Air Force Delays A-10 Axing

[mtnbkr]

Not airplanes.

V-Tailed Doctor Killers. 

Are we talking about planes or something else.  I'm so confused...

Chris

[Hawkmoon]

Are we talking about planes or something else.  I'm so confused...

I take it you don't know much about the Beechcraft Bonanzas. Or why they stopped making the V-tail version back in 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza

[mtnbkr]

I take it you don't know much about the Beechcraft Bonanzas. Or why they stopped making the V-tail version back in 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza

I am aware enough to know they exist (not a plane person, just a plain person).  I was running with the split-tail double entendre. :)

Chris

[RoadKingLarry]

One of my cousin's son owns and flies a Bonanza (not the one in the picture I posted). Quite the aeronautical family. My cousin owns several planes including a WW I Jenny and several others. He is a retired FAA inspector of some sort and for many years he would buy wrecked planes and rebuild/recertify them, including a Antonov AN-2. His son is a commercial pilot but I have no idea who he flies for.

[birdman]

This.  The Chair Force hates the CAS mission and isn't all that thrilled with the Airlift mission, especially the Airborne mission.  Give those missions back to the Army and the let the Zoomies drive all the fighter jets and fast movers...

Except the army doesn't have the infrastructure for it. 
Better would be to give them to USMC.  They have the training/maint pipeline for attack aircraft, already operate fixed wing attack aircraft, are interested mainly in CAS, always get the hand-me-down anyway, and are pretty much going to be operating in danger close / SEAD already done combat where the A10 would shine...(since if there is modern AA, the A10 is toast, that's why this whole debate is happening)

besides the army already has more CAS platforms than the airforce and marines combined...they just have lower endurance...kinda...

[Gewehr98]

since if there is modern AA, the A10 is toast

Don't be so certain.  This one made it back to home drome with the majority of parts still flying in close formation:

[Scout26]

Except the army doesn't have the infrastructure for it. 
Better would be to give them to USMC.  They have the training/maint pipeline for attack aircraft, already operate fixed wing attack aircraft, are interested mainly in CAS, always get the hand-me-down anyway, and are pretty much going to be operating in danger close / SEAD already done combat where the A10 would shine...(since if there is modern AA, the A10 is toast, that's why this whole debate is happening)

besides the army already has more CAS platforms than the airforce and marines combined...they just have lower endurance...kinda...

Just transfer over the crews and maintainers to the Army. Make X number of A-10's organic to each Division or Brigade.   Every post that has a significant number of combat troops has an airfield for the rotatory wing aircraft, adding some fixed wing won't be that hard.  Besides it let the USAF play with the fastmovers and nuke haulers like they want, and end the Army always fighting with the Air Force to get them to keep up the CAS support inventory.

But yes, Purple suits will probably the way forward...

[roo_ster]

Except the army doesn't have the infrastructure for it. 
Better would be to give them to USMC.  They have the training/maint pipeline for attack aircraft, already operate fixed wing attack aircraft, are interested mainly in CAS, always get the hand-me-down anyway, and are pretty much going to be operating in danger close / SEAD already done combat where the A10 would shine...(since if there is modern AA, the A10 is toast, that's why this whole debate is happening)

besides the army already has more CAS platforms than the airforce and marines combined...they just have lower endurance...kinda...

Army already manages beau coup aircraft that are more maint intensive than the A-10.  Like an order of magnitude more aircraft. (Last time I looked, there were fewer than 300 A-10s still flying.) Most every Army base I have visited also has an airfield & facilities.   Also already have something like 200 fixed wing manned aircraft and a potful of FW UAVs.  Lack of FW ground attack training infrastructure is a good point.  Wouldn't that be a nice way for USMC to make some money off US Army, though?  Yes, bringing on another system would take time & money, but the A-10 is a known quantity, not a new system around whom everything must be stood up from scratch. 

Don't be so certain.  This one made it back to home drome with the majority of parts still flying in close formation:

http://worldwarwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/a10-damage1.jpg

Like birdman, I see dark days ahead for any aircraft, manned or otherwise, coming close to threat AA systems.  Eventually, I think flying aircraft where the enemy can get LOS & range on it will be suicide.  That is some years off, though, and I doubt the A-10 will still be in service at that point.  It will take the USA some years to turn the air space in our AO into a virtual zone of death by means of ground-based AA systems not currently fielded.  It will take our competitors longer, even if they forego a systematic/networked approach.

It'll get to the point where aircraft near the enemy will be solely UAVs and then solely UAVs that spend most their time masked.

[Scout26]

Back in late 1990-early 1991, the Iraqis we're reputed to have the best Air defense systems this side of Moscow. 

While people have been predicting the demise of the aircraft (manned and otherwise), it takes a lot of systems to deny airspace and they have to multi-layered.  And even then we showed how to dismantle it in a few days.   

It's hard to say who the next opponent may be, but there are only two real opponents that could field anything near to a layered defense. 

But having flying artillery on-call is huge, which is why I've always been surprised that the Marines don't have them in the their inventory, probably because the Navy doesn't think they are sexy enough...

[roo_ster]

Back in late 1990-early 1991, the Iraqis we're reputed to have the best Air defense systems this side of Moscow. 

While people have been predicting the demise of the aircraft (manned and otherwise), it takes a lot of systems to deny airspace and they have to multi-layered.  And even then we showed how to dismantle it in a few days.   

It's hard to say who the next opponent may be, but there are only two real opponents that could field anything near to a layered defense. 

But having flying artillery on-call is huge, which is why I've always been surprised that the Marines don't have them in the their inventory, probably because the Navy doesn't think they are sexy enough...

Kind of like folk who constantly predict the next oncoming recession, every year, forever.  I got you.  Thing is, eventually reality catches up tot the hype.  We are nearing that point. 

[dogmush]

But having flying artillery on-call is huge, which is why I've always been surprised that the Marines don't have them in the their inventory, probably because the Navy doesn't think they are sexy enough...

Also hard to operate one off a ship.

[birdman]

Don't be so certain.  This one made it back to home drome with the majority of parts still flying in close formation:

That was a baby missile.

[Scout26]

Also hard to operate one off a ship.

Really?!?!?!  I would think that all you'd have to do is point the ship into the wind and take off the tie downs....

Landing might be tricky.  The carrier would have to slow down to allow it to catch up...


 

[Devonai]

With a wing loading of 99 lbs/sq ft, the A-10 don't glide.

[MechAg94]

Air defense isn't perfect either.  It can be effective, but with the right countermeasures and the attacker actively suppressing it, the effectiveness is no where near perfect.  I think the history channel shows talk about the Israelis and their battles with the Egyptians years back.  Once the Israelis developed a strategy to defeat the air defense, they were successful.  I guess I would just say that every defense is only a defense. 

[Gewehr98]

They're pretty much all baby missiles.  It's not like any bad actors we're chasing down have anything more sophisticated than the current Chinese FN-6 MANPADS.

(Queu Birdman saying the Genie air-to-air nuke is Proper AA)

Were ISIS to have functional SA-5 setups, then the pucker factor would elevate.  (Until USAF Wild Weasel sorties also knocked them offline)

I doubt you're going to find any airframe more combat survivable than the A-10.  I saw several of them shot up that made it back to base, and were subsequently shipped off to depot at McClellan AFB for repairs and return to the front lines.

The amount of damage they endured was impressive, as was the redundancy and modular replacement design for quick turnaround after getting shot up.  

Honeycomb composite to localize failure to just the projectile impact area, armored titanium bathtub for pilot, left and right vertical stabilizers interchangeable, you name it.  

[KD5NRH]

I doubt you're going to find any airframe more combat survivable than the A-10.

Always wondered why they didn't build a few variants for other mission types; the two-seat 10B seems like an ideal way to move a single VIP or critical talent around more discreetly than some widebody that may carry (literally) tons of countermeasures but has no chance in hell to maneuver out of the way of an unguided rocket.  They're also so darn agile that fitting tanks to make a few into tactical cropdusters might be useful if we ever get in another fight with somebody that doesn't live in a giant catbox already.

[Scout26]

1.  There are Gulfstreams and the like for VIP transport.

2.  I bet it will be a cold day in hell before we ever do anything even remotely resembling Operation Ranch Hand.

[KD5NRH]

1.  There are Gulfstreams and the like for VIP transport.

Not as agile or as durable as the A-10

2.  I bet it will be a cold day in hell before we ever do anything even remotely resembling Operation Ranch Hand.

I was thinking more along the lines of specifically targeting opium poppy fields or other relatively small areas; things 1-2 lightly armed A-10s could carry enough chemical to spray in a single mission.  For defoliating huge swaths, a larger plane with considerable support would be a lot more practical.  I would think in the larger scenario, dumping large quantities from above normal small arms fire range would be effective, whereas for pinpoint wipe-out-the-drug-crop strikes, you'd want something that is a bit more resistant to AKs.

[Scout26]

Where's LennyJoe?  IIRC he spent his entire USAF career as a maintainer and crew chief for A-10's.

Not as agile or as durable as the A-10

VIP's generally aren't going anywhere you need to be agile and durable.

I was thinking more along the lines of specifically targeting opium poppy fields or other relatively small areas; things 1-2 lightly armed A-10s could carry enough chemical to spray in a single mission.  For defoliating huge swaths, a larger plane with considerable support would be a lot more practical.  I would think in the larger scenario, dumping large quantities from above normal small arms fire range would be effective, whereas for pinpoint wipe-out-the-drug-crop strikes, you'd want something that is a bit more resistant to AKs.

The DEA already has purpose built aircraft for that mission.  You're trying to do to the A-10 what USAF is doing to the F-35.  The A-10 is very, very good at what it does.  It doesn't need other missions.   Have you ever called in CAS?  Or even seen an A-10 upclose and in person?  Other then pictures of one?

Do you even CAS bro?

[Boomhauer]

The DEA already has purpose built aircraft for that mission

Exactly. Armored crop dusters already exist.

VIP's generally aren't going anywhere you need to be agile and durable.

Plus for some reason I imagine your average VIP is not very willing to stuffed into a G-suit and strap into an ejection seat and be constrained for a several hour flight.

[Gewehr98]

What's friggin' hilarious is that the Department of State had their fleet of milsurp OV-10 Broncos stationed at Patrick AFB while I was there.

They were equipped with armor plate, tanks, pumps, and spray bars.

They flew south full of RoundUp, and returned empty, with an AK hole or three to commemorate their visit to the Coca fields to the south.

Plug holes, fill tanks, refuel, lather, rinse, repeat on a daily basis.

[mtnbkr]

Do you even CAS bro?

No, but he'll still come up with harebrained ideas involving Goodwill and his girlfriend from CanadaArgentina.

Chris

[Hutch]

<snip>
Like birdman, I see dark days ahead for any aircraft, manned or otherwise, coming close to threat AA systems.  Eventually, I think flying aircraft where the enemy can get LOS & range on it will be suicide.  That is some years off, though, and I doubt the A-10 will still be in service at that point.  It will take the USA some years to turn the air space in our AO into a virtual zone of death by means of ground-based AA systems not currently fielded.  It will take our competitors longer, even if they forego a systematic/networked approach.

It'll get to the point where aircraft near the enemy will be solely UAVs and then solely UAVs that spend most their time masked.

I got curious about our army's ground based anti-air systems, and if FAS has it right, we have relatively few SAMs and virtually NO triple A.  SAM inventory consists of various Stingers, both MANPAD and the Avenger, an 8 cell Stinger cluster with a .50BMG gun mounted on an HMMWV or Bradley chassis.  The only other one of any note is the famous Patriot system, which isn't gonna roll forward with the sharp end.

Am I missing something?  The notion that we have some sort of "if it flies, it dies" ground-based air defense seems completely unrealistic.

[roo_ster]

I got curious about our army's ground based anti-air systems, and if FAS has it right, we have relatively few SAMs and virtually NO triple A.  SAM inventory consists of various Stingers, both MANPAD and the Avenger, an 8 cell Stinger cluster with a .50BMG gun mounted on an HMMWV or Bradley chassis.  The only other one of any note is the famous Patriot system, which isn't gonna roll forward with the sharp end.

Am I missing something?  The notion that we have some sort of "if it flies, it dies" ground-based air defense seems completely unrealistic.

Yes, today our ground based AA capability is weak.  Hence, "It will take the USA some years to turn the air space in our AO into a virtual zone of death..."

AA capability will be a benefit that other capabilities in the pipeline bring along.

http://defense-update.com/20140612_gbad-de-otm.html
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/air-force-moves-aggressively-on-lasers/
http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/GBAD.aspx
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/17/ground-based-air-defense-laser-moving-forward/