The F-35 am become death, destroyer of competition. Hard to sympathize with Lockheed’s F-22 woes when they’ll be owning over half of the global fighter market by 2015:
June 17 (Bloomberg) — Lockheed Martin Corp., the worlds largest defense company, may double sales of its new F-35 fighter jet in a surge of contracts that could squeeze competitors including Boeing Co. and Saab AB out of the market.
The U.S. and eight partner nations already plan to buy more than 3,000 of the warplanes, and with potential exports to countries including Israel, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Finland and Spain the total could easily reach 6,000, Brigadier General David Heinz, the top Pentagon official for the F-35, said today.
Boeing and Saab may come to view the Lockheed model as a program killer, said Douglas Royce, a market analyst at Forecast International in Newtown, Connecticut. The F-35 will control half the $17 billion warplane market by 2015, aviation consultants Teal Group estimate, bringing a level of dominance unmatched even by the companys F-16 and threatening to eliminate other primary manufacturers from the industry.
Update: Chink in the armor? DoD Buzz reports that a major British think tank is urging the government to kill the program.
–John Noonan
as a brit that has read military news for years now (with increasing dread as labour have pursued their annihilation of the Armed Forces), i have to say it *should* be impossible for labour to make cuts to anything that DoDBuzz points out (the thinktank wanting cuts to the carrier program, t45 destroyers, astute subs, f35s..) — they are all pretty much specifically naval programs.
The RN has been on the end of the most vile cuts in British military history over the past decade under Labour. To cut the above programs as the thinktank suggests, would effectively finish the RN off as a fighting force. And for an island nation with such a history of naval prestige, with so much of our interests laying overseas, such an idea is just insane.
Perhaps our UK brethren can illuminate the discussion as to how really influential this so-called
Thank you Ross
The Brits are running out of military to cut. The viability of their Armed Forces will be called into question if the cuts their Labour Party wants to make are made. I don’t think the F35 is the greatest of aircraft but the Brits have put it at the heart of their longterm plans. If they kill their participation in the F35, it will likely mean killing a number of other projects.
While the JSF might be very popular overseas, I just can’t see it gaining much more than 40% of the market here in the USA. The pentagon seems to want to have “competition”.
Boeing is not going away any time soon. Even if they are making transports and bombers, Boeing will always be competition to lockheed, they both have very advanced research laboratories.
Boeing and Lockheed are the two mainstays in the market, so long as one remains standing… lockheed is making better warplanes, and Boeing has it’s targets locked on the civil aviation market, which I’m guessing is more lucrative business in the first place.
I’ve been reading these posts for years as an interested civilian/tech nerd. This stuff just gets more opaque and muddled as I go. All I’ve been reading is how the cost of production is increasing to the point that is is comparable with the F-22 in price but in no way with capabilities. This, as well as the supposed fact that it cannot compete in terms of performance with the high end Mig’s (Sukoi) have got allied countries that signed up for F-35 esp. in Asia ie: the Aussie and Japan crying for an export version of the F-22.
Now we get this crap that F-35 is going to drive all the other fighter producers into the ground.
I have a couple thoughts i would be interested in getting a response to…
1. Just about the only thing that crashed are unmanned drones in both hot war zones are the men that are ‘unmanning’ these drones due to user error. They aren’t getting shot down. So why not sensor load an A-10 and be done with it. Would it be so hard to fire up production of f-35 and f-22 if we get into a conventional conflict with a regular force?
We’ve got the blue prints. If we were actually in that situation it would be a big enough deal to get the manufacturing capability in place.
2. The other thing that pissed me off is all the time frettin and a fussin about top end war birds when the troops that are actually fighting are still stuck with M-16/4. for the love of Pete take the allocation for one of these aircraft and give our guys the HK416. Isn’t the personal weapon of any soldier is the single most important piece of kit in almost any conflict?
L8!
Preston
“Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward.“
–Kurt Vonnegut
Two words — “flight testing”.
Preston:
The simple answer is a new rifle is no where near as sexy as a new fighter jet. This is why when I was in, the expiration dates for chemical warfare suits kept getting bumped, 6 years over the date? Oh it will be fine.
The other thing I can bet the farm on, we will never see another aircraft like the A-10 produced in this country ever again. It’s not sleek, doesn’t have stealth, can’t go over Mach 1, and is only good for ground support. You’d might as well try to hand over a turd to our Air Force as far as they are concerned. They don’t like to think about ground support unless it’s an afterthought and who wants to pay attention to our current wars when Generals can dream of future hypothetical wars involving Superpowers and dogfights with Migs.
I know, I know, you could point to over five decades of low-intensity warfare, but, our procurement system doesn’t care. Unless it’s designed for a toe to toe war between Superpowers it will never, ever get made.
I realize evil conspiracies to keep the poor, abused, and humble grunt ‘down’ are a lot more fun (and increasingly more common around here), but.…
For just about any military item with a shelf life, there is a process for extending that shelf life. Often it involves inspection, lot (at the very least) testing and reconditioning of the items, with discarding the unservicable examples.
Boring huh?
ok preston one: “Would it be so hard to fire up production of f-35 and f-22 if we get into a conventional conflict with a regular force?“
Answer? HELLS YES! you have to set up the factory to build them the parts etc. that takes time money and hope you dont f’ up the first few.
The infantry in my and many others opinion does need a new rifle. I think anything we get needs to be american made and owned company.
I personaly like the masada
http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/masada_technote.pdf
But its whatever
6000 planes? really? at what price?
in the UK there is already talk about cutting the JSF to 85. Italy has finicial problems too. the Netherlands are looking at Gripen.
Overseas numbers of the JSF will get cut. A few countries like spain & finnland may buy some planes, but the biggest problem is in the US.
The Navy has a plane B: The Superhornet(maybe even block III)
The USMC is stuck with their “B” version.
And does anybody out there really think the 1760 number of the AF will not get cut? WAKE UP! At prices rising the AF may end up with fewer then 1000 planes.
Good. I am glad to see that we have finally figured out the cost saving associated with a single airframe. When Navy, Air-force, Marines are all using basicly the same airframe cost and logistics become easier. (I can’t speak to it being the best aircraft or not, just that I hope we figure out a way to get costs and logistics down somewhere)
Having said that, I really really hope someone wakes up and gives us better CAS aircraft. I don’t have a problem with them being unmanned, but they need to be able to get in there and mix it up with gun and rocket attacks, along with the SDBs and missles.
Honestly, how can you improve on the A-10C when it comes to CAS aircraft? The only thing wrong with the A-10C is that we don’t have more with them in my opinion.
The USAF wants to get 1730+ F-35s, personally I think we should cut this back to 1250 or so and spent that money to get the F-22s the USAF needs.
To the poster “steve”:
You wrote: “The other thing I can bet the farm on, we will never see another aircraft like the A-10 produced in this country ever again.“
The A-10 is not that good. The A-10 didn’t dare to overfly Serbia, for example. No U.S. American attack helicopter did, either. Only the best fighter planes of each involved N.A.T.O. nation did, at high altitude, even for ground-attack missions, and even then they were seriously menaced by obsolete Serbian S.A.M.s. Like that “stealthy” F-117 which got shot down.
How long would the entire A-10 fleet have lasted against the Soviet “Frontal Aviation”, while trying to feast on Soviet tanks?
Can the A-10 even dog-fight? I’m asking this because it is one (easy, coward…) thing to destroy Iraqi ground targets after that country has been bombed twice and embargoed for 12 years in between, with no-fly zones, constant attacks against its air force and air defenses and extensively reconnoitered, etc., but it is quite another thing for example to survive against a simple Chinese, Iranian or North Korean jet trainer.
Well?
Freefallingbomb wrote: “The A-10 is not that good. The A-10 didn’t dare to overfly Serbia, for example.“
C’mon, man: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/may/13/martinwalker
“The key reinforcements on which Nato is relying to win the campaign are two new squadrons of the slow and heavily armoured A10 ‘Warthog’ anti-tank aircraft. They will join the 22 already operating from Italy’s Gioia del Colle airbase. Along with the A10s are coming more F15 fighter-bombers, which carry up to 12 tonnes of ordnance, more than double the bombload of the smaller F16s.“
http://www.nato-otan.org/kosovo/press/p990512b.htm
“Let me give you a rundown on our operations in more detail now. Our day started around sunrise with a streamed package of 36 aircraft, including A10s, GR7 Harriers, Etendard, AMXs, F16s, Jaguars, CF118s. In the area of Suva Reka we attacked military vehicles, revetted artillery, dispersed artillery and tanks. At the same time F16s struck the Kosovska Metrovica radio relay station.”
Free, not going to get into a big thing here, just pointing out that yes, A-10s did serve honorably in the Balkan theater.
Perhaps the 25mm cannon onboard the F-35 is not as powerful as the 30mm cannon on the A-10, but with added bombs, missiles, intelligence payload, stealth, speed… I think the F-35 will end up a much more effective weapon, the only thing the A-10 would be better at is surviving a barrage from old WW2 AA cannons, but then again it’s more likely to be hit at the slow speed it operates at. Not sure why everyone is crazy about the A10…
And to those who think the F-35 is so underpowered vs soviet fighters I’d have to disagree, there are so many factors to consider, the US is lightyears ahead in the missiles and radar, I’d bet my money on the US fighters having superior jamming technology that nothing hits it, and I derive that from the huge emphasis on secrecy when it comes to the phased-array radar onboard these latest generation fighters. Isn’t the F-35 armed with a missile that can fire at targets behind?
“but then again it’s more likely to be hit at the slow speed it operates at. Not sure why everyone is crazy about the A10…“
Flying slow means you can see what you’re shooting at, respond to the guys on the ground, and stay in the area longer. Fast movers burn a hell of a lot more fuel. We’re crazy about the A-10 because it gets hit and KEEPS FLYING. I saw a video of an A-10 in Desert Storm return to its base with 400 bullet holes and a missile impact in the wing. The plane was repairable. Think an F-35 or F-18 could take that kind of abuse and provide the same level of support?
Freefalling brought up the high altitude attacks in Kosovo. Many of those planes missed or couldn’t see their targets.
TB, what does loiter time matter if you can arrive three times faster? Loiter time on the F-35 will be “enough”, it doesn’t have to be a priority. IMO the A-10 is a less effective alternative of the Apache, and neither put bombing missions as a priority like the F-35. This seems like a no-contest argument to me, you’re advocating a vietnam era flying tank over a 5th generation fighter?
Jeff,
In a word, yes! Getting there faster is nice, except the F-35 would have to get its mission from the airbase and THEN fly to the kill box. Slow movers generally can “hang out” around the combat area and wait for a mission. The F-35 would fly out, possibly overshoot the target, have enough fuel to drop a bomb or two, then have to return to base. The A-10 (or something like it) would just orbit waiting for a call and could carry a wider assortment of ordnance. It could fire a rocket, shoot a gun, and wait for an encore. In a grunt-perfect world, the A-10 or its replacement would fly from a dirt strip, be there when I need it because it never left the AO, and not require a $billion contractor-laden logistics tail to keep it flying.
”..neither put bombing missions as a priority like the F-35.“
Really? How many bombs can the F-35 carry? Why is it described as a near-competitor in dogfighting to the F-22? Why is it described as an uber-sensor package and forward air controller? Basic engineering: you try to make something do everything, and it will do everything, but poorly. You make tradeoffs when you give a machine multiple tasks. A “multi-role” scout/bomber/fighter/air controller can’t do it all like a specialized aircraft can. A fighter should be small, fast, and nimble. A bomber should be a little slower and carry a bunch of bombs. A recon plane should have a bunch of sensors. A ground attack plane should be armored, slow, and carry weapons useful to a ground unit in need (rockets, guns, small bombs).
You have to trade fuel capacity, speed, range, payload, manueverability, and overall size when you start combining these.
In Iraq we asked for a CAS gun run from an F-16. It barely hit the target, but also strafed half the neighborhood because it was flying too fast. The next time an F-16 did a gun run in the city, it misjudged and flew into the dirt.
The fast flying B-1 with 2000-pounders and a high altitude visual of the battlefield was not what the Marines needed at that village in A’stan a few weeks ago, but that’s what they got.
And when I say the A-10 orbits, I mean low enough to see the enemy and understand what we’re asking him to do. Nothing worse than calling for support and the pilot has no idea what he’s getting into.
If all CAS has become with the F-35 is a random pilot asking for a 9-line, a grid coordinate, and a time on target, I’d rather save everyone the trouble and have a UAV do it.
The f35 should be keep to as few jobs per frame as possible.
Airforce version. fighter
Marine version fighter/bomber
Navy version fighter bomber( i dont see why you dont just keep it a fighter period. They have f18s for bombing and are working on a armed attack bomber)
————————————————-
A10
Bomb,
I have to disagree with you( so far i dont think ive agreed with you on anything.…ever but anyways…i mean realy man you kinda sound crazy half the time though not as bad as the “Please” guy..hes a freakin nutter).
The a10 is probbly the best ground attack plane ever period. Why it was built from the ground up (or should i say gun back) to kill with extreme prejudice soviet tanks.
“How long would the entire A-10 fleet have lasted against the Soviet “Frontal Aviation”, while trying to feast on Soviet tanks?
Can the A-10 even dog-fight? I’m asking this because it is one (easy, coward…) thing to destroy Iraqi ground targets after that country has been bombed twice and embargoed for 12 years in between, with no-fly zones, constant attacks against its air force and air defenses and extensively reconnoitered, etc., but it is quite another thing for example to survive against a simple Chinese, Iranian or North Korean jet trainer“
Again. thats stupid. realy. To say that means you have no clue about military history or tactics.
See we have these things called “fighters” now a fighter fights other jets leaving ground attack aircraft to attack “ground” targets. Hence ground attack.
Oh yea ive seen that video of the A10 over iraq. The hole was big enough for you to crawl through.
Also as has been mention before a A10 pilot can use his eyes(now a crap load of other systems) to kill targets.
Oh yea if you where to fix anything on the 35 make it able to carry external fuel tanks so it can atlest use them till it gets to the mission area.
“Can the A10 dogfight?” Well one did shoot down an Iraqi helo during the first Gulf war. Suspect that in NOTE flight and low airspeeds that an A10 would be a formidable opponent. At altitude it would be set on by missiles.
Gotcha!
Posted by: freefallingbomb at July 8, 2009 07:22 AM
Ok WHAT?
I never said a A10 could dog fihgt why would you want to its not ment to dog fight.
Have you listened to any of the other posters on here?
You know what im tired of this ive tried not to be a ahole but you know what screw you.
Every dang day i find you all you can say is negative things about my people and my country. Europe is grand right. US arms and technology are used in how many of the worlds militaries, factories, labs, vehicles etc, etc, etc. Our people have been there time and again to help you even when not threatened on our shores.
Let me ask you a question. When was the last time europe fielded a large heavy force thousands of miles away from your shores without our support.
You know what here ya go the tornado is a realy good plane. See there. I just believe the A-10 makes a better ground support aircraft.
And here is what i believe. Nothing we do will ever be good enough for people like you. You call us arrogant and stupid. Yet you in every word you write come off as a self serving arrogant ahole.
People dont come here to be run down when they speak there mind. Wana have a civil adult conversation go ahead say whatever you want but GOTCHA! is what 14yr old does.
Which is more important people here expressing there own veiws or your childish rants?
I could rant till morning but i dont generaly try it.
Im sorry to the other posters if ive gotten off topic.
FREEFALLINGBOMB:
What are you smoking? The A-10 is a dedicated close support aircraft. It was never designed to dogfight and only would fire it’s Sidewinders as a last ditch to defend itself. It’s designed to kill military ground vehicles, that’s it, end of mission.
Secondly, why you would compare a dedicated close support aircraft to a multi role fighter bomber like the Tornado is just stupid. I know, let’s discuss how superior the B52 is at strategic bombing to the F-16.
The Tornados were dropping out of the sky left and right during the first Gulf War, although to be fair they were taking the most dangerous missions of low level attacks on airfields.
Your point about the lack of avionics on the A-10 merely reinforced my point at how unpopular the A-10 and it’s mission is to the mainstream Air Force thinking. The poor little thing keeps getting left out of the Air Force’s vision of future conflicts and has been threatened with retirement several times.
Apparently, you are not familiar with combined arms. Let me explain it slowly so as not to confuse you. You see, when you go into a conflict you bring different assets to bear. You would send in fighters like Raptors, Falcons, etc. first to gain air superiority, then the infantry, armor and close support aircraft can do their jobs.
Lastly, a Tornado coming in a six hundred knots is not what an operator wants to see coming to his aid in a battle. He would much rather see a pair or more A-10s slowly coming in, destroying targets and being able to loiter for a while to make sure. Just so you don’t think I’m being unfair, if you were talking about destroying an enemy airfield, well, there’s few planes better at it than a Tornado loaded up with a beluga dispenser to do the job.
Freefallingbomb
One, you know nothing about me so don’t presume ANYTHING about me. I did serve and it was during a time when I was trained to kill Russians so don’t tell me crap about being born after the Cold War so shut your gob.
Air superiority or no, a dedicated ground attack mission would have a CAP nearby to patrol for enemy air threats. Especially in a high intensity conflict.
What is needed in low intensity conflicts are dedicated air to ground aircraft. They are typically designed to take a beating, favor endurance over speed, and tend to be slower than the average fighter.
Why not shoot a missile? Cost is a sizable consideration and bullets or cannon ammo doesn’t lose lock. You don’t waste the assets of Maverick missiles and the like on a machinegun nest. Missiles also weigh a lot and take up precious space and create drag.
While the A-10 isn’t always ideal for anti personnel, it’s main cannon loaded with HE works wonders. It can carry tons of bombs, rockets or missiles.
The IL-2 Sturmovik couldn’t dogfight for anything, it was heavy and slow. But, ask a German vet of the Eastern Front what would put more terror into them than the darl shape of IL-2s coming their way.
The rate of fire argument is misguided. The ideal rate of fire for an aircraft’s main gun firing at another aircraft and strafing ground targets at slower speeds are entirely different.
As far as AA goes, you’d have a hard time convincing me that firing my AA cannon at one is a good idea. I might hit it, hell, I may even damage it and take it down. But, his buddy flying overwatch is going to turn me into a crater. That’s if you see it coming, take it from a guy who’s been on excercises with them, they pop up from the darndest places. Remember, the plane can take loads of damage. If you were able to get the actual stats for losses per sortie for aircraft performing similiar mission, you would show it some respect. If you’re talking about a large AA threat, I think history has proven how well we deal with that BEFORE sending in attack planes.
I would agree that maybe adding some smaller caliber gun pods might not be such a bad idea for the A-10, this would leave the 30mm for harder targets. I would also have to say for many COIN engagements, the AC-130 Spectre would be a better choice.
As far for the “symbolic dogfighting ability”. Do you design a Ferrari with a trailer hitch? Do you design a truck for Formula Racing? No you don’t. The A-10 was designed to do one job, destroy Russian armored units. It’s a job it would have done well. Times have changed, but, it’s features, slow, tough, a big gun, and beautifully ugly, give it a new life in Afghanistan or wherever it’s needed.
I also feel we need some new COIN aircraft. I’d settle for some C-130Js converted into Spectres. The point I think you’re missing isthat in low intensity warfare like we’re currently facing, these are the better tools for the job.
Maybe the Pentagon should’ve done a survey of frontline grunts and ask them if they’d prefer the A-10 or the F-35.
Just a quick question how often have the taliban been firing AA guns in the dozens? The A10 is designed to survive that and go home afterwards.
”(like Bush and the Jews always do)“
Dude realy?
To the poster “Valcan”:
You wrote: “Just a quick question how often have the taliban been firing AA guns in the dozens?“
A-A guns aren’t typical weapons of R
To the poster “TB”:
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “I don’t know where you get your ‘rifle range’ and vulnerability statements from“
“The gun is precise; it can place 80 % of its shots within a 40-foot (12.4 m) circle from 4,000 feet (1,220 m) while in flight. The GAU-8 is optimized for a slant range of 4,000 feet (1,220 m) with the A-10 in a 30 degree dive.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt#Development
Sub-chapter: “Weapon systems”, further downwards.
As a comparison: There are ARMOUR-PIERCING sniper RIFLES out there with 8.202 feet (2.500 metres) of effective range, did you already know that?!
Even 2 cm A-A guns use to have effective ranges of 2 — 5 kilometres, depending mostly on barrel length (2 cm Gatlings for example have smaller ranges) !
And put yourself once 4,000 feet (1,220 m) in front of any hill, spot any 40-foot (12.4 m) wide object on its slope, for example a house of that size, and then ask yourself what kind of gun / cannon only places 80 % of its rounds into it!
Even worn-out 7,62 mm rifles won’t miss it once!
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “the A-10 has racked up thousands of ground kills“
You know in which bad shape these targets were: After the 1991 war against the Coalition, 12 years of subsequent embargo, imposition of no-fly-zones and constant chipping away at the Iraqi Airforce’s and Air Defense’s strength by Anglo airstrikes (= basically a 12-years-long war preparation), they were practically only waiting for a coup de gr
FFB,
The thousands of kills I was talking about CAME FROM Desert Storm, not OIF. 140 A-10s in 1991 flew over 8,600 sorties and destroyed 1,000 tanks, 1,200 artillery pieces, 2,000 other vehicles, 28 command posts, and 2 helicopters which were destroyed by the gun and not with missiles. It had a 95% readiness rate and many planes flew 3 missions a day. 70 planes received battle damage, but only six were shot down. Two of those made it back to base and crashed on the runway. Those 140 planes destroyed more ground targets than the rest of the coalition air fleet combined.
And for our accuracy argument, yes I know about sniper rifles. Sniper rifles can take out targets at up to 2,500 meters. Good for them. They can’t take out targets at 1,000 meters when both the shooter and the target are moving. The A-10 does. Your claim about sniper rifles and “worn out 7.62mm guns” is assuming the weapons are on stable platforms firing from the ground at ground targets.
Have you ever fired a 7.62mm machine gun from a moving aircraft at a target 1,000 meters away? If the target is sitting still, many of your rounds will still miss. If the target is moving, you don’t have a chance. A 7.62mm door gunner has no control over where the aircraft goes. A machine gun weapon pod is only as accurate as the aircraft is slow and steady. (you’re dealing with the ballistics of a round flying through the air with wind speed, aircraft speed, bullet speed, and gravity working against each other). The A-10’s 30mm needs to only fire about a dozen rounds per burst to hit that target. The machine gun will likely have to fire hundreds to get the same effect. And if the target is armored, you’ll just annoy it.
“R
Man i would love to here you explain to a cop
“well officer he did pull his gun out after shooting ‘im gonna!! f’in!! kill you!” about 15 times but i decided i needed to wait till he fires at me before i got ready or shot him after all i dont want to be a bully“
“Oh my wife is dead? from the first bullet? oh well that happens“
“My gun no no no i left that at home dont even have bullets i mean im not using it at preasent so whats the point”
Freefallingbomb crapped into a keyboard
You wrote: “One, you know nothing about me so don’t presume ANYTHING about me.“
Wrong: I know ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about you, so don’t try to tell me any bull-shit about yourself! You’re a perfectly transparent case to me, since your birth! (I even know what you want before you do!)
Remember: I got your number!
Okay, I was willing to try to debate and try to keep away from personal attacks, I don’t like to feed the trolls. But, you sir are no troll, you’re an ass. You obviously just want to start crap as opposed to any real debate or discourse. You lads have fun, I’ve wasted enough time on this.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123029281
“Known as the Precision Engagement program, the massive modification encompasses multiple enhancements that will provide the aircraft with all-weather capability to detect and strike targets from greater altitudes and distances using precision-guided weapons. The improvements represent a significant leap in operational capability for the Warthog. “
That was in 2006.
Its called upgrades. And there upgrading even more now.
“Sincerely, what makes you so proud of that? Do you consider that a success, a sign of their superiority, knowing that any F-16, any F-15 and in the future also any F-35…“
Actually yes, I consider those stats a victory for the A-10. Half the fleet took damage (repairable damage) and still dished out all that hurt. If the flimsy planes you listed had to do the mission without the A-10, here’s what would have happened:
–fewer targets engaged due to fuel limits, fewer weapons, fear of enemy defenses
–in order to destroy as many targets, they’d have to fly an impossible number of sorties
–if one of those planes gets nicked by AA, they’re toast
Like I said earlier, 140 A-10s did what 2,000 other planes could not. Do the math and figure how much fuel, time, and wear and tear that would equal on the rest of the fleet. I’d call buying the A-10 a sound investment both militarily and economically.
Many of the electronic-based air defenses were taken out by earlier bombing raids. There was still plenty of flak to put against the A-10, but it was mobile SAMs and lower-tech guns. Your response will be to state the high-flying F-16s abilities. My counter will be the F-16 would have been nervous to fly in there, possibly deny the CAS request, or miss the target.
Is the A-10 invincible? Of course not. But imagine the confidence of a pilot (and grunts on the ground) knowing that out of the dozens of sorties your one plane flew in the war, not only would you do the lion’s share of the damage, but if you got hit not only would you make it back to base, your plane would fly another day in the same campaign.
Earlier you mentioned the A-10 having obsolete sensors. The current A-10 has most of the same targeting pods and toys that the fighters have. In Desert Storm, the A-10 was the only plane that could engage targets THROUGH the burning oil fields. It could do that because it could safely fly below the smoke.
I’m glad you brought up Kosovo. Yes, that was embarrassing. Our air fleet was told it couldn’t fly below something like 15,000 feet due to fear of friendly casualties and as a result all kinds of targets were missed. The A-10 was there but I don’t believe it was allowed to attack the Serbs in its own special way. It is risky to put aircraft in range of enemy weapons. But if the mission requires it, would you rather send in a tank with wings or something made out of aluminum?
Fighter planes use 20mm guns to dogfight, not 7.62mm. There’s a huge difference in ballistics and I think they usually shoot closer than 1km away.
WWII planes used 12.7mm ammo. Like I said with the fighters, heavy bullet makes a difference. Plus WWII tanks had much weaker armor than modern tanks. And I’m pretty sure most of those WWII air attacks hit the lightly armored top of the tank.
You mentioned the Herc shooting moving targets on the ground. The C-130 Spectre uses 20mm, 40mm, and 105mm shells.
Basically you boxed yourself in when you tried to compare the A-10’s gun with a 7.62 machine gun. I don’t know if you’ve seen all these different calibers in person but a 7.62mm is the tip of a pencil, a 12.7mm is a dry-erase marker, and a 30mm A-10 round is a bowling pin. Imagine all 3 traveling at 2000 feet/sec and you can see the difference.
I will agree with you on the overkill of the gun when it comes to the A-10’s overall ground mission. As a ground pounder it’d be nice if the A-10 had a pod of .50 cals to use as well.
Another problem with the F-35 and its peers is high-flying precision bombing can almost be done by UAVs. In a few years Congress may ask why we’re spending $100 million per copy on a fleet of F-35s when a $5 million robot can do the same job. I’ve tried to explain that there’s much more to ground support than simply dropping a bomb on a grid coordinate. If you want to do it well and at low cost, the super sonic F-35 is not the plane for the job.
To the poster “TB”:
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “If the flimsy planes you listed had to do the mission without the A-10, here’s what would have happened: –fewer targets engaged due to fuel limits, fewer weapons…“
Excuse me?!
A-10 :
Armament: 7.260 kg
Combat radius: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 30 min combat on anti-armour missions
F-15 :
Armament: 7.300 kg
Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction missions
Even today I sometimes wonder why the U.S. Airforce didn’t choose the F-15 as its only or as its main airplane for fighter, fighter-bomber, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, anti-satellite (with ASM-135 A.SAT. missiles) and other missions back in the 1970’s, maybe even navalizing it! (More or less as the British did with their Phantoms, next with their Tornados and now with their Eurofighters)
More or less as the U.S. Americans are going to do now with their F-22s anyway (“one single plane type for each country / continent”).
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “Plus WWII tanks had much weaker armor than modern tanks.“
Not really: Of all the main belligerent nations of the Second World War the U.S. American tanks were generally the lightest and most vulnerable (oh come on, admit it: The 1980 M-1 Abrams tank was the first real tank which the U.S.A. ever had!), but, apart from this, the biggest difference between the World War Two tanks and modern-day M.B.T.s lies mainly in their engines, ergo in their speeds.
“Modern” tanks at the end of World War Two:
Panther: 44,8 tonnes
Hunting Panther: 45,5 tonnes
Tiger: 56,9 tonnes
Hunting Tiger: 71,7 tonnes
King Tiger: 69,8 tons
Elefant: 65 tonnes
T-34: 26,5 tonnes
KV-1: 45 tonnes
Iosif Stalin JS-2: 46 tonnes
SU-152: 45,5 tonnes
ISU-152: 46 tonnes
Sherman: 30,3 tonnes
Lee / Grant: 23,9 tonnes
Matilda: 25 tons
M.B.T.s today:
Challenger II: 62,5 tonnes
Abrams: 61,4 metric tons
Leopard II: 62,3 tonnes
Leclerc: 54,5 tonnes
Merkava: 65 tonnes
T-80: 42,6 tonnes
T-84 (Ukraine) : 46 tonnes
T-90: 46,5 tonnes
Type 90 (Japan) : 50,2 tonnes
As you see, the weight = the armour didn’t change THAT much between the 1940’s and now, at least not in quantitative terms (tons).
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
“And I’m pretty sure most of those WWII air attacks hit the lightly armored top of the tank.“
And the rear. The lower hull sides were generally also very thin and needed to be protected by all sorts of spaced armour (steel plates, grids, chain meshes etc., to detonate all arriving ordnance prematurely). Although after the arrival of shaped charges the Allied planes could fire their rockets arbitrarily from any side and from any angle against any tank.
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “Basically you boxed yourself in when you tried to compare the A-10’s gun with a 7.62 machine gun.“
I never did that. 7,62 mm was just a suggestion — amidst other calibres — to remind everybody that ANYTHING less than a 3 cm anti-tank calibre makes more sense as an all-around calibre against unspecified targets (= from enemy soldiers to trucks to airplanes to logistical storages, etc.).
I think that maybe a new calibre around 1,5 cm would be optimal (more space for fillers than a 12,7 mm calibre round, yet smaller than the exclusively anti-mat
If I could design the A-10’s replacement (and I’m no engineer mind you), I’d probably add .50 cals, make it a little smaller but just as armored, and let it land on unimproved strips or roads. With the kind of job the plane performs, it shouldn’t spend much time in a rear airbase or have to wait for the Air Tasking Order in order to be out there. It should be as close to the ground forces as possible and get most of its missions from them. A ground support plane should be responsive to the needs of the ground commander above all else. The Marines have something close to this relationship with their air component. Instead of looking at an order and asking “what air might I get today?” they know by task organization what they can call on when they need it because the wing is subordinated to the ground mission.
I like to think of the A-10 as a hunter or a charging bull. It spends all of its time on the front line killing and pushing the enemy aside. Fear factor is important too when the enemy sees the plane barreling in and they just know their screwed. Iraqi POWs said they were most afraid of the A-10s above all other planes.
It’s very straightforward. Both the A-10 and F-35 can drop bombs, but only the A-10 can strafe accurately and take hits.
Of course the A-10 is a far superior CAS platform. Many frontline Americans and Iraqis attest to that fact.
Why this always seems to come up for debate I’ll never know.