Air Force releases future plans for the ACC

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:55:57 -0400

The Air Force released its strategy for updating the ACC. Within this strategy it is mentioned a need for a new CAS platform to replace the A-10. Could it be that they have finally realized that the F-35 will not fit that bill? Will they actually make sure it is a pure CAS platform and not try to stuff as many toys as possible into it - which is one of the main reasons that the F-35 went off the rails.

New ACC Strategy Underlines Need for A-10 Replacement

A new strategy document released by US Air Combat Command lays out an updated roadmap for modernizing legacy platforms.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 12:15 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:15:41 -0400

They failed if the goal was to put as many toys on it as possible as I have yet to see a PS4 or Crapbox One installed on any of them!

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Aug 18 at 2015 12:18 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:18:59 -0400

Alright I might be simple. But why not just redo the A-10. I understand that we can't fit the new tech in the old craft. Why not just start from the beginning and just redo the old air frame to fit the new stuff. Redo the the cockpit and the engines. Redo the flight system and put all the new toys into it. Just keep the present craft configuration. That plane is a Freaking beast and is like a damn G-shock watch. Can't bust it!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 1:29 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:29:52 -0400

We have many stable platforms that could be modified (not added on to) for a good CAS platform. As long as the mission remains focused (as you mention pure CAS) this shouldn't be an absurdly expensive undertaking.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Aug 18 at 2015 3:35 PM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:35:19 -0400

I think if we look down the list of desirable attributes of an ideal CAS platform what we end up with is an A-10 with updated counter measures, avionics and perhaps a higher top speed. An E/A-10(D) if you will.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 18 at 2015 5:18 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:18:16 -0400

The Military and the Manufacturer will praise glory on this plane. They will counter every argument with their own. They will say it has 109 rounds for CAS missions. They don't need to worry about dog fights because it can see further than the enemy planes.

Response by 2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 11:49 PM

2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:49:49 -0400

As an A-10 Avionics Technician and current USAF UPT candidate/officer applicant, I can assure you the arguments for retiring such a functional and effective airframe are mostly invalid. For the posters on here that mentioned "putting new technology" in an "older airframe" -- that's already occurring and has been pretty much since the A-10's inception. The A-10 is treated like any other military aircraft in terms of Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTOs). As maintainers we're constantly being instructed to add/remove/replace/upgrade something on the A-10. Specifically, the avionics and weapons delivery systems found on the A-10 are on par with just about any other modern military aircraft in the US inventory. If you look in the cockpit of an A-10, it's quite similar to many fighters.

Fun fact: GE was commissioned several years ago to design a faster, more fuel efficient engine for the A-10. GE delivered but the Air Force declined to go through with the project and allocated those monies to other A-10 upgrades. Why we couldn't have both? I'm not entirely sure. As a service, we seem to find plenty of other less productive things to spend our money on.

As I said earlier, most of the arguments for retiring this aircraft make no sense. The "it's old" argument is complete nonsense. Why? Barring a select few airframes, everything in the US military's aviation inventory is old. Most of the A-10s in service today were manufactured between 78-80. There are F-15s and F-16s in service today that are several years older. For perspective, the B-52 is 60 years old and isn't slated for retirement until the late 2030s. Another example of old? Go talk to the Marines about some of their helicopters...

The "it's not survivable in contested environments" is also BS. I can't go into a lot of detail due to OPSEC reasons, but this aircraft is adequately equipped with a variety of modern countermeasure dispensing systems to operate in contested airspace. Also, if we went to war with a near-peer equipped with a modern air force, A-10s en route to/from or during the execution of CAS missions would be shadowed by F-22s, F-15s, etc...much like how Apaches and other rotor wing airframes are escorted by fixed wing assets. The A-10 wasn't designed to go toe-to-toe with SUs and MiGs. It WASN'T DESIGNED FOR THAT MISSION SET. Do we use C-130s for dogfighting or F-15s for strategic bombing runs? No. We have specific aircraft for each of those missions. Every aircraft has its purpose...I'm just not convinced the F-35 will be able to perform all of the tasks it's being designed for as well as each of individual, specialized airframes it's replacing.

That's what the F-15s and F-22s are for. F-15s and F-22s aren't really good at CAS...they can do "airstrikes" but CAS is a completely different animal that requires additional training and practice. An airstrike is dropping laser guided munitions from 10,000 feet at near mach. CAS involves getting into the weeds...flying between 200-1000 feet AGL, going low and slow, talking to the guys on the ground, and loitering for long periods of time. It's a difficult skill set to develop...just like learning how to dogfight in an F-15, F-16 or F-22.

The A-10's original purpose was to destroy soviet armour...and Gulf War Round 1 proved that fact when we, in a very expeditious manner, dismantled Saddam's armored forces (most of which happened to be comprised of Soviet technology). Then we figured out that in addition to destroying armor, the A-10 is an amazing CAS platform. It can operate from austere environments...its engines are located above the fuel lines (so FOD and battle damage are less of a concern), the beefy landing gears also help with landing on poorly maintained runways...or no runways and the cockpit is encased in a giant Kevlar-lined Titanium bathtub. This plane really was purposefully designed to get the pilot close to the ground and protect him. Hell, I bet if you put a tailhook on these jets, and taught the pilots the necessary skills, they'd be great for carrier-borne operations.

Lastly, the cost argument really irritates me. The US military is allegedly slated to order about 2500 F-35s. Depending on which unit cost for the F-35 we use, saving 4.5 billion dollars by retiring the entire A-10 fleet (about 280 jets) equates to being able to purchase about one to two additional squadrons of F-35s. Trading 280 extremely effective CAS platforms for somewhere around 25-30 F-35s? I think the war fighting capability of the US military will be preserved if we forgo those last 30 or so F-35s...especially considering CAS for the F-35 seems to be more of an afterthought. (Gun pods? Really? I feel like we've tried this before.)

In general, as a Former Marine, I can personally attest to the effectiveness of the A-10 as a CAS platform. A lot of Special Operators, Marines and Soldiers are alive today because of this plane. It's that simple. The future of warfare isn't large troop formations. We're going the way of the Light Infantryman and Special Operator. Warfare is becoming more and more asymmetrical. The military is now expected to operate with surgical precision -- long gone are the days of using a sledgehammer on everything. For better or worse, whether we agree with it or not, that's is the evolution of warfighting. The A-10 has found its niche and I think we should continue modifying the plane until there's serious consideration for a meaningful replacement. Designing one airplane to perform too many tasks, in my professional opinion, is a recipe for disaster. With the F-35, I fear we're going to end up with a Jack of All Trades...which means it'll end up being a master of none. (It's difficult to defend a plane that lost in a series of mock dogfights to a Block 40 F-16...yeah, yeah I know. The F-35 in that trial was one of the very first production models, it didn't have all of its "fusion sensor technology" blah, blah, blah...I know the backstory there, but history teaches us that relying too much on technology and not developing skills...like dogfighting and using guns doesn't typically end well -- research US Fighter Pilot kill ratios between WWII and Vietnam. The results will shock you.) Anyway, I'd rather deal with the logistical issues of supporting individualized and specialized airframes -- all of which are proven.

All of that said, every new airframe the US has brought to operational status has faced severe criticism. The Osprey, F-15, F-15, etc...all had their share of negative publicity and these airframes proved the critics wrong...I sincerely hope that is the case with the F-35. A lot of lives will be depending on this plane in the future.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 19 at 2015 11:20 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:20:26 -0400

It appears this plan has two parties: Detractors who say this plane can not do everything as promised. Supporters who say this plane is all around world class.