the A-10. If you've never been closer to combat than the computer, or your role in the military is entirely about numbers and you've forgotten what combat was like, then you say can it. I wonder which side I have more faith in...
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Gman on June 30, 2015, 11:00:58 AM
Quote
I wouldn't be alive today if not for if not for the A-10. My children would be fatherless if the F-35 had been there instead.
This is really what it's all about IMO. And until a replacement system or strategy can ensure the above, the A10 should stay. As Widewing said as well, it's really about saving lives, which is what the CAS mission is truly all about.
What Skuzzy said regarding their being a need, I agree as well, and believe there will always be a need, so long as there are guys with small arms out there who are the enemy, and so long as terrain exists they can use as cover. Which isn't ever going to go away, not on this earth.
So again, until an A10 analogue or replacement system comes along which can do what it does better, getting rid of it would be one of the greatest blunders in DOD history. Especially now, the prospect of future combat is only intensifying for the USA and its allies.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Butcher on June 30, 2015, 01:35:34 PM
The airforce is trying to find a way to enter the modern era; do you remember a place called "Vietnam"? Our airforce thought it was a great idea to stick modern missiles on F-4's without a gun because the missiles were the way of the future. Lets just ask some of the Phantom pilots how that worked out for them... I recall we had to invent a fighter weapons school because of it. Now lets just take a look at the airforce's attempt to replace the A-10...... With a plane that can't do half of what the A-10 can do.... Lets see how that will turn out. Problem with modern technology is you can't "teach" someone common sense. Here's a prime example of someone with no common sense using technology:
The air forces idea to remove the "Gun" proved to be ineffective in Vietnam, imagine this - we still had WW2 pilots flying in Vietnam, one can only imagine what they were saying about the F-4's inability to shoot down Mig's because the missiles were ineffective. Strategic bombing might be a good argument in whether it worked or not, however Combat Air Support has been a standard since World War 2 as Dog fighters have become. Take a look at the F-16, we learned from our mistakes in the Vietnam war and made a perfect Dogfighter that just happens to be able to perform many roles aside of it.
I agree with many of the statements here: Leave the F-16 in its multi-role configuration, Allow F-15's and F/A 18s to escort (along with F-16s) fact of the matter is: If top pilots are saying the F-35 is worthless to dogfight, you are going to be sure that its going to rely on the F-16's and F-15's to cover its own ass, but why even bother with the F-35 at that point? It might be useful here and there; but if its going to rely on OTHER aircraft to do a job its suppose to do; you might as well just keep the A-10 around along with upgrading the fleet.
I have no interest in the F-35, because its not a final product - hell at one point it couldn't even land on carriers because of a design flaw. Until the final product is made and I see a true evaluation I really don't care for it; for now they need to continue the A-10 into service until something can actually "replace" it entirely.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: bangsbox on June 30, 2015, 02:45:47 PM
The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.
doesnt this line of thought make attack helicopters a waste too??
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: DaveBB on June 30, 2015, 06:38:20 PM
I'm noticing a trend: If you have any recent combat experience at ALL, you wholeheartedly support maintaining the A-10, and think there is no real REPLACEMENT for the A-10. If you've never been closer to combat than the computer, or your role in the military is entirely about numbers and you've forgotten what combat was like, then you say can it. I wonder which side I have more faith in...
Attack helicopters. The British upgraded the Apache and used them with resounding success in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 30, 2015, 07:48:43 PM
More were shot down by AA fire during ground attack missions than Luftwaffe fighters.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: craz07 on June 30, 2015, 08:29:03 PM
the a10 is a low speed low altitude fighter is all i know, how good it turns out to be on the battlefield is something i think people, actuallly fighting in combat, would be able to tell the truth about the nature of the beast
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Karnak on June 30, 2015, 09:23:19 PM
I'm noticing a trend: If you have any recent combat experience at ALL, you wholeheartedly support maintaining the A-10, and think there is no real REPLACEMENT for the A-10. If you've never been closer to combat than the computer, or your role in the military is entirely about numbers and you've forgotten what combat was like, then you say can it. I wonder which side I have more faith in...
Heh. Don't put all of us non-military guys in one corner. I have no military background, but I think the A-10 should be maintained, or a suitable replacement developed.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on June 30, 2015, 09:43:03 PM
I would say that military or not is not that relevant in the debate, history have shown that even military expert and high rank officers can be very biased to a certain opinion for a lot of reasons. First hand information is of course always valuable but it doesnt meen that a guy on the outside cant have an opinion just as valid.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on July 01, 2015, 01:32:22 AM
If they can spend billions for a fleet of f-35's, they can crank a few bill to start making 21st century A-10's.
:rock
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: FBKampfer on July 01, 2015, 01:34:45 AM
I'm curious, doesn't the A10 primarily load up with smart weapons?
That would make the main difference between it and any other bomb truck the 30mm and the ability to strafe targets.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 01, 2015, 01:35:41 AM
I'd say let the professionals decide what's the best option. Not the politicians or public opinion.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on July 01, 2015, 01:44:39 AM
Except that it wont work.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: guncrasher on July 01, 2015, 01:55:04 AM
I'd say let the professionals decide what's the best option. Not the politicians or public opinion.
at the top of the line it is very hard tell to see the difference between a politician and a professional. To get ahead you need to be a politician, just like in any other profession.
semp
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 01, 2015, 02:03:49 AM
Ok, point taken. However, I'd defer the decision to the "military politicians" rather than the other kind.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: guncrasher on July 01, 2015, 02:06:16 AM
Ok, point taken. However, I'd defer the decision to the "military politicians" rather than the other kind.
well they decided to kill the a10. so let this thread rip.
semp
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: artik on July 01, 2015, 03:03:43 AM
You know guys I'll rewrite this discussion in different more AH compatible terms.
A: The command wants to retire IL-2s! We can't let them do it... we need an armored, survivable aircraft that has great canon to hit the enemy armor. We on the ground respect it very much.
B: But you have Typhoons and P-47 Thunderbolts. They carry as much ammunition as IL-2 but they also can defend themselves. It is true that P-47 and Typhoons isn't as survivable but at least they can defend themselves. There are also Mosquitos that are very fast, dual engine and can do great damage.
A: But we on the ground know better what is the effect of the good anti-tank gun and how efficient this aircraft is.
B: But we have budget limitations we need to get rid of some stuff. There are aircraft that can replace IL-2 in different terms and they are as effective.
A: But they aren't flying tank and don't have a canon that can kill light armored vehicles or shoot tanks from behind.
I think now it is much more clear
Also IL-2 is very unpopular in AH, in reality it was one of the major combat aircraft in WW2 and other types of aircraft could perform its duties.
One more stuff I want to add to discussion. Keeping 50 airframes flying does not cost 1/4 of 200 airframes but much more. There huge infrastructure to keep, engines and aircraft workshops, training facilities, overhull facilities and much more. It takes much more to keep aircraft flying than putting it in a hangar with few technicians.
It is significant consideration - much more than airframe durability.
I remember when IAF had to do significant budget cuts. What was done? AH-1 cobras and F-16A/Bs were retired. It is much cost effective with less damaging to capabilities to retire an aircraft type rather than lets say reduce flight hours generally or reduce number of aircraft in service keeping similar types flying.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Butcher on July 01, 2015, 07:11:55 AM
I'd say let the professionals decide what's the best option. Not the politicians or public opinion.
It doesn't work that way either; the Air Force professionals decided that a gun was "useless" in modern day fighters; I cite the F-4 Phantom as an example, I'm betting the same argument goes towards the A-10 right now, the professionals want to see it "retired" in favor of "advanced" newer aircraft..
Do we really need the F-35 in the long run? Perhaps... but right now were doing just fine without it.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on July 01, 2015, 07:13:45 AM
I'd say let the professionals decide what's the best option. Not the politicians or public opinion.
Over the past 50 years, DoD and USAF brass has made many very bad decisions per procurement and concepts. Why would anyone expect better judgment now?
Missiles only fighters. Speed over all else. F-111 as a joint service fighter. Nuclear weapons delivery as a fighter requirement. Resisting the A-10. Having to buy Naval aircraft designs to meet mission needs (A-1, F-4, A-7). F-35. And on and on.....
Experience shows that the DoD can't be trusted to anticipate future needs without oversight.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 01, 2015, 07:19:54 AM
Oversight by whom? To my knowledge the DoD is the civilian oversight and the direct cause of many blunders like Robert McNamara's F-111. Who's judgement should carry more weight?
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on July 01, 2015, 09:00:33 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 01, 2015, 09:30:50 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Zimme83 on July 01, 2015, 09:37:09 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 01, 2015, 09:45:06 AM
And keeping the A-10 in spite of the USAF not wanting it is "the will of the people"? Sure...
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: artik on July 01, 2015, 09:52:55 AM
First of all guys... don't go to P..s otherwise the thread would be locked ;)
Having to buy Naval aircraft designs to meet mission needs (A-1, F-4, A-7).
Actually F-4 was a great success.
Also I think if USAF wasn't missing F-5 they would be needed much fewer Phantoms.
You know there were only few cases when an aircraft designed for an land based air force become successful naval plane, but there were many cases of other way around: F-18, F-4, A-4 and more.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Widewing on July 01, 2015, 11:57:38 AM
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: HPriller on July 01, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
In an age of laser guided bombs accurate to a matter of inches, and cheap drones that can be thrown up en masse, you really do have to question the need for the A-10. It's design goal was to prevent columns of soviet armor from overwhelming, that's what that giant gun was made for. I'm no fan of the F-35 either, but endlessly bemoaning a capability gap while the US still has an overwhelmingly stronger air force than the rest of the world isn't going to be an argument I'd buy into. Personally, I'm all for doing whatever costs the least when it comes to the US taxpayer. I'm sick of paying for Team America World Police. We have a huge technological *and* numerical edge in the air compared to everyone else and no credible opposition. Unless we plan to use these weapons to annex new territories and plant our flag/make a 51st state, they are just a waste of money. If in 20 years a credible threat starts to emerge, then we can justify the expenditure for new military toys. The fact is the A-10 is obsolete, the F-35 very well could be by the time we need face off with it. Better to print out the weapons once we need them rather than burn more money on them while 20% of the children in this country aren't even food secure. There are waaaay bigger fish to fry.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Serenity on July 01, 2015, 02:37:05 PM
Better to print out the weapons once we need them rather than burn more money on them while 20% of the children in this country aren't even food secure. There are waaaay bigger fish to fry.
LOL!!! Oh dear lord, do you have ANY idea just how long it takes to develop a new weapon from the ground up?!
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: FBKampfer on July 01, 2015, 05:07:14 PM
Too long. Someone's profiting off of slow development and shotty work, and needs to stop.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Serenity on July 01, 2015, 07:47:25 PM
Too long. Someone's profiting off of slow development and shotty work, and needs to stop.
Oh, I don't disagree, but even in a pure, honest, genuine environment, waiting to develop the next weapon until we need it is WAY too late to start such a thing.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: HPriller on July 01, 2015, 11:28:34 PM
Necessity is the mother of invention. Yes, I agree waiting till you need it is too late, but the current development cycle is ridiculously too long to the point of things being likely to be obsolete before they are even completed. Compare it to the pace of development of weapons in WW2. Start to finish was measured in months not decades. Also consider that we live in an age of information, nobody is going to pull a brand new air supremacy fighter out of thin air. It's too complex a project and too many satellites, cameras, microphones, etc are watching. Credible threats can be seen far in advance of when they could in the past. If all development stopped in the US it would still take years perhaps decades for any other country to mount an equivalent force. Continued nose to the grindstone development of weaponry only serves to make it easier for the rest of the world to steal/copy our technology. The Chinese and Russians are benefitting from all of the hard development work the US has done on weapons (just take that carbon copy of the C-17 the Chinese have for example), spying has gotten easier and more effective than ever.
National competition has gone from warfare to economic and current policy isn't helping the US win the economic battle. I don't think it's in the best interest of the US to keep pouring billions more into our bloated and horribly mismanaged military juggernaut when meanwhile we are losing the economic war. UNLESS, it is with the intention to use said weapons to expand our global influence and that means all out bloody warfare and planting our flag on what is currently considered foreign soil and meaning to keep it there permanently. Now this too is probably a very bad idea though as it would make the rest of the world see the US as the bad guy and they'd dogpile on the United States faster than Donald Trump blew up his presidential prospects. Nobody dares to cross a border and plant a flag anymore lest the rest of the world instantly decry them as the ultimate evil and carve them up like a roast turkey.
The line used to go 'if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything', what it really is these days is 'if you *dare* stand for something, you'll fall to everyone'.
Hopefully, it's needless to say but all of the above is just my opinion on the subject, feel free to disagree and present a counter argument.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: FBKampfer on July 02, 2015, 01:32:20 AM
Agreed.
Imo, what we really need is a small, highly specialized army right now. One that is comprised disproportionately of special forces.
And then we need smaller numbers of largely modular weapons and vehicles with a large surge capacity. Train to fight the current threat, but prepare to switch gears quickly.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 02:24:20 AM
... Compare it to the pace of development of weapons in WW2. Start to finish was measured in months not decades. ...
Years, not months. P-51 probably had the shortest development time. Prototype NA-73X flew in 1940. Early Allison powered A-36 and Mustang I entered service with RAF in 1942. The mature weapon system P-51B entered service in the winter of 1943-1944. F-35 prototype first flew in 2006.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: artik on July 02, 2015, 04:03:18 AM
Years, not months. P-51 probably had the shortest development time. Prototype NA-73X flew in 1940. Early Allison powered A-36 and Mustang I entered service with RAF in 1942. The mature weapon system P-51B entered service in the winter of 1943-1944. F-35 prototype first flew in 2006.
Few things...
It shouldn't take a great deal of time to develop an aircraft, take a look on some of best selling aircraft around:
- A-4 Skyhawk, first flight 1954, introduction 1956 - 2 years - MiG-21 - first flight 1956, in service 1959 - 3 years - Mirage III - first flight 1956, introduction 1961 - 5 years - F-4 Phantom, first flight 1958, introduction 1960 - 2 years - F-15 - first flight 1972, introduction 1976 - 4 years - F-16 - first flight for YF-16 1973, introduction 1978 - 5 years - MiG-29 - first flight 1977, introduction 1983 - 6 years
Some Most Revolutionary designs:
- Harrier - Hawker Siddeley P.1127 1960, Harrier in serice 1969 - 9 years - first ever operation STOVL aircraft!!! - Have Blue first flight 1977, F-117 in service 1983 - 5 years first ever stealth bomber.
At this point I wanted to "trash" the F-35 (F-35B: 2006 - 2015 - 9 years, F-35A - 2016 - 10 years and F-35C 2018 -12 years planned)
However I realized that F-35 isn't outstanding, if I take delay from first flight to introduction of latest airframes:
Gripen 1988 - 1997 9 years Rafale 1986 - 2001 15 years Typhoon 1994 - 2003 9 years Raptor 1997 - 2005 8 years
It looks like modern industry "unlearned" how to develop an aircraft. Today you have all CAD/CAM technologies, digital simulations you couldn't dread of in 60th and yet it takes 2-3 more times to produce an aircraft.
Horrible!
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 04:58:05 AM
The complexity of modern weapon systems is staggering. Even when compared to systems developed in the 1970's and 80's like the MiG-29. Sure you can still go to war in a P-51 or MiG-21, but you won't be coming back.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: artik on July 02, 2015, 06:14:17 AM
Sure you can still go to war in a P-51 or MiG-21, but you won't be coming back.
First of all - don't underestimate MiG-21... MiG-21 Bison with up-to date radar, Helmet display, modern ECM and VVR+BVR missiles with 21,800 lbf "WEP" engine with well trained crew is very formidable opponent even against F-15C - as was shown at Red Flag.
The complexity of modern weapon systems is staggering. Even when compared to systems developed in the 1970's and 80's like the MiG-29.
I shouldn't double or quadruple the time of the development. The weapon systems are get upgraded all the time and avionics is being replaced up to several times during airframe lifespan. If it was so complicated (~= the design of a new aircraft) the upgrades would never be done.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Saxman on July 02, 2015, 06:43:47 AM
And keeping the A-10 in spite of the USAF not wanting it is "the will of the people"? Sure...
So what, the guys on the ground whose tulips are saved by that equipment day in and day out don't count as "the people?"
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: jollyFE on July 02, 2015, 11:38:42 AM
When I was stationed at Nellis in the early 90's I was in an OT&E unit where we evaluated a CAS version of the F-16. Sure it looked cool painted camo green, but we found it didn't have the loiter time that the A-10 had, couldn't as low and slow as the 10, and when we fired the 30 mm gun pod on the center-line pylon, the acft shook so bad the pilot couldn't read gauges. It was vibrating to the point that several boxes on the cockpit side panels shook out of place...quite a unique feeling you get as a crew chief when the pilot starts handing you boxes and control heads that are usually secure, even during high G maneuvering. When I was a flight engineer on CSAR helos, nothing and I mean nothing gave us the warm fuzzy like having an few A-10s flying as your RESCORT. We had 15Es, 16s, 18s and even Harriers try to do the job but the 10 excelled at it.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 01:10:54 PM
First of all - don't underestimate MiG-21... MiG-21 Bison with up-to date radar, Helmet display, modern ECM and VVR+BVR missiles with 21,800 lbf "WEP" engine with well trained crew is very formidable opponent even against F-15C - as was shown at Red Flag.
I shouldn't double or quadruple the time of the development. The weapon systems are get upgraded all the time and avionics is being replaced up to several times during airframe lifespan. If it was so complicated (~= the design of a new aircraft) the upgrades would never be done.
Sure I agree that the MiG-21 was an astonishing aircraft in its time, and with upgrades it is still a relevant platform. However, when you put all those new off the shelves avionics, sensors and weapon systems on it you don't count the time spent on developing those systems. Don't you see you could do the same with the F-35? The plane itself has been flying for several years. You could put all that off the shelves gear on the F-35 and fly it into combat now, but it wouldn't be what the F-35 was meant to be. Most of the increased complexity of the F-35 is the avionics, sensors and weapon systems. The fancy glass cockpit and the advanced FBW system. The sensor fusion, the helmet and the uber multi function radar. Without these things the aircraft itself is nothing more than a stealthy, long-range F/A-18.
In that test fight with the F-16... If the F-35 pilot had all his new toys in working order, the sensor fusion would have picked up the F-16 on radar and IR, identified it, displayed it in the pilots helmet view with a threat analysis and recommended actions. The pilot would have looked at the enemy icon and hit a button, perhaps two, and in short order a missile would have raced out to meet the F-16. The F-16 would not have known what was going on until 5-10 seconds before being blown apart, when his RWR screams a warning of the AMRAAM's radar locking on to him in the terminal phase of its attack.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 01:15:28 PM
And sometime in the future you can probably take similar off the shelves systems and put it on a MiG-21 and marvel at how awesome the good old MiG is. ;)
However, someone has to make those systems first and it takes time.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Serenity on July 02, 2015, 02:55:22 PM
It shouldn't take a great deal of time to develop an aircraft, take a look on some of best selling aircraft around:
- A-4 Skyhawk, first flight 1954, introduction 1956 - 2 years - MiG-21 - first flight 1956, in service 1959 - 3 years - Mirage III - first flight 1956, introduction 1961 - 5 years - F-4 Phantom, first flight 1958, introduction 1960 - 2 years - F-15 - first flight 1972, introduction 1976 - 4 years - F-16 - first flight for YF-16 1973, introduction 1978 - 5 years - MiG-29 - first flight 1977, introduction 1983 - 6 years
Some Most Revolutionary designs:
- Harrier - Hawker Siddeley P.1127 1960, Harrier in serice 1969 - 9 years - first ever operation STOVL aircraft!!! - Have Blue first flight 1977, F-117 in service 1983 - 5 years first ever stealth bomber.
At this point I wanted to "trash" the F-35 (F-35B: 2006 - 2015 - 9 years, F-35A - 2016 - 10 years and F-35C 2018 -12 years planned)
However I realized that F-35 isn't outstanding, if I take delay from first flight to introduction of latest airframes:
Gripen 1988 - 1997 9 years Rafale 1986 - 2001 15 years Typhoon 1994 - 2003 9 years Raptor 1997 - 2005 8 years
It looks like modern industry "unlearned" how to develop an aircraft. Today you have all CAD/CAM technologies, digital simulations you couldn't dread of in 60th and yet it takes 2-3 more times to produce an aircraft.
Horrible!
It's not just about how quickly you can ink up the new design. What about developing a supply train for parts? Learning the system well enough to apply it properly in combat? Training the maintainers, the crews and pilots?
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: FBKampfer on July 02, 2015, 03:05:30 PM
The question is whether combining all that tech into one airframe is worth it. Could we have built essentially just two different planes with drastically different capabilites and design, but sharing this line radar absorbent materials, the glass, etc for cheaper?
If we wanted a strike fighter for the marines, really it needs a data link, a decent radar, and a bunch of weapons and fuel. I get the feeling the B is going to be used as essentially a stealth harrier, which we could have had combat ready by 2010.
Granted the A and C models would need greater capability, eliminating the B as a tie in would simply work to an extent.
I just feel that weapons design has really become too integrated, too advanced perhaps. We look for complex solutions to simple problems.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: PR3D4TOR on July 02, 2015, 05:41:03 PM
Sure you could, and isn't that what they've done? F-22 for air superiority. F-35 for multirole strike fighter. The Navy hasn't had a pure fighter since the F-14 went the way of the dodo, and has operated a fleet of strike fighters as its only A2A capability for the last 10 years. The Marines have only operated the AV-8, and the F-35 is big step up for them.
The F-22 is the other component, the other airframe.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: FBKampfer on July 02, 2015, 06:24:49 PM
Sure you could, and isn't that what they've done? F-22 for air superiority. F-35 for multirole strike fighter. The Navy hasn't had a pure fighter since the F-14 went the way of the dodo, and has operated a fleet of strike fighters as its only A2A capability for the last 10 years. The Marines have only operated the AV-8, and the F-35 is big step up for them.
The F-22 is the other component, the other airframe.
Following that, we should have navalized the F22, and just scrapped the F35 A and C completely.
For that matter, I understand that they wanted an export fighter, but since both are Lockheed designs, they could have simply used F22 geometry, skipped a large portion of airframe design, and modify as needed to accommodate the systems.
The whole JSF program seems to have been a little unneeded for the US military.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Rich46yo on July 03, 2015, 11:00:54 AM
Exactly how would you "navalized" the F22? Most of all since at every phase of its development it was a pure air superiority fighter. This is another knucklehead idea from Airpower Australia, whom as usual, forgot to mention it would have taken a complete redesign on the aircraft. Far more difficult then drawing a few pictures and putting it on your web page pretending to know what you are talking about.
The entire concept is insane. If the original F22s cost from 250 to 350 m, depending who you ask, how would a "Sea Raptor" be affordable since it would have to have even more capability, add the cost of redesign? Fact is it was never even seriously considered.
Following that, we should have navalized the F22, and just scrapped the F35 A and C completely.
For that matter, I understand that they wanted an export fighter, but since both are Lockheed designs, they could have simply used F22 geometry, skipped a large portion of airframe design, and modify as needed to accommodate the systems.
The whole JSF program seems to have been a little unneeded for the US military.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: FBKampfer on July 03, 2015, 11:42:26 AM
Exactly how would you "navalized" the F22? Most of all since at every phase of its development it was a pure air superiority fighter. This is another knucklehead idea from Airpower Australia, whom as usual, forgot to mention it would have taken a complete redesign on the aircraft. Far more difficult then drawing a few pictures and putting it on your web page pretending to know what you are talking about.
The entire concept is insane. If the original F22s cost from 250 to 350 m, depending who you ask, how would a "Sea Raptor" be affordable since it would have to have even more capability, add the cost of redesign? Fact is it was never even seriously considered.
What exactly must it be capable of, other than catapult takeoff and arrested landing? This is an issue of strengthening the airframe, no?
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Serenity on July 03, 2015, 06:23:27 PM
What exactly must it be capable of, other than catapult takeoff and arrested landing? This is an issue of strengthening the airframe, no?
Stall speed, AOA, and bringback weight. EVERYTHING about a navalized plane comes down to those last few seconds before the boat. How slow can you get it in order to give the pilot a fighting chance. How much ordinance can it land with at slow speeds so it doesn't have to dump the leftovers. How fast can it accelerate back up to flight speed if you miss a wire. etc.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: JVboob on July 04, 2015, 02:23:24 AM
Funny you bring up the navalized tid bit. Ive heard but havent confirmed this, there are F16 "mail curriers" that are capable of landing on a carrier.
Anyone know anything about this? I have no clue nor have I tried to research it. It does sound pretty interesting.
IMO, keep the 16s ditch the f35. why? We have the f22 for air supperiority, we have the aging A10 for CAS we have the F16 jack of all trades. f35 isnt going to replace the A10 or the f16.
Why cant a CAS oriented a/c like the A10 be designed? A new flying tank with a big gun and 78568658923lbs of ords. that fills the A10s roll. keep the f16s untill the "new" tank buster is in full production then start to design a replacement for thef 16s...
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 04, 2015, 04:50:45 PM
Funny you bring up the navalized tid bit. Ive heard but havent confirmed this, there are F16 "mail curriers" that are capable of landing on a carrier.
While the USN did (maybe still does) have a handful of F-16s, they were are all land based and never were used as "mail carriers" since they were not modified to operate from a carrier. The USN F-16s were used as aggressor aircraft for Top Gun. Used to watch them take off from NAS Miramar when it was still a navy base.
The Model 1600 was the proposed naval version of the F-16 but lost out to the F-18.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: HPriller on July 04, 2015, 06:43:27 PM
What exactly must it be capable of, other than catapult takeoff and arrested landing? This is an issue of strengthening the airframe, no?
Go to an airshow, look at the landing gear of an F-15, then look at the landing gear of an F-18. Even though the F-18 might be smaller the gear looks to be more than double the size to handle the harsh nature of carrier landings. Designing a modern jet for carrier operations must be done from the ground up. I doubt it be even possible to modify an F-22 for carrier use without spending as much or more money than designing a new carrier plane from scratch. It just isn't practical, the differences are a lot more extreme than you think.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: DaveBB on July 04, 2015, 08:39:10 PM
I highly recommend the book "Black Aces High". It is about an F-14 squadron in the Serbian Air War. The F-14 had many qualities revered by naval aviators: range, endurance, loiter time, and payload. The RIO served an especially important part as a second set of eyes. This prevented many friendly fire incidents in which the A-10 is notorious for (I personally know two guys who I went to high school with who were in the battle of Nasiriyah. A-10s strafed them like crazy, and blew up AAVs with maverick missiles. The gun camera footage was later *accidentally* destroyed).
Two sets of eyes are better than one. Especially when you are blowing up your own troops.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: 10thmd on July 06, 2015, 05:46:43 PM
I agree with Ranger statement about the A-10 being a life saver. Also DaveBB most of us Groundpounders would rather have an A-10 over us than a F-14 any day of the week. I have had 2 doing gun runs on a 5 story building right next to me. I say if the Air force doesn't want them, give them to the Army. We will fly them till the wings fall off.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: FBKampfer on July 06, 2015, 11:15:59 PM
Doesn't mean your perception matches the reality of its effectiveness.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: Saxman on July 06, 2015, 11:35:39 PM
I agree with Ranger statement about the A-10 being a life saver. Also DaveBB most of us Groundpounders would rather have an A-10 over us than a F-14 any day of the week. I have had 2 doing gun runs on a 5 story building right next to me. I say if the Air force doesn't want them, give them to the Army. We will fly them till the wings fall off.
This is the opinion I trust. No one understands what the guys on the ground ACTUALLY need better than the GUYS ON THE GROUND.
Title: Re: McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate
Post by: guncrasher on July 07, 2015, 12:53:49 AM
Doesn't mean your perception matches the reality of its effectiveness.
No but having seen F16's, A-10's,AC130's all in action. Nothing can do the job done like a ground pounder needs like the A10 Period. F-16s flew to high to identify targets without laser guidance 90% of the time. The one exception to this was a single pilot by the call sign of Whitehorse 20.He would get down low and slow blowing the tops off of mud huts with his exhaust. If they want to phase out the A10 let them design a full CAS replacement from the ground up.