I admit I am not an expert on missile technology...but dont we already have ultra-accurate self-guided missiles that can do the same thing?

Making it extremely vulnerable to precision missiles form the other side. Low airspeed + no stealth = flying target.

Laser-guided munitions are accurate enough IMO. They are accurate to what...3 meters? That isnt enough?

The F-series can function as light bombers (The F117 was what I was thinking of, but other F-series planes can fill that role as well). The JSF has air-to-ground capability as well doesnt it? The F-22 was supposed to be a total air superiority fighter.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

If you've got somebody on the ground painting the target with a laser, then there are various bombs, missiles and even artillery rounds that can be used. But otherwise, not really. If the forces are closely engaged, it's very difficult for a missile to tell friend from foe at supersonic speeds. That's why the video images you see come from missile strikes against fixed installations or enemy units moving in the open behind the lines.

An A-10 flies low enough and slow enough that it can use the ground as cover and discriminate targets very well. *Very* useful in a close-quarters fight.

Yes and no. It's a very tough aircraft. And it can loiter out of sight until it makes a gun run. Its design reduces its vulnerability to heat-seaking missiles, and radar-guided missiles have a hard time locking on to a low-flying aircraft. Not only can such missiles be confused by ground clutter, but it takes time -- by which point the A-10 has probably disappeared over the horizon, circling around for another run.

And the A-10 carries Maverick missiles, which are self-guided standoff munitions.

Not if the forces are closely engaged. The problem at that point isn't so much accuracy as target discrimination.

__________________
Man up.

We are discussing close quarters combat, arnt we? If so, that would mean we already have troops on the ground (Infantry, tanks, or both) that can paint a target in the way you describe. Why cant they do that?

If the target is painted, it does not need to. Whoever is doing the painting determines that. The missile simply goes wherever it is pointed. It's speed is irrelevant at that point. Precision bombs dropped from F117's during the gulf war were probably travelling pretty fast.

I know for sure that missiles have been used to destroy tanks. That seems pretty precise to me.

I imagine that would make it vulnerable even to shoulder mounted heat-seeking weapons. Which are cheap and wide spread.

By contrast, an F-22 or JSF is far out of their range, and resistant to heat-tracking weapons in any event.

Not out of BVR range. It has no defense against enemy BVR weapons.

In what way?

Stealth aircraft have adaptations that reduce their IR signature. I have not seen any obvious adaptations on the A10. What am I missing?

Ground forces that are on the scene can paint the target, removing that variable.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Unless things have changed since I was in (always a possibility), it's a communications and equipment issue.

Your average grunt on the ground does not have the training, equipment or radio frequencies to call in ground support like that. It usually takes a FAC (forward air controller) of some sort, usually Air Force or special forces, who has the right kind of marking laser and the ability (and authority) to communicate with the A-10 or its controllers.

Yes. The problem isn't hitting a dot; it's knowing which dot to hit. And in the case of rugged terrain, it's seeing the dot from the air.

The engine exhaust flows over the rear of the plane, reducing and spreading the heat signature. And the plane is tough enough that a single hit, or even multiple hits, usually won't bring it down. It can fly with one engine out and one wing almost entirely torn off.

A-10s provide precision, on-call ground support that JSFs are unlikely to be able to match, either because the JSFs run out of munitions faster, or run out of fuel faster, or are unable to hit as close to friendly forces.

But I know more about A-10s than the JSF. So I could be wrong.

__________________
Man up.

I know that the F-22 can network with other F-22s or with AWACs...how difficult could it be for ground troops (especially tanks) to tap into that network and provide targeting data? I cant be the first one to have considered that.

Targeting lasers are not expensive or bulky. Communication with AWACs could be done real-time.

Multiple sources would reduce that variable. If 4 tanks are targeting the same target from different angles that reduces the "which dot to hit" variable.

If the A10 could see it, why couldnt the guided missile see it? GPS could be used to enhance that data as well...the weapon would not necessarily have to rely only just the laser.

Which is why I said "assuming they are well equipped" in my initial quote.

If they are flying from carriers or nearby bases, those variables are reduced or removed.

JSFs were not designed for ground support roles as far as I know. But I dont see why they would not be capable of filling those roles. The fact that they can also be used for air superiority makes them far more versitile than the A10 IMO. They can do the A10's job a lot better than the A10 can do their job.

The JSF should be able to do whatever the F117 can do as far as ground support. The F117 should be able to accomplish all the same things I just described.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Nope, you're not. It's been a known problem for decades. Doesn't mean it's easy to solve.

Three major issues:

1. Frequencies. The Air Force operates on different radio frequencies than the ground-pounders both because they have different communication needs and to avoid stepping on each other's transmissions. So to communicate with the Air Force, somebody on the ground needs a special radio.

2. Authorization and training. Calling in an air strike is not something you want every Snuffy in the line to be able to do. And it takes training -- in operating the laser, in the proper radio procedure, etc.

3. Interservice rivalry. Pilots don't like being ordered around by grunts, who they view as more than willing to see a plane shot down if it means less risk for those on the ground. Grunts tend to trust artillery more than planes, because planes are flown by scaredy-cat prima-donnas with itchy trigger fingers.

Maybe they can. But multirole aircraft like the JSF tend to do a lot of things pretty well, while speciality craft like the A-10 do one thing very, very well. From a logistics point of view, things like the JSF make sense. From a ground effects point of view, it's less clear.

__________________
Man up.

Raytri and the BANDIT wote: SmilingBandit wrote (View Post):
As for replacing my beloved A-10...NEVER. You haven't lived until you've seen a GAU-8 30mm depleted uranium shower turn a tank into shredded wheat. The thing can out-turn an F-16, completely lose one engine, carry 16,000 lbs. of mixed ordinance, and the pilot sits in a bathtub or armor capable of stopping 57mm rounds. NOTHING is comparable to the Warthog as a ground pounder. Long live the hog !!


As an ex-tanker, let me add "Amen." The Warthog may be an unloved stepchild to the Air Force, but I'll take one over a Strike Eagle any day. And I'm dubious that the JSF has the same ground-support capability, given its multimission design.
_________________

There is no dought that the A-10 the best at ground support but that is what it was very specifically designed for. It was designed for the European theatre and specifically to bust Soviet designed tanks. The funny thing is that it did not get to kill the little Commie buggers/Soviets buut it did the next best thing - it killed Soviet designed tanks and Soviet/Russian trained Iraqi's.

The AIR FORCE is getting the A-35 ground support varient of the JSF. No it is not designed with the narrow job description that the A-10 was but it will do well.

I think that the A-35 will do well when and if called upon. It will rely on missles to kill tanks. I believe that it still has guns but I also believe that Ray is correct that the ammo load is no where near that of the Wart Hog.

Does anyone know if there are any knicknames for the JSF ? Maybe each service that has it's varient will come up with it's own knickname.

The Air Force/ Navy may have to help the JARHEADS spell out their knickname .

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"

This should help the marines.... THIS SIDE UP /\

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

How is calling for help from an A10 any different? Why not use the same procedure?

This has been one of my few criticisms of the military. I dont know of a solution except for training. It really needs to be emphasized...IMO....that they are all on the same side. The Marines are not their own nation. The Army is not it's own nation. They are parts of a whole.

I really dont understand why the higher ups havnt corrected this behavior by now. I dont understand why they tolerate it. It cant possibly contribute to efficiency on the actual battlefield.

Why? Swapping frequencies cant be that big a deal. there are already commercial products available that can communicate on that level. And someone has a radio that seems to call for A10 support just fine....maybe they can use that one.

If a commercial cell phone can communicate with a satellite full duplex, I dont see what the big deal is.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Yeah, I always thought it was odd that it was never given an actual name like "Nighthawk" or "Eagle".

The "Raptor" is probably the coolest sounding name I have ever heard given to a plane.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page