Sildani Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Here's a question: are spare parts for the A-10 still being made, and at what cost? Attack helicopters are great at their job, but they're less survivable than the A-10 because you can only protect rotors and transmissions so much before they're too heavy to work properly. I'm surprised a CAS V-22 hasn't happened yet. Hang some ordnance under the wings with an interlock that prevents firing while the engines are level; or mount it on the forward fuselage. Good loiter time, only a bit slower than an A-10, faster than and not quite as vulnerable as an attack helicopter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 I'm sorry, I can't keep having this argument after hearing the incredible news that a supersonic heavy bomber has a higher operational cost than a single-seat attacker. What's our next talking point, the fact that a single round costs less than a bomb? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 I'm gonna weigh in on this. Can the F-35 perform CAS, yes. Will it be as effective, partially. What makes the A-10 preferable, is the fact that it makes no bones about being stealthy, thus it's payload is not as severely limited (F-35's performing CAS would likely forego stealth anyway), additionally, the F-35, while capable of hauling a greater payload in terms of weight, cannot carry the quantity that an A-10 can. The F-35 is limited in terms of the number of hardpoints it has, 8 hardpoints compared to the Hog's 11, total payload is only 2,000lbs difference. The A-10 has a loiter time of approx 2hrs at 5,000ft, and greater surviveablity against ground fire. Let's also not forget the gun system that the fighters carry. The A-10 has a more powerful gun, and carries 1,174 rounds of 30mm ammunition, compared to the F-35's 180rounds of 25mm. If we look at the math, the Hog can carry 16,000lbs of ordnance on the hardpoints, if we look at the 500lb Mk82, the gold standard for CAS, the A-10 can carry 32 of them, 10 triples and a double on station 11. The F-35 has 6 hardpoints external, allowing it to carry 18, a gross weight of 9,000lbs, leaving 9,000lbs of it's total payload unused. Add to that the A-10's capability to carry a variety of munitions, not just bombs, and the fact that the F-35 has not been tested/approved for that capability, and you have a lack of versatility on the part of the F-35 in performing CAS. The A-10 is the superior choice for CAS, because it was purpose built for that role, while the F-35 is only adequate. The fact that the A-10 has the gun it does, is part of what makes it effective, not because the gun is more effective than bombs or smart munitions, but because of the psychological impact it has on the fight on the ground. Friendlies hear the A-10 make a gun run, and they get fired up, the enemy hears it and they break and run. That's an important factor to consider, in addition to the number of runs an A-10 can make compared to the F-35. The F-35 has the potential to be a great asset, however, I believe it will fall flat as a multi airframe replacement. The F-16 can outperform it in air combat, and the A-10 out performs in CAS/Anti-tank. The F-35 would however make an excellent supplement to those airframes, or future dedicated airframes, as well as offering us a potent day 1 strike fighter. USAF will do what they do, and they'll suffer for it. *All comparisons were made based off of the F-35A, as the Air Force version, it seemed appropriate to compare a USAF jet to a USAF jet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Wasn't something like this pitched to the Air Force for a small and cheap CAS aircraft? I forget the name. Textron Scorpion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Doesn't the army operate attack helicopters for this very purpose? Technically, doesn't the US Army operate attack helicopters because the Air Force won't let them have anything else? Edited March 28, 2016 by F-ZeroOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grigolosi Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) I am done with this discussion. Edited March 28, 2016 by grigolosi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Technically, doesn't the US Army operate attack helicopters because the Air Force won't let them have anything else? The Army isn't allowed to operate fixed wing aircraft over a certain weight, and most fighters and all bombers weight more than their max. I don't know what that max T/O weight is, but it's low enough. I'm surprised a CAS V-22 hasn't happened yet. Hang some ordnance under the wings with an interlock that prevents firing while the engines are level; or mount it on the forward fuselage. Good loiter time, only a bit slower than an A-10, faster than and not quite as vulnerable as an attack helicopter. The V-22 has enough problems without adding that sort of armaments to the equation. Besides, why make a V-22 to do it, when you already have the AC-130? Spooky ain't goin' nowhere soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sildani Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Because the Army MIGHT be allowed to run a CAS Osprey. No way in hell could they fly a Ghostrider. Edited March 30, 2016 by Sildani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Because the Army MIGHT be allowed to run a CAS Osprey. No way in hell could they fly a Ghostrider. The Osprey falls into a weird category, is it rotary wing or fixed? If it's fixed, the Army wouldn't be able to operate it, and if it's rotary, what can the V-22 do that the CH-47 can't? The USAF and USMC are the ones who get the most benefit from the V-22, and maybe the USN. If the Army needs a V-22 they just ask the USAF. Thing is the army has very specific requirements of it's aircraft. Would the Army like to take the A-10? Sure, it means less reliance n the Air Force, not just for the airborne component of CAS, but it would mean they could use their own Joint Fires Observers, rather than Air Force JTACs. In truth, perhaps the Air Force shouldn't have been separated from the Army like it was. Truth is the Air Force should have remained the Air Corps, got a different uniform, but remained under the dept of the army. All that aside, the V-22 would be difficult to make into a CAS platform. It lacks the internal space to mount enough armaments and fire control systems to be worth it, and wing mounted ordnance is a problem in forward flight. The V-22 doesn't use the same mechanism to achieve forward flight as a helo does. So the rist of shooting off your rotor blades is high. I just don't see any way to make a V-22 CAS platform. Besides, attack helos would do do it better, and and fixed wing CAS would do it faster. We tried to turn a heavy lift V-TOL into a gunship during Vietnam, it was a CH-47 called Guns-A-Go-Go, and they were shot down more often than they did any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 How does the Air Force remaining a branch of the Army make any sense at all? That's probably the worst argument I've heard in this whole stupid debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 In news that will surprise no-one, it seems the UK has requested a purchase of nine P-8As, probably the last chapter in the sorry saga of the Nimrod MRA4. I always knew it was very unlikely, but I was kind of hoping they'd go for the Kawasaki P-1, just because it would have been something a bit different (and yes, I know "Because its cool!" is not how one should approach military procurement... ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 How does the Air Force remaining a branch of the Army make any sense at all? That's probably the worst argument I've heard in this whole stupid debate. First of all, I stated my belief that the Air Force should have reamined the Air Corps, under the Department of the Army, but as a separate entity, much akin to the way the USMC is to the Navy. Second of all, why would that be stupid? The Air Force and the Army are still linked, with each providing services to the other that they lack. A unified civilian oversight would not be an idiotic proposition. Additionally, there are plenty of examples of world wide of cooperative, combined arms, and in some cases unified armed forces. two notables: Canada's Armed Forces are unified (though separated by role into separate branches), and the Israeli military is separated by role. The Air Force operates all aircraft and anything related, the Army Operates all ground forces, and the Navy Operates the ships. My suggestion would cut down on the wrangling between the army and the air force, over what aircraft to keep and what to retire. The Army Secretary would get to tell the air force, "you can't get rid of aircraft X, because it fills the army's need Y" or "If you don't want it, give it to the army because they do." Streamlined process. Also, it's my opinion, one which I'm entitled to. If you don't like it, you can ignore it. Alternatively, offer me reasons why you think it's stupid instead of just saying it is. Do you have some operational experience that gives you this insight? If so, please share it with me, so perhaps I might gain more understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 You're entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to be right. And that's all I will say on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 You're entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to be right. And that's all I will say on the matter. When did I say I was right? I simply presented points to be considered in the discussion. My matter of fact demeanor is a result of attempting to convey my points in as clear and concise a manner as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding. I still ask the question, why was my argument stupid? You did not articulate any reasons. I ask you again, do you have some operational experience dealing with joint service operations, that leads you to disagree? I'm waiting to hear some counter points, to the argument I presented. If you can't I'll go on thinking that way. I also ask you, is it that important that you be right? Truly, is that what this topic is about, you being right? I thought it was a discussion about aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grigolosi Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 F-Zero I was reading that back a few months ago that they were in the process of deciding on what aircraft they would choose. I know they were leaning toward the P-8. I kinda figured they would go with it since it is just started operations with the USN starting in 2012 and it is just starting its production run. The Indian Navy and Australian Navy are also purchasing them.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Is there no end to what the 737 Air frame can do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZEOD Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) The important thing to note in the A10 vs F35 argument is that the F35 is a concept, as in, its still not finished, still has "on paper only" components and functions that haven't been proven to work yet or have been built and failed requiring a rethink (helmets, weapons bays etc) where as the A10 is a real tangible item that can be built and deploy right now. Too often designers look too far to the future at the expense of the Here and Now. Its all good having a future weapons system but not if it means having nothing in the meantime. That costs lives. Britain has just had that lesson hammered home with the number of IED deaths on deployments while they wasted 350 million pounds studying a replacement APC/Scout capability since 1996! They had the Production version GtK Boxer and VBCI vehicles to test during Parliments Trials of Truth assessment yet chose the Piranha Concept which has since failed.As a result, the British have been using open top Landrovers and have been dying in droves while the Germans have been driving on the same roads in their Boxers and the French in their VBCIs with no casualties. Makes for great reading and shows that the Pentagon Wars Bradley Development debacle isn't just an isolated US screwup. I've added links to the UK Report and the movie of the American mess. Welcome to what we, as soldiers, put up with day in day out with some of the gear that makes to down the line to us. NZArmy Steyrs with Minimi C9s are a good example. One fires after being submerged, one doesnt. They use the same 5.56mm round but different magazines... yet both are in the same Section together. http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/from-scimitar-to-fres-to-ajax/ They have since had to ask BAE to retool and restart their old Warrior and CVR(T) Hull production lines to rebuild the worn out chassis of the Vehicles that WERE to be retired but now cant as they still dont have a replacement for them. The F35 is another such concept heavy unproven program. Thought really should be given to building new A10 IIs in the meantime. The current fleet HAS to be retired as its operational tempo has worn them out. But replacing them with more A10s makes more immediate sense than with something new, based on the operational needs of the fight RIGHT NOW. Edited March 31, 2016 by NZEOD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZEOD Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Also, Unified forces works on small scales but in a larger organization it gets messy. Its been studied many times and is a favorite for Promotion courses to throw at candidates for debate. It works because of a unified command structure and simplified lines of communication. It fails because of differing logistic, technical and infrastructure requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I was only making a point to consider about unified forces. The US military shouldn't be completely unified, however, I believe that having only two departments, consisting of two branches each that handle differing but complementary missions, is the goal. USAF would handle all of the army's transportation and air support, as well as the projection of air power towards a specified mission, while the army handles the war on the ground, while USAF ground assets would handle setting up landing zones, coordinating air strikes, combat search and rescue, and aviation support (including providing hydrometerological support for intel breifings). Essentially the Air force's job wouldn't change, however common practices, terminoogy, and culture would sync them together more fluidly with a minimal of retraining, not to mention that their budjet would all come out of the same pot, meaning that the Air Force would get told to shut the hell up about the latest new toy (fighter, bomber or whatever) and the guys that actually need new gear would get it. We've been trying to replace the M9 and M4 for almost 14 years now, because those weapons have proven inadequate for the current conflicts. The Air Force receives a large portion of our Military budget, not as much as the army, but the air force has around maybe a third the number of people than the army (so percentage wise the army receives less money per individual), and the same can be said of the USN and USMC (ships cost a ton of money, who knew?). The Air Force takes it and buys into shiny new programs that are long on promise and short on results. With the F-35 we were promised a jet that could outperform the F16 and A-10 at their respective missions, and what we got, is an aircraft that can't, at best it performs just below those benchmarks. Not bad, but also not what was promised. But the USAF has us invested, and they want to make room for the new toys, at the expense of the mission. Fact of the matter is, you don't need stealth once conventional forces have landed. Stealthy strike fighters are best used to carry out strikes from special operations forces, or as day 1/2 air interdiction. Once the line divisions have boots on the ground, you don't need to worry about stealth, the enemy already knows you're there... I feel that stealth is a necessary capability, but, it's not something to build an air force around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 In news that will surprise no-one, it seems the UK has requested a purchase of nine P-8As, probably the last chapter in the sorry saga of the Nimrod MRA4. Should have kept your Tristars in service a bit longer, they'd have SERIOUS range and payload capability if converted to sub patrol duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grigolosi Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) Sildani to answer your question, yes and no. Most modern aircraft avionic systems are LRU's. The bad box is pulled and a replacement is installed once the avionic pointy heads figure out what is wrong. After that the bad part is sent back to the manufacturer for repair. This actually applies to the mechanical systems also. Items like accumulators, brakes, APU's, Hydraulic pumps, shockstruts, etc. can all be rebuilt/repaired either on the base in the back shops or at the depot (in the case of F-16, A-10 and C-130 this is Hill AFB). So in most cases the parts needed are available but in some cases they have to wait for the part to arrive from either the manufacturer or Depot. This happens for all the aircraft in service. This is also why aircraft squadrons usually have a designated cann bird. This cann program rotates through the squadron aircraft and it usually is a 30 day cycle per aircraft but sometimes can go as far as 60 days. Edited April 1, 2016 by grigolosi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grigolosi Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) Now to liven the mood a little.....the reason we drop test every munition and tank that comes off an aircraft.....just click the link it will come up on a public FB page https://www.facebook.com/bloodyfighters22/videos/692547500847558/ Edited April 1, 2016 by grigolosi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Yep, dad will recall when they fitted MERs to the B-52 wing racks, that they would hear the inboard bombs bouncing off of the fuselage. This led them to disable the ejector mechanism on the inboard pylons. Also do some of these justify TFOA reports? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazareno2012 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 For a cheap CAS aircraft, why can't the USAF just buy off the shelf designs such as the OV-10X, T-6C or Super Tucano? These are designs that are good for low-intensity conflicts, such as counterinsurgency missions like those done by the OV-10 in the Philippines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 For a cheap CAS aircraft, why can't the USAF just buy off the shelf designs such as the OV-10X, T-6C or Super Tucano? These are designs that are good for low-intensity conflicts, such as counterinsurgency missions like those done by the OV-10 in the Philippines. F-35 already swallowed the budget whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grigolosi Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) The only things that would have required a TFOA are the drops where the MER was punched off also, unless that was an actual pylon/munition stores eject test to ensure the stores jettison system was functioning with the pylon design. If you look at modern F-16 loadouts, The station 3 and 7 TER's are not loaded with a bomb on the inboard facing position due to the fact the bomb when it comes with a tank on station 6 has a nasty habit of striking the wing tank. This is especially true with CBU's since they are designed to spin once the fins are deployed on drop. The AF is considering an off the shelf CAS for smaller SOF operations where the operational day to day costs of operating larger aircraft like the F-35 or legacy fighters are not cost effective. I know from what I read, the information collected on the 2 OV-10's used over Syria is still being analyzed and until the AF gets that info they probably won't even attempt to make a decision on any future off the shelf CAS bird. The F-35 is eating a large amount of the budget as Schizo pointed out though so that will influence any plans on it. While I was at Eglin just before I retired from AD, Beechcraft had 3 AT-6's there for weapons testing. That is an impressive little plane when it is loaded up with bombs, rockets and gun pods. Edited April 2, 2016 by grigolosi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanner Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 The important thing to note in the A10 vs F35 argument is that the F35 is a concept, as in, its still not finished, still has "on paper only" components and functions that haven't been proven to work yet or have been built and failed requiring a rethink (helmets, weapons bays etc) where as the A10 is a real tangible item that can be built and deploy right now. Too often designers look too far to the future at the expense of the Here and Now. Its all good having a future weapons system but not if it means having nothing in the meantime. That costs lives. Britain has just had that lesson hammered home with the number of IED deaths on deployments while they wasted 350 million pounds studying a replacement APC/Scout capability since 1996! They had the Production version GtK Boxer and VBCI vehicles to test during Parliments Trials of Truth assessment yet chose the Piranha Concept which has since failed.As a result, the British have been using open top Landrovers and have been dying in droves while the Germans have been driving on the same roads in their Boxers and the French in their VBCIs with no casualties. Makes for great reading and shows that the Pentagon Wars Bradley Development debacle isn't just an isolated US screwup. I've added links to the UK Report and the movie of the American mess. Welcome to what we, as soldiers, put up with day in day out with some of the gear that makes to down the line to us. NZArmy Steyrs with Minimi C9s are a good example. One fires after being submerged, one doesnt. They use the same 5.56mm round but different magazines... yet both are in the same Section together. http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/from-scimitar-to-fres-to-ajax/ They have since had to ask BAE to retool and restart their old Warrior and CVR(T) Hull production lines to rebuild the worn out chassis of the Vehicles that WERE to be retired but now cant as they still dont have a replacement for them. The F35 is another such concept heavy unproven program. Thought really should be given to building new A10 IIs in the meantime. The current fleet HAS to be retired as its operational tempo has worn them out. But replacing them with more A10s makes more immediate sense than with something new, based on the operational needs of the fight RIGHT NOW. I ended up watching that whole movie! I quite enjoyed it! I really like Kelsey Grammer! He was awesome in Down Periscope too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Driver Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 For a cheap CAS aircraft, why can't the USAF just buy off the shelf designs such as the OV-10X, T-6C or Super Tucano? These are designs that are good for low-intensity conflicts, such as counterinsurgency missions like those done by the OV-10 in the Philippines. Problem with the OV-10X, is while they miight be new airframes, it's a design that's already been retired once, it's doubtful that they'd bring it back. It's a step in the wrong direction, according to current USAF thought. F-35 already swallowed the budget whole. Also, this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Question to the experts: What is the big deal with the new P&W Purepower Geared Turbofans? hasn't geared turbofans been around for years? Is the big deal the fact that previous GTFs were for smaller biz jets and this is the first time they are being made in this size? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 I think the big deal is that PW is having plenty of issues with them. A320NEO's are sitting at the factory, complete but engineless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grigolosi Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) The best way to fix a P&W. Remove from aircraft and replace with a GE......end of problem. The only good engine they have produced in the past 30 yrs is the F-119 and they had to hire ex GE engineers to design that. It looks like a great idea though but all it takes is one warped shaft and you have a million dollar version of a sneaker in a washing machine.They have been around for several yrs but getting them to work as they are intended has been an issue. I have never seen any gearbox mounted to a jet engine that will last the life of the engine. But if P&W wants to put that guarantee on it more power to them.....I hope it doesn't bite them in the rear. Edited April 2, 2016 by grigolosi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanner Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 does any one know of any good fighter jet photo / wallpaper websites?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 JAS-39 Gripen. The Mazda Miata of fighter jets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grigolosi Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) Try this one Spanner they had large number of good photo's....... www.desktopnexus.com/tag/jet-fighter/ Nice Red Flag Nellis footage. I worked with them in 07' when they participated in the Red Flag Alaska. I have some of the ammo linkages from when they did some target shooting out on the range with the 27mm's. They are tiny compared to alot of other aircraft they only carry one cannon and they only carry around 130 rounds of ammunition. Edited April 3, 2016 by grigolosi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanner Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Try this one Spanner they had large number of good photo's....... www.desktopnexus.com/tag/jet-fighter/ Nice Red Flag Nellis footage. I worked with them in 07' when they participated in the Red Flag Alaska. I have some of the ammo linkages from when they did some target shooting out on the range with the 27mm's. They are tiny compared to alot of other aircraft they only carry one cannon and they only carry around 130 rounds of ammunition. that's excellent thank you! any other good websites anyone know of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizman Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 http://www.airliners.net/ has a good selection if you don't mind the occasional watermark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.