I HATED deploying with AV8’s!
The most arrogant buttholes in the world.
The most arrogant buttholes in the world.
The Harrier: the best CAS aircraft, ever...
- Thread starter Chuckman
- Start date
- Replies 197
- Views 2,915
The Brits used VIFF to have 100% kills on Argentine fighters in Falklands dogfights
NCLivingBrit
Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I think you're backwards: the AV-8B has a miniscule loiter time whereas the A-10 has a loiter time that'll make you bored of seeing it in the sky!
Sure, the AV-8B can go nearly supersonic, but that's only transit time. They don't loiter in afterburner.
Plus, if the pilot farts the wrong way, the AV-8B is bound to show you why it earned its nickname. The A-10 can be smacked around like a rented whore and still not only make it to prom, but make a solid run at prom queen.
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
The Harrier's loiter time is influenced by the Marines' FARP which is often near the battlefield. Yeah, they perform best at much lower speeds, as do most CAS.
It's all academic. Both will be gone soon.
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Sadly, yes.
We'll be left with stupid super bugs and fancy 35's that probably have Chinese malware in their circuits.
Scary.
Air Force Wants To Replace Highly Effective Modern A-10 With 'Flying Tinderbox' | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
Oneofsix
Fur-bearing mammal
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
If the AF wants to retire them so badly, maybe they could gift them to the Marines or the Army, along with all of the maintenance inventory....
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
Air Force Wants To Replace Highly Effective Modern A-10 With 'Flying Tinderbox' | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
That's an interesting article. For the record (and I hope this has come through), I am a fan of the A-10. I do not want to see it retired.
The A-10 is very cost effective, and absolutely the AF has used used underhanded tactics and gamed the data in argument to retire it. That's not new, unfortunately...the navy did the same thing when it prematurely retired the F-14.
But the article's assertion about the F-35 is wrong. The AF just has the wrong variant. That's an AF political issue; they want the strict fighter version and not the VSTOL version the USMC and navy have, which were designed with CAS in mind.
The article was written by a TACP, and clearly they have skin in the game; they also write it with an AF-centric POV. I would be curious to see what a Marine JTAC's perspectives are. I do think the article has some valid points.
the problem with the f35 is it was designed as a multi-mission AC (and i get the money saving aspect), whereas the a10 was designed from the ground up to meet a single mission--support the ground fighter. whether that is laying down 30mm and turning enemy infantry into hair and teeth, or neutralizing armor/personnel carriers, it does its role well and gets its driver home.
no secret big AF has no love for it, they love fast movers, always have, always will
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
Given that the author was a TACP and not an aviator, I think he misjudged the capability of the F-35. It is, will be, a fine CAS AC given the differences it brings to the table. Better/same/worse than A-10 (or AV-8B)? Dunno. I am a late convert, I was very skeptical, but now that I know more (of the UNCLASS stuff of course), I am not so skeptical.
I get why the Marines are all-in on the F-35 over the Harrier; the Harrier is old, and they do need a slow, VSTOL CAS AC. But I think the A-10 does have a lot of life left.
Actually the A-10 was designed to kill tanks and APCs. Support of infantry was a secondary mission.
id say killing tanks and apc's is supporting infantry
The AF has been run by the "Figher Mafia" since Gen. Curtis LeMay retired. Sleek and fast is their way; air to mud is at best a red-headed stepson.
It's a darned shame, and as a 2nd generation airman, I am embarrassed by their narrow-mindedness.
It's a darned shame, and as a 2nd generation airman, I am embarrassed by their narrow-mindedness.
id put the f35 in the same category as the f16/f15 in terms of cas, its not going to get down and dirty into the fight like the a10 can
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
It can. It will. The Marines and Navy version, anyway. No clue about the non-VSTOL variant the AF uses. There are some trade-off for sure. The A-10 cannot singularly communicate with 10 other platforms simultaneously and suppress SAM sites; but, it's definitely WAY more expensive, and like any latest-gen tech the flight hour-for-$ ration is very lopsided. As the zen master said, "we shall see...."
sounds like a best case would be using the f35 as overwatch/jammer and the a10 as infantry cover
I think that because of budgets, they're trying to make a 'jack of all trades, master of none' type of aircraft. The A-10 and Apache may have been direct consequences of the quantity superiority of Soviet armor, and the fear of them pushing through the Fulda Gap. (my brother was an M47 Dragon gunner in the early 80's - 'cost-effective suicide' to stop armor). We never really used those systems as they were designed to be used (except in Kuwait, Feb. 1991)
But now there's a new(ish) mission; China and South China Sea. The A-10's could be pretty limited in many scenarios there. What the DoD may be forgetting is that China is not the only engagement we may have. A confrontation between us and China may never happen, but chances are that there may dozens of other military actions that the A-10 could be perfect for, where 140 mile air-to-air missiles won't mean much.
But I guess being prepared for China will slow their aggression somewhat.
But now there's a new(ish) mission; China and South China Sea. The A-10's could be pretty limited in many scenarios there. What the DoD may be forgetting is that China is not the only engagement we may have. A confrontation between us and China may never happen, but chances are that there may dozens of other military actions that the A-10 could be perfect for, where 140 mile air-to-air missiles won't mean much.
But I guess being prepared for China will slow their aggression somewhat.
Last edited:
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
You are right. But as usual the military throws the baby out with the bathwater. Any boots on the ground need CAS, and there is a need (ostensibly covered by the F-35, other fast-moving AC, helo's). Does the A-10 need to be retired? Maybe, maybe not (I am not enough in the know to know), but surely a couple squadrons or a wing attached to AFSOF or ACC couldn't hurt. I admit I am ignorant to AF doctrine, but you and I both know the fundamental mission of USMC AC is CAS.
At least SOCOM went out on their own with their ISR/CAS platform (owned by the AF, but supports SOF) to ensure SOF units have the capability.
Article on why the A-10 would not be a good CAS AC against a peer/near peer:
USAF Aircraft Armament System Specialist explains why the A-10 Warthog can’t effectively provide CAS in a near-peer war
USAF Aircraft Armament System Specialist explains why the A-10 Warthog can’t effectively provide CAS in a near-peer wartheaviationgeekclub.com
While this is a decent article, it ignores the fact that in military operations, ESPECIALLY in today's world, we do not intentionally go up against "near peer" adversaries without a plan for it unless time/circumstances do not allow for it.
The military isn't about "fair fights". It's about playing to your strengths while exploiting their weaknesses.
We DO, however, train to be able to counter the adversary at any level of enemy engagement.
The Navy's Top Gun school and the Air Force's Weapons School are just part of that preparation.
For you Navy guys...What could an A-10 do against ships?
It could conceivably poke a bunch of holes in them.
Provided, of course, they survived getting a bunch of holes poked in them from the CWIS systems...
So the days of bombing a skip with aircraft are no more?
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Yeah--I think a ship needs a LIFT and TUCK procedure to keelhull it. A bunch of holes isn't gonna cut it.
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
A gun run might damage it, but it won't sink it. Missiles could sink it.
Back in the early 80's the af was working up the gbu-15 glide bomb. Tv camera linked back to an f111 stopped onto a 2000 lb bomb.
Inert warhead test from 15 miles out launch; decommissioned minesweeper as the target. Bomb flew to aim point plus or minus a few INCHES. Penetrated through and put a 10x10 foot hole in the bottom; 2 standby damage control boats and crews barely kept it from sinking and they were on board within a few minutes of impact.
I think aircraft can still kill ships; point defense systems may make it harder but . . .
Inert warhead test from 15 miles out launch; decommissioned minesweeper as the target. Bomb flew to aim point plus or minus a few INCHES. Penetrated through and put a 10x10 foot hole in the bottom; 2 standby damage control boats and crews barely kept it from sinking and they were on board within a few minutes of impact.
I think aircraft can still kill ships; point defense systems may make it harder but . . .
NCLivingBrit
Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Especially with sea skimming over the horizon missiles that deploy from aircraft.
Combat Diver
Well-Known Member
In 1982, during the Falklands War, Argentine Navy Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard warplanes carrying the AM39 air-launched version of the Exocet caused damage which sank the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Sheffield on 4 May 1982. Two more Exocets struck the 15,000-ton merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May.
The defenses make it a lot more difficult. CIWS can carve missiles into pieces. Bombs wouldn't be much of a challenge.
That said, this isn't to say they're no threat.
I'd say credible threats from the air come from missiles... and hypersonic missiles ain't gonna be easy to defend against even with CIWS. We're gearing up for it, though.
Threats from under the surface are more credible, I my opinion.
Last edited:
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
I understand 'they' are coming up a laser version of CIWS.
Not sure if this is it: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/heres-our-first-look-at-a-helios-laser-armed-navy-destroyer
NCLivingBrit
Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I watched those. It does seem a bit..... Imprecise
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,556
Lasers are definitely neat but they do have some drawbacks that are hard to overcome.
Efficiency, most lasers are in the 10-20% efficient range. A 60KW laser needs at least a 600KW supply at 10%. Thats one reason we are seeing these on ships instead of hand held.
Heat, the major byproduct of lasing is heat. The 80-90% inefficiency of the process leads to am incredible about of waste heat that has to be mitigated.
Divergence, the beam emitted by the laser spreads out (diverges) over distance. This makes the power/area less and the beam less efficient over distance.
Maintenance, as with any technology on going maintenance is always an issue. I would imagine that the maintenance on the laser portion would be more than what is already required of the gun system on a CWIS.
Even with these issues, the benefits of the laser over a conventional gun definitely mean we should be developing and deploying them.
Instantaneous, the light beam is traveling at the speed of light so velocity of the beam is negligible in the calculation for interception of the missles.
Straight line trajectory, no arcing trajectory means line of sight in line of impact.
Scalability, that will come with advances in material science and technology advancement.
I would not mothball the CWIS in favor of a laser only defense at this time. I think they could compliment each other on the defense of a ship.
The first and only real laser that I got to assist with maintenance and PM was a surgical laser used for retina and cornea surgery back in the early 90s. It was a state of the art YAg laser at the Durham VA. The factory rep I was assisting told me that this laser was less than 12 months old and would be outdated by the next generation that was scheduled to be released in 18 months. The laser world was progressing slightly slower than the computer were. There is no telling just where laser technology is now as far as the military is concerned.
Efficiency, most lasers are in the 10-20% efficient range. A 60KW laser needs at least a 600KW supply at 10%. Thats one reason we are seeing these on ships instead of hand held.
Heat, the major byproduct of lasing is heat. The 80-90% inefficiency of the process leads to am incredible about of waste heat that has to be mitigated.
Divergence, the beam emitted by the laser spreads out (diverges) over distance. This makes the power/area less and the beam less efficient over distance.
Maintenance, as with any technology on going maintenance is always an issue. I would imagine that the maintenance on the laser portion would be more than what is already required of the gun system on a CWIS.
Even with these issues, the benefits of the laser over a conventional gun definitely mean we should be developing and deploying them.
Instantaneous, the light beam is traveling at the speed of light so velocity of the beam is negligible in the calculation for interception of the missles.
Straight line trajectory, no arcing trajectory means line of sight in line of impact.
Scalability, that will come with advances in material science and technology advancement.
I would not mothball the CWIS in favor of a laser only defense at this time. I think they could compliment each other on the defense of a ship.
The first and only real laser that I got to assist with maintenance and PM was a surgical laser used for retina and cornea surgery back in the early 90s. It was a state of the art YAg laser at the Durham VA. The factory rep I was assisting told me that this laser was less than 12 months old and would be outdated by the next generation that was scheduled to be released in 18 months. The laser world was progressing slightly slower than the computer were. There is no telling just where laser technology is now as far as the military is concerned.
Last edited:
If we get into a near-peer war of any length, the A10s in ready storage the boneyard will be frantically returned to service. We flew P40s off of carriers during the North Africa campaign (one way), we might see a repeat of that if we are desperate enough. They could be staged on two lane rural roads close to the front for support. The MI ANG showed that improvised airstrips on civilian rural roads can be done.
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
Maybe, as CAS, But unlikely for the original job as anti armor. They're designed for a 1970s and '80s fight. Not sure they could handle what a near peer has today. But I would be all for bringing them back for CAS.
if you're thinking strictly guns, then probably not, but agm65's are pretty effective standoff weapons that were designed as anti-armor missiles (similar to hellfires)
Ronsc
LIberalism is a disease..
This kind of group think by the star-laden higher-higher is nothing new.…decisions made /passed down
by shiny-shoulder prima donnas who in most cases don’t know whether to scratch their watch or wind their arse!
This argument was the same in in Vietnam …The academy fast-mover fan boys were hating on CAS AC of the day, looking down their noses at Spad jockeys like red-headed step children …couldn’t wait for an excuse to put the A1E out to pasture….(WITHOUT) a viable alternative…Kinda smacks of what Joe Bidet is attempting to force down our collective gullet with EV’s ….Meh
by shiny-shoulder prima donnas who in most cases don’t know whether to scratch their watch or wind their arse!
This argument was the same in in Vietnam …The academy fast-mover fan boys were hating on CAS AC of the day, looking down their noses at Spad jockeys like red-headed step children …couldn’t wait for an excuse to put the A1E out to pasture….(WITHOUT) a viable alternative…Kinda smacks of what Joe Bidet is attempting to force down our collective gullet with EV’s ….Meh
Last edited: