A-10 article

[Beans]

I'm all but 100% certain that all of our discussions about the tactical advantages or practical disadvantages of the A-10's existence are moot. The battle for/against the A-10 is about money for congressional districts and the lobbies of its suppliers. Those who want to keep it alive have $$ to make from it, those against it have $$ t0 make from another aircraft or program.

I'm taking a class on engineering and politics. It's fascinating, but it's making me very cynical. Sorry guys.

 

[Swanee]

I thought the more interesting parts of the article were the stuff like how they engineered an INS stabilized delivery, and that the AF only wanted the A-10 to take money away from the Army- and that the Harrier had a small part to play... The rest is just musings from an old AF dude who retired after almost 30 years of flying jets 10 years ago and whom just happens to be my dad.

 

[BigJeffray]

I don't understand why no one addresses the issue of aircrew proficiency in these discussions. I really don't think the reason the A-10 is good at CAS is because of any inherent magical capability of the airframe. The GAU-8 is cool, and they have good loiter capability due to their efficient (i.e., weak, non-afterburning) engines. But their biggest benefit is that the pilots train almost exclusively to CAS or other A/S mission sets with significant similarities. It's probably true that the F-35 won't provide CAS as effectively, but I think the reason for that is that F-35 pilots will be required to train to most if not all missions that armed fixed-wing assets perform.

There are issues when you ask an airplane to be a jack of all trades, but there also problems when you ask it of aircrew.

THIS. The reason the A-10 is seen as such an invaluable CAS asset has so much more to do with its community of pilots who train exclusively to A/S employment, particularly CAS, than it has to do with the actual platform. This seems to be lost on many, but it really is true. The Air Force is all about specialization which is very different from how we do things. In the F-18 community, it's pretty awesome to be able to go out and execute a wide variety of mission sets and do them at least fairly well. That being said, the best pure fighter pilots in the world are USAF F-15C/F-22 guys because they devote nearly 100% of their training to A/A employment. Same thing with the A-10, it's virtually 100% A/S employment. Even their F-16 'multi-role' fighter units typically will have a specialty, which isn't a thing in the Navy.

 

[Coota0]

I think armada makes a great point. A friend of mine in the F-35 program told me he thinks we need to have the F-35 squadrons specialize in different roles or at least have differing priority lists for each squadron. Similar to how the block 40 and block 50 F-16 squadrons have different DOC statements.

I do think the A-10 going away might require some beefed up joint training for the Army AH-64 guys. They're getting Link-16 so I could see benefit to them picking up some FAC(A)? What say you AH-1 guys, do you think there would be benefit there? I know getting the Army to start thinking CAS vs CCA might be too large a jump but it's a thought.

I don't know if I've said it on this board before, but F-35 procurement pace is what this is all about in my opinion. If the buying process slows, the unit cost goes up and the death spiral commences.

Kiowa guys have requested FAC(A) training on the basis that we have controlled the stack when a FAC/FAC(A) isn't available and we train (at least informally) our new pilots in rudimentary FAC(A) skills. We have been denied, because the brass say the expense of the training isn't worth it and the coordination with the USAF is too difficult to get the drops needed to stay current.

After continuing to read the thread, Hotdog pretty much covered everything I said in more detail.

 

[busdriver]

Didn't know you guys made that effort, good on you guys. Guess it makes sense you'd be informally training those skill given you're primarily a scout/recce platform!

My thought towards the Apache are really to address the "without the A-10, we won't be able to do CAS below the weather" argument. I'm thinking if an Apache can generate CAT 1/2 coords and pass them via Link 16 anything can drop BOC if the JTAC is cool with it. I just figured it would be a neat package if said Apache pilot was also a FAC(A). But do they need full on FAC(A) qual to do that? Or maybe a qual but let currency lapse? None of that really addresses an actual double digit CAS battlefield, but neither does the A-10.

 

[armada1651]

You don't need a FAC(A) qual or Link 16 to generate and relay coordinates. I'd rather they just get a damn LST capability.

 

[pourts]

THIS. The reason the A-10 is seen as such an invaluable CAS asset has so much more to do with its community of pilots who train exclusively to A/S employment, particularly CAS, than it has to do with the actual platform. This seems to be lost on many, but it really is true. The Air Force is all about specialization which is very different from how we do things. In the F-18 community, it's pretty awesome to be able to go out and execute a wide variety of mission sets and do them at least fairly well. That being said, the best pure fighter pilots in the world are USAF F-15C/F-22 guys because they devote nearly 100% of their training to A/A employment. Same thing with the A-10, it's virtually 100% A/S employment. Even their F-16 'multi-role' fighter units typically will have a specialty, which isn't a thing in the Navy.

So, why did we give Harriers amraams? I never figured that one out. For JSF transition board relevance?

 

[busdriver]

You don't need a FAC(A) qual or Link 16 to generate and relay coordinates. I'd rather they just get a damn LST capability.

Didn't know they don't have LST, seems like an oversight.

 

[Coota0]

-64s have LST, we don't. We would have gotten it with the ARH or the -58F, instead we're getting axed.

 

[STOVLer]

So, why did we give Harriers amraams? I never figured that one out. For JSF transition board relevance?

DARG.

 

[pourts]

DARG.

Yeah, those 4 up jets (2 of which have radars) and 10 hours of flight quarters are totally going to defend the ARG.

Sorry, I'm not trying to pick a fight, the whole concept is just a little ridiculous.

 

[ryan1234]

THIS. The reason the A-10 is seen as such an invaluable CAS asset has so much more to do with its community of pilots who train exclusively to A/S employment, particularly CAS, than it has to do with the actual platform.

The important thing is that the pilots aren't all going away, their skills and knowledge will benefit the airframes they go to, particularly the SANDY roles.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Yeah, those 4 up jets (2 of which have radars) and 10 hours of flight quarters are totally going to defend the ARG.

Sorry, I'm not trying to pick a fight, the whole concept is just a little ridiculous.

Why would you not want the capability?

 

[pourts]

If it came at zero cost, then it wouldn't be a big deal. But, there is a cost-- both money and time that could be spent training to your primary mission. The Harrier guys on the boat barely get enough flight hours as it is. Throw in the requirement to train the air-to-air mission and they are stretched pretty thin. The reason I don't want the capability is because it isn't really a capability. It would be like if the MEU was carrying a squad of Marines. I guess 1 squad of Marines is better than zero Marines... but WTF are you going to do with 1 squad? Are those 2 Harriers going to do a day 1 of the war self-escort strike? Once you throw on the fuel tanks, 2 AMRAAMS, and LPOD where will the bombs go?

In general I am against feature creep, especially when the product is already pretty good. This article started out talking about A-10s. Why not throw a radar on the A-10 and give them AIM-120s too? Well, because they don't need them, and they wouldn't really be able to do the air-to-air mission correctly anyways. Same with Harriers.

I'll throw your community a bone and say that you guys have a slight edge on the Marine Hornet community when it comes to standard CAS-- especially the F/A-18D community. Sometimes having 2 guys in the cockpit doesn't make things go faster, but the opposite. The hornet has more payload and time on station, but your average harrier section is quicker from 9 line to TOT, all else being equal.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I don't think anyone argued that Harriers will be doing self escort strikes. Comparing the Harrier to an A-10 isn't a very good comparison since the Harrier is much closer in performance to a Hornet than it is to an A-10. I don't think practicing AMRAAM timelines (which is much easier to train to than CAS) is hurting proficiency in air to surface stuff. Obviously Harrier dudes aren't air to air wizards for the most part, but it's a nice thing to have. There have already been instances of Harriers being plan A for air defense. A better question than why do Harriers have AMRAAM is why did it take so long, and why don't they have AIM-9X. This comes from a guy that hated doing air to air and would much rather blow stuff up.