Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?

marauder2048 said:
I did read your entire post but couldn't do so with a straight face after this...

For the sake of argument, let's say that particular point I made was invalid. Does that make my other points invalid? The line of logic you imply here is flawed.

IOW, the same diminishing manufacturing sources/parts obsolesce issues that have plagued every defense program since the global defense market share of semiconductor production went from 60% in the 1960's to less than 0.05% (and that's a high estimate) today.

The question is to what degree. This argument uses the same pattern as the "cost overrun? Well, what other programs that don't also experience cost overrun" and as such, is similarly flawed.
 
donnage99 said:
He said it's excessively over-priced. This is correct. The whole premise behind the f-35 is affordability. That's why all the 3 branches accept performance trade-offs. However, this premise is now moot, as the f-35 will not meet its affordability of costing less than a 4th generation aircraft, providing an affordable pathway toward sufficiently replacing the entire fighter fleet. This was reported by the Pentagon.

Excuse me? The point of commonality is because it would be cheaper than going with three seperate designs. Show me the reports that indicate that has failed. As for "costing less than a 4th gen aircraft" show me where that was ever a requirement.


donnage99 said:
He said it's excessively over-dued. That's fact. It's a decade behind initial schedule.

A fighter aircraft behind schedule? Shocker. I know, let's cancel it and start over. That will surely lead to a better aircraft on the ramp at lower price sooner.

donnage99 said:
So behind, that many of the original equipments are outdated and need upgrades before the aircraft even goes operational, further adding to the delays.

If it had gone into service on time you'd have the exact same problem. You'd just have more aircraft to upgrade.


donnage99 said:
And operation dates are pretty much a political move as this point. It's public information that this the aircraft will lack core capabilities that make it mission relevant when it's declared operational. This has also been reported by the government.

You mean like the F-16 did when it went into service (no BVR, no night attack capability, no ability to designate LGBs, etc.) or the F-14 (interim engine)? Like that?


donnage99 said:
He said it's a maintenance hog. This is also fact. The pentagon reported that the initial requirement for maintenance of the aircraft. It was supposed to cost less than a 4th gen aircraft. But the Pentagon admitted that it will cost significant more.

Show me where.

donnage99 said:
In fact, the Marines have to abandon a core requirement of their air power doctrine with the f-35, it will not be able to operate at foward base nor will its fly per hour cost will permit it to provide sufficient support for soldiers on the ground.

Show me where they said that. In fact, "Lieutenant General Davis: We must be prepared to go aboard a ship, forward deploy with that ship and then flow those sea base-able assets ashore to operate in an expeditionary location against a powerful first rate adversary.We will need to move – back and forth from our sea base to expeditionary bases ashore.
We will do this to maximize our combat power and ability to support Marine forces ashore – and support them in a fight against and foe in any threat condition."
http://www.sldinfo.com/lieutenant-general-davis-on-the-usmc-and-the-f-35-preparing-for-2015/

"28 April 2014: Flight test missions to certify that F-35B can be used with AM-2 matting began with BF-1 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. BAE test pilot Peter Wilson performed a series of vertical landings for expeditionary operations for these initial tests. AM-2 matting is a portable metal matting used by the US Marines for rapid deployments of aircraft on rough field conditions. While vertical takeoffs and landings at Patuxent River and other operating locations typically take place on AM-2 matting, these particular tests involve the matting placed on soft soil conditions."


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/t50_gallery_slideshow.html?b2a2e6500aab13c66c659954c36c1c6a=1&gallery_id=190&gallery_style=3

Doesn't sound like they're "giving it up" to me.

donnage99 said:
I think you have to get pass the emotional sides of things and see the difference between people who think that this plane, as a fighting machine, is a failure and people who see the PROGRAM, not necessarily the plane, as a failure. The former is unsupported opinion, while the latter is just admitting fact.

The program is not a failure. That is obvious. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Definitely. Like I said, you seem to be bent on painting some horrifically unique picture here, when the reality is, considering what they're doing (replacing 3 types of aircraft with 3 different takeoff and recovery modes), the scope should surprise absolutely nobody. [/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
 
I would be very interested in seeing the results of the United States Marine Corps/DARPA Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) program. How the MV-22 Osprey performs as a CAS platform equipped with AGM-176 Griffin missiles with troops equipped with tablet computers.
 
donnage99 said:
marauder2048 said:
I did read your entire post but couldn't do so with a straight face after this...

For the sake of argument, let's say that particular point I made was invalid. Does that make my other points invalid? The line of logic you imply here is flawed.

IOW, the same diminishing manufacturing sources/parts obsolesce issues that have plagued every defense program since the global defense market share of semiconductor production went from 60% in the 1960's to less than 0.05% (and that's a high estimate) today.

The question is to what degree. This argument uses the same pattern as the "cost overrun? Well, what other programs that don't also experience cost overrun" and as such, is similarly flawed.

Alleging flaws in logic after masterfully using one logical fallacy (a truism) as an implication of another logical fallacy ("weasel words") and then compounding it by invoking a straw man ("cost overrun" which I didn't even mention) is truly breathtaking.
 
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.
 
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)

And when the F-35 is to be the CAS replacement it falls squarely into the 'continuing' relevance part of the debate IMHO.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)

And when the F-35 is to be the CAS replacement it falls squarely into the 'continuing' relevance part of the debate IMHO.

Where is it written that the F-35 will be THE CAS replacement? F-15s, F-16s, and Hornets are doing CAS right now. Where is the complaint about that? Where are all the reports saying what a lousy job of it they're doing? There aren't any. Why not? Hmmmm.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)

And when the F-35 is to be the CAS replacement it falls squarely into the 'continuing' relevance part of the debate IMHO.

Where is it written that the F-35 will be THE CAS replacement? F-15s, F-16s, and Hornets are doing CAS right now. Where is the complaint about that? Where are all the reports saying what a lousy job of it they're doing? There aren't any. Why not? Hmmmm.
No I'm in full agreement with you I am just saying that is 'part' of the discussion about the A-10.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)

And when the F-35 is to be the CAS replacement it falls squarely into the 'continuing' relevance part of the debate IMHO.

Where is it written that the F-35 will be THE CAS replacement? F-15s, F-16s, and Hornets are doing CAS right now. Where is the complaint about that? Where are all the reports saying what a lousy job of it they're doing? There aren't any. Why not? Hmmmm.
No I'm in full agreement with you I am just saying that is 'part' of the discussion about the A-10.

Yeah but we both know, as soon as somebody says "F-35", what's going to happen. (As Pioneer so aptly demonstrated with his post.)
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)

And when the F-35 is to be the CAS replacement it falls squarely into the 'continuing' relevance part of the debate IMHO.

Where is it written that the F-35 will be THE CAS replacement? F-15s, F-16s, and Hornets are doing CAS right now. Where is the complaint about that? Where are all the reports saying what a lousy job of it they're doing? There aren't any. Why not? Hmmmm.
No I'm in full agreement with you I am just saying that is 'part' of the discussion about the A-10.

Yeah but we both know, as soon as somebody says "F-35", what's going to happen. (As Pioneer so aptly demonstrated with his post.)

Interesting article makes many point you've made over the years.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/05/the-a-10-the-f-35-and-the-future-of-close-air-support-part-ii/?singlepage=1
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)

And when the F-35 is to be the CAS replacement it falls squarely into the 'continuing' relevance part of the debate IMHO.

Where is it written that the F-35 will be THE CAS replacement? F-15s, F-16s, and Hornets are doing CAS right now. Where is the complaint about that? Where are all the reports saying what a lousy job of it they're doing? There aren't any. Why not? Hmmmm.
No I'm in full agreement with you I am just saying that is 'part' of the discussion about the A-10.

Yeah but we both know, as soon as somebody says "F-35", what's going to happen. (As Pioneer so aptly demonstrated with his post.)

Probably best therefore to steer a wide margin around it. :-\
 
http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-future-of-close-air-support-is-not-what-the-air-force-thinks/?singlepage=1
 
bobbymike said:
http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-future-of-close-air-support-is-not-what-the-air-force-thinks/?singlepage=1


From an A-10 pilot on his combat experience against ISIS.

A-10s pilots are trained to find a target, seek verification and do on-the-fly targeting and strike. While that sounds like a solo operation, Stohler says "the coalition flying up there is enormous and we work as a team."

Targets can be spotted by A-10s or other aircraft, Predator drones, satellites or by "someone with binoculars on the ground," he says. Almost all targets get vetted up to higher command to determine validity. "As you can imagine this is complex," Stohler says.

Various factors dictate which platform is used to strike based on intelligence, available resources and other factors. Even if a Daesh target is verified, the decision might be to delay attack until the situation develops. Some A-10 fly in direct support of Iraqi or other ground forces fighting Daesh. On other missions A-10s "are just told to go look at something and, sure enough, we find bad guys there."

It doesn't sound that some of the main A-10 features that the piece above lauds have much tactical
utility given the ROE that are likely to prevail.
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
In which for some reason a thread about the A-10 turns into yet retread of the F-35 debate.

You can thank Pioneer. (Post 186.)

Gee thanks Flyaway ;)

And when the F-35 is to be the CAS replacement it falls squarely into the 'continuing' relevance part of the debate IMHO.

Where is it written that the F-35 will be THE CAS replacement? F-15s, F-16s, and Hornets are doing CAS right now. Where is the complaint about that? Where are all the reports saying what a lousy job of it they're doing? There aren't any. Why not? Hmmmm.
No I'm in full agreement with you I am just saying that is 'part' of the discussion about the A-10.

Yeah but we both know, as soon as somebody says "F-35", what's going to happen. (As Pioneer so aptly demonstrated with his post.)

Probably best therefore to steer a wide margin around it. :-\
 
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/07/11/marine-pilots-complete-f-35b-first-operational-bomb-runs/29926301/

The aircraft dropped two legacy munitions currently used by F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier pilots: the laser-guided 500-pound Guided Bomb Unit 12 and the GPS-guided 1,000-pound GBU-32. But the new fighter jet far outperformed older aircraft in its ability to deliver GBU-32 munitions in obscured conditions.

"In extreme weather conditions or dirty battlefield conditions, the F-35 still has the ability to target munitions for the guy on the ground with the same warheads legacy aircraft carry today," Trent said.

The key to that new capability is the F-35's synthetic aperture radar, which allows it to paint a three-dimensional map of the ground. That offers pilots enough detail to deliver bombs even in little or no visibility
 
bobbymike said:
The key to that new capability is the F-35's synthetic aperture radar, which allows it to paint a three-dimensional map of the ground. That offers pilots enough detail to deliver bombs even in little or no visibility


Bah! Won't beat the ol' Mk1 eyeball... ;)
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/07/11/marine-pilots-complete-f-35b-first-operational-bomb-runs/29926301/

The aircraft dropped two legacy munitions currently used by F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier pilots: the laser-guided 500-pound Guided Bomb Unit 12 and the GPS-guided 1,000-pound GBU-32. But the new fighter jet far outperformed older aircraft in its ability to deliver GBU-32 munitions in obscured conditions.

"In extreme weather conditions or dirty battlefield conditions, the F-35 still has the ability to target munitions for the guy on the ground with the same warheads legacy aircraft carry today," Trent said.

The key to that new capability is the F-35's synthetic aperture radar, which allows it to paint a three-dimensional map of the ground. That offers pilots enough detail to deliver bombs even in little or no visibility


The problem is the capability for the cost. The A-10 costs much less to operate per hour than the F-35 and the idea that it will be able to do what the A-10 does is nonsense. The F-35 can't do what the A-10 can do and the A-10 can't do what the F-35 can do. The problem is, as was posted by I think quellish, there are three different variations of CAS, and supporters and detractors alike keep conflating them.
 
Sundog said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/07/11/marine-pilots-complete-f-35b-first-operational-bomb-runs/29926301/

The aircraft dropped two legacy munitions currently used by F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier pilots: the laser-guided 500-pound Guided Bomb Unit 12 and the GPS-guided 1,000-pound GBU-32. But the new fighter jet far outperformed older aircraft in its ability to deliver GBU-32 munitions in obscured conditions.

"In extreme weather conditions or dirty battlefield conditions, the F-35 still has the ability to target munitions for the guy on the ground with the same warheads legacy aircraft carry today," Trent said.

The key to that new capability is the F-35's synthetic aperture radar, which allows it to paint a three-dimensional map of the ground. That offers pilots enough detail to deliver bombs even in little or no visibility


The problem is the capability for the cost. The A-10 costs much less to operate per hour than the F-35 and the idea that it will be able to do what the A-10 does is nonsense. The F-35 can't do what the A-10 can do and the A-10 can't do what the F-35 can do. The problem is, as was posted by I think quellish, there are three different variations of CAS, and supporters and detractors alike keep conflating them.
It would be interesting if the bombing surveys in Gulf War I, II and Afghanistan kept track of (I'm guessing they do I've never read one personally) sorties by the A-10 and other aircraft where bombs were not dropped due to the target being obscured by dust, fog, smoke, blowing sand, etc. and analyse how many of these missions could have been fulfilled by the F-35 with the SAR capability.
 
bobbymike said:
It would be interesting if the bombing surveys in Gulf War I, II and Afghanistan kept track of (I'm guessing they do I've never read one personally) sorties by the A-10 and other aircraft where bombs were not dropped due to the target being obscured by dust, fog, smoke, blowing sand, etc. and analyse how many of these missions could have been fulfilled by the F-35 with the SAR capability.


A-10s Over Kosovo might give you a good picture of that. http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0090_haave_haun_a10s_over_kosovo.pdf
 
Jeb said:
bobbymike said:
It would be interesting if the bombing surveys in Gulf War I, II and Afghanistan kept track of (I'm guessing they do I've never read one personally) sorties by the A-10 and other aircraft where bombs were not dropped due to the target being obscured by dust, fog, smoke, blowing sand, etc. and analyse how many of these missions could have been fulfilled by the F-35 with the SAR capability.


A-10s Over Kosovo might give you a good picture of that. http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0090_haave_haun_a10s_over_kosovo.pdf

Thanks for sharing. It's interesting but marred a bit by the "crimes against humanity" verbiage that was fashionable at the time.
Looks like the A-10s spent most of their time dropping CBUs, Mk-82s and firing Mavs with the occasional gun run.

The lack of an air-to-air radar was a real liability though that's hardly news given the number of formation rejoin collisions that have happened over the years.
 
A-10 replacement? USAF strategy calls for 'future CAS platform

A new strategy document released by US Air Combat Command points to the development of a future close-air-support platform as the service pushes to retire the long-serving Fairchild Republic A-10 – its primary close-in attack airplane used to protect ground troops.

Here's the article.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a-10-replacement-usaf-strategy-calls-for-39future-cas-415639/

Here's the document.

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150810-026.pdf
 
Someone more cynical than myself would say that claiming to be developing or even studying a future CAS platform would be a convenient way of shutting down critics and quietly move the A-10 to the boneyard.


But if it's indeed true, i applaud the initiative. I believe there is room for a CAS platform below the F-35 for low-threat scenarios, helped by international orders for countries that don't need/can't afford the F-35.
 
I would think with upcoming technology you could incorporate things such as self healing skin or active camouflage, all useful for a CAS platform.
 
If the Pentagon were really serious about a relatively low-cost CAS platform, they could do a lot worse than going back to the Vought Blitzfighter concept.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9179.0

http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/art/Vought-VB-100-Blitzfighter-296126107

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/close-air-support-fighter-proposal/

In a modern context in which tank-killing is not the primary concern, the gun could be reduced from a proposed 4-barrel version of the A-10's GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm monster to something much lighter, say a 3-barrel 20mm gun for general purpose use. The A-10 gun and a full 1,350 round ammunition load weigh over 2,700 lb, whereas a light gun with less ammunition could weight less than half that. Add rocket pods and a modest load of dumb and smart munitions and you've got a modern mudfighter.
 
After all the arguments that have been extended by the Air Force over the years to retire the A-10, it just doesn't make sense that the service would want to develop a next-generation low-threat environment CAS platform. What sort of mission creep will there be in the new A-X wishlist? LO, supersonic, situational awareness, multi-role?
 
"Commentary: How to settle the A-10 retirement standoff"
By John Michael Loh, Special to Military Times 10:20 a.m. EDT August 16, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/opinion/2015/08/16/commentary-how-settle--10-retirement-standoff/31717367/

The best way to resolve the A-10 retirement debate is to satisfy both sides with a solution that eliminates the operational and economic arguments driving it.

The primary vocal critics of the Air Force decision to retire the A-10 close-support aircraft are Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and freshman Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz. All three have strong ties to the A-10. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, is home to the largest A-10 base. Closure of the base would have serious economic impact. Ayotte’s husband is a former A-10 pilot. McSally flew A-10s in the Air Force.

The Air Force has presented strong operational arguments defending the retirement of the A-10: Other aircraft perform the A-10’s close-support mission today with the same effectiveness, and more survivability. The A-10 can only perform close support whereas other aircraft can perform close support and other missions, thus offering more value in a smaller Air Force. And with today’s precision weapons and automation, pilots can train for both close support and other roles without sacrificing effectiveness.

Former A-10 pilots argue from an emotional point of view citing personal experiences. With the strong support of McCain, Ayotte and McSally, they have organized a support group and congressional contingent advocating retention.

But they have been unable to shoot down the rationale the Air Force puts forth in defense of retiring the A-10. Their arguments are laden with shrill, emotional points of view, but are mostly anecdotal and unpersuasive when measured against objective, logical reasoning.

Moreover, this impasse is having adverse impacts on Air Force plans to field the F-35. To continue to operate the fleet of A-10s, it is necessary to forgo building up the maintenance force necessary to field the F-35. This slows the development of proficiency in Air Force F-35 pilots and, consequently, the operational readiness and competence of F-35 squadrons.

It also forces the Air Force to alter its rhythm to balance training, operational readiness and deployment commitments, creating a problem for combatant commanders who depend on having the F-35 in overseas theaters.

But there is a way to resolve this annual fight between the Air Force and A-10 advocates in the Army and Congress.

The Army likes the A-10 not just because of its attack capabilities but even more so because it is totally dedicated to close support of Army forces. The Army fears that without the A-10, and even though other aircraft can perform close support satisfactorily, the Air Force will not be there when needed.

To ensure the Army can depend on Air Force close support, the Air Force and Army should agree to negotiate a formal compact to team Air Force squadrons and controllers with Army brigades. Squadrons of F-16s, B-52s, B-1s and, soon, F-35s would be required to allocate a portion of their training to exercise and deploy with specific Army units. This teaming concept is not new but has not been enforced to the extent of this proposal.

An added benefit would be the close, symbiotic relationship that would bond the units, boosting team esprit and combat effectiveness, potentially more than exists today with the A-10.

To satisfy economic issues motivating opponents, the Air Force needs to ensure that Davis-Monthan — the A-10’s master base with more than 80 A-10s and 4,000 jobs — remains a major Air Force installation and economic engine in Arizona. It must, therefore, replace the A-10s with another operational mission at the base and at smaller Air National Guard A-10 locations.

Because the Air Force will likely retain its existing bombers, it will need at least one other big base with large ramps, a long runway and modern facilities for its new stealth bomber, the Long Range Strike Bomber. Dispersal of bombers, particularly nuclear bombers, is also necessary for nuclear deterrence to work. There is no bomber base in the southwest. Davis-Monthan would be an excellent choice.

Davis-Monthan could also be a home for the KC-46A tanker, or the upcoming T-X trainer. Since Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix is already a new F-35 training base, Arizona would then retain its two large bases with new, important Air Force missions, thus mitigating economic concerns.

For smaller Air National Guard A-10 units, the Air Force can find new missions as it does routinely during drawdowns and equipment changes.

The standoff between the Air Force and congressional opponents has become debilitating. Both sides need to work together for an amicable solution. Teaming Army and Air Force units for close support and replacing A-10s with new aircraft at Davis-Monthan are win-win for both.
 
The editorial was load of horse c**p. The idea that not retiring the A-10s is hampering the fielding of the F-35 is such a joke, I can't believe that was considered for an actual editorial. If the small cost savings of retiring the A-10s is preventing the full deployment of the F-35, the Air Force has much larger issues to contend with.


I had to laugh at the whole, "Training with Army Brigades," argument. It completely misses the point. It also neglects that they already train with the Army.


If he was serious about re-negotiations between the US Army and the USAF, it would be in allowing the Army to take over the fixed wing CAS role, along with the budget required to support it. But we know that isn't going to happen.


The fact is, I would like to see what the Army has to say about what it wants for CAS. I haven't seen much regarding that perspective. No, I don't mean the Marines, the Marines want the F-35B to replace the AV-8B, which the Army doesn't use. I want to know, based on the U.S. Army's experience, which platforms they prefer. They're the ones who should be making this decision since it's their butts on the line.
 
Well, while there's multiple reasons for them to give this answer, the Army stated that they weren't interested in taking the A-10 off the USAF's hands:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html
 
From Inside Defense'

Boeing Exploring Enhanced Close-Air-Support Capabilities For B-1

B-1 Lancer manufacturer Boeing is investing in research to support a slate of potential upgrades that would enhance the platform's ability to perform an increasing load of close-air-support missions.
 
F-35 Slated To Fly Comparison Tests Against A-10 On Close Air Support

The F-35 is slated to undergo comparison operational test flights against the A-10 Warthog to gauge close-air-support capability in late 2017 or early 2018, according to Curt Cook, an air warfare specialist in the Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office.
 
Inside Defense - Inside the Air Force newsletter more info but it's a pay per article site.
 
Cheers; I have an account - for anyone else that does as well: http://insidedefense.com/inside-air-force/f-35-slated-fly-comparison-tests-against-10-close-air-support
 
"Amid Pressure To Keep A-10 Alive, USAF Explores Close-Air Support's Future"
By Lara Seligman 7:08 p.m. EDT August 25, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/08/25/amid-pressure-keep--10-alive-usaf-explores-close-air-supports-future/32109249/

WASHINGTON — As pressure builds on the US Air Force to keep the beloved A-10 alive despite crushing budget cuts, the service is taking another look at the future of close-air support (CAS) and the most effective way to protect soldiers on the ground.

The conversation pits the cash-strapped Air Force and those who see the A-10 as outdated against members of Congress who are concerned the service's plan to retire the plane without a focused replacement endangers soldiers on the ground. The Air Force claims retiring the A-10, the service's primary close-in attack aircraft, could save $4.2 billion over the next five years. Defenders of the program accuse the Air Force of abandoning troops in ground combat.

Facing widespread uproar, the Air Force has recently hinted that a future single-mission CAS platform is in the works. In the most recent indication the service is embarking on further study of the issue, the US Air Combat Command's 2015 command strategy calls for "exploring opportunities" for developing a CAS aircraft.

"We must also continue to develop a balanced close air support (CAS) capability across all [Global Precision Attack] platforms, explore opportunities for a future CAS platform, and enact specific initiatives to ensure we maintain a CAS culture," according to the document, unveiled Aug. 10.

Top service officials have also suggested the Air Force is at least beginning to think about an A-10 replacement, often dubbed A-X. When asked about the notional aircraft at the Air Force Association Air Warfare symposium in February, ACC Commander Gen. Hawk Carlisle told reporters: "We're thinking about it."

"Another weapons system program may be something we need to consider as we look at the gaps and seams in the future and what we're doing," Carlisle said. "We're looking at all of that."

Meanwhile, the Air Force hosted a joint-service summit in March to work out options for the CAS mission.

As the Air Force looks to develop a future CAS platform — or platforms — analysts say the service must keep in mind that the mission has changed drastically since the A-10 was developed in the 1970s. Today, the Air Force can perform CAS with bombers and fighter jets like the F-35, which uses advanced sensor technology to improve the pilot's situational awareness. UAVs like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper can also supplement the mission while keeping pilots out of danger.

"Close-air support in an era of precision munitions and all of that is radically different than when any close-air support aircraft developed," Doug Birkey, executive director at the Washington-based Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said. "The key to any of these things is knowing what to hit and when, and if you don't have that data, then you're just floating around hoping to run into something."

With today's technology, the Air Force can more effectively perform the CAS mission by using new multirole aircraft to manage information and give pilots a clearer picture of the battle space, argued Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research, Washington.

"Close-air support is a lot more, in a way, about managing the information: who is on the ground, who needs what, what's the developing situation," Grant said. "This is really not about the pilot flying and looking down and trying to see the situation on the ground. If that's how they are doing it, well, that's how our grandfathers did it in World War II. That's not the gold standard today."

The A-10 performs well in an environment of total aerial dominance, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, Birkey said, but may not be survivable in less permissive environments. In a notional land engagement in the Asia/Pacific, the A-10 may not have applicability, he added.

The Air Force could design a replacement A-10 that is capable of multiple missions, said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington.

"If you are thinking about the future and the kind of operational environments that the Air Force is prepared for, should prepare for, to me it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a single-mission" platform for CAS, Gunzinger said. "It makes a great deal of sense to have a multi-mission platform performing that mission. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to have many multi-mission aircraft capable of supporting that mission, not just one."

But with several costly projects looming in the next few decades, including the new bomber, the Air Force does not see a clear funding stream for a next-generation A-10 replacement. Given a better budget environment, the service would want a relatively cheap, next-generation aircraft to provide close support for ground troops — but that is not a realistic proposal today, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said this spring.

"We need a low-threat CAS platform in the near future, if the money will allow it," Welsh said at an April event sponsored by Defense One in Washington. "It doesn't today, but we would certainly like to have something like that, that operates more efficiently than what we have today, that carries more firepower and does so in a low-threat environment."

It would be a challenge for the Air Force to squeeze another new aircraft into the budget plan, which already includes recapitalizing the bomber, trainer and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System fleets, Gunzinger said.

One option is to combine the T-X and A-X programs, given the trainer's capability to conduct CAS missions, he suggested.

"It would be a multimission system — light attack, close-air support, along with our training aircraft," Gunzinger said. "It could help defray the cost of developing an A-10 replacement, since the Air Force has already determined it's going to invest in T-X."

Unless there is a radical shift in the short-term budget environment, analysts see the Air Force potentially developing a replacement A-10 after the procurement "bulge" in the 2020s. Still, the Air Force must balance tight resources and technological advancements with calls to replace the A-10 one-for-one.

"To me, this looks like the ACC is wanting to explore all its options," Grant said. "I think Congress has made really clear that they want a fuller discussion of the A-10. So the question down the road will be, as they evaluate a single-mission aircraft, how much do they want to give up?
 
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/25/welsh-dismisses-f-35-a-10-cas-contest-as-silly-exercise/

Welsh Dismisses F-35, A-10 CAS Contest as ‘Silly Exercise’
The U.S. Air Force’s top military man rejected the idea of comparing how the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet and the Cold War-era A-10 Warthog attack plane perform in close air support tests.

During a conference last week in Arlington, Virginia, Curt Cook, an air warfare specialist for the Pentagon’s office of the director of operational test and evaluation, called for the so-called comparative tests in late 2017 or 2018 to evaluate how often the stealthy fifth-generation fighter’s weapons hit desired targets or how long it takes the aircraft to pass information to ground troops.

During a State of the Air Force briefing Monday at the Pentagon, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh dismissed the idea.

“I think that would be a silly exercise,” he said. “So I don’t know anything about that. The F-35’s mission in the close air support arena will be to do high-threat close air support in a contested environment that the A-10 will not be able to survive in. That will be the role of the F-35, and it will not be able to do that until it’s fully mission capable in our full operational capability at age 2021 and beyond.”

Welsh added, “So the idea that the F-35 is going to walk in the door next year when it becomes IOC and take over for the A-10 is just silly. It’s never been our intention and we have never said that. And so that’s not a plan. I would eventually — certainly like to have a capability that replaces the A-10 that does the low-threat CAS work in an even better way than the A-10 has been able to. I mean, we should be trying to get better as an Air Force. I’m worried about future CAS, not past CAS.”

The Air Force has proposed retiring its fleet of almost 300 Warthogs by 2019 to save an estimated $4.2 billion a year and free up maintainers for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy multi-role fighter jet and the Pentagon’s most expensive acquisition program.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the proposal is largely budget-driven.

“If we had billions and billions and billions of additional dollars over and above the president’s budget level — and I will remind you we are struggling to get the president’s budget level approved — but if we had billions more, we would love to maintain the A-10,” she said. “This is one of the tough choices that we had to make for the sake of moving forward and modernizing.”

Yet the aging Warthog is still flying missions, from attacking Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria to participating in show-of-force exercises against Russia in Eastern Europe.

And even Welsh has hinted at his desire to develop a next-generation replacement to the A-10.
 
"Keeps ‘Em Guessing on A-10 | More Nations Interested in French Heli Carriers"
Aug 26, 2015 01:28 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff

Source:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/oshkosh-takes-jtrs-competition-air-force-keeps-em-guessing-on-a-10-more-nations-interested-in-french-heli-carriers-030859/

In what is perhaps the biggest reality perception difference between the Air Force and the rest of the military and civilian government, the Air Force has been working hard to shut down the A-10 program, maintaining that the close air support stalwart isn’t earning its keep. The several billion dollars saved would go to more F-35 work, as that platform has been tipped to be the replacement, although some senior Air Force officers have suggested that perhaps a completely new craft would be in order. So it was newsworthy that a senior officer for testing had suggested a shoot-out between the A-10 and F-35. That test is now taking fire external link from the Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, who called such a test “silly.” Still, Welsh said that the F-35 was never intended as an A-10 replacement, so that leaves observers scratching heads as to which parts of the Air Force desire what outcome, especially as few believe an A-X replacement would be cheaper.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom