Design a Close Air Support aircraft

[uk 75]

Not sure where to post this one, but it was prompted by the heated discussion on whether to keep/ditch or replace the A10 in the USAF.
Apart from the A10 the other main CAS purpose built aircraft in service is the Su25 Frogfoot.
The UK and France use fighter/bombers in this role.
The RAF set up No 38 Group with three squadrons to support the Army Strategic Reserve when it deployed. Initially these used Hunters. In 1968 Harriers and Phantoms replaced them. Jaguars took over from the Phantoms in the 70s. They soldiered on long after the Cold War ended and were replaced by Typhoons.
West Germany was the only NATO country to join Italy in buying new Fiat G91 ground attack planes. They developed support facilities to operate them away from airfields before the RAF did the same with Harrier.
After looking at the VAK191 vstol the Luftwaffe opted for the Alpha Jet. This small aircraft had bombs and rockets but not Mavericks.
The USAF A10s for NATO were based in the UK but were deployed to West Germany in forward locations. They worked closely with anti tank helicopters. Not just US Cobras and Apaches but also West German Bo105s.
The main role of NATO close air support was to kill Soviet armoured vehicles. To do this they had to counter Zsu sp aa and various SP and shoulder launched missiles.
The Maverick missile was the counter weapon.
Fast forward to the present day where potential opponents have capable fighters as well as ground based air defence. How can aircraft survive in this environment?
Long range stand off weapons have a crucial role but cannons still have a job to do. Speed rather than armour protection probably the best defence.
Typhoon and Rafale in Europe and F16/F35 for the USAF seem the main systems.

After that lengthy background time to design a close air support platform.

The weapons to be carried remain a mixture of missiles, bombs and guns. As big a payload as possible suggests a fuselage and wing with many hard points.

Reaction times have to be fast and the platform needs good awareness of the battlefield. A pilot still seems the best way of doing this until AI develops.

Survivability calls for speed and robustness. Weight penalties mean that compromises will be necessary.

So far we have a single seat aircraft with large load capability.

Do we stick with the F35 (replacing Typhoon and F16) or go to an updated AX competition?

 

[IlikeCKEM]

I have long wondered about putting a automatic Carl G on a CAS plane, 84mm HEAT or even HEDP should definitely go through roof armour, the HE would be big enough to reliably take out a sniper/machine gun/ATGM/whatever nest, the added speed of the plane would also make an HE-OR round probably possible and a thermobaric round would help for danger close. If I let myself get more sci-fi we could make this a RAVEN cannon and give it a point delay impact TB (thermobaric) round with a steel nose that could maybe be used against tanks and structures as well as for danger close? Or in the other direction it could go on a light attack aircraft and be manually loaded. I know this isn't a aircraft but have been wanting to talk about this. Sorry if I broke any rules, this is my first post.

 

[shin_getter]

Go to Amazon, buy some shiny hexacopter. Mount mortar bomb rack and milspec radio on it. Hand it to frontline formation. Done.

This is the reality of CAS in 2023

What, you want to wait for a decade for the airforce to show up?

 

[IlikeCKEM]

@shin_getter small drones are definitely effective but I would not classify them as CAS. The important thing about CAS relative to artillery or direct fire support is that it has high speeds (relative to a ground vehicle), a long loiter time, and good follow-up payload. A drone is slow, won't have as long of a loiter time, and can't shoot something twice without heading back. Of course this isn't true if your talking about something like a Grey Eagle or Predator, which I would call CAS. Small drones definitely have a role, but I think that in the attack role they should be conceptualized more like missiles than aircraft. As for waiting for the Air Force, if it needs to be under the Army's control it could be a helicopter and I personally support allowing the army to run it's own CAS and removing the Air Force must do CAS requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

(...)
Fast forward to the present day where potential opponents have capable fighters as well as ground based air defence. How can aircraft survive in this environment?
Long range stand off weapons have a crucial role but cannons still have a job to do. Speed rather than armour protection probably the best defence.
Typhoon and Rafale in Europe and F16/F35 for the USAF seem the main systems.

After that lengthy background time to design a close air support platform.

The weapons to be carried remain a mixture of missiles, bombs and guns. As big a payload as possible suggests a fuselage and wing with many hard points.

Reaction times have to be fast and the platform needs good awareness of the battlefield. A pilot still seems the best way of doing this until AI develops.

Survivability calls for speed and robustness. Weight penalties mean that compromises will be necessary.

So far we have a single seat aircraft with large load capability.

Do we stick with the F35 (replacing Typhoon and F16) or go to an updated AX competition?

There are three broad types of air support to talk about.

1) Battlefield Air Interdiction. Going behind the FLOT/FEBA or whatever the current term is, to hit the attacking units before they shake out from road march into their actual combat formation, blasting bridges and river crossings, etc. The A-7 was very good at this due to its speed, the A-10 less so. F-35 should be very good at this, it's one of the jobs the plane was designed to do.​

2) non-permissive Close Air Support. Flying more or less on top of your own tanks or more usually artillery and engaging the enemy after they have deployed into combat formations. The A-10 and Su-25 are the pinnacle examples of this, though they use somewhat different methods to do the job. The A-7 wasn't bad at this job, it did it in Vietnam and in the 1970s, but didn't have massive loiter time like the A-10 does. An F-35 would have to be in Beast Mode to be any good at this (only 8xSDBs internally), and it still won't loiter well, that big F135 is just a thirsty beast despite all the fuel an F-35 carries.​

3) permissive Close Air Support. What the western militaries have been flying for the last 20 years, up until Ukraine kicked off. You can honestly mostly use larger drones for this, like Reaper or Mojave.​

The next question is how soon is the war we're assuming that we're going to have to fight?

If we have 10+ years, we can bother to design a new plane.​

If we less than 10 years, we need to buy off the shelf, and that means either F-16, Super Hornet (I'll come back to this one), or F-35.​

​

So, what's the mission you really want filled, and how long do we have?

Battlefield Air Interdiction missions are what you want the USAF to do, and let the Army use helicopters to do everything over their own tanks? USAF buys more F-35s, retires A-10s entirely, and calls it a day (How long before the war doesn't actually matter much in this case.)

Close Air Support and we are assuming a war in less than 10 years? Needs to be an off the shelf buy, and I'd actually recommend Super Hornets in this case over F-16s. Plane is still in production but will be winding down without more orders, has pretty decent STOL performance and robust landing gear for damaged airfields, has a large internal fuel capacity even without CFTs, has a large bombload even if you take up two wing pylons with fuel tanks, and is available in a 2-seat model so the back seater can be used to wrangle drones for MUMT. While the USAF probably won't like buying a Navy plane, everything else about this addresses specific A-10 user complaints as well as the USAF Corporate office complaints about the A-10.

Close Air Support and we have at least 10 years? Let's design a moderately LO plane with about 10klbs internal bombload (My personal suggestion is the same bombload as the A-12 Avenger).

edited to add some bolding, to make things easier to read.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Something like TACIT BLUE or TSSAM but with bigger wings perhaps


(Dodgy knockoff TSSAM from Ebay, mounted upside down, gives some idea).

Alternatively, Northrop's A-12 design.

 

[flateric]

Of interest, a light combat aircraft was 2021 Undergraduate Team AIAA competition RFP
Winning designs presentations are here

2020-2021 Design Competition Winning Reports

2019-2020 AIAA Design Competition Winning Reports

www.aiaa.org

 

[martinbayer]

I have long wondered about putting a automatic Carl G on a CAS plane, 84mm HEAT or even HEDP should definitely go through roof armour, the HE would be big enough to reliably take out a sniper/machine gun/ATGM/whatever nest, the added speed of the plane would also make an HE-OR round probably possible and a thermobaric round would help for danger close. If I let myself get more sci-fi we could make this a RAVEN cannon and give it a point delay impact TB (thermobaric) round with a steel nose that could maybe be used against tanks and structures as well as for danger close? Or in the other direction it could go on a light attack aircraft and be manually loaded. I know this isn't a aircraft but have been wanting to talk about this. Sorry if I broke any rules, this is my first post.

Exactly which CAS aircraft type/design/configuration/model/platform/concept do you have in mind, because *that* question is precisely the objective of this thread, as indicated by the title "Design a Close Air Support *aircraft* (my emphasis), rather than any of its potential armaments? Your post is a bit like debating what to put on the flatbed of a pickup truck, rather than which truck to pick in the first place.

 

[IlikeCKEM]

Exactly which CAS aircraft type/design/configuration/model/platform/concept do you have in mind, because *that* question is precisely the objective of this thread, as indicated by the title "Design a Close Air Support *aircraft* (my emphasis), rather than any of its potential armaments?

Other posts here have recommended not to use a CAS aircraft instead small drones, given existing platforms that would work, and discussed the different possible goals of a CAS aircraft. I think that all of these, and mine too, were on topic. If you are going to buy a truck I would imagine it is important to know what it will have put on it first.

Though I have given this more thought and I have some more ideas as to what my ideal CAS specific plane would be and I think that a small turbofan propelled plane with a Carl Gustav, two hydra rocket pods (with the expectation that a lot of the time they would carry APKWS), and a 7.62mm MG for suppressive fire. In terms of electrical bits I would want it to have a laser designator and reviver, some ability to engage drones with the MG and APKWS, and good night vision as my priorities. The Carl G would carry about 10 rounds with a sample loadout being two smoke, two illumination, four to six anti infantry, and two to four anti vehicle/tank/structure.

I am going to ignore congressional law for this part of the post and say that it would be under the Army's control. The main thing I see this excelling at is providing the troops with versatile support. If they need smoke, they have smoke, if they need illumination, they get illumination, if they need something blown up, they are in luck.

EDIT

I also do support the idea of the Air Force running F/A 18s or a similar aircraft. I know that the Navy plans to replace them with it's own NGAD, the F/A XX. Could costs be saved by them being transferred to the Air Force instead? In general non or low stealth Navy aircraft seem like a good idea for CAS capable fighters and operations in places like Africa where good take off surfaces will be hard to come by and ground strike capability is important. Dose anybody know how a F/A 18 would compare to a F 15EX Strike Eagle?

P.S.
It occurred to me that one of my favorite systems, kinetic energy missiles would be ideal for high altitude CAS, as it would be precision guided, like any other missile, but also not have an explosive warhead. Deployment from the air would also likely fix the minimum range issue they have on the ground.

 

[Desertfox]

Like I said before go with an mix of updated Scaled Composites ARES. The plane was already designed specifically for this mission. Have a two-seater for FAC (Army can buy it!) and an unmanned UCAV version for the actual CAS.

Are you working in a relatively permissive environment? AT-802, AT-6, and UAVs got you covered.

Want something bigger and faster? Go with a big-wing attack version of the T-7A, replace the back seat with a 25mm cannon on half of them. Simple and cheap.

Want something the Army can actually operate? Buy lots of helicopters (Raider X)

 

[CiTrus90]

Air Launched Effects (ALE)

Air Launched Effects (ALE) are a Family of Systems (FoS) consisting of an air vehicle, payload(s), mission system applications, and associated support e...

www.army.mil

For anything that needs a bigger boom, GBU-39 and JDAM-ER instead.

Platform wise I'm agnostic, as long as the desired effects on target are present.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Air Launched Effects (ALE)

Air Launched Effects (ALE) are a Family of Systems (FoS) consisting of an air vehicle, payload(s), mission system applications, and associated support e...

www.army.mil

For anything that needs a bigger boom, GBU-39 and JDAM-ER instead.

Platform wise I'm agnostic, as long as the desired effects on target are present.

That's something that the plane would be carrying, and quite frankly anything from that Air Tractor to an A-10 can carry them now. F-35 probably needs to be in Beast Mode, I don't believe that the ALEs can be dropped out of the weapons bays.

Something like TACIT BLUE or TSSAM but with bigger wings perhaps
View attachment 710291

(Dodgy knockoff TSSAM from Ebay, mounted upside down, gives some idea).

Alternatively, Northrop's A-12 design.

If we can do that with pure shaping, then sure. Having to add RAM adds a lot of maintenance issues that really drive up the operating costs per flight hour, as well as require at least some time in hangars to protect the RAM from the elements. Or at least no more RAM than Have Glass V treatments.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

If we can do that with pure shaping, then sure. Having to add RAM adds a lot of maintenance issues that really drive up the operating costs per flight hour, as well as require at least some time in hangars to protect the RAM from the elements. Or at least no more RAM than Have Glass V treatments.

Shaping (and possibly some very selective use of RAM/RAS) should easily hit the "moderate LO" requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Shaping (and possibly some very selective use of RAM/RAS) should easily hit the "moderate LO" requirement.

Wanted to make sure we were on the same page with that. Because Tacit Blue/ TSSAM is a VLO vehicle.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Wanted to make sure we were on the same page with that. Because Tacit Blue/ TSSAM is a VLO vehicle.

LO Shaping forces restrictions of its own in design, stability, requirement for FBW, etc, but these are not generally going to impact operation and maintenance like RAM/RAS.

TACIT BLUE fuselage shape ("Alien Schoolbus") is good to contain a nice roomy internal weapons bay and was designed to fly around at medium altitudes not being detected.

You'd need a bigger intake for a sizeable commercial turbofan in the rear fuselage - something more like the B-21 intake rather than the NACA intake of the TACIT BLUE.

It can then pootle around at Mach 0.7 at medium altitudes over the battlefield plinking things with its PGMs.

 

[CiTrus90]

That's something that the plane would be carrying, and quite frankly anything from that Air Tractor to an A-10 can carry them now.

Which is why I'm saying I'm platform agnostic.

Anything can perform CAS.
It's a type of mission, not a type of aircraft per se, like an air superiority fighter or a strategic bomber would be.
From a B-1B to an AC-130. From a F-35 to a MQ-9. From an Air Tractor to an A-10, as you very correctly said.
What matters are the effects on target, not who or what is delivering them.

In a denied area, under SAM umbrella and in the presence of MANPADS, I doubt any aircraft could perform CAS above/close to the battlefield like an A-10 was supposed to do way back when. The risks are not acceptable.
Even a stealth aircraft, regardless of how small its RCS will be, will still leave an IR signature for a heat-seeking missile to pursue, or will be visible to the naked eye of a guy manning a technical.

What could be more survivable/"acceptable to lose" is some kind of munition coming into the denied area on its own, after being dropped at a safe distance for the aircraft releasing it, on request by a JTAC.
Whatever that aircraft dropping said munition may be, I feel is irrelevant.

In a non-contested area instead, the problem of what aircraft to use is once again moot, for the simple reason that you can use anything you want, pretty much with impunity. So you don't need any particular type of aircraft.

But if money were no object (for a non-contested area) I'd rather have some kind of high flying static arsenal airship operating in a sanctuary that could drop munitions on request, while conducting surveillance and BDA of the battlefield all at the same time.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Which is why I'm saying I'm platform agnostic.

Anything can perform CAS.
It's a type of mission, not a type of aircraft per se, like an air superiority fighter or a strategic bomber would be.
From a B-1B to an AC-130. From a F-35 to a MQ-9. From an Air Tractor to an A-10, as you very correctly said.
What matters are the effects on target, not who or what is delivering them.

In a denied area, under SAM umbrella and in the presence of MANPADS, I doubt any aircraft could perform CAS above/close to the battlefield like an A-10 was supposed to do way back when. The risks are not acceptable.
Even a stealth aircraft, regardless of how small its RCS will be, will still leave an IR signature for a heat-seeking missile to pursue, or will be visible to the naked eye of a guy manning a technical.

What could be more survivable/"acceptable to lose" is some kind of munition coming into the denied area on its own, after being dropped at a safe distance for the aircraft releasing it, on request by a JTAC.
Whatever that aircraft dropping said munition may be, I feel is irrelevant.

In a non-contested area instead, the problem of what aircraft to use is once again moot, for the simple reason that you can use anything you want, pretty much with impunity. So you don't need any particular type of aircraft.

But if money were no object (for a non-contested area) I'd rather have some kind of high flying static arsenal airship operating in a sanctuary that could drop munitions on request, while conducting surveillance and BDA of the battlefield all at the same time.

Doing a good job at CAS has some requirements attached to it, however. Long loiter time and a large magazine for the gun were two of the items that came out of the A-X concept formulation stage, probably mostly from reading Rudel's book. Though I'm sure the Skyraider pilots pushed hard for the long loiter time as well.

Why the gun? Because a gun has the smallest Danger Close range, 50-60m. Even APKWS rockets are 100-200m.

We might argue that the Gun is really only very rarely necessary, and probably only needs to be a main consideration for the permissive CAS (when the bad guys only have manually aimed AA guns and some MANPADS missiles), but that's still one of the original A-X requirements.

And despite the large fuel capacity of an F-35, it can't loiter for crap. Maybe 1 hour time overhead.

 

[Scott Kenny]

LO Shaping forces restrictions of its own in design, stability, requirement for FBW, etc, but these are not generally going to impact operation and maintenance like RAM/RAS.

TACIT BLUE fuselage shape ("Alien Schoolbus") is good to contain a nice roomy internal weapons bay and was designed to fly around at medium altitudes not being detected.

You'd need a bigger intake for a sizeable commercial turbofan in the rear fuselage - something more like the B-21 intake rather than the NACA intake of the TACIT BLUE.

It can then pootle around at Mach 0.7 at medium altitudes over the battlefield plinking things with its PGMs.

This presents a problem if having a gun is still part of the design requirements, but it's not a terrible plan.

 

[Desertfox]

It sounds that what is wanted is the ability to bring a gun into a denied environment for CAS. At the end of that day, that is the one mission that can't be done cheaply by a currently available aircraft.

 

[MadRat]

Lasers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It sounds that what is wanted is the ability to bring a gun into a denied environment for CAS. At the end of that day, that is the one mission that can't be done cheaply by a currently available aircraft.

No, I don't think "cheaply" is going to be part of this conversation at all. I'm ballparking a non-permissive CAS plane in the $60-70mil/plane flyaway cost range, not significantly cheaper than an F-35 at all.

 

[CiTrus90]

Doing a good job at CAS has some requirements attached to it, however. Long loiter time and a large magazine for the gun were two of the items that came out of the A-X concept formulation stage, probably mostly from reading Rudel's book. Though I'm sure the Skyraider pilots pushed hard for the long loiter time as well.

Why the gun? Because a gun has the smallest Danger Close range, 50-60m. Even APKWS rockets are 100-200m.

We might argue that the Gun is really only very rarely necessary, and probably only needs to be a main consideration for the permissive CAS (when the bad guys only have manually aimed AA guns and some MANPADS missiles), but that's still one of the original A-X requirements.

And despite the large fuel capacity of an F-35, it can't loiter for crap. Maybe 1 hour time overhead.

So, and correct me if I'm wrong please, it all boils down to a CAS aircraft in permissive environments?

Because loiter time means time spent on target, which is something that can't be afforded in a denied area where survivability of the platform is either assured by stealth or speed, and a gun can only be used by being close to the target which, again, is something that can only be done without the presence of a SAM/MANPADS threat.

On the last issue, I'd like to point out the fact that in the current Russo-Ukrainian war I've yet to see any Su-25s (an aircraft primarily designed to provide CAS - very heavily armed and armored) use their guns in strafing runs. They're mostly used by both sides to lob unguided rockets, from several kilometers behind the front lines.
And that's certainly not because the gun they carry is useless, but because getting close enough in order to use it would be suicidal.

On the other hand, in a permissive environment, you could also have multiple aircraft on station, coming and going, which is the way CAS is usually conducted in. You could get aerial refuellers closer to the battlefield (without having to worry about their safety too much), in order to extend the CAS aircraft's time on station.
In such a scenario the only difference between an A-10 and a F-15E would be how many passes each platform can do in the same amount of time: here the A-10 clearly has an advantage due to its slower speed and higher manoeuvrability.
Except for the fact that the A-10 would still need to leave earlier due its shorter range vs that of a F-15E.

And with regards to the gun:

Why the gun? Because a gun has the smallest Danger Close range, 50-60m. Even APKWS rockets are 100-200m.

Even F-15Es have conducted strafing runs in Afghanistan.
But if weather or space restrictions are a concern, smart munitions like a Hellfire R9X, or a ALE, or a hexacopter with a frag grenade could provide the same level of lethality at the same danger close ranges of a 30mm gun, without the need of bringing an aircraft on top of the target.

The A-10 and the Su-25 are great aircraft, don't misunderstand me, but they come from a different age and a world with different technology from today's.
A bit like the turret-fighters of the late 30s and early 40s. They were great for what they were meant to do, but then the reality and pace of warfare rendered them obsolete.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So, and correct me if I'm wrong please, it all boils down to a CAS aircraft in permissive environments?

Because loiter time means time spent on target, which is something that can't be afforded in a denied area where survivability of the platform is either assured by stealth or speed, and a gun can only be used by being close to the target which, again, is something that can only be done without the presence of a SAM/MANPADS threat.

You don't have to loiter like a vulture over the front lines, you can loiter 25-50nmi back, out of the immediate SAM threats in a denied area, and still make it overhead in about 5 minutes from the radio request.

Vulturing over a unit is what you do in a permissive environment. Orbiting somewhere around or a little behind the artillery is what you do in a denied environment. Because it takes about 5 minutes to get cleared and vectored in to make the attack anyways.

On the last issue, I'd like to point out the fact that in the current Russo-Ukrainian war I've yet to see any Su-25s (an aircraft primarily designed to provide CAS - very heavily armed and armored) use their guns in strafing runs. They're mostly used by both sides to lob unguided rockets, from several kilometers behind the front lines.
And that's certainly not because the gun they carry is useless, but because getting close enough in order to use it would be suicidal.

Beg to differ, the Su-25 was never intended to use the gun as a primary attack, it was always rockets and bombs from distance. Only has 250 rounds for the gun, 1/5 the capacity of an A-10 or A-7.

And with regards to the gun:

Even F-15Es have conducted strafing runs in Afghanistan.
But if weather or space restrictions are a concern, smart munitions like a Hellfire R9X, or a ALE, or a hexacopter with a frag grenade could provide the same level of lethality at the same danger close ranges of a 30mm gun, without the need of bringing an aircraft on top of the target.

The A-10 and the Su-25 are great aircraft, don't misunderstand me, but they come from a different age and a world with different technology from today's.
A bit like the turret-fighters of the late 30s and early 40s. They were great for what they were meant to do, but then the reality and pace of warfare rendered them obsolete.

A 40mm grenade has a danger close range of 160m, IIRC. It throws fragments that far, and people have been injured by grenades on the ranges.

 

[Desertfox]

No, I don't think "cheaply" is going to be part of this conversation at all. I'm ballparking a non-permissive CAS plane in the $60-70mil/plane flyaway cost range, not significantly cheaper than an F-35 at all.

And that's never going to happen. If we are talking about permissive environments, there's a ton of different aircraft that can do the job right now and are in service, from UAVs, to B-1Bs, to AC-130s.

 

[quellish]

Lasers.

Smoke.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Going to go into this with some basic assumptions:

- War is an economic exchange between political participants. The course of the war will be determined by the allocation of resources of the respective economic capacities of the warring parties, and their ability to use these resources effectively. Killing two $4 million tanks for the cost of $6.5 million of aircraft and bomb is a net positive exchange.
- The military potentials of the warring sides will determine the course and outcome of the war. War will likely end in armistice before industrial capacity can ramp up sufficiently to replace losses, so stockpiles are important.
- Moral-political preparation of the participants will depend on both the psychological preparedness of the people for war and their societies' demographic capacities for absorbing casualties of youth (the main participants of battle).
- What we call "CAS" is just an extension of artillery's mission to defend infantry and armor against attack by the enemy. It can be done by a long range missile, like a NLOS PAM, as easily as a manned aviation platform with proper radios.

With those assumptions out of the way, I don't think an A-10 can be replicated one-to-one in the modern fighting environment, at least without causing massive, unsustainable casualties for the present Western demographics and their capacities to produce aviation-grade pilots. Perhaps Israel could support the losses, given its birth rate and median age being under 30, but they're not interested in that exchange at the moment.

Modern air defense systems are more lethal than they were in the 1980's or 1990's. That is not to say that aircraft need to fly lower like the A-10. They probably need to fly higher, so that they have greater energy to evade incoming missiles, and can stream towed decoys. As well, they can be further away from lightweight FLET alerting radars assigned to MANPADS teams.

We have since moved from guns (A-10) to rockets and laser guided missiles (Su-25) at low altitudes to provide close air support, and now we are moving from these methods, to self-correcting glide bomb employment at medium altitude, using JSFs. It's likely any future CAS aircraft will be a vehicle more similar to JSF than the A-10.

However, JSF is so expensive it is dubious it will be available in sufficient quantities to perform this role adequately, and will be tasked pretty much entirely to offensive and defensive counter-air, and deep attack. Likely it will be lost at rates higher than it would suggest too, probably due to simple human errors, and the number of JSFs will be noticeably smaller than the projected minimum number if ATF is any lesson.

The core necessity of the "CAS aircraft" to be cheap, effectively disposable, and able to engage a "sizeable quantity" of armor, hasn't changed since the '60's or so. What has changed is that men are no longer cheap, radars and FLIRs are now so disposable we use them in bombs, and "sizeable quantities" of armor to be engaged by individual aircraft have dropped by an order of magnitude due to increased dispersion.

This suggests that a future CAS aircraft to replace the A-10 will have more in common with a AGM-129 than a A-10 or JSF. A munition that can be reused to attack armor and mortar teams, and if it happens to complete a single mission, it has already paid for itself.

Cost should ideally be under either $5 million, to compare with the Tomahawk, or under $20 million, which compares well with current CAS platforms like AH-64E remanf's and MQ-9s, and stockpiled as ammunition rather than aircraft. Even though it is an aircraft, the expectation that it will be lost in huge numbers should be baked in, because it's the only way to justify a sizeable force in peacetime.

A sort of CAS DASH that motors around looking for tanks, kind of like DARPA's Thirsty Saber, would be really good.

It won't be able to provide the Iraq/Afghanistan "always on CAS" but it will be able to silence mortars supporting an enemy's "big push" and provide counter-battery and air support for your own "big push" to take the next line of trenches, while freeing the JSFs to be used for more important things.

 

[quellish]

while freeing the JSFs to be used for more important things

More important than supporting troops in contact?

 

[CiTrus90]

You don't have to loiter like a vulture over the front lines, you can loiter 25-50nmi back, out of the immediate SAM threats in a denied area, and still make it overhead in about 5 minutes from the radio request.

So, summing it up, you :
1 - loiter outside the IADS cover (where you are safe)
2 - receive the call to provide CAS
3 - head toward the target into the IADS cover (where you are not safe anymore)
4 - hopefully be lucky

What I'm trying to say is, it's not a matter of vulturing, it's matter of making it into the denied area, hitting the target and coming back in one piece. The denied area is per definition denied, no manned platform should enter it, because it's not safe to do so.
And it's why I suggest that, in a non-permissive environment in today's world, CAS is a job that should only be performed by a mix of smart and loitering munitions, irrespective of the platform that deploys them (and deploys them at a safe distance to do so).

Beg to differ, the Su-25 was never intended to use the gun as a primary attack, it was always rockets and bombs from distance. Only has 250 rounds for the gun, 1/5 the capacity of an A-10 or A-7.

It's not that Russian pilots and Ukrainian pilots aren't using the Su-25's gun because said gun is not the primary weapon of their aircraft or it doesn't have as many round as their US counterpart.
I'm sure they would love to use it.
They are not using it, because if they were to try and bring the gun where it's needed, they would be shot down.
Guns are obsolete in aircraft meant to provide CAS in a non-permissive environment.

 

[Kat Tsun]

More important than supporting troops in contact?

Absolutely yes? This is why CAS is the lowest priority/lowest importance air mission for air forces and theater commanders. The order of precedence of priorities for aviation is something like:

- Destruction of enemy nuclear strike means and reconnaissance-strike complexes.
- Protection of friendly nuclear and reconnaissance-strike complexes from enemy attack.
- Destruction of enemy fighter/bomber aircraft, assault aviation, and their operating bases ("offensive counter-air").
- Protection of ground troops and operating bases from enemy aviation/missile attacks ("defensive counter-air").
- Destruction of enemy ground troops massing for an offensive operation ("battlefield air interdiction").
- Protection of ground troops from enemy ground forces directly attacking them ("close air support").

More prosaically, if troops are being attacked, they have not been overrun, and if they have not been overrun, they are slowing the enemy's advance. This is a good thing. Troops in contact can either defeat an attack by themselves, with support of their own artillery and mortars, or if they don't, they die, and another battalion of a brigade will need to stop the enemy. This is to be expected in a major ground war.

If the enemy has to actually fight through a position in the first place, they have messed up somewhere, as major attacks tend to disrupt a defense before they begin, as was the case in Desert Storm. Those are the attacks where JSFs would need to engage ground (and, more importantly, air) targets the most, and I think the USAF defines that as "battlefield air interdiction" at best. More likely it would be tasking JSFs as part of a general defensive counter-air operation to blunt an enemy ground offensive, because it may not have enough JSFs in theater for them to do anything else, while the battlefield air interdiction may need to fall onto F-15Es and F-16s.

More to the point, infantrymen and tanks are easier to replace than fighter pilots and JSFs. The latter, because of their relative scarcities, are more important, and will likely need to be husbanded by theater commanders for committal to major operations, due to their absolute scarcity. Because the USAF isn't going to procure as many JSFs or B-21s as it says it needs, just like how it didn't procure as many ATFs or ATBs as it says it needs.

It's why a dedicated bomb delivery platform, cheaper than a helicopter gunship but faster than the same, is needed. This covers the "fire support gap" better than relying on a JSF and artillery alone, can be stockpiled in the numbers necessary to fight a major war (Russia has fired how many cruise missiles or some equivalent so far? 1,000? 2,000? More than the USN has in inventory, either way.), and be used in ways that will necessarily involve putting itself in dangerous positions that are not conductive to VLO mission planning, like being right on top of a Tor M2 or HQ-7 (e.g. Scott O'Grady or Package Q), and entirely impractical for legacy airframes like F-15/F-16 or A-10.

CAS is a high risk-low return mission, so it is a low priority for air forces. If there is to be tasking for CAS at all then, it needs a cheap aircraft, because it's too dangerous to risk a JSF, or even a helicopter gunship, doing. The cheap aircraft will look more like a large cruise missile than a ordinary bomber, because cruise missiles are disposable, while stealth bombers and helicopter gunships are not.

A robot plane like a Q-58 or Q-28 would achieve this quite well, without risking high value weapon complexes like JSF, for a reasonably low cost. Alternatively, increasing the capacities of artillery using fiber-optic guided missiles or long range reconnaissance-fire complexes like ZALA Lancet, NLOS-LS PAM, or AFATDS enabled HIMARS in brigade combat teams could work for substituting the JSF.

Russia seems to prefer the latter while the USAF is pursuing the former but for different (albeit similar) reasons. Since CAS in the American understanding requires rapidity of speed, only a turbofan powered system meet this at the moment, with a cruise speed in the mid-low subsonic regime. While FLRAA might offer some limited CAS capacities, it's not ready for combat and it won't be for a long time, while a robotic plane like the LCAAT can probably produce a functional CAS system in under 5 years.

The good thing about LCAAT's robot planes is that they're probably useful for more than just CAS.

 

[Desertfox]

I believe the answer is more M142s and M109A7s with modern munitions and throw in some small drones for good measure. Cheap, safe to use in denied environments, and completely controlled by the army.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I believe the answer is more M142s and M109A7s with modern munitions and throw in some small drones for good measure. Cheap, safe to use in denied environments, and completely controlled by the army.

CAS is still relevant, it's just at the bottom of the totem pole of TAC missions. Because it's very dangerous and has little outcome on a war.

6,000 dead infantrymen (and 12,000 WIA) means very little to a theater commander, or a theater's success for that matter. Yeah you knocked out a tank division? So what, I got 20 more after that one, let's go hooah.

Conversely, 60 dead JSFs might be the difference between winning and losing in that same theater, since it would represent about 20% of the JSF -A force in the USAF, and almost a third of the operational JSF -A force. Imagine having to fight a Desert Storm style campaign, with something like 1/3rd to 1/2th the aviation assets, but against an air force that can actually fight and outnumbers you, with a resilient and modern air defense incorporating S-300PMU and Crotale, has long-range cruise missiles as well as modern and accurate self-guiding TBMs, and possesses airborne early warning systems and attack carriers operating in friendly oceans. Better hope COMSUBPAC is bringing their A-game like they did in 1944.

Any JSF losses will be a genuine pain felt by the Pacific Theater's air planners.

CAS calls for a cheap plane to carry cheap bombs to hit a couple targets. That's what the A-10 was, ultimately, and it's what the JSF isn't.

Nowadays, "cheap" means autopilot computers and simple LWIR sensors for remote operation, a cheap SAR or GMTI radar for through-cloud detection, and a pair of bombs in a tiny weapons bay (or four to six very small 25-50 lbs bombs like the MAMs), rather than manned combat platforms with limited sensors and big guns. With a Arrowhead FLIR in a turret, you could probably fly the drone from a little camera that follows a pilot's movement to a limited degree, using something like an Oculus Rift.

Save the manned aircraft for OCA, where remote control latency and weak situational awareness of drones is all the difference between winning and losing, and the ultra advanced fire control radars for BVR combat and super powerful turbine engines for maneuverability constitute the main costs.

At this point, CAS should either be abandoned, or committed entirely to robotic systems. It's not feasible to expect it to be serious in a major war, and about 35 years ago, no one did expect it to be serious. It was mostly a "well at least someone will get it" attitude back in the day, and aside from JAATs (which weren't CAS because they were a Corps mission), no one routinely planned for the A-10. Neither should anyone routinely expect JSFs to fly down from the heavens and save the next Debecka Pass either, because they would probably die.

The really smart move would be to give the Army the CAS mission but the Air Force isn't keen on that still. Not a realistic prospect, probably, but the Army already operates Grey Eagles for sensor packages. Giving then ZLL Q-58s for intra-theater CAS in the Corps would make sense and likely not be a massive intrusion into existing drone control systems, and fully HEMTT mobile. The Air Force could operate Q-28s or something for the Loyal Wingman, so both LCAATs can find a home.

 

[MadRat]

JSF is a piece of a larger force structure unlike anything from the A-10 generation.

People want to keep the A-10 around for its gun and it ability to loiter with heavy loads. Old thinking. You can put adequate strike packages on unmanned vehicles that can be more places at the same time and cost much less in the TCO. The unmanned vehicle is the delivery vehicle when its activated, no better than an A-10 in nearly every case. But that same strike mission may be available to platforms from a half dozen sources for a price tag comparable to one A-10, because the A-10 is not cheap. Battle management amortizes the sources of the strike package to put the right amount in the right place at the right time. Even when it is not technically any of those things compared to some random event on some random day with some random A-10. The modern replacement will prosecute substantially more targets more often with better results than what would be much of the time missed opportunities when an A-10 is simply unavailable. The F-35 brings much more in the way of situational awareness than as just another strike platform. It will see things an A-10 was never designed to search, track, or identify. And it carries weapons.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Going to go into this with some basic assumptions:

- War is an economic exchange between political participants. The course of the war will be determined by the allocation of resources of the respective economic capacities of the warring parties, and their ability to use these resources effectively. Killing two $4 million tanks for the cost of $6.5 million of aircraft and bomb is a net positive exchange.
- The military potentials of the warring sides will determine the course and outcome of the war. War will likely end in armistice before industrial capacity can ramp up sufficiently to replace losses, so stockpiles are important.
- Moral-political preparation of the participants will depend on both the psychological preparedness of the people for war and their societies' demographic capacities for absorbing casualties of youth (the main participants of battle).
- What we call "CAS" is just an extension of artillery's mission to defend infantry and armor against attack by the enemy. It can be done by a long range missile, like a NLOS PAM, as easily as a manned aviation platform with proper radios.

With those assumptions out of the way, I don't think an A-10 can be replicated one-to-one in the modern fighting environment, at least without causing massive, unsustainable casualties for the present Western demographics and their capacities to produce aviation-grade pilots. Perhaps Israel could support the losses, given its birth rate and median age being under 30, but they're not interested in that exchange at the moment.

Modern air defense systems are more lethal than they were in the 1980's or 1990's. That is not to say that aircraft need to fly lower like the A-10. They probably need to fly higher, so that they have greater energy to evade incoming missiles, and can stream towed decoys. As well, they can be further away from lightweight FLET alerting radars assigned to MANPADS teams.

We have since moved from guns (A-10) to rockets and laser guided missiles (Su-25) at low altitudes to provide close air support, and now we are moving from these methods, to self-correcting glide bomb employment at medium altitude, using JSFs. It's likely any future CAS aircraft will be a vehicle more similar to JSF than the A-10.

However, JSF is so expensive it is dubious it will be available in sufficient quantities to perform this role adequately, and will be tasked pretty much entirely to offensive and defensive counter-air, and deep attack. Likely it will be lost at rates higher than it would suggest too, probably due to simple human errors, and the number of JSFs will be noticeably smaller than the projected minimum number if ATF is any lesson.

Point of order, an F-35A is only twice the cost of a new build Apache E. ($40mil to 80 mil)

So something like "a Stealthy A-7 with extra loiter time(tm)" is probably going to be around $60-70mil. Just flat the minimum entry cost.

The core necessity of the "CAS aircraft" to be cheap, effectively disposable, and able to engage a "sizeable quantity" of armor, hasn't changed since the '60's or so. What has changed is that men are no longer cheap, radars and FLIRs are now so disposable we use them in bombs, and "sizeable quantities" of armor to be engaged by individual aircraft have dropped by an order of magnitude due to increased dispersion.

This suggests that a future CAS aircraft to replace the A-10 will have more in common with a AGM-129 than a A-10 or JSF. A munition that can be reused to attack armor and mortar teams, and if it happens to complete a single mission, it has already paid for itself.

Cost should ideally be under either $5 million, to compare with the Tomahawk, or under $20 million, which compares well with current CAS platforms like AH-64E remanf's and MQ-9s, and stockpiled as ammunition rather than aircraft. Even though it is an aircraft, the expectation that it will be lost in huge numbers should be baked in, because it's the only way to justify a sizeable force in peacetime.

A sort of CAS DASH that motors around looking for tanks, kind of like DARPA's Thirsty Saber, would be really good.

It won't be able to provide the Iraq/Afghanistan "always on CAS" but it will be able to silence mortars supporting an enemy's "big push" and provide counter-battery and air support for your own "big push" to take the next line of trenches, while freeing the JSFs to be used for more important things.

I certainly see that as part of the equation, but not the entirety of the equation. And they're still going to need a flying drone wrangler in the area. Direct LOS comms are much harder to jam.

There is still a standing doctrinal need for a very low Danger Close range weapon. Whether that's a gun or a laser is rather immaterial, and I suspect that the best way to deploy the current very low Danger Close range weapons is not from a drone. Some of that need is to protect troops in close contact. Some of that need is to prevent the destruction of the only unit stopping a breakthrough.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So, summing it up, you :
1 - loiter outside the IADS cover (where you are safe)
2 - receive the call to provide CAS
3 - head toward the target into the IADS cover (where you are not safe anymore)
4 - hopefully be lucky

What I'm trying to say is, it's not a matter of vulturing, it's matter of making it into the denied area, hitting the target and coming back in one piece. The denied area is per definition denied, no manned platform should enter it, because it's not safe to do so.
And it's why I suggest that, in a non-permissive environment in today's world, CAS is a job that should only be performed by a mix of smart and loitering munitions, irrespective of the platform that deploys them (and deploys them at a safe distance to do so).

It's much less risky to only make an occasional dive into the denied area than it is to try to spend all day vulturing in the denied area like Tacit Blue...

If you can launch weapons from outside the denied area, that's great.

But when the CAS request is "stop the destruction of the 116BCT, they're the only ones stopping the breakthrough" you need to get into the denied area and start dropping Danger Close including gun runs.

It's not that Russian pilots and Ukrainian pilots aren't using the Su-25's gun because said gun is not the primary weapon of their aircraft or it doesn't have as many round as their US counterpart.
I'm sure they would love to use it.
They are not using it, because if they were to try and bring the gun where it's needed, they would be shot down.
Guns are obsolete in aircraft meant to provide CAS in a non-permissive environment.

Guns exist to prevent a unit from being overrun. And in a near-peer conflict, that means stopping the destruction of the one unit that is preventing the breakthrough.

Do you expect to need a gun run very often? No, I'd expect less than 1% of all CAS in the last 20 years has been gun runs. Do you need a gun run capability in your CAS plane? YES!

 

[CiTrus90]

It's much less risky to only make an occasional dive into the denied area than it is to try to spend all day vulturing in the denied area like Tacit Blue...

If you can launch weapons from outside the denied area, that's great.

But when the CAS request is "stop the destruction of the 116BCT, they're the only ones stopping the breakthrough" you need to get into the denied area and start dropping Danger Close including gun runs.

Guns exist to prevent a unit from being overrun. And in a near-peer conflict, that means stopping the destruction of the one unit that is preventing the breakthrough.

Do you expect to need a gun run very often? No, I'd expect less than 1% of all CAS in the last 20 years has been gun runs. Do you need a gun run capability in your CAS plane? YES!

Real life doesn't work like the movies. You do not make "occasional dives" in CAS.

Imagine the following scenario.
You are under enemy IADS (layered defenses, a mix of S-300s, TORs, Pantsirs, Strelas, Iglas, Shilkas) and receive a request a for a CAS mission.
How is CAS conducted in the western world?
The options here are 2:
1 - you can either be requested to drop ordnance on coordinates/laser; or
2 - you are talked into the target, i.e. the JTAC on the ground tells you what to aim at.
You do not engage on your own. You are deconflicted and guided by a specialist on the ground.

To reach the line of contact you fly at tree-top level to both stay under the longer ranged missiles' umbrella and to reduce the risk of being locked on by IR seekers equipped weapons.
Now you have reached the frontline where your unit is being overrun.
What do you do?

Do you have the time (at low altitude) to be talked into the target, get visual on it, confirm it with the JTAC and call contact, to make sure you are not going to kill him and his unit?
Do you make several passes in order to diligently do all of the above, thus increasing your chances of not making it out alive?
Do you pop up from the ground cover to release your ordnance (in order for you yourself to not catch shrapnel from said ordnance) and expose yourself to everything that can see, track and kill you?

NATO doctrine calls for air dominance to be estabilished over a battlefield for a reason.
Only once you have degraded the enemy's air assets and IADS, troops can move in and can be supported effectively.

If air dominance over a battelfield has not been estabilished, you do not have a permissive environment, and thus you get something like what's happening in Ukraine.
Your CAS is not going to be able to prevent you from being ovverrun if you can't fend for yourself. We have seen several units on both sides already being overrun, and in many different occasions.
This is not because the soldiers from either side are incompetent or lack bravery, it's because their respective air assets are not able to help them out, since they will be killed if they step close to the line of contact.
So the guys that run out of artillery, armor, mines, ammo, men first have to retreat.

What is providing something akin to CAS for both parties right now? Hexacopters and drones for what needs precision strikes. Otherwise, either rockets deployed from aircraft and helicopters as if they were MRLS or glide bombs by aircraft flying at distance. To a lesser extent, other guided weapons like the LMUR, Lancet or Himars (which have even been used for counterbattery fire) for example, but these are mostly used on more important targets behind the line of contact.

As I stated in a previous post, an aircraft's survival can only be guaranteed by either stealth or speed.
Either the radar/IR seeker doesn't see/track you or you are faster than the missile being tossed at you.

Anything else is wishful thinking and leaves your destiny up to blind luck. Which is not something air forces worldwide are keen to rely on.

If you have a scenario like Iraq and Afghanistan in mind, instead, which are permissive environments, then yes, your CAS can come and help you out. Even with a gun in that case.
And anything in the inventory from a B-52 to an AT-6 will be fine to perform the CAS mission, because the danger to them of being shot down will be minimal to non-existent.
At that point it becomes just a matter of what assets are available, at what times and with what weapons.

It seems to me, that people are conflating CAS (which, I reiterate, is a mission and not an aircraft type) with COIN (which, instead, is a specialized type of aircraft).

 

[Scott Kenny]

It seems to me, that people are conflating CAS (which, I reiterate, is a mission and not an aircraft type) with COIN (which, instead, is a specialized type of aircraft).

Again, from the original A-X studies that lead to the A-10, one of the highly desired abilities of a dedicated CAS aircraft was long loiter time, hours not minutes. And that translates to a mix of fuel capacity and engine used. Which ends up making a specialized type of aircraft, separate from COIN.

Another highly desired ability of the dedicated CAS aircraft was lots of cannon firepower. The old A-1 Skyraider only had 200 rounds per gun, ~15-20 second of continuous fire (700rpm per gun times 4 guns). The A-7E had 1000+ rounds of 20mm, ~10 seconds of continuous fire. The A-10 has 1000+ rounds of 30x173mm, ~15-20 seconds of continuous fire. The F-35A has 180 rounds of 25mm, enough for about 4 seconds of firing.

The gun is for very close contact, as it has a 50m danger close range. If you say that the gun is not necessary, then you need to provide a different weapon with large capacity (10-20 rounds per plane) that also has a 50m danger close range. APKWS still has over a 100m danger close range!

 

[Desertfox]

We have a dedicated long loiter time, gun armed aircraft, in the inventory. It's called the AC-130.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We have a dedicated long loiter time, gun armed aircraft, in the inventory. It's called the AC-130.

That's COIN, not CAS.

Some of the requirements overlap between the two, but nobody is going to say that a C130 is survivable in daylight over an opponent that has even basic AA guns and MANPADS.

 

[CiTrus90]

Again, from the original A-X studies that lead to the A-10...

...do we still live in 1966?
Are the threats we face the same as they were back then?

In the 1980s the estimated losses in a peer-conflict with the Soviet Union for the A-10 were to be in the order of 10 aircraft every 24 hours.
Is that an acceptable rate of losses?
At that pace the entire fleet of A-10s would have been depleted in 2 weeks.

In the 1980s.
Which is 43 years ago.

Do you think the threats to air assets diminished or increased in the meantime?
Don't reference studies from over 50 years ago, try to look at how the world is right now and try to imagine how it will be in the future.

The gun is for very close contact, as it has a 50m danger close range. If you say that the gun is not necessary, then you need to provide a different weapon with large capacity (10-20 rounds per plane) that also has a 50m danger close range. APKWS still has over a 100m danger close range!

I think you keep missing the point.
The point is not that the gun doesn't do its job well.
The point is that you cannot bring a gun strapped to an aircraft close enough to a frontline and expect the aircraft to survive.
That concept of CAS in a peer-conflict is obsolete because it will get your crews killed.

 

[Desertfox]

That's COIN, not CAS.

Some of the requirements overlap between the two, but nobody is going to say that a C130 is survivable in daylight over an opponent that has even basic AA guns and MANPADS.

And no one is spending the money required to design such an aircraft for the 1% of time its needed.