User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:00:03 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, then you tell me about Air Land Battle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. Ok, then you tell me about Air Land Battle. What about popping tanks in the plains of Germany ??? Why do you care. The A10 might have been designed with that role as its primary purpose , but its proven itself to be adaptable. Get more than you need rather than less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:08:51 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was highly praised for its ability in the CAS role , and has the record to go with it. Tucano not so much, why people have a love affair with the little plane is beyond me. We have fielded far better and more capable aircraft even before the adoption of the A10 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. It's funny you are touting the A-37 when it has a lower hardpoint capacity, less endurance than an A-29, and wasn't particularly armored. It was highly praised for its ability in the CAS role , and has the record to go with it. Tucano not so much, why people have a love affair with the little plane is beyond me. We have fielded far better and more capable aircraft even before the adoption of the A10 What did the A-37 do better than the A-29 can? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:13:50 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What did the A-37 do better than the A-29 can? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. It's funny you are touting the A-37 when it has a lower hardpoint capacity, less endurance than an A-29, and wasn't particularly armored. It was highly praised for its ability in the CAS role , and has the record to go with it. Tucano not so much, why people have a love affair with the little plane is beyond me. We have fielded far better and more capable aircraft even before the adoption of the A10 What did the A-37 do better than the A-29 can? Fill the ME turbojet block for Southwest and FedEx. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:14:25 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about popping tanks in the plains of Germany ??? Why do you care. The A10 might have been designed with that role as its primary purpose , but its proven itself to be adaptable. Get more than you need rather than less. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. Ok, then you tell me about Air Land Battle. What about popping tanks in the plains of Germany ??? Why do you care. The A10 might have been designed with that role as its primary purpose , but its proven itself to be adaptable. Get more than you need rather than less. I care because the USAF seems not to |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:22:32 PM EST
[#5]
Ah yes, the A37. Who doesnt want to go back to an airplane with 12 second spool up times, and the noise signature of a fucking C5.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:29:20 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah yes, the A37. Who doesnt want to go back to an airplane with 12 second spool up times, and the noise signature of a fucking C5. And less capabilities than existing off the shelf alternatives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:33:09 PM EST
[#7]
Military aircraft invoke so much passion and misplaced loyalties.
Its only when you do this do you realize some of that is just hilarious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:35:08 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Military aircraft invoke so much passion and misplaced loyalties. Its only when you do this do you realize some of that is just hilarious. zero fucks given on my side. I'll take the 182 with a PKM out the side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:38:50 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
zero fucks given on my side. I'll take the 182 with a PKM out the side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Military aircraft invoke so much passion and misplaced loyalties. Its only when you do this do you realize some of that is just hilarious. zero fucks given on my side. I'll take the 182 with a PKM out the side. And I would love to fly that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:39:15 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
zero fucks given on my side. I'll take the 182 with a PKM out the side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Military aircraft invoke so much passion and misplaced loyalties. Its only when you do this do you realize some of that is just hilarious. zero fucks given on my side. I'll take the 182 with a PKM out the side. You qualified on a PKM? If so write it up and submit it, I'll drive you. 
http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/cdid/aewe/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:47:44 PM EST
[#11]
There is one thing the Tucano/similar brings to the table.
A low cost plane for low cost targets. With something like these it won't be necessary to put thousands of hours on an F-35 to CAS haji. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:51:34 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is one thing the Tucano/similar brings to the table. A low cost plane for low cost targets. With something like these it won't be necessary to put thousands of hours on an F-35 to CAS haji. Exactly. A Tucano with a FLIR system, 8 hour loiter, and operating cost less than $1000 an hour is much better than ripping the wings off of A10s in COIN, or burning blade hours on AH64E. But hell, fuck it. No one wants to fly a laughable single engine turboprop. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:05:50 PM EST
[#13]
What's necessary, and required. is to amend the laws requiring the USAF and US Army to have different, incompatible aircraft.
IMHO, the Army ought to be primarily responsible for low-level aircraft, be they rotary wing or fixed wing, just like the USMC vs the Navy. The USAF should be tasked with making sure the airspace over the ground battle is free from enemy aircraft, as well as other further-reaching tactical/strategic goals. In short, the situation between the USAF and the Army should, ideally, be reduced to a situation like that between the Navy and the USMC. Obviously, there is some interplay at lower levels, and BOTH forces should be tasked to be certain that all their aircraft are compatible with any and all friendly aircraft they are likely to encounter. Frankly, any reasonable person can see this as a serious gap in our air doctrine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:06:26 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. A Tucano with a FLIR system, 8 hour loiter, and operating cost less than $1000 an hour is much better than ripping the wings off of A10s in COIN, or burning blade hours on AH64E. But hell, fuck it. No one wants to buy a laughable single engine turboprop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is one thing the Tucano/similar brings to the table. A low cost plane for low cost targets. With something like these it won't be necessary to put thousands of hours on an F-35 to CAS haji. Exactly. A Tucano with a FLIR system, 8 hour loiter, and operating cost less than $1000 an hour is much better than ripping the wings off of A10s in COIN, or burning blade hours on AH64E. But hell, fuck it. No one wants to buy a laughable single engine turboprop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:07:11 PM EST
[#15]
The problem with designing an A-10 specific replacement with the same sort of capabilities is that it will also ultimately have the same shortcomings....it will fly low and slow and be highly vulnerable to modern air defenses. That makes it a one trick pony only suitable for supporting ground forces in a COIN type campaign. Being a one trick pony with such a limited capability will also means it will constantly be fighting for its life as the A-10 has since the late 1980s.
I think any A-10 replacement should not only be capable of performing CAS in low intensity conflicts, but also in medium and high intensity conflicts. I think the best way to achieve that end would be to do something similar to what the U.S. Army has done with the E model Apache. That is, combine manned with unmanned platforms. The manned platform would need to be able to stay away from and remain survivable against the type of enemy air defense systems you are likely to find along the FEBA and act as a mothership of sorts for inexpensive, expendable unmanned platforms that will get in close. Maybe something Super Taco like would work well as the unmanned aircraft. Load it down with weapons and sensors and link it to what would ideally be a second crewman in the mothership for control. Perhaps you could make the Super Taco type aircraft optionally manned as well, so that for COIN operations in a low threat environment, you could just dispense with the more expensive mothership altogether and operate it like an A-10 or A-1 in a direct role. IMHO, if we are going to design an A-10 replacement from scratch, then lets get serious and design a total system that can provide CAS in ANY type of combat environment. For higher end threats, use something like an F-16D, F-15E or even something like a 2 seat F-35 to direct swarms of inexpensive drones to carry out attacks. But give the inexpensive aircraft the ability to be optionally manned so that it can be used like an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior in permissive environments. We need versatility. We need a system that can be tailored to the threat. We don't need something that is suitable to only one type of fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:17:29 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with designing an A-10 specific replacement with the same sort of capabilities is that it will also ultimately have the same shortcomings....it will fly low and slow and be highly vulnerable to modern air defenses. That makes it a one trick pony only suitable for supporting ground forces in a COIN type campaign. Being a one trick pony with such a limited capability will also means it will constantly be fighting for its life as the A-10 has since the late 1980s. I think any A-10 replacement should not only be capable of performing CAS in low intensity conflicts, but also in medium and high intensity conflicts. I think the best way to achieve that end would be to do something similar to what the U.S. Army has done with the E model Apache. That is, combine manned with unmanned platforms. The manned platform would need to be able to stay away from and remain survivable against the type of enemy air defense systems you are likely to find along the FEBA and act as a mothership of sorts for inexpensive, expendable unmanned platforms that will get in close. Maybe something Super Taco like would work well as the unmanned aircraft. Load it down with weapons and sensors and link it to what would ideally be a second crewman in the mothership for control. Perhaps you could make the Super Taco type aircraft optionally manned as well, so that for COIN operations in a low threat environment, you could just dispense with the more expensive mothership altogether and operate it like an A-10 or A-1 in a direct role. IMHO, if we are going to design an A-10 replacement from scratch, then lets get serious and design a total system that can provide CAS in ANY type of combat environment. For higher end threats, use something like an F-16D, F-15E or even something like a 2 seat F-35 to direct swarms of inexpensive drones to carry out attacks. But give the inexpensive aircraft the ability to be optionally manned so that it can be used like an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior in permissive environments. We need versatility. We need a system that can be tailored to the threat. We don't need something that is suitable to only one type of fight. That sounds expensive as hell with a ridiculously long development time when an off the shelf option does exactly what we need and worst case gets sidelined on the first weeks of a war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:21:11 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about popping tanks in the plains of Germany ??? Why do you care. The A10 might have been designed with that role as its primary purpose , but its proven itself to be adaptable. Get more than you need rather than less. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. Ok, then you tell me about Air Land Battle. What about popping tanks in the plains of Germany ??? Why do you care. The A10 might have been designed with that role as its primary purpose , but its proven itself to be adaptable. Get more than you need rather than less. So we should compromise on current and future requirements, so we can pay more in purchase and operating costs to meet the requirements of the 80's? Are you an Air Force acquisitions officer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:23:14 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I would love to fly that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Military aircraft invoke so much passion and misplaced loyalties. Its only when you do this do you realize some of that is just hilarious. zero fucks given on my side. I'll take the 182 with a PKM out the side. And I would love to fly that. Can we upgrade to a 210, or a 208? Might as well get a Caravan. But a King Air is just a little more expensive ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:24:02 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's necessary, and required. is to amend the laws requiring the USAF and US Army to have different, incompatible aircraft. IMHO, the Army ought to be primarily responsible for low-level aircraft, be they rotary wing or fixed wing, just like the USMC vs the Navy. The USAF should be tasked with making sure the airspace over the ground battle is free from enemy aircraft, as well as other further-reaching tactical/strategic goals. In short, the situation between the USAF and the Army should, ideally, be reduced to a situation like that between the Navy and the USMC. Obviously, there is some interplay at lower levels, and BOTH forces should be tasked to be certain that all their aircraft are compatible with any and all friendly aircraft they are likely to encounter. Frankly, any reasonable person can see this as a serious gap in our air doctrine. All correct, except it isn't laws stopping the Generals from asking for it. It's incompetence, bureaucracy and a Mexican standoff between services over who should fund what. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:25:22 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can we upgrade to a 210, or a 208? Might as well get a Caravan. But a King Air is just a little more expensive ... But I have a 182 handy. And the Caravan has been done already. http://militaryedge.org/armaments/ac-208b-combat-caravan/
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:28:12 PM EST
[#21]
4 pages and no A1D pics!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:29:37 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
4 pages and no A1D pics! Here's two I took. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:32:10 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with designing an A-10 specific replacement with the same sort of capabilities is that it will also ultimately have the same shortcomings....it will fly low and slow and be highly vulnerable to modern air defenses. That makes it a one trick pony only suitable for supporting ground forces in a COIN type campaign. Being a one trick pony with such a limited capability will also means it will constantly be fighting for its life as the A-10 has since the late 1980s. I think any A-10 replacement should not only be capable of performing CAS in low intensity conflicts, but also in medium and high intensity conflicts. I think the best way to achieve that end would be to do something similar to what the U.S. Army has done with the E model Apache. That is, combine manned with unmanned platforms. The manned platform would need to be able to stay away from and remain survivable against the type of enemy air defense systems you are likely to find along the FEBA and act as a mothership of sorts for inexpensive, expendable unmanned platforms that will get in close. Maybe something Super Taco like would work well as the unmanned aircraft. Load it down with weapons and sensors and link it to what would ideally be a second crewman in the mothership for control. Perhaps you could make the Super Taco type aircraft optionally manned as well, so that for COIN operations in a low threat environment, you could just dispense with the more expensive mothership altogether and operate it like an A-10 or A-1 in a direct role. IMHO, if we are going to design an A-10 replacement from scratch, then lets get serious and design a total system that can provide CAS in ANY type of combat environment. For higher end threats, use something like an F-16D, F-15E or even something like a 2 seat F-35 to direct swarms of inexpensive drones to carry out attacks. But give the inexpensive aircraft the ability to be optionally manned so that it can be used like an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior in permissive environments. We need versatility. We need a system that can be tailored to the threat. We don't need something that is suitable to only one type of fight. So it's ok to have one trick ponies that are stealth fighters, and bombers, but not CAS? I'm ok with getting a one trick pony that does the only trick you ever see at the show. And it does it for cheaper than the other one trick ponies that never do their trick, but instead fail at trying to do other tricks. PS All of your ideas for high speed, high altitude CAS would result in a shitty CAS platform, built for an environment we will likely never see. Just buy a low/slow prop plane, give it some light armor and armament and call it good. If any 4 Star Army or AF CoS or CENTCOM Commander had half a brain, we'd already have this. We've only been in constant conflict for 15 years, and have fielded 8 different vehicles for it. A simple plane? Nah too hard. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:32:49 PM EST
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:39:35 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can see a need for COTS like a Super Tocano. We aren't needing tank busting. Something with a long loiter time, can operate off short fields using a crew of a half dozen . And resupply via rotary craft. It would be able to slow orbit at FL 250 out of sight of hostiles yet dive into action and drop hell on light skin at the most. That sounds like it would make sense. Maybe variable geometry wings too?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:40:49 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heck, if you replaced the GAU-8 with an M61 you would save almost 3500 pounds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you got rid of the cannon, it could carry many more missiles and bombs. With today's targeting and guidance, I wonder if kill ratio and kills per sortie would go up without the gun. Heck, if you replaced the GAU-8 with an M61 you would save almost 3500 pounds. And give up practically zero usable capabilities. 3500 pounds makes for a shit load of small bombs and 2.75 rockets, both of which are capable of more precise delivery than any gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:49:58 PM EST
[#27]
Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites had the answer back in 1990: ARES
With today's SDBs and laser designation and commo with ground troops, it's even more appealing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:51:05 PM EST
[#28]
Glad some folks liked my post - I am not involved in CAS or even the military at all, so keep that in mind. It's just obvious that congress loves to use procurement as an opportunity to demand "jobs for my constituency"
The A10 was great because it could take a lot of damage, and bring a lot of hurt. It's replacement should embody that. Keep: -the twin engines capable of bringing a pilot home on 1. -the "armored bathtub" and other highly survivable characteristics IE lots of wing and stabilizer surface and redundancy in flight control. -the long loiter time -the BRRRRRRT; but need not be 30mm Gau-8 Get rid of: the 30mm GAU-8 for sure, it just has to go. -maybe the pilot, as mentioned it could be either manned or unmanned. So, you wind up wanting an efficient two engine plane that can carry lots of small and accurate bombs, offer good pilot survivability and/or delete the pilot from the picture all together when operated from a "mother ship" during high intensity conflict. It needs to have guns because ground parties fucking love the BRRRRRRRRT of the A10; watch some youtube video's, ground parties go fucking nuts whenever BRRRRRRRRRRRT happens, from a morale standpoint if your infantry feel safe they will fight the enemy good. It would be worth it. A bunch of 50BMG either in the wings or fuselage or both would do the trick and not cost a shitload either. Take all of that and put it into an airframe that can utilize some of the lessons learned from the F22, F35, and especially the F15SE and Viper equivalent. It doesn't need to be entirely stealth or low observability, but a little bit of single aspect stealth wouldn't hurt it's survivability in a high intensity conflict. Maybe a little bit of frontal single-aspect stealth so it can effectively surprise the enemy, ADS can't kill what it doesn't know is coming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:55:00 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
P.S We have never fought a war in our life and have no fucking clue what we are asking for, nor have we designed jack shit. P.P.S We piss away cash by changing specs and making Swiss Army knives. P.P.P.S This is going to land us sweet ass consulting gigs, I'll think of the tax payers while railing a high end call girl. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We need new stuff that is decades away and will cost trillions to make, preferentially in our districts. Signed, Congress. P.S We have never fought a war in our life and have no fucking clue what we are asking for, nor have we designed jack shit. P.P.S We piss away cash by changing specs and making Swiss Army knives. P.P.P.S This is going to land us sweet ass consulting gigs, I'll think of the tax payers while railing a high end call girl. Do you have your government project management cert, or just experience with contracting? Because you nailed it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:56:30 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Glad some folks liked my post - I am not involved in CAS or even the military at all, so keep that in mind. It's just obvious that congress loves to use procurement as an opportunity to demand "jobs for my constituency" The A10 was great because it could take a lot of damage, and bring a lot of hurt. It's replacement should embody that. Keep: -the twin engines capable of bringing a pilot home on 1. -the "armored bathtub" and other highly survivable characteristics IE lots of wing and stabilizer surface and redundancy in flight control. -the long loiter time -the BRRRRRRT; but need not be 30mm Gau-8 Get rid of: the 30mm GAU-8 for sure, it just has to go. -maybe the pilot, as mentioned it could be either manned or unmanned. So, you wind up wanting an efficient two engine plane that can carry lots of small and accurate bombs, offer good pilot survivability and/or delete the pilot from the picture all together when operated from a "mother ship" during high intensity conflict. It needs to have guns because ground parties fucking love the BRRRRRRRRT of the A10; watch some youtube video's, ground parties go fucking nuts whenever BRRRRRRRRRRRT happens, from a morale standpoint if your infantry feel safe they will fight the enemy good. It would be worth it. A bunch of 50BMG either in the wings or fuselage or both would do the trick and not cost a shitload either. Take all of that and put it into an airframe that can utilize some of the lessons learned from the F22, F35, and especially the F15SE and Viper equivalent. It doesn't need to be entirely stealth or low observability, but a little bit of single aspect stealth wouldn't hurt it's survivability in a high intensity conflict. Maybe a little bit of frontal single-aspect stealth so it can effectively surprise the enemy, ADS can't kill what it doesn't know is coming. By the time you develop that gilded lilly you've got an aircraft thats bound to cost over $100m each when they go operational fifteen years from now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:00:16 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it's ok to have one trick ponies that are stealth fighters, and bombers, but not CAS? I'm ok with getting a one trick pony that does the only trick you ever see at the show. And it does it for cheaper than the other one trick ponies that never do their trick, but instead fail at trying to do other tricks. PS All of your ideas for high speed, high altitude CAS would result in a shitty CAS platform, built for an environment we will likely never see. Just buy a low/slow prop plane, give it some light armor and armament and call it good. If any 4 Star Army or AF CoS or CENTCOM Commander had half a brain, we'd already have this. We've only been in constant conflict for 15 years, and have fielded 8 different vehicles for it. A simple plane? Nah too hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with designing an A-10 specific replacement with the same sort of capabilities is that it will also ultimately have the same shortcomings....it will fly low and slow and be highly vulnerable to modern air defenses. That makes it a one trick pony only suitable for supporting ground forces in a COIN type campaign. Being a one trick pony with such a limited capability will also means it will constantly be fighting for its life as the A-10 has since the late 1980s. I think any A-10 replacement should not only be capable of performing CAS in low intensity conflicts, but also in medium and high intensity conflicts. I think the best way to achieve that end would be to do something similar to what the U.S. Army has done with the E model Apache. That is, combine manned with unmanned platforms. The manned platform would need to be able to stay away from and remain survivable against the type of enemy air defense systems you are likely to find along the FEBA and act as a mothership of sorts for inexpensive, expendable unmanned platforms that will get in close. Maybe something Super Taco like would work well as the unmanned aircraft. Load it down with weapons and sensors and link it to what would ideally be a second crewman in the mothership for control. Perhaps you could make the Super Taco type aircraft optionally manned as well, so that for COIN operations in a low threat environment, you could just dispense with the more expensive mothership altogether and operate it like an A-10 or A-1 in a direct role. IMHO, if we are going to design an A-10 replacement from scratch, then lets get serious and design a total system that can provide CAS in ANY type of combat environment. For higher end threats, use something like an F-16D, F-15E or even something like a 2 seat F-35 to direct swarms of inexpensive drones to carry out attacks. But give the inexpensive aircraft the ability to be optionally manned so that it can be used like an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior in permissive environments. We need versatility. We need a system that can be tailored to the threat. We don't need something that is suitable to only one type of fight. So it's ok to have one trick ponies that are stealth fighters, and bombers, but not CAS? I'm ok with getting a one trick pony that does the only trick you ever see at the show. And it does it for cheaper than the other one trick ponies that never do their trick, but instead fail at trying to do other tricks. PS All of your ideas for high speed, high altitude CAS would result in a shitty CAS platform, built for an environment we will likely never see. Just buy a low/slow prop plane, give it some light armor and armament and call it good. If any 4 Star Army or AF CoS or CENTCOM Commander had half a brain, we'd already have this. We've only been in constant conflict for 15 years, and have fielded 8 different vehicles for it. A simple plane? Nah too hard. Stealth fighters and/or bombers are not one trick ponies. They can perform a wide variety of missions in a wide range of threat situations. An F-35 can attack insurgents with precision weapons just as easily as an A-10 can attack insurgents with precision weapons. The difference is, the F-35 would remain useful against medium to high end threats, whereas the A-10 (or an A-10 like aircraft) would be totally useless in such an environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:02:52 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An F-35 can attack insurgents with precision weapons just as easily as an A-10 can attack insurgents with precision weapons. The difference is, the F-35 would remain useful against medium to high end threats, whereas the A-10 (or an A-10 like aircraft) would be totally useless in such an environment. What is the difference in cost per hour? Support crew? Training? Cost? Why do we need weapons to face the same threats? We haven't designed a tank for COIN, or a UTV for MCO, but we still have both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:10:48 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Get rid of: the 30mm GAU-8 for sure, it just has to go. -maybe the pilot, as mentioned it could be either manned or unmanned.  You serious about that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:19:38 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You serious about that? There are several "make pilots optional" programs already afoot. Some Army Blackhawks could actually get it at the tail end of their service. To the other guy - If we don't buy a COTS airframe 100 mil per would be reasonable and getting "the whole shopping list" would mean the new airframe could have the same longevity as the A10 itself. Buying COIN bomb truck Texan's or Tucano's are just a stopgap measure and as others have touched on would be struggling from day 1 for funding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:21:51 PM EST
[#35]
Just build more Apache helicopters.
There, I just saved us all a lot of money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:27:24 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stealth fighters and/or bombers are not one trick ponies. They can perform a wide variety of missions in a wide range of threat situations. An F-35 can attack insurgents with precision weapons just as easily as an A-10 can attack insurgents with precision weapons. The difference is, the F-35 would remain useful against medium to high end threats, whereas the A-10 (or an A-10 like aircraft) would be totally useless in such an environment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with designing an A-10 specific replacement with the same sort of capabilities is that it will also ultimately have the same shortcomings....it will fly low and slow and be highly vulnerable to modern air defenses. That makes it a one trick pony only suitable for supporting ground forces in a COIN type campaign. Being a one trick pony with such a limited capability will also means it will constantly be fighting for its life as the A-10 has since the late 1980s. I think any A-10 replacement should not only be capable of performing CAS in low intensity conflicts, but also in medium and high intensity conflicts. I think the best way to achieve that end would be to do something similar to what the U.S. Army has done with the E model Apache. That is, combine manned with unmanned platforms. The manned platform would need to be able to stay away from and remain survivable against the type of enemy air defense systems you are likely to find along the FEBA and act as a mothership of sorts for inexpensive, expendable unmanned platforms that will get in close. Maybe something Super Taco like would work well as the unmanned aircraft. Load it down with weapons and sensors and link it to what would ideally be a second crewman in the mothership for control. Perhaps you could make the Super Taco type aircraft optionally manned as well, so that for COIN operations in a low threat environment, you could just dispense with the more expensive mothership altogether and operate it like an A-10 or A-1 in a direct role. IMHO, if we are going to design an A-10 replacement from scratch, then lets get serious and design a total system that can provide CAS in ANY type of combat environment. For higher end threats, use something like an F-16D, F-15E or even something like a 2 seat F-35 to direct swarms of inexpensive drones to carry out attacks. But give the inexpensive aircraft the ability to be optionally manned so that it can be used like an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior in permissive environments. We need versatility. We need a system that can be tailored to the threat. We don't need something that is suitable to only one type of fight. So it's ok to have one trick ponies that are stealth fighters, and bombers, but not CAS? I'm ok with getting a one trick pony that does the only trick you ever see at the show. And it does it for cheaper than the other one trick ponies that never do their trick, but instead fail at trying to do other tricks. PS All of your ideas for high speed, high altitude CAS would result in a shitty CAS platform, built for an environment we will likely never see. Just buy a low/slow prop plane, give it some light armor and armament and call it good. If any 4 Star Army or AF CoS or CENTCOM Commander had half a brain, we'd already have this. We've only been in constant conflict for 15 years, and have fielded 8 different vehicles for it. A simple plane? Nah too hard. Stealth fighters and/or bombers are not one trick ponies. They can perform a wide variety of missions in a wide range of threat situations. An F-35 can attack insurgents with precision weapons just as easily as an A-10 can attack insurgents with precision weapons. The difference is, the F-35 would remain useful against medium to high end threats, whereas the A-10 (or an A-10 like aircraft) would be totally useless in such an environment. The F35 does as good a job at "attacking insurgents" as a Tucano does at stealth deep penetration bombing. In short, it doesn't do shit well outside of high intensity conflict, except cost a shit ton of money. Organizations begin to fail when they start believing their own propaganda. The AF is well past that point with their special plane projects. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:27:42 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are several "make pilots optional" programs already afoot. Some Army Blackhawks could actually get it at the tail end of their service. To the other guy - If we don't buy a COTS airframe 100 mil per would be reasonable and getting "the whole shopping list" would mean the new airframe could have the same longevity as the A10 itself. Buying COIN bomb truck Texan's or Tucano's are just a stopgap measure and as others have touched on would be struggling from day 1 for funding. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You serious about that? There are several "make pilots optional" programs already afoot. Some Army Blackhawks could actually get it at the tail end of their service. To the other guy - If we don't buy a COTS airframe 100 mil per would be reasonable and getting "the whole shopping list" would mean the new airframe could have the same longevity as the A10 itself. Buying COIN bomb truck Texan's or Tucano's are just a stopgap measure and as others have touched on would be struggling from day 1 for funding. They aren't a stopgap measure for a COIN aircraft. They just aren't as sexy as a fast mover. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:29:44 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites had the answer back in 1990: ARES With today's SDBs and laser designation and commo with ground troops, it's even more appealing. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1gb_xF9Uh7g/UjsOwjYyN9I/AAAAAAAAB7c/HlJ4aat7DBI/s1600/ares.jpg LOL. The ARES is a demonstrator that doesn't scratch the requirements it would have to meet to play in prime time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:30:15 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are several "make pilots optional" programs already afoot. Some Army Blackhawks could actually get it at the tail end of their service. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You serious about that? There are several "make pilots optional" programs already afoot. Some Army Blackhawks could actually get it at the tail end of their service. Unmanned programs save for drones or recon platforms, are a proverbial step backwards in maintaining our military dominance. We have China with untold hacking capabilities, hell, we are constantly getting hacked by them 24/7 and they are doing a damn good job at that. Hell, the Iranians hacked a RQ-170 stealth UAV and had it land at their airbase with no damage done. That incident alone, should be enough to tell every fucknut in the DoD that we should rely more on manned platforms instead. But no, we still have people that advocate for unmanned fighters and attack aircraft. We will never be able to surpass China or other nations militarily friendly to China in the cyber-warfare department. We need to play to our strengths, not to our weaknesses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:32:40 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But I have a 182 handy. And the Caravan has been done already. http://militaryedge.org/armaments/ac-208b-combat-caravan/Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can we upgrade to a 210, or a 208? Might as well get a Caravan. But a King Air is just a little more expensive ... But I have a 182 handy. And the Caravan has been done already. http://militaryedge.org/armaments/ac-208b-combat-caravan/Yea, but our Caravan will do the job better. How about a single Otter with a turbine, on amphibious floats? That would be cool as hell. I could even give some "stealth" tips. We'll save money in the cockpit, none of that danged new fangled glass cockpit stuff in there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:44:38 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unmanned programs save for drones or recon platforms, are a proverbial step backwards in maintaining our military dominance. We have China with untold hacking capabilities, hell, we are constantly getting hacked by them 24/7 and they are doing a damn good job at that. Hell, the Iranians hacked a RQ-170 stealth UAV and had it land at their airbase with no damage done. That incident alone, should be enough to tell every fucknut in the DoD that we should rely more on manned platforms instead. But no, we still have people that advocate for unmanned fighters and attack aircraft. We will never be able to surpass China or other nations militarily friendly to China in the cyber-warfare department. We need to play to our strengths, not to our weaknesses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You serious about that? There are several "make pilots optional" programs already afoot. Some Army Blackhawks could actually get it at the tail end of their service. Unmanned programs save for drones or recon platforms, are a proverbial step backwards in maintaining our military dominance. We have China with untold hacking capabilities, hell, we are constantly getting hacked by them 24/7 and they are doing a damn good job at that. Hell, the Iranians hacked a RQ-170 stealth UAV and had it land at their airbase with no damage done. That incident alone, should be enough to tell every fucknut in the DoD that we should rely more on manned platforms instead. But no, we still have people that advocate for unmanned fighters and attack aircraft. We will never be able to surpass China or other nations militarily friendly to China in the cyber-warfare department. We need to play to our strengths, not to our weaknesses. That's "pilots optional" not unmanned. You can have a pilot or you can fly one remotely. Not the same as a drone. It's an airplane where you have the option of flying with a pilot or without one. If we were at war with China yeah we would probably want to have pilots onboard. If we are beating up on a puppet regime with some russian export ADS some missions where CSAR is questionable maybe it's better to keep the pilots at home but also have the ability to bring support to troops in contact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:44:52 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea, but our Caravan will do the job better. How about a single Otter with a turbine, on amphibious floats? That would be cool as hell. I could even give some "stealth" tips. We'll save money in the cockpit, none of that danged new fangled glass cockpit stuff in there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can we upgrade to a 210, or a 208? Might as well get a Caravan. But a King Air is just a little more expensive ... But I have a 182 handy. And the Caravan has been done already. http://militaryedge.org/armaments/ac-208b-combat-caravan/Yea, but our Caravan will do the job better. How about a single Otter with a turbine, on amphibious floats? That would be cool as hell. I could even give some "stealth" tips. We'll save money in the cockpit, none of that danged new fangled glass cockpit stuff in there. Twotter mo betta. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:48:07 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's "pilots optional" not unmanned. You can have a pilot or you can fly one remotely. Not the same as a drone. It's an airplane where you have the option of flying with a pilot or without one. If we were at war with China yeah we would probably want to have pilots onboard. If we are beating up on a puppet regime with some russian export ADS some missions where CSAR is questionable maybe it's better to keep the pilots at home but also have the ability to bring support to troops in contact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You serious about that? There are several "make pilots optional" programs already afoot. Some Army Blackhawks could actually get it at the tail end of their service. Unmanned programs save for drones or recon platforms, are a proverbial step backwards in maintaining our military dominance. We have China with untold hacking capabilities, hell, we are constantly getting hacked by them 24/7 and they are doing a damn good job at that. Hell, the Iranians hacked a RQ-170 stealth UAV and had it land at their airbase with no damage done. That incident alone, should be enough to tell every fucknut in the DoD that we should rely more on manned platforms instead. But no, we still have people that advocate for unmanned fighters and attack aircraft. We will never be able to surpass China or other nations militarily friendly to China in the cyber-warfare department. We need to play to our strengths, not to our weaknesses. That's "pilots optional" not unmanned. You can have a pilot or you can fly one remotely. Not the same as a drone. It's an airplane where you have the option of flying with a pilot or without one. If we were at war with China yeah we would probably want to have pilots onboard. If we are beating up on a puppet regime with some russian export ADS some missions where CSAR is questionable maybe it's better to keep the pilots at home but also have the ability to bring support to troops in contact. Interesting. You think ass deep against china (which is a fantasy anyway) you are going to have CSAR but in bumfuckistan against haji, no way you can find a medevac bird. seriously?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:57:19 PM EST
[#44]
I never said war against China was likely, that was the other guy's position, I agree with you, it's a fantasy. But he had a good point; unmanned systems probably won't work out so well against any of the other global powers.
I also however do infact believe that there will be likelyhoods that we will be fighting in the ME in the coming years and could wind up in positions where rotary aircraft like apache's or CSAR helicopters will have insufficient survivability, but fixed wing fast moving aircraft will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:57:43 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's "pilots optional" not unmanned. You can have a pilot or you can fly one remotely. Not the same as a drone. It's an airplane where you have the option of flying with a pilot or without one. If we were at war with China yeah we would probably want to have pilots onboard. If we are beating up on a puppet regime with some russian export ADS some missions where CSAR is questionable maybe it's better to keep the pilots at home but also have the ability to bring support to troops in contact. So you've just piled on a whole bunch of comm gear and avionics for a mission that this aircraft probably shouldn't be doing in the first place. Sounds expensive and heavy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 8:59:29 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. I never understood why stealth capability was a requirement for CAS airframes given that they won't fly missions until air superiority is established first... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 9:13:42 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Super Tucano has a cult like fanboy following on ARF.com which escapes rational thought. It is in no way as effective as anA10. Why people even have the misguided idea its a modern A1 Skyraider blows my mind . The A1H had way more in common with the A10 than it does with a Tucano. The Ability to carry huge weapons payloads and loiter for a long time, take hits and stay operational made the Skyraider the awesome platform it was . The military does not need a plane that can't perform the job, It needs a modern equivalent that can do as well or better. At a minimum the military is intent on retiring the A10 versus building new ones, then they need a modern A1H or Supertweet. Either aircraft are vastly superior to a Tucano for CAS. Because the Super-Tuco, AT-6 Texan, or even a Super-Tweet would be a cost-effective variant that can be used in 90% of our current operating areas without a problem with the ability to field over a dozen of those aircraft vs a vunderwaffen combat plane like the F-35 which isn't needed to blow up mud huts or shoot a bunch of goat fuckers walking down a path. It does so that their is more available aircraft, for cheaper cost of airframe hours, and without needing much, if any, development. We are talking war economics. Having 1 F35 available vs. having 12 CAS-specialized aircraft is a no brainier. Quoted:
The pilots already train in a turboprop, the Texan, so buy an appropriate turboprop if the at-6 isn't the one. Then use it for initial training like always and have more training for coin/cas. It could be done with relative ease if the powers that be really wanted it. My brother is an instructor on the T-6. Not a bad plane by his measures. But it's not sexy so the brass ignore it. Quoted:
Quoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. I never understood why stealth capability was a requirement for CAS airframes given that they won't fly missions until air superiority is established first... Because it lets us say "WE NEED ANOTHER F35/22 DEBACLE!" It also lets people feel good about wanting another super-cool and sexy fighter. Face it, a light cargo plane with some side/belly mounted turrets orbiting at 500ft raining 30mm and .50 at some guys in a mountain pass is basically what we need right now. We already have methods of fighting peer-enemies, and the A-10 isn't going to be going many places with a full air defense network in place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 9:42:14 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane. 
#nomoreemasculatedplanes 
Annnnnd that's where future planning goes into the trash. Designing a plane with a singular purpose of "Just providing CAS in COIN operations" is a surefire way to have it slated when we actually get into a shooting war. What you want is a plane that can handle COIN and High Intensity Conflicts. The removal of the gun will hurt it when we do get into a legitimate war with another nation. I don't think so. We kill tanks with missiles, and the 30mm isn't effective against the newest tanks. Rockets and bombs of various types come into play as well. If anything, the cannon is probably more ideal for COIN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2016 3:36:14 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah yes, the A37. Who doesnt want to go back to an airplane with 12 second spool up times, and the noise signature of a fucking C5. I think we could probably modernize a few things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2016 3:52:28 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm telling you, replace the 30mm with autoloading L7 105mm cannons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about a twin fuselage A-10 with 2 30mm guns.  I'm telling you, replace the 30mm with autoloading L7 105mm cannons. Nah, triple barrel 40mm high velocity with rebounding frag projectiles. Turn this thing into a long range Mk-19 on steroids. 
While we're at it, where's the navalized version? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
