Design an A-10 Replacement

[LordSunhawk]

Aaron, stop moving the goalposts and spinning. Your tactics of trying to repeat the same misinformation over and over again is tiring and trite and accomplishes nothing.

I am going to ask you a very simple question.

You have just been hit by ground fire in an aircraft making an attack run.

Do you want to be in an F-16 or in an A-10.

No fancy rhetoric, no dodging.

You have just been hit by ground fire. F-16 or A-10.

 

[paulobrito]

The right question is - can the A-10 still do is job, in a non very permissive environment, and/or against a competent adversary with decent-ish anti-air weapons?

 

[Aaron Fox]

Aaron, stop moving the goalposts and spinning. Your tactics of trying to repeat the same misinformation over and over again is tiring and trite and accomplishes nothing.

I am going to ask you a very simple question.

You have just been hit by ground fire in an aircraft making an attack run.

Do you want to be in an F-16 or in an A-10.

No fancy rhetoric, no dodging.

You have just been hit by ground fire. F-16 or A-10.

Neither because in all but the smallest of cases, I'm already dead one way or another.

The right question is - can the A-10 still do is job, in a non very permissive environment, and/or against a competent adversary with decent-ish anti-air weapons?

That is a very resounding, no.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Neither because in all but the smallest of cases, I'm already dead one way or another.

That was not an answer. This is a binary question.

Hit by ground fire. A-10 or F-16. I am not interested in your spin.

 

[Doomsought]

The right question is - can the A-10 still do is job, in a non very permissive environment, and/or against a competent adversary with decent-ish anti-air weapons?

The F35 cannot exist without a permissive environment either. The exists no military unit that can act alone.

Powerful Anti-air emplacements are just like artillery emplacements. Threats that need to be dealt with using strategy and tactics.

Are you actually going to make productive comments, or are you just going to doom troll the thread?

 

[Aaron Fox]

That was not an answer. This is a binary question.

Hit by ground fire. A-10 or F-16. I am not interested in your spin.

As I said, neither because if you are hit by ground fire in either, shit has gone seriously pear-shaped. The F-16 has the advantage of being at a higher altitude though, which limits on what sort of ground fire will be able to hit me and gives me options in avoiding those options. While the A-10 has all of its survival features, practically all the AAA systems will rip it apart.

 

[LordSunhawk]

The right question is - can the A-10 still do is job, in a non very permissive environment, and/or against a competent adversary with decent-ish anti-air weapons?

The answer there is complicated, so bear with me.

The short answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no, it depends.

However in general, specifically for the CAS mission, the A-10 is capable of handling the mission, although it will take losses in early phases against a fully intact air defense network. Note that the nature of CAS means that said network is going to be degrading rapidly, because CAS does not occur in a vacuum.

The primary benefit of stealth is the reduction of detection range. In 'conventional' stealth aircraft, such as F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2, and the upcoming B-21, this is accomplished by reduction in radar cross section and other emissions/reflections. However the older way to accomplish this is to fly extremely low.

All forms of detection against aircraft, be it radar, IR, UV, etc, requires a degree of line of sight. Certain types of radar have, in certain circumstances, non-LOS capability. However, this non-LOS capability is only applicable to extremely large radar systems operating over great ranges where they make use of various properties of the atmosphere to 'bend' radar waves.

So, to reduce visibility to these sensors, you either reduce your signature (the 'Stealth' route) or you keep solid objects between you and the sensors in question.

The A-10 does the latter. It is capable of flying low enough to the ground that LOS is broken by terrain. Moreover, at the altitude the A-10 operates, there is a phenomena called 'ground clutter' which makes even airborne radar have severe issues locking on to a target.

As I explained earlier in the thread. The A-10 makes brutal use of ground clutter and terrain in its attack profile. By keeping extremely low, terrain itself will mask the approach. The A-10 will have the benefit of datalinks back to AWACS and various ELINT birds informing the pilot of the location of targets and threats.

The A-10 pilot will therefore already know where his target is with a solid degree of confidence. In a CAS run, he'll either be making a rapid pass and deploying retarded bombs, lofting Maverick (which can take advantage of off-platform designation, I might add) without breaking cover, or perform the pop-up and dive attack affectionately known as BRRRTTTT.

So now your air defense platform needs to perform the following actions in the sub 3 second span that the A-10 is vulnerable.

Detect the target.

Identify the target (would really suck to waste your ammo on a flock of startled birds, wouldn't it)

Track the target (it's a moving target, you can't shoot where it is now, you need to predict where it will be in 1 to 2 seconds when your shells will intersect)

Engage the target.

Meanwhile, BRRRRTTT is heading your way, which is what the Chieftain would describe as a 'significant emotional event'.

Note, that even with all of this, there's still guesswork. Because that A-10 is not going to fly straight. It's going to break, either left or right. Flip a ruble, Ivan, because if you guess wrong you'll still miss.

 

[LordSunhawk]

As I said, neither because if you are hit by ground fire in either, shit has gone seriously pear-shaped. The F-16 has the advantage of being at a higher altitude though, which limits on what sort of ground fire will be able to hit me and gives me options in avoiding those options. While the A-10 has all of its survival features, practically all the AAA systems will rip it apart.

5 of 7 F-16's struck by ground fire died.

5 of 20 A-10's struck by ground fire died.

You fail at math and are continuing to attempt to dodge around the question. Rhetoric and handwaving aren't going to fly here.

 

[paulobrito]

One possible scenario is like this:
US forces are under attack / engaged with an adversary. They ask for air support / CAS.
An A-10 that is near is dispatched to deal with the adversary.
Unknown to the A-10, a Tunguska / Pantsir-S1 is near, well camouflaged.
While the A-10 approaches the target area making use of all the possible elevations of terrain to mask is run, he enters the range of said Tunguska / Pantsir.
Question - the A-10 has sensors that inform the pilot that is 'painted'? If not is toasted, if yes, need to move away because don't know the exact location of the enemy anti-air.
In both cases don't do its job.
Yes, is a bit more complex scenario, and involves a competent adversary with a two-group force.
but is possible.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Lets just make this lol

 

[Sailor.X]

One possible scenario is like this:
US forces are under attack / engaged with an adversary. They ask for air support / CAS.
An A-10 that is near is dispatched to deal with the adversary.
Unknown to the A-10, a Tunguska / Pantsir-S1 is near, well camouflaged.
While the A-10 approaches the target area making use of all the possible elevations of terrain to mask is run, he enters the range of said Tunguska / Pantsir.
Question - the A-10 has sensors that inform the pilot that is 'painted'? If not is toasted, if yes, need to move away because don't know the exact location of the enemy anti-air.
In both cases don't do its job.
Yes, is a bit more complex scenario, and involves a competent adversary with a two-group force.
but is possible.

There is no such thing a well camoflaged when every vehicle on Earth gives off a heat signature that thermal sensors can pick up. Especially from recon drones. Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk - Wikipedia

 

[Aaron Fox]

There is no such thing a well camoflaged when every vehicle on Earth gives off a heat signature that thermal sensors can pick up. Especially from recon drones. Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk - Wikipedia

You would actually be surprised in that regard. We're getting various IR suppression and camouflage systems out in force and getting shit like GURPS's 'blackout paint' (i.e. IR stealth for cheap stakes/people with less advanced industrial bases) isn't entirely impossible.

The only reason they're not being slapped onto everything is that there is no immediate need and they're quite pricey.

5 of 7 F-16's struck by ground fire died.

5 of 20 A-10's struck by ground fire died.

You fail at math and are continuing to attempt to dodge around the question. Rhetoric and handwaving aren't going to fly here.

Last I've checked, most of the fifteen 'damaged' A-10s were cannibalized during the conflict.

 

[LordSunhawk]

One possible scenario is like this:
US forces are under attack / engaged with an adversary. They ask for air support / CAS.
An A-10 that is near is dispatched to deal with the adversary.
Unknown to the A-10, a Tunguska / Pantsir-S1 is near, well camouflaged.
While the A-10 approaches the target area making use of all the possible elevations of terrain to mask is run, he enters the range of said Tunguska / Pantsir.
Question - the A-10 has sensors that inform the pilot that is 'painted'? If not is toasted, if yes, need to move away because don't know the exact location of the enemy anti-air.
In both cases don't do its job.
Yes, is a bit more complex scenario, and involves a competent adversary with a two-group force.
but is possible.

A-10 does in fact carry sensors of that nature, generally pod-mounted. However, in that scenario *any* CAS platform would be forced to break off the attack, and ELINT/Recon assets were incompetent, because a Tunguska/Pantsir system is not all that stealthy as it relies on active emissions to operate.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Last I've checked, most of the fifteen 'damaged' A-10s were cannibalized during the conflict.

Yet the pilots got home safely and were available to fly again, funny that you discount that aspect.

 

[Sailor.X]

You would actually be surprised in that regard. We're getting various IR suppression and camouflage systems out in force and getting shit like GURPS's 'blackout paint' (i.e. IR stealth for cheap stakes/people with less advanced industrial bases) isn't entirely impossible.

The only reason they're not being slapped onto everything is that there is no immediate need and they're quite pricey.

Last I've checked, most of the fifteen 'damaged' A-10s were cannibalized during the conflict.

Dude I am talking brass tacks not what might happen if a back water enemy living in caves had the money. The enemies we have been fighting for the last 20 years don't have that shit.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Yet the pilots got home safely and were available to fly again, funny that you discount that aspect.

Unless you're swimming in aircraft, you're effectively grounded unless you want to go the Star Wars Empire route...

Dude I am talking brass tacks not what might happen if a back water enemy living in caves had the money. The enemies we have been fighting for the last 20 years don't have that shit.

Sadly enough, it is very likely that like MANPADs and body armor, it absolutely will proliferate.

 

[paulobrito]

Not necessarily incompetent, just busy with other areas. After all, if it is not a very permissive environment, more problematic areas need to exist after all.
And on that kind of theatre, the Recon is by definition reduced compared to a very permissive one. You can't operate drones with impunity also.
Not particularly against the A-10. Just saying that in these scenarios CAS by helis or A-10s is difficult/costly.
In the last 20 years, all scenarios are very permissive, but sooner or later that changes.
And yes, thermal camouflage is going to proliferate - is a question of survival after all.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Not necessarily incompetent, just busy with other areas. After all, if it is not a very permissive environment, more problematic areas need to exist after all.
And on that kind of theatre, the Recon is by definition reduced compared to a very permissive one. You can't operate drones with impunity also.
Not particularly against the A-10. Just saying that in these scenarios CAS by helis or A-10s is difficult/costly.
In the last 20 years, all scenarios are very permissive, but sooner or later that changes.
And yes, thermal camouflage is going to proliferate - is a question of survival after all.

It also doesn't help that various bits of equipment that would be only available to high-end militaries (MANPADs, Body Armor) previously proliferate that even insurgents from Whateverstan have them in usable numbers... and that is exactly the problem.

 

[Aldarion]

However, the AH-64 Apache has one advantage compared to any low and slow fixed wing that they can never replicate, they can be -for all intents and purposes- crabgrass to enemy radars. Trying to fly a heavily armed fixed-wing 30 meters from ground level is -for all intents and purposes- impossible, especially if you want to RTB even partially in one piece.

Not necessarily. In fact, the main reason for A-10 losses in Desert Storm was that aircraft was prohibited from flying below 15 000 feet despite being designed precisely for this role. It is almost as if USAF brass wanted to maximize A-10 losses. But low-altitude attacks actually keep aircraft quite safe from air defences: even optically-aimed AAA will not be able to react quickly enough in most circumstances.

And in big picture, altitude itself is largely irrelevant: what matters is mission aircraft flies. Going by both the article linked and my own reading, airfield attack is by far one of most dangerous missions: and also one which is often done at low altitude. CAS and SEAD/DEAD are also very dangerous missions - and also ones carried out often at low altitude. Many medium-to-high altitude missions do not require dancing tango with target area defenses, and are thus less risky - not due to alttiude, but due to nature of the mission. Further, medium-altitude attacks required suppression of enemy air defences: which itself requires low-altitude attacks, even if you are using stealth aircraft (as modern radar systems can redeploy very quickly). So the reason why medium- and high- -altitude ops appear so safe is that they were preceded by "risky" low-altitude attacks; but remove those, and suddenly medium-atltidue ops become much more (possibly just as) risky. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Insomuch as altitude is relevant, there is a "kill zone" between 50 and 50 000 feet; if you want to be safe from air defences, you fly either above or below that altitude. As I recall, Mosquitos and B-25s during World War II sometimes carried out attacks while flying below 50 AGL - typically when going against well-defended targets. So it can be done, even in a fairly large fixed-wing aircraft: but it requires training. But if you want to catch elusive targets unaware, you have to fly in terrain mask, meaning that "above 50 000 AGL" is not available option.

Further, many targets which are camouflaged have to be found from low altitude. In such cases, prohibiting low-altitude operations can actually be more hazardous since more sorties will be required to find and destroy each target.

From what I understand, you'll need to cover two roles with the A-10: Close Air Support (CAS) and Battlefield Interdiction (BAI). Both of these are vital in combat conditions. BAI goes out to damage or annihilate enemy combat formations while CAS is simply 'flying artillery' in the traditional sense. Due to the aforementioned limitation of fixed-wing aircraft, you'll have to fly high and fast, out of the range of MANPADs and AAGs.

Also, the definition of 'Close' in 'Close Air Support' isn't on how close the aircraft is to the troops, that's just due to technological issues, but on how close the ordinance is landing to the troops. Basically, if the ordinance is landing close to the soldiers (up to and including 'danger close'), then its CAS. Everything else is BAI.

Or low and slow; see above.

I am aware of definition of CAS, but fact still remains that A-10 should probably be assigned to (and train with) ground forces on a permanent basis.

 

[paulobrito]

I am aware of definition of CAS, but fact still remains that A-10 should probably be assigned to (and train with) ground forces on a permanent basis.

I don't see the USAF doing that anytime now...