Design an A-10 Replacement

[paulobrito]

You do know we have systems that can help a pilot identify the target area based on various other intelligence right? We have both Imagery and Signals let alone other methods that can help identify the location of said target.
You also do know that radars can already see from ground level, the thing is the likely hood they are going to pick up said target if unlikely as the amount of interference one will get especially if there are trees or a hill or a mountain the A-10 can use for cover.

If an adversary as modern defense systems, most probably also has jammers that degrade/deny the A-10 access to much of that data. See the multilayered defense around the Russian base in Syria and the tentatives of the 'insurgents' (conveniently monitored by US Poseidon's) - not so good for the attackers.

 

[Zachowon]

If an adversary as modern defense systems, most probably also has jammers that degrade/deny the A-10 access to much of that data. See the multilayered defense around the Russian base in Syria and the tentatives of the 'insurgents' (conveniently monitored by US Poseidon's) - not so good for the attackers.

You do know that most sites that would have such things would be fixed and once identified by sat would be a perfect target right..they still have basic maps.
There are also plenty of things to counter said things but I can not go into that at all

 

[paulobrito]

Not really - the Russian army as developed a lot of mobile jamming systems, precisely for these situations.

 

[Zachowon]

Not really - the Russian army as developed a lot of mobile jamming systems, precisely for these situations.

I know, but there are ways to counter them. Pretty simplistic ones and some complicated ones depending on the system.

I was not talking about Jammers but AAA woth fixed sites

 

[Sailor.X]

Also flight nape of earth can make the horizon line very close. If you have computer assistance for flight nape of earth, technology I'd be surprised if it doesn't already exist, you can combine a speed and short viable engagement ranges to drastically minimize available engagement times.

Low altatude flight is a form of stealth all on its own, the oldest kind of stealth aircraft have available to them, which can combine well with newer active and passive stealth features.

I have seen first hand how good A-10s are at using hills 100ft high as cover. Damn impressive flying those pilots did. Worthy of Navy for sure. Even if Air Force.

 

[Zachowon]

I have seen first hand how good A-10s are at using hills 100ft high as cover. Damn impressive flying those pilots did. Worthy of Navy for sure. Even if Air Force.

Most AAA is not used for things flying so low one could touch it practically. They are made so they are easily seen with mk 1 eye ball, and well within radar range

 

[Deleted member]

The Textron AirLand Scorpion is the replacement. The same role is best filled by a high altitude bomb truck carrying lots of SDBs with precision guidance to knock out individual tanks. We just need for the Air Force to buy it, or let the Army buy it.

 

[Doomsought]

The Textron AirLand Scorpion is the replacement. The same role is best filled by a high altitude bomb truck carrying lots of SDBs with precision guidance to knock out individual tanks. We just need for the Air Force to buy it, or let the Army buy it.

No, that is a completely different role. That's like saying that an MLRS is a replacement for an MBT.

Combined arms doctrine has always won out for a reason. The A-10 is not a bomber; it is not a strike fighter. It cannot be replaced by a bomber or a strike fighter. It is a fixed wing gunship.

 

[Sailor.X]

No, that is a completely different role. That's like saying that an MLRS is a replacement for an MBT.

Combined arms doctrine has always won out for a reason. The A-10 is not a bomber; it is not a strike fighter. It cannot be replaced by a bomber or a strike fighter. It is a fixed wing gunship.

That Textron plane looks like a Walmart Great Value version of a Military Aircraft.

 

[Deleted member]

No, that is a completely different role. That's like saying that an MLRS is a replacement for an MBT.

Combined arms doctrine has always won out for a reason. The A-10 is not a bomber; it is not a strike fighter. It cannot be replaced by a bomber or a strike fighter. It is a fixed wing gunship.

No, it is not a completely different role. The A-10 is not a strike fighter. It's a light bomber, occupying a role descended from a large number of tank busters in WWII through a lineage which also included things like Mossies and B-25s with a heavy forward cannon armament. However, the heavy forward cannon armament was just a solution to the problem of accurate aiming against tanks. Dive bombers could also be used in this role, but were limited in effectiveness because of the limited number of bombs they could carry. The gun was a targetable solution, and it started to lose relevance even in WWII with the introduction of the aircraft rocket.

The actual operational requirement of providing close air support to the troops by destroying enemy armour and concentrations is met in full by the Textron AirLand Scorpion. It can carry 16-24 Small Diameter Bombs, and each one of them is a very high probability chance of knocking out a tank -- the combined ammunition loadout and rockets of the A-10 could be expected to knock out half as many tanks as that -- the most tanks a single A-10 has knocked out in one sortie is 12.

The reality is that modern battlefield missile systems have rendered the A-10 a flying death-trap. Anti-aircraft missiles of the latest models will shoot down every single A-10 used in a combat theatre against a regional power equipped with modern Russian or Chinese weaponry. The armour of the A-10 is useless against battlefield SAMs of the modern type.

So, the solution is to fly higher and faster. The AirLand Scorpion does this. By flying at the altitudes that the AirLand Scorpion is capable of, engagement even with large battlefield SAM systems like the "Buk" is difficult to impossible. Yes, it makes the aircraft vulnerable to interception by enemy fighters--but the A-10 has been unable to operate in an environment in which we do not have battlefield air dominance since the 1970s, when the Mig-23 was made operational with a look-down, shoot-down radar.

With its invulnerability to modern battlefield missile system by flying high enough to exceed their effective intercept range, the AirLand Scorpion restores the ability to dominate the battlefield and provide CAS when our troops need it, where our troops need it, even against near-peer and peer competitors who have made an extensive investment into battlefield SAM systems. And it is no more vulnerable to fighter interception than the A-10 is -- both aircraft require our fighter forces to first gain air dominance before they can be effectively deployed to destroy enemy armour assets and provide CAS to our ground forces. Essentially, the AirLand Scorpion would nicely fit into the exact same mission profile that the A-10 has had since the 1970s. It allows pinpoint accuracy kill-on-demand of enemy ground combat systems with sufficient loadout to effectively change the course of the battle against a peer competitor on the tactical level within the operational area of a battalion, engaged in a single sortie, with a squadron able to effectively provide full CAS coverage across a brigade frontage engaged in heavy combat ops.

 

[Zachowon]

The Textron AirLand Scorpion is the replacement. The same role is best filled by a high altitude bomb truck carrying lots of SDBs with precision guidance to knock out individual tanks. We just need for the Air Force to buy it, or let the Army buy it.

No, it is not a completely different role. The A-10 is not a strike fighter. It's a light bomber, occupying a role descended from a large number of tank busters in WWII through a lineage which also included things like Mossies and B-25s with a heavy forward cannon armament. However, the heavy forward cannon armament was just a solution to the problem of accurate aiming against tanks. Dive bombers could also be used in this role, but were limited in effectiveness because of the limited number of bombs they could carry. The gun was a targetable solution, and it started to lose relevance even in WWII with the introduction of the aircraft rocket.

The actual operational requirement of providing close air support to the troops by destroying enemy armour and concentrations is met in full by the Textron AirLand Scorpion. It can carry 16-24 Small Diameter Bombs, and each one of them is a very high probability chance of knocking out a tank -- the combined ammunition loadout and rockets of the A-10 could be expected to knock out half as many tanks as that -- the most tanks a single A-10 has knocked out in one sortie is 12.

The reality is that modern battlefield missile systems have rendered the A-10 a flying death-trap. Anti-aircraft missiles of the latest models will shoot down every single A-10 used in a combat theatre against a regional power equipped with modern Russian or Chinese weaponry. The armour of the A-10 is useless against battlefield SAMs of the modern type.

So, the solution is to fly higher and faster. The AirLand Scorpion does this. By flying at the altitudes that the AirLand Scorpion is capable of, engagement even with large battlefield SAM systems like the "Buk" is difficult to impossible. Yes, it makes the aircraft vulnerable to interception by enemy fighters--but the A-10 has been unable to operate in an environment in which we do not have battlefield air dominance since the 1970s, when the Mig-23 was made operational with a look-down, shoot-down radar.

With its invulnerability to modern battlefield missile system by flying high enough to exceed their effective intercept range, the AirLand Scorpion restores the ability to dominate the battlefield and provide CAS when our troops need it, where our troops need it, even against near-peer and peer competitors who have made an extensive investment into battlefield SAM systems. And it is no more vulnerable to fighter interception than the A-10 is -- both aircraft require our fighter forces to first gain air dominance before they can be effectively deployed to destroy enemy armour assets and provide CAS to our ground forces. Essentially, the AirLand Scorpion would nicely fit into the exact same mission profile that the A-10 has had since the 1970s. It allows pinpoint accuracy kill-on-demand of enemy ground combat systems with sufficient loadout to effectively change the course of the battle against a peer competitor on the tactical level within the operational area of a battalion, engaged in a single sortie, with a squadron able to effectively provide full CAS coverage across a brigade frontage engaged in heavy combat ops.

The Scorpion is at a worse place when compared to the A-10 because ot its high flying. It does not have the speed needed to survive an engagement with any SAM or enemy air force.

The issue about flying high is that it makes any SAM from SA-2 to SA-21 and all other medium to high altitude missles able to target it.

Do none of you understand how these systems work and are msde to work?

Most SAMs are made for medium to high altitude aircraft in mind. No plane the US has is able to stay out of range of SAMs....

So low flying usjng the same method helicopters use in a jet like what the A-10 does is more effective than you think.

 

[Deleted member]

The Scorpion is at a worse place when compared to the A-10 because ot its high flying. It does not have the speed needed to survive an engagement with any SAM or enemy air force.

The issue about flying high is that it makes any SAM from SA-2 to SA-21 and all other medium to high altitude missles able to target it.

Do none of you understand how these systems work and are msde to work?

Most SAMs are made for medium to high altitude aircraft in mind. No plane the US has is able to stay out of range of SAMs....

So low flying usjng the same method helicopters use in a jet like what the A-10 does is more effective than you think.

If it was being used as a penetrator you are correct—but it’s not. Battlefield SAMs by and large simply lack the high altitude engagement envelope. This is distinct from an IADS which would chop the Scorpion to ribbons.

 

[Zachowon]

If it was being used as a penetrator you are correct—but it’s not. Battlefield SAMs by and large simply lack the high altitude engagement envelope. This is distinct from an IADS which would chop the Scorpion to ribbons.

You....do know that most SAM that are long range, especially the newer ones are mobile and would easily be able to be set up to prevent air support in anyway...
The A-10 is just as useful when the IADS is down...so why worry about it then?

The main argument against the A-10 is its effectiveness when used with IADS in place. Hell, looking at the WEG most modern AAA don't have the lock on time nor do the radars have the ability to quickly lock on to targets when they are not in a constant view of the radar. (Most radars are directional especially for AAA if they are TT, TA, or FC. AAA generally has FC and TT.)

Also, the Army hates anything that ios not CAS supporting them. Because the Army hates anything that can be sent to another mission even when it is currently being used for their purpose. Why do you think the Army invests so much in Drnes and Apaches? Because the Air force is trying to make it so all their air craft can be used for more or less the same thing. Can act as anti air. The scorpion sure may have a focus on CAS, but it does not compare to the A-10 in that regard. It also has something Army does not like for CAS. Bombs. I get it, they are SDB but even then, Apaches use their machine guns plenty for non vehicle targets, and tier rockets, They don't use missiles for people. Why use a SDB on a person?

 

[Deleted member]

You....do know that most SAM that are long range, especially the newer ones are mobile and would easily be able to be set up to prevent air support in anyway...
The A-10 is just as useful when the IADS is down...so why worry about it then?

The main argument against the A-10 is its effectiveness when used with IADS in place. Hell, looking at the WEG most modern AAA don't have the lock on time nor do the radars have the ability to quickly lock on to targets when they are not in a constant view of the radar. (Most radars are directional especially for AAA if they are TT, TA, or FC. AAA generally has FC and TT.)

Also, the Army hates anything that ios not CAS supporting them. Because the Army hates anything that can be sent to another mission even when it is currently being used for their purpose. Why do you think the Army invests so much in Drnes and Apaches? Because the Air force is trying to make it so all their air craft can be used for more or less the same thing. Can act as anti air. The scorpion sure may have a focus on CAS, but it does not compare to the A-10 in that regard. It also has something Army does not like for CAS. Bombs. I get it, they are SDB but even then, Apaches use their machine guns plenty for non vehicle targets, and tier rockets, They don't use missiles for people. Why use a SDB on a person?

The massive proliferation of battlefield SAMs that are radar-guided as eliminated the rationale for the gun, which was used to attack before SAMs could engage, as most SAMs in the 60s were IR only and had to attack aircraft after they'd already passed. Engaging at altitude eliminates entire classes of battlefield SAMs which cannot engage targets above 40,000 feet effectively, particularly with a cruising speed of 400 knots instead of the 300 of an A-10.

I know the Army doesn't like to be left out to dry, but the SDB is the ideal solution for tank-plinking in the modern day. The reality is, going low enough to engage with guns is just not safe for airplanes when everyone and their brother has very advanced MANPADs and light battlefield SAM systems which can engage head-on and cross-angle. The Air Force isn't going to divert the Scorpion to fight air to air or do penetration, because it's bad at those things. So it is what the Army could count on for the 21st century.

Replace the A-10 fleet with 400 of them in the ANG. The expansion of capability that represents for a host of missions would be substantial, and they'd cost less to maintain.

 

[Zachowon]

The massive proliferation of battlefield SAMs that are radar-guided as eliminated the rationale for the gun, which was used to attack before SAMs could engage, as most SAMs in the 60s were IR only and had to attack aircraft after they'd already passed. Engaging at altitude eliminates entire classes of battlefield SAMs which cannot engage targets above 40,000 feet effectively, particularly with a cruising speed of 400 knots instead of the 300 of an A-10.

I know the Army doesn't like to be left out to dry, but the SDB is the ideal solution for tank-plinking in the modern day. The reality is, going low enough to engage with guns is just not safe for airplanes when everyone and their brother has very advanced MANPADs and light battlefield SAM systems which can engage head-on and cross-angle. The Air Force isn't going to divert the Scorpion to fight air to air or do penetration, because it's bad at those things. So it is what the Army could count on for the 21st century.

Replace the A-10 fleet with 400 of them in the ANG. The expansion of capability that represents for a host of missions would be substantial, and they'd cost less to maintain.

I dont think you understand the capabilities of the SAMs our peers are using.
There are at LEAST 3 SAM classes that can easily engage any aircragt at altitude.
I know I had to look this up on WEG for an exercise.

There are plenty of SAMs out there that can reach even the U2 at its max height. The SA-2 and SA-5 are examples of this.

Also, tanks arnt everything. One can make it easier to stop a tank without destroying it then one can infantry. Which is why SDB are not as good. Infsntry still wins wars, and having an infantry killer in the A-10 is where it is at.

The A-10 can also kill tanks from above, especially since engine decks are not heavily armored. It's rounds can easily penetrate the sode of it.

Also most MANPADs have a lock on time and the person using it would have to be having it ready if they would want to attempt to hit the A-10 when it is flying as low as it can.

Also, light battlefield SAMs are a threat to again, anhthing not flying at its lowest
They are not made for something skimming tje trees to attack it.

My job is knowing this stuff. I know it well.

Any AAA would be useless as it would not have the stopping power to down an A-10.

Basically by what you are saying we should us either Scorpion because it can kill tanks better...but what about the infantry? The lighter armored stuff? Why waste SDB when bigger ones would work better? Or better yet. A gun.

Think of it in terms of the Army and what we would be using it for. As in calling it in for.
Why do we want SDB for spread out infantry and risk losing air support when we need it because it has to rearm?

There are benefits to both of them.
But the A-10 is the better CAS vehicle. The Scorpion is a great light bomber. Not good for what rhe Army would be using it for without it having to carry more then just SDB for vehicles...

 

[Doomsought]

The gun is reliable in a way that missiles will never be. The gun is flexible, and has more endurance. It will always be able to deal with the enemy leaving your plans in shambles. The cult of the missile has probably killed more US soldiers in Vietnam than enemy tactics.

 

[Zachowon]

The gun is reliable in a way that missiles will never be. The gun is flexible, and has more endurance. It will always be able to deal with the enemy leaving your plans in shambles. The cult of the missile has probably killed more US soldiers in Vietnam than enemy tactics.

I mean it has killed plenty if bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan. So have bullets and bombs

 

[Sailor.X]

The gun is reliable in a way that missiles will never be. The gun is flexible, and has more endurance. It will always be able to deal with the enemy leaving your plans in shambles. The cult of the missile has probably killed more US soldiers in Vietnam than enemy tactics.

And Bullets are cheaper than Missiles any day and all day.

 

[Duke Nukem]

The gun is reliable in a way that missiles will never be. The gun is flexible, and has more endurance. It will always be able to deal with the enemy leaving your plans in shambles. The cult of the missile has probably killed more US soldiers in Vietnam than enemy tactics.

The F4 phantom is a good example of that.

 

[Deleted member]

I dont think you understand the capabilities of the SAMs our peers are using.
There are at LEAST 3 SAM classes that can easily engage any aircragt at altitude.
I know I had to look this up on WEG for an exercise.

There are plenty of SAMs out there that can reach even the U2 at its max height. The SA-2 and SA-5 are examples of this.

Also, tanks arnt everything. One can make it easier to stop a tank without destroying it then one can infantry. Which is why SDB are not as good. Infsntry still wins wars, and having an infantry killer in the A-10 is where it is at.

The A-10 can also kill tanks from above, especially since engine decks are not heavily armored. It's rounds can easily penetrate the sode of it.

Also most MANPADs have a lock on time and the person using it would have to be having it ready if they would want to attempt to hit the A-10 when it is flying as low as it can.

Also, light battlefield SAMs are a threat to again, anhthing not flying at its lowest
They are not made for something skimming tje trees to attack it.

My job is knowing this stuff. I know it well.

Any AAA would be useless as it would not have the stopping power to down an A-10.

Basically by what you are saying we should us either Scorpion because it can kill tanks better...but what about the infantry? The lighter armored stuff? Why waste SDB when bigger ones would work better? Or better yet. A gun.

Think of it in terms of the Army and what we would be using it for. As in calling it in for.
Why do we want SDB for spread out infantry and risk losing air support when we need it because it has to rearm?

There are benefits to both of them.
But the A-10 is the better CAS vehicle. The Scorpion is a great light bomber. Not good for what rhe Army would be using it for without it having to carry more then just SDB for vehicles...

No, I actually understand the capabilities of the SAMs our peers are using very well. In fact, both the SA-2 and the SA-5 have very limited mobility in the modern fluid battlefield, and are frankly, obsolete to the point I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. Even large missiles like the Buk, it's important to recognise that the official engagement altitude may be 72,000 feet or something like that, but it isn't actually true over nearly any of the engagement envelope, which is a function of both cross-range from the launcher and altitude. So in fact even a Buk is marginal against a target at 45,000 feet traveling cross-range at speed; you just need to not blunder directly over the launcher. There is no MANPAD which can intercept a target at that altitude, nor particularly any missile complex smaller than the Buk.

Obviously, I don't understand why a 30mm cannon is needed against infantry. In fact, the Scorpion could just as easily carry cluster bombs to deal with infantry; carry more of them than the A-10 can carry 30mm shells, in fact!

As for stopping power against the A-10, I think the 2A38 30 mm cannon on the Tunguska has more than enough for that. It was built explicitly to deal with the development of aircraft like the A-10 which made the 23mm gun on previous Soviet SPAAGs inadequate.

So, I think you're not looking at the whole picture with missile utilization, and also not considering the impact of the fact we still use cluster munitions on the potential CAS capability of a light bomber.

The F4 phantom is a good example of that.

A superlative heavy fighter that averaged a 4:1 air-to-air kill ratio in Vietnam?