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

[Ainen]

If your air force is compromised by your enemy's IADS, then a dedicated CAS seems even less useful to me. Spend the money on more stand off munitions instead.

But then grunts won't get their support. CAS airplane will not go away even if air force wants its battle with IADS won - from troops' perspective, its inability to do IADS(or deep strike) is actually an advantage.

 

[GTX]

Just a suboptimal mix of qualities and weapons. It can - the same way F-16 can do A-10 low&slow, but:

Sounds like someone is still mixed up re what CAS actually entails.

-it's restricted with some of cheap PGMs mentioned - they don't work with F-35 bays or with its 25mm cannon (still too small).

Ditto earlier comment

-it isn't supposed to be hit - and we're in an environment where we will be hit, sooner or later.

No platform is supposed to be hit!

-it's a big, fast medium-altitude jet - too big, too fast for what we're trying to do here.

Ditto earlier comment

 

[Josh_TN]

If your air force is compromised by your enemy's IADS, then a dedicated CAS seems even less useful to me. Spend the money on more stand off munitions instead.

But then grunts won't get their support. CAS airplane will not go away even if air force wants its battle with IADS won - from troops' perspective, its inability to do IADS(or deep strike) is actually an advantage.

No one has the budget for a high end one trick pony aircraft, including the Army even if Key West just evaporated. Drones, arty and F-35s will have to do whenever the A-10 retires from its current mission of delivering PGMs from medium altitude like any other fighter. Luckily the odds of there being a peer conflict in Europe seem much reduced for the short to medium term.

 

[Ainen]

Ditto earlier comment

?

No platform is supposed to be hit!

Sometimes it gets regardless of our wishes. A6M wasn't really supposed to be hit either.
But here we either willingly place ourselves into a certain vicinity of events(=will be shot at), or we're still significantly degrading our capability to understand what's going on and hit what needs to be hit.

Sounds like someone is still mixed up re what CAS actually entails.

Close air support.

 

[Ainen]

No one has the budget for a high end one trick pony aircraft

Is it that high end though? Mostly a list of OTS solutions already paid for.
New ground attack airframe without new tech isn't that inaccessible in the end - Textron did the Scorpion with its own money just fine, and they aren't the only ones who did.

 

[GTX]

Sounds like someone is still mixed up re what CAS actually entails.

Close air support.

Close being the enemy in close to the troops needing support NOT that the aircraft needs to get close.

 

[Desertfox]

I still think if you want cheap CAS an unmmaned UCAS version of the SC Ares might be your best option.

 

[Ainen]

Sounds like someone is still mixed up re what CAS actually entails.

Close air support.

Close being the enemy in close to the troops needing support NOT that the aircraft needs to get close.

Yes. And subtypes of this mission set just happen to require precision when friendly forces can't really wait or disengage - and often can't properly guide such support either.
That requires being within sensor range(including suboptimal weather conditions) at the minimum, being within range to take informed decisions on your own at the maximum.
Optimally platform shall always be close enough, both when on the ground, when loitering on standby, and in action. It isn't obliged to expose itself anymore than other aircraft, no matter the purpose - we are not talking about the cult of a strafing run per se. But it must be able to be there.
Strictly speaking, F-35 in its existing form fits reasonably well - and it certainly has all the necessary technological solutions to make it work. It's just optimized for a very different mission and situation.

If this whole set doesn't cost too much to achieve - and it probably doesn't, - the question is basically why not. Attempt to replace everything, everywhere with F-35 has clearly failed anyways, let it do what it can do the best. That's already a whole great lot, without too much time to spare probably.

Another problem is that it may not indeed need a traditional fixed wing - fast rotary VTOLs are getting to necessary speeds anyways. But they're not there just yet, their propulsor type, while great for VTOL and low speeds, is also a big compromise for stealth, as well as speed/range/payload trio.
And then again - does AF really wants to give this specialized mission set up. If yes(F-35/F-16 will do) - does army want to have a higher-level asset over its integral rotary wing support.

p.s. i will probably try to draw such an aircraft within a few days.
B/c point really isn't in being close when firing per se - it's in capability to be close enough and safe enough persistently. I.e. role set seriously missing between proper survivable jet fighters(and their loyal wingmen), loitering MALE drones, and COIN aircraft.

 

[shin_getter]

CAS saves grunt lives if and only if opponent firepower comes from their front line forces. CAS does little if the bulk of opponent killing power comes from their own artillery park. Given that good, overlapping IADS is far more expensive than an artillery, one would expect opponents with good IADS to actually have decent artillery. CAS doesn't help if your forward formations is getting grid erasers dropped on them, only deep fires winning the counterbattery fight helps here.

In a densely contested air space I think the optimal ground "attack" aircraft is just a very minimalist jet engine throwing various glide bombs/missiles via high launch velocity/attitude. A long range anti-air is simply more expensive (at some point, to expensive to hit a cheap jet drone when pk is factored) and less effective than a long range ground attack missile needed to defeat a ground launcher.

The sensing part would be offloaded to a high survivability long loiter platform. You want to separate it out because munitions delivery demands constant cycling while ISR favors persistence. Now loiter platforms can carry munitions in low intensity fights where munition volumes is not a huge issue, but in massed fire regimes, those platforms will be carrying fuel/self defense while fast cycling systems bring the hurt.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I think this comes down to the ability to control the airspace over and around the combat units in contact. The thing is that this ability has and is changing, the requirement must change with this change in situation. CAS was a speciality of the US Marines in particular and it is why they fly today.
1. Can an asset reliably,
a. Monitor the CAS zone?
b. Spot potential targets of interest?
c. Avoid opposition response/assets?
d. Monitor friendly units to avoid blue on blue incidents?
2. Does this require an AI or remote or direct human management in THIS engagement?
Something like the two seat A-10 would have been ideal imho, to control the AI assets while still being able to prosecute targets of opportunity and have that human touch where it helps, like talking to someone who is taking fire and needs that to stop. A computer CAN do this but who would be better for that "Arm around the shoulder feeling" that builds up the GOTS (Grunt On The Spot)?
I know, hardly the most in depth look but perhaps someone better at this than I could repeat this with a bit more detail.

 

[shin_getter]

The idea of high performance CAS aircraft and near peer warfare just doesn't make much sense. High intensity near peer for means basically precursor to nuclear exchanges and I don't think issues like friendly fire is a very great concern here, and there'd be a lot more infantry than airplanes given mobilization.

The experience with small wars, which can be hard to win, on the other hand does show high value in CAS. The force density is just too low for combined arms ground formations, casualty tolerance is very low and the opponent do not operate in formations vulnerable to long range strikes. AC-130 is successful despite not survivable against air defenses.

Now what would be a great CAS aircraft? To quote starship troopers, "war is controlled violence" and greater control can be both useful and the differentiating reason for dedicated aircraft.

A imaginative CAS aircraft would be built around a very large optical aperture, dual use as a sensor and as a laser weapon. One should aim for sensor capability for not only identifying threats, but in distant identification of personal weapons and individuals and things like hyperspectra imaging seeing things like upturned soil (to spot IEDs). One should see not for the capability to kill the opponent, but to suppress, disable if not disarm (literally shooting the guns out of their hands). Laser C-RAM is also requirement, the aircraft must have capability to shoot down enemy drones and missiles threatening friendly forces, as they can just about pop out of any unattended box. The aircraft should also have capability to carry and control drones with very selective effects all the way down to tear gas, nets and other nonlethal effects, to be utilized against non-identified possible threats. Don't need to worry about friendly fire when you just non-lethal-d everything that moves! Some all aspect high speed missiles still need to be available though, stuff like Armored FSD VBIED can pop up when anyone can put a bomb in a hacked cybertruk: aiming a non-turreted gun would be to slow in comparison.

Equipment aside, the aircraft should be build similar to airliners (maybe a converted platform). Low operating costs is needed for long, low intensity campaigns. Efficient high speed and range are both good, while features like short field take off is not valuable. (you wouldn't be flying CAS if you can't secure an airport)

The real question isn't the possible utility of such a vehicle, the question is whether such wars are worth fighting given the disasters of afgan and iraqi campaigns due to non-military weakness in the US state.

---------------------------
Now there is another concept for CAS in higher intensity conflicts, but in resource constrained environment, an air frame would be used in CAS not because of doctrine but because it is so cut down that penetration is impossible.

In this context, it would be drones organic to army formations with LOS control links to ground forces in combat. Micro-Bomb dropping drones have proven itself and I think a machine gun armed one can be useful in ground suppression and C-UAS air combat! I think sabot shooting small arms should come back, since stopping power is irrelevant to a drone, while ammo load and weapon range are both desirable and difficult requirements.

The desirable features would be field operations with rapid turnaround, very low cost. Weapons payload should be on the lower end of infantry weapons, it should be sufficient to destroy most threats. No sure if speed and agility comes back into play when symmetrical drone fights become a thing, or heavy platforms would dominate smaller vehicles altogether.

--------------------------
The need for loiter and reaction time is really frustrating for design though. An alternative to Close Air Support is Rapid air reinforcement, aka fire force with modern characteristics. Just drop a mortar UGV with a big box of guided shells and (possibly tethered) spotting drones. Actually, don't necessarily need an airplane for this, reusable rocketry can get this package on top of friendly forces in no time.

And if the whole robot air drop is gonna be a thing, why limit it to fire support: drop the entire force structure with everything from sensors to weapons to assault robots, the guys on the ground just do the command and control.

 

[jsport]

A-10 official issues warning over US Air Force’s ‘devastated’ Warthog fleet

The A-10 systems manager said the Air Force has “resourced the A-10 to divest yet flew it like an enduring fleet, rapidly accelerating [the] decline toward today’s hollowing fleet."

www.defensenews.com

 

[jsport]

The US Air Force showed off an A-10 in its new 'bomb truck' configuration

Equipping the A-10 to carry more Small Diameter Bombs is one of the major upgrades meant to keep the Warthog flying into the 2030s.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Forest Green]

I'd love to see an A-10 loaded up with triple racks of Brimstone.

 

[FighterJock]

I'd love to see an A-10 loaded up with triple racks of Brimstone.

That is exactly what I would want to see too Forest Green, the Brimstone would be a great replacement for the Maverick missile.

 

[jsport]

A-10 pilot explains how the Air Force can outfit the beloved ‘Warthog’ to take on China

The notion of integrating stand-off weapons on the A-10 was first hatched a decade ago, but never gained traction until now.

taskandpurpose.com

 

[TomcatViP]

[...] A-29s ordered by the Air Force [and] AT-6s [will likely] , Stanhouse said, be declared “excess defense articles,” a Defense Security Cooperation Agency term for equipment or platforms that are “in excess of the Approved Force Acquisition Objective and Approved Force Retention Stock of all Department of Defense Components.”

As excess defense articles, the aircraft could then be transferred to a foreign government, through either the approval of Congress or the usual Foreign Military Sale process.

“I think the probability is potentially FMS, because we currently have FMS partners who are flying both the AT-6 and A-29. So I think there’s quite a bit of foreign interest,” Stanhouse said.

Indeed, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Nigeria, Indonesia, and the Philippines, among others, all have A-29s in their fleets. Thailand has also ordered the AT-6.

Air Force Set to Get Rid of Small A-29, AT-6 Fleets, Program Official Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Just a few years after decided to buy small quantities of the A-29 and AT-6, the Air Force is likely going to sell the light attack aircraft.

www.airforcemag.com

Sad for the Scorpion that was probably stolen from a more logical victory...

 

[Desertfox]

Mexico is a likely option for the AT-6.

 

[yasotay]

I'm sure all of those airplanes will find a new home rather quickly.

 

[TomS]

I'm sure all of those airplanes will find a new home rather quickly.

If only as spares for existing users...

 

[Richard N]

A-10 Demo Gator Narrates

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02JWhmIw10c

 

[jsport]

Air Force Wants Faster A-10 Retirements

21 Warthogs are going away this year, and service leaders hope Congress will allow more.

www.defenseone.com

 

[FighterJock]

Air Force Wants Faster A-10 Retirements

21 Warthogs are going away this year, and service leaders hope Congress will allow more.

www.defenseone.com

Oh Help, I don’t know why the USAF are so caught up in trying to get rid of the A-10, especially since they spent all the time and money on getting the Hog updated. It makes me mad just thinking about it.

 

[F.L.]

Maybe the purpose of this rapid withdrawal of the A-10 is to send some to the Ukraine AF ?

 

[FighterJock]

Maybe the purpose of this rapid withdrawal of the A-10 is to send some to the Ukraine AF ?

I did not think about that F.L, thanks.

 

[TomS]

Very unlikely. Ukraine wants fighters, and is unlikely to gain sufficient air superiority to effectively use a plane like the A-10. Besides, the USAF has been trying to retire the A-10 for years, if not decades. It eats manpower that the service wants for other missions. And it's not obvious that it does anything that other planes can't do now -- it's increasingly just a slower smart bomb truck.

 

[F.L.]

I believe that the Ukrainians have asked for A-10s recently. Moreover, if the USA delivers them, I believe that by one means or another they will also ensure them a sufficient air superiority.

 

[TomS]

I believe that the Ukrainians have asked for A-10s recently. Moreover, if the USA delivers them, I believe that by one means or another they will also ensure them a sufficient air superiority.

There were recent reports that they asked for A-10s back in march 2022.

Ukraine Asked For 100 A-10 Warthogs Just Weeks After Russia's Invasion

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin shot down Ukraine's A-10 request saying it was impractical and the jets would be too vulnerable.

www.thedrive.com

But that's not the present situation. The current request is F-16s:

Ukraine presses U.S. Congress members for F-16 jets

Ukrainian officials have urged U.S. Congress members to press President Joe Biden's administration to send F-16 jetfighters to Kyiv, saying the aircraft would boost Ukraine's ability to hit Russian missile units with U.S.-made rockets, lawmakers said.

www.reuters.com

And just handwaving that somehow the US will magically give Ukraine air superiority just isn't operating in the real world. Barring a defense suppression campaign comparable to the opening days of the Gulf War, Russia is going to continue to have the ability to deny Ukraine unfettered access to its own airspace for the foreseeable future. That's a recipe for the murder of A-10s. I mean, look at how the UAF are using their Su-25s -- low-altitude lob deliveries of unguided rockets from well behind the FLOT. Maybe they could use A-10s to do that as well, but artillery seems like a cheaper way to achieve the same effect.

 

[F.L.]

And just handwaving that somehow the US will magically give Ukraine air superiority just isn't operating in the real world. Barring a defense suppression campaign comparable to the opening days of the Gulf War, Russia is going to continue to have the ability to deny Ukraine unfettered access to its own airspace for the foreseeable future. That's a recipe for the murder of A-10s. I mean, look at how the UAF are using their Su-25s -- low-altitude lob deliveries of unguided rockets from well behind the FLOT. Maybe they could use A-10s to do that as well, but artillery seems like a cheaper way to achieve the same effect.

Totally agree.
In any case, I do not believe that the Ukrainians can ever regain air superiority alone.

Moreover, if the USA delivers them, I believe that by one means or another they will also ensure them a sufficient air superiority.

In saying this, I am thinking more of a stronger NATO involvement in the conflict that would lead to the situation necessary for their use by UkrAF.

Another idea is that they could be transferred to other European air forces to reinforce them. Poland, or Romania for example.

 

[Josh_TN]

USAF has always wanted to retire that type. However I think now actually is the time to retire them - stopped clock is right twice a day. Outside of being cheaper to operate in Astan and Iraq, this type doesn't bring a lot to the table any more. No one is doing low altitude gun runs in a peer competitor conflict. The A-10 isn't a good fit to the Pacific theater and the USAF is correctly orienting their force structure to fulfill that challenge. Retiring an entire aircraft type altogether generates a lot more savings then retiring only some of any given airframe.

 

[Ainen]

No one is doing low altitude gun runs in a peer competitor conflict.

Well, get a new plane with 2" guided shells - and why not? ;p Go safely lob shells right onto enemy heads from 4-5 miles away, behind FLOT.

There is an endless mix of two terms everywhere:
(1)is CAS outdated, and
(2)is A-10/Su-25* outdated

CAS isn't outdated. Even low-altitude CAS isn't. And dedicated CAS a/c are still doing it better than newer non-specialists.
But almost 50 years old, pre-digital FC, pre-stealth CAS aircraft are outdated.

*p.s. always fascinated me that harrier II always manages to slip away from the comparisons, when it's basically from the same group.

 

[Josh_TN]

I didn’t say CAS is outdated I said doing it with a gun run is outdated. And once you make the aircraft standoff at a safer distance, the A-10 brings nothing to the table except slightly lower per hour costs than an F-16.

 

[F.L.]

No one is doing low altitude gun runs in a peer competitor conflict.

Nevertheless,, the Russian (and to a lesser extent Ukrainian) Su-25s do not fight at great distances, but rather with low altitude gun/rocket passes.

 

[GTX]

Air Force Wants Faster A-10 Retirements

21 Warthogs are going away this year, and service leaders hope Congress will allow more.

www.defenseone.com

Oh Help, I don’t know why the USAF are so caught up in trying to get rid of the A-10, especially since they spent all the time and money on getting the Hog updated. It makes me mad just thinking about it.

Maybe because the A-10s are between 40 and 50yrs old now and are consuming resources that could be better used on other platforms that are more capable and survivable on a modern battle field.

 

[Josh_TN]

No one is doing low altitude gun runs in a peer competitor conflict.

Nevertheless,, the Russian (and to a lesser extent Ukrainian) Su-25s do not fight at great distances, but rather with low altitude gun/rocket passes.

Because that is the only way they can survive in that AD environment and because neither side has significant PGMs, nor is the Su-25 equipped to employ such. The USAF would have a lot of other options, even with the A-10 fleet - they would never employ it in such a way.

 

[F.L.]

No one is doing low altitude gun runs in a peer competitor conflict.

Nevertheless,, the Russian (and to a lesser extent Ukrainian) Su-25s do not fight at great distances, but rather with low altitude gun/rocket passes.

Because that is the only way they can survive in that AD environment and because neither side has significant PGMs, nor is the Su-25 equipped to employ such. The USAF would have a lot of other options, even with the A-10 fleet - they would never employ it in such a way.

What do you mean by PGM ?

 

[Josh_TN]

No one is doing low altitude gun runs in a peer competitor conflict.

Nevertheless,, the Russian (and to a lesser extent Ukrainian) Su-25s do not fight at great distances, but rather with low altitude gun/rocket passes.

Because that is the only way they can survive in that AD environment and because neither side has significant PGMs, nor is the Su-25 equipped to employ such. The USAF would have a lot of other options, even with the A-10 fleet - they would never employ it in such a way.

What do you mean by PGM ?

Precision Guided Munition. AFAIK the Su-25 only has a couple of guided missile options; I think whatever the Russian equivalent of Maverick is. And both sides seem to have very little inventory of guided weapons. The A-10C has been upgraded to use the entire JDAM family on top of the original Maverick capability.

EDIT: A-10 can also use the LANTIRN targeting pod; I think Su-25 has a laser range finder that can double as marker for laser guided rockets but no guided bomb capability.

 

[jsport]

Air Force Wants Faster A-10 Retirements

21 Warthogs are going away this year, and service leaders hope Congress will allow more.

www.defenseone.com

Oh Help, I don’t know why the USAF are so caught up in trying to get rid of the A-10, especially since they spent all the time and money on getting the Hog updated. It makes me mad just thinking about it.

Maybe because the A-10s are between 40 and 50yrs old now and are consuming resources that could be better used on other platforms that are more capable and survivable on a modern battle field.

A perfect segway to reintroduce X-wing technology so the Army can posses their own fixed wing capabilities in a rotorcraft...then the A-10s can be retired.

 

[jsport]

In Ukraine fight, integrated air defense has made many aircraft 'worthless': US Air Force general - Breaking Defense

Highly adept Ukrainian and Russian air defenses have mutually denied air superiority, a problem particularly acute for close air support missions. “Both of their integrated air and missile defense, especially when you're talking about going against aircraft, have been very effective,” Gen. James...

breakingdefense.com

 

[Desertfox]

I think the solution is a UCAV version of the Scaled Composites Ares, cheap and disposable. Do the Army restrictions on fixed-wing extend to unmanned aircraft?