Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fdiron on July 05, 2002, 12:34:46 PM
-
Whats the USAF going to use for a ground attack aircraft once the A-10s are pulled out of service? Is the F-16 going to be used more in a bomber role? It seems to me that the USAF needs to have a low cost, low speed ground-attack aircraft (similar to an updated version of the A-10) for future conflicts. I dont think the U.S. would fare to well losing F22s to small arms ground fire.
-
wasn't the JSF going to get this role?.
-
F-15's dudes! havnt you seen that 2 seater? it can carry a toejam load of cluster bombs and GBU's.
-
My guess would be the F-15E, but those are getting old as well. If the A-10 were to be pulled, I'm sure the F-15E wouldn't be far behind. My guess would be the JSF or the F-16...seeing as those are going to be our primary fighter craft in the upcoming years...
-
Helos can take on much of the roll in a hilly environment and most fighters can take it in a desert environment.
AKDejaVu
-
I think they're going to use the F-16 for the close air support role. An F-15E isn't really a CAS aircraft, it's more of a precision strike/interdictor.
I'm surprised they aren't keeping the A-10 around considering how well it did in the Gulf. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Warthog come back on the scene again, quickly, if we do end up invading Iraq.
-
Last Warthog rolled out over 25 years ago. They were all in NG and mothballs when the Gulf war started. They sent 'em in because they were havin probs w/ believing the Apache could handle the role.
Nothin left in the inventory that can take the punishment in the close air role the A-10 can. And no contractors that want to make such a cheap succesful flyable and rugged low-tech plane.
The air support role has gone hi-tech, lotsa standoff weapons in play now.. it's become unfashionable to dive a plane into hostile radar controlled AA these days.
F16's w/the single engine and almost non-existant armor would not be a real good plane to stick into a hot battlefield... and it'll prolly be with fancy missiles and smart bombs.. (no eyeball to eyeball gun passes) The heli's can do a pretty good job w/ the stand off weapons like hellfire... but nothin flyin can slap depleated uranium slugs into tanks with the panache of a Warthog. I pity those F16 drivers toting dumb gravity bombs and tasked with eyeball attacks against armor in a hot BZ. I'll bet they'll wish they were flyin the Warthogs.
-
That 30mm will be missed by everyone.
(except the Iraquis)
-
F-16s almost got the job once, but the USA(rmy) played a major role in keeping them in service. Actually, for a time the Army was going to GET them and fly them themselves, but it never happened (JMHO but that was probably the best idea yet).
Hang.. they weren't mothballed. Hoever Desert Storm stalled that from happening for... oh about 11 years so far. The F-16 was all set up to take over CAS. The Army screamed to high heaven about it and won.
Remember, the USAF is run by a bunch of Generals, most of which don't know all that much about CAS or care too. And pretty much none of them have one singular iota of a clue what ground combat is. They got this goofy idea that CAS can be coordinated with F-16's from 20k feet... ahhh, no. Likely they'll think the same thing when the JSF hits the air, ... ahhh, maybe. Trust me on this, F-16's have a hard enough time hitting stationary targets that they have coordinates for, I'd hate to be in a ground unit about to get over-run knowing all I had for support was a couple F-16's... egad.
-
Tumor,
There are quite a few A10's in mothballs in DM airbase in Tucson AZ. where the majority of the stored a/c are kept. He's right about the Guard having most of the hogs. The regular Air Force types didn't like the hog as it wasn't "zoomie" enough and didn't have the nice electronics. They lost sight of the fact that the Air Force has multiple roles to fill and a single concept airframe won't get it done all the time. :(
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Last Warthog rolled out over 25 years ago.
Hell, compared to the B52 it's still in diapers. Though I guess that due to it's role the A10's airframe may see considerably more stress.
-
I didnt know they were gonna pull the plug on the worthog. Whenthey do we should give a moment of silince. as fo thr B-52 I hope it lasts another 50 years.
-
Actualy there isn't a single original build part on any USAF B52 in service now. Not one, at least thats what I heard one of the B52 people say.
-
what's wrong with the a10?
-
nothing is wrong with it. it got put in the airforce by decree of some post ww2 rule on what service maintaines what type of aircraft.
it should have been in the army who love the plane from the first but rules are rules especially in the military.
-
"what's wrong with the a10?"
It's too ugly to be useful for USAF recruiting pictures.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Actualy there isn't a single original build part on any USAF B52 in service now. Not one, at least thats what I heard one of the B52 people say.
That would certainly make sense, B52, combat plane built in the early '50s. May not be so cost effective to rebuild the A10's though. The F117 was kept pretty secret for almost 10 years, who knows what's lurking out there?
-
We'd get A7's into our base every once in a while from New Mexico. It was strange to see them with afterburners. This was in the 80's some time after they were retired.
For some reason... some planes keep being ressurected. I think the A-10 will be one of those. There really isn't a plane that can do what the A-10 does as well as the A-10 does it.
AKDejaVu
-
The A-10 is a great plane
It fill a gap where u can't depend on all technology
it's very though to. The rest is very fragile compared to it.
Somehow i miss the old iron curtain time
when u regulary saw them fly over.
not to mention the low flying stuff
Tornado's, Phantoms, northrop nf-5, starfighters regulary flew low here
all isn't allowed here anymore
:(
-
The A-10 was originally designed as a tank buster to stop the Soviet army in an all-out assault through central and western Europe. It was literally built around the powerful 30mm cannon, since with a tank killing cannon, one aircraft can kill a dozen or more tanks, in addition to however many it can get with external ordnance such as cluster bombs and AP rockets.
As was mentioned by many previous posters, the USAF was planning to retire the A-10 and replace it completely with the F-16 when Desert Storm happened. The Army was pitching a fit over this and the USAF apparently offered to hand the A-10 over to the Army. Desert Storm changed all this. The A-10 was one of the leading killers of ground vehicles during the war and actually scored 2 air to air kills (contrast this with no air to air kills by the F-16 and only 1 by the F-14) against Iraqi helicopters. This makes it a tie with the F-18 as the 2d leading air to air scoring type of the war. Its greatest contribution was in the air to ground role in the CAS mission however, just as it was designed to do. The A-10 supported USA and USMC troops and also hunted Scud missiles. It also gained the role of forward air controller as the OA-10.
The USAF revised its date for the service life for the A-10 to 2030 which was as far as was projected at the time. Intervening years, changing technology, and 2 subsequent wars have changed things again however. The F-16 and the A-10 are both slated to be replaced by the JSF eventually. Smarter enemy weapons have made even the super tough A-10 almost unsurvivable in any really hot combat environment. Several A-10s were lost in Desert Storm from ground fire and SAM and AAA technology has advanced significantly since then. Shoulder fired missiles have improved from merely a nuisance to very serious threats to even as tough and manouverable a plane as the A-10. Within 15 years, any opponant that we are likely to face that is much above the level of Afghanistan, will almost certainly have the most modern Russian missiles. There are SAMs for sale right now by Russia, that are of superior capability than our Patriot missile was during Desert Storm. Missiles like these make at least some level of stealth an absolute necessity. The A-10 has none.
Another factor in the replacement of the A-10 is the development of the B-1 bomber into a tank killer par excellence. The new smart cluster bomb which actually has skeets that linger over the battlefield before each choosing a target and hitting it precisely, can be carried in great numbers by the B-1. A pair of B-1s flying low over a battlefield at supersonic speed, can abolutely decimate an enemy armoured force. The effects of this type of attack were negligible before if the enemy dispersed their columns even a little and didnt stay bunched up in open areas. The new smart munitions have changed all that however.
The A-10s are wearing out. They fly in a high-g environment and the parts for them are just not made anymore. The B-52 is older yes, but the B-52 fleet spent much of its life sitting around on nuclear alert. It is only in the past dozen years or so that the B-52s have been tasked as heavily as many other aircraft types.
The A-10 will probably soldier on in active service until enough JSFs are produced to replace it, probably not until 2015 at the very earliest. Some may remain around in the OA-10 role, and many will certainly remain in the ANG and reserves. Some of the retired A-10s may find new life as firefighting aerial tankers as several proposals have been floated to use surplus A-10s as firefighting aircraft in the west to replace the old piston engined large aircraft that they are using now. The A-10 with its manouverability and lift capability will probably excel in this role and may be around for many more years yet in this role.
The Air Force is trying to consolidate into as few aircraft types as possible, to cut down on costs of maintenence and parts, and to simplify logistics as much as possible. The USAF of 2030 will probably consist of the following:
-F-22 for air superiority as well as some strike missions, most likely in the role of reducing enemy air defense networks
-F-15Cs in ANG service for national defense
-F-15E for deep strike after air defense systems have been degraded
-F-35 JSF for ground attack, CAS, and other strike roles
-KC-10 tankers for refuelling and heavy lifting
-C-5B the best of the current C-5s for heavy lifting
-C-17 for all round lift workhorse
-C-130J for intra theatre transport and tactical transport
-B-1 strike and interdiction
-B-52 nuclear deterrance and general bomb truck
-B-2 primary bomber in initial attacks, nuclear mission, all high threat strikes
-undetermined new tanker, possibly based on the Boeing 767.
-some undetermined as yet, electronic aircraft that combines current AWACS, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, and ABCCC, possibly all on the new airborne tanker platform.
-Airborne laser for shooting down ballistic missiles and conceivably enemy aircraft as well.
-an unmanned combat vehicle for high threat environments.
-Global Hawk and other UAVs to handle all recon roles
-an as yet undetermined wild weasel/EW aircraft, possibly a new UAV or an agreement with the USN to have joint squadrons of the EA-18 similar to the current arrangement used with the EA-6b.
Airplanes currently in USAF service that will most likely be scheduled to go away by 2030, at least from regular service:
C-141, some older C-5s, some older C-130s, F-16, A-10, F-15 A/B/C/D, F-117, KC-135, possibly AWACS and JSTARs in their current form.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
We'd get A7's into our base every once in a while from New Mexico. It was strange to see them with afterburners. This was in the 80's some time after they were retired.
For some reason... some planes keep being ressurected. I think the A-10 will be one of those. There really isn't a plane that can do what the A-10 does as well as the A-10 does it.
AKDejaVu
Many would argue the Su-25 is just as good.
-
Originally posted by Durr
Another factor in the replacement of the A-10 is the development of the B-1 bomber into a tank killer par excellence. The new smart cluster bomb which actually has skeets that linger over the battlefield before each choosing a target and hitting it precisely, can be carried in great numbers by the B-1. A pair of B-1s flying low over a battlefield at supersonic speed, can abolutely decimate an enemy armoured force. The effects of this type of attack were negligible before if the enemy dispersed their columns even a little and didnt stay bunched up in open areas. The new smart munitions have changed all that however.
.... you know how often that particular CBU actually works? :D
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Many would argue the Su-25 is just as good.
Not really. It doesn't have the 30mm Gat up front with the depleted uranium shells.
The A-10 really is a one of a kind bird.
AKDejaVu