"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

Which the Typhoon or JSF is perfectly able to carry out with the right munitions. If you need a long loiter COIN/CAS aircraft to use in areas with low anti-aircraft threats, buy the Super Tucano or build something like the AC-25.

- - - Updated - - -

The Air Force operates jamming pods. Any of its aircraft in theory can act as a jammer as needed.

 

The USAF should get out of the CAS business. The DoD's new AirSea battle concept, , is primarily driven by the USN and USAF. This concept calls for the seamless integration of USN and USAF assets so that the two service's aircraft, ships, submarines and space assets all work together, Eventually, if everything goes according to the USAF and USN vision, a USAF E-3 or USN E-D could seamlessly share a common picture with an Aegis cruiser and F-22 or F/A-18 at the same time.

The two services are already working on a next generation data-link to share all that information.

The A-10 would be seriously compromised in contested airspace with any modernized manpad/AAA/SAM threat. It is both low & slow, it's armor is designed to absorb small arms fire not missiles. The aging B-52 inventory of bombers also needs to be replaced as it the B-52 comprises the largest percentage of the bomber inventory. The currenty inventory stands at Active force, 85; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9.

The A-10 Active force, A-10, 72 and OA-10, 72; Reserve, A-10 24 and OA-10, 12; ANG, A-10, 64 and OA-10, 30

Retiring the A-10 inventory with a vertical divestiture, will save on the order of $3 billion dollars over 5 years, money better invested in areas that have a relevance to the core function of the USAF.

Here are the core functions of the USAF

Nuclear Deterrence Operations
Special Operations
Air Superiority
Global Integrated ISR
Space Superiority
Command and Control
Cyberspace Superiority
Personnel Recovery
Global Precision Attack
Building Partnerships (Global)
Rapid Global Mobility
Agile Combat Support (Logistics)

Please tell me where close air support fits in with the USAFs core functions?

It's budget of $140 billion will already be reduced and distancing themselves from the CAS role, what with the war in Afghanistan drawing down, makes absolute sense to me.

The people defending this are not aware of the core functions of the USAF. They are still maintain the mndset that the entire function of the Armed Forces revolves around the guy on the ground with the rifle.

It's an archaic mindset.

Are you aware a cyber attack could cripple the U.S. economy...do you think a Marine with a rifle is going to stop that? The USAF is tasked with cyperspace superiority among it's other functions under the umbrella of the Dept. of Defense.

The budge is finite, divesting itself from an aircraft solely dedicated to close air support makes absolute sense to me. There is no need for a replacement USAF aircraft solely dedicated to close air support. Let the Army and Marines be tasked with that specialty. Existing aircraft in the USAF inventory, including the B-1 bomber, using precision engagement technology can perform CAS if needed. It's already been done in Afghanistan.

 

Good arguments by several people here for the Army and Marines taking over all CAS. They already operate the attack helicopters- the distinction between fixed wing and helo's has always been rather arbitrary- dedicated CAS fixed wings fit within their service better.

That being said- a lot of CAS would likely be carrier launched in smaller skirmishes- Marines flying off of carriers or Navy pilots flying CAS?

 

If the Army or Marines want the A-10, let them have it. It will never operate from a carrier, but it can operate from more austere airfields.

Let the USAF focus on it's core functions, a stronger partnership with the U.S. Navy under the general function of global deterrence, both nuclear and conventional. The mere presence of the U.S. Navy has prevented escalation of wars...a seamless conjuction with the USAF will only strengthen this. The best way to fight a war is to convince the adversary they could never win, thus avoiding it in the first place. There will always be global hotspots that require a dedicated ground force...this is the function of the Marines. They provide their own close air support.

If the U.S. Army wants the A-10
or a dedicated CAS fixed-wing aircraft, let them have it and let it be derived from their budget.

The USAF and USN will handle force projection on the global scale.

 

There's little correlation between the current warfighting strategy and that used during the Vietnam War. Technology has advanced incredibly beyond what we fought with during the debacle in Southeast Asia.

Giving the Marines the CAS role is a definite possibility. The Marines already fly quite aptly from both Navy aircraft carriers and land bases. What will be needed is a better capable aircraft, probably the FA-18E/F.

No it hasn't been a service looking for a mission. The Air Force mission is well defined. Just because strategic bombers are on the outs does not mean they still have some uses.

When a war breaks out, the US Air Force's first two missions are to assist the other branches in establishing a presence in the area and to begin engaging the enemy with the goal of getting control of the airspace. Once we have control of the airspace, we can then begin sending aircraft deep behind enemy lines to prosecute the C4ISR nodes of the enemy to make them blind, deaf, and dumb. While that is going on, the Air Force is assisting our ground troops by providing air support.

For the sake of American tax dollars and sanity, the CAS role needs to remain with the Air Force or be given to the Marine Corps. Helicopters in a hostile environment are rarely survivable and cannot carry the ordnance of a fixed-wing aircraft. If the Army were to look at a fixed-wing aircraft of their own, there are a few bases they could station aircraft at, but there is still the issue of a training and maintenance pipeline, which they would either have to establish themselves, or look at another service branch to furnish for them. In the end, we'd have Army planes using Air Force resources and being trained in the Air Force pipeline. Sounds wasteful to me.

The Air Force isn't giving up the ground-attack mission in its entirety.

Okay, so give the F-16 SFM CBUs....still doesn't address the issue of loiter time. I am a member of an aviation community frequented by numerous Air Force airmen. One of the threads there deals directly with the issue of F-16 vs A-10 loiter time. At high altitudes, the F-16 does have the edge, but no close-air support mission has ever taken place at high altitude.

 

Tons of modern CAS missions have taken place at high altitude. JDAMs, Mavericks, Hellfires, and other PGMs have all been used for CAS missions from high altitude. It's standard procedure in Afghanistan when you have stuff like B-1's doing CAS.

As for loiter time, you don't really need it in a high intensity conflict where you might actually run into tanks, especially when you consider the fact that a single F-16 sortie with SFMs puts down enough guided tank-killing warheads to annihilate a battalion or more of armor.

In a low intensity conflict with zero anti-air threat (for all practical purposes) you don't need an A-10. You need something more like an OV-10. In fact a modern version of the OV-10C (an experimental model mounting an under slung turret with an auto cannon in it) might be the perfect modern CAS/COIN aircraft.

 

Strong and valid points. I wasn't aware that the Bone was doing CAS missions or that they were doing CAS at high altitudes. I didn't fully account for the advance in technology, I admit. I was, in effect, proposing fighting future wars with the last war's doctrine, something I don't support.

 

The tech is really a game changer. I doubt we are ever going to see a conventional conflict between major powers again. Instead we'll see Cold War like conditions with proxy wars (which under 4th generation warfare will look unlike high or low intensity conflict, but rather blend both) and special operations against each other.

For that kind of conflict, anti-aircraft fire is sporadic and traditional COIN aircraft are better suited for CAS. I'll be the first to admit that I'm an OV-10 fanboy, but I'd say that because it really was the best design for a COIN/CAS aircraft ever out out there. It was STOL with true rough field capability, rugged and maintenance light, had a long loiter time and really low stall speed. It even had the ability to carry a small amount of cargo (say enough ammo to re-arm a platoon or so) and could carry a litter in the back or a couple of paratroopers and deploy them.

A modern version with both a pilot and WSO, with modern engines and avionics, a FLIR/long range telescopic sight/laser designator, a turret mounted 30mm Bustmaster II firing HEAB rounds, and the ability to carry PGMs would make it devastating in modern COIN operations.

 

The A-10 is a dead letter. Metal fatigue, like corrosion never sleeps. Every sortie inflicts more damage. Davis-Monthan awaits.

There is a use for a dedicated CAS airplane. AirSea battle concept is being debated, but sooner or later you gotta put boots on the ground and while military tech has come a long way since 1973, infantry war is still infantry war. Infantry war is the “end game” unless you are just ransacking the enemy. AirSea battle is the opening gambit, the meeting engagement.

Oddly enough in the competition that led to adoption of the A-10, its competitors looked a lot like P-51s and A-1s with turboprop engines. (The spec called for an engine that ran on jet fuel as they intended to get away from avgas for reasons of logistic simplification). The twin turbofan arrangement of the A-10 was deeded more survivable. Forty years experience vindicates that, but the turboprop planes were much less expensive.

I do agree that the GAU-8 is no longer needed. The Soviets mega-tank army corroded away in the 90s. A smaller gun with more ammunition would do the CAS mission better. If tanks are encountered hell fires or guided bomblets will do the job. A 20mm gun should do nicely. The DoD has a lot of research data on how to spoof manpad heat seeking missiles. A turbofan engine by its nature cools the exhaust substantially. You could make something that looks a lot like a Warthog that is nearly invisible to heat seekers.

I also agree that the redesigned A-10 replacement should be operated by the Army and Marines. “Flying artillery” is necessary for what they do. While you’re at it, transfer the B-52s and Bones to those services as what they do is dispense JDAMs on targets lit up by the ground-pounders.

A revised A-10 would supplant the F-35B (V/STOL version of the F-35). A V/STOL plane will never be survivable in an environment with true jet fighters about. Not enough thrust and a big infrared signature. Harriers require the most skillful pilots in the world and still have a high accident rate. The overall project cost of the F-35 would be mitigated by deleting the F-35B.

In a nation where defense spending is in question the wisdom of trying to have one plane “do it all” is madness. It’s a sure-fire recipe for big cost overruns. You could build a replacement A-10 (with some refinements) with off-the-shelf components. Yes, it would be a limited plane, but it would do what it does very well and you could equip a whole squadron with these replacements for the cost of a single F-35B.

 

The problem with this is that you are talking about increasing the use of actual explosive munitions, and all of the dangers involved with these. Not only are these considerably more expensive then "dumb bullets", they also pose a risk when it comes to unexploded ordinance (UXO) in the area and collateral damage.

If an A-10 plasters an area with it's 30mm cannon, troops can immediately enter the area safely. When you use any kind of "bomblets" the area is generally declared off-limits until an EOD team can go through the area and destroy any unexploded munitions. Also the actual "bomblets" are not guided, only their delivery system is. And they are scattered over a large area, normally 100 square meters or more (depending on the carrier system).

And they are not real reliable at all against armored vehicles (they rely upon a tank running over them afterwards or hitting the thing directly - and have almost no penetration). You have to be pretty luck to really take tanks out with them. The GRU is a much better way to take out most targets.

 

Craft like the B-52 and even the A-10 can only do CAS from high altitude if the enemy is not danger close to friendly troops.

If you are getting harassing fire from an 82mm mortar 3 miles from the base, a BUFF could probably take it out with little risk to the friendlies. But if they are 300 meters away with a 60mm mortar or RPG-7, the last thing you want to do is call in high altitude air support. For that, you need the precision and eye-on-target abilities of something like the A-10, to precisely take out the enemy with little risk to friendlies.

This is also true if the bad guys are on the outskirts of a civilian area. If you know they are in a bunker in a field 50 meters outside of a village, low altitude CAS can take them out with little risk to the village. High altitude, you have a greatly increased risk of something falling on the village, which we do not want.

 

What is not being discussed at all is the growing threat from manpads. Weapons like the SA-16/24 make hovering to set up a shot or descending for a strafing run much more dangerous. The A-10 worked well in backwater countries like Afghanistan for now but their days are numbered.

The USAF has spent millions modernizing the A-10C variant with programs along the lines of precision engagement and all weather day/night capabilities.

Given the budget constraints there's a choice to be made, either keep investing finite funds to keep old technology modern or invest in new technology, new platforms, better suited for survivability in a modern manpad/AAA/SAM threat environment. I don't think USAF is eager to divest the inventory, they just have limited choices here. It's 40 year old technology....building an airplane around a cannon to kill tanks. You can hang Maverick missiles on an unmanned system these days, and it was the AGM-65 Maverick missile carried by the A-10 that did most of the damage to air threats in Desert Storm. An A-10 pilot that went in "guns a blazing" was more often killed than not, it was the missile salvos fired from the A-10 that took care of the air threats first. An F-15 or other existing aerial platform is capable of using the AGM-65 also.

The war in Afghanistan is winding down, the A-10 does well in backwater countries and environments with benign air theats. It's better to invest in new platforms than constantly upgrade old platforms approaching the end of their useful service life. It's incorrect to assume the USAF is eager to dump the A-10 however, they've spent millions modernizing and extending it's useful service life through at least 2030. You can't acquire new aircraft and simultaneously modernize and extend the old ones. The budget is finite,

 

And that is what I believe should be done, but keep the A-10 until such a system is developed and fielded.

And actually the A-10 has done quite well in regards to SAMs. Of the roughly 70 A-10's in the Gulf War I, over half took light to moderate battle damage, 20 took extensive battle damage (and returned to base), 1 crashed on the runway after taking battle damage, and only 5 were lost in combat.

 

There is a bill in Congress that is attempting to at least delay the retirement of the A-10 beyond 2014. The USAF should get some credit here, they've spent budgeted money keeping the A-10 modernized and extended it's service life thus far. The decision to mothball the inventory probably coincided with the draw down in Afghanistan and budget constraints. An immediate need for a dedicated CAS aircraft isn't on the horizon. What is on the horizon is a shift in geo-political priority towards the Pacific rim where power projection as a deterrent is vital. I don't think China would be as intimidated by 40 year old technology designed to kill tanks as they would a low observable mullti-role fighter aircraft designed to penetrate modern air defense systems. The Cold war is technically over, but I see no reason to stop building or at least modernizing our fleet of ballistic missile submarines. A survivable fleet of ballistic subs, would make any nation think twice. It's money well spent, though on it's surface it may seem unnecessary at the moment. Same applies to USAF assets which seem unnecessary at the moment.

Deterrence is a vital part of the overall strategic plan, would you not agree?
Whether conventional or nuclear...the USN alone, is a deterrent, it's mere presence deters conflict. I don't see the Warthog deterring any conflicts on the same level as a carrier fleet.

 

You can't use an A-10 on a carrier. The wings don't fold so it's not feasible. It's job isn't to deter a war, it's job is to help win one once we are already in it. The A-10 is one of the most well built and reliable warbirds ever built. Talk to a grunt on the ground taking mortar rounds or artillary shells if he doesn't love the sound of the A-10 on the horizon. Sure, the Apache could do it, but 1, it's unreliable, 2 it's slow as snot in winter and 3, it can't carry nearly as much as the A-10 can.

 

A lot of this also depends on where the conflict is, and who it is with.

Thankfully, we have not really faced a major opponent directly since WWII. But that does not mean we will not in the future.
But most of our conflicts over the last 50 years have been ones where we generally dominate the air space. And in those cases, a bird like the A-10 can make a huge difference for the poor sloggers who are stuck on the ground.

Most our military is not "actively deterrent", that is a role that really only falls to the Navy and Air Force. Even our Army and Marines are not a deterrent, because they are a reactionary force (with the exception of the Army in Europe when they had the Pershing II missile). Nobody goes "Oh, I had better not attack the US because they will send the Army after me!" But they do say that about the Air Force and Navy, because they can both be sent in on fairly short notice, and drop nuclear hellfire on their heads.

I also believe we should have both multi-role, as well as specialized aircraft and other assets. I am a strong believer in both diversity, as well ass specialization in all aspects of our military.

 

As you know better than I do, the Marines are a self contained expeditionary fighting force. They may hitch a ride from the Navy but can remain, essentially unsupported, at a global hotspot as a reactionary force. Between the recently activated F-35B STOVL aircraft replacing the Harrier, and the AH-1 SuperCobra, do they need an A-10 also? Afghanistan has been a sustained conflict, and I wouldn't regard that as a hotspot. By now I would hope civilian leaders and the JCS have learned to avoid sustained asymmetrical wars. I don't see an indefinite need to maintain an active inventory of USAF aircraft dedicated solely to CAS. Eventually, through attrition, the A-10 would simply be worn out as an airframe. Even replacing the wings doesn't give it an indefinite extended useful service life. On the books, probably through 2040 is about all the aircraft can offer, that's assuming there isn't another protracted conflict on the order of Afghanistan/Iraq in which the up tempo operations and high rate of sorties will wear them out earlier.

One can look at it, as pulling the plug on the lifeline before the inventory dies of natural causes.

 

History is full of examples of nations 'putting all their eggs in one basket' and losing when that 'basket' let them down.

Since winners write history we will never know all the stories of blunders in preparation.

Remote control drones have their uses as do precision guided munitions, but in a bog league war they might get jammed or spoofed.
Autonomous drones do not have the fine situational discretion a human brings to the table.
Manned aircraft, while having the ever-present danger of aircrew casualties bring situational discretion and are difficult to spoof.
You need all three. There is no reason you cannot build an airframe that would accommodate all three options.

A replacement for the A-10 must have folding wings, catapult readiness, a tailhook, and Cat 3a instrument capability (zero/zero on a flight deck).

A carrier capable A-10 replacement would cost a great deal less than the V/STOL F-35B.

If any of the current fleet of A-10s is airworthy by 2020, I'd be surprised.

 

Hey, guys, there is nothing to worry about. You have an undestructable death mashine, which will do CAS perfectly fine:

Plunder the budget
Dominate the hangar

 

The Sensor Fused Munitions don't work anything like how you described. They are guided, they attack tanks from the top, and they auto-defuse if they don't find a target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

 

This is from a Rand report published in 2005 entitlled:
Beyond Close Air Support
Forging a New Air-Ground Partnership

Source: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG301.pdf

Article from Air Force magazine (April 2012) entitled:

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/April 2012/0412lancer.aspx

"A Lancer's long day"
Bone 21 worked with embattled JTACs to successfully neutralize a hot spot, save numerous lives, and destroy an enemy command post

What's the point of all this?

Divest the A-10 inventory, retire it, and utilize the existing inventory of CAS capable aircraft, including the combat tested B-1B. Put a new multi-role manned bomber on the drawing board, with one of the capabilities being CAS.

 

I agree about the AC-130, it orbits on station with a lot of firepower, but it's a lumbering aircraft that is not suited for daylight operations against a more modernized air threat. Yes, if an air threat is neutralized and an orbiting gunship like the AC-130 is then brought in, it's hard to beat in the CAS role.