A10 Replacement

[Samson]

The good old Warthog....

 

The USAF wanted it axe it, but out of neccesity it still is soldering on. But this can not go on forever. IIRC the only spare parts and such come from scap planes in boneyards, and new production of the A10 is no possible.

 

Now what.

 

The role of CAS is one that can not readily be abandoned regaurdless of the zoom and boom fixation of the USAF.

 

A dedicated CAS aircaft with A10 like capabilities is neccesary IMO.

 

So, what would you propose?

 

Manned or unmaned(is this a option yet?)

 

A10 configuration or something new?

 

Adaption of a current arifram?

 

What materials?

 

and the fun stuff....

 

What gun!?!?!?

 

What ordinace?

[tankerwanabe]

Do we really need one considering we have the Apache Longbow?

[Samson]

I dont think the 2 warbirds are realy that comparable.

 

The A10 is much much faster and carries much more payload.

 

The Longbow is much more vulnerable to ground fire and battle damage.

 

There has to be some very good reasons the A10s are still called up to put steel on target.

[Slater]

I think a clean-sheet-of-paper replacement design is probably out of the question. The F-35 in some guise will probably take over that role, if it comes down to that.

 

In the 1980's, the "F/A-16" was supposed to be the replacement but that fell through.

[T19]

Take the original plans, add the new requirements we need for CAS today, and build a new A10. Use new tech to make the ship lighter, stronger and able to use new technologies through easy upgrades

 

Why re-invent the wheel? Would an F16 be better? the F35? I don't think so

[FlyingCanOpener]

Well, the A-10C is beginning evaluation atm, so I wouldn't start thinking about replacing it just yet...

Edited June 21, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[tankerwanabe]

I dont think the 2 warbirds are realy that comparable.

 

The A10 is much much faster and carries much more payload.

 

The Longbow is much more vulnerable to ground fire and battle damage.

 

There has to be some very good reasons the A10s are still called up to put steel on target.

186178[/snapback]

 

The shortage of Longbows?

 

Actually, I do acknowledge the A10's superior range and survivalbility. But with the absent of a Soviet tank breakout of the Fulda Gap, it's kind of hard to justify funding for such a specialistic bird.

 

I'd bet the next big funding will go into researching a conversion-kit of our piloted airfleet into a pilotless airfleet. Why built new unman-aircraft when you can convert the current fleet at 1/10th the cost?

[Smitty]

The role of CAS is one that can not readily be abandoned regaurdless of the zoom and boom fixation of the USAF.

 

A dedicated CAS aircaft with A10 like capabilities is neccesary IMO.

 

I feel like a broken record saying this but, "CAS is a mission, not a type of aircraft."

 

Virtually every manned an unmanned strike aircraft in the inventory has or will eventually perform CAS. B-1s and B-52s do it, F-teens do it, A-10s do it, Predators do it, Apaches do it, AC-130s do it.

 

In the future UCAVs will do it, F-22s and F-35s will do it, Hunter/Killer UAVs will do it, as will smaller UAVs.

 

Plus assets organic to ground units will become more capable of supporting themselvs as new PGMs and C4ISR systems are introduced.

 

Now if you want to talk about the future of CAS, you should start by talking about the types of effects you desire, over what types of target sets.

 

If you use Op Anaconda as your guide, you might go in one direction.

 

If you use Desert Storm, you might go another.

 

OIF might take you in yet another.

 

Which is more likely in the future?

[Wolfman]

The Hog is not going anywhere.

 

 

 

 

[FlyingCanOpener]

Hmm, seems someone scanned some pics from Combat Aircraft Magazine, as that's where I caught wind of the A-10C program.

 

IMO, but the Hog's replacement will be a UCAV. Prolly in the same vein of thought too, though in a smaller size, like a plane designed around a Bushmaster (or even twin 25-30mm cannons along the centreline) with 8+ hardpoints for AGMs

[Samson]

Well, just for disucssion sake lets brainstorm what a UAV designed to approximate the A10 would be like.

 

Not neccesarily something that is nearly as big or carries as much punch, but something with range, decent speed, and a BIG GUN!!!

 

Any thoughts?

[Stevely]

I feel like a broken record saying this but, "CAS is a mission, not a type of aircraft." 

 

<snip>

 

Now if you want to talk about the future of CAS, you should start by talking about the types of effects you desire, over what types of target sets.

186189[/snapback]

 

Right on Smitty. IMO that's a much more interesting discussion than fantasizing unmanned A-10's (as much as I think that is a cool a/c).

[KingSargent]

I really doubt that a UAV would be effective in a CAS role, primarily because of the risk of 'blue-on-blue' engagements with remote piloting. The AF has a bad enough record when the pilots can see what they're shooting at.

 

At the same time, the thought of the USAF fielding a CAS a/c without hot purges being forced into them from both ends is just ridiculous.

[Jussi Saari]

I really doubt that a UAV would be effective in a CAS role, primarily because of the risk of 'blue-on-blue' engagements with remote piloting. The AF has a bad enough record when the pilots can see what they're shooting at.

186305[/snapback]

 

Maybe the other way around actually... you can put the same sensors on the UAV as you would on an aircraft, so the pilot could see the target just as well, if not better since with UAV's lesser visual/IR/radar signature and lesser cost (no pilot, cheaper aircraft) one could afford go to take a closer look. And the pilot flying the UAV remotely will not have the stress of being shot at to disturb his decision-making process that the pilot of a manned aircraft would have..

[Samson]

I really doubt that a UAV would be effective in a CAS role, primarily because of the risk of 'blue-on-blue' engagements with remote piloting. The AF has a bad enough record when the pilots can see what they're shooting at.

 

At the same time, the thought of the USAF fielding a CAS a/c without hot purges being forced into them from both ends is just ridiculous.

186305[/snapback]

 

 

Who says it has to be the USAF flying this bird?

 

I would sooner see it in the hands of the Army and Marines, especialy if its a CAS UAV that can get donw and dirty in the mud and fight it out with the enemy.

[Samson]

I feel like a broken record saying this but, "CAS is a mission, not a type of aircraft." 

 

Virtually every manned an unmanned strike aircraft in the inventory has or will eventually perform CAS.  B-1s and B-52s do it, F-teens do it, A-10s do it, Predators do it, Apaches do it, AC-130s do it. 

 

In the future UCAVs will do it, F-22s and F-35s will do it, Hunter/Killer UAVs will do it, as will smaller UAVs.

 

Plus assets organic to ground units will become more capable of supporting themselvs as new PGMs and C4ISR systems are introduced.

 

Now if you want to talk about the future of CAS, you should start by talking about the types of effects you desire, over what types of target sets.

 

If you use Op Anaconda as your guide, you might go in one direction.

 

If you use Desert Storm, you might go another.

 

OIF might take you in yet another.

 

Which is more likely in the future?

186189[/snapback]

 

I dont think any one of those future senarios can be identified as the sure thing. They call could happen and all likely will happen someday, somewhere...

 

Which Is why you need all of the different platforms for the CAS mission.

 

All of the different aircraft, the bomb trucks, the gunships, the attack craft, the fighters, they all fill a nich role.

 

I just wanted to focus this discussion on the nich of the A10 or similar attack craft.

 

As far as on target affects go, well whatever it tages to ge the job done would be just fine.

 

So, here goes the targets/effects:

 

Armor=Kill it with guns or missles or submunitions or bombs

Infantry=Kill it with guns or missles or submunitions or bombs

Supply train=Kill it with guns or missles or submunitions or bombs

Bunker=Kill it with guns or missles or submunitions or bombs

etc... etc... etc....

 

[Jim Martin]

You are suggesting violation of the Key West Agreement. Better you should suggest breaking each of the 10 Commandments in succession....

 

Who says it has to be the USAF flying this bird?

 

I would sooner see it in the hands of the Army and Marines, especialy if its a CAS UAV that can get donw and dirty in the mud and fight it out with the enemy.

186316[/snapback]

[Jeff]

Maybe the other way around actually... you can put the same sensors on the UAV as you would on an aircraft, so the pilot could see the target just as well, if not better since with UAV's lesser visual/IR/radar signature and lesser cost (no pilot, cheaper aircraft) one could afford go to take a closer look. And the pilot flying the UAV remotely will not have the stress of being shot at to disturb his decision-making process that the pilot of a manned aircraft would have..

186312[/snapback]

 

I don't know that we have sensors and outputs that can rival the real things yet. It's like reading a book online or reading a paper book in your hands. I get tired of reading a book online very quickly but can read a real book for hours. A pilot uses all his senses to acquire a picture of what's happening and a plan of how to deal with it. If you're just sitting at 15,000 feet and lobbing JDAM's and SDB's, then no problem but if you're getting down in the weeds and picking out individual targets in close proximity to your own forces then a computer monitor 500 miles away just isn't going to cut it.

[Samson]

You are suggesting violation of the Key West Agreement.  Better you should suggest breaking each of the 10 Commandments in succession....

186341[/snapback]

 

 

If I am not mistaken the Army already operats the Hunter and Shadow UAVs, so why would a armed UAV be such an outlandish suggestion?

 

I cant find the article, i think it was on this forum, about the USAF basicaly being the cotroler for both USAF and Army UAVs.

 

The USFS apparantly likes to keep its UAVs out of harms way and usualy only calls in the Army UAVs when there is a high threat situation....

 

Becuase of course the Army pays the bill for any UAVs lost in action.

 

IIRC the same article aslo mentioned the Army is going to buy more UAVs because they are upset iwth the USAF and becuase they can and want to.

 

Something like that, just cant find the link.

[EchoFiveMike]

I don't know that we have sensors and outputs that can rival the real things yet. It's like reading a book online or reading a paper book in your hands. I get tired of reading a book online very quickly but can read a real book for hours. A pilot uses all his senses to acquire a picture of what's happening and a plan of how to deal with it. If you're just sitting at 15,000 feet and lobbing JDAM's and SDB's, then no problem but if you're getting down in the weeds and picking out individual targets in close proximity to your own forces then a computer monitor 500 miles away just isn't going to cut it.

 

I've used some of this stuff IRL, I disagree. If we don't have to worry about getting dead, you can pay much closer attention to the ground support picture. Given that the computing side of this business is developing faster than can be incorporated into designs, the UCAV is the only way to go. USAF is going to be nintendo kids and the only "in plane" pilots will fly transpo and refueling. Makes CSAR a whole new industry. Their only real role is going to be recovering deep R&S and strike team elements IMO.

 

Take the weight of pilot support crap on the bird and use it towards an anti-SAM laser and jamming/decoy equipment. That'll do much more for survivabililty than keeping pilots. S/F....Ken M

[Burncycle360]

USAF is going to be nintendo kids and the only "in plane" pilots will fly transpo and refueling

 

Why would transport aircraft?

 

It would be even easier for a transport aircraft to go the UAV route than combat aircraft I would think. You can fly to the destination completely automated (ala global hawk) and then you can have a man in the loop for landings and takeoffs if needed.

[Stevely]

Why would transport aircraft?

 

It would be even easier for a transport aircraft to go the UAV route than combat aircraft I would think. You can fly to the destination completely automated (ala global hawk) and then you can have a man in the loop for landings and takeoffs if needed.

186468[/snapback]

 

Because the first time an automated transport full of soldiers crashes, that would be the end of UAV transport aircraft. It's one thing to have robots deliver weapons, another to have them deliver people. Even if they are technically ready to do this job, it will be a long time until they are trusted enough that people will get into them and put their lives in the UAV's hands.

Edited June 21, 2005 by Stevely

[EchoFiveMike]

Why would transport aircraft?

 

Because you ain't never going to get grunts on an aircraft where you don't have pilots on board, even if they're not really doing anything. S/F....Ken M

[Burncycle360]

Ah, point taken. I was thinking planes full of equipment and supplies but yeah I guess soldiers might be a little hesitant

Edited June 21, 2005 by Burncycle360

[Smitty]

Well, just for disucssion sake lets brainstorm what a UAV designed to approximate the A10 would be like.

 

Not neccesarily something that is nearly as big or carries as much punch, but something with range, decent speed, and a BIG GUN!!!

186298[/snapback]

 

Why a big gun? Why even approximate the A10? A Predator B will carry up to 24 Viper Strikes, each with a near zero m CEP, and it can loiter over the battlefield for 24+ hours. Plus they only cost around $7-10mil each.