A-10 being replaced?

[Sayeret]

I read that the US air force wanted to replace the A-10 with the JSF. What are your opinioins about it?

[Tommy Gunn]

I can remember reading something back in the late 1980's about the USAF wanting to replace the A-10 with F-16's.

I don't think the A-10 will be replaced with an air superiority fighter.

[Nizark]

funk that, no way will a expensive fighter like the jsf take its place. Now maybe in terms of dropping a bomb on a tank, but the apache can do that, and the warthog can do so much more with the fat cannon that they have. Anyway, who can say when the next time we will be in action against tanks unless we jack up n. korea or iran. They tried to get rid of the A-10 before and it proved its usefulness against iraq twice.

[marktigger]

From what I've read on various sites and in media the USAF it would appear has always wanted rid of the A10 until things like Iraq and Afganistan hove into view.
For its role it is an excellent aircraft (only a pity the RAF bought Jaguar instead). The Images of Capt Kim Campbells A10 that limped back from Baghdad following a SAM strike to my mind should have had airforce planners and procurers rewriting the specs on survivability for all military aircraft.
It needs a major electronics refit to allow it to interface with modern C3I networks and an optics package to allow long range ID of targets and integration of systems like JDAM. But leave the 30mm gun alone.
Airforces monthly published an article in Mar 2004 edition on CAS in the gulf with some nice pics and analysis.
This thread has been discussed before and the BUFF lobby woll probably hi jack it.

[Fox2]

Hide this topic from Durandal! p-)

Long live the A-10! woot

Ok I will recede back into my hole that is known as work...

[AFACadet]

People don't understand how the JSF will function simply because its so far outside of the box.

To quickly state:

The JSF WILL NOT fly in the same maner as the A-10, nor will it need to, when flying attack missions.


The A-10 was based on old technology and concepts that have been around since WWI. Its a great aircraft, but there are better ways of doing stuff.


That technology was very long in coming, but is here now (its just that most people don't fully know what out there because they don't look for it or they don' t have the proper security clearences).

[hank]

So, AFA can you enlighten us? I, for one would like to know the difference.

hank

[Fox2]

Aw man, thanks Cadet. Coming in here all serious, messing up my fun! p-)

I don't mind the JSF, I think it'll be pretty good.





But I still say

Long live the A-10! woot





Uh oh. I think I am becoming the Operation Ivy of A-10s. :D

[marktigger]

Yes AFACadet the technology was along time comming and is expensive to but the big question can it survive on a battlefield like an A10? The surviveability of the A10 should be the benchmark. The old Manual control systems brought Kim Campbell's home if it had been soley FBW she would have had to bang out over Bagdad. Not nice images to go on CNN!
Rumour on one of the military avation sites is the USAF is going for VTOL's and refurbished A10's .

[oldsoak]

I'd argue that the A10 doesnt need replacing as much as upgrading.

[marktigger]

which is what the secretary of the Airforce announced according to the PPrune site.

[AFACadet]

ok, I'll go into the basics:


The A-10 needed to fly low and slow to hit ground targets accuratly. You have all heard of the stories about the fast movers not being able to find hidden or Hard to see targets in Vietnam. A by product of flying low and slow is that you can accuratly place you weapons where you want to (which means close to friendly forces in a number of cases).


Flying low and slow means you WILL get hit. If you get hit, you need to make a heavy structure to stand up to it all. Aircraft have done this since WWI.

Its a proven concept and it works. But you still have high losses and a lot of damage. And even if you fly that low and slow, you can still hit the wrong target or not see that hidden target under the trees.




Now, the JSF is getting away from that low and slow business. So why is the AF trying to go with that when it has been proven that is not effective for CAS since the Korean War?


Because the Avionics and Weapons of the JSF are amazing--serously its freeky stuff.


In the end, that means that the JSF can dectect individual targets from miles away and thousands of feet in the air MUCH better than any Mk I eyeball could do. I'm not going into HOW detailed the images you can get are, but (I'm only stating public source material here) the JSF can detect the difference between a T-55, T-72, or M-1 well outside of most enemy battle field threat circles.

In conjunction with this are a new crop of guided weapons that allow the JSF to hit these individual targets from 5-40 miles away. The weapons range can include well known weapons just as the JDAM and WCDM, but also include the SDB (a 250 lbs JDAM in testing that has the power of a 500 lbs bomb and the glide range of up to 40 nms) the JSF can carry 8 SDBs internally. Another weapon being tested right now is the LOCAAS. It is sorta like a UAV missile. It flies over the battlefield and searches for enemy vehicles. It finds the vehicles on its own and can detect if hatches are open or closed. If open, it will fly into the hatch and detonate a HE warhead. If closed, it will attack the top of the tank with a shaped charge. It has a 20-60 mile range and can also loiter over the battlefield. the JSF can carry upto 16 of these weapons. There are other weapons such as the JSOW that can be filled with cluster bombs and attack targets from upto 40 miles away. In development is a directed energy weapon connected to the drive shaft of the engine and placed where the lift-fan would go in the STOVL verson. If its a solid state laser, it can take shots and recharge as long as the engine is running. This weapon is specifically designed to disable (although not destroy) almost any ground vehicle. This was first reported by Aviation Week and Space Technology a couple years ago and has since become a "black" program. The technology for this weapon needs to mature a little first, but might be ready in the 2015 timefame (not all that long after the first JSF squadrons are in service).

These weapons are also cheap, so they can be used a lot.


If you can fire weapons from dozens of miles away and accuratly hit targets from that distance, while at the same time staying away from enemy threat circles, why do you even need a huge beefy structure like in the A-10?

It's not going to be hit, simply because its out of the range of enemy weapons.


The AF has also been reminded that the A-10 can be forward based. In order to make it possible for the JSF to do the same thing, the AF has just decided to buy some STOVL F-35s so they can be stationed close to friendly forces.

[marktigger]

yes but it looks like they're sticking with the A10 btw can an F35 carry as much?

Yep the theory is you stay at medium altitude and use elop package life doesn't always work that way. Remember the A10 was designed to fight over NW Europe and was based on experience from vietnam. Has that experience or when the F35 has to go to war will another generation of pilots have to learn from the errors of a Flawed concept of ops.

How surviveable is an F35 from a SAM strike?

[marktigger]

It's not going to be hit, simply because its out of the range of enemy weapons rofl

AFACadet and do you think SAM designers will sit still they will develop longer ranged missiles.

You need a combination of technology and protection the A10 for its generation had it about right. With modern materials it probably could be built smaller/lighter.

[WARPIG]

I don’t see a modern aircraft replacing the Warthog or its role. A UAV is more likely an option and probably more feasible. Scaling back the size of the gun, and sticking to the low tech targeting system… would make a kick ass UAV. Only problem is that close air support with a UAV seems a little risky.
Warthog’s days may be numbered but not anytime soon.!

[Kenshin]

I am not sure wether any fighter or helo can take a hit like this and land back to base.

[/quote]The Mighty A10 Warthog, Operation Iraqi Freedom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message originated from a Reservist from Minot, North Dakota. Good pictures of a Wart Hog that made it home.
Just wanted you all to know that this war has not been a cake walk and we have a lot of lady warriors out there in harms way. This is a set of pictures of one A-10 with a lady pilot. I am very proud of how good we make our equipment and the skills of our men and women. Does this qualify for the broken prop award?

All, This is a picture of one of our Hogs that just refused to go down. This hog was shot at numerous times. I saw this plane coming in a few hours ago, and we were overjoyed to watch it come home and land.



http://208.190.133.201/warthog/mvc-003f.jpg

http://208.190.133.201/warthog/mvc-004f.jpg

http://208.190.133.201/warthog/mvc-006f.jpg

[usa320]

The JSF cant replace the A-10. In the late 80's and early 90's someone had the idea that the F-16 could replace the A-10. They soon found themselves to be wrong. They keep trying to replace it, but they always end up bringing it back. The JSF simply cannot haul the load, fire the gun or fly low and slow enough to do the job of an A-10 safely. Nothing can. I think spending a few billion to refit them with more modern avionics would definately be worth it. To be honest, i think the whole JSF project is a waste of bloody time and money. F-16C Block 50's, F-15E's, A-10's, Super Hornets and F-14D's are already the best planes in the world. They could serve excellently for at least 30 more years. The B-52 was built in 1952 and is expected to fly at lest until 2050 because it fills a special niche that no other plane does. Its big, scary and carrys a massive load. The A-10 is like that as well. Nothing can do its job the way it does.

I think a fleet of upgraded A-10's, F-16C Blk50's, F-15E's and F/A-22's would serve the air force far better than replacing everything with JSF's.

[marktigger]

kenshin have you seen the pic of the engine pod? i only have it in hard copy. The SAM made a hell of a mess.

USA320 the JSF will probably be a good F16 replacement though yet again single engine survivability is an issue. And the F14D is past its sell by date new ones would be nice but they would need to be as multi mission as the F18E/F.

[usa320]

The F-14D is multimission. Its capable of carry the GBU-10/12/16 family of weapons, the GBU-24/28 family of Laser Guided penetrators and the JDAM family of weapons, not to mention HARM missiles, SLAM and Harpoon missiles. The only thing the F/A-18 has that the Tomcat doesnt is the JSOW and a smaller gas tank.

As a matter of fact Special Operations team in Iraq specifically requested F-14's for CAS over F-18's due to the fact that the tomcat has a far greater loiter time.

[BlackRain]

A-10 Simply stated: Why Mess with Success?

Service Life

The original service life of the A/OA-10 was 8,000 hours, equating to approximately to FY2005. The revised service life was projected out to 12,000 hours, equating to approximately FY2016. The most recent long range plan has the A/OA-10 in the fleet through FY2028, which equates to approximately 18,000-24,000 hours.

Unit Cost in 1998 Dollars

Unit Cost $FY98 $13 million

How Tough is an A-10?


Campbell, who is assigned to the 23rd Fighter Group from Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, was flying over Baghdad in her A-10 ``Warthog'' on Monday when she received a call for assistance from troops on the ground. On her way back after the mission, Campbell told an Air Force reporter, she felt an abrupt jolt as something struck her aircraft. Warning lights started to flash on her cockpit panels.

``The plane rolled left and pointed at the ground, which is not a comforting feeling over Baghdad,'' Campbell told the Air Force Times. ``The jet wasn't responding to any of my control inputs.''

The A-10's hydraulic systems were damaged, disabling the flight controls, landing gear and brakes among other critical systems, including part of the plane's stabilizer.

But the manual flight controls continued to work.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5592254.htm

[crazyman]

there has been talk of replacing the A-10 for decades. the USAF apparently is obsessed with technology (at least from what I see) simply put, the A-10 is THE best aircraft for it's job. I would be very suprised to see anything replace it in my time. And no, the JSF is not supposed to be replacing the A-10. to replace the A-10 you would need an aircraft that is as durable(which the JSF is not) and as effective a tank-killer(which nothing out there is).

Personally, i dont give a rats' ass how old it, or the theories behind it are. the plane mows through tanks like a damned lawnmower through grass, and it takes AA and SAM fire with no problem. When my ass is on the ground calling for CAS, i will be VERY happy to see that ugly A-10 over me.

[AFACadet]

All of you are still thinking well inside the box.


"if it isn't broke, then don't fix it" is one the the most absolute stupid sayings when it comes to military hardware. If that were the case, we would all be using clubs now.



I see the above people either didn't read my post, or don't understand it.



There is only so much I can say before it gets into FOUO information or greater (both in terms of the F-35 systems and enemy air defense systems).




I'm not surprised that is so hard for people to accept the new developments in the last couple of years because they are so ingraned in the old way of doing things. It was just the same with the Navy when they couldn't give up the Battleships and the Army when all they had planned for aviation is sending mail and directing artillery.



Sure, the AF tried to replace the A-10 before--but as you can see, it didn't work. The technology simply was not there.

There have been massive developments in avionics, stealth, and weapon systmes over the last 5-6 years.

In WWII, it took 200-300 bombers to destroy a single target. After the massive technology jump in the late 70s in relation to avionics, steal and weapons, 51 F-117s could take out every strategic target in Germany in less than 6 months (instead of thousands and thousands of bombers over a 3 year period).

The way the F-117 flew and fought was much different from the B-17s or B-24s, and many of you forget or don't know how much the AF brass disliked the F-117 (those that knew about it). They didn't think it could do its job--even going into the Gulf War.

An even greater jump in aviation technology has very quietly taken place over the last couple of years. The tip of the ice burg was seen in OEF and OIF.

A new crop of weapons and aircraft are slowing coming on-line that will benefit from this new technology. The first will be the Raptor followed by UCAV's. The F-35 will follow soon after.

The reason this happens is because forward thinking people see better ways to do something. Sometimes it does not work, and other times it does. As OIF and OEF have proven, this generation of forward thinkers seems to be doing something right.


EDIT: and before someone brings it up Vietnam and the missiles was not a technology problem but a political (ROE) and operator (pilot's not knowing how to use their systems correctly). Most historians don't take the time to get to the bottom or have not seen some important documents so they come to the incorrect conclusion that Vietnam showed all new unproven technology is bad (and they just happen not to talk about the brand new LGBs that made people's eyes bug out after their effectiveness was proven).

[Sixgun Symphony]

I suspect that the USAF has been wanting to be rid of the A-10 is because most USAF officers joined the USAF to become ace fighter pilots. They would rather fly high in sleek fighters and win air to air engagements than to fly low in a warthhog and kill tanks.

[WARPIG]

Sounds like the cadet has the poopy pants. Relax junior. Only problem here is there doesn’t seem to be any viable alternative to the A10 so far. No real technology seams to fit the role. The real question is weather the role of the Warthog is nearing extinction. Like I said, the UAV technology is a hot item right now. JSF and other like systems continue to develop on their own lines. Killing tanks from a distance, is a completely different game compared to the Close Air Support of the Warthog. With the progresso of interim force apache longbows and the new comanche rotory wing aircraft. The little niche that the a10 fills is getting smaller. That is probably why we don’t see any replacement emerging.

[Sixgun Symphony]

Like I said, the UAV technology is a hot item right now.

I think the USAF is loathe to adopt UAV's. They're pilots you know.


I think a remotely piloted A-10 would have some real applications.

[AFACadet]

No real technology seams to fit the role.

Do you know all the technology out there and do you know the systems the JSF is going to use?


They would rather fly high in sleek fighters and win air to air engagements than to fly low in a warthhog and kill tanks.

That's not the way the Air Force works any more. Back in the 50s and 60s, yeah maybe.

If you look at what the #1 people in each flight class picks, its a combination of Fighters, C-17s, C-130s, Bombers, or Helos.

[AFACadet]

I think the USAF is loathe to adopt UAV's. They're pilots you know.

Once again, you are back in the 50s and 60s mentality.





The AF is going full force into the UCAV concept. The CSAF (himself a Vietnam fighter pilot) is backing it 100%. In fact, he is the only reason the Predator got Hellfires in the first place.


The AF want's UCAVs bad because they see the massive benefits they can bring to the battlefield.


The first UCAV's will be flying operationally around the 2008-2010 timeframes. That's EXTREMELY quick in relation to other aviation programs. That would not happen in any way unless the AF are giving their full backing...

[Trigger]

I suspect that the USAF has been wanting to be rid of the A-10 is because most USAF officers joined the USAF to become ace fighter pilots. They would rather fly high in sleek fighters and win air to air engagements than to fly low in a warthhog and kill tanks.

Some of my friends would disagree.

[Sixgun Symphony]

I suspect that the USAF has been wanting to be rid of the A-10 is because most USAF officers joined the USAF to become ace fighter pilots. They would rather fly high in sleek fighters and win air to air engagements than to fly low in a warthhog and kill tanks.

Some of my friends would disagree.

It is a suspicion I have about the brass in the USAF.

Why join the USAF as opposed to other services? The USN has as many technical fields for those who want to work with high technology.

So why the attraction to the USAF if not for the image of the ace fighter pilot?

[AFACadet]

You're talking about what you 'think.'


I (and Trigger) are telling you what 'IS.'




I want to fly the C-17. Why? Because I like the mission. I'm not too interested in flying an F-15C (actually I don't want to). I may be interested in an F-15E or A-10 or F-16. Depends though. I want to be in the Air Force and NOT any of the other services. Why? I don't know, that's like asking why you like Coke over Pepsi. The AF fits my personality best and I can put my personal strengths to work the best.



The Air Force is MUCH different than most people think, especially on a fourm like this where most people understand tanks and guns and HOOAHs and such.

[Trigger]

I suspect that the USAF has been wanting to be rid of the A-10 is because most USAF officers joined the USAF to become ace fighter pilots. They would rather fly high in sleek fighters and win air to air engagements than to fly low in a warthhog and kill tanks.

Some of my friends would disagree.

It is a suspicion I have about the brass in the USAF.

Why join the USAF as opposed to other services? The USN has as many technical fields for those who want to work with high technology.

So why the attraction to the USAF if not for the image of the ace fighter pilot?

So talk with some of the guys who actually fly the Warthog instead of the 'Brass'

Why the attraction? Oh, maybe some of them are forward thinking and know that some experience in large multi-engine aircraft or Helos may have some commercial applications after they fulfill their commitment to Uncle Sam. Others like the simplicity of the Hog and squeezing that 'loud' button on the stick. ;)

[Sixgun Symphony]

Ok,

I just have this image of USAF officers wanting to be the ace fighter pilot with the silk scarf draped around their neck.

[el borracho]

Yeah, sounds like its a done deal when the JSF appears (2008 last I heard). By the way, the JSF is not an air superiority fighter (thats the F-22's job) but rather a jack-of-all-trades plane that will pick up any slack that the F-22 can't take care of. Comparatively its not that expensive, as it was designed to be a low cost, low maintenance assistant to the F-22. Also, others mentioned that the AF was considering replacing A-10s with F-16s, that's party true...the actual plane was a delta wing style based on the F-16, I forget the model's designation but it kinda resembled the Rafale or the Eurofighter. But the AF ended up nixing the program.

[Trigger]

el borracho: I think you are referring to the F-16XL

p.s. your screen name rules :lol:

[AFACadet]

Yes, the F-35 was designed as an air-to-ground aircraft from the start with a small side mission of shooting down aircraft if need be.

The AF was planning to replace the A-10s with normal F-16s.


The delta wing F-16XL was designed to take over the role of the F-111. It lost out to the F-15E in that role. The main reasons were the Mud Hen had more range, more payload, and a two person crew. The F-16XL could cruise much faster though...

[WARPIG]

Once again cadet... leave the USAF recruiting to the recruiters. What you want to be and what IS are two different things.
I am well aware of what technologies are. I happen to work for one of the develpers of that technology. I also have friends and relatives that work of r similar companies. My uncle for instance was on the Ace Board for the C17 and is still working the program on the civilian side. Having said that.. Thrust vectoring.. VTOL and any avionics improvemenst that doesn't significantly improve the current programs will not be adopted by the USAF NAVY or any other organization. The request by the Airforce is for the JSF to meet the requirements to replace the F16, A10 and to complement the F-22. It has yet to do so or be awarded the role. Lockheed is working toward that. If a viable UAV replacement is offered, then the role of the A10 may change. If a viable rotorwing aircraft is asked to take those direct air support roles.. then the a10 may see less action. Don't get military requests, contractor concepts and what IS going to happen confused. So far the request is to replace the A10 and F16 but tactically it is a big order to fill. More likely the Navy will implement the aircraft first and then the airforce will look at what they can use it for after a contract is awarded by the Navy. The post asked for opinion and that is what this thread is about. Before accusing anyone of not thinking "outside the box" first find a less used catch phrase and second, try thinking a little less linear yourself.

[AFACadet]

You got my two posts confused. Look at what Six was saying about how the THOUGHT the AF worked. My response you quoted was for that.


So far the request is to replace the A10 and F16 but tactically it is a big order to fill.

I fully agree.

Just interested, but what company do you work for?

[WARPIG]

Six may have a little dislike for Zoomies... no sweat.

As for my company.. well your not cleared for that level of info yet Jr. ;)

[AFACadet]

You may be surprised ;)


But if it is FOUO or classified, yeah, this wouldn't be the best place to spout it out...

[Sayeret]

Right after world war II the US had just started to create guided missiles. A lot of the theorists and people believed that fighter aircraft would no longer need cannons or machine guns because fights would take place miles away with missiles. Even a lot of the air force commanders believed that so the new F-4 Phantom fighters were made without a cannon. When the F-4s were sent to Vietnam it became clear very fast that cannons were still needed. The missiles that the fighters fired at the NV planes often didn't hit. Other times the American fighter pilots couldn't fire the missiles till they got close enough to the enemy plan to see it visually because they didn't want to hit one of their own aircraft. By the time they would fire the missile the NV fighters would be to close and would shoot them down with their cannons. So the USAF started adding cannon pods and and machine gun pods to the F-4s so they would be effective against the NV fighters. Now because of that war the air force continues to give its fighters cannons so even the newest aircraft such as the F-22 and JSF will be armed with a cannon of some sort.

This is just something to think about between the JSF versus A-10 debate.

[Sixgun Symphony]

I am wondering about payload. Does the new F-35 has the payload of the A-10?

Does it come with a gun? If the F-35 is made for medium to high altitude engagement of ground targets with missles, then I doubt it comes equipped with a gun. That creates more questions.

So how many missiles can this new aircraft carry. Would an A-10 with its gun be able to engage more targets when the F-35 runs out of missiles?

How about cost effectiveness? Is it a good idea to shoot expensive missles at an old soviet tank? How about light vehicles, trucks, and infantry? Would it not be better to use a gun on targets such as these?

[Barry McKockiner]

Jeesh....zoomies.... :bash:
Too much of this :petting:
Not enought of this :fork:
p-)

[AFACadet]

Sayeret,

Read my posts again, I specifically brought up that point.


Six,

There is full payload and combat payload.


The usuall combat payload for an A-10 is 4 Mavs, 2 Sidewinders, 1 ECM pod and the GAU-8. Now of course this can change (eg cluster bombs, dumb bombs, rockets, ect).

The 4 Mav's and GAU-8 give the A-10 something like 5-7 kills per mission (once again, that can be more or less depending on the conditions and weapons carried).

The JSF carries 2 AMRAAMs plus 2 JDAMs. That's significantly less than the A-10 with this loadout. Using SDBs that can go upto 8. If you give a hit rate of about 80-90%, that will give the same 5-7 kills. When you bring LOCAAS into play, the JSF can carry 16 of them (of course some will have to go outside, but with a 40-60 mile range, that won't be as much of a problem) With a 70%-90% hit rate, that can give 11-14 kills per mission.


Does it come with a gun?

Yes. It was a BK 27 Mauser, but that was changed last year to an undisclosed 26mm gun. The AF version will carry 150 rounds (or something around that). Once again, saying the JSF will use its gun in the same way as the A-10 is going back to the 'old' way. The gun on the AF JSF will not be a main waeapon like on the A-10.


How about cost effectiveness? Is it a good idea to shoot expensive missles at an old soviet tank?

Depends on what environoment you're in. The JSF is planning to take out tanks (even extremely cheap ones) in very high threat areas on the FLOT. It's the most cost effective if you kill your targets without getting shot down. In the case of the A-10s, thats a few million down the drain (plus the cost of weapons). You also have a pilot down behind enemy lines and mybe captured. If that's the case, then that's another 1 million down the drain and one less pilot. If the A-10 is simply damaged, it takes a while to repair the aircraft and also costs more.


How about light vehicles, trucks, and infantry?

Yes, a gun can kill these targets very cheaply. You can kill these targets with almost any weapon though so just send a couple WCDMs downrange from high altitude.

Also remember I was saying about the directed energy weapon. These are the perfect targets for this weapon. If the laser was solid state, the energy from the turbine can go to the weapon so it can recharge in flight. In this case, a single JSF can take out from long range more targets then 2 or 3 A-10s. And it can do it for just a few cents per shot instead of a couple hundred dollars per burst for the GAU-8. Like I stated before, this technology still needs to mature. If the AF goes forward with this weapon, it will be a few years before it gets into service.



I'm glad you brought up infantry, because this is were the A-10 DOES have a major advantage over the JSF. There is no large weapon that can target individual troops like a GAU-8 can. Of course you can lob a JDAM at them (happened all the time in OIF and OEF to good effect), but when friendlies are a few feet away, this is not an option. The SDB will bring the 'danger close' closer but still not as close as a GAU-8.

I don' t think we are at the tech to target individual soldiers with a directed energy weapon either.


Does the vastly greater survivability and ability to find enemy targets while at the same time lowering the risk for friendly fire outweigh the ability to target a few individual soldiers here and there?

That will catch a lot of people (probably including you), but if you look at the targets killed since DS, the vast majority of them have been tanks and other vechicles. Now, when there are enemy troops in close vicinity with eachother, they are dead. period.

The guys in Afghanistan learned this and now they only travel in small groups (less than 12) because they know there is a SOF guy with a connection to a JDAM equiped aircraft unseen above.

[hank]

Afa, thanks for explaining that. I see what you mean about a new conceptual way to approach ground attack. Appreciate the hand holding for a non-techie.

Don't worry about sexdart, he has already read what somebody else said about the AF so he has made up his mind.

hank

[crazyman]

ok, so now youre bringing lasers into it. lets keep with whats on the board. the JSF has the makings for a helluva fighter bomber. AV-8's, F-16/18's will most likely all be replaced.

the A-10 is not a fighter-bomber, its a CAS aircraft. until either A: your "directed energy" weapon is operational or B: we build an aircraft that can carry enough guided missiles, GAU-8 style weapons have to be the mainstay of CAS aircraft.

also, stealth is no substitution for good ol' armor in this mission. Stealth technology will make the F-35 a great fighter bomber....for attacking bridges, supply caches, fuel depots, etc...but it aint gonna help over a ground battle.

as i see it there is not a single aircraft out there that can replace the A-10. i'd challenge anybody out there to name one. the day that A-10s are no longer out there covering my ass is the day i transfer to AG

[AFACadet]

For all you A-10 fans out there I just found this: "

Roche said the Air Force intends to upgrade some of its old but rugged A-10 Thunderbolt II close-air-support aircraft, which could serve as a "bridge" to the STOVL JSF. A still-to-be-determined number of A-10s will undergo a sensor system upgrade, re-engining and service life extension."



also, stealth is no substitution for good ol' armor in this mission.

So it needs an extremely heavy structure if it will never be in the range of AK-47s, 23mm anit-aircraft guns or SA-14s and if SA-6s can't see it at the range it flies?

[Merik]

I apologize if something like this was already stated since I didnt read all of the posts. Just wanted to get this point across.

The only thing that would be capable of replacing the A-10 in all of its greatness and in its functions would be something very similiar to the AH-56 Cheyenne. In fact, it was partly because of the Air Force in all of thier glory that squashed the Cheyenne program along with the AH-64.

The AH-56 is capable of speeds that can match the A-10s and it can out manuver it as well. Payload wise, all you have to do is take a 155 round and stick a guided bomb kit and viola, instant LGB. The current airframes of the Cheyenne(which most are being left to rot outside of museums)can be refurbished,gone through and setup for fly-by-wire technology. Plus it can be configured for multiple roles such as scout, attack, etc. using the new digital technology that is available on the market. On another note is the fact that in doing this it would probably be cheaper for the Army than the current LongBow and Commanche programs. Dont get me wrong though, Army Aviation NEEDS the Commanche. Its that important. The funny thing about this idea for the Cheyenne is that there have been two seperate programs funded by private investors proposed to the Army but was rejected due to the LongBow and Commanche supporters.

[crazyman]

go to a CAS range sometime and watch A-10s and F16's do their thing. they are at their best, most accurate work when they go in LOW. Also, the 3 times i've been to CAS ranges up at Ft. Drum, the A-10s have always racked up far better scores then their faster counterparts. gotta be close enough to ID the sheeps and the goats with the ol' mark 1 eyeball. 'fraid technology can't do that for ya. just because it doesnt have fun bells n whistles doesnt mean it's not a great aircraft. I'd be willing to bet juust about anything that the JSF's intended repalcement of the A-10 goes the same way as the F-16 CAS program. all you wing wipers seem to have issues with anythign that can't go twice the speed of sound, and doesnt have all sorts of gadgets.

[Yard Ape]

Not certain, but is the JSF not supposed to replace all of F-16, A-10, F-18, and Harrier?

[AFACadet]

crazyman,

You completly skipped my first post and missed the whole concept. Reread it again please.

[obd]

yes, part of the reason the USAF has always wanted to rid itself of the A-10 is because of a long standing debate, mostly between the USAF and the US Army, on the efficiency of tactical air support vs. strategic high value bombing and interdiction. Believe it or not, but there are those within the Air Force who make the claim that it is a waste of time and effort for the USAF to develope and field aircraft designed specifically for close air support such as the A-10. Now some may argue that the A 10 is a good interdiction platform but other argue, convincingly, that it has too short "legs" (range) for most interdiction ops.

Here is my take on the matter: I agree that the A-10 is a poor interdiction aircraft due to its limited range, speed, alititude, radar signature, etc... and I agree that it really is a specialized airplane BUT, I agree with the Army that close air support is vital in war, not just from a cost/benefit standpoint but for the sake of trooper morale. Knowing you have A-10's on hand can dramatically raise morale and fighting capability even if the A 10's see no action.........

The USAF has been trying to move away from close air support since before the Gulf War, well in reality since it became an independent air arm really. I say that if the damn USAF abandons the A-10 then the US Army should go the route of the Marine's and make thier own small Close Air Support air arm as a "FUK YOU" to the Air Force.........

[angry cow]

As an Army Cadet, I'd certainly like to be able to see the A-10 being continually upgraded and serving on the infantry's shoulder for a long time to come.

The Air Force has an institutional thing about blowing bad guys planes out of the sky, and I'm sure they're very good at it. But the fact is that they need to be able to support the operations of the other branches.

In effect, the job of the entire military would be shifted towards support of the infantry if, God forbid, we were ever to get in a full-scale war. (Please don't say it won't ever happen, they said that when they signed the Treaty of Versailles) Even the Marines are essentially there to establish beachheads for larger follow-on forces. The special forces, even the airborne, all work to make the infantryman's job just a little easier, by winning hearts and minds and conducting forced-entry operations.

But even in a low-intensity conflict, to fulfill the needs of the AirLand Battle Doctrine, the Air Force must be able to provide the Army and Marines with effective and devastating Close Air Support. In order to fulfill this role, it needs to have loiter time, a large store of weapons, the ability to quickly distinguish friend from foe, and accuracy to avoid fratricide as friendly and enemy forces close with each other. The A-10 is the only aircraft that meets these requirements.

The bad guys get CNN too, they're not going to mass vast armored formations without significant Air Defense Artillery assets. If they do this, the JSF, Stealth Fighter, Stealth Bomber, and B-52s can go to work on them. But I don't want anyone but a trained pilot who can see me and the enemy to drop the bomb on the lone tank a few hundred meters from me, especially in an urban environment with potential for lots of civilian casualties.

[marktigger]

CAS is one of the most valuable missions an airforce provides. The A10 is the best platform currently in existance for this mission because they are designed to survive in the CAS enviroment. This is where the F16 dramatically failed. There is no way of getting away from the Low and Slow in some enviroments as prevailing weather, Terrain and Imposed ROE's may make it the only way a CAS aircraft can find, identify and destroy its targets. Example in Sierra Leone the RAF harriers had to go to low levle to identify their targets which they the coul not engage because they had bombs and rockets with insuficient accuracy to obey the ROE's 25mm or 30mm cannos would have had the necessary accuracy by bright sparks in Mod though they could save money by abandoning the 25mm aden project. But the RAF now carries 30mm aden packs from the GR3. In GW1 due to smoke over the battlefield CAS had to be done at low level.
If anthing the CAS aircraft needs the survivability of the the A10. It needs to have some long range optics to allow identification. And good datalinks so information can be passed.
The raid by the apaches in the recent gulf war was the classic conditions a CAS aircraft has to contend with were every grunt on the ground aims skywards. The Apache couldn't survive in that enviroment would a comanche? an F16 wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell and unless there is a major redesign of the protection on the F35 wouldn't. The A10 probably would still function.
Talking about all the new hi-tech weapons that can come in from medium altitude may be fine on the Gulf War but when operating in an enviroment where colateral damage is an issue and correct identification of targets visually before any engagement may mean the CAS aircraft not being able to operate at medium altitude.
The Bench mark for proection for a CAS aircraft should be the A10 yes develop a newer airframe but improve the protection and redundancy so the survivability improves.

[WARPIG]

See, that is the point. The role of the A-10 is what keeps it in our arsenal. Just because a JSF can kill tanks better doesn't mean it fits the role.
Why do we still have AC130 Gunships then. Don't we have strike fighters for that? Because the slower speed, armor, and direct firepower allow those types of weapons platforms to support ground forces with much better ability to detect friends from foes.
The Warthogs, Spectre and Spookie, Apache, and Comanche programs are all going to continue their roles in CAS. Staying out of reach of the enemy is great.. but when your brothers are on the ground and need that extra fire power, you better be able to see what your shooting.

[WARPIG]

Just a quick question. Any one know of any program Gen Dyn or other that would compete with the GAU-8? Originally the weapon system and targeting was all low tech, crosshairs on the target stuff. That was due to the incredibly hi-velocity of the 30mm round and rate of fire of the 7 barrel system. Now there are some targeting enhancements. What gun system was the JSF going to us again?

[crazyman]

i read your first post AFA...and its typical zoomie BS. The A-10 was and still is THE best aircraft for CAS. i understand that the USAF thinks a fighter-bomber like the JSF, or an F-16 can fill the role via guided bombs and such, but the experiments with the F16-CAS program throughout the 90's prove that wrong. look at it from a mission-oriented view.

Mission: support ground forces, interdiction of armored vehicles including Tanks, APC's, arty, C&C vehicles. to do this you need to be able to spot and ID your targets. this is especially true today, now that we're doing so much work with our allies, and you really have to discern the sheeps from the goats. Theres' no technological way to do this, it requires the ol' mark-1 eyeball. therefore you need to get low n slow over your target area. To get low n slow, you need 1: a crap ton of armor, and 2: the ability to quickly engage targets. this pretty much garauntees use of a GAU-8 style cannon. all this also means the aircraft has to be able to function low-tech if it gets chewed up. gotta be able to not "fly by wire".


By its very design as the worlds' newest multi role fighter-bomber, the JSF will make a moderate CAS aircraft at best. and dont even give me that crap about directed energy weapons. when those come about in 2250 or whenever, the whole face of combat may well change. until then stick to that which is within this decade, and that which will be on the aircraft when it is initially fielded. If every program the USAF ever came up with was a reality, we'd have lasers mounted on satelites, ala reagan's SDI program

[Barry McKockiner]

Arguing that newer and faster technology can do the CAS mission better is akin to arguing that the missile eliminated the need for a gun. Same argument took place in the 70's that the SAM made the airplane useless. It's all been proven incorrect.

AFACadet, go read about a real leader, not the crap you get washed over with at the Zoo. Try reading "Boyd."

The A-10 is the finest CAS aircraft ever flown. The F-35 will never be able to come close to it's effectiveness even with small, smart, hi-tech bombs. Add a low ceiling and the F-35 is worthless. No laser, no TV bomb, and a GPS bomb isn't good for a moving tank. The only option is to get low and slow and fight it out. Weapon Systems have become incredibly smart, but their designers haven't managed to keep up. We need another A-10 to keep the CAS mission alive.

[MxxxFxxxx]

Arguing that newer and faster technology can do the CAS mission better is akin to arguing that the missile eliminated the need for a gun. Same argument took place in the 70's that the SAM made the airplane useless. It's all been proven incorrect.

AFACadet, go read about a real leader, not the crap you get washed over with at the Zoo. Try reading "Boyd."

The A-10 is the finest CAS aircraft ever flown. The F-35 will never be able to come close to it's effectiveness even with small, smart, hi-tech bombs. Add a low ceiling and the F-35 is worthless. No laser, no TV bomb, and a GPS bomb isn't good for a moving tank. The only option is to get low and slow and fight it out. Weapon Systems have become incredibly smart, but their designers haven't managed to keep up. We need another A-10 to keep the CAS mission alive.

"Boyd" a great read and insight. The guns/missiles argument is also similar to the one on how ATGMs would make tanks obsolete and how tanks made machine guns obsolete, etc..... for every weapon system there will be a counter system and each will continue to "be better" w/ each evolution.

btw, Barry, I've seen the OODA loop thing before but what does it mean? OR is it a "secret squirrel" phrase. If so, don't tell me because I wouldn't want you to have to kill me....j/k :)

[aktarian]

The A-10 was based on old technology and concepts that have been around since WWI. Its a great aircraft, but there are better ways of doing stuff.


M4 uses technology and concepts that were around for several centuries (with some modifications of course ;) ). Why are they still used?

[Fox2]

Looks like we have a lot of Hog fans on this here board. :D

[martinexsquaddie]

well maybe instead of buying more smart lasers weapons
some copys of AFV recognition manuals might be an appropiate
buy :(

[marktigger]

have to agree martin pity the RAF was to short sighted to buy A10's and Show the yanks how its done.

[Fox2]

Fratricide is a terrible thing. Something needs to be done when it happens, definitely. And you can bet your ass the pilot involved hates himself for it.

But to generalize an entire branch of a nation as being incompetent over an incident of fratricide is pretty daft.

I'd challenge either of you to try and make the distinction between a Warrior and a BMP-2 with just your Mk.1 Eyeball at 6 kilometers. I doubt you could tell much of a difference from that distance. Hell, even with the infrared, all you're going to see is white blobs at that distance!

Furthermore, could you tell the difference between an APC and an armored air defense vehicle? How is the pilot to know that the vehicle he is looking at isn't mobile anti-aircraft artillery, or a SAM unit? If he overflies, he might get shot down. However, if he doesn't overfly, he still doesn't know if it's friendly or not. And if it ends up being hostile, and he leaves it alone, where does that leave the people on the ground he's supporting?

Also note that you've gotta get clearance at one point or another to blow something up. Either the pilots are given an area of land on a map, and told "If anything moves in this area, you kill it" or he gets permission from someone else (FAC). Blaming only the pilot is ridiculous.

I don't mean any offense to either of you with this rant, but I am getting tired of this correlation between fratricide, the A-10, and the USAF.

What makes you think the A-10 is so much more susceptible? You think that a fast mover going twice or three times the speed of the A-10 will be better able to identify friend from foe? Really?!

I love Britain. The British armed forces are some of the best in the world. That said, however, I'm sure that the RAF is just as capable as the USAF to commit fratricide. As is any other air force in the world. It's all circumstancial, and it involves a hell of a lot more people than just the pilot.

Sorry for the rant, but this whole bringing up fratricide every time the A-10 is mentioned bugs me.

Have a good one.

[WARPIG]

Good points.. all of you. My view is that if the JSF can get heavy armor off my ass, without killing me or my troops, and do it faster... Hooah. I have yet to see the capability or applicability anywhere. The ability of the aircraft is amazing. I am well aware of the deployabity aspect and the potential and realized air combat tactics that thrust vectoring will bring to the air. It doesn't play into CAS missions though. If the weapons systems get better at discerning friend from foe.. then platforms like the JSF would be a smart option. Sometimes a plain ole screwdriver is better than a powerdrill. Even a laser guided, computer aided, mulit-speed power drill.

One thing to think of as well. We are looking at the aircraft capabilities and how they fit the CAS role in a part for part scenario. We have to also consider the way land war is fought and how the JSF fits in. Objective Force Technology uses mulitforce networks and teamwork among them much more than we do today. Ground troops will have equipment to relay realtime intel and be able to "paint" targets without any special equipment. UAV scouts and UCV platforms will also be able to relay enemy locations and guide a myriad of munitions into the threat. Outreaching the enemy will take on a whole new twist. That being said... we still have to put boots on the ground and CAS will still be a staple.

[WARPIG]

Good points.. all of you. My view is that if the JSF can get heavy armor off my ass, without killing me or my troops, and do it faster... Hooah. I have yet to see the capability or applicability anywhere. The ability of the aircraft is amazing. I am well aware of the deployabity aspect and the potential and realized air combat tactics that thrust vectoring will bring to the air. It doesn't play into CAS missions though. If the weapons systems get better at discerning friend from foe.. then platforms like the JSF would be a smart option. Sometimes a plain ole screwdriver is better than a powerdrill. Even a laser guided, computer aided, mulit-speed power drill.

One thing to think of as well. We are looking at the aircraft capabilities and how they fit the CAS role in a part for part scenario. We have to also consider the way land war is fought and how the JSF fits in. Objective Force Technology uses mulitforce networks and teamwork among them much more than we do today. Ground troops will have equipment to relay realtime intel and be able to "paint" targets without any special equipment. UAV scouts and UGV platforms will also be able to relay enemy locations and guide a myriad of munitions into the threat. Outreaching the enemy will take on a whole new twist. That being said... we still have to put boots on the ground and CAS will still be a staple.

[usa320]

Not certain, but is the JSF not supposed to replace all of F-16, A-10, F-18, and Harrier

I believe the plan is to replace all A-10's, and AV-8B's. Then to replace A, B, C and D model hornets. F-16A and B models used now by the reserves will be retired and replaced with the currently active F-16C and D models. only F-16C blk60 models will remain in active service. The rest will be replaced by the F-35.

The F/A-22 will replace F-15C and D models, which will replace the Reserve's a and b models. The F-15E will remain in service for the forseeable future.

Personally, i think there really isnt a need for the JSF.

I say upgrade the A-10 with new avionics, add JDAM capability.

Replace older F-15A's with C's and Replace C's with F/A-22's.

Super Hornets will remain in service, with the E/A-18 and K/A-18 models going into service within the next 2 years or so. I also suggest they oughta upgrade the entire AV-8B fleet to the British GR.7 standard, which has better electronics. Also, they should keep the newer F-14D's in service, because not only will there be a need for a carrier-based strike fighter with longer range than the hornet, but the Tomcat can also double-task, carrying out recon and attack sorties at the same time.

Personally, i think there seems to be a new feeling that older platforms with newer technology can are still very capable fighting machines. Look at the B-52. Its from 1952, and with new updates it will be flying till 2050. The U-2, also from the 50's, now being refit with enhanced glass cockpits...

I think the military oughta realize that we own the air already, why waste money building new platforms when the ones we have are excellent as is. All thats needed is some new avionics and weapons upgrades and an F-16 is just as good as a JSF.

[marktigger]

Fratracide is the reason the A10 needs the datalink and the capability to augment the MK1 eyeball then add in some AFV recognition for the pilots. BTW I would have thought with all the vis recce stuff added to AFV's in GW2 it would have been twigged it was coalition scimitars being shot to **** on the first pass? The reason the HCR guy only got a George cross was it was the USAF shooting at him not the Iraqis!!!!! if it had it would have been a VC award

[martinexsquaddie]

two wars two losses of afv by A10s
genrally uk forces don't like a10s

[Yard Ape]

I belive the Marines lost an AAVP7A1 to an A10 aswell.

[marktigger]

I think if the A10's were RAF crewed they'd prefer them. And I think that is the same for most foreign troops in coalitions trust in the USAF is at an all time low.

[Royal]

Fratricide is a terrible thing.

It is indeed, but that does not excuse poor training or equipment.


I'd challenge either of you to try and make the distinction between a Warrior and a BMP-2 with just your Mk.1 Eyeball at 6 kilometers. I doubt you could tell much of a difference from that distance. Hell, even with the infrared, all you're going to see is white blobs at that distance!

The problem was that neither engagement occured at anything like that distance. In the most recent incident the HCR troops on the ground could make out the pilots helmet.


Furthermore, could you tell the difference between an APC and an armored air defense vehicle?

Yes, because I take pride in my military skills. AFV and A/C recognition being but two of them.

I've said this before, and I'm very sad to say it again. UK forces are more afraid of the USAF than they are of the enemy.

[WARPIG]

I can definately understand that. Before I say this I want to apologize for the vague details, but I know of the ongoing fratracide problem.
I know that the USAF has to take some of the responsability in the several fratracide incidents over the past several years, but I also have read and heard from Squaddies about several requests for better equipment and ID markers for Brit ground forces. Maybe you can point to the proper sources but I seem to remember a former Officer that was trying to get funding to equip Brits with the same equipment that US forces use to signal pilots of friendly armor.

If the hi-tech option is meeting opposition maybe the lo-tech alternative will help. For instance, US and British troops often are involved in exchange programs. Maybe the USAF would benefit from doing more training with Brits. Also, we MP's often train in "shoot/don't shoot" scenarios, this is much different than the cowboy and indian training that I had as an infantryman. USAF could be put through more strenuous target ID training as well.

[marktigger]

Just a pity 12 AD was deployed as PW guards they might have been more use deployed with the troops. Maybe taking out a couple of USAF aircraft comitting 'Hostile Acts' might focus the USAF's minds ;)

[marktigger]

WARPIG all the responsibility falls on the USAF even when told not to engage they do like in Afganistan with the Canadians. The Usual response is a white wash investigation its abot time one or two pilots/US personnel were properly court martialed career finished and or Jail for there actions.
An RAF air traffic controllers career has been finished over the incident of the USAF F15 flying into a mountain in Scotland.
The Americans are notorious in their inability to recognise other nations kit. All British vehicals in GW1 & GW2 had visual recognition signs on them. The Idea that technology can sort the problem is a falicy the tech solutions all comprimise forces as they are active emitters and therefore can be DF'd the best passive solution's are recognition training and visual identification of target enforced by stringent ROE's that are enforced and pilots held to account for their actions. Yes the arguments about stifiling creativity of pilots will be put forward by the powers that be in the USAF but their present reputation is of trigger happy cowboys and not the professionals they should be recognised for.

[WARPIG]

Look, I am no big fan of Zoomies myself, but I think your a little biased on this. The problem with fratricide goes a much deeper than some trigger happy pilot. I won't put blame on the groundpounders but when alied forces work in close prox to each other.. there is more than enough responsibilty to go around. I am not saying that the active transmitters are the answer but on a command level the Brits and US need to have some more direct communication when operating in the same neighborhood. For instance a USAF ops team is usually in the TOC coordinating for the Zoomies. That is where the fix is. Having a similar function either working with the TOC or through the USAF crew in house would help. I don't assume to know how the ground/air commo works and how the RAF handles this.. but communicating your position on the ground is the groundpounders responsibility. Making all the air assets aware of who is on the ground is a command responsibility. ROE enforment is a command responsibility. That is where the blame should go. I do agree that when USAF pilots don't adhere ROE and put their safety above the rules.. they should be held accountable. Shooting at a target without confirmation is still a big mistake even if it is shooting at you. It used to be a rule of thumb but as the shape of combat changes that "kill box" becomes harder to see and the FEBA is non existant. Time for the USAF to catch up but the command and guys on the ground need every tool they can get to make their presence known to friendlies.

[Barry McKockiner]

Just a pity 12 AD was deployed as PW guards they might have been more use deployed with the troops. Maybe taking out a couple of USAF aircraft comitting 'Hostile Acts' might focus the USAF's minds ;)

Hey AssClown, there were two incidents of dumb ass duck hunting Patriot batteries killing coalition pilots. They killed 2 british flyers and one US Navy Pilot. I know because I recovered all three. I don't think it is appropriate to poke fun at their loss. You truly are a dumb****!
-edited for spelling-

[marktigger]

I'm not poking fun at the destruction of the Tornado or the Hornet by the patriot or the deaths of the crews concerned.

I'm Talking about preventing British soldiers being Killed by United States Airforce aircraft. Who in GW1 managed to kill more British troops than the Iraqis did. And In GW2 made 2 strikes against British forces who had AFV's clearly marked as friendly. It is reaching a point were British troops are more scared of the USAF than the enemy. It would appear that US forces can attack their allies and get away with it the enquires appear to us to be a white wash and proceedures do not appear to be altered.
Until the USAF is more transparent and takes more efective action against the pilots involved in Blue on Blue confidence will fall in them to a point were either the UK will not participate in coalition ops.
What does it actually take to make the USAF realise the harm it is doing?

[Royal]

What does it actually take to make the USAF realise the harm it is doing?

I fear that the only things that will work are either a major blue on blue between the USAF and the US Army/USMC and I don't think even the NG Hog pilots are that stupid - or as Martin suggested a coalition unit shooting down a USAF a/c as very nearly happened last year with a UKSF team.

[marktigger]

Royal a Male QA officer I know went on Patrol in A'Stan with your lot and he was saying at one point there were 2 A10's orbiting over them he was saying he and the Booties were Kaking themselves and it was the only time he was really scared when he was out there.

[Royal]

Royal a Male QA officer I know went on Patrol in A'Stan with your lot and he was saying at one point there were 2 A10's orbiting over them he was saying he and the Booties were Kaking themselves and it was the only time he was really scared when he was out there.

I've had the 'pleasure' of CAS from the USAF a few times and it's definitely something I can live without. I've twice been subject to strafing runs by them - once in Kosovo (in a bright orange OSCE VPK) and once on a patrol in the 'stan. In the first instance several Kosovar civilians were wounded, in the second we were unscathed.

[AFACadet]

MARK.TIGGER,

To get over all that stuff (and so you can get over yourself)

It will take aircraft like the JSF that have datalinks to connect with JSTARs and ground units around the FLOT and its APG-81 that can tell the difference between a T-72 and a Challenger from dozens of miles away.


It will also take weapons that will accuratly kill those targets with a very high PK and extremely low CEP.



It will take the grunts to actually learn something about military aviation and how they operate. Most guys on the ground don't understand air power and how it works or the requirements. You can't keep going through the battlefield oblivious to that fact and still live. Just like you must learn to respect your rifle, the ocean, or fire (or it can kill you), you must learn to respect airpower because it can easily do the same. They do a pretty good job teaching the guys on the ground (or ships) the first three, but very little on the 4th.


And finally it will take ground commanders to swallow their pride and tell the Army to buy equipment (radios, datalinks, ect) so the AF aircraft know exactly where they are.

Both the Air Force AND the ground forces need to let eachother know where they will be operating. This disconnect results in a lot of problems.

[Royal]

It will take the grunts to actually learn something about military aviation and how they operate. Most guys on the ground don't understand air power and how it works or the requirements. You can't keep going through the battlefield oblivious to that fact and still live. Just like you must learn to respect your rifle, the ocean, or fire (or it can kill you), you must learn to respect airpower because it can easily do the same. They do a pretty good job teaching the guys on the ground (or ships) the first three, but very little on the 4th.

AFACadet - I'm not sure you can talk for the US forces and you certainly can't talk for UK All Arms training.

All the examples quoted to you (both in Iraq and in the 'stan) have involed forces exactly where they were supposed to be.


And finally it will take ground commanders to swallow their pride and tell the Army to buy equipment (radios, datalinks, ect) so the AF aircraft know exactly where they are.

which is what TACP's and FAC's have done perfectly well for years.

[marktigger]

AFA as we've already said the JSF may not have the survivability to do the job. presentation of information is essential to help prevent fratricide.

But Grunts have enough to worry about without adding in their own airforce.

And sorry but the idea of active emmiters on vehicles is a non starter yes it will tell friendly air were we are but it will also tell hostile elint were we are to. And since we don't have the option to run away are x-hundred miles an hour its not practical.

The best policy is for anything the airforce wishes to engage being positivly Identified visually by a FAC who authorises weapons release or by stringent rules of engagement and pilots being under no illusion they will be enforced and any engagent of friendly forces their career is over, they are probably going to jail and they personally will be liable for what happened.

[AFACadet]

Not exactly with the radios and datalinks (especially with the datalinks). The datalink problem is an AF one as well, but we are fixing that now.

A good deal of the fratricide problems are based on the aircraft being in the wrong area, the ground units being in the wrong area, both, or someone simply not letting the other know where they are going.

And Reports I have read where people are waving their arms or sticking flags on the back of their tanks don't cut it. That shows an extreme lack of understanding.


I'm not saying this stuff happens in ALL cases. But in most of these cases, it could have been easily prevented by the points I made above

(eg if you going to call in a JDAM strike, actually KNOW how to use the equipment... it does not do much good if you send up your position instead of the enemies--and yet the AF gets blamed for the results).

[martinexsquaddie]

being a poor infantry man I was trained to tell the diffirence between friendly and enemy afvs at 2k using a thermal imager its a bitch but it needs to be done surely tom cruise and his mates could give it a go as well?

[AFACadet]

There's the catch...


You were not flying



Its 1000% easier to identify a ground vehicle from the air if you are in a nice stable aircraft with specialized instruments.



You can't do that when your flying at 250-300 mph 100-500 feet off the ground pulling a lot of Gs, flying your plane, trying not to crash into trees, watching out for any AAA or SAMs working the weapon systems, searching for targets, ect ect ect.

It gets to the limit of what a human can do.

[marktigger]

and as a former air defender we were given less than 5 secs to identify an aircraft and make a friendly hostile decision with the Naked eye at 1 k so we could do the same thing with the optics at 9k to hit at 5k.

[Royal]

And Reports I have read where people are waving their arms or sticking flags on the back of their tanks don't cut it. That shows an extreme lack of understanding.

No, it shows desparation that the pilot has ignored his ROE/slept through his AFV recognition classes/strayed from his box or can't ID coalition marker systems.


(eg if you going to call in a JDAM strike, actually KNOW how to use the equipment... it does not do much good if you send up your position instead of the enemies--and yet the AF gets blamed for the results).

That incident wasn't mentioned for exactly that reason.

[WARPIG]

MARK.TIGGER,

To get over all that stuff (and so you can get over yourself)

It will take aircraft like the JSF that have datalinks to connect with JSTARs and ground units around the FLOT and its APG-81 that can tell the difference between a T-72 and a Challenger from dozens of miles away.


It will also take weapons that will accuratly kill those targets with a very high PK and extremely low CEP.



It will take the grunts to actually learn something about military aviation and how they operate. Most guys on the ground don't understand air power and how it works or the requirements. You can't keep going through the battlefield oblivious to that fact and still live. Just like you must learn to respect your rifle, the ocean, or fire (or it can kill you), you must learn to respect airpower because it can easily do the same. They do a pretty good job teaching the guys on the ground (or ships) the first three, but very little on the 4th.


And finally it will take ground commanders to swallow their pride and tell the Army to buy equipment (radios, datalinks, ect) so the AF aircraft know exactly where they are.

Both the Air Force AND the ground forces need to let eachother know where they will be operating. This disconnect results in a lot of problems.

Where does a friggin piss-ant cadet get off telling Tigger to get over himself?
Of all the people on this thread that is full of himself it is you boy! Put your "military acronym" text book away and talk from some substance.

The Squaddies have every reason to bent up about the USAF. My only problem with some of the comments is that they are a too narrow. The USAF definately have an issue with target ID but the blame doesn't completely fall on the pilot. It is easy to hang a pilot out for the wolves to feed on but the problem won't go away. Our way of combat has to change. New equipment isn't always the answer. Close air support will always have its problems. The word "close" being the main reason for this. By the way.. I am a grunt and am quite knowledgeable on the USAF capabilities. USAF pilots have some changes to make... but the command and control needs to be fixed first. The Armed forces are in a big state of transformation. The interim between our forces now and the objective force is going to leave big gaps. Because of the operational pace our forces keep today is high.. the price paid for those gaps will be high. I think the general concensus here is that the technology improvements are only improvements if we can use them.

[marktigger]

There's the catch...


You were not flying



Its 1000% easier to identify a ground vehicle from the air if you are in a nice stable aircraft with specialized instruments.



You can't do that when your flying at 250-300 mph 100-500 feet off the ground pulling a lot of Gs, flying your plane, trying not to crash into trees, watching out for any AAA or SAMs working the weapon systems, searching for targets, ect ect ect.

It gets to the limit of what a human can do.


AFACadet alot of us on the ground understand this we also understand this is why pilots are on higher payscales and in Higher ranks. As they say Lifes tough at the top.

[Fox2]

The Squaddies have every reason to bent up about the USAF. My only problem with some of the comments is that they are a too narrow. The USAF definately have an issue with target ID but the blame doesn't completely fall on the pilot. It is easy to hang a pilot out for the wolves to feed on but the problem won't go away. Our way of combat has to change. New equipment isn't always the answer. Close air support will always have its problems. The word "close" being the main reason for this. By the way.. I am a grunt and am quite knowledgeable on the USAF capabilities. USAF pilots have some changes to make... but the command and control needs to be fixed first. The Armed forces are in a big state of transformation. The interim between our forces now and the objective force is going to leave big gaps. Because of the operational pace our forces keep today is high.. the price paid for those gaps will be high. I think the general concensus here is that the technology improvements are only improvements if we can use them.

I concur.

Like I said, there's many more people involved in an incident other than the guy releasing the ordnance.

I also don't think it is something you can attribute solely to a single airframe like the A-10. It's like saying that only taxis can commit traffic violations. It simply does not hold.

I think the USAF needs to look at how it works, and what could be fixed. The command and control needs refinement, and (like Mark said) the pilots need to know that if they screw up, they are sure as hell responsible for it. At the same time, the guys on the ground need to make absolutely sure that the friendly planes know where they are.

Have a good one, guys.


EDIT: Redhead analogy was not so good. :oops:

[marktigger]

Agreed the speed of combat is changing and the days of the CAS aircraft roaming over a battlefield and engaging at will are over. Pilots must now come under command and drop when told to drop and hold when told to hold. Feeding 1 or 2 to the wolves will focus the minds of the rest. And where there are mistakes there should be through transparent investigations no the usual white wash and those at fault held accountable for their actions.
Maybe the USAF should swallow its pride and admit it really screwed things up. We as its allies will be more than willing to help and that might also then produce standard ROE's and proceedures that will help everyone.
The question of visual recognition needs to be addressed by everyone from private/airman/seaman up to the top the UK have an ITD that teaches its troops visual recognition the limitation of this is it is only British kit on the all arms list. Thereshould be principle foreign equipments on it to.

[WARPIG]

I think we see eye to eye on most points... I see your hostility toward the USAF pilots but don't necessarily agree at this point.
One thing to add though. If the UK kit is changing as fast as the US is.. friendly ID is going to be more and more difficult. Even for a hi-tech system. US military uses a training area with "VISMODS" to mimic enemy kit for realistic training. VISMODS can be used to trick those hightec and lotech ID measures. Communication, command and control is where it has to be. I think the Army's Landwarrior system is a little taste of that ability. Making a comm link available to air assets or at least their command would be a real necessary first step. Well... maybe getting those ROE's enforced would be the first step.

[usa320]

think if the A10's were RAF crewed they'd prefer them. And I think that is the same for most foreign troops in coalitions trust in the USAF is at an all time low.


Yeah, well i think theres a far greater number of American, Canadian, Afghan, Iraqi and British folks who OWE THEIR LIVES to the precision of American airpower and the support of American close air support.

A-10's destroyed maybe 4 friendly armored vehicles, as compared to thousands of Iraqi armored equipment.

I agree the A-10 should definately get the Datalink and other modern equipment that the F-15E or F-16C has, but i think it is still a damn good plane without it.

Personally i dont think that you British folks are in any position to criticize American CAS missions, because how many British CAS missions were flown durring Iraqi freedom???

Of course more accidents will occur involving American assets if 80% of the aircraft flying are American. British people have no better eyesight than Americans... A Harrier could have just as easily mistaken an M-113 for a BMP...

[WARPIG]

Hmmm.. good point. The relative size of the force and the quantity of sorties compared between the US and UK are pretty wide. Anyone got any percentage stats? Not that it would make me feel any better about the dead squaddies at the hands of USAF but its an important factor.

[usa320]

No different than the fact that the majority of Casualties in Iraq are American- merely because the overwhelming majority of troops conduncting patrols and offensive actions are American.

[martinexsquaddie]

while also killing a uk aircraft
exactly how many Iraqi air attacks were made?

[AFACadet]

Communication, command and control is where it has to be.

I fully agree. This is the very root of the problem and this is where EVERYONE has messed up.


A landwarrior type system (compatable with aircraft datalinks) would be excellent.


That will go a long ways with fixing fratricide, but fratricide is an ugly aspect of war. The best anyone can do is to minimize it as much as possible.



They guys on the ground get both the benefits and negitive aspects of airpower.

The ground guys require air superiority to function to the best of their abilites. In fact, that what the US Army expects for their combat operations.

That is pretty well covered. After the Korean War, not a single US Army member has been attacked by an enemy air unit.


I also don't hear any complaints when a B-52 or B-1b takes out a Battalion sized force of Taliban or Republican Guard on a single pass like they did a number of times in OIF and OEF.


CAS by its very nature is dangerous too ALL sides. And once again, the best that can be done is to minimize the danger as much as possible.



Hopefully, the USAF, US Army, and all our allies have taken this to heart (from the USAF side I least, I already see a number of imporvements they are trying to do to help the situation).

[martinexsquaddie]

issue manpads down to section level :(

[marktigger]

USA320 how many bombs dropped from our CAS ops landed on US troops?
the issue of how many troops killed isn't the issue here it is how many of our troops were killed were killed by the United states airforce?

We actually are in a position to criticize your airforce KILLED some of our troops

30%of UK CAS ops were flown in support of UK forces and USMC
70%of UK CAS ops were flown to assist US advance

That was with 20 harrier GR7

No we may not have better eyesight but for the most part our airforce seem to avoid hitting friendly forces.

When you actually ever see a proper deployment you might actually understand what we are talking about. Properly controlled yes percision air support is an excellent asset but when it comes to the point where your allies are uncomfortable to have your airforce operating above their troops then you have a problem. Except your government is willing to go it alone which obviously in the case of Iraq they wern't.

and if you think a BMP look like an M113 you need to go away and learn a little vehicle recogntion.

the significance of the friendly AFV's destroyed in friendly fire seems to go right over your head. you or your brother or your best friend could have been in those vehicles we aren't talking about a computer game here we are talking about real life and real people dying fairly horrorifc deaths caused by their friends and allies!! Which shouldn't happen 1 death in fratricide is 1 to many.

[Fox2]

Which shouldn't happen 1 death in fratricide is 1 to many.

Agreed here.

[WARPIG]

Winchester!

Tigger, if directing your hostility at USAF pilots gives you direction.. so be it. I think my points were pretty valid. Unlike Royal, I have not been on the recieving end of a USAF CAS run. So, I never assumed to know how it feels or what all the factors are. Come to think of it... Royal didn't assume to know all the factors either.
I was trying to get us to back up and look at the big picture but it seems whether we are looking at technology or who to blame.. ignorance seems the comfort zone.

For you zoomies.. "I say again, winchester! Warpig is blind, bugging out. Request RTB."

[Fox2]

For you zoomies.. "I say again, winchester! Warpig is blind, bugging out. Request RTB."

:lol:

Agreed though, what's needed is to look at the big picture, assess the problem, and simply fix it. On both sides of the line. Holding a grudge will not do any good.

Mark, I doubt the pilots who were involved in these incidents are celebrating over a 6-pack. I guarantee they are not just brushing it off and carrying on with their career willy nilly. The emotion one would feel is probably comparable to a policeman who accidentally shoots a kid. They are never the same.

[usa320]

That was with 20 harrier GR7

20 planes doesnt compare to the thousands of USAF aircraft in theatre performing CAS.

Again, i think there is no reason for friendly fire...but it happens...

THe best anyone can do is work to improve communications between air and ground forces.

I also think its absurd however to ignore the sheer numbers and statistics.

Had Britain been flying thousands of CAS sorties, im sure there would have been friendly fire incidents involving RAF aircraft.

[marktigger]

Again, i think there is no reason for friendly fire...but it happens

try explaining that to the families



Had Britain been flying thousands of CAS sorties, im sure there would have been friendly fire incidents involving RAF aircraft.

or maybe not

Fox2 the impression that comes across is that nothing is done the investigations are a white wash and no remedial action is taken like grounding the pilot until he is proven safe with his abilities to recognise targets and rules of engagement.. And the impression that UK forces is that US forces don't bother to do any sort of recognition training. I realise that flying CAS is not easy but thats why pilots get beter rank and better pay than the average infantry soldier.

[Royal]

It's sad, but unfortunately true that most British (and I suspect Canadian) troops would celebrate the Court Martial of a few USAF jet jockeys.

Admitdedly some of the problem is down to perceptions, but something has to be done, and seen to be done, for perceptions to change.

[Basil]

The problem with friendly fire incidents comes from a number of areas- it's like a plane crash- it's usually a few factors that come into play not just one factor- although there are excpetions.

This covers both Air to Air and Air to ground fracticide.

Sensors:-some of us may have seen imagery from TADS sensors of Apache Gunships shooting up friendly forces in the first Gulf war- the engagement took place at night time- basically the crews opened fire on Us Forces thinking they were iraqi mechanized Units. The firing stopped after a radio call was made that friendlys were being hit.

One of the problems was lack os sensor clarity- a lot of the current aircraft and choppers still have technology that was developed in the 70's and 80's which has been surpassed- currently there are programs to field more up to date systems that will ID the target at much greater ranges than previously were able to. Some previos systems esp TADS coudl ID a vechile as a tank at 5miles Plus but not type- TADS II will be able to ID type.

NCTR is another area at least in air to air engagments that allow increased ability to ID a target before firing. This and IFF and emissions (radio or radar) from the target will help to ID another plane at BVR ranges. But it's foolhardy to rely on only one area- IFF especially- planes may have the wrong code or have INOP IFF as probably happened with the Patriot Shoot down of a Tornado GR4 and F/A-18 over Iraq.

Recognition:-
Visual recogntion of aircraft or ground vechiles from airborne or Ground to Ground etc are the most fundamental of skills. Especially if sesnors are imoperable or the combat has reached the visual arena- problems can occur when armies and air forces use similar looking or indeed the same platforms against each other.

A Plane at 8000ft relying on visual MK 1 eyeball us going to have a tough time IDing any ground vechile as hostile or friendly without an EO Sensor. The problem of flying lower to get a positive ID puts the plane firmly in the trash fire zone above the battlespace where light smal arms and MANPADS can and will cause casualties. Usually this will dictate one pass at the target- usually the firing pass as well- making numerous passes on the same target is usually avoided esp at low level.

I've heard and read of poor exampls of ID training- the most blatant error was the shooting down of Two US Army blackhawks over Southern iraq Circa 94 by two USAF F-15C's, both AWACS and the Eagles Ided them as Mil-24 Hinds- The Bhawks had the wrong IFF setting, but since the Eagles closed to 6 to 10 miles astern and visually ID'd them before firing there should be no excuse for this- a balckhawk even with ESSS is very different in profile to a Mil-24.

Low level ID by an A-10 is crucial as well- depending on what alt and speed there at will dictate there level of ID ability- but if the A-10 gets low it should be able to positively ID a target.
Esp using the Maverick Seeker in daylight esp using EO version.


Command and Control:-Obviously if ground forces don't propery communicate location to higher command than there will be problems with kill boxes etc. ground forces entering free fire areas. Ditto with aircraft entering SAM free fire areas.

Obviously CAS strikes in close proximity to ground forces close comms is needed to relay friendly postions and enemy locations. FAC's are very sueful here and commonality with radio equipment is useful- having multiple radios to talk to three different units to orgainise an airstrike while in contact isn't easy.

Weaponry:- The modern weapons being used by both aircraft and ground forces have increased in ability to kill and do so effectively- a hit with an AGM-65 Maverick will kill any armoured vechile..... as will lat gen hellfire missiles- as will a patriot missile on an aircraft... as will the main gun on an Abrams or challenger II on another vechile. A friendly bullet will kill a friendly just as easy as it kill an enemy.


All these factors must be considered in making judgement on an incident- obviously fail in any of these areas and it will lead to friendly deaths.

Sometimes there's just dumb luck or lack of.