F-35s Won't Outdo A-10 in Battlefield Capabilities

I use to see RVNAF A-37's all of the time in the Nam. I think there were some USAF squadrons flying the A-37 back during the time.

The RVNAF also flew the A-28 which were just armed U.S. Air Force T-28 trainers.

 

The Russian Su-25 is their equivalent to the U.S. A-10; built for ground attack. Though faster, it is not nearly as robust as the A-10. The pro-Russian rebels have shot down 4 Ukraine Su-25 since the Ukrainian crisis began...some by MANPAD, aircraft and SAM.

Let's give a hypothetical, say we send the A-10 to Ukraine...it might be able to survive or it might not, but it would be targeted by the most advanced surface-to-air missile systems it's ever faced before, it would be targeted by aircraft capable of firing missiles well beyond visual range reaching speeds of Mach 2, that would take down an A-10 before it even knew what hit it.

The A-10 wouldn't last long at all without complete air superiority....

The WW2 P-47, that the A-10 was named after, had a faster top speed...or at least similar; around 435 mph.

The A-10 can carry alot, but this also limits the speed, maneuverability and ultimately the altitude. With a full load-out, the underpowered A-10 would struggle to maintain a cruising speed approaching 340 mph. The brethren P-47 would have no problem intercepting it. An aircraft used in combat over 70 years ago...70 years...could keep up with an A-10.

Do we really want to go to war or at least plan for war against a near peer foe, with an aircraft that flies slower than many of the airplanes operated in both theaters of WW2?

After it's dropped it's ordnance and fired it's last round, it still has to return to base...at which time it's basically a slow moving sitting duck for an enemy fighter operating at beyond visual range.

What this means is that without complete air superiority, the A-10s fate will be similar to the Su-25. What gives the U.S. air superiority are the fast fighters everyone else seems to hate. There is a valid reason why the USAF likes them, it is because without air superiority, CAS would be much more difficult. CAS begins with air superiority. The F-35 is designed to replace the AV-8B, F/A-18, A-10, F-15 and F-16 because the U.S. cannot afford to design and build separate platforms to replace each of these aging aircraft systems. Funds were cut on the F-22 this meant fewer have been built and put into operation...the F-22, by itself can't' take the place of the flood of aircraft expected to reach the end of their service life by 2040.

The F-35 is needed. It remains to be seen if if can perform as required, but the idea of it's existence, a true multi-role aircraft, was a sound plan.

 

It's not Korea anymore though, they do not do amphibious operations like they used too. Your FSCL's become corridors these days because there is so much air activity. By the time the hovercrafts are disgorging the armor on the beach the artillery support will emplaced by the heavy lift helicopters. Prior to that the CAS and escort's will be supporting deployed units.

 

No offense but how much experience do you have on conducting an amphibious operation ? I participated in the last two amphibious assaults conducted during the Vietnam War, "Operations Bold Pursuit" and "Operation Defiant Stand."

LCAC (Hover craft) can't come ashore on a contested beach. Marine amphibious assault troops (grunts) have the secure the beach head before the heavy stuff come ashore. What's the Navy going to do, have ten aircraft carriers off shore with ten Carrier Air Wings filling the vacuum for naval gunfire support for the Marines ?

In one hour just one Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordnance on target than an entire aircraft carrier air wing can in 24 hours.

The chi-coms and it looks like the Russian strategy is A2/AD, access denial.

Now any war with the Chinese in the Western Pacific or the South China Sea will mean WW ll type amphibious assaults on small heavy defended islands.

Here are some of the islands U.S. Marines might have to assault.

Where have U.S. Marines amphibious forces been training recently conducting WW ll type amphibious assault exercises ? The same places they fought during WW ll. And it looks like they want to increase the sizes of these training exercises.

 

No offense, but its been awhile since Vietnam. The USMC generally don't try to come ashore contested beach's anymore. Just go read up some USMC Expeditionary doctrine.

 

That was the idea, but what happens if it's a three or six square mile island or even smaller like an coral atoll like the chi-coms are militarizing ?

There were around 48 or so amphibious assault conducted during the Vietnam War. Most were of battalion size but a few regimental in size.

On one operation I was TAD to 2/26, we boarded CH-46 helicopters and they flew east out to sea. thirty or fifty miles off shore there was a WW ll era Essex class aircraft carrier converted to a LPH. Once on the ship, 2/26 became BLT 2/26 and would remain so until after the operation. There was a couple of LSD's that was preloaded with a few M-48 tanks, a battery of 105's and amtracs. We steamed around in a big circle for 48 or 72 hours. I suppose Charley is asking what happened to that Marine rifle battalion ? It's as if they disappeared off the face of the earth.

Then D-Day comes. the objective is a main force VC battalion. One company of Marines go in on amtracs securing the beach head for the LCM's (Mike Boats) that brought in the tanks, artillery, c-rats and ammo, water, etc. While the rest of the battalion comes in on CH-46's. landing further in land.

On our right flank is a blocking force from the Army's Americal Div. To the west beyond the VC positions is another blocking force of ROK Marines from the Blue Dragon Brigade. On our south flank is a river where Navy PBR's provide a blocking force, preventing Charley from escaping. Charley was trapped. We had more heat casualties than combat casualties. At the end of the operation I think we counted 450 or so dead VC.

 

The SS Mayaguez also jumpes immediately to mind. Also Grenada, Lebanon, and if the conflict with Panama had lasted longer we would have been putting ashore Regimental sized forces there on each side of the Canal to secure the locks.

We also conducted several amphibious operations in the 1990 Gulf War.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...-amphibious-force-operations-persian-gulf-war

Also our involvement in Somalia was primarily Marine forces, something most people are not aware of. The city of Mogadishu was primarily secured by 1/7 and 3/11, and secured by amphibious landings (and they were not unopposed, but the resistance was insignificant). Most people tend to forget that the majority of US involvement in Somalia was the Marine Corps, the Rangers and Delta were placed at the airport to provide strike support for missions, but it was the Corps which landed amphibiously which was in charge of the city itself.

It always amazes me when people are unable to do any kind of research, and simply believe something is true because that is all they know.

 

All one has to do is drive southbound on I-5 between San Clemente and Oceanside and you are likely to see amtacs in the surf coming onto the beach and Marine riflemen exiting the amtracs and storming there way towards I-5. Soon the LCAC's appear hovering onto the beach and LAV-25's come rolling down the ramp. If it's a battalion size or larger exercise, you may get to see the Navy's Mike Boats following behind the amtracs.

Back in 1947 and 48 you had those saying there would never again be an amphibious assault comparable to during WW ll, that the Marine Corps was obsolete and out of a job. But who did Gen. MacArthur call for in 1950 ? You had the Inchon landings. This was an amphibious assault conducted in a harbor in an urban area. And there were still some in 1950 who said the Inchon landings wouldn't work.

 

... and which one of those was across a contested beach where they were unable to provide air support if it were to happen today.

And it also happens to be the home base for the FRS of the Cobra's who no doubt are the ones providing CAS. I think you guys are sorting skirting the point because maybe your wrong!?

Apacherat, your counter to my point was well there is only so many aircraft, and then when I answered that your counter was what about a tiny island! Well if its a tiny island then they have enough aircraft dont they!? Mushroom, why do you always answer with offtopic vague responses and then try and fling mud on the other posters who disagree, its a funny way to discuss issues.

Geez, fella's all you have to do is come up with a likely scenario where Iowa class indirect fire support is required. I doubt it would be amphibious landing operations. You could suggest NSWC operations I suppose but its pretty hard for anyone to miss a surface fleet with Iowa's approaching these days.

 

CAS on the beach really can't be used, "danger close." Aircraft can't provide CAS in bad weather, NGF can. You aren't going to use CAS at night. During the Vietnam War, most combat took place between 0030 hrs. to just before dawn. That's where the Vietnam War phrase "0-Dark Thirty" comes from. That's when Charley preferred to fight, he didn't have to worry about F-4's A-4's and A-1's above. This is when Charley brought out his 122 MM and 130 MM artillery and rockets. There are other armies in the world that prefer to fight at night. The chi-coms and the North Koreans like to fight at night using large frontal attacks with bugles blowing and thousands up to 5,000 or more screaming commies.

What is seen on satellitte imaging on these small islands that chi-coms are militarizing are concrete plants . What are they doing with all of that concrete ? I'm sure the chi-coms studied the war in the Central Pacific during WW ll.

You might find this just not interesting but very informative. Kinda long, but some good maps and cool photos.

http://www.allworldwars.com/Iwo-Jima-Naval-Gunfire-Support.html

 

You can use Type II CAS in bad weather and at night. Why would anyone be doing an amphibious lodgement under circumstances without air support in this day and age!? These days the idea would be to have a much greater understanding of the locations available and use maneuver to pick the best spot where the depth of aerial assault can allow any over the beach action to be done without having to suppress fires emerging from the back of the beach.

 

You use CAS during an amphibious operation but when you need fire support the first thing you use is ground artillery. It's faster to call in a mission, it's the most accurate of all fire support available and there is a large selection of fuse to choose from.

Next is naval gunfire. Not as accurate as artillery so you might need to spot a round or two before you're on target. But NGF his a high velocity round with a whole lot of kinetic energy that can take out harden targets like bunkers that artillery and CAS can't destroy. NGF also has a larger impact area than artillery or bombs or rockets delivered from aircraft. And NGF demoralizes the enemy. Those guns on naval ships are nothing more than big freaking rifles, they have a flat trajectory unlike howitzers which just lobs a round through the air.

Both artillery and NGF can be used in any kind of weather, You aren't going to use CAS in the fog or during a thunderstorm or a blizzard. Even today unless it's an all weather aircraft, you're grounded during most of the monsoon season.

CAS is what you use when artillery or NGF isn't available.

Here's one that the United States Army mastered back during WW ll. Both Marine and Army artillery are capable of this. Never seen a Marine artillery battalion do it but witnessed an Army artillery battalion doing it.

There's an area target of 1/4 mile square. You have three 105 batteries of six tubes each shooting from three different fire bases each six or so miles apart. The mission is to have all 18 rounds to come over the target area at exactly the same time and all detonating 25 feet over the ground exactly at the same time with in one second.

If the word "awesome" existed back then, that what we would have heard but what you heard was "holly (*)(*)(*)(*)" !!!

Takes a lot of calculations to pull off such a fire mission considering the cannon cockers are all firing their howitzers at different times because all were at different distances from the target.
Supposedly the Navy can do the same using three different ships but never seen it done.

 

Apache, you are wasting your time.

There is a reason why I iggied this clown a while back. He does not know what he is talking about, yet insists that he is right over and over again no matter what. No references, no experience, he expects the world to be a certain way because that is how he wants it.

Notice his earlier claim of no amphibious assaults since Vietnam. That got blown away real fast so he simply spins around some more and hope somebody will pat him on the back and say he is right.

 

Come on guys, its called following a discussion point. I appreciate the conversation's fluidity because it makes it interesting, no one has to answer or agree with my points, but personal attacks are childish and unnecessary - you might be old in the body but lets not be old in the brain as well please!!!

I remember the China thread, LOL, you didn't even know what I was argueing and when I pointed it out you'd just ramble on about your own nonesense. Like here, can't you follow a discussion point. You just prefer to sling mud and pat yourself on the back.

Where did I say that? So far you've said nothing of value to argue against anything I've said.... but that is not my problem, its yours. Dont blame me for that.

 

Yea I mentioned earlier the USMC likes to use its own artillery, in fact it was part of my point why naval indirect fires are less necessary to support amphibious lodgement. Obviously when I'm talking about amphibious landings I'm talking about heavy equipment, as anything maritime to shore can be called amphibious - I referenced the USMC and hovercraft's early on to make it more obvious.... though Mushroom seem's to not catch subtle hints like that...

Wouldn't you say naval indirect fires are being replaced by cruise missiles in real terms...

 

The F-35's weapons bay is deeper and narrower and is more suited for ground attack. It can carry a 2,000 lb. JDAM, while the A-10 can only muster a 500 lb. bomb.

So, in theory, we have an aircraft capable of a dead hover, or crusiing at 1,200 mph.

Granted it doesn't have the loiter time of an A-10, but a B-1 can loiter more than the A-10. The F-35 is more of a strike aircraft designed for survivability in contested airspace. A get outta dodge mindset rather than stick it out and take the punches.

Now perhaps the mud dwellers like the tough but slow aircraft better, it can take a punch and isn't a dainty little thing packed with delicate avionics...

The U.S. has not faced a near peer foe since Korea. From Vietnam going forward, the U.S. has never faced an enemy wherein defeat was possible. I mean military defeat, not political defeat. So the prevalent mindset is that old must be good enough, there is no need to fight a technical war.

 

But you don't use a 2,000 lb. bomb for CAS, Or a 1,000 or even the good old 750 lb bomb that the Air Force loved so much until they used them all up.

I just don't see the F-35 being able to conduct CAS missions comparable to the A-10 or the FA-18, AV-8B or even the old F-4, A-7 and A-4. The later, the A-4 probably being the second best jet powered CAS to ever fly. The A-10 is the best jet powered CAS to ever fly. The A-1 Skyraider is still the best CAS aircraft of them all to ever fly.

 

I wish that all political forums had two boxes at the end of a post that one checks off "opinion" of "fact."

Most of what I post are personal experiences and observations. They could be fact or my own personal opinions.

The empty weight of a M-14 is 9.5 lbs. It's a fact.

The M-14 is a heavy rifle. It's an opinion.

The way I look at it, when someone claims something to be a fact, that person can be asked to provide a credible source.

When an opinion is stated, one doesn't have to provide a link to a credible source but it helps to show why he may have came to that opinion.

 

The sort of platform that can hang around and strafe is obsolete in contested airspace. Helicopters can literally hug the terrain in what is known as nap of the earth flying..literally scraping tree limbs. The longbow Apache has an observation ball on the rotor head that allows it to peek over a ridge without exposing itself to enemy fire. Fixed wing aircraft like the AC-130 must operate at night, as in broad daylight they are sittting ducks. Against bad guys with up to date and modern air defenses, in order to utilize an A-10 the airspace needs to be cleared and ground threats, for the most part, eliminated. The A-10 is not particularly good at SEAD...in your war, the hero was the F-4 in searching out air defenses and destroying them, in later conflicts the F-16 and F/A-18 took care of SAMs Hopefully our boys on the ground can handle the MANPAD threat.

In order to give the A-10 a fighting chance at sticking around, the air defenses need to be eliminated...or minimally reduced. The F-35 can potentially handle SEAD and then provide CAS...certainly air to air threats are better handled by the F-35. It's multi-role as opposed to one platform / one mission. The A-10 was originally a multi-role aircraft, a tank destroyer and later evolved into a CAS platform. Precision ordnance can take care of tanks at stand off distances which leaves the tank buster to close air support.

We can't afford to have both a dedicated CAS airplane and a multi-role what with many of our current multi-role about to retire...namely the F-16 and AV-8B.

The F-35 is a compromise between the 3 aircraft it was designed to replace.

it can hover, so it can be deployed from a smaller ship or unprepared runway, it can cruise supersonic, and it can provide a limited close air support and SEAD mission capabilitiy.

It's a compromise..no one is claiming otherwise.

We can't afford a brand new redesigned version of an F-16, AV-8B and A-10

All 3 were set to reach the end of their useful service lives in the next 15 - 20 years.

To prepare for future wars, a new platform was needed.

 

I concur with all you said except for CAS strafing. It's not obsolete it just isn't used for a couple of reasons.

First today's JTAC don't know how to control a strafing run. Not even sure if today's FAC's know how be they in the air or on the ground.

But it may be that today's aircraft aren't capable of providing effective CAS strafing. The most effective weapons for strafing are 7.62 MG's. .50 Cal HMG's and 20 MM cannons. Not 20 MM, 25 MM, or 30 MM gatling guns / chain guns.

CAS strafing in a danger close situation can be used with in 50 yards of friendly troops.

The only other weapon that can be used close to friendly troops during a CAS mission is napalm but napalm has been labeled politically incorrect. But you were able to use it with in 115 meters of friendly troops. Any closer there's an oxygen problem and asphyxiation.

 

And what has that got to do with anything I've posted? Do I go around saying things are facts!? Hardly, but your welcome to go and look back if you like and point them out...
...I've noticed you and Mushroom have a habit of explaining offtopic irrelevant things to me, which I think is fine on its own but has no relevance to my point, but some, seemingly like Mushroom, go on from that and use it as some basis to justify saying I don't know what I'm talking about - when I'm not even talking about what they are explaining. Talk about manufacturing ones own drama! LOL.

As I said " I appreciate the conversation's fluidity because it makes it interesting, no one has to answer or agree with my points" - if I was so adamant I was talking about facts then I'd instead be concerned if people didn't agree, which I'm not. Mushroom just got upset in a previous thread and so 'cut up' about it that he says he has ignored me, well good on him, but the fact he still passes judgement about someone he does not know and apparently isnt even reading, all from a single topic of a future conflict between the US and China is pretty hilarious if it wasnt sad.

Of course there is opinion and fact, but there is also reasons why people discuss things on discussion boards, some like to discuss their experiences which are made of opinions and facts and exist as a subjective fact of that person experience, and there are people who like to discuss ideas.... and these also are made up of opinions and facts. Some people shouldnt let their enjoyment of discussing ones experiences blind themselves to the fact other people with more or less experience might not be interested in sharing experiences but rather be discussing ideas instead.

Anyway, the F35 should be at least as good as the FA18 in CAS, I guess the idea is for networking between the ground and air assets to improve the capacity for CAS to occur more quickly at any time or weather without the requirement for running in and being talked onto a target, while increasing the platforms survivability to missile threats.

 

I don't know where people are getting this information about the A-10, but so much of it is wrong.

The A-10 carries Mk-84 (2,000 lb), GBU-10 (Paveway laser guided kit on a mk-84), and the C models carry JDAM's both laser guided and bomb on coordinates. It also carries a lot of smaller stores. A-10 avionics have been upgraded significantly.

Not to pick on you, but so much in this thread about CAS is either wrong or outdated.

 

I don't know who you're addressing but the Mk-84 is not a JDAM, it's a general purpose gravity bomb plus the F-35 carries it's 2,000 lb JDAM internally...
no drag and reduces the radar signature.



The A-10 can carry alot,15,000 lbs...but it slows an already slow aircraft down with the weight and drag created by bombs hung on the pylons.

It is not suitable for a denied access environment.

If we compare it to the A-10 in a permissive environment and hang bombs/missiles from the outer pylons, it can still carry 3.000 lbs. more in it's payload than the A-10.

 

Let's take a look at the B-1B conventional payload...this aircraft is currently used for CAS.



Are we really going to compare the A-10s payload with this?

The A-10 has a big 30mm gun, that's all it is has that differentiates it from any other platform that can carry far more smart bombs...if we keep
it in the inventory only for it's ability to be used as a bomb truck with wings, there are far better platforms for that. What makes it unique for CAS is it's gun and ability to fly low and slow.

While impressive in it's own right, the A-10 payload is miniscule compared to the B-1B and all of is hung on pylons creating lots of drag for an already slow airplane.



It's ability to drop bombs is redundant and in fact it's a detriment to it's flight characteristics and slows down an already slow platform...making it an easier target to hit at higher altitudes beyond low level strafing...JDAMS need to be dropped at higher altitudes...and there are far better platforms that can do this besides the A-10.

The F-35 meanwhile, can carry 5,000 lbs. internally and is better able to penetrate denied access areas because of the reduced radar signature and ability to fly supersonic.

Imagine an A-10 penetrating a denied access area with a 2,000 lb. bomb hanging from it's pylons...cruising at about 345 mph. It's a sitting duck, which is why it's success has been in non-contested airspace.

 

I believe the whole purpose of A2/AD (access denial) is to keep the Navy and ground troops out of an area. No troops to support, no CAS needed.