OBama tries to kill the A-10

[kunkmiester]

If you have a perfect missile, you stop using tanks. You stop using tanks, you don't need the missiles anymore, you leave them at home, suddenly you have a tank in front of you and you're screwed, so you keep the missiles, but you also keep the tanks...kind of hard to say in a few words. We probably don't need a few thousand Abrams sitting around, but you'll be keeping something of the sort.

[krenshala]

I remember hearing back in the mid '90s that the USAF wanted to retire the A-10 program. From what I understand they immediately changed their mind as soon as the Army said,"You're going to retire it? How much do you want for the entire program? We'll buy it all!"

[Tom Ligon]

The idea of scrapping the F-35 for the A-10 has a serious flaw. While the A-10 is a notoriously good low-level dogfighter once it sheds the ground attack stores, and would undoubtedly whup ass against an Me-262, it is hopelessly slow for flying modern combat air patrol missions.

The A-10 is fine in its ground attack role as long as we have air superiority. This puts it in a long line of aircraft that can do a great job if not pestered by enemy fighters or SAMs. I mentioned the B-52. The AC-130 qualifies. AWACs (this aircraft is not exactly unarmed ... it just puts its weapons on other aircraft it controls). The last military aircraft I worked on was a huge blimp intended to carry AWACS-like capabilities for a week or two at a time. These things need fighter cover, and they also need a capable Wild Weasel to go after the SAMs.

True enough, for the last couple of conflicts the fighters have not had much to do. The first time we went after Iraq they tried to send up theirs and got their butts handed to them ... if they took off they were brought down. The last time they just stayed grounded. Pickings were slim for our fighters, and we've probably seen the last of the major dogfights. There likely will never be another ace. But had our fighters not been up there owning the sky, the picture for the rest, the workhorses, would have been very different.

No plane does it all well. This has been tried. When is the last time you saw an F-111 flying?

[krenshala]

I've seen them fly relatively recently. The EF-111 Wild Weasel.

I completely agree with your points, however.

[GIThruster]

I don't know anyone who would propose using an A-10 in a role other than CAS though, Iadajo's notion of using it as a cheap ship killer is interesting. Especially against the swarm of sports runabouts that Iran proposed for a Straits of Hormuz conflict, the A-10 would rock. What I was saying though, was that scrapping the A-10 should not be used to justify the outrageous expense of the F-35. The F-35 costs too much--WAY TOO MUCH--and expanding its role into CAS is not ever going to justify the bilking of the American public on that project. The A-10 currently does a better CAS job than the F-35 will ever do, given its pewny weapons loadout as compared to the monster cannon in the A-10, so killing the A-10 just to justify the expense of the F-35 is not in the national interest.

All CAS requires air superiority. That's what the F-22 is for. It's questionable whether the F-35 can fill that role, even in Air Force version. It has only 4 internal stations and once you strap externals on, you lose your stealth capability. The F-22 has six stations. The A-10 has the equivalent of between 1,100 and 1,350 stations, with each 30mm round able to destroy a target. There is no comparing F-35's against the a-10 against ground targets, and perhaps even against runabouts with shoulder mounted weapons.

We are stuck with the F-35. That is no reason to sacrifice the A-10, especially when we are already in the middle of wings and avionics upgrades.

[Tom Ligon]

The F-22 and F-35 seemed to be the unspoken target of criticism at a seminar I attended on a strategy called the i-fab foundry.

The idea is to equip a facility with the tools needed to prototype new military equipment. The starting project I think was an armored personnel carrier, but the idea is to make the facility flexible. However, this was not just a matter of having a shop that could do anything. It was also an exercise in letting designers know what fabrication tools they had to work with. The end goal is to be able to go from a paper design to a working and economically producible prototype in as short a period as possible. 90 day wonders.

The outfit hosting the conference was big on 3D printing, but that was by no means the only tech involved. NC laser cutting of armor plates was an example of another tool.

I could not listen to this talk without thinking about the documentary of the titanium bulkhead on the F-35 shown in a PBS special ... something like a 6" thick plate of solid titanium the size of a party-sized hot tub, NC milled to mostly a pile of expensive chips, at a cost that probably would have bought several A-10's. The inspiration for i-fab foundries is that the designers seem to have lost all touch with manufacturing technology and costs.

[choff]

Why don't they give them to the S. Koreans.

[ltgbrown]

I remember hearing back in the mid '90s that the USAF wanted to retire the A-10 program. From what I understand they immediately changed their mind as soon as the Army said,"You're going to retire it? How much do you want for the entire program? We'll buy it all!"

I had heard those rumors too. Actually, I heard they were thinking about it in the 80's; the height of the reign of the air-to-air fighter pilot at the top of the "pyramid." They were so arrogant that AF leadership (all F-15/4 fighter pilots) actually contemplated doing this. Then this little thing called Desert Storm came along. A little hard to argue against what the A-10 did when compared with what all those air-to-air only guys did. Thus, the A-10 was reborn. I always thought the Navy should have scooped them and converted for what Ladajo recommends, plus for projecting power ashore in support of ground troops since our domination of the air domain in the 90's and 00's was fairly well secure as the Soviet Union fell apart.

Why don't they give them to the S. Koreans.

Awesome idea. I wonder if I can join the S.K. Navy (ok, Air Force, but that really hurts)

The 30mm on an A-10 would literally eat a modern warship. And that is not counting wing loaded standoff possibilities.
Think of an A-10 coming in with a brace or three of wing mounted Norweigan Naval Strike Missiles, plus gun and maybe some rockets to clean up afterwards. I shudder.
The A-10 can get right down in the sea spray, motor along, and pop a couple of leader weapons to clear the way of defensive systems and then make the destruction run. Anti-Ship missiles have to work at destruction. They are great for mission kill or suppression for a time period. But, that 30mm ship can opener would probably only need one pass to end the vessel that otherwise might have gone home to get fixed. Replacing a ship is harder than fixing a broke one.

A great mission for the A-10; for the past 20 years. However, we are close to fielding lasers and electromagnetic guns. While an A-10 flying over your head is intimidating, a FEL dialed to the right frequency and power level makes life very "uncomfortable". Much more so than a 40 year old plane flying overhead (admittedly with a freaking scary gun and tons of other toys.) We need the capabilities of the F-35 and F-22, but maybe not in the numbers planned for. Reduce those numbers and keep the upgraded A-10 (for when we do own the air and need to support the troops) seems like the best solution. Don't forget, an A-10 sips fuel (relatively speaking) and has great loiter time. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna happen.

[ladajo]

The one major drama for navy A-10s would be modding the wings for carrier born operations. Or the navy could just bite the bullet and set them up as a far littoral capable land based aircraft and avoid that. Like P-3s and 8s, except shorter range/endurance.
There may be some Title 10 issues on that, I would have to look. But, that said, they would only be issues (if there) given someone making a pointy stick out of them.

The A-10s would be essentially impervious to the bulk of small arms fire from Little Boats and corvette sized combatants. If they did run into an air defense capable unit, they could be supported or use a qued stand-off capability to suppress them. In any event, I really think they could do some harm to water based smaller threats, especially massed ones.

IMHO, the A-10 is one of the most useful aircraft flown in an active counter-insurgency role. It feeds many bears at the same time. A clearly visible security statement for those seeking security, and a clearly capable and deadly threat against those who seek to disrupt security. One of the thoughts on use of drones is that they tend to be low-observable, and over time become a "hidden threat" like "secret police" that the protected eventually see as a threat. Constantly visible forces that interact in positive manners with the protected populace tend to not go down this path. It is a really hard balancing act. But the bottom line is that the A-10 is one of the few systems that can stand the heat and deliver the package in an insurgency environment consistantly. It is built to take hits, unlike many other systems. And it is certainly built to survive the low level systems common to insurgents. Not so much on purpose, but as a by product of being built to survive the Soviet massed attack threats, at least enough to smoke equivilant or more in resourced Soviet Armor compared to the resources we expended to put it out there.
Bottom line, I think an A-10 capability in a counter-insurgency environment, when properly managed and used, is a powerful mission supporter and multiplier. Counter-insurgency is not only about blunting the sharp sticks of the insurgents, it is mostly about your image and buy-in with the protected population.

Some hack in Somalia can buy a missile for a couple million bucks and destroy an Abrams.

We have had this discussion before I think. An M-1 is a hard can to open. That is why the armor systme remains classified. Mission kill is possible, but to my knowledge, there has never been an enemy fire crewman kill or crew compartment penetration for a buttoned up M-1. And, tanks do not operate unsupported, thus it would be hard for a couple of hacks to get a good shot off anyway. You may see onesy-twoseys here and there, but I do not see it as a viable sustained tactic to turn a battle.

[ladajo]

a FEL dialed to the right frequency and power level makes life very "uncomfortable".

Yes, I agree, but we are not there yet, and probably not for a while. I give it a decade for credible deployment.

A-10 is here today. A navy squadron of A-10s operating out of Oman would be a serious wet blanket on any Iranian little boat bright ideas in a contest.
A small mod in round type, and you could also do anti-mine runs if you had targeting. I bet you could probably wing mount the MH-60S mine gun system on it as well, and that would also give you targeting. Although to be fair, I don't know the max airspeed for that system off the top of my head (targeting process and stresses).

[GIThruster]

The A-10 does not need to be moved to the Navy to take on the ship attack role. Our forces are supposed to be supporting each other. It does however, need high explosive rounds for attacking swarms of runabouts, since I think the only ammo for that gun is depleted uranium, and that would just punch a 30mm hole through the boat, causing it to eventually sink. A 30mm explosive round would be one hit instant kill on a sports boat, like what the Iranians were looking to field in Hormuz. And as with the difference between all combat and fencing weapons, battle requires instant kill or incapacitate. It is likely that a runabout trying to swarm a real combat vessel, could still get in range of shoulder mounted missiles if it had a 30mm hole through its hull. So that role needs new ammo for the Warthog, but it would be far cheaper ammo than depleted uranium and it might be COTS. Not certain what's available for that gun.

[ladajo]

Joint is not Joint. It is a funding excuse.

A-10s could do a maritime mission under AF/Navy Joint structure, however it's effectiveness, reliability and timelyness would all be suspect.
Direct navy control would do the program best, as well as ensure proper equipage to support tasks. Such as your suggested use of HE rounds. Probably you could get way with changing the load mix, from 5/1 to 1/5, (1 API/5 HEI). Although, I would point out, the minimum burst from the gun would effectively creat an explosive effect on the small craft target. It is like using CIWS in the surface mode, although CIWS has a higher dither due to its primary role. It is not adjustable either, it is built in to the hardware.

Better/and probably cheaper as well as easier on handling requirements would be a sabot pellet or flechette round. Although, it would not be as effective on larger vessels.
I also don't think you would get a one hit 30mm HE kill. Damage yes, mission kill maybe, destruction not. In any event, with that mount, there is no such thing as a one hit. If you are lucky, a one hundred hit on a burst. But given the dither I would say you are looking at about a 30% hit rate on a standard small craft type target. So at 1500 yards, you are looking at about a 50 foot pattern. Given a standard burst, that means about 30 rounds on target. I doubt any small boat would survive that and still run, even if an occupant lived. You only need to hit one engine once, and that boat is done. Now, if you changed up the round mix, then it gets even sportier for the occupants and boat.

The difference when gunning a larger vessel is that your dither now helps vice hurts you.

[GIThruster]

30 30mm rounds in a line across the beam of a runabout would nicely cut it in half!

I'm no fan of the notion that each service needs its own capability. That's what got us the F-35C and it's wasteful, clannish, crazy and irresponsible way for military planners to think. The forces should be forced to cooperate or be merged back the way US Army and Army Air Corps used to be.

[Tom Ligon]

30 .30 CALIBER rounds would make a mess of a sports boat.

The problem with a 30 mm HE round of any sort on a sports boat is if you could get it to detonate. You certainly don't need depleted uranium, but it is not clear to me that HE, API, or ball would make much difference on 1/4 inch of fiberglass. A little API (or other incendiary round) in the mix would help ignite fuel.

That's a nice-sized hole, though, on a small boat. And as I understand that gun, there's really no such thing as a "quick burst" like you would get from, say, a group of 6 BARs. The first second of firing is 50 rounds ... after which it gets going seriously.

[ladajo]

Yeah Tom, in my head I made for a standard burst of about a 100 rounds. That would be 1 to 2 seconds worth.
So picture yourself in you favorite bass boat, and something swoops in and puts 30 random 1 1/4 inch holes all over the boat.
Say the boat is 20ft long and 8 feet wide. That is 160 sqft of target area. So that means in a clean distribution, roughly a big ass hole every 5 sqft. The average adult makes for a 2 sqft target area from above. (We are not talking slant here, but for the record, slant gives advantage to the firing system), so the average pax has about a 50/50 chance of a 1 1/4 high energy hole appearing in them. So for 4 pax, we can expect two hits.
It would probably still float, for a little while, but stuff (and maybe you) would be broken.
Now if they were HEI, hmmm. Even with a 50-75% dud rate (no fuse trip) the 5 to 10 that did pop would be no fun at all, and probably would start a fire of some sort.