Your new fighter...F-35

[FOG]

M21,

By the time the A-10s were over Baghdad the threat was downgraded by dedicated SEAD/DEAD packages. That’s a fact. The KC-130s over Baghdad during OIF 2 were in support of the CSAR effort for the Eagle driver. Marine and Navy EA-6Bs along with Marine Hornets were very aggressive in suppressing the SA threat.

I’d be more than comfortable comparing times over either the MAEWR or China lake testing surface to air threats and how to defeat them. Add in five Northern/Southern Watch tours plus later stuff.

Anybody who argues the A-10 has better kinematics to defeat a ManPad than a teen series would argue that a Yugo has higher performance than a GT3. Only very limited areas of the envelope and there a Herk is even better for various reasons.

I’d argue that the Harrier and A-10 are the most vulnerable in a medium or high threat arena depending on what the threat actually is/was. Neither should go near an actual high threat area. Gulf 1 eight Harriers were hit by ManPads and each was lost while nine Hornets were hit by ManPads plus one SA 9 and they all made it back. I don’t know how many A-10s were hit. I would be comfortable with the statement that Hog and Hornet can absorb more battle damage than the Harrier but we do not have enough data to state that since we lost a Hog to a ManPad and no Hornets then the Hornet is tougher.

A couple of 20MM class hits will not necessarily bring down a F-16 from empirical data.

If tight turning radius was the criteria of maneuverability then helos would be invulnerable. Talk to some of you Stinger bubbas and calculate some actual gunnery solutions.

While the A-10 has the longer loiter time it also has longer transit times and talks longer to aerial refuel. The question still stands as to what the actual station time deltas and which aircraft does it favor factoring in crew day, etc.

Offering the expeditionary capability of the A-10 vice F-16 is specious. The USAF doesn’t do expeditionary work in the manner of USA or USMC aviation. Both F/A-18 and Harrier is better than either due to short field performance, plus they do actual expeditionary work in the real world.

Better at what we do, yes. The SEAD/DEAD effort was largely an USMC led effort. The USAF instructors (teen and A-10s) are admitting that they are bomb droppers vice CAS experts and some are willing to learn. You want a deep air strike? See the USAF as they have the structure and mission to do it. Want a strike against ships call the USN. Want to kill a large number of armored vehicles with RCAS then call the USA.

No argument that the Harrier needs to go and it the most expensive fighter/attack acft in the U.S. inventory, both acquisition and operational costs.

S/F, FOG

[MFAFF]

M21,

The issue of Hog ops in high threat areas is interesting.

If we look at 'actual' operations in the Middle East then the threat it faces there is very different from the threat it was intended to deal with....an predominantly North European military theatre of ops against a structured formal military adversary ie a Warsaw Pact Army moving westwards quickly with a logisitcis tail that delevered the goods...here the AA was envisged as being co-ordinated, commanded and well drilled in both threat identification, fire control and in depth protection.

Aside from a very narrow time window in GW1 the ops in Irag or Stan have not faced this type of threat and no air to air threat either...

So whilst not taking anything away from both the airframe and its human pilot in the cockpit this is not the multi-dimensional threat that amkes it a 'high threat'.

Here with multiple sources of threat the low speed and energy potential may mean the difference between a single prox fused hit from a Manpad or a multi direct hit from two or more....which even the Hog might struggle to shake off.

Similarly its remote ops sites would have been far more vulnerable due to thier proximity to the FEB than a more distant site...again a slim difference but perhaps significant.

The ops it is currently engaged in present the best possible combination for the Hog to shine...no A2A threat so its absolute performance is not an issue, it can operate from remote sites, it cna loiter (no A2A remember) it can deliver the ordinance correctly and it can evade the dense but less than disciplined (currently) G2A threat and when it does not its inherent physical strength is is saviour.

All of this means the Hog and its drivers are able to perform at to their best advantage.

Its a fine situation for the Hogs, but not one they had envsiaged it would enjoy....

[Seahawk]

Armed Predators are much more effect than any of the manned platforms...also Scan Eagles, etc.

[FOG]

Seahawk,

I’d say depends. More than a few close calls with AG intramural. Integrating into a SEAD/DEAD package most definitely.

I know a few years ago (1999) that UAVs were the most expensive acft in the USMC inventory when adding in losses due to their loss rate. I haven’t kept up on the relative costs.

S/F, FOG

[m21sniper]

I personally don't think any of the NATO birds would've fared well in a Central European Front scenario. Based on the Reds love of numbers, it would've meant a threat density that made Hanoi look like small potatoes all along the FEBA. When you look at the losses that were suffered by Coalition forces even against a decapitated and mostly obsolete IADS during ODS, especially by type, it's pretty clear that most of the birds we were most relying on would've been highly vulnerable.

The Tornado GR1 in particular proved to be disturbingly vulnerable, and that one is about as fast on the deck as any plane in the NATO arsenal.

The losses we did suffer during ODS and OIF were during low altitude ops where most systems on the battlefield are a threat, even totally unsophisticated systems like a Svt 14.5mm HMG are dangerous to an unarmored plane at low alt(esp a single engined one). Certainly the A-10 does not possess the kinematics to defeat a locked on modern MANPAD, but the idea is to defeat it's lock in conjunction with countermeasures, and the A-10s excellent turn radius and snap turn rate are both very useful in that capacity. The A-10 also carries about 10x more IR flares and chaff cartridges than an F-16 too. The A-10 has a much, much smaller thermal signiture to track, and the thermal sig it does emmit is largely concealed by the rudder(by design).

Certainly going faster reduces your exposure in the threat envelope and massively increases your potential in the vertical plane, but at the same time a slower A-10 can turn OFF the target sooner after delivering munitions than a faster one(thereby not getting as close), and there is no disputing that an A-10 has the best pilot protection and systems redundancy of any plane in the US arsenal. It was designed to from day one. The A-10 is also extremely adept at using terrain to mask itself because of it's unmatched low speed, low altitude manueverability.

Does it have weaknesses? All systems do. Even the M1A2SEP is not invincible. But used properly with good tactics, the M1, A-10, and the AH-64(for instance) are all highly effective platforms, and are basically as omnipotent as the hand of god himself.

The Apaches got raped over Karballa. An entire bde shot to pieces in minutes. This does not mean the Apache is overly vulnerable, it just means that they were poorly and foolishly employed without the proper support while relying on sloppy planning.

Certainly other assets provided threat suppression when A-10s were doing GUN runs on downtown Baghdad skyscrapers. Certainly it's a team game. But all pieces of the puzzle fit together to ALLOW the A-10 to operate right over the very heart of the enemy's center of gravity effectively. And when all those pieces were assembled it is no accident that the planes you saw on TV doing those gun runs were A-10s, because they're perfectly suited to it.

And yes, an A-10 takes longer to transit, but it starts out closer to the front(or at least can if desired), it STAYS on station longer per tank of gas, and each hog with a std load of guns mavs and CBUs can make a dozen or more runs on a target before it runs out of ammunition. And it can get down low and shrug of HMG or light cannon fire and put those massive 30mm HEI slugs on target at the rate of 66 a second for just as long as you need it to.

When properly supported, the A-10 delievers the CAS goods better than anything else. Used foolishly, it can be rendered as inneffective as Barry Sanders playoff career.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by FOG
Seahawk,

I�d say depends. More than a few close calls with AG intramural. Integrating into a SEAD/DEAD package most definitely.

I know a few years ago (1999) that UAVs were the most expensive acft in the USMC inventory when adding in losses due to their loss rate. I haven�t kept up on the relative costs.

S/F, FOG

Fog,

Honestly, I'm just being a dick...manned and unmanned vehicles are working incredibly well together The Marines are moving away from the problemmatic Pioneer UAV to the Shadow UAV which I'm buying and testing for them. We have also provided them more than 400 Dragon Eye UAVs for platoon level folks.

Small UAVs are making an incredible impact. Scan Eagles have flown over 28K hours in support of Marines as well as Navy ships...readiness rates are over 97%. And they are doing amazing things in support of our folks.

It is a brave new world. I have begun to question the need for 50M dollar aircraft...fixed or rotary wing

[FOG]

Seahawk,

Having been over both flying and ground I’d say we need both. Too many close calls on the intramural side of the house. The new -53X is going to be 80M per copy?


M21,

Kinematics are also used to defeat the lock-on attempt. The relative thermal signature depends on the ManPad. The A-10 doesn’t carry 10X the expendables and the total number doesn’t tell you much. How many events per acft and how many are needed to defeat single or multiple launches? I know this is classified and have no need to know for either aircraft but the fact that Viper spends less time in envelope means fewer events. The speed deltas are also factored in.

The Apaches also had lots of issues during Anaconda with tactics and got shot up. The MEU provided most of the RCAS w/Cobras. Tactics driven by risk aversion training.

By the time the A-10s were over Baghdad the SEADDEAD bubbas (and mavbe a bubbette or two) package had thoroughly worked over the IADS. The A-10s were over Baghdad after others had severely degraded the effectiveness of the IADS.

I repeat that close to the front is specious as the USAF doesn’t actually do expeditionary work, though they have three “SOF” expeditionary squadrons. There is a difference between loiter time and the off station time for the aerial re-fueling. While off-station for A/R they are not in a position to provide CAS. The goal under the current circumstances is maximum station time/crew day.

The other problem with forward deploying is the increased logistical burden on the theater wide logistical system. After ODS the USMC looked at the forward deployed Harriers and determined that using one of the forward runways vice AM2 would have provided more ordnance and station time, just wouldn’t have utilized the CDI forward deployed harrier stuff.

S/F, FOG

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by FOG
[B]
M21,

Kinematics are also used to defeat the lock-on attempt. The relative thermal signature depends on the ManPad.

And the A-10 can use it's excellent manueverabilty(and much longer ranged gun) to turn away from the target at a greater range, thereby minimizing it's exposure. An F-16 at 550kts is going to come a HELL of a lot closer to the very same target than an A-10 at 330kts because of the increased size of it's turning radius(almost 700 feet larger than that of the A-10 IIRC), and because of the significant range advantage of the GAU-8/A Avenger over the M-61A1 Vulcan. The A-10 was designed to be able to kill a ZSU-23/4 on a guns pass without ever coming into it's engagement envelope at any point(assuming the target is ID'd in advance, of course). An F-16 making the same gun pass would fly right into the heart of that Shilka's kill zone.

The A-10 will also always have a vastly smaller thermal sig than an F-16 pumping out 31k lbs of thrust on full A/B. Both in skin temp and in thermal bloom.

Finally, an A-10 is far better suited to taking hits from pretty much any kind of weapons system than an F-16(or any single engine unarmored bird) will ever be. There is an account of an A-10 taking an entire magazine of 57mm AAA hits and making it back to base(i can get you a link if you like)

Advantage: A-10

[QUOTE]The A-10 doesn’t carry 10X the expendables and the total number doesn’t tell you much.[QUOTE]

The A-10 carries 256 on-board chaff and flare cartridges. The F-16 carries, what, 30? You run out of them, and that raw number means quite a lot...

Advantage: A-10

The How many events per acft and how many are needed to defeat single or multiple launches? I know this is classified and have no need to know for either aircraft but the fact that Viper spends less time in envelope means fewer events. The speed deltas are also factored in.

An A-10 with a 'standard' load can make about a dozen close passes before it runs out of weapons. An F-16 can make maybe six, tops(and that's being generous), and cannot withstand the same punishment, so cannot get in as close. Whether either has enough fuel to deliver that many weapons on one tank of gas depends on a lot of things. When the call came, the required set up time to initiate, the range to the target area, the threat environment, the weapons being employed, etc, etc, etc.

The Apaches also had lots of issues during Anaconda with tactics and got shot up. The MEU provided most of the RCAS w/Cobras. Tactics driven by risk aversion training.

Risk aversion? Perhaps you can explain why AH-64s were flying such low and close support during Anaconda that at least one of them took an RPG hit(and had to set down in a river bed to refill it's hydraulics reservoir)? The account of that battle that i read had AH-64s swooping in at 10ft AGL and overflying Taliban positions directly in support of our guys. Based on the accounts i've seen those Apaches got right in there low and slow during Anaconda and got the job done. During OIF the AAR of the 3ID(which i read in it's entirety) did state that USA pilots were risk-averse, but that was in Iraq.

Of course that's not even the mission i (or even the war) i was referring to though. I was referring to the 11th Av Bde getting ambushed over Karballa, and i only used it as an example to demonstrate that even known effective systems can be rendered inneffective and vulnerable if used improperly.

Cobras are good birds too, but their noise footprint is gigantic, and they don't have the high altitude performance that the Apache does either(which is a real factor in A-stan). I also wonder how they're going to escort Ospreys in OMFTS operations considering that they lack the range and the speed to do so, but that's another issue entirely.

By the time the A-10s were over Baghdad the SEAD/DEAD bubbas (and mavbe a bubbette or two) package had thoroughly worked over the IADS. The A-10s were over Baghdad after others had severely degraded the effectiveness of the IADS.

Which is exactly how it's supposed to be done. Queers and Weasels suppress/remove the threat so that other platforms can operate in a permissible environment.

Air war is a team game afterall.

What's left over are MANPADS and AAA, which the A-10 is uniquely well protected against. So again, they are the perfect choice for downtown gun runs over the heart of an enemy capital.

I repeat that close to the front is specious as the USAF doesn’t actually do expeditionary work, though they have three “SOF” expeditionary squadrons.

Just because the USAF has not had to employ the A-10s rough field capabilities very often does not mean that the plane does not have an edge in this area. It simply means we've had the luxury of not having to exercise it often. Had WWIII occured in Europe, we'd have been using it plenty...

But for the record we DID send A-10s(and M-1s, M-2s, and M-113s) into Northern Iraq after the 173d captured the airfield up there. That was an expeditionary deployment, by any definition of the word.

There is a difference between loiter time and the off station time for the aerial re-fueling. While off-station for A/R they are not in a position to provide CAS. The goal under the current circumstances is maximum station time/crew day.

An F-16 has to refuel far more often than an A-10 because they have much shorter legs and loiter. This is really a fact beyond dispute. An F-16 is a short range light fighter, a fact that will never change during it's lifetime. It's refueling cycle is shorter, but it has to do it more often, and it has to re-arm more often.

The other problem with forward deploying is the increased logistical burden on the theater wide logistical system. After ODS the USMC looked at the forward deployed Harriers and determined that using one of the forward runways vice AM2 would have provided more ordnance and station time, just wouldn’t have utilized the CDI forward deployed harrier stuff.

S/F, FOG

Fwd supporting anything is logistically more demanding, but i'd point out that the A-10 is a MUCH simpler plane than the Harrier to support. No radar(beyond the LASTE radar alt), no BVR(Beyond Visual Range) systems, no complex VSTOL systems, until recently no complex mission computers or display systems. Hell most of the major parts on the plane are even interchangeable from left to right.

The A-10 was expressly designed to be "Austere field" capable, and it is. Far more so than the AV-8B+. The AV-8B+ OTOH is a plane that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If it's for CAS, what's up with the BVR radar systems and single engine config with the "HIT ME HERE" hot air nozzles right smack dab on the middle of the fuselage? Why it even "needs" BVR systems at all is mind-boggling to me. Especially in a service that is alway so cash-strapped. Also, what's with needing to pull the whole wing off to service the engine when it's supposed to be fwd deployed and have fast turn around times? What's with the lack of mission critical systems armor?

As for the Lawndart, during ODS the USAF tried to force-feed the CAS role on the "A-16", and the plane was a miserable failure in the role.
The F-16 is fine for dropping JDAMs or firing Mavs, but if you need something to drop down low and shrug off HMG and AAA fire while offering massive firepower and persistance in support of friendlies, the A-10 is by far the better platform. It is in fact the best platform on earth for that role. The only thing that comes close is the Frogfoot. Personally i think the F-15E is better for CAS than either the Harrier or the Lawndart too, because it has better range/loiter, it's even faster, it has much greater ability to absorb physical damage, and it has a much greater payload(including the gun).

Hell you couldn't even realistically fwd-base the F-16 even if you wanted to because the engine intake is so FOD-prone. That's part of the reason why the engines on the A-10 are where they are to begin with.

The A-10 is the greatest CAS/BAI platform in the history of mankind, that's my opinion, and as board admin of the biggest A-10 site on the net and an ex-grunt, i'm not about to change it.

[fastpat]

This discussion reminds me a lot of that between those favoring the F-51 (formerly P-51) and the F-86/F-84 early jets. Tehre was even attempts at creating an A-51 and AT-28, both with turbine power, during the Vietnam era, using similar arguments.

This is all despite studies showing time and again that the ability to engage and disengage targets, aerial or ground, at will always goes to a maneuverable high speed aircraft and never to the slower aircraft.

I've seen an experiment pitting AH-64's equipped with Sidewinders against F-16's flown by very experienced US AND Israeli pilots wherein the helicopter won each time. This "study" was held within very narrow confines; rugged terrain with the helicopter pre-positioned in NOE environs from which they could pop-up, launch, and return to terrain shielding.

I won't say what this proved, but you don't see any Sidewinder equipped rotary winged aircraft out there yet.

[FOG]

M21,

Going from certain ManPad threats (that have scored hits in Iraq) to a ZSU? Is the current threat ManPads or ZSU/23. The question still stands are there ManPads in use by the bad guys that cue better to the thermal properties of A-10s than F-16s?

Taking or avoiding hits is the question. The Herk the brits shot down during the Falklands took four sidewinder (which are far more lethal than any ManPad) and it was still flying. The brits had to use front quarter gun runs to kill the flight crew. Let’s move the AC-130s down to double and triple digit MSLs.

The raw numbers are higher for the Viper and higher for other acft. The question is how many events against the threat does this equate to? Your answer of advantage A-10 is a non answer w/o the weaponering data.

I have stated repeatedly that the A-10 carries a larger munitons load out. What is not being answered is what is the total station time to include transit to/from both base and the tankers? Which is off station the longest for A/R and leaving the grunts uncovered. Which requires A/R more often is less relevant from a grunt’s POV or ground commander than how long they will be uncovered. More A/R for the F-16 require more theater logistics as it requires more tankers and all their support. The extra tankers are less burdensome as they are further back than stuff pushed forward/up the logistical pyramid.

Current operations how often do either platform go Winchester? How often is it a factor?

With the name M21 sniper I believe most grunts would want CAS RFN and bring in more as required. If not we can go to the absurd (in my opinion) USAF brief of flying all CAS, on call, from CONUS via heavies. How long is an acceptable wait until steel on target?

During Anaconda the Apaches fired from a hover and were thus far easier targets. USMC tactics are far different and very similar to 160th SOAR. From working w/the 160th they are the only ones use the tactics as they are viewed as too high risk.

Actually the Cobras did better as they don’t attempt to hover. They were able to get more steel out per airframe per unit time and didn’t get shot up. The new Z w/four bladed rotor, etc. is better than either from a non-systems performance standpoint.

I’ve yet to see any good way to escort Osprey, and that is assuming that Osprey in and of itself is a good thing.

Not sure what the cross wind capability of the A-10 is but trying to help plan for it in a joint environment the USAF doesn’t have a very good expeditionary arresting gear and the A-10 bubbas don’t want to use the naval M-28 or M-31 gear.

No argument that the Harrier is the biggest maint pig of any U.S. acft, at least any weighing under 200K LBS. The Poor radar and barely BVR is due to the USN foisting off old APG 65s and all the problems with installation/integration vice the Harrier/USMC wanting the APG-68. The USN with a small cadre of USMC Harrier pushed for the BVR to help alleviate the carrier’s and USAF fighter coverage requirements for the gator navy. The basic design is British and the wing removal isn’t is weakest point, electrics by the prince of darkness (Lucas) and the g-limit is main shaft bending not the airframe, etc. The advantage in expeditionary basing the Harrier does runway requirements. How long does it take to get a suitable runway up and running out in the middle of nowhere for each? How long to conduct BRAAT on a recently captured airfield that has been cratered?

The bigger problem than airframe is the pilot, community and service mentalities/ethos. Frankly the USN has embraced the whole integrated CAS far better.

Fast,

USMC Cobras can be equipped and I’m sure so can Apaches. Israeli Herks can be fitted with Pythons on their wingtips for self defense. There are tactics for dealing with the helos in that situation as the helos have a counter, …

S/F, FOG

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by FOG
[B]M21,

Going from certain ManPad threats (that have scored hits in Iraq) to a ZSU? Is the current threat ManPads or ZSU/23.

I would say the threat is both(and maybe even much more lethal systems like the ZSU-30/1, depending on who we decide to shoot at next).

The A-10 has faced MANPADS, all kinds of S- series SAMs, and ZSU-23/2, 23/4, 57/2, in combat with pretty daggone good results to date.

The question still stands are there ManPads in use by the bad guys that cue better to the thermal properties of A-10s than F-16s?

I am not an expert, but in my amatuer-yet-informed opinion a GE-110 at full afterburner pumping out 31,000lbs of thrust is clearly a much hotter and more inviting target than a rudder shrouded non-afterburning TF-34. And clearly a plane that transits the air at 500kts will have much greater skin heating than one that transits the same air at 330kts.

Now for the newer breed of IIR seekers (like AIM-9X), that doesnt matter because they actually "See" a thermal image of the ACFT instead of a 'white blob' of heat, but for the legacy stuff already out there, it seems obvious that a cooler exhaust stream and skin temp is a big aid in avoiding heaters.

Taking or avoiding hits is the question. The Herk the brits shot down during the Falklands took four sidewinder (which are far more lethal than any ManPad) and it was still flying. The brits had to use front quarter gun runs to kill the flight crew. Let’s move the AC-130s down to double and triple digit MSLs.

I recall seeing an interview from that Brit pilot. When we invaded Panama a whole flight of Hercs got shot up during their Ranger paradrops by a fixed 23mm AAA site, but they all made it home OK. The Herc is a very tough bird, like the A-10. It is however a huge target, and much less agile than the A-10, so it should never be used in the kinds of threat environments the A-10 has been used in.

As i said, during ODS A-10s actually performed Wild Weasel missions on numerous occassions with excellent results. You would not want to do that with a Spectre.

The raw numbers are higher for the Viper and higher for other acft.

The only number that is higher for the Viper is cruise/attack speed and climb rate. In all other respects the A-10 has superior 'raw numbers'. It has greater range, greater loiter, can operate closer to the fight, can stand off further, turn away from the target faster, has a signigicantly lower thermal signiture, carries far more expendable countermeasures, packs about triple the real world payload, and can absorb far more damage and stay in the fight or get the pilot home. Short of it's low attack speed(which is still almost 2x that of the Cobra), what's not to like?

The question is how many events against the threat does this equate to? Your answer of advantage A-10 is a non answer w/o the weaponering data.

That depends on the specific engagment parameters and the type of target, the threat environment, etc, etc, etc. As you know.

What is not being answered is what is the total station time to include transit to/from both base and the tankers? Which is off station the longest for A/R and leaving the grunts uncovered. Which requires A/R more often is less relevant from a grunt’s POV or ground commander than how long they will be uncovered. More A/R for the F-16 require more theater logistics as it requires more tankers and all their support. The extra tankers are less burdensome as they are further back than stuff pushed forward/up the logistical pyramid.

In any proper air battle plan there will be overlapping CAS coverage so that any time a flight of birds is outbound to tank another flight is either inbound to take up station, or is already on station. If that is not the case it's the fault of the planning staff, not any specific platform. As far as determing exact transit times, again, it depends on a lot of variables, such as range from the airbase to target, actual payload, range from station to the tankers, etc, etc, etc. I concede that transit time will always favor the F-16(or F anything) over an A-10, just as loiter time on actual station will always favor the A-10 over the F-16, AV-8, or F-18.

With the name M21 sniper I believe most grunts would want CAS RFN and bring in more as required. If not we can go to the absurd (in my opinion) USAF brief of flying all CAS, on call, from CONUS via heavies. How long is an acceptable wait until steel on target?

I prefer arty myself. Less wait time(usually lots less).

During Anaconda the Apaches fired from a hover and were thus far easier targets. USMC tactics are far different and very similar to 160th SOAR. From working w/the 160th they are the only ones use the tactics as they are viewed as too high risk.

From what i understand, USMC attack aviation tactics are to always keep moving(just like USA Cavalry OH-58D pilots), and really are very similar to the hunter-killer tactics we used back in Vietnam, and those the Russians used in A-Stan. The USA went into OEF/OIF married to the masked stand-off attack because it worked so well in ODS, and because we'd trained to do it that way ever since the AirLand Battle days. But again, from the accounts of Anaconda i read, the pilots on the scene realized that those tactics weren't working, and themselves switched to 'attack run' type tactics on the initiative of their unit commander. There is an excellent story about that battle, i'll find it for you and post a link.

Actually the Cobras did better as they don’t attempt to hover. They were able to get more steel out per airframe per unit time and didn’t get shot up. The new Z w/four bladed rotor, etc. is better than either from a non-systems performance standpoint.

I heard the were having lots of problems with the zulu cobras. Hadnt the USMC commandant threatened to cancell them last year or something?

I’ve yet to see any good way to escort Osprey, and that is assuming that Osprey in and of itself is a good thing.

I'm with you on that one, 100%. IMO Osprey is stupid.

Not sure what the cross wind capability of the A-10 is but trying to help plan for it in a joint environment the USAF doesn’t have a very good expeditionary arresting gear and the A-10 bubbas don’t want to use the naval M-28 or M-31 gear.

No argument that the Harrier is the biggest maint pig of any U.S. acft, at least any weighing under 200K LBS. The Poor radar and barely BVR is due to the USN foisting off old APG 65s and all the problems with installation/integration vice the Harrier/USMC wanting the APG-68. The USN with a small cadre of USMC Harrier pushed for the BVR to help alleviate the carrier’s and USAF fighter coverage requirements for the gator navy. The basic design is British and the wing removal isn’t is weakest point, electrics by the prince of darkness (Lucas) and the g-limit is main shaft bending not the airframe, etc. The advantage in expeditionary basing the Harrier does runway requirements. How long does it take to get a suitable runway up and running out in the middle of nowhere for each? How long to conduct BRAAT on a recently captured airfield that has been cratered?

The bigger problem than airframe is the pilot, community and service mentalities/ethos. Frankly the USN has embraced the whole integrated CAS far better.

S/F, FOG

I agree with all those assessments, but i still like arty better than CAS. There are few problems in life that a good 155mm battery fire for effect won't cure.

[MFAFF]

The Harrier is probably also the oldest (conceptually) of the jets mentionned here. It was designed for dispered operations but the maintainability aspects were placed into second ( or last) place as the 'life' of the airframe was not considered to require much maintenance.. plus they were on a prayer to get the damn thing flying...

When you look at its success during the little fracas in the Falklands the advantages of STOVL become more understandable...the transfer from fligth deck to the strip on land was amater of hours after the landinds occured...

Mind the fact that the A2A threat was very low...as both Etendards and Skyhawks were not suited to the task nor so missioned in addition to being very short of fuel meant both the SHAR and GR3 with 'winders were able to perform pretty well.

This is why the F-35 was designed to have a variant with STOVL....if it could combine the short deck/ short field performance of the GR9 with the BVR capability of the FA2 (AIM120 capable) with the physical performance of the F-16 then there is an airframe that could be useful....

That the A-10 is sucking hind tit in the political and financial war is more to do with institutional aversion within the USAF than the airframe's inherent performance....

The team work issue is important to acknowledge....the A-10 could not perform its role without the F-16 and its teen cousins....this allows the A-10 to do its job free from A2A threats...and lets is do its stuff WRT to the G2A threat...

The speed issue is vital....the time exposed to the threat...especially MAnpads is crucial.. as there are certain fixed timespans that are need to acquired, lock and fire a missile.. the F-16 has a chance of being on/off target before this can occur...whilst the A-10 regardless of its low speed snap performance is trying to fight off a threat.
It is always better to avoid a fight than having to fight one..if the job gets done..so the additional flares and chaff is a requirement, not an advantage...

The same applies to the twin engines, the twin fins etc.. in fact allof the redundancy....it is needed becasue there is a higher risk of being hit. So effort is aimed at surviving it.

But, when all is said an done the -8 is a beast when she fires......never want to be on the recieving end of that.....

[m21sniper]

http://www.combatfilms.com/article_chopper.asp

There ya go bro.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by MFAFF
The Harrier is probably also the oldest (conceptually) of the jets mentionned here. It was designed for dispered operations but the maintainability aspects were placed into second ( or last) place as the 'life' of the airframe was not considered to require much maintenance.. plus they were on a prayer to get the damn thing flying...

When you look at its success during the little fracas in the Falklands the advantages of STOVL become more understandable...the transfer from fligth deck to the strip on land was amater of hours after the landinds occured...

Mind the fact that the A2A threat was very low...as both Etendards and Skyhawks were not suited to the task nor so missioned in addition to being very short of fuel meant both the SHAR and GR3 with 'winders were able to perform pretty well.

This is why the F-35 was designed to have a variant with STOVL....if it could combine the short deck/ short field performance of the GR9 with the BVR capability of the FA2 (AIM120 capable) with the physical performance of the F-16 then there is an airframe that could be useful....

That the A-10 is sucking hind tit in the political and financial war is more to do with institutional aversion within the USAF than the airframe's inherent performance....

The team work issue is important to acknowledge....the A-10 could not perform its role without the F-16 and its teen cousins....this allows the A-10 to do its job free from A2A threats...and lets is do its stuff WRT to the G2A threat...

The speed issue is vital....the time exposed to the threat...especially MAnpads is crucial.. as there are certain fixed timespans that are need to acquired, lock and fire a missile.. the F-16 has a chance of being on/off target before this can occur...whilst the A-10 regardless of its low speed snap performance is trying to fight off a threat.
It is always better to avoid a fight than having to fight one..if the job gets done..so the additional flares and chaff is a requirement, not an advantage...

The same applies to the twin engines, the twin fins etc.. in fact allof the redundancy....it is needed becasue there is a higher risk of being hit. So effort is aimed at surviving it.

But, when all is said an done the -8 is a beast when she fires......never want to be on the recieving end of that.....

I agree with all of that too.

If the threat is unmanageable for Hogs it's because the rest of the team has not done it's job sufficiently. It's just like you wouldn't send Marines ashore at Iwo Jima without a preparatory bombardment or they'd get slaughtered.

You start at the top, the F-15/F-22 providing air dominance, and it all goes down from there. Take out any one piece of the puzzle, and it can get ugly for everyone.

War is the ultimate team sport. The A-10 is the fullback.

[m21sniper]

Actually i agree with all of it but the part where you say, "The A-10 is sucking hind tit politically".

The A-10 is currently undergoing all kinds of upgrade programs, so it's actually doing pretty good politically.

[MFAFF]

And how much actual cash is that program getting compared to teh F 22 and 35 programs....its all relative and to some extent smoke and mirrors..

[Drago]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
... more commonality...

Now that's funny.

BTDT. The goal was commonality, the actual result was far from it.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by MFAFF
And how much actual cash is that program getting compared to teh F 22 and 35 programs....its all relative and to some extent smoke and mirrors..

The A-10 upgrades are a drop in the bucket compared to the F-22 and F-35, of course.

The current plan is to re-wing 212 of them and give them full avionics updates(JDAM and LGB capabilities), a partial glass cockpit, and maybe new engines. Currently it's all funded but the engines, and the work is ongoing. One of the fellows at my board was the NCOIC at the Hill AFB A-10 depot for many years, and just retired last year, and there are a few other guys involved in the PE and rewing programs that post at my site, so i'm pretty plugged in to the Hog world. A couple years ago i flew out to Hill and got the full VIP tour treatment, got to tour all the facilities and stuff, and hang out with the guys. I also got to fly the base F-16 simulator. It was great.

At any rate the USAF says it wants to keep the A-10 in the fleet until 2028, and i'm just fine with that. I think it's a fantastic airplane for the role that it fills.

[holtjv]

What was the story behind the A-10's development? I read the biography of John Boyd and I remember something about the fact that it was an afterthought to the USAF brass. There was some rationale to produce it for budget, or something.

Boyd was quite the character. His complaint was that the USAF needed a modern day version of the F86 (to the point of a previous post) and came up with the F15. Then the F16 was bid out and, before it was done, ended up much, much heavier than Boyd had wanted. But still a hell of an improvement for air-to-air than the Eagle.

My dad knew Boyd and flew for McDonnell douglas when they were still making F4s up to his retirement when flying F18s. He did not share the opinion of the F16, calling it an "icepick" or "lawndart". Pop seemed to insist on more than one engine and I can't say that I disagree. All that said, he still claims the best jet he flew was the F86--sabre jet, right?

Jack

[m21sniper]

The A-10 was originally envisioned as a dedicated CAS/CSAR(Combat Air Support/Combat Search And Rescue) bird along the lines of the prop-driven post WWII A-1 Skyraider, but built using all the hard-won lessons of Vietnam. Then, during it's gestation, it evolved into a dedicated anti-tank BAI(battlefield aerial interdiction) platform to stop the swarms of Soviet armor in the classical Fulda Gap scenario.

Provided that the IADS(enemy integrated air defense system) is properly suppressed, it excels at either mission. One of it's other major roles in today's USAF is as a FAC-A(Forward Air Control) platform. Really, short of air superiority, the A-10 can do pretty much anything reasonably well, and has(in combat).

During ODS(Op Desert Storm) they did everything from counter-battery, to Wild Weasel, to interdiction-strike, to scud-hunter, to helicopter hunter-killer. Given it's weapons load out the A-10 would also be a credible anti-ship platform if anyone ever wanted to assign it that role(besides Tom Clancy in the book "Hunt for Red October", hehehe).

I'll step aside now and let someone more qualified than me answer your other questions about those other pointy-nosed F jets.