GOV/MIL Air Force considering A-10 replacement for future close air support

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....ETA: How many devils can dance on top of the details of this one?

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...a-10-replacement-for-future-close-air-409052/

Air Force considering A-10 replacement for future close air support

By: Dan Parsons
Orlando
Source: Flightglobal.com
14:33 13 Feb 2015

Even as the US Air Force is still banking on saving billions by retiring the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, the service is considering building a brand new aircraft to take over the close air support (CAS) role.

Speaking at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in Orlando, Florida, air force Gen Hawk Carlisle, chief of Air Combat Command (ACC), says a follow-on weapon system for the A-10 is on the table.

Carlisle also announces an upcoming focus meeting with the army, navy and marine corps to solicit input from the services about the CAS mission in future conflicts. Though the air force wants to retire the A-10 in a plan to save $4.2 billion for other programmes, the service will still be required to provide CAS, Carlisle says.

“We have always, throughout our history, been dedicated to defense of the ground force from the air,” he says. The A-10 was designed to fly low and slow and provide cover fire for ground troops with its nose-mounted 30mm cannon. The air force has said it cannot afford to continue operating what officials consider a single-mission aircraft.

However, “another weapons system programme may be something we need to consider as we look at the gaps and seams for the future” of the CAS mission, Carlisle says.

“We’ll continue to look at what’s next, that’s part of the discussion,” Carlisle says. “What provides that close air support in the future is something we’ll continue to look at. It could be a follow-on. It’s a mission we have always been committed to and will stay committed to, so the potential out there is that we will look at that.”

Congress has balked at retiring the A-10 and its potential mothballing has resulted in an emotional backlash from pilots who have flown the aircraft in combat and ground troops who have fought under its protection. The air force initially pitched its retirement as a means of dealing with sequestration cuts and has again suggested the aircraft be retired if those across-the-board cuts go into effect in fiscal year 2016.

The A-10 has gotten a leg up recently as the US has ramped up airstrikes against Islamic state militants in Iraq and Syria, an operation called Inherent Resolve. Carlisle says the A-10 is performing effective CAS missions in support of anti-Islamic State operations.

A fleet of 12 A-10s and 300 airmen recently deployed to Spangdahelm Air Base in Germany to support Operation Atlantic Resolve, which is a security cooperation effort with other NATO countries.

The A-10, however is an aging aircraft that is vulnerable in contested environments where enemy air defenses are present. New aircraft could be necessary to provide CAS in contested environments, which will multiply in the future, he says.

“Contested environment are going to go up because our adversaries know what we can do when we own the airspace and will continue to try to deny that to us,” Carlisle says. “The A-10 is significantly vulnerable in a contested environment than other airplanes.”

 

[Countrybumpkin]

The poor A10...they will do anything to get rid of it...they will never never make a new plane as tough as it.

 

[Millwright]

The F-35 is behind schedule, over budget and full of problems. This means that it is in the public eye and being watched by the budget types (the ones that aren't getting greased from it).....no more graft & corruption to be easily wrung out of that program.

Its time to start another weapons system so that all the kickbacks, bribes and hush-money can start flowing again.

Congressmen, military brass and weapons contractors all have to pay for their mistresses and offshore properties.

 

[Murt]

some things just don't need fixin

 

[Knoxville's Joker]

If this plane is killed, we will become useless tactically in terms of close ground air support. The current military infrastructure needs to change. The cronyism needs to end, and the expensive solutions need to stop.

 

[OldArcher]

It's all part of the traitors in DC emasculating the US Military. Period. Those who seek to weaken us, are TRAITORS. Period.

Maranatha

OA

 

[The Mountain]

I think the A-10 replacement ought to be an A-10-based modern version of the P38. Mount a Vulcan in each of the two fuselages, and use uprated engines.

 

[Millwright]

The replacement for the a-10 should be new a-10s.

It works.....period.

 

[Housecarl]

The replacement for the a-10 should be new a-10s.

It works.....period.

I'd go so far as to suggest they really need to look at what's needed between COIN/LIC and "big war" and fill both needs appropriately.

On the "big war" side, yes a "new" A-10 based on what we've learned from its use to date and improvements in engines, avionics, weapons and airframe materials, etc. On the "small war" side things get a bit more arguably "dynamic" in needs and what can fill the role from drone to armed "crop duster"/OV-10 redux to an A-37 redux.

 

[Millwright]

Yes

Power & system upgrades.

Its a hammer, not a robotic scalpel that can do surgery by internet.

 

[Dozdoats]

Anyone here remember the Fulda Gap?

That's the environment the A-10 was developed for. It first flew in the early 1970s. The defense posture at the time was focused on stopping hordes of Soviet armor pouring toward the Rhine.

The A-10 is a flying tank killer. It was planned by US strategists that the A-10 would share the aerial tank busting chore with TOW missile armed Huey A1 Cobra attack helicopters ... remember those? If your memory is foggy, the USMC is still flying them, in upgraded form.

They long ago trashed the jigs by which A-10s were built. There were only so many to start with (716). The airframe is getting harder to support. It makes sense to look for a new CAS specific aircraft.

But the USAF hates the CAS mission. Zoomies want to fly high and fast, not low and slow. They want to shoot down other fighters, or drive bomb trucks. They do not want to be flying down in the weeds bailing a bunch of ground pounders out of tight spots. There is NO institutional support in the USAF for the CAS mission. Period.

And there never will be. Period.

IMHO the CAS mission needs to be yanked from the USAF and given back to the Army. Since 1947 the USAF has had hysterics over the Army flying armed fixed wing aircraft. Well tough titty. The USAF doesn't want the mission, fine. Give it back to the Army (from whence it came anyway). Anyone recall the US Army Air Corps?

Give the Army a new fixed wing propeller driven platform, daylight only, with a loooong loiter time, tough and durable, able to operate out of austere airfields, able to carry a significant weight of ordnance, cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to maintain, and ... here's the killer - flown by WARRANT OFFICERS. Juuust like helicopters, remember? Anyone remember the A-1?

Build a bunch of 'em, and prepare to base them up front with units likely to need help on the ground. let the zoomies do air superiority - MAKE them do air superiority ... and let a dogface pilot take care of the dogfaces on the ground. Throw a good FAC platform into the mix, like a revised and upgraded Bronco OV-10 (also armed, BTW) and call it good.

How likely is this to happen? Don't hold your breath.

 

[Dosadi]

Give the A10 to the Marines, they know what to do with it and would love to have it I bet.

 

[Housecarl]

Anyone here remember the Fulda Gap?

That's the environment the A-10 was developed for. It first flew in the early 1970s. The defense posture at the time was focused on stopping hordes of Soviet armor pouring toward the Rhine.

The A-10 is a flying tank killer. It was planned by US strategists that the A-10 would share the aerial tank busting chore with TOW missile armed Huey A1 Cobra attack helicopters ... remember those? If your memory is foggy, the USMC is still flying them, in upgraded form.

They long ago trashed the jigs by which A-10s were built. There were only so many to start with (716). The airframe is getting harder to support. It makes sense to look for a new CAS specific aircraft.

But the USAF hates the CAS mission. Zoomies want to fly high and fast, not low and slow. They want to shoot down other fighters, or drive bomb trucks. They do not want to be flying down in the weeds bailing a bunch of ground pounders out of tight spots. There is NO institutional support in the USAF for the CAS mission. Period.

And there never will be. Period.

IMHO the CAS mission needs to be yanked from the USAF and given back to the Army. Since 1947 the USAF has had hysterics over the Army flying armed fixed wing aircraft. Well tough titty. The USAF doesn't want the mission, fine. Give it back to the Army (from whence it came anyway). Anyone recall the US Army Air Corps?

Give the Army a new fixed wing propeller driven platform, daylight only, with a loooong loiter time, tough and durable, able to operate out of austere airfields, able to carry a significant weight of ordnance, cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to maintain, and ... here's the killer - flown by WARRANT OFFICERS. Juuust like helicopters, remember? Anyone remember the A-1?

Build a bunch of 'em, and prepare to base them up front with units likely to need help on the ground. let the zoomies do air superiority - MAKE them do air superiority ... and let a dogface pilot take care of the dogfaces on the ground. Throw a good FAC platform into the mix, like a revised and upgraded Bronco OV-10 (also armed, BTW) and call it good.

How likely is this to happen? Don't hold your breath.

Well said. Though the jigs are gone, there's got to be drawings for them someplace in the DoD archives (you'd think anyways).

 

[tanstaafl]

Every time the Air Force tries something new in the CAS area, the pilots find out (and this apparently always comes as a big shock to them) that PEOPLE SHOOT AT THEM. So they go to 30,000 feet and CAS becomes RAS (Remote Air Support).

 

[Satanta]

If this plane is killed, we will become useless tactically in terms of close ground air support. The current military infrastructure needs to change. The cronyism needs to end, and the expensive solutions need to stop.

It IS changing! "Rope and Chains" It's the Obama way!

 

[Satanta]

doz-

Give the Army a new fixed wing propeller driven platform, daylight only, with a loooong loiter time, tough and durable, able to operate out of austere airfields, able to carry a significant weight of ordnance, cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to maintain, and ... here's the killer - flown by WARRANT OFFICERS. Juuust like helicopters, remember? Anyone remember the A-1?

"Puff the Magic Dragon, lived by the sea..."

 

[Dozdoats]

Sat,

There are less than two dozen AC-130s in inventory at present. While a fearsome platform, they are still USAF owned. And highly political as well ... the "Mogadishu Mile" happened largely because TPTB wouldn't send these wholesale killers to Somalia.

 

[Blue 5]

Give the A10 to the Marines, they know what to do with it and would love to have it I bet.

As an old crusty Airman it pains me to say this, but ^^^this^^^ is exactly what needs to be done. The Marines will take good care of our beloved planes. The pointy-headed fighter jocks and bureaucrats who want to get rid of the Warthogs make me sick.

 

[Thunderbird]

The A-10, however is an aging aircraft that is vulnerable in contested environments where enemy air defenses are present. New aircraft could be necessary to provide CAS in contested environments, which will multiply in the future, he says.

More utter bombast and BS from the current air farce. Name me one platform that is not "vulnerable" under battle conditions.

My Uncle would turn over in his grave if he knew what his beloved USAAC turned into.

 

[DHR43]

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/why-usaf-hates-a-10-and-why-it-cant-be-replaced/

"A-10 was, along with F-16, one of two tactical aircraft created by Fighter Mafia for USAF. Notably, while USAF managed to screw up F-16 by adding bombing and BVR capabilities, A-10 is still relatively unchanged, with exception of new electronics. It is safe, efficient, durable, reliable and cheap, managing to operate in wider range of meteorological conditions than any other aircraft. Its design allows it to evade most of ground fire, and to soak up the rest and still bring the pilot home safely. It can fly at speeds comparable to WW2 turboprops, allowing it to carry out Close Air Support. While it has performed admirably, USAF wants do retire it, with explanation that it is old, vulnerable, and that precision weapons render its capabilities – including its massive 30 mm Gattling gun – unnecessary.

But the real reason for that move is because the A-10 goes against everything USAF believes in. A-10 is the ultimate proof that highly capable and effective weapons do not need to be complex or costly, and that going up close and personal with target is oftentimes the only way to get things done. In fact, USAF only rushed it in production so that the Army does not take over entire CAS mission.

Cost itself is probably the most damning aspect of A-10 in USAF generals’ eyes. Aside for the sexy appeal of new technologies, especially stealth, Air Force generals who have supported highly complex weapons get to work in firms producing these weapons after retirement, for a very high salary. As a result, generals have sabotaged F-16, loading it up with electronics, pushed for production of stealth aircraft, and always kept looking for ways to remove the A-10 from the Air Force. Despite the A-10 outperforming every other aircraft during Desert Storm (or more likely because of it, USAF has mothballed most of the fleet, while outright lying about F-117s performance during the war. During the war, A-10 took out over half of 1 700 Iraqi tanks that were knocked out by air strikes, and about 300 APCs and artillery emplacements.

In 2002 – 2010 period, 60 A-10s have fired 300 000 of ammunition over Iraq, and recorded an 85% success rate. It is also less expensive and more environment-friendly to operate than fast jets, due to its large wings and slow, but fuel-efficent, turbofan engines. In 2010, US military started operating it on biofuel. At maximum power, A-10s engines are five times or more efficient than F-35s engine.

Due to these concerns, USAF has turned to 200 million USD F-35, promising that it will be able to do by virtue of high technology what 20 million USD A-10 already does by virtue of its excellent design, despite F-35 being more vulnerable than the F-16 (an aircraft that was never designed for CAS in the first place), and being incapable of slowing down enough to find and attack tactical targets. In fact, the F-35 is vulnerable to being taken down by AK-47 fire. But the F-35 allows USAF to justify huge future budgets, and not fall behind in budget battle between departments of US military, which have displayed notorious rivalry in the past (to the point of harming overall US combat ability, such as USAF not allowing US Army to operate fixed-wing CAS aircraft).

However, history of USAF promises about A-10 replacements is not shiny. Out of 24 Apache attack helicopters sento to the Kosovo, 2 have crashed on training mission in the first week and rest were grounded for duration of the war. Seven Apaches sent to attack Taliban in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda were shot up by the machine gun fire, with five being damaged beyond repair. In Iraq, 33 Apaches attacking Republician Guard positions in Karbala were forced to turn tail and run in face of the heavy machine gun fire and few RPG-s, with one being shot down and 30 sustaining heavy damage.

Fast jets proved even less useful: on July 24 2004, unit led by SSgt Jamie Osmon, and comprising of himself and two other soldiers, was escorting a convoy sent to disarm an Afghan warlord. They themselves crewed a multi-wheeled armored vehicle, with other six vehicles containing 26 additional troops, which were comprised of Afghan National Army and Global Security forces. During the way, convoy entered a 30-50 meter wide canyon, but decided to leave it, turning south towards mouth of the valley. Upon reaching the mouth, however, convoy was ambushed. Lead vehicle, belonging to ANA, was destroyed by an RPG, and Ford Ranger behind it took small-arms fire. Rest of the convoy managed to double-back after extracting passangers from the Ranger. Three kilometers later, they were ambushed again, by an estimated 800 ambushers. Humvee laid down suppressing fire while rest of convoy retreated, and after running out of ammo, Humvee crew went on foot to find the convoy.

On the way there, B-1 bomber attempted to help, but it didn’t have any effect. Once convoy regrouped, Osmon asked for A-10 support, and was said that it is about an hour away. After an hour, A-10s – callsigns Tonto and Lobo – arrived. Pilots managed to determine where friendly troops as well as opponents are without any radio contact. Once the A-10s opened up with Vulcan guns, enemy fire ceased, and ground team finally managed to establish radio contact with the A-10s. Soon after, enemy tried to have US troops call off A-10 support by using captured ANA troops as bargaining chips.

After enemy dispersed, convoy limped home, with the A-10s loitering over the convoy protectively during entire 6-hour trip.

Several lessons can be taken from this encounter:

high-altitude “precision” weapons are completely ineffective against dug-in opponent
A-10s have huge impact on enemy ground troops, both physical and psychological, which cannot be replicated by high-flying aircraft
entire encounter was accoplished by eyeball, with only barest information avaliable to A-10 pilots
radio contact was only established after the A-10s have already started attacking enemy positions

US Army Sgt. First Class Frank Antenori has said that ‘As much as the Air Force and Navy would like to think that, fighter aircraft that travel at speeds can’t slow down to identify the targets,’. (“Fast Jets Not Ideal Choice for Close Air Support” by Roxana Tiron, National Defense magazine, April 2004 ).

There are many reasons why fast jets are not effective as close air support aircraft, and why that ineffectiveness increases with speed and altitude. First is that battlefield is a very mobile environment, with many small, fleeting targets. As a result, high-altitude jets are incapable of reacting effectively to the changing environments, first due to the limitations of sensory systems (we have yet to design a sensor more versatile and precise than human eye), and second due to the time it takes weapons to reach target (thus effectively creating a delay between “decide” and “act” parts of the OODA loop). Oftentimes, immediate, pinning / suppressive fire is required, sometimes very close to the ground units – so close that even smallest precision weapons are too high-yield.

In the mountainous terrains, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft have a hard time finding targets, requiring boots on the ground to do it. Even when terrain is not a problem, it takes 18 hours to complete targeting process by using reconnaissance satellites in the low Earth orbit. If assets are moved every 10 – 12 hours, they become essentially untargetable.

In Afghanistan, F-15Es have saved a downed SEAL team – by doing gun strafing runs. When precision weapons are used, their point of impact has to be calculated so as to ensure that bombs do hit their targets – and that takes 26 minutes on average; sometimes, it took up to several hours. Until the arrival of the A-10s in Afghanistan several months after start of operations, USAF CAS was abysimal, as its aircraft were not allowed to fly low enough; thus, Army units relied almost exclusively on USN close air support, as Navy aircraft were allowed to perform low-altitude strafing and bombing runs.

Precision strikes can be effective against fixed targets, but their effectiveness against mobile targets is limited – in which case gun strafing is a far better solution. Precision strikes require ground Forward Air Controller to be attached to the unit that has requested strikes – but there simply are not enough FACs. Even when there is FAC attached to the unit, he may be injured or killed, denying the unit ability to call for high-altitude support. Against fixed targets, precision strikes have regularly proven useless if targets were dug in, such as in the war in Kosovo where 3-rd Serbian Army has marched back to Serbia unscatched by NATO air attacks. Laser guided weapons require someone to keep in line of sight of target until weapon hits, and both laser guided and especially GPS munitions are prone to fratricide.

Further, units are only equipped with the limited number of radios to communicate among themselves and with aircraft. Smoke and white phosphorus markers require slow aircraft to be fully effective. Marker baloons, though not used by the US military, are another option for situations where markers cannot be effective (such as in forests) but they also require aircraft slow enough to see them, and the radio contact between aircraft and ground troops.

Precision munitions themselves are also far from precise. JDAMs are not terminally guided and often go astray. Further, bombs bump into each other and often into the aircraft on release, making fins bend; a problem that only gets worse as speed increases. Even when that does not happen, trying to simply steer a “smart” weapon is another problem which also gets worse with increasing speed. In both cases, once that happens margin of error worsens with altitude. Guidance systems often fail, due to damage during transport or installation, or other reasons, and precision munitions go astray: something that performance testers completely ignore while calculating CEP, counting only weapons that have performed “as expected”.

To render any kind of tactical bombing, CAS or otherwise, aircraft have to be well below cloud level. F-35 carrying two bombs will thus be vulnerable to smaller weapons, and will not fly air support (close or otherwise) on bad weather. On good weather, it will be quasi-loitering at 4 500 meters, blowing up decoys, civillians, rocks and wrecks of vehicles from previous war.

While there were several friendly-fire incidents involving the A-10, these have always been result of human error on part of overencumbered pilot; thus A-10 should be equipped with back seat for observer who will operate optical identification devices so as to provide visual target identification superior to current “use the binoculars” avaliable to the pilot. But while these incidents are shot up to the sky to be as visible as nuclear detonation, far more numerous failures of high altitude aircraft are buried. In fact, even current attack helicopters (which fly at half A-10s speed) have two crewman, pilot and WSO; task of latter is purely to operate weapons, which includes identifying targets before attacking.

Per-sortie (in)effectiveness is not the only concern. F-35 simply cannot generate enough sorties per day to replace A-10. It also requires large, vulnerable air bases with concrete strips, while A-10 can fly from any surface flat enough that can carry its weight, which not only makes it less vulnerable but allows it to follow the front and stay near supported troops, much like German Stukas did in World War II. F-35 also does not even begin to approach A-10s loiter capability, meaning that it cannot escort ground troops out of dangerous situations, nor can it loiter near the front, waiting to be called upon.

For the end note, A-10s not only should not be retired, they (and tactical aircraft in general) should be employed in the same way Wehrmacht employed Stukas and single-engine fighters in World War II: keeping them under nominal command of Air Force, but assigning them to larger ground units, to be under operational command of that unit’s command staff, with CAS aircraft being permanently assigned to units, and air superiority aircraft assigned and reassigned as situation required."

Updating and building new A-10's would be the right thing to so. For some reason, many here don't know why the US military never does the right things. People here do NOT get what is in my tagline, below.

It cannot be that hard to grasp, understand, believe and then act upon. Or can it?

 

[JohnGaltfla]

The replacement they are really working on. Be scared, be VERY scared.

 

[Satanta]

DHR43-I am not going to quote your whole pst but it makes the point.

Kind of like cars these days-electronic this and that's. Nice but seriously? My Jeep has a computer brain, electric windows and so forth but if I could find another 70's model Cherokee with manual everything I'd dump what I have now with no extra thought.

The problem is all the nice, new and shiny toys come with a price of not lasting for crap with real-world use.

Same with the A-10's versus the new POS birf they are ramming in.

 

[Christian for Israel]

Well said. Though the jigs are gone, there's got to be drawings for them someplace in the DoD archives (you'd think anyways).

hell, just bring one into the factory, take it apart and make NEW jigs.

 

[2ndAmendican]

Give the A10 to the Marines, they know what to do with it and would love to have it I bet.

You damn skippy we would!!! The Corps being the bastard step children have always known how to deal with all of the hand me downs from the other branches. I was an OV-10 Bronco engine mech (6023) in the Corps in the early 1980's, and I loved that platform as well. Great FAC aircraft, that when combined with the A-10 makes a helluva team!!

 

[Weps]

You're an insurgent in Afghanistan, you've pinned down an American unit. Suddenly you hear an aircraft in the distance, it has a slight whistle to its engines. You look high to sight it, but see no plane in the sky.

Suddenly, on your left, you see a neighboring group of insurgents engulfed in what you can only describe as the "hand of god" raining from the skies... followed by a monstrous roar, as if some beast flies above.

The A-10 on the grounds of physiological demoralization is worth its weight in gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnUkUJaoF0

 

[tanstaafl]

Every now and again they actually lose an A-10 when a pilot digs a wing into the ground on a turn (the wings are deceptively long for the fuselage). Now that's what I call CLOSE air support!