Can know where the target is with real time reconnaissance. All kinds of real time reconnaissance available.
Modern Jet Fighters are WWII Battle Ships.
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
Real time reconnaissance depends also on the enemy, weather etc.
Also, usage of decoys is generally overlooked in these discussions, and they ate super useful.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2023
- Messages
- 1,022
I am no expert, but isn’t there talk of equipping the A10 with up to 16 MALDs or 5 JASSMs? (For those who don’t know, these are advanced decoys and cruise missiles). Combined with the ability to operate from austere runways and its low operating cost, it might just have some life left, no?
While I agree it’s obsolescent, I have read it may yet prove to have some limited utility as a low-flying standoff decoy/cruise missile truck in a near peer conflict, freeing more advanced aircraft for more advanced duty. I have heard of scenarios where they operate from quickly-constructed makeshift island runways in the Pacific theater, for example.
For COIN and CAS operations AT-6E in certain scenarios is good option. If you need to drop 1,000lbs bomb you can do it with F35 etc. I always say that the fact that Ukraine never asked for A10, should be writing on the wall to people who thinks it is best thing after sliced bread.
I get that. However, I was really getting to a specific scene from a movie - one that many former military pilots have claimed made no sense. But it was a movie where someone ejected at Mach 10 and somehow his remains didn't end up spread out over multiple states. At least where they had ridiculously good info on what the target looked like and its exact position (I think they even had precise coordinates). In a situation that sounds suspiciously like the trench run in Star Wars. I was just thinking that if the info was that good, an overwhelming number of cruise missiles might just do the trick without putting pilots' lives at risk.
But I gotta say the special effects looked awesome, including the launch of the cruise missiles and the explosions of the airstrip, which I understand was really South Lake Tahoe Airport. I also remember touring a cruiser or destroyer where our guide was standing on one of the hatches, while one of his buddies popped in and said "Tell them why you shouldn't stand on that."
First thing that doesn’t make sense is not destroying SA-3 batteries with CM.
I saw an interesting discussion with a former A-10 pilot, and he conceded that the aircraft needs a permissive environment to operate. However, he was adamant that any plans include achieving that environment. And that there are some things that other aircraft simply can't do as well, and that it frees up other aircraft. I know lots of others don't agree, especially USAF top brass that have been trying to eliminate it for decades.
However, it's got a lot of fans as the plucky underdog. I totally get it. Along with all the ground troops that love it. And their concern that other aircraft used for CAS might not have pilots with enough training to support the mission they believe they need.
Cross-check with multiple real time reconnaissance sources to give enough confidence it's not a decoy if you're going to burn a multi-million dollar cruise missile or similar. At some point you either decide to strike or not based on the reconnaissance.
yeah, but the Army has a use for it and the Air Force doesn't but as I said, the USAF aint going to allow the Army to fly airplanes. Know what I mean..
. Tells you something about politics, and interservice rivalry.
the A10 is a Stormovik... Exactly what it was supposed to be... ground support.. not a fighter, not a bomber... a ground support aircraft.
but that isn't the role the USAF wants to fulfill. The USMC knows the value of CAC.. the Army appreciates the value of CAC but the air force seems to keep their eyes on the shiny object.. that seems to be the issue..
meanwhile the services and especially the air force have wedded themselves to a one size fits all roles Swiss Army Knife aircraft, so you have that too.
They are committed to it whether or not it is the best idea and there is no way to back out of it..
Yeah, doesn’t work that way. Again, in Serbia survival of mobile forces is attributed to decoys. Multiple sources might not be available. But yes, at one point you have to make a decision.
Again, the main thing: air superiority! You can’t do anything with A10 without air superiority. It is too expensive to maintain such platform for occasional use in the wars like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Well - I don't think the Army wants it if they're going to have to pay for it with their aviation budget.
I thought for the USAF the issue was that it's one more platform they need to support and that's been one they've asked to eliminate for over 30 years. There's no manufacturer support any more, as they went out of the aircraft manufacturing business after the last A-10 came off the line.
The Marines value CAS of course, but they don't want the A-10 to do that. They're going all out of the F-35B/C, to the point where they're eliminating their last F/A-18 training squadron.
Marines Deactivate Historic F/A-18 Hornet Training Squadron - FLYING Magazine
The U.S. Marine Corps last week officially deactivated F/A-18 Hornet Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron (VMFAT) 101.
www.flyingmag.com
I guess they call this "flying the barn".
exactly..... what are those F15 and F35's but air superiority.. but then think this thru... when was the last time the USAF fought for air superiority? Mig Alley over Korea or possibly some action in Vietnam but even in that fight most of the danger was from SAM;s when was the last time an A10 provided close ground support? .
you can look at Desert Storm, but whatever Iraq had flew off and interned itself in Iran... meanwhile they were using F4 Wild Weasel squadrons to take out Iraqi radar and anti aircraft and also used A10's for that role.. n
what is the A 10 for? that close to the ground stuff... and they already have them. It isn't like a proposal to build more A10's...
and no one can say these things have aged out until the USAF gets rid of the B52.
Personally I think many times people are always preparing to fight the previous war.
Every argument you just made is about the previous war.
If you think the A-10 has any use in a near peer conflict, you’re stuck in previous war thinking.
The F-35 absolutely has a vital role in a future war. Stealth, air to air, then, as conditions change, bomb truck and CAS, all while providing more sensor data, to feed to other platforms, from each airplane, than the entire fleet of A-10s could ever hope to provide.
There is a lot more to air warfare, or close air support, than a big gun.
Well - I don't think the Army wants it if they're going to have to pay for it with their aviation budget.
I thought for the USAF the issue was that it's one more platform they need to support and that's been one they've asked to eliminate for over 30 years. There's no manufacturer support any more, as they went out of the aircraft manufacturing business after the last A-10 came off the line.
The Marines value CAS of course, but they don't want the A-10 to do that. They're going all out of the F-35B/C, to the point where they're eliminating their last F/A-18 training squadron.
Marines Deactivate Historic F/A-18 Hornet Training Squadron - FLYING Magazine
The U.S. Marine Corps last week officially deactivated F/A-18 Hornet Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron (VMFAT) 101.
I guess they call this "flying the barn".
the Marines never used the A10... and I think this whole thread has went off track. as the A10 or F35 thing isn't any more relevant to the battleship than anything else.
You do realize at a certain point the armed forces are married to making the F35 work and you can bet they will... and it will be one of the most expensive weapons they have ever put into place. but they have already strayed from the original idea of a common aircraft that would be multirole and affordable. Kinda like the Seawolf Attack Sub...
go back to the Battleship and you realize its role became that of a gun platform with the advent of aircraft carriers..
basically they kept em in service because they were brand new at the end of WW2. mothballed em more than once, saw some use in Korea and Vietnam.. Reagan brought them back to life...
As Astro pointed out, you are talking previous war. In Serbia A10 saw very little use bcs. SAM threat. When you have enemy that is trained, A10 is sitting duck, even with air superiority. It is not cheap maintaining old platforms. It prevents also buying new stuff, faster transition. Considering current threats, A10 doesn’t have a role.
maybe, but when was the last time we fought a peer? Russian Bear bombers
It's pretty obvious the Russians aren't the threat they were made out to be and anything revolving around China is going to be a long range affair most likely fought in the sea lanes.. or B52s flying from Diego Garcia..
so what is the role of the F35 besides sucking up money in R@D?
Think they will ever announce what happened to the USMC F35 that flew itself into the ground in SC a few weeks ago?
is it going to end up like the LCS?
Lets face it, the Air Force still thinks they are going to bomb someone into the stone age with a shiny new plane or they are going to be fighting the Luftwaffe over Berlin... and reality seems to be they bomb people who can't do anything but be surprised.
We keep engaging ourselves in battles with people riding donkeys and Toyotas but who never have airplanes of their own. LOL
If the next conflict is preparing for dealing with China or perhaps Russia, then no the A-10 doesn't have a place. And it isn't that cheap to operate. I seen numbers that suggest that an A-10 costs about as much per hour as an F-16.
The B-52 is a very different aircraft from what I understand they have plenty of life left and a mission that the USAF is still interested in doing.
Russians are not threat we thought they are? Is that why UKR cannot approach battlefield with air assets? I operated Russian SAM systems, like any SAM system, or any weapons systems, it depends on training of the people. Don’t forget, Serbians downed F117 with SA-3 from 1962. And it wasn’t luck. After that they shot down future chief of air force in F16 with same battery.
Also, there is a lot of talk about war. Yes, you make stuff to fight wars. But, it is FAR cheaper to have deterrence. A10 is not strategic asset.
it doesn't appear that the Russians can approach a battlefield either.. on foot or in the air.
they shoot their own planes down.. this was last week
