The F-35 - A-10 flyoff.

 

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/11/-10-and-f-35-competed-close-air-support-tests-years-ago-report-just-surfaced/391754/

 

We tried the air superiority - close air support do it all aircraft before with the F-111.  It didn't last long. 

 

The F-111 was sent to Thailand to fly missions against North Vietnam near the end of that war.  After several missions over the north it was withdrawn from the theater.

 

Using the F-105 for the bombing mission and the F-4  for Mig CAP was the best use for both aircraft.

 

I personally think a mix of at least two aircraft designed for specific missions is the best way to go.  The A-10 is nearing the end of it's lifespan so a new close air support aircraft should be designed to replace it.  

 

You want a low and slow aircraft on the battlefield to destroy tanks and armor and a high speed, high altitude aircraft for air superiority missions.

 

You don't want to clean your fingernails with a hunting knife or gut and dress a deer with a pocket knife.

 

Noel

There is only one replacement for the aging A-10 fleet and that is a fleet of new A-10's. 

2 hours ago, stans said:

There is only one replacement for the aging A-10 fleet and that is a fleet of new A-10's. 

 

So is there not going to be a replacement at all? 

The A-10 is worn out.  There certainly can be another CAS aircraft developed if they weren't fixated on a single aircraft to perform both missions. 

They never try to turn a CAS aircraft into an air superiority aircraft but they try to develop air superiority aircraft into close air support aircraft.  They end up with superb air superiority aircraft and a marginal CAS aircraft.

Perhaps the next generation of close air support missions will be drones launched from F-35s and controlled by ground forces.

Noel

Noel is correct.  After WW II and the creation of the USAF, the USAF relegated their CAS aircraft, the P-47 Thunderbolt, to Air National Guard Units and relied upon the P-51D (redesignated as F-51D) as a multi-role aircraft. The F-51 was fast, sleek, sexy, looked good on a recruitment poster.  When the Korean War started and the F-51D was deployed in the CAS role, it was found that the F-51 was just as susceptible to ground fire as it had been during WW II.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps were still using air cooled piston engine aircraft.  The F4U-4 and -5 Corsair proved to be reasonably good at CAS, the AU-1 Corsair was developed specifically for the CAS role, then there was the ultimate piston powered CAS aircraft, the Douglas Skyraider. 

That should have been a lesson, but by the time of the Vietnam War, it was the jet era and the USAF wanted all jets, specifically ones that were fast, sleek, sexy, and looked good on a recruitment poster.  The century series of fighters, F-100, F-101, F102, F-104, F-105, and F-106 were generally not up to the task of CAS.  Fast, sleek, and sexy just did not get the CAS job done and the USAF obtained Skyraiders from the USN for special CAS ops.  The lessons of Vietnam created the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was immediately dubbed "warthog" because it did not look sleek and sexy and was definitely not a fast mover.  Since then, the USAF has tried to make the F-15, the F-16, the F-22, and now the F-35 into CAS aircraft.  Seems the lessons of war have been lost. 

Edited November 5, 20232 yr by stans

Quote

The Air Force has other aircraft that can fly close air support missions, including F-16s, F-15Es, B-1 bombers, AC-130 gunships, and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told Task & Purpose. 

 

Somehow I don't see how F15, F16 and F35's can handle the battering at low level the flying tank known as the A10 can. A10's have come home with huge chunks out of them and are still flying. F16's, F15's and F35's don't have a titanium bathtub protecting the pilot or significant redundancy in critical systems. 

Unless the Air Force believe advanced systems and weapons can negate the need for such low level operations and perform the same role from higher altitude? 

 

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-close-air-support-a-10-retire/

When the Air Force broke off from the Army and became a separate service in 1947 it was agreed the Army would not fly armed aircraft and the Air Force would provide the Army with weather services.  When I was in an Air Force weather flight as a forecaster my unit was attached to an armored cavalry unit that later became a separate armored brigade. 

The Army got around the not flying armed aircraft part of the agreement by arming helicopters saying the agreement only applied to fixed wing aircraft.

The helicopter became a close air support aircraft for the Army.  But it cannot do what the A-10 can do.  That doctrine is over 75 years old.  It's time to rethink it and give the Army the close air support mission and an aircraft capable of doing that.

Air force fighter pilots want to dog fight and close air support is really not their bag.

When the Air Force first tried to get rid of the A-10 I thought turning them over to the Army and giving them the close air support mission was a good idea.

Perhaps it's time to rethink the missions and go with the Air Force providing air superiority and the Army developing a follow on A-10 type of close air support weapon with a heavy bomb-rocket-missile load capacity and the M-61 gun the A-10 carried that used depleted uranium bullets that pierced armor.  In Vietnam the F-105 carried the M-61 gun.

Close air support means anti-tank capability.  The weapons for air superiority and the weapons for close air support are not really interchangeable.  I think most air superiority missions are high altitude with fighters being directed by AWACs and firing long range missiles from a distance.  Weapons for close air support requires a lower-slower aircraft where the pilot can see the target and the friendly forces he has to avoid hitting.  I'm not that familiar with the F-35 but I don't think it can really fulfill that mission.

Noel

 

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Somehow I don't see how F15, F16 and F35's can handle the battering at low level the flying tank known as the A10 can. A10's have come home with huge chunks out of them and are still flying. F16's, F15's and F35's don't have a titanium bathtub protecting the pilot or significant redundancy in critical systems. 

Unless the Air Force believe advanced systems and weapons can negate the need for such low level operations and perform the same role from higher altitude? 

 

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-close-air-support-a-10-retire/

That's just it, they cannot fly as slow as, as low as, and absorb the same amount of damage as the A-10.  I don't think long range air-to-ground ordnance is quite up to the task of CAS. 

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

When the Air Force broke off from the Army and became a separate service in 1947 it was agreed the Army would not fly armed aircraft and the Air Force would provide the Army with weather services.  When I was in an Air Force weather flight as a forecaster my unit was attached to an armored cavalry unit that later became a separate armored brigade. 

The Army got around the not flying armed aircraft part of the agreement by arming helicopters saying the agreement only applied to fixed wing aircraft.

The helicopter became a close air support aircraft for the Army.  But it cannot do what the A-10 can do.  That doctrine is over 75 years old.  It's time to rethink it and give the Army the close air support mission and an aircraft capable of doing that.

Air force fighter pilots want to dog fight and close air support is really not their bag.

When the Air Force first tried to get rid of the A-10 I thought turning them over to the Army and giving them the close air support mission was a good idea.

Perhaps it's time to rethink the missions and go with the Air Force providing air superiority and the Army developing a follow on A-10 type of close air support weapon with a heavy bomb-rocket-missile load capacity and the M-61 gun the A-10 carried that used depleted uranium bullets that pierced armor.  In Vietnam the F-105 carried the M-61 gun.

Close air support means anti-tank capability.  The weapons for air superiority and the weapons for close air support are not really interchangeable.  I think most air superiority missions are high altitude with fighters being directed by AWACs and firing long range missiles from a distance.  Weapons for close air support requires a lower-slower aircraft where the pilot can see the target and the friendly forces he has to avoid hitting.  I'm not that familiar with the F-35 but I don't think it can really fulfill that mission.

Noel

 

I agree, it might be prudent to allow the army to have A-10's.  I think the same was suggested for the USMC, but that went nowhere.  Giving the army, which needs CAS, a real CAS aircraft just makes too much sense, therefor, it cannot happen.

1 hour ago, stans said:

I think the same was suggested for the USMC, but that went nowhere.

The Marine Corps is still flying the AV-8 Harrier as a CAS aircraft.  An excellent CAS aircraft but probably not as powerful weaponwise as the A-10.  The Harrier will be operational until 2029 when the USMC will be getting the F-35 for CAS missions.

The USAF and the USMC need a CAS aircraft built around the M-61 gun for destroying tanks.

Noel

Let's change the rivet count on the A-10 if we must have new. Nothing frightens enemy tank drivers so badly, or looks better for recruitment bait.

9 hours ago, birdguy said:

The Marine Corps is still flying the AV-8 Harrier as a CAS aircraft.  An excellent CAS aircraft

 

Is it? I can't see it's any better than the 35B. In fact the 35B carries more weapons and longer range, plus stealthy on the way to its mission. If the Harrier is good at CAS then the F35 should be.

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by martin-w

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

If the Harrier is good at CAS then the F35 should be.

CAS aircraft doesn't need long range.  It should be able to operate from unimproved dirt runways close to the front lines or the battle areas or from small carriers.  And it should be able to fly low and slow.  Slow enough to be able to turn around and make two or three passes at a tank.

The USMC AV-8B was developed from the AV-8A to improve the shortcomings of the AV-8A as a ground attack aircraft.  It was developed for the USMC for close support missions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II

Noel

The Warzone also covered this

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a-10-vs-f-35-close-air-support-flyoff-report-finally-emerges

One big issue with the A-10 in a modern battlefield is the advances in SAMs and especially MANPADs, like the Stinger and Russian equivalents. Sure, the Warthog can take a lot of damage, but there is still a limit as to how much they can take. Flying over Afghanistan where the other side only had heavy machine guns to fire back? It worked well. Over a battlefield like what we're seeing in Ukraine with heavy air defences? They aren't going to be strafing tanks, and definitely not with more than one pass (see the losses of Su-25s on both sides in Ukraine).

I've also come across reports that the A-10's gun isn't very effective against modern tanks anyways, and really isn't that accurate either. And in Desert Storm, F-111s destroyed more armoured vehicles than A-10s did.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you-know-the-f-111-killed-more-tanks-than-the-a-10-during-operation-desert-storm/

It seems to me one of the big issues with retiring the A-10 is the potential loss institutional knowledge and experience of the CAS role talked about the article above.

 

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

CAS aircraft doesn't need long range.  It should be able to operate from unimproved dirt runways close to the front lines or the battle areas or from small carriers.  And it should be able to fly low and slow.  Slow enough to be able to turn around and make two or three passes at a tank.

The USMC AV-8B was developed from the AV-8A to improve the shortcomings of the AV-8A as a ground attack aircraft.  It was developed for the USMC for close support missions.

The F-35B was largely developed specifically for the USMC as a replacement for the Harrier, and can operate from the smaller landing ship/carriers the Harriers operate from. Not as sure about the dirt strip part.

For low intensity wars and conflicts, a replacement for the A-10 would be good. However, when going up against someone with modern air defences, I'm not sure it is the best fit. Drones of some type may be the better option in this case looking at what's happening in Ukraine. Allowing the army to develop their own CAS aircraft also sounds like a good idea.

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

It should be able to operate from unimproved dirt runways close to the front lines or the battle areas or from small carriers.  And it should be able to fly low and slow.  Slow enough to be able to turn around and make two or three passes at a tank.

 

Don't recall the harrier operating from dirt runways and never took of vertically with full fuel and a decent weapons load. F35B can operate from small carriers. The F35 can fly low and slow, stall speed is 120 knots, dependent on weight of course. F35 can fly just as slow as the harrier and I see no reason why it can't make several passes. Not to mention that the Harrier is very difficult to fly and a very unforgiving aircraft. F35 is easy to fly. Furthermore, the weapon load for the F35 is much greater.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see the F35 as perfect for CAS but I don't see it as any worse than the Harrier.  If you are going to say the Harrier is excellent at CAS, then the F35 is too. 

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by martin-w