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

It's not impossible, it's impossible for our current way of thinking.

We need another "Jet" age breakthrough but this time we need to advance one step farther.

I believe it's time we begin researching magnetic fields for flight capabilities. Tesla's idea would be perfect for it.

 

Hell, even an A-10 puts a Predator to shame.

A Predator carries into combat 2 Hellfire missiles (100 pounds each) on 2 hardpoints, and that is all.

An A-10 has 1,174 rounds of 30mm cannon, and 11 hardpoints that can carry 16,000 pounds of ordinance. In missiles, that is 66 Maverick missiles, at 550 pounds each.

Or with another loadout, that is 66 Zuni rockets.

So in missiles alone, that is what, over 120 Predator drones to replace a single A-10 (and with missiles about 1/5 the power of those on an A-10)?

And people really think that drones can replace CAS aircraft? Shows how little they know about the subject.

 

Why are you talking about the Iowa class!? You don't use CAS to destroy a large number of enemy ground units dispersed in an area from any platform... so unsure where your going with that.

But if you were replying to my post you quoted, about the UCAVs, they've been trialling swarming of UAV's, and CAS stacks would be easy to pool them for tasking. They just need to be quicker, have better sensors, and drop SDB's instead of guided rockets. It's not about the size of the bang these days to compensate for inaccuracy, its about accurate placement of enough bang to do the job and no more.

 

CAS has been used against dispersed enemy troops hundreds if not thousand of times. The 2.75" FFAR (Mighty Mouse) was a very effective weapon for enemy troops that were dispersed in a large area, especially those rockets that were armed with the WDU-4 A/A warhead.
Not sure if the WDU-4 A/A has been designated as being obsolete, in layman terms, "politically incorrect."

This is when it took a good FAC on the ground communicating with the pilot talking him on to the target and telling the pilot at what dive angle and at what altitude to fire the rockets.

The CBU's (cluster bombs) were probably the most effective anti personnel ordnance. The CBU-24 had a pattern size of 530 X 530 meters. The CBU-24 not to be used in a "danger close" situation, never, never.
But the CBU 14, 25, 33, 42 and 46 were the most common and had a pattern size of 30 X 400 meters.

Interesting that the A-1 Skyraider was the only aircraft that was capable of delivering a CBU while in a dive where as all other aircraft normally in a 30 degree glide.

Are we even allowed to use submunition bombs today ? I thought the political left were calling cluster bombs politically incorrect ?


But the most common bombs were the good old 500 lb. MK 82. The Marines also used the 250 lb. MK 81.
But the USAF loved their 750 lb. MK 117 but I understand they are no longer in inventory, I think they were all used up during the first Gulf war (89-90)

It use to be if you needed fire support, you called for artillery or naval gunfire. Close air support was used as the last resort, if the pilot isn't good at it and there's isn't FAC on the ground, friendlies always seem to bleed and die unnecessarily.

 

Yea for point effect, not area effect. Larger formations would have a tendency to have organic air defense and can be planned against accordingly. The CAS is limited to the specific targetting in support of ground maneuver on an adhoc basis. Munitions these days and going forward are less about spray and pray but point and pound.

 

Re drones' abilities to discriminate between targets and friendlies, this tech roadblock is already being worked on, and some is already on the commercial markets, as a matter of fact; they're used for marketing data and studies. Equipment, uniforms, and yes, people, can be micro-chipped and battlefields can be area scanned and with fast enough computers and data transfers they can actually reduce friendly fire casualties. Even shells fired from grenade launchers can spread chips over a target flechette or shotgun style, for that matter, all over a hidden enemy position, for targeting that way. There are all kinds of tactical possibilities out there with current tech.

Of course, this will create countermeasures and the like, and yet another race begins, but that has been the nature of war and defense since somebody learned to sharpen a stick or chip out an arrowhead, so we're used to it. Or should be, anyway.

And yes, I don't doubt there will some geniuses who will find very creative ways to royally screw up anything, but that's another thread.

 

That may have been true in Iraq and Afghanistan, both low intensity wars, an enemy that doesn't have a real army, air force and navy.

I seriously doubt that Russia or the chi-coms plan to fight a low intensity war. Scuttlebutt is that Russia using electronic warfare was able to defeat the U.S. Navy's Aegis system in the Black Sea. The Chi-coms believe that the U.S. military has become so dependent on technology that if we loose that technology we can't fight. Some years ago an Army general while testifying before Congress concured that the Army has become to dependent on technology and if that techonology is compromised on the battlefield, we are in trouble.

Also the Marine Corps uses CAS differently than the Army, Marines use CAS like artillery. Also the U.S. Army calls for fire support when Marines normally wouldn't.
Back in 1970 my spot team along with a FAC team were attached to a Army infantry company of the Americal Div. The Army Captain requested a CAS mission. I remember the Marine FAC who was an F-4 pilot and a Captain looking at me with a strange expression on his face then says "Why" ?

During the battle for Saipan during WW ll, General "Howland" Smith, USMC was the only Marine to command an entire Army, he fired the Army's 27th Div. CG, Maj. Gen. Ralph Smith on the battlefield because he was using to much artillery, being to cautious and moving to damn slow.

 

No matter what people say, I will ALWAYS be a fan of the A-10, and hopefully, someday, I'll have the chance to purchase one.

I am still of the opinion that it is a beast of aeronautics, ugly to the point of beauty, and unrivaled in its ability to be devastating in combat.

If one came on the private market, I sure as hell would get my pilots licence just so that I could fly that plane to business meetings.

 

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=38679

 

The biggest problem I keep seeing here is that so many do not seem to havce ever hears the old line that "the surest way to loose the next war is to plan to refight the last war".

And most of these "armchair generals" can not even begin to descrivbe how tactically the 1990 Iraq Qar was different then the 2003 Iraq War, or how neither of them was like the Afghan War. To them, a war is a war and obviously they are all fought thhe exact same way.

And obviously they just assume any future war will be fought the exact same way, no matter who it is with.

This is the type of thing that seperates the experts from the amateurs, and why I generally dismiss such things they say as completely ignorant and not worth talking about.

 

It's not at all what I was suggesting, as CAS its not scenario dependent, its shaped by the procedure of its application. Sure the procedure has some room to shape engagement for various reasons, but it does not change it from a point effect to an area effect... besides the weapon being employed.

In higher intensity warfare CAS is going to be most useful in supporting mechanized or armored maneuver, and that is an environment where UCAV's will be much more useful then an A10. Dismounted ground formations would be better supported by indirect fires. The A10 was ideal for its time, but its not the best solution these days with SAM proliferation, not to mention energy weapons coming on stream over the next decade.

 

I'm curious if we are on the same page ? I know many including those in the military confuse "Close Air Support" (CAS) with "Interdiction Air Strikes" and there's also "Deep Air Strikes" (DAS) that are behind the enemy lines.

If I was occupying an OP on top of a hill and observed an enemy rifle company two or three miles away and called for an air strike, it's not a CAS mission.

Coming across a target of opportunity that isn't a threat or would hamper the forward movement of a grunt unit and calling in a air strike on that target isn't a CAS mission even though someone on the ground is telling the aircraft exactly where and what the target is.

A rifle platoon comes up against enemy troops that are over whelming in fire power or are dug in and it brings the advancement of the rifle platoon to a stop, that the platoon weapons can't destroy the enemy, then you call for either armor or artillery. If it's enemy bunkers etc. not even artillery may not be able to eliminate the target and naval gunfire my be needed. If there is no artillery or NGF available, then you call in for a CAS mission.

In a CAS mission, the person on the ground is in charge where the ordnance will be dropped, not the pilot. This is why only FAC's should be in charge of calling in and directing a CAS mission. (FAC's are pilots who are attached to grunt units.)

Usually friendlies are with in "danger close" to the target, usually with in rifle range.

The best CAS ordnance when friendly troops were danger close and I mean real close to the target was napalm. It could be used with in 115 meters of friendly troops who were in the open with no protection. As we know, napalm today isn't PC.

Where as the 500 lb. MK-82 (low drag bomb) could be used with in 225 meters if the friendly troops had protection like a fighting hole or something to hide behind. If the friendlies have no protection, then it's 700 meters.

There is something better than napalm, 7.62, .50 cal. MG's and 20 MM cannon fire and can be used with in 45 meters of friendly troops. The best guns and cannons for strafing are the .50 cal and 20 MM not the 25 MM or 30 MM. Those two cannons are for using on armor not enemy ground troops.

Another thing about CAS, all artillery missions have to cease firing while CAS missions are being conducted. You can't call in an air strike if some rifle platoon is three miles away on your flank engaged in a fire fight and are calling in an artillery mission. You don't want our 155's knocking any of our aircraft out of the sky.

It's the job of the FAC on the ground to talk the aircraft on to the target and after the aircraft has released it's weapons it's the FAC who directs the aircraft out of the area, telling the aircraft pilot what altitude to maintain or to achieve and what direction to go and when to vector into that direction.

 

Seemingly. Why do you think we are not?

 

When you posted

Usually most air strikes supporting "mechanized / armor" maneuver are attack aircraft picking out targets to engage and they aren't under direct control of a FAC team or a JTAC teams. This is when an Air Force A-10 or F-16 pilot sees an M-1 Abrams tank and thinks it's a Russian made tank or sees a Bradley IFV and thinks it's a Russian made IFV.

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable around a JTAC, prefer a Marine FAC with a Marine pilot in the cockpit of the aircraft.

Good read below.

My final opinion, we can't afford to go to war using technology. It's to freaking expensive.

 

The whole program is a complete (*)(*)(*)(*)ing disaster. The state is terrible at anything to do with R&D. They should have all their departments instantly abolished/defunded.

 

The defense industry are like today's construction contractors. They bid on a job and leave out things on purpose so they are a low bidder knowing that change orders will be made down the road for what was intentionally left out and this is where they start making a big profit.

Remember the movie "The Pentagon Wars" staring Kelsey Grammer ? A story based upon the development of the Army's Bradley fighting vehicle.
It was a funny movie based on the truth.

Excerpts:

 

Most of the posters in here obviously have absolutely no expereince in this area, it is all personal belief based upon zero experience.

Most aircraft engage what is called "targets of opportunity". CAS and CAP are unique in that they are generally the only air combat missions who's only job is basically to linger up in the air and make circles until either a target comes in range, or they are directed to a target that comes up while they are flying.

Probably 90% of missions of any aircraft from a B-1 or B-52 to an F-15, F-18, or all the others generally are as follows:

"You take off from this air base at this time, then fly in this direction until you reach this location. You will destroy any targets on the air/ground you find there, then return to the starting point."

CAS/CAP is exceptional, because thir missions are generally as follows:

"You take off from this air base/carrier, and then fly in circles in this location. You will fly in circles endlessly until AWAC/Ground Controllers tell you to fly to a certain location and engage a target of their choosing. You will then return to flying circles at the original location until you need to retun for more fuel-ordinance".

And it is painfully obvious to me that they really have no idea about air defense, because almost every time they mention it it is immediately obvious to me they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

You introduced high intensity conflicts I think, so I was responding about that.... where you'd likely have FAC/A guys doing trying to do SCAR but getting dragged into the 'high intensity' complex ground engagements by ground units calling in support requests. Your 'high intensity' conflict I'm apparently not talking about means the BAI gets put on the back shelf due to that high intensity. Im not sure why I'm defending myself as nothing is sticking so far.... it doesnt really reflect on my point though, that CAS is a point effect and not an area effect, therefore the UCAV with SDB's etc would be more useful in CAS then an A10, mostly because they are expendable but can be stacked up in greater numbers.

So you keep saying to yourself.

 

High intensity wars like WW l and WW ll. The Vietnam War was both low intensity and high intensity all depending where you were. There were battles and fire fights comparable to those during WW ll and others that were comparable to playing cowboy and Indians except it was for real. Vietnam was a war that should have been fought as a small war but was fought as a major war.

Both the Iraq war and Afghanistan war had extremely low casualties rates. More American soldiers and Marines were killed during the Philippine Insurrection than in Iraq. But look at the cost of those wars in money. Why spend $20,000 to kill some guy with an AK-47 when a .25 cent bullet could accomplish the same thing ? I don't think that's fighting a war smart. It was the logistical problems that made the war in Afghanistan so damn expensive along with spending thousands just to kill some low level Taliban fighter.

UAV's are being brought down by Russian EW technology. UAV's also have a very high crash rate compared to manned aircraft.
But I think it will be the Hague that that will keep armed UAV's from being used in combat in the future. Napalm will have had a longer history being used in war than armed UAV's will.

 

Damn, I missed that auction. But it was just parts, not the airframe, or avionics.

 

Sure, why use an A10 either...... but I'm seeing your answer's arent really related to my posts now, carry on.

Because its new and emerging tech still pretty much in development, or because the the concept if flawed.

Unlikely, they might do that for pilotless UCAV's though, but no-one was talking about that.

 

Not to interrupt you pretty little discussion, but the first strike UAV dates back to the 50-th.

 

OK, since you quoted a specific section, what experience do you have in Air Defense?

Were you a 14S? Or a 14J? or a 7212? 14T? 14E? So tell me, what kind of relevant military experience do you have that will let us know that you can indeed make informed comments on military air defense matters?

And I mean informed comments, not simply talking out of your ass.

 

There are an intermix of sortie types OCA, DCA, CAS, SEAD, INT, AM, etc.; and as the A-10 is not particularly fast, (cruising speed of about 345 mph), it's not well suited for anything but CAS.

Keeping it in the active inventory through 2020, would cost $4.2 Billion and the USAF is priced out of that game. No room in the budget for it.

CAS is a mission, not a platform. The USAF has flown an average of 20,000 CAS related sorties (response to troops in contact) a year over the last seven years. The A-10 being involved in about 20% of the these.

It's misinformation to conclude the USAF is abandoning the CAS mission, it is abandoning a platform...not the mission. A single mission platform, among many types of missions the USAF is involved with.

Why should CAS take precedence over all the other sortie types...we've fought our last few wars in permissive airspace and the idea of a fight against a near peer has become academic. Many USAF combat units are not prepared to fight the high end game, and skills for penetrating enemy airspace and attacking the most protected targets have atrophied.

To conclude...to proclaim only the A-10 guys can do CAS has no merit in reality; and even with the acknowledgement of the A-10 as the best platform for CAS...CAS is not the only mission. The USAF cannot afford single mission platforms with a shrinking budget and aging aircraft.

 

Then we had better dump all the heavy bombers and air to air aircraft as well, because those are also largely single mission platforms.

And the tankers and AWAC, also single mission (and not even attack missions of any kind).