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

[Hood]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-air-combat-command-chief-skeptical-over-new-air-428185/

Related Flight article, the USAF sees no real role for a low-end type and even if it did there probably no money to buy a new fleet anyway.

 

[kaiserd]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-air-combat-command-chief-skeptical-over-new-air-428185/

Related Flight article, the USAF sees no real role for a low-end type and even if it did there probably no money to buy a new fleet anyway.

Any such plans may have to wait until the A-10s are about to go (i.e. when US airforce no longer forced to retain them). However it does put talk of a realistic likelihood of a new more expensive survivable CAS dedicated platform into context.

 

[Flyaway]

OPINION: Why US Air Force needs a low-cost gun-slinger

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-why-us-air-force-needs-a-low-cost-gun-sling-428223/

 

[marauder2048]

OPINION: Why US Air Force needs a low-cost gun-slinger

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-why-us-air-force-needs-a-low-cost-gun-sling-428223/

It's probably a good thing that this incredibly poorly reasoned piece of drivel doesn't have a byline attached to it.

 

[CiTrus90]

OPINION: Why US Air Force needs a low-cost gun-slinger

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-why-us-air-force-needs-a-low-cost-gun-sling-428223/

A Super Tucano costs less than a F-35, so it's good value.

Ok.

So, given that grass is cheaper we should just eat that, rather than groceries.
Or gravel...or sand...there is plenty of that and it's free, like...you know...good value...

Do the ones that write these articles get paid?

If I were his editor I'd feel ripped off.

 

[Triton]

You can pay £145, €179, or US$229 a year for such well-researched and well-reasoned analysis and opinion. :

 

[Triton]

So explain to me why Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) isn't trading in their AC-130 gunships for F-35s?

 

[marauder2048]

So explain to me why Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) isn't trading in their AC-130 gunships for F-35s?

AFSOC does not operate fast jets. Or were you just being fatuous?

 

[Triton]

No, I am not being facetious. Re-read what General Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle wrote:

“The idea of a low-end CAS platform that’s being discussed inside the air force, it’s one that I’m struggling with a little bit,” Carlisle says. “Given the evolving threat environment, I sometimes wonder what permissive in the future is going to look like or if there’s going to be any such thing with the proliferation of potential adversaries out there and the threats.”

If you can't operate the A-10 in the future threat environment to provide CAS, how can you operate a non -Stealth four-engined turboprop gunship based on the C-130?

 

[marauder2048]

No, I am not being facetious. Re-read what General Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle wrote:

“The idea of a low-end CAS platform that’s being discussed inside the air force, it’s one that I’m struggling with a little bit,” Carlisle says. “Given the evolving threat environment, I sometimes wonder what permissive in the future is going to look like or if there’s going to be any such thing with the proliferation of potential adversaries out there and the threats.”

If you can't operate the A-10 in the future threat environment to provide CAS, how can you operate a non -Stealth four-engined turboprop gunship based on the C-130?

Self-deployed drone(s) + a deep magazine of standoff weapons + defensive DEWs.

 

[kaiserd]

No, I am not being facetious. Re-read what General Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle wrote:

“The idea of a low-end CAS platform that’s being discussed inside the air force, it’s one that I’m struggling with a little bit,” Carlisle says. “Given the evolving threat environment, I sometimes wonder what permissive in the future is going to look like or if there’s going to be any such thing with the proliferation of potential adversaries out there and the threats.”

If you can't operate the A-10 in the future threat environment to provide CAS, how can you operate a non -Stealth four-engined turboprop gunship based on the C-130?

Self-deployed drone(s) + a deep magazine of standoff weapons + defensive DEWs.

There will almost certainly be a small niche role for dedicated CAS platforms like the Hercules gunships and possibly a relatively small number of Super Tucano type platforms.
However they will only ever be risked against opponents with the lowest/ most limited ability to shoot back, with developments like those mentioned above to allow them to continue to survive in that most benign threat environment as it evolves and gets tougher.

It's the guys peddling fantasies of a stealthy highly survivable future "A-10" designed and dedicated around low altitude straffing and the like (operating in manner even the A-10 now seldom does) that should take a reality check from these comments coming out of the US airforce; no money for it even if if technically feasible, which it isn't.

 

[Hood]

The thrust of the Flightglobal articles is that if the USAF says the Super Tucano is vulnerable in the CAS role and there is no real need for them then why is the US actively selling them to its allies (Afghanistan) to do exactly the job the USAF says doesn't exist or it can't do. The double standards are probably USAF denial to save cash for its high-end platforms and a potential way to block the US Army getting any. I don't see any money coming forward for a new A-X for some time.

MANPADs have been around since the 1970s yet CAS aircraft have been operating since then quite successfully, I don't see that fundamentally changing.
The CAS role is so wide and varied that its no surprise the USAF doesn't know what it wants. Hunting a few terrorists in Toyota pick-ups, some maybe tooled up with an old Soviet twin 23mm in the back, is somewhat different to hunting down Russian and Chinese armoured formations and mobile artillery defended by modern SAM and SPAAG systems. The USAF is focused on the high-end of this spectrum but that's overly wasteful for the low-end in terms of resources and losses. Realistically the chances of being involved in the lower-end if far higher than the high-end. Modern air forces are so risk-adverse (to avoid losing expensive aircraft and pilots) but CAS is a dangerous business and losses are inevitable.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Really? How many CAS losses did the USAF suffer in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Some of the favourite CAS assets for troops on the ground in Afghanistan were the B-1B and the F-15E. What was important was sensors and payload, not some romantic notion of swooping down low and strafing things. Fighters and bombers could stay high away from any ground fire and were essentially invulnerable whilst modern targeting pods combined with things like ROVER made them better able to provide CAS than any other asset before them. At the same time Reapers can provide long-endurance over-watch.

The Afghans are getting Super Tucanos because they are cheap and simple compared to an F-16 or a Reaper.

 

[jsport]

Really? How many CAS losses did the USAF suffer in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Some of the favourite CAS assets for troops on the ground in Afghanistan were the B-1B and the F-15E. What was important was sensors and payload, not some romantic notion of swooping down low and strafing things. Fighters and bombers could stay high away from any ground fire and were essentially invulnerable whilst modern targeting pods combined with things like ROVER made them better able to provide CAS than any other asset before them. At the same time Reapers can provide long-endurance over-watch.

The Afghans are getting Super Tucanos because they are cheap and simple compared to an F-16 or a Reaper.

Yes, getting anywhere close is becoming way too risky, even standoff is risky enough. Reapers are clay pigeons in such environments.

 

[marauder2048]

The thrust of the Flightglobal articles is that if the USAF says the Super Tucano is vulnerable in the CAS role and there is no real need for them then why is the US actively selling them to its allies (Afghanistan) to do exactly the job the USAF says doesn't exist or it can't do.

This is completely wrong; the A-29 in Afghan service is a replacement for the Mi-35 attack helicopters which struggle in the hot-and-high conditions that prevail in that country. A modern attack helicopter that could operate in those conditions is, at present, beyond the ability of the Afghans to afford or maintain.

MANPADs have been around since the 1970s yet CAS aircraft have been operating since then quite successfully, I don't see that fundamentally changing.

MANPADS have forced almost all CAS operations (I use the term loosely here since, for example, operations over Kosovo did not involve friendly forces in contact) to higher altitudes with the occasional excursion undertaken under conditions of good energy states and typically after the target area had been sanitized with GBUs, CBUs, missiles, etc.

 

[yasotay]

What is most important to the soldier, those that this mission is designed for, is that the bad guys go boom. The bigger the boom the better. That said the moral factor of the GAU, or the 30mm chain gun on a helicopter to soldiers in combat cannot be overstated. I have had the privilege of talking to several young men with multiple tours and they recall that the arrival of low flying aircraft was often enought to make the enemy break contact and leave. When in an outpost the "freight train" arrival of a JDAM on a hillside tended to have the same effect. In major conflict with constant explosions and massed fires, I suspect the soldier will not care where the weapons come from, as long as the people trying to kill them go away.

General Warfare give me bombs on call. In COIN having a noise to remind bad guys I can bring destruction down on them is an important factor. In general warfare I want to turn aircraft as fast as I can. In COIN I want to loiter. There is no simple answer.

 

[quellish]

What was important was sensors and payload, not some romantic notion of swooping down low and strafing things.

This is incorrect and has been discussed many, many times on the forums in threads including this one:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20355.msg271382.html#msg271382

"Swooping down low and strafing things" is valuable, and often much more so than guided munitions such as JDAM and Hellfire.

There are different types of CAS and it is important to understand those to have informed discussion.

 

[kaiserd]

What was important was sensors and payload, not some romantic notion of swooping down low and strafing things.

This is incorrect and has been discussed many, many times on the forums in threads including this one:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20355.msg271382.html#msg271382

"Swooping down low and strafing things" is valuable, and often much more so than guided munitions such as JDAM and Hellfire.

There are different types of CAS and it is important to understand those to have informed discussion.

I think the point is that many contributors view that the swooping in low and strafing will get the aircraft killed in anything but the most benign threat environment and that the resulting necessarily solutions will have to involve greater standoff and precision weapons.
Other contributors (which I think included you but not looking to put words in your mouth) reasonably point to the proven utility (including specific examples) where such low level, staffing attacks have "saved the day", rescuing positions and saving lives.
No one that I can see disagrees. disrespects or wishes to deny these cases. However (again not looking to put words in people's mouths) the view is that these approaches are only likely to be open going forward to low cost unmanned drones (that would be seen as disposable).
It is also not a question of bravery or commitment by airforce pilots; against future defenses they will have their own threats to face and defeat. It a case of being realistic about how CAS will have to be achieved going forward,

 

[Triton]

Will the Army and/or Marines perform the A-X mission themselves in the future with compound rotorcraft or tiltrotors? Will the Marines arm the MV-22 with Griffin missiles from the results of the PCAS study?

 

[marauder2048]

"Swooping down low and strafing things" is valuable, and often much more so than guided munitions such as JDAM and Hellfire.

There are different types of CAS and it is important to understand those to have informed discussion.

The utility of strafing was never in doubt and the F-35, for example, has some of the most exacting requirements for strafing (in terms of dispersion, angle, range, wind/aim wander compensation, lethality etc).

*But* if you look at recent historical instances where strafing was employed you'll often find it was not due to the proximity of friendlies in contact but due to (in no particular order):

1. PGM seeker limitations e.g. target contrast, target resolution
2. Munition release geometry/trajectory limitations
3. Probing uncertain target areas (barns, berms, etc.)
4. Stores depletion
5. Stores malfunction

With the exception of (3), modern PGMs have gotten considerably better on all fronts. So while strafing is still important (and will be much safer to train for with Auto-GCAS) I tend to think it'll be less necessary and less frequent.

 

[yasotay]

In the information age you are not going to do much strafIng in COIN at least without PID. General warfare... threat will make it difficult at best.

Army will never do CAS. That is the USAF's mission. Army aviation will do hasty attacks though.

 

[jsport]

Future threat tanks maybe launching as many three classes of uas from a single tank while mounting ever advancing hard kill APS. both the USAF and the USA need to be thinking way more long term than they appear to be currently.

 

[bobbymike]

Future A-10 is here....................

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-this-homemade-a-10-nerf-blaster-is-more-than-a-little-cool/article/2598830#.V6ipBmwr5o5.twitter

 

[yasotay]

Future threat tanks maybe launching as many three classes of uas from a single tank while mounting ever advancing hard kill APS. both the USAF and the USA need to be thinking way more long term than they appear to be currently.

Stealth solar unmanned flying rail guns.

 

[GeorgeA]

Stealth solar unmanned flying rail guns.

Stealth solar nuclear unmanned flying rail guns.

 

[marauder2048]

Future threat tanks maybe launching as many three classes of uas from a single tank while mounting ever advancing hard kill APS. both the USAF and the USA need to be thinking way more long term than they appear to be currently.

Did you not see the AC-130J slides I posted?

 

[Triton]

Army will never do CAS. That is the USAF's mission. Army aviation will do hasty attacks though.

The United States Air Force doing Close Air Support (CAS) and the United States Army doing Close Combat Attack (CCA)?

 

[jsport]

Future threat tanks maybe launching as many three classes of uas from a single tank while mounting ever advancing hard kill APS. both the USAF and the USA need to be thinking way more long term than they appear to be currently.

Did you not see the AC-130J slides I posted?

No
if you could point them out please.
Thank you.

 

[marauder2048]

Future threat tanks maybe launching as many three classes of uas from a single tank while mounting ever advancing hard kill APS. both the USAF and the USA need to be thinking way more long term than they appear to be currently.

Did you not see the AC-130J slides I posted?

No
if you could point them out please.
Thank you.

Please see reply #118 and the additional slides from Col. Eric Forsyth's SOFIC 2016 posted below

 

[marauder2048]

Forsyth SOFIC 2016 Continued: AC-130 HEL slide

 

[jsport]

Thank you for sharing Marauder. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same =slow. Glade the 105mm is not completely replaced by the 30mm.
An A-X needs a whole new concept if any pilot is going to fly more than directly to the crash site on the first mission leaving not even a tank touched. Again to the point are we sure we are not talking about the FA-xx as eluded to by the 'war on rocks' article and the contention layed out in posts previously in this thread..

 

[yasotay]

Army will never do CAS. That is the USAF's mission. Army aviation will do hasty attacks though.

The United States Air Force doing Close Air Support (CAS) and the United States Army doing Close Combat Attack (CCA)?

Close Combat Attack is an obsolete term now. Hasty or deliberate attack are now the means by which Army aviation prosecutes targets. Many beers are needed to fully explain the significance.

 

[marauder2048]

Thank you for sharing Marauder. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same =slow. Glade the 105mm is not completely replaced by the 30mm.
An A-X needs a whole new concept if any pilot is going to fly more than directly to the crash site on the first mission leaving not even a tank touched. Again to the point are we sure we are not talking about the FA-xx as eluded to by the 'war on rocks' article and the contention layed out in posts previously in this thread..

You don't see "a whole new concept" in the AC-130J's planned development?

 

[jsport]

Thank you for sharing Marauder. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same =slow. Glade the 105mm is not completely replaced by the 30mm.
An A-X needs a whole new concept if any pilot is going to fly more than directly to the crash site on the first mission leaving not even a tank touched. Again to the point are we sure we are not talking about the FA-xx as eluded to by the 'war on rocks' article and the contention layed out in posts previously in this thread..

You don't see "a whole new concept" in the AC-130J's planned development?

No sir. a jet AC-X would have been a new concept and would be so low density as to be not useful for an A-10 replacement. See only same old from first proposed as early as 2005-6. Dynetics SGB and actually carrying a full SDB onboard a little newer but nowhere near an answer. Griffin etc old, bad. ATL on a V-22 was proposed as early as around 2000. Sensor dev on board ~2003 proposals. USMC having all 130s harvest hawk would be a start for SOF but what about conventional CAS in HIC...

 

[marauder2048]

Army will never do CAS. That is the USAF's mission. Army aviation will do hasty attacks though.

The United States Air Force doing Close Air Support (CAS) and the United States Army doing Close Combat Attack (CCA)?

Close Combat Attack is an obsolete term now. Hasty or deliberate attack are now the means by which Army aviation prosecutes targets. Many beers are needed to fully explain the significance.

Unless it changed in the last few months, CCA is defined as "hasty or deliberate attack" and is still the term and concept used in official Army doctrine.

 

[marauder2048]

Thank you for sharing Marauder. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same =slow. Glade the 105mm is not completely replaced by the 30mm.
An A-X needs a whole new concept if any pilot is going to fly more than directly to the crash site on the first mission leaving not even a tank touched. Again to the point are we sure we are not talking about the FA-xx as eluded to by the 'war on rocks' article and the contention layed out in posts previously in this thread..

You don't see "a whole new concept" in the AC-130J's planned development?

No sir. a jet AC-X would have been a new concept and would be so low density as to be not useful for an A-10 replacement. See only same old from first proposed as early as 2005-6. Dynetics SGB and actually carrying a full SDB onboard a little newer but nowhere near an answer. Griffin etc old, bad. ATL on a V-22 was proposed as early as around 2000. Sensor dev on board ~2003 proposals. USMC having all 130s harvest hawk would be a start for SOF but what about conventional CAS in HIC...

Self-deployed UAV: new
Defensive DEWs: new
Offensive DEWs: new
Guided 105: new
Guided 30: new
JAGM: new

 

[jsport]

Thank you for sharing Marauder. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same =slow. Glade the 105mm is not completely replaced by the 30mm.
An A-X needs a whole new concept if any pilot is going to fly more than directly to the crash site on the first mission leaving not even a tank touched. Again to the point are we sure we are not talking about the FA-xx as eluded to by the 'war on rocks' article and the contention layed out in posts previously in this thread..

You don't see "a whole new concept" in the AC-130J's planned development?

No sir. a jet AC-X would have been a new concept and would be so low density as to be not useful for an A-10 replacement. See only same old from first proposed as early as 2005-6. Dynetics SGB and actually carrying a full SDB onboard a little newer but nowhere near an answer. Griffin etc old, bad. ATL on a V-22 was proposed as early as around 2000. Sensor dev on board ~2003 proposals. USMC having all 130s harvest hawk would be a start for SOF but what about conventional CAS in HIC...

Self-deployed UAV: new
Defensive DEWs: new
Offensive DEWs: new
Guided 105: new
Guided 30: new
JAGM: new

uaV : 1-2 toy unarmed tired garbage (boondoggle)
Def dew: talked about for two decades finally (believe when seen)
off dew :as stated talked about since before 2000
Guided 105; how long has 155mm copperhead been around 70s?
Guided 30: expensive short rg and not new plus believe when someone really decides to pay for given its limited ability.
JAGM: not even worth addressing
all irrevelant because 130 can't survive HIC and are too low density asset in first place to replace A10.

fail to see any point.

 

[marauder2048]

Thank you for sharing Marauder. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same =slow. Glade the 105mm is not completely replaced by the 30mm.
An A-X needs a whole new concept if any pilot is going to fly more than directly to the crash site on the first mission leaving not even a tank touched. Again to the point are we sure we are not talking about the FA-xx as eluded to by the 'war on rocks' article and the contention layed out in posts previously in this thread..

You don't see "a whole new concept" in the AC-130J's planned development?

No sir. a jet AC-X would have been a new concept and would be so low density as to be not useful for an A-10 replacement. See only same old from first proposed as early as 2005-6. Dynetics SGB and actually carrying a full SDB onboard a little newer but nowhere near an answer. Griffin etc old, bad. ATL on a V-22 was proposed as early as around 2000. Sensor dev on board ~2003 proposals. USMC having all 130s harvest hawk would be a start for SOF but what about conventional CAS in HIC...

Self-deployed UAV: new
Defensive DEWs: new
Offensive DEWs: new
Guided 105: new
Guided 30: new
JAGM: new

uaV : 1-2 toy unarmed tired garbage (boondoggle)
Def dew: talked about for two decades finally (believe when seen)
off dew :as stated talked about since before 2000
Guided 105; how long has 155mm copperhead been around 70s?
Guided 30: expensive short rg and not new plus believe when someone really decides to pay for given its limited ability.
JAGM: not even worth addressing
all irrevelant because 130 can't survive HIC and are too low density asset in first place to replace A10.

fail to see any point.

Thanks for the nuanced feedback incoherent ranting.

 

[jsport]

Thank you for sharing Marauder. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same =slow. Glade the 105mm is not completely replaced by the 30mm.
An A-X needs a whole new concept if any pilot is going to fly more than directly to the crash site on the first mission leaving not even a tank touched. Again to the point are we sure we are not talking about the FA-xx as eluded to by the 'war on rocks' article and the contention layed out in posts previously in this thread..

You don't see "a whole new concept" in the AC-130J's planned development?

No sir. a jet AC-X would have been a new concept and would be so low density as to be not useful for an A-10 replacement. See only same old from first proposed as early as 2005-6. Dynetics SGB and actually carrying a full SDB onboard a little newer but nowhere near an answer. Griffin etc old, bad. ATL on a V-22 was proposed as early as around 2000. Sensor dev on board ~2003 proposals. USMC having all 130s harvest hawk would be a start for SOF but what about conventional CAS in HIC...

Self-deployed UAV: new
Defensive DEWs: new
Offensive DEWs: new
Guided 105: new
Guided 30: new
JAGM: new

uaV : 1-2 toy unarmed tired garbage (boondoggle)
Def dew: talked about for two decades finally (believe when seen)
off dew :as stated talked about since before 2000
Guided 105; how long has 155mm copperhead been around 70s?
Guided 30: expensive short rg and not new plus believe when someone really decides to pay for given its limited ability.
JAGM: not even worth addressing
all irrevelant because 130 can't survive HIC and are too low density asset in first place to replace A10.

fail to see any point.

Thanks for the nuanced feedback incoherent ranting.

your quite welcome.
If one wants crap off the self (cOT) UAVs that is what one gets.
the latest TOW makes more sense then JAGMs appears to.. Maybe someone can restart the Follow on to TOW (FoTT) program back up to increase range etc.

 

[marauder2048]

your quite welcome.
If one wants crap off the self (cOT) UAVs that is what one gets.
the latest TOW makes more sense then JAGMs appears to.. Maybe someone can restart the Follow on to TOW (FoTT) program back up to increase range etc.

As to UAVs, the current thinking is "expendable" rather than your evocative language.
So JAGM: F&F/Multi-mode seeker + LOAL + selectable fuzing (including HOB) + multi-purpose warhead makes less sense than TOW-2 RF which has none of the above?