Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[GMK]

In kinda related news, the German Luftwaffe is considering an "exit strategy" from the A400M.

KC-390, anyone?

[grigolosi]

I read they were looking at selling 13 of their order and reducing their fleet to 40. But I imagine they will try to reduce that number also. The 390 sounds like it might fill the gap left by the 400. We will have to wait and see what how well it works for the countries already looking at buying it. In a worse case scenario it will end up like the C-27's owned by the USG. The ones sold to the Afghan AF were never flown and then sold as scrap by them.

[Sildani]

The 400M is in that much trouble? For Christ's sweet sake, how hard is it to build a tube with wings?

[NZEOD]

I hope you realize just how often the gun is used. That gun can get the hurt into places where explosives are a liability. It is a viable concern. I wouldn't be talking it up as much if the F-35 didn't carry only 180-220 rounds. The A-10 Carries over 1100 rounds for the gun. 5mm difference in caliber isn't what I'm on about, it's how much ammo the damn plane can carry. Also, SOP does allow use of the Cannon, it gets used, a lot.

The gun is ideal for use against ground targets that do not have the capacity to return fire effectively. Ground troops with small arms, tanks and light vehicles are especially vulnerable to the GAU-8A. As for low threat environments, I wouldn't say that's strictly true. It is an effective weapon, and if it's not the right tool for the job, then the pilot won't try to use it. It never hurts to have more tools in your toolbox.

All MANPADS launchers use IR guided missiles. That means they are a threat to any aircraft with a tailpipe (read, all of them). Will those penetrate the tub the pilot sits in, yes. Are most MANPADS all aspect? No. That means they're going to track to the exhaust and then explode. We have seen that the A-10 can and will fly back on a single engine, hell it'll fly back on a single engine and a single wing, and 2 weeks later be flying again. MANPADS are not as prolific a threat as they seem to be, as most of the ones finding their way into the hands of our enemies are older systems, not the latest and greatest developments. And as I stated, they aren't all aspect missiles, a majority of the damage inflicted will be to the rear of the aircraft. As for staying out of their firing envelope, that's a solution certainly, but You can't always use mid altitude bombing to accomplish the mission, meteorological conditions will dictate tactics (trust me, mission planning was part of my job for 5 years). Just because we have the capability to engage at range, doesn't mean we always have the ability to do so.

Again, Meteorological conditions will dictate tactics. Also, your logic is the same logic that led to the F-4. "Oh, dogfighting is dead, missiles and guided weaponry is the way of the future, we don't need guns, they're outdated." All modern US fighters are now designed with a gun in mind, and with greater emphasis on maneuverability than speed. Because we learned that we were wrong. Does the A-10 need to rely on it's gun, certainly not, it's perfectly capable without it, but having that capability only helps it. As for the use of bigger bomber in the CAS role, well, they can't loiter. As for the B-52, it cannot loiter. It takes 3 states to turn the damn thing around, and by the time you get a second pass out of it, it's hit bingo (the point at which you have only enough fuel to RTB) and needs to go home. Furthermore, the A-10 can be deployed in country more readily than most of our bombers. Meaning its response time is better. Use the Bombers if they're already inbound, but a smaller airframe is going to be better for immediate response.

You're talking out your ass here bud. Show me your sources. In the last 10 years the GAU-8A has been fired, in anger, more times than can be counted, probably on average of 3 or 4 times a day in that time span. Again show me your sources. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If my rotation at JRTC was any indication of a typical month in RC East during the fighting season, the A-10 fires it's gun a lot, that's not even counting RC North, RC West, and RC South.

I'm also going to hit this point again, since it seems that you're not getting it:

The quantity of stores is what makes the A-10 more effective, even if it's max payload is 2000lbs less than the F-35, the A-10 has more hardpoints, and that give it greater capacity with lighter munitions (32 Mk82's between 11 hardpoints vs 20 Mk82's between 6 external and 2 internal hardpoints, interchange with the GBU-12 or GBU-38, same weight warhead only guided). 500lb bombs and Hydra 70 rockets are the standard CAS munitions, and the F-35 isn't cleared to carry Hydra 70's, which also means no APKWS guided rockets either. The A-10 is simply the most versatile CAS platform we have, and to divest ourselves of that would be folly.

Here's a small arms example: Look at the M-14. It was replaced a mere 10 years after it's introduction, in favor of a more technologically advanced weapon with a lighter caliber and more control. Fast Forward to 2002, The M-14 was brought out of the storehouses, because the M-4/M-16 wasn't able to handle the increased range demands in Afghanistan or the fine talcum powder like sand (without frequent and intensive maintenance) of Iraq. Just because it's old, low tech, and not the absolute sexiest thing out there, doesn't mean you get rid of it because it doesn't embody the doctrine you want to follow.

Doctrine has to change with the situation. Doctrines and SOP's are great, but if they don't work for the situation you're in, you disregard and get the job done the best you can without violating any laws. That's why the Asymmetrical Warfare Group exists, to read the situations, and make corrections to doctrine when it fails.

Quick story about SOP's:

I was doing building and room clearing in training at Camp Blanding, FL. The Second I stepped through the Doorway my weapon came off safe. It was conscious, deliberate, and blatantly against SOP. The SFC doing our training started to ream me good for violating SOP, but I explained to him, that 1) the gun don't go bang if I don't pull the trigger, and 2) Flipping the safety is one more thing to think about that will get me killed, I'd rather be wrong and alive than right and dead. He stopped chewing me out when he heard that. When it comes to SOP's there's no such thing as wrong in war.

SOP's are guidelines, but in the end, you gotta get the job done. So stop relying on that as your reasoning.

Violating SOPs will get you up on a murder charge. They aren't guidlelines, and the real world doesnt mean much in a court room afterward. The instructor is right when you kick in the door to a kid with a squirt gun and you knee jeck the trigger and drop that kid. Right there by violating the SOP you claimed you life is more important than the civvies which is counter to the reason we are soldiers. You train hard enough and the muscle memory to flick from safe to semi is nothing. Its the least we should do a professional soldiers. Thats one reason I have such disdain for reservists and territorials, this is my trade, my career and I take pride in professionalism and working with men and women just as professional, this isnt a weekend hobby or a joyride with a gun. No excuses for violating rules. If they dont work, work on changing them.

[NZEOD]

The 400M is in that much trouble? For Christ's sweet sake, how hard is it to build a tube with wings?

As I said... reinventing the wheel. They forget to ask themselves my favorite line for training soldiers... In Order To Do... What?

we need a new engine with whizbang parts... in order to do...what? What is it that the current design isnt doing?

Nothing? Then we dont need a fancy engine, just a stronger basic one thanks.

The F-35/A10 debate... CAS missions, the plane needs to drop large amounts of ordnance effectively, precisely, in all weather and in all hours in order to support ground ops. Does it need the cannon then? Not really. Does it need stealth? not really. What does it need? Loiter time, range, carriage of ordnance, comms with ground units, on board targetting, slaved targetting from ground units, survivability, low maintanence, fast turn around times, low costs to allow for numbers of units to allow constant overwatch, low logistics or ease of logistics in the least. The rest is a Nice To Have.

[grigolosi]

Like I stated earlier the true heart of this debate in Washinton D.C. is USAF manning. I was never a ground pounder (no offense NZ), my job was fixing the jet and making sure it was ready fly when needed.That being said most of my knowledge comes from conversation with other maintainers. I trust the word of the people fixing them over stat chasing officers and number crunchers employed by the DoD. First hand knowledge is a better glimpse into this stuff. Fact of the matter is that the A-10 currently and in the near future can and does perform the duties assigned to it extremely well. All the aircraft being used serve their purpose and perform their jobs, mostly due to the people on the ground fixing them and loading them to ensure that guys like NZ live to see another day. That is what motivates the aircraft maintainer in theater, and that is what ensures these aircraft are ready to fly or are on station when needed. Again this debate between the US congress and USAF was started simply because the individuals promoted into the positions they are in chose to make some very bad short decisions 6 yrs ago instead of getting their facts while their own personnel were questioning these decisions . They chose to initially cross train hundreds of fighter maintainers to other frames (heavy lift and bombers) and then later on just get rid of them under BS reasons knowing they would need them in the future. This is the inept leadership I was talking about. Now they are covering their collective asses by blaming an air frame that has proven itself over the past 20 yrs and lived up to its manufacturers promise. In the end it is the guys on the ground that will pay the price for their ignorance and short sightedness.

Edited May 11, 2016 by grigolosi

[F-ZeroOne]

Playing devils advocate a bit here. Its worth considering that many famous attack aircraft throughout history have carried ammunition loads that are similar to the F-35s; US types have always been a bit of an outlier because they use gatling guns which usually have a high rate of fire; probably the closest recent equivalent to the F-35 is the AV-8B Harrier, which used a five-barrel 25mm gun with 300 rounds of ammunition. The A-10 is a bit of an outlier in many respects - unlike virtually all attack aircraft since the Second World War, its gun was conceived as its primary weapon and as I understand it, the A-10 was designed to make repeated attacks against Soviet tanks and other forces using that gun, which is why it needed an ammo load which is virtually unique.

As far as survival goes, an argument could be made that its perhaps better not to get hit at all. In combat, of course, stuff happens. No aircraft is immune to damage, being hit, or a lucky shot, but if methods can be devised to reduce the chances of that happening in the first place, then maybe you don't need to wait two weeks for the aircraft to be repaired to start with?

As usual, I'm an interested amateur, no actual service experience here.

Edit: And while I think of it - not all MANPADs use iR systems; there are several laser-guided ones and I seem to recall some variants of the Stinger have a UV/i] alternative guidance method.

Edited May 11, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[Valkyrie Driver]

So hold on let me get this straight:

The one guy who doesn't care about how operating procedures dictate how assets are operated, is the one guy who's actually gotten in trouble for violating operating procedures? Please, tell me more about how breaking the rules is a good thing when multi-million dollar assets and the lives inside of them are on the line.

SOP= Standard Operating Procedures. I'll emphasize the Standard there for you, because those guidelines exist to produce repeatable results under normal conditions. If you have a nonstandard or otherwise hinky situation, a standard response doesn't work. As for getting in "trouble", it was a training situation, we were learning, and my response served me very well in that very nonstandard situation (I probably should have mentioned the mother frakker I had to "shoot" after entry). "Breaking the rules" is perfectly acceptable when those very same rules will result in unacceptable casualties. As I said, when dealing with SOP's (Not ROE), there is no such thing as wrong in war. I think you may have been getting the Two confused.

Oh, and the MANPADS thing: they have limited range, not limited tracking ability. Even the best US-operated MANPADS only have about a 27,000-foot effective range, and foreign built units diminish rapidly from there. If you're too high and far away for the MANPADS to reach you, you're safe. If you're a gun jockey trying to get in and scare the locals, you're boned. Which is why SOPs dictate the use of stand off weapons, because they fire from farther than the enemy can. And they hit with better accuracy than some 28 year old flying on top of an overpowered pea shooter.

First I, never said anything about their seekers being limited in tracking ability, they can distinguish between flares and aircraft exhaust, making them more dangerous. However, the All-Aspect seeker, is not something we have miniaturized yet, due to excessive cost. Most MANPADS, if not all, do not have the All Aspect Capability. If you have a source that states otherwise, I'd very much like to see it.

I think you're also missing another point about explosives. The gun doesn't shoot explosives. If the pilot has to go danger close and a 500lb bomb isn't an option, the gun is the only option left. Explosives are indiscriminate. The rounds pretty much go where you point them.

I want sources for your information. I'm going off of what I have gleaned from books, and various .mil sites that I no longer have access to, as well as having spoken to the pilots, and the guys who have benefited from the A-10.

On the topic of stores: sure the A-10 carries more than the F-35. I'm not advocating the F-35 replace the A-10. We've already done a fantastic job of that with the B-1B and B-52. The B-1 carries stores equivalent to the entire MTOW of an A-10. The Buff, hoo boy. Not to mention, the A-10 can only get itself trans-oceanic if it's carrying nothing but gas tanks. Both the big bombers have combat radiuses the size of the A-10's ferry range. The whole reason we came up with this whole "bombers can use smart bombs" CAS thing was because we could get them over to the bad guys faster than we could logistics a group of A-10s and places to refuel and rearm them. And then it turned out they were just really good at the job.

YOu seem to be missing a valuable point about the bombers, that Grigliosi already mentioned. THE BOMBERS ARE NOT IN COUNTRY! Your point about logistic and the A-10 is nonsense. The A-10 is deployed in country. IN COUNTRY, it can get there faster than the big bombers, unless said bombers are already in the area.

All I can say is the argument I'm seeing here is purely emotional. You like the big growling gun and you don't want to see it scrapped. That's fair. But it's not a good set of reasons. The flexibility of the A-10 does not outweigh the significant cost of keeping a fleet of A-10s and their pilots in the air. The weapons platform is simply not sufficiently applicable to the modern battlefield and does not justify its continued operating cost. The US Air Force sees it that way, and if anybody's bound to be an expert on cost, operations, and tactics, I'd say it's the people who have all the facts about the plane they've been flying for the last 40 years.

It's obvious that you haven't been reading my posts. I have been citing facts, and relating observations from my personal experience, and from information I have gathered. Also, go back to one of my earlier posts and actually read the article from the Air Force Times that I linked. As for the Guys in the Top seats of the USAF, they're mostly idiots, too concerned with getting their next promotion, or finding some board of directors to sit on when they retire, and not listening to the guys on the ground that actually have to do the work. The Generals and the SecAF have run the Air Force into the ground, and you defending them shows just how little you actually know, despite your protestations to the contrary.

TL;DR, You're not reading my responses, and you're not using sound logic. You also don't seem to understand the nature of warfare and conflict.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Playing devils advocate a bit here. Its worth considering that many famous attack aircraft throughout history have carried ammunition loads that are similar to the F-35s; US types have always been a bit of an outlier because they use gatling guns which usually have a high rate of fire; probably the closest recent equivalent to the F-35 is the AV-8B Harrier, which used a five-barrel 25mm gun with 300 rounds of ammunition. The A-10 is a bit of an outlier in many respects - unlike virtually all attack aircraft since the Second World War, its gun was conceived as its primary weapon and as I understand it, the A-10 was designed to make repeated attacks against Soviet tanks and other forces using that gun, which is why it needed an ammo load which is virtually unique.

You're right. But then the A-10 was a first. Throughout the Cold War the US had fighters and bombers, with a few outliers like the A-6 and A-4. The USAF did not have a dedicated Attacker Platform, conceived and built specifically for the Air Force, until the A-10. The A-6 and the A-1, were both originally navy designs. The other ground attack aircraft we had were adapted from fighter designs.

The A-10 was designed to provide the USAF with a dedicated platform that was best suited for that mission. As for the AV-8B, it has some unique capabilities that the A-10 lacks, notably the ability to take off from any flat spot. That somewhat negates the Harrier's lower ammo capacity. The F-35 doesn't really advertise that capability and I doubt you'd see an F-35B taking off from a dirt patch helipad at a FOB in south frakk afghanistan. The harrier has that capability.

I'm not questioning the utility of other Attack aircraft, or even the F-35's ability to perform reasonably well in that role. I am calling into question the notion that the A-10 is obsolete and irrelevant. It offers capabilities that should be supplemented by fighters, and replaced by a new purpose built airframe. I don't want the A-10 replaced by a "this'll do" option, I want it replaced with a, "This does the same stuff, but better" option. Lord only knows what form that will take.

Main point is, yes, you're right the A-10 is an odd duck in our aviation history, but it's precisely those reasons it was developed in the first place that make it indispensable to the current state of warfare.

As far as survival goes, an argument could be made that its perhaps better not to get hit at all. In combat, of course, stuff happens. No aircraft is immune to damage, being hit, or a lucky shot, but if methods can be devised to reduce the chances of that happening in the first place, then maybe you don't need to wait two weeks for the aircraft to be repaired to start with?

That's certainly true. However when you take into account that when you do have to go low, the risk of getting hit increases dramatically. As I stated, many mission factors will limit your ability to use standoff weapons. Urgency, Accuracy, Range from friendly forces, Meteorological conditions, terrain, are all potential limiting factors, that can inhibit the use of standoff weapons. Dust kicked up by wind or explosions, can attenuate lasers, Solar weather can cause unacceptable GPS errors, smoke can obscure targets, making it impossible to fix with a precision munition. Oh, and let's use Schizo's favorite reasoning, SOP's. SOP's dictate that visual confirmation of the target is required for all danger close airstrikes. The Target must be marked with smoke and the pilot must have visual confirmation before engaging the target at danger close. I agree with the intent behind SOP's and in most cases favor following them, except when they'll get me or my buddies killed. That said, with few exceptions, I would never engage a target without visual confirmation.

As usual, I'm an interested amateur, no actual service experience here.

No worries, At least you're not talking out your ass and claiming it as fact. Your response seemed rather well spoken and intelligent, not to mentioned researched.

Edit: And while I think of it - not all MANPADs use iR systems; there are several laser-guided ones and I seem to recall some variants of the Stinger have a UV/i] alternative guidance method.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The UV seems to be more a way to distinguish from decoy flares rather than an actual seeker application, as UV radiation is not emitted in the same way as IR. As FOr Laser systems, they'll go to wherever the dot is placed, and are generally less of a threat to fast movers like the A-10, F-15, F-16, and the F-35. Laser based systems would be very dangerous to Helicopters though as they are generally slow moving enough to keep a bead on. Also laser based systems are not fire and forget like IR systems.

Additionally, I have not seen any information that states MANPADS having all aspect capability. Now I could be wrong, but I find it unlikely since that is a rather expensive capability, and it is a rather large and maintenance intensive capability (IIRC missiles like the AIM-9L and onward have their seeker heads liquid nitrogen cooled as part of that capability, something that would be unwieldy in a shoulder fired missile).

[F-ZeroOne]

Valkyrie Driver, thanks for the kind words. I try and take a balanced view but believe me, I screw up like everyone else!

Elaborating on some of the points you responded to - did Harriers regularly take off from "dirt patch helipad" in regular use anyway? I know that when the RAF introduced the original Harriers that was sort of the capability they advertised, but in practice they had serious issues with ground erosion and it was found a pre-existing hard structure (such a car park) was more suitable (though this also caused problems with logistics; the advantage of an airbase in pre-GPS days was that you could usually find it!). And weren't "pure" vertical take-offs on operational missions a bit rare anyway, as it tended to restrict the payload that could be carried? I'll grant that stealth coatings may be harder to maintain in that environment (though a number of aircraft may have been used in similar environments with RCS reduction measures that aren't widely known - the Tornado F3, for example).

I take your point about whether or not the A-10 is irrelevant, and it raises an interesting idea of its own, which is if the US government wants it to remain in service, perhaps they should be making it a "Alongside with the F-35" and not a "Vs F-35" thing. Its not the F-35s fault that its being called upon to take over the CAS role; if the A-10 is needed that badly then it should either be funded properly or a replacement developed (I accept that the F-35 programme has been badly managed up until recently and is also hugely expensive - though its not alone in that regard, the F-14 was reportedly only funded fully when monies were made available by Iran, of all places! - but thats not an issue with the aircraft, in a sense).

I also accept what you're saying about visual confirmation and problems with smoke etc and something I hadn't previously considered is that many accounts involving attack aircraft moving at speed relate the difficulty of visually identifying small targets, which is one advantage the A10 may have (though putting my "sci-fi" hat on, perhaps a drone swarm or similar could mitigate that to some degree; of course at the risk of the drones being hacked or deciding to chase Sarah Connor instead etc... ); also even visual confirmation isn't foolproof, as the A-10s has been involved in at least one very unfortunate friendly fire incident involving British forces in the past.

Have to admit, hadn't considered that IR MANPAD seekers might not be all-aspect, given recent advances I think I'd just been assuming that they were. The early RIM-116 missiles used in the point defence role are said to have a seeker taken from the Stinger missile and it seems strange to me that a missile designed to intercept fast, small targets possibly head-on wouldn't have the capability, but I understand the IR is used only in the terminal phase (later variants may use a different seeker now).

One thing that puzzles me about the "stealth isn't needed!" or "isn't worth the cost!" argument is that its unusual to find similar claims about the F-22. Yes, the F-22 has higher performance but its fairly rare to find people arguing that it shouldn't have had stealth features or that a more "conventional" (whatever that means, bearing in mind that the F-16 was fairly radical in its day) aircraft should have been developed instead (a F-15 Super Plus?); granted that there are people who argue that stealth as a whole is a waste of time and money but it never seems to be entirely clear just how "conventional" aircraft would fare against advanced anti-aircraft defences (as always, assuming that they're as completely unstoppable and capable of shooting down aircraft from whole other countries as some forums claim... ).

Edited May 11, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[GMK]

Interesting discussion.

Current generation Russian MANPADS (SA-18 etc) are able to engage from the frontal aspect at very, very, low altitudes. This has been a known capability since 2003. I'd call that 'all aspect'.

[Vifam7]

Interesting discussion.

Current generation Russian MANPADS (SA-18 etc) are able to engage from the frontal aspect at very, very, low altitudes. This has been a known capability since 2003. I'd call that 'all aspect'.

Also, some MANPADS don't rely on an IR seeker. For example, the British Starstreak is laser guided.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Valkyrie Driver, thanks for the kind words. I try and take a balanced view but believe me, I screw up like everyone else!

No problem, and besides, to err is human.

Elaborating on some of the points you responded to - did Harriers regularly take off from "dirt patch helipad" in regular use anyway? I know that when the RAF introduced the original Harriers that was sort of the capability they advertised, but in practice they had serious issues with ground erosion and it was found a pre-existing hard structure (such a car park) was more suitable (though this also caused problems with logistics; the advantage of an airbase in pre-GPS days was that you could usually find it!). And weren't "pure" vertical take-offs on operational missions a bit rare anyway, as it tended to restrict the payload that could be carried? I'll grant that stealth coatings may be harder to maintain in that environment (though a number of aircraft may have been used in similar environments with RCS reduction measures that aren't widely known - the Tornado F3, for example).

I can't say for certain. I know that most helipads and runways at more established FOBs and Camps are usually reinforced with something (updated versions of the stamped steel grate used in WW2), so true dirt patch helipads aren't really a thing. Though extreme, it was meant to show that the Harrier can use most unimproved surfaces as potential T/O and landing pads, negating it's limited payload in comparison to the A-10. Stealth coatings are difficult to maintain in that sort of environment, but maintainers are a crafty bunch and I'm sure they could find a workaround. It's more to do with how the F-35B manages the VTOL capability. Most of the Marine Assets in Afghanistan are probably out of Kandahar which services most of RC-South.

I take your point about whether or not the A-10 is irrelevant, and it raises an interesting idea of its own, which is if the US government wants it to remain in service, perhaps they should be making it a "Alongside with the F-35" and not a "Vs F-35" thing. Its not the F-35s fault that its being called upon to take over the CAS role; if the A-10 is needed that badly then it should either be funded properly or a replacement developed (I accept that the F-35 programme has been badly managed up until recently and is also hugely expensive - though its not alone in that regard, the F-14 was reportedly only funded fully when monies were made available by Iran, of all places! - but thats not an issue with the aircraft, in a sense).

You're not wrong. The VS the A-10 thing has been put forth by talking heads, the media and project lobbyists that don't have any real hands on experience with the efficacy of the A-10. They simply see new technology, a sexy plane, and some numbers that they take out of context, declare it more capable and fail to realize what makes the A-10 so useful. They see a shiny new toy and want to relegate the old thing to the goodwill bin. The Army has had a lot of push in keeping the A-10 from being retired, as have Fighter Wings that operate it, and the Air-Ground Operations Wings that point at the the bad guys. I'm not in disagreement with anything you've said thus far.

I also accept what you're saying about visual confirmation and problems with smoke etc and something I hadn't previously considered is that many accounts involving attack aircraft moving at speed relate the difficulty of visually identifying small targets, which is one advantage the A10 may have (though putting my "sci-fi" hat on, perhaps a drone swarm or similar could mitigate that to some degree; of course at the risk of the drones being hacked or deciding to chase Sarah Connor instead etc... ); also even visual confirmation isn't foolproof, as the A-10s has been involved in at least one very unfortunate friendly fire incident involving British forces in the past.

Don't feel bad. Unless you have a background in mission planning, or intel, or in my case weather, those aren't thing you'd think about. You'd look at the doctrine and accept it at face value. I had an opportunity to speak with several A-10 pilots at the Air Shows at Barksdale AFB while I was stationed there, as we had a squadron of them, which is where a lot of my info comes from. As for the Drones, drones are good for the triple D missions. Dangerous, Dull, and Dirty. Recon is perfect for drones, since you can just have the operators sit in a trailer and they can have pee breaks whenever they want them, that's the Dull. Dangerous missions being the ones with high probability of aircrew fatality. Flying recon over Iran for instance, or making precision strikes in Pakistan, or even supporting special operations troops with precision strikes, where a highly visible presence is not a good idea. Dirty missions would be anywhere there is a radiological, biological, or chemical threat. Drones are great in that they can loiter and provide limited support, but at the end of the day, wars must be fought by men, otherwise it's just a game. As for fratricide, well, war is messy and friendly fire happens, confirmation of the target prevents it from happening more frequently.

Have to admit, hadn't considered that IR MANPAD seekers might not be all-aspect, given recent advances I think I'd just been assuming that they were. The early RIM-116 missiles used in the point defence role are said to have a seeker taken from the Stinger missile and it seems strange to me that a missile designed to intercept fast, small targets possibly head-on wouldn't have the capability, but I understand the IR is used only in the terminal phase (later variants may use a different seeker now).

As I stated, all aspect IR required the use of liquid nitrogen cooled seeker head. The F-16 uses an onboard system to circulate the liquid nitrogen until the missile is fired. That would be too bulky for a MANPADS. Also as I stated, the seeker might be sensitive enough to detect a hot airframe, but it's going to follow the source of the most intense heat, which is going to be the exhaust. If it has to go through the front of the aircraft to get there so be it, bu that's not true all aspect capability.

One thing that puzzles me about the "stealth isn't needed!" or "isn't worth the cost!" argument is that its unusual to find similar claims about the F-22. Yes, the F-22 has higher performance but its fairly rare to find people arguing that it shouldn't have had stealth features or that a more "conventional" (whatever that means, bearing in mind that the F-16 was fairly radical in its day) aircraft should have been developed instead (a F-15 Super Plus?); granted that there are people who argue that stealth as a whole is a waste of time and money but it never seems to be entirely clear just how "conventional" aircraft would fare against advanced anti-aircraft defences (as always, assuming that they're as completely unstoppable and capable of shooting down aircraft from whole other countries as some forums claim... ).

Stealth is needed, but as a supplement to no stealth aircraft. Stealth features introduce tendencies that conventional (non stealthy) fighters don't necessarily need to follow. I feel that over reliance on stealth is a trap we should avoid. After the first day or two of hostilities, the enemy knows your there, and there's no use trying to hide. Where stealth would be of continuing use is in the Air superiority role and the SEAD role. Keep enemy fighters from seeing you until it's too late, and keep enemy radar from seeing you until it's too late. Enemy Air Defenses should ideally be crippled, if not destroyed within the first 72 hours of conflict, and within the same time frame Air Superiority should also be established. I think stealth is a capability we should have, but not be reliant upon, as it is very costly to produce and to maintain. I am however of the mind that the US should have a large military, not only to ensure our dominance over foreign battlefields but to ensure dominance over over domestic battlefields (should we ever be invaded). The balance of offensive and defensive systems will always be in a state of flux, as new technologies arise. To reiterate, I just don't believe that stealth is the be all end all answer.

Interesting discussion.

Current generation Russian MANPADS (SA-18 etc) are able to engage from the frontal aspect at very, very, low altitudes. This has been a known capability since 2003. I'd call that 'all aspect'.

Given a hot enough profile yes, they can. However true All Aspect missiles require a liquid nitrogen cooled seeker, and that is far too bulky a proposition for a MANPADS launcher. It's really going to depend on how hot the front of the Aircraft gets. When talking about the A-10, the fact that the engines are mounted high and to the rear of the aircraft, and that the tail is designed to diffuse that heat, the A-10 is really only easily engaged by shooting at it from the top down. There is also the fact that the A-10 uses non afterburning turbofan engines, which don't produce as much heat as a comparable turbojet. I'm not saying that MANPADS aren't a threat because they are, just that it's being blown out of proportion.

[grigolosi]

Little clarification on the seeker heads coolant. AIM-9 carried by USAF fighters use gaseous argon as the coolant. It is stored in small metal pressurised bottle that has its own quantity gauge. The bottle is positioned aft of the guide fins on the AIM-9. The missile is electrically connected to the rail by an umbilical cable. The USN and USMC fighters use gaseous nitrogen bottles stored in the missile rails.

Edited May 12, 2016 by grigolosi

[Valkyrie Driver]

Little clarification on the seeker heads coolant. AIM-9 carried by USAF fighters use gaseous argon as the coolant. It is stored in small metal pressurised bottle that has its own quantity gauge. The bottle is positioned aft of the guide fins on the AIM-9. The missile is electrically connected to the rail by an umbilical cable. The USN and USMC fighters use gaseous nitrogen bottles stored in the missile rails.

Then my info is a bit out of date. If I'm not mistaken the AIM-9L used nitrogen, perhaps it's been updated since then. Still the fact remains that a coolant system is too bulky for a shoulder fired missile correct?

[F-ZeroOne]

The need to carry a supply of coolant wit the missile is another one of those things one rarely thinks about; I had read about it before and I believe at least one early AAM (Falcon?) had to be cooled from the start, which meant if the coolant ran out during the mission, the missile couldn't be used. Again, going back to MANPADs, I'm curious if IR-guided anti-tank missiles have their own coolant supplies - perhaps mounted in the launcher?

Another thought about survivability - it sometimes seems to be put across as if an aircraft with that attribute can "fly through fire" and carry on as if nothing has happened, which I rather suspect if hit by a modern AA system is not going to be the case, and that almost any damage is probably going to result in a "mission kill"... (again, not knocking the A-10 - I'm quite fond of the aircraft myself, especially ones flown by Moon Bloodgood... ).

I only found about the Tornado F3 "stealth" modifications recently, and apparently it did result in a useful reduction in detection range - according to the account about 15 miles worth, which against the 1970s/early 80s era radars the aircraft would have been facing at the time (late 90s/early 00s) was considered worthwhile though the author of the account also raised questions about the durability of the coatings (balanced, of course, by the fact that they might be most used in the early days of a conflict and its less of an issue once the opponents war-fighting ability is degraded). Those RCS "savings" are with an aircraft that was never designed to be stealthy, and I obviously can't verify the figures, but it does suggest stealth can be a "value added".

Valkyrie Driver, I find your comments about the need for conventional aircraft complimenting stealth interesting. In fact, the aircraft that immediately springs to mind as being (sort of) available "off the shelf" for the role would be the latest Gripen variants, though the costs are interesting - the F-35 costs are notoriously variable, though depending on variant it currently seems to be hovering around the $135 million USD mark, the Gripen-E figure also varies, the low end being $85 million and the high $105 million - which isn't that far off the F-35 price.

I think at least one of the intentions of the F-35 programme was to replicate the "high/low" mix that went on with the F-15/F-16 but obviously things have gone a bit askew down the road, though the F-16 was never asked to replace the F-18, A-10, F-14 and Harrier at the same time!

Sorry if the above is a bit rambling, I'm a little tried and typing a bit stream of consciousness rather than trying to hammer in points.

Edited May 12, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[Vifam7]

The need to carry a supply of coolant wit the missile is another one of those things one rarely thinks about; I had read about it before and I believe at least one early AAM (Falcon?) had to be cooled from the start, which meant if the coolant ran out during the mission, the missile couldn't be used. Again, going back to MANPADs, I'm curious if IR-guided anti-tank missiles have their own coolant supplies - perhaps mounted in the launcher?

Stinger missiles have argon gas stored in the "battery coolant unit".

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/ch2.pdf

[F-ZeroOne]

Ah, thanks! Also never knew about the portable radar system either.

[anime52k8]

everyone needs to just lighten up, take a seat, and relax.

boeing 737 engine chair

Edited May 12, 2016 by anime52k8

[spanner]

everyone needs to just lighten up, take a seat, and relax.

boeing 737 engine chair

a-boeing-737-engine-chair-is-what-your-apartment-really-needs-830x467.jpg

awesome! they are quite big eh!

[Valkyrie Driver]

Stinger missiles have argon gas stored in the "battery coolant unit".

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/ch2.pdf

Well, that's new to me. Apparently the Stinger is indeed all aspect. Though it is stated the the Igla series (SA-18) MANPADS have similar capabilities to the current gen stingers, it's not clear to me if that means it has all aspect capability.

Still, the A-10 was designed for the sole purpose of CAS, and we have seen A-10's return to base after taking tremendous amounts of damage. The design has a tremendous amount of redundancy built in.

The need to carry a supply of coolant wit the missile is another one of those things one rarely thinks about; I had read about it before and I believe at least one early AAM (Falcon?) had to be cooled from the start, which meant if the coolant ran out during the mission, the missile couldn't be used. Again, going back to MANPADs, I'm curious if IR-guided anti-tank missiles have their own coolant supplies - perhaps mounted in the launcher?

I don't know much about the falcon. My father carried them when he flew the F-106, and he's told me on a few occasions that it was passable, but was outclassed by the AIM-9 in every regard. The F-106 never had the ability to carry AIM-9's (though there were proposed plans in the works for it), so they were stuck with the falcons.

When you talk about IR guided anti tank missiles I'm going to assume you're talking about shoulder fired missiles like the Javelin. As to that I can't say, though a tank generally has a huge IR signature coming from the rear end of the chassis. IR has a whole slew of issues when targeting things on the ground. At sun up and sun down you have a phenomenon called thermal crossover, at which the ground temperatures can obscure vehicle heat signatures. That's because IR works off of emitted light. It's more complicated than that, but without going in depth into the concept of blackbodies, emissivity and albedo, that's the best I can do.

Another thought about survivability - it sometimes seems to be put across as if an aircraft with that attribute can "fly through fire" and carry on as if nothing has happened, which I rather suspect if hit by a modern AA system is not going to be the case, and that almost any damage is probably going to result in a "mission kill"... (again, not knocking the A-10 - I'm quite fond of the aircraft myself, especially ones flown by Moon Bloodgood... ).

Well, as I stated with the A-10, the tail configuration and engine placement, as well as their type, results in a well diffused heat signature. The best angle to shoot down an A-10 is from above and behind. Which is very difficult considering how tightly the A-10 can turn. Which is an advantage in and of itself in a CAS platform. A modern AA system like a CWIS or Goalkeeper, or patriot SAMs, will shred an A-10. Even an older AA system like the ZSU 23-4 would likely bring down an A-10 if it got a lock. MANPADS require a fair amount of luck, and skill to be used effectively. The primary threat MANPADS pose is take off and landing, when the aircraft is more vulnerable. Also, to effectively engage a fast mover with a MANPADS system is going to take much more skill than the average Jihadi has. I'll be more frightened of MANPADS if we go to war with Russia. At the very least, an A-10 is going to be out of action for a week or more after taking a hit from any sort of modern AAA system. Though at this point it should be noted that, to date only 4 A-10's have ever been shot down, and those were shot down by larger SAMs.

I only found about the Tornado F3 "stealth" modifications recently, and apparently it did result in a useful reduction in detection range - according to the account about 15 miles worth, which against the 1970s/early 80s era radars the aircraft would have been facing at the time (late 90s/early 00s) was considered worthwhile though the author of the account also raised questions about the durability of the coatings (balanced, of course, by the fact that they might be most used in the early days of a conflict and its less of an issue once the opponents war-fighting ability is degraded). Those RCS "savings" are with an aircraft that was never designed to be stealthy, and I obviously can't verify the figures, but it does suggest stealth can be a "value added".

Oh, stealth can be value added sure. And any replacement fighter for the F-15 and F-16, should include some low observable construction. Leading edges made of composites, and the use of stealthy intake geometry. Integrate what you can without jacking the cost way up. The majority of the Aircraft skin should probably still be aluminum, and let the gun port be exposed. All told the F-15 and F-15 should really be replaced with a new Gen 4.5 aircraft. I think it's folly to try and build an Air Force around Stealth Fighters, It's too expensive, and you'll end up with too few, and won't want to risk losing them. It's a fantastic capability, and we should leverage it, just not at the expense of having a fully mission capable Air Force.

Valkyrie Driver, I find your comments about the need for conventional aircraft complimenting stealth interesting. In fact, the aircraft that immediately springs to mind as being (sort of) available "off the shelf" for the role would be the latest Gripen variants, though the costs are interesting - the F-35 costs are notoriously variable, though depending on variant it currently seems to be hovering around the $135 million USD mark, the Gripen-E figure also varies, the low end being $85 million and the high $105 million - which isn't that far off the F-35 price.

The Gripen would be a fine compliment for the European market. However, it is DoD policy to "Buy American" whenever possible. We can't, and understandably so, allow our military to be subject to another nation. We have to be able to supply our forces in the face of sanctions, or God forbid, isolation. If we adopt a foreign design, for anything, it must have the capability of being produced in the United States, before the DoD can take delivery. There are a few exceptions, however the capability can be easily replaced in almost all of those cases.

I think at least one of the intentions of the F-35 programme was to replicate the "high/low" mix that went on with the F-15/F-16 but obviously things have gone a bit askew down the road, though the F-16 was never asked to replace the F-18, A-10, F-14 and Harrier at the same time!

This is the problem you get into when you try do design a single fighter to do everything. Look at the F-111. It was supposed to be one airframe to suit every branch's needs. It ended up being too heavy for the Navy, and thus the marines as well, and it lacked the air to air capabilities the USAF wanted. In the end it turned out ok, because as fortune would have it, the F-111 was a pretty good bomber. The F-35 isn't being asked to replace the F-14, since the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has done that. The F-35 is being asked to replace the F/A-18C/D, F-16, AV-8B, and A-10, which is more because of politics than any real requirement. The requirement was for a Multi Role fighter, in three variants to support the USAF, USMC, and USN's individual requirements. The Media and Politicians who don't know spit from shinola, spun it as what we know today.

Sorry if the above is a bit rambling, I'm a little tried and typing a bit stream of consciousness rather than trying to hammer in points.

Nah, it was coherent enough. I just hope I didn't ramble too much.

[Nazareno2012]

The Gripen would be a fine compliment for the European market. However, it is DoD policy to "Buy American" whenever possible. We can't, and understandably so, allow our military to be subject to another nation. We have to be able to supply our forces in the face of sanctions, or God forbid, isolation. If we adopt a foreign design, for anything, it must have the capability of being produced in the United States, before the DoD can take delivery. There are a few exceptions, however the capability can be easily replaced in almost all of those cases.

Saab could have the Gripen produced in the US if they order it, just like Brazil's order. It has already been done before with the Harrier jump jet and Goshawk trainer.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Nazareno2012

[Valkyrie Driver]

Saab could have the Gripen produced in the US if they order it, just like Brazil's order. It has already been done before with the Harrier jump jet and Goshawk trainer.

Right, I'm not saying It can't be done. Just like the Eurofighter Typhoon Could be produced locally (which is probably my favorite of the Gen 4.5 fighters). A couple of reasons why the US likely won't procure the Gripen (or any other European fighter), first we don't seem to be in the market for a Gen 4.5 fighter (though we need one), and second, when we do decide that one is needed, we'll likely go to our old standby manufacturers like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing or Northrop-Grumman. The big reason we procured the Harrier, is because it was already in production, and was better than any of our own prototypes. Combined with the Fact that we weren't really designing anything like it at the time.

The F-22 and F-35 have caused a huge budget crunch, which has led the Air Force to downsize it's manning, and Robert Gates wanted more drones in service. I don't like the idea of replacing manned aircraft with drones. Drones can be useful, and a tremendous force multiplier, however, they cannot replace manned aircraft. From a philosophical standpoint, wars must be fought by humans, because wars fought with robots is not war at all, it's a game. If you fight wars with robots, you reduce war to a game. Now that's greatly simplified, and the language might not be entirely correct, robots are programmed to do a task, and drones are generally remotely operated and have no real programming (some actually can perform mission operations with minimal human input, and automation is an end goal). If you reduce warfare to a game, you'll be more likely to resort to it. Then you end up with something right out of Star Trek (A Taste of Armageddon).

The biggest issue with stealth fighters is their complexity, and the need for internalized weapons loads. This creates complexity, which means there are going to be a lot of teething problems, and that means budget overruns. If you take a Gen 4.5 fighter, with some Low Radar Observable construction, and add the contained weapons pods made by Boeing, you can get the lower RCS, you want, without relying completely on stealth fighters. Will that replace the need for stealth fighters, no, but it will decrease the demand, and thus save money. I get the large, efficient, and capable USAF I want, and everyone else gets the technologically advanced USAF they want. Best part is, you can mount those stealthy weapons pods on stealth fighters too, and then they can carry lager payloads without breaking stealth.

If only I were in a position to fix these issues. Alas, all I can do is write my congressmen (for now).

[David Hingtgen]

I'm a huge Tornado fan but never heard about any stealth mods. Any particular term to google?

[grigolosi]

I need to correct one thing in my statement. The access panel on the AIM-9 is forward of the guide fins. It is accessed by unlocking the fin from the canard springs on the rail and rotating them up and down. The AIM-X doesn't use any external argon or nitrogen. It has its own built in coolant system. The AIM-9L uses a Argon bottle as well. I believe the much older models used the rail mounted N2 on the USAF aircraft prior to the F-15/F-16. Here is a pic I highlighted of the AIM-9L. I do apologize for the misinformation earlier I haven't seen a captive AIM-9 in quite a while since the UAEAF doesn't fly with them very often.

Edited May 13, 2016 by grigolosi

[grigolosi]

This is exactly what I was talking about....complete inept leadership has led directly to this........this actually makes me weep considering the AF now is nothing but an empty shell of the one I joined 26 yrs ago...i am not a big Fox news fan but this report is the first I have seen on the USAF since the USMC issues came to light.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4892301647001/widespread-problems-plague-the-us-air-force/?#sp=show-clips

Edited May 13, 2016 by grigolosi

[Shadow]

Saw the same report and I agree, it's a sad sight to see.

[F-ZeroOne]

I'm a huge Tornado fan but never heard about any stealth mods. Any particular term to google?

David, I recently read it in a book called "Tornado F3 in Focus". "Stealth mods" might be overstating it bit, "RCS reduction measures" might be more accurate. According to the books author, the mods included special paint on the wing leading edges and little tiles glued onto the inside of the engine intakes (apparently a rather uncomfortable and time-consuming task!).

Edit: speiling mishticks.

Edited May 15, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[F-ZeroOne]

Valkyrie Driver, again thanks for the comments. The Gripen was the plane that just sprang immediately to mind as being almost-available right now, but I'd forgotten that it would probably need to be licenced manufactured in the US. Another, and more "local" candidate, might be the latest versions of the F-16 being procured by foreign air forces (or Patlabors stealth-modded one? ).

Regards stealthing 4.5 gen fighters - isn't one problem with pods increased drag? (as well as the weight of the pods themselves, though I accept with internal bays you may have added infrastructure weight).

The Typhoon is perhaps my favourite "modern" jet as well, but it has suffered from a couple of things; one being penny-pinching (especially in the UK), and the other that its arguably entered service into a different world, one where for better or worse, stealth is the "fashion"...

[Valkyrie Driver]

Grigliosi, you're right. It's a sad sight to see how mismanaged the USAF is these days. This is what happens when the corporate mentality ends up running the military. I think that service in a component in your department should be a requirement to be secretary. At least in the DoD. I'd actually like to make it the war department again.

[grigolosi]

I definitely agree with you on that Valkyrie, this new Sec of the AF never served a day in her life. She was a civilian DoD employee who worked her way up. During my 23 yrs in I think the best Sec of Defense we had was William Perry. He retired over his belief that congress was doing more harm to the military with its partisan politics and frustration over the defense budgets.

Edited May 15, 2016 by grigolosi

[Valkyrie Driver]

I served under 3 different Secretaries of Defense, Gates pushed the use of drones way to much, and had to deal with the fallout from Rumsfeld, whom I think was a pompous ass. Rumsfeld horribly mismanaged the entire planning and execution of the war on terror. Waging war on terrorism has no victory condition. It will never end. As I said, Gates wanted a drone focused military, which proved him to be risk averse. Panetta's tenure resulted in curtailing many benefits and entitlements which put retention rates into the toilet. His tenure was remarkably unremarkable, at a time when the DoD faced the most uncertainty and flux. Hagel was hamstrung by white house policies during the annexation of Crimea, and Ukranian unrest. All three of them oversaw the dramatic reduction in force that we have seen over the last 8 years, and are all to blame for the current state of disrepair and undermanning in the US military.

It's a sad time. Maybe with a new president, we'll see the DoD get some smart spenders, get the military back to proper manning, get parts and planes the military desperately needs, and maybe we can see some of the entry requirements relaxed (I want to go back, but my 40% disability prevents it).

[SchizophrenicMC]

With 1.3 million active members, and over $600,000,000,000 in funding this year, I'd say staffing and funding aren't the problem. We've got our fingers in too many pies.

That's as much as I'll say on the topic, though. This conversation has descended into politics. A change of subject is required before mods get angry.

In other news, the domestic airline industry has its one chance to unseat Southwest, thanks to delays in LUV's fleet renewal plans. Boeing can't build 737s as fast as Southwest can buy them, which has pushed the Southwest fleet renewal from Q4 2017 to at least Q3 2018. Who's going to come out the biggest winner? (It's probably not Airbus)

[Valkyrie Driver]

With 1.3 million active members, and over $600,000,000,000 in funding this year, I'd say staffing and funding aren't the problem. We've got our fingers in too many pies.

Really quick on this, DoD has cut back a ton of the civilian support staff that take care of a lot of ancillary work that military members are now having to do. Not to mention that has put a serious crimp on our ability to function stateside while personnel are deployed. As for funding, I asked for smart spenders, not more money. $600T is plenty, be just need to stop spending so foolishly (i.e. not trying to build an entire air force around stealth fighters, which are currently long on promise, and short on delivery).

Not trying to start another argument, just saying that we need to be looking at more sustainable replacements for aging airframes like the B1, B-52, F-16, F-15, and A-10. Take the F-22 and F-35 as tech demonstrators and limited duty active airframes to supplement conventional replacements that lack the stealth capabilities. We need a sustainable spending plan, is what I'm saying. We're (the taxpayers) seeing no return on our investments.

That's as much as I'll say on the topic, though. This conversation has descended into politics. A change of subject is required before mods get angry.

I agree. However it's been very hard not discuss politics, since these topics are so mired in politics, lobbying, and policy decisions. I've said my piece, and I'll leave it there. I do hope the mods don't delete this post, as I've tried to tie it up as neatly as I can. If you desire to continue the debate, I'll be glad to take it to PM.

Regards stealthing 4.5 gen fighters - isn't one problem with pods increased drag? (as well as the weight of the pods themselves, though I accept with internal bays you may have added infrastructure weight).

The pods wouldn't have nearly the drag that exposed weapons would create, as there is far less surface area to create turbulent flow. Either way you're going to have some added weight, and slightly reduced capacity or increased cost. It's not a perfect solution, but it's definitely a possibility. Stealthy weapons pods, and some RCS reduction measures in construction isn't going to be a substitute for stealth, but every little bit helps.

I'm of the mind that stealth aircraft should be in the minority of our aircraft fleet, as they tend towards being costly, both to acquire and operate. I'd rather see drones and stealth aircraft used to supplement a conventional (read; not stealth) fleet. Since the Biggest concern is that currently the F-22 and F-35 have no enemy. Russia, China, and Iran (our biggest enemies at the moment) are developing stealth fighters, but they are still a fair bit of time from deploying them. We rushed into an arms race that had no other contenders, and now that our designs have had their shortcomings made abundantly clear, those countries can afford to take their time in developing their fighters. I also doubt that Russia, China, or Iran will build significant numbers of their stealth fighters, because they seem to understand that it's not a cost effective use of their monetary resources.

Don't get me wrong, I think the F-35 is a sexy bird. I like it, i think it has some flaws, but I think it will be an excellent addition to our inventory regardless. I do however think that a multirole fighter is something you discover, rather than something you design.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Valkyrie Driver

[David Hingtgen]

In other news, the domestic airline industry has its one chance to unseat Southwest, thanks to delays in LUV's fleet renewal plans. Boeing can't build 737s as fast as Southwest can buy them, which has pushed the Southwest fleet renewal from Q4 2017 to at least Q3 2018. Who's going to come out the biggest winner? (It's probably not Airbus)

They're starting to buy used, AFAIK.

Airbus is doing fine---the A321 is selling so well and so fast, the new Mobile factory is pretty much doing othing but pumping out A321's for DL, AA, and jetBlue. (because you can't buy 757's any more, and they're getting old---the A321 is the closest thing you can get---NOT a 737-900ER, despite Boeing's marketing...)

Even the A321Neo won't truly match a 757 though.