Possible A-10 Warthog Replacements

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

First, I do not believe anything will be able to replace the A-10. Except another A-10. The options mentioned have "challenges" (the new term for problems). The A-29 Super Tucano? Seriously? The F-35 Lightening at a (current) cost of approx. $100 million each (and the $400K helmet)? With two bombs and two missiles as the current limit for hanging on the F-35, probably not. Sure, the two mentioned could do some of the missions currently done by the A-10, but neither are ever going to pack a GAU-8 Avenger 30mm rotary cannon.

Anyway, the first photo in that linked post brought a smile to my face. The second photo, a grimace. Rant done. Over to you.

http://www.theaviationist.com/2016/03/14/these-are-the-planes-that-could-replace-a10/

 

[JHZR2]

All of those seem like steps in the wrong direction, or VERY expensive.

I get it that a restart costs money too, but for the role an A-10 needs to do, why not an A-10 restart?

 

[CT8]

The lobby money isn't thereto get the politicians vote to make more A10s.

 

[Donald]

My step son is in the Air Force forecasting weather for missions. He was in Korea but he does get deployed. Anyway he has nothing good to say about the F-35 from what he has seen and heard. Jack of all trades but master of none.

 

[simple_gifts]

15 year aircraft armament specialist on the A-10; USAF keeps trying to bury the plane; this is probably the third time.

Quote:

The U.S. Air Force needs a next-generation A-10 before attempting to mothball any further A-10s. The specific mission set for CAS/FAC-A/CSAR requires a specific aircraft, not one that is a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none."


QFT

If you want to see how ridiculous the effort became, browse the A-16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#A-16

Congress actually making a good decision by not allowing it to happen.

A bottom engined, single engined lawn dart doing CAS; yah, sign me up for that pilot training.

 

[toneydoc]

Hi Admiral

Yea man! Love the A-10. Warthog all the way.

Takes a lickin and it keeps a kickin. They are beautiful. Saw them many times while in the Army. And I really love the sound while they are in a dive at target. Dang I miss those days.

Oh well. Here I am pecking at a keyboard now. Hard to believe they will finally replace it after the GREAT job that plane did the past many years. Don't know why they just don't keep them. But they did not ask me

 

[wemay]

When i was a kid and visited my brother at Atwater, Ca before he retired AF, i would marvel and daydream while looking at the A-10 and B-52. His buddies couldn't understand why i wasn't into the fighters as much. I love the Warthog.

 

[Oro_O]

Strange, I read a different article on the same subject today from the Fiscal Times.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/03/14/5-Attack-Planes-Could-Replace-10-Warthog

 

[OneEyeJack]

F-35 replace the A10. They're kidding, right.

Would you expose an F-35 to a ground attack mission. Pilots are allergic to getting shot down and that's exactly what would happen to the F-35. When trouble comes bring on the A-10. The A-10 is trouble with a big gun.

 

[Mr Nice]

An old OV-10 Bronco could do a better job at close air support than F-35.

Way toooo much money from government and contracts to let the F-35 fail.

 

[Ducked]

I'd guess, given the "counter insurgency" nature of most current operations, that the need for "traditional" CAS is reduced.

Where there isn't a high altitude AA threat, a large aircraft with long loiter times delivering smart bombs remotely from beyond the range of ground fire would often get the job done.

You could probably do that relatively cheaply with a militarised version of a cargo liner, perhaps launching the weapons via something like torpedo tubes. You wouldn't have to deliver a lot in any one strike, so a "traditional" bomb bay wouldn't be required.

Some kind of warehousing materials handling system could select appropriate munitions, or it could be done manually.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts

If you want to see how ridiculous the effort became, browse the A-16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#A-16

Congress actually making a good decision by not allowing it to happen.

A bottom engined, single engined lawn dart doing CAS; yah, sign me up for that pilot training.


I think they also tried to push this version for ground attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

 

[IndyIan]

Maybe drones are the replacement? Although none of them are likely to carry a gun of anywhere near the capability of the A-10.
The soldier on the ground could get the drone to take an aerial photo of the current local terrain, the drone sends it to them on their ipad, and the soldier just picks the spot on the map he wants blown up with a small smart bomb?

 

[Astro14]

The A-10 is optimized for a narrow mission. That mission has been high demand in recent conflicts...but the larger question is this: will that mission (CAS in a permissive air environment) continue to be relevant in future conflict?

IF that mission continues to be relevant, what airplane can deliver the ordnance on target most effectively? The 30mm is great for certain targets.

But the airplane itself is slow. Slow to transit to where it's needed, lengthening response time for CAS. It's also too under-powered to refuel at medium altitude with a full ordnance load, which places big constraints on employment in mountainous terrain. It's too underpowered to take off with full ordnance at high altitude, which, again, makes for issues basing it in mountainous terrain.

But as an example, a B-1 overhead, with 30+ JDAM, makes a great CAS platform. It carries several times the A-10 bomb load, stays above the surface-air threat envelope, has tremendous endurance, is fast enough to get anywhere in the AOR quickly, and dedicated crew-members to communicate with the the guys on the ground.

Ground guys love the A-10 because they've seen it in action. But that love doesn't mean it's the best platform for the mission, just the platform with which they're most familiar. Yeah, it works well, but other platforms have real strengths in the CAS arena.

 

[tom slick]

Doesn't the AC-130 fulfill a CAS role? How come it's not mentioned in these discussions?

 

[Oro_O]

Originally Posted By: tom slick
Doesn't the AC-130 fulfill a CAS role? How come it's not mentioned in these discussions?


AC-130s are all about CAS, and are always part of the debate. In fact, the #2 choice of TACs and FOs. See this article just today:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/views-from-the-ground-on-the-a-10-debate/

But it is a different tool than a F/A plane getting close in a contested air space.

 

[Astro14]

Exactly.

If you know where the trouble is going to be, an AC-130 can loiter over head. But it's slow to respond to trouble hundreds of miles away. It's a sitting duck when you don't have air superiority. And it's vulnerable to MANPADS...so, it's best used at night...

The mission requirements define the best platform.

I spent a tour at the CAOC in Al-Udeid, Qatar, planning CAS for CENTCOM (Iraq and Afghanistan). We had F-14, F/A-18, A-10, F-16 (including the Danes and the Dutch), F-15E, AV-8B, C-130 and B-1 available.

There were pros and cons to every platform, and the "art" of operational planning was aligning resources to requirements to optimize utilization/combat effectiveness.

For example, the F-14s were FAC(A) qualified. They could direct fires, which only the A-10 could do. No other tactical aircraft at the time was FAC(A). So, they would be able to support without a FAC and direct fires from another platform. The F-14 could carry multiple air-ground weapons, self-protect from an Air-Air threat, and get to a mission area a whole lot faster than the A-10, and had no tanking constraints (seriously, in a country with 24,000' peaks, the A-10 couldn't refuel above 18,000...this created "challenges" in operations).

Every CAS platform has strengths/weaknesses.

 

[Uber_Archetype]

I believe the whole A-10 controversy boils down to the simple fact that lawmakers are more concerned with their constituencies than the mission requirements. The majority of people involved with making the decisions simply don't have a clue. Nobody denies the fact it is certainly the best CAS platform ever designed and built for that 1 mission area. The problem is it has become too expensive to maintain and operate in today's DoD budget environment, while at the same time being to politically expensive to kill.

Don't even worry about the technical mission issues. They really don't matter anymore -lots of viable options out there. BTW, I spent 2 years assigned to Det2 of the 41st Tac Fighter Wing, Leipheim Germany 1990-1, supporting A-10 flight ops and just love this aircraft. Talk about one badarse gun platform:

FullSizePic

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The A-10 is optimized for a narrow mission. That mission has been high demand in recent conflicts...but the larger question is this: will that mission (CAS in a permissive air environment) continue to be relevant in future conflict?

If you guess wrong and lose the A10 you lose capability. Superpowers aren't going to be fighting each other in an all out ground war. We are either going to be fighting much less capable opponents or we're going to be fighting with cyber, nukes, etc. I just read an article this week about China and Russia planning on targeting military satellites. The go fast gear isn't going to work as well without the accompanying infrastructure.

 

[Uber_Archetype]

Originally Posted By: hatt
If you guess wrong and lose the A10 you lose capability.

True. But like I said, the cost vs. benefit for the A-10 is no longer there. It's become one of those "nice-to-have" things we can't afford to keep around. Too many drawbacks associated with the non-permissive environment threat, and lots of other ways to get the job done better for less cost. Like you said, there won't be any large superpower ground engagements, and that is what is was designed for - killing Russian tanks.