A-X all over again - USAF pushes for A-10 replacement

kaiserd said:
And the US can’t afford the inter-service bullshit of previous decades. No good reasons for the US Army to start operating A-10s now and even if they did all the issues noted above would still very much apply.
Click to expand...
"No good reason for US Army to ..." sounds exactly like the very typical USAF "inter-service bullshit of previous decades".
No inter-service bullshit is called marine air.
kaiserd said:
shot down because it was low and slow, and was low and slow only to pander to what some thinks the mission still requires
Click to expand...
If we're talking peer confrontations - we're talking armies whose AA ecosystem is fully capable of dealing with both.
 
Add to that, that a slow A-10 orbiting around the battle line is... an armed Reaper or Predator.

Then why expose an army pilot to an unexpected rapid descent back to the field?

But make no mistake, IMOHO, with all the COIN/counter terrorism missions around the world, the a-10 would certainly do great in many different places in various operators hands.
 
Last edited:
In a peer threat environment, nothing is going to operate without risk, but then war is a risky business. Manned or not, flying things will have a tough time of it until the opposing air defenses are reduced. That said, all of the first line militaries have thought through the necessary means needed to make the reductions happen. Interestingly while there is much nervousness about air platforms facing hundreds of surface to air missiles, no one much mentions the plight of the tank against thousands of anti-tank missiles. But before we get into a digression away from the topic, UAV are fine war machines, right up to the point they loose link. Many first line militaries have developed means to make this happen, kinetically or otherwise. At best the UAV "knows" to return to base or a holding point, whereas a manned platform knowing the intent of the mission might carry on supporting the troops. One of the reasons that the U.S. Army has not fought to gain the A-10, or a successor, and stayed with VTOL platforms is that the VTOL platform can land at the ground command post and ask the commander what he wants done. Landing in the farmers field, jumping out and going to the commanders vehicle with an old fashioned map (no batteries required) still occurs more than many might think.

Then there is the moral issue (at least in the western cultures) of allowing machines to decide to kill. Certainly UAS are used to kill, but there is still a human that pushes the commit button to that action. Allowing an algorithm to mathematically choose remains (at this point) a social issue in some places. As we bumble through another industrial revolution (information democratization), the notion that future war will be done by robots creates dilemma. Do you loose the war if your robots are defeated?

Warfare is a human endeavor. Humans (at least the poor bloody infantry) prefer to have humans watching their backs, with or without communications.
 
I see a very sensible post here that allows us to reenter the reality of the debate.

Perhaps than the mistake done to split CAS b/w manned/Unmanned could be repaired if we would understand each other discussing more appropriatly the combination of the two?

The Reaper manned from continental US should be seen as forward deployed with VTOL scouts and overhead stealth fighter jets in control.

The unmanned portion of CAS is then just that encompassing weapons delivery at close range and to be a local arsenal plane.
 
Maybe drones are the answer. They are lighter, doesn't risk a pilot, cheaper to make,
and can be fitted with armor killing missiles.The only thing missing is the 30mm. Can
the 30mm be fitted to another aircraft or has the 30mm days come and gone. Any
thoughts on this.
 
muttly said:
Maybe drones are the answer. They are lighter, doesn't risk a pilot, cheaper to make,
and can be fitted with armor killing missiles.The only thing missing is the 30mm. Can
the 30mm be fitted to another aircraft or has the 30mm days come and gone. Any
thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
This original solution is flying around everywhere for 2 decades.
No, as of early 2020s, drones just aren't there yet. They aren't there even for COIN mission.
Maybe in 10 years.
 
muttly said:
Maybe drones are the answer. They are lighter, doesn't risk a pilot, cheaper to make,
and can be fitted with armor killing missiles.The only thing missing is the 30mm. Can
the 30mm be fitted to another aircraft or has the 30mm days come and gone. Any
thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
The continuing importance and relevance of the 30mm (especially now with more advanced munitions in service) is overstated by some. A “nice to have” in the CAS role but really very niche and would involve a mission profile very risky for a manned profile unless your opponents have little to no ability to meaningfully shoot back. And in those limited scenarios any USAF fighter with a 20mm or 25mm cannon can do the job about as equally well.
 
Right, infact of the three true CAS plane actually in service, our own one (the AMX Ghibli) use just a standard M61 peashooter and has not any armor,
Fundamental requisite of a CAS manned plane is not the BRAAAP level (Su-25 was as an example just the third one in the arsenal of the SU in that regard) but the ability of fly at a low level and low velocity for a consistent period of time over the battlefield and being able to directly interact with the units on ground in a two way mode giving both information/reconnaissance than fire support for all the time of engagement.

AND finding a fitting substitute for all this requirements it is not so easy task:
Mig-27 had a gun even superior of that of an A-10 but cannot stay long and fly in any case too fast to interact with troop on grounds.
A-16 will have had the same problem, just worse as it had the wings and consequently the flying characteristics of a fighter, not even of a conventional attack plane.
An armed UAV can stay even longer that a CASplane but is too lightly armed and also the two way communication part is problematic : eyeball Mk-1 and an human mind in the cockpit itself and not in another continent are a must in this case.
Also because having a gun, even a small one on board is still very useful anyway: it was ascertained that performing (even a mock) strafing run has the advantage of pinning down attacking infantry over the whole assault line .
Still F-35 and Su-34 are a good compromise on that regard, from 4+ gen planes onward, planes sport a good Aoa , so they can keep a way lower minimum speed and so they can fit (partially) in the desired speed and quote needed for the role.
Yes, they are an overkill but a B-1B and Reaper team up , as it was done in the battle of Kobane will be even more so.
Modern optronics and targeting systems allow planes to perform close reconnaissance tasks and even use guns and rocket pods at a way higher quote than before, so its not even an urgent task to find a substitute (almost for russian Su-25, that have still a lot of flying hours in the belly, AMX and A-10 not so much).
 
Last edited:
Marcellogo said:
Right, infact of the three true CAS plane actually in service, our own one (the AMX Ghibli) use just a standard M61 peashooter and has not any armor,
Fundamental requisite of a CAS manned plane is not the BRAAAP level (Su-25 was as an example just the third one in the arsenal of the SU in that regard) but the ability of fly at a low level and low velocity for a consistent period of time over the battlefield and being able to directly interact with the units on ground in a two way mode giving both information/reconnaissance than fire support for all the time of engagement.

AND finding a fitting substitute for all this requirements it is not so easy task:
Mig-27 had a gun even superior of that of an A-10 but cannot stay long and fly in any case too fast to interact with troop on grounds.
A-16 will have had the same problem, just worse as it had the wings and consequently the flying characteristics of a fighter, not even of a conventional attack plane.
An armed UAV can stay even longer that a CASplane but is too lightly armed and also the two way communication part is problematic : eyeball Mk-1 and an human mind in the cockpit itself and not in another continent are a must in this case.
Also because having a gun, even a small one on board is still very useful anyway: it was ascertained that performing (even a mock) strafing run has the advantage of pinning down attacking infantry over the whole assault line .
Still F-35 and Su-34 are a good compromise on that regard, from 4+ gen planes onward, planes sport a good Aoa , so they can keep a way lower minimum speed and so they can fit (partially) in the desired speed and quote needed for the role.
Yes, they are an overkill but a B-1B and Reaper team up , as it was done in the battle of Kobane will be even more so.
Modern optronics and targeting systems allow planes to perform close reconnaissance tasks and even use guns and rocket pods at a way higher quote than before, so its not even an urgent task to find a substitute (almost for russian Su-25, that have still a lot of flying hours in the belly, AMX and A-10 not so much).
Click to expand...
I cannot envisage anyone sending either an F35 or Su34 out to do true CAS, in a peer to peer war, unless they are the last aircraft you have, and you need 24 hours to flee.

Likewise drones, have had some successes, but a drone is a fairly single mission piece of kit, it has one speed(normally pretty slow) relatively fixed altitude etc. Also of course you must have comms to the drone, unless you release it to hunt-kill, but I dont think you can then get it back if it doesnt find a target?

Most Nato forces will have drone countermeasures, and even for non-G20 its not too difficult to think of countermeasures you could immplement, lets not forget much of WW2 was done with manual tracking of enemy aircraft, radar was not commonplace, outside of the UK, at least in the first half.

With a manned aircraft, you can change tactics very quickly, from low height, to med or higher, Gulf war, started super low, with runway denial, and toss bombing, and quickly moved to medium altitiude, with LGB etc. In a conflict presumably with a lot of EW etc, being able to send a manned aircraft with alternate plans or targets, versus a drone you launch, and then lose touch with, is going to be interesting.

Certainly manned aircraft are good targets, but as always this is not chess, and there is not an AD unit every 10km of the grid. Good intelligence, stealth, drones, training, etc all come into it. Likewise the will to win, and the reason/location of the conflict.
 
Well, at least, it's good to have the cheapest plane to maintain as your pet project. With every thing going wary with US delagates now (senate, congress, Supreme), at the end that one is probably a sane ideological debate to have!

Let's hope that someone think about saving money for new engines...

Go Aardvark!
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
starving the A-10 of spare parts will only result in the deaths of pilots who fly the "Hog" in the long run. :mad:
Click to expand...
Continuing to dream that the A-10 will survive in a modern contested environment when there are far better solutions available will only result in the deaths of pilots.

The A-10 is now over 50yrs old! Consider that for a moment. If the same arguments to keep the A-10 in service were applied to earlier platforms, one might have seen the USAF fighting the 1991 Operation Desert Storm with Republic P-47 Thunderbolts instead of A-10s. People need to get over this nostalgia.
 
GTX said:
FighterJock said:
starving the A-10 of spare parts will only result in the deaths of pilots who fly the "Hog" in the long run. :mad:
Click to expand...
Continuing to dream that the A-10 will survive in a modern contested environment when there are far better solutions available will only result in the deaths of pilots.

The A-10 is now over 50yrs old! Consider that for a moment. If the same arguments to keep the A-10 in service were applied to earlier platforms, one might have seen the USAF fighting the 1991 Operation Desert Storm with Republic P-47 Thunderbolts instead of A-10s. People need to get over this nostalgia.
Click to expand...
The biggest deal with wanting to keep the A-10 is the pilots CAS focus Culture.

That is the single most important part of the A10. The Meat computer in the titanium bath tub.

Which no one in the other branches trust the Air Force to keep after the change out.

Mainly cause within ten years of other A-10 Squadrons going from A10 to F-XX they end up not be good at slinging bombs somehow. There are enough stories and bad experience from Iraq and Afghanistan of F15-16 pilots missing with GPS guided bombs while the A10 one shot it that there is a solid pattern to recognize.

And its a Pattern that make both the Army and Marines look at the Air Force with mistrust when they say: "The F35 can do everything the A10 can!"

Cause while the F35 can do everything an A10 can Far better. As shown by the Marines and Israeli doing so.

The Question of, Will the Pilots, is on everyone's minds.

And the Air Force NUKED that bridge decades ago that everyone in power thinks the answer is a no.

So the A10 stays in service.
 
GTX said:
FighterJock said:
starving the A-10 of spare parts will only result in the deaths of pilots who fly the "Hog" in the long run. :mad:
Click to expand...
Continuing to dream that the A-10 will survive in a modern contested environment when there are far better solutions available will only result in the deaths of pilots.

The A-10 is now over 50yrs old! Consider that for a moment. If the same arguments to keep the A-10 in service were applied to earlier platforms, one might have seen the USAF fighting the 1991 Operation Desert Storm with Republic P-47 Thunderbolts instead of A-10s. People need to get over this nostalgia.
Click to expand...
And people keep bringing this up like it means anything, there is such a thing as air combined arms you know, gust because you need f-35 to sead/dead a area dosnt also mean you don't need a different aircraft for cas, both are nessary in modern war and the sooner the usaf recognizes that the sooner they can maby actually start on make a actual a-10 replacement not trying to replace every plane in the inventory with f-35 even on shit there not good at.
 
It seems the USAF is prioritising on peer and near peer agressors, like Russian and the PRC, in the environments these guys can bring to a knife fight the A10 would last about that in minutes.

If we are going to keep them then what type of engagement could they survive in? Anything involving Taliban type opponents could be very nicely managed with the A10 but the more serious opponents would result in a lot more body bags which never goes down well with the folks back home.

Seriously, put the majority in storage and the remainders use for lower grade opponents. Use scavenging to keep those you fly.
 
Cascade some [more] to ANG and/or AFRES squadrons and place the remainder in (useable) store at D-M AFB. The A-10 would make a great mount for interior ANGs that don't have as much of a requirement for Air Defence and also just simply, you never know if you need something until you need it.

Peer conflicts, true peer ones are only likely to end one way IMO opinion, making them unlikely - though not impossible, unfortunately. Far more likely are more proxy conflicts. While the sponsor states will no doubt field some of their silver bullets in these to test them out, it is at least likely some of these will be of a lower order of intensity, in which a platform such as the A-10 lends itself. Even true peer conflicts will have secondary theatres.

The fighter mafia have been trying to kill the Hawg for decades. While we do approach the beginning of the end and a drawdown may be prudent, I respectfully disagree that the A-10 unequivocally has no place in the next war. Which one is that, anyway?

I must also say, I do find it curious that the AC-130, CV-22 and RC-12 don't seem to generate the same noise and fury as the A-10 with regard to their continued utility/vulnerability. Air Force platforms with similar (lesser even?) survivability but no such bun fights on the Hill, the 5-pointy place.....or the internet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Imo, if US need manned CAS aircraft replacing A-10, Textron Scorpion is good candidate. Its cheap, pretty fast (which is good in nap to earth flight, giving really short aiming window for MANPADS like Su-25 did in Ukraine). Slap alot of flare/chaff, F-35 EOTS and 25mm gatling and i think it's a good CAS platform.
Scorpion-DR.jpg
Scorpion-GBU.jpg

The only 2 downside are you don't have safety margin if you got hit by AA gun or MANPADS that A-10 and Su-25 have, and you can't carry weapon as many as A-10 can. But its still comparable to AMX Ghibli and J-22.
Anyway, i think people will try to solve the debate if dedicated aircraft for this role is still needed or not first.
 
Alifzero said:
Imo, if US need manned CAS aircraft replacing A-10, Textron Scorpion is good candidate. Its cheap, pretty fast (which is good in nap to earth flight, giving really short aiming window for MANPADS like Su-25 did in Ukraine). Slap alot of flare/chaff, F-35 EOTS and 25mm gatling and i think it's a good CAS platform.
View attachment 680534
View attachment 680536

The only 2 downside are you don't have safety margin if you got hit by AA gun or MANPADS that A-10 and Su-25 have, and you can't carry weapon as many as A-10 can. But its still comparable to AMX Ghibli and J-22.
Anyway, i think people will try to solve the debate if dedicated aircraft for this role is still needed or not first.
Click to expand...

I like the sound of that Alifzero, the Scorpion's only downside is the lack of armour but that can be solved by putting armour in critical parts of the aircraft like the engines and the cockpit area then you have a good A-10 replacement aircraft.
 
Foo Fighter said:
It seems the USAF is prioritising on peer and near peer agressors, like Russian and the PRC, in the environments these guys can bring to a knife fight the A10 would last about that in minutes.

If we are going to keep them then what type of engagement could they survive in? Anything involving Taliban type opponents could be very nicely managed with the A10 but the more serious opponents would result in a lot more body bags which never goes down well with the folks back home.

Seriously, put the majority in storage and the remainders use for lower grade opponents. Use scavenging to keep those you fly.
Click to expand...
A-10s large wing span and load limit allows many more standoff AT missiles/hunter killer UAvs than the f-35 can carry per sortie,
 
Alifzero said:
Imo, if US need manned CAS aircraft replacing A-10, Textron Scorpion is good candidate. Its cheap, pretty fast (which is good in nap to earth flight, giving really short aiming window for MANPADS like Su-25 did in Ukraine). Slap alot of flare/chaff, F-35 EOTS and 25mm gatling and i think it's a good CAS platform.
Click to expand...
Given that 2in guided shells are becoming fait accompli - why not it for a specialized aircraft instead?
 
Ainen said:
Alifzero said:
Imo, if US need manned CAS aircraft replacing A-10, Textron Scorpion is good candidate. Its cheap, pretty fast (which is good in nap to earth flight, giving really short aiming window for MANPADS like Su-25 did in Ukraine). Slap alot of flare/chaff, F-35 EOTS and 25mm gatling and i think it's a good CAS platform.
Click to expand...
Given that 2in guided shells are becoming fait accompli - why not it for a specialized aircraft instead?
Click to expand...
Well, afaik 50mm autocannon have really hard hitting recoil. So i don't think that's good idea, which no wonder why no fighter have cannon bigger than 37mm afaik.
I think most mission will be done with either AGM, laser guided bomb, or/and laser guided rocket (or if you Russian, lofting rocket too), so putting EOTS will be more impactful than big gun. The 25mm gun is only for just in case situation. If you think its too small, maybe its time to bring back Aden gun or adapting M230 on fixed wing platform.
 
Alifzero said:
adapting M230 on fixed wing platform.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good idea, putting the Apache's Chain Gun onto a fixed wing platform would work in principle and using an existing weapon system instead of trying to develop a new weapon system it would also keep costs down as well.
 
Alifzero said:
Imo, if US need manned CAS aircraft replacing A-10, Textron Scorpion is good candidate. Its cheap, pretty fast (which is good in nap to earth flight, giving really short aiming window for MANPADS like Su-25 did in Ukraine). Slap alot of flare/chaff, F-35 EOTS and 25mm gatling and i think it's a good CAS platform.
View attachment 680534
View attachment 680536

The only 2 downside are you don't have safety margin if you got hit by AA gun or MANPADS that A-10 and Su-25 have, and you can't carry weapon as many as A-10 can. But its still comparable to AMX Ghibli and J-22.
Anyway, i think people will try to solve the debate if dedicated aircraft for this role is still needed or not first.
Click to expand...
Skorpion was built on speculation for a USAF trainer contract.
Textron did not win that competition, so it is unlikely that Skorpion will ever be manufactured beyond prototypes.
Skorpion's biggest advantage - for Third World air forces is that it uses the same Honeywell turbo-fan engine as the presidential executive jet.
Skorpion's biggest disadvantage is its light bomb load: 6,200 pounds ... compared with A-10's 16,000 bomb-load.
Fortunately there are another dozen in-production light jet trainers (Aero, BAE, Northrop-Grumman, Leonardo, PZL, SAAB, Yakovlev, etc.) that can fly similar light ground attack missions to defend the dictator of the Republic of ABC. The Republic of ABC does not need to go toe-to-toe with a Soviet-equipped AAA network, rather, the Republic of ABC only needs to outgun the rusty equipment fielded by the Republic of XYZ.
 
riggerrob said:
Skorpion was built on speculation for a USAF trainer contract.
Textron did not win that competition, so it is unlikely that Skorpion will ever be manufactured beyond prototypes.
Click to expand...
Textron Scorpion was not built to be entered in a trainer competition and it has not been entered in any trainer competition. It's not a trainer. It is designed for light attack and ISR.
In the Light Attack program, it was eliminated in favor of the AT-6 and A-29. The program of course went nowhere.
 
riggerrob said:
Skorpion was built on speculation for a USAF trainer contract.
Textron did not win that competition, so it is unlikely that Skorpion will ever be manufactured beyond prototypes.
Skorpion's biggest advantage - for Third World air forces is that it uses the same Honeywell turbo-fan engine as the presidential executive jet.
Skorpion's biggest disadvantage is its light bomb load: 6,200 pounds ... compared with A-10's 16,000 bomb-load.
Fortunately there are another dozen in-production light jet trainers (Aero, BAE, Northrop-Grumman, Leonardo, PZL, SAAB, Yakovlev, etc.) that can fly similar light ground attack missions to defend the dictator of the Republic of ABC. The Republic of ABC does not need to go toe-to-toe with a Soviet-equipped AAA network, rather, the Republic of ABC only needs to outgun the rusty equipment fielded by the Republic of XYZ.
Click to expand...
That's basically what i meant when stating one of the Scorpion downside, it has far fewer load that it can carry compared to A-10.
The reason i proposing Scorpion rather than available LIFT/jet trainer is that Scorpion have l long range and theoretical loiter time. So it can fill stand by time and mission profile (outside weapon load) that A-10 have. Its also cheaper to procure and the engine is widely available, so it can be more cost efficient than A-10 which usually criticized that its too expensive to operate for threat that comes out in Afghanistan.
Knowing that both Russia and Ukraine Su-25 can get inside enemy AD system with NOE flight profile and get out pretty safe (although Russian will hit harder when they detect the jet compared to Ukraine), having this kind of CAS platform can be useful. But only if US think that dedicated A-10 replacement is needed.
 
eagle said:
riggerrob said:
Skorpion was built on speculation for a USAF trainer contract.
Textron did not win that competition, so it is unlikely that Skorpion will ever be manufactured beyond prototypes.
Click to expand...
Textron Scorpion was not built to be entered in a trainer competition and it has not been entered in any trainer competition. It's not a trainer. It is designed for light attack and ISR.
In the Light Attack program, it was eliminated in favor of the AT-6 and A-29. The program of course went nowhere.
Click to expand...
Maybe they think they will not using them in next decade, so they not investing much in the program. Pretty sad tbh because imo if they choose Scorpion they can have both cheap ISR and anti guerilla aircraft and potential A-10 replacement.
And iirc Scorpion joint the T-X program although withdrew pretty early.
 
The A-10 is a great aircraft, no question about that. However, it was designed for a mission that no longer exists. The real question that must be asked is what is the new mission specifications for a CAS aircraft in today's age? Only then can we start debating if there is an aircraft currently available that can fulfill it? Is it the A-10? And if not then it's time for a clean sheet design.
 
Desertfox said:
The A-10 is a great aircraft, no question about that. However, it was designed for a mission that no longer exists. The real question that must be asked is what is the new mission specifications for a CAS aircraft in today's age? Only then can we start debating if there is an aircraft currently available that can fulfill it? Is it the A-10? And if not then it's time for a clean sheet design.
Click to expand...
Honest in all likelihood what is needed is basically a stealth A-7.

IE a subsonic, semi cheap, plane with large range and payload to screw around with.

The Fact the the old Frogfoots been doing well without even ECM pods show that a low level attacker still has lots of life in it. Then you had the drones doing drone things to TORs and BUKs...

By stealthing it you are making it extremely future proof so if the enemy isnt an idiot it can still do the job. Add in the Standard ECM and you will make all SAM operators lives miserable.

Super sonic is a nice thing to have but honestly not that useful for an attacker. Adds more complexity and like. Better to use that to make it have YES Bombs and Range.

And honestly you if you do want super sonic speed for some reason.

The FB22 is a solid starting point.

Four 2 thousand pounders or 32 SDBs plus some A2A weapons is a solid load out capable of puting the hurt down well.
 
GTX said:
FighterJock said:
starving the A-10 of spare parts will only result in the deaths of pilots who fly the "Hog" in the long run. :mad:
Click to expand...
Continuing to dream that the A-10 will survive in a modern contested environment when there are far better solutions available will only result in the deaths of pilots.

The A-10 is now over 50yrs old! Consider that for a moment. If the same arguments to keep the A-10 in service were applied to earlier platforms, one might have seen the USAF fighting the 1991 Operation Desert Storm with Republic P-47 Thunderbolts instead of A-10s. People need to get over this nostalgia.
Click to expand...
Projected A-10 losses for their intended role back in the eighties were already horrifying. Things have not gotten any better.

Either you fly it against sheep herders, or you accept that most of your pilots are not coming back. And against sheep herders you might as well use drones with longer loiter times.
 
Also those in favor of a subsonic attacker should re-read Vietnam A-7's pilots testimonies and their absolutely uncomfortable feelings lingering over Nord-Vietnam behind all the other among the exiting flight package with Mig racing behind.

Given the powerful acceleration 5th Gen interceptors have today, something only to be superseded by the next generation, limiting your future attack platform to a subsonic flight regime is suicidal.

IMOHO, there is nothing more tailored than an F-35. I don't understand the debate.
I do believe however that there is still room for the A-10, for example as a quarterback for effectors able to run and move the line forward itself when needed. But that needs new engines and a system upgrade.

Remember also that there is no AWACS involved in Ukraine, even on the Russian side most of the time. NoE died when those systems were fielded. Not before.
 
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
Desertfox said:
The A-10 is a great aircraft, no question about that. However, it was designed for a mission that no longer exists. The real question that must be asked is what is the new mission specifications for a CAS aircraft in today's age? Only then can we start debating if there is an aircraft currently available that can fulfill it? Is it the A-10? And if not then it's time for a clean sheet design.
Click to expand...
Honest in all likelihood what is needed is basically a stealth A-7.

IE a subsonic, semi cheap, plane with large range and payload to screw around with.

The Fact the the old Frogfoots been doing well without even ECM pods show that a low level attacker still has lots of life in it. Then you had the drones doing drone things to TORs and BUKs...

By stealthing it you are making it extremely future proof so if the enemy isnt an idiot it can still do the job. Add in the Standard ECM and you will make all SAM operators lives miserable.

Super sonic is a nice thing to have but honestly not that useful for an attacker. Adds more complexity and like. Better to use that to make it have YES Bombs and Range.

And honestly you if you do want super sonic speed for some reason.

The FB22 is a solid starting point.

Four 2 thousand pounders or 32 SDBs plus some A2A weapons is a solid load out capable of puting the hurt down well.
Click to expand...
Does a “stealth A-7” not roughly equate to a F-35? With internal weapons only the F-35 is comparable to the later A-7 models in payload/ range characteristics - similarly the F-35 carrying external weapons and fuel thanks would be equivalent re: max bomb loads etc.

“The Fact the the old old Frogfoots has been doing well…” is very much not a widely accepted fact - indeed such a statement appears to fly in the face of actual events and experience in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict.
On what are you basing your comments to the contrary?

And presenting the FB-22 as a basis for a (presumably dedicated, given the context?) close support aircraft is so divorced from reality as to be utterly absurd.
In a limited sense If it had been adopted, like the B-1B and B-52 in practice, it could have turned its hand to to some close-support adjacent missions but we would be talking about an extremely poor use of resources (FB-22 would have been extremely expensive to buy and would have unavoidably low mission rates, high operating costs etc.)
 
I do wonder how much assistance NATO AWACS aircraft are giving the Ukranians, I hope a lot.
 
TomcatViP said:
Remember also that there is no AWACS involved in Ukraine, even on the Russian side most of the time. NoE died when those systems were fielded. Not before.
Click to expand...
I thought NATO sureveillance aircraft is the reason Russia not going deep inside west Ukraine territory like Lviv. Afaik NATO sending realtime surveillance data to Ukrainian air defense from NATO countries airspace.
 
While I mentioned upthread that I'd run the A-10 on a while longer since you already have it and it has it's uses, I certainly wouldn't advocate going around again. Future CAS could be well accomplished with a close-in, organic element equipped with AH-64E and a variation on the MQ-1/-9 theme, with some combination of F-16/F-15E/F-35/insert multi-role fast-mover here, over the top. It really doesn't warrant development of another, dedicated manned platform. Certainly not just so the USAF can try to shed it for decades on end again. :rolleyes:
 
Like what i said, the problem with A-10 replacement is in the people still figuring out if dedicated aircraft for the role still needed or not.
The task and mission set is easy to describe. Using F-35 or developing FB-22 only to launch ATGM like Su-34 did in Ukraine is not cost efficient especially if the demand on airstrike is high. Also putting experienced pilot in relatively very dangerous environment inside $80 million or more asset is something that many people think not good idea. Building manned cheap attritable attack aircraft is not people in the US will approve due to people thinking it has subtle message of treating pilot as cannonfodder.

So in the end we only got few options. Either fully comitting to use UCAV as CAS, or using relatively expensive operational cost platform like F-35 as air support and no in between option.

I personally think attack chopper is complement of attack jet fighter, but inside most army TOE, rather than dedicated attack fighter replacement.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom