Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[SchizophrenicMC]

Eh, I think the GM plant in Arlington, a city over, is more impressive. At least they can actually make the product they've been trying to sell for the last 10 years.

[hutch]

Not anymore unfortunately. There's one tiny little section where they're finishing a few up but that's it. The line is dry.

They're putting out F-35s. Numerous are at first flight stage on the deck now

[Shadow]

Very cool animation of the J58.

[NZEOD]

Not anymore unfortunately. There's one tiny little section where they're finishing a few up but that's it. The line is dry.

They're putting out F-35s. Numerous are at first flight stage on the deck now

Will they have small Post-It notes with IOU - To be delivered and fitted at a later time on each of the sub systems that haven't quite worked out yet?

Or disclaimers - "Please don't load this aircraft to maximum payload as the operational range suffers"

"Please don't expect stealth results to match the brochure as that was a typo, please dont use S/VTOL as fires may ensue"

"Due to a lack of internal ordnance carriage capacity non stealthy wing and fuselage mounted stores will compromise airframe stealth"

"Due to a lack of stores and range, loiter time on target in CAS roles is limited"

"Ground attack ordnance must be delivered at sub sonic speeds. Be aware this will compromise the claimed maneuverability of the aircraft"

"Radar rebooting maybe required during combat, please follow the restart procedures as laid out in your handy guidebook located in the Trouble shooting manual Vol 1 though 16 located under and behind your ejection seat and pretty much anywhere else we could fit them - Also note the Volumes are flammable and lingering in the cockpit after an unsuccessful ejection initiation is not recommended"

"Please ensure your airframe is operating the latest version of Kaspersky's Systems Protection to maximize resistence to Gameboy level and above hacking attempts"

"It is recommended that engaging in WVR dogfights with any aircraft built since 1968 be avoided and that the RUN AWAY option be employed where ever possible. This includes adversaries such as Fighters, Bombers, Heavy Transport, Maritime Patrol, Cessnas, Paragliders and seagulls."

Edited May 7, 2016 by NZEOD

[electric indigo]

Very cool animation of the J58.

All these amazing data about the SR-71 always make me wonder how the Russians could reach Mach 3 with a flying shoebox like the MiG-25.

[David Hingtgen]

Aerodynamics are over-rated, you just need thrust:

[grigolosi]

I am not a big fan of the cost over runs on the F-35, but what we know and what we don't know about it is actually little due to the mixed media reports....The media itself can make or break any defense or private venture project by doing what it has done best the past 30 yrs, reporting only what it thinks will get ratings or sell magazines. One fact that was not reported by the media in the big "dogfight" with the F-16 was that the frame used was one of the original flight test frames. It like most of the F-35's at that time were severely limited by LM engineers from flight maneuvering, they basically handed the pilot a plane he wasn't allowed to use to its fullest possible potential, what that is we don't know yet because of flight restrictions . The USAF in the past year finally came down and "asked" LM to start lifting the flight restrictions on the frame for pilot training. LM has hampered the development of this aircraft more than anything else. Their testing block system moves at a snails crawl. They did the same thing with the F-22, it took almost 20 yrs to get the Raptor to limited production for operational use due to this testing and eval system. With all the media reports going form one extreme to the other the only people who can really say how well the aircraft performs in certain areas are the pilots themselves. I know most folks including my self aren't big fans of the aircraft but one way or the other we are probably stuck with it due to the shear amount of money we have put into it.

David I watched a JASDF F-4 literally roll on its back as soon as its gear was clear of the ground on takeoff and climb inverted like your picture. Even the old F-4 maintainers at the airshow had to pick their jaws up off the ground. My flight chief told me he had never seen any Phantom pilot do that before.

[NZEOD]

Given its over runs in costs, time and lack of progress on all the next gen features, it has failed. Its meant to have been in service by now and for a 1/4 the cost. So its failed both those criteria, which are pretty damn important.

Case in point is the example of the Brits needing a new Medium APC. They started up funding the GTx Boxer then bailed after they kept changing the goal posts. 14 yers later they have burnt 1.4 Billion GBP, pulled the old vehicles from service, replaced them with soft skin landrovers and open frame offroaders on operations and cost lives because of it, still havent even designed a vehicle yet, asked BAE (one of the companies shafted over the Brits pulling out of the Boxer) to retool their Scimitar and Warrior lines to make new hulls to keep them in service, all the while the Germans and the Dutch have had their Boxers on Operations with Zero casualties and a brilliant track record.

That joke of a Bradley is another good example.

I'm a solider, not having the gear promised when the boots hit the ground IS a failure. The moment it costs lives its a crime.

All the claims that the F-35 will be better in a CAS high threat environment and all the other smoke and bullshite thats being claimed doesnt match the reality RIGHT NOW on the ground. That being, its low tech threats, minimal enemy air and a requirement for long loiter, heavy loads. A stealth CAS isnt needed right now and its right now that soldiers are dying.

The F-35 needs to be parked, the A10 needs to be retooled and the rest of the money needs to go to the F/A-18E/F and the E/A-18G projects. They are the ones doing the actually workloads on Ops right now. The other buyers outside the US need to do what they know they should has already (Canada is) and go trial the Rafale, Grippen, Eurofighter and Super Hornet and buy one that's actually made and proven and that the budget can afford to maintain without taking money away from the rest of the forces.

Edited May 7, 2016 by NZEOD

[SchizophrenicMC]

I tend to agree that the F-35 represents capabilities that aren't relevant, and that it still doesn't have functioning anyway, and much of the aircraft's design was dictated by those capabilities, leading to fundamental compromises. If you want to stay stealthy, you have to forego significant weapons stores. If you want to use the fancy radar, you have to send in multiple ships. If you want to get its full range, you have to give stealth and weapons both a miss. If you want it to land on an aircraft carrier, you have to mess with even more stuff. It's 10 years overdue, has cost more money than it should have, will continue to cost even more money, and will continue to be delayed for at least 6 more years, and the key point: it isn't out there blowing stuff up in support of whatever nebulous goals we have for blowing stuff up. All of its international competition already is, and at far lower cost. And much of the proposed benefits of the aircraft have either been developed for other planes (especially various avionics systems) and at its new cost, the cost-cutting measures imposed upon its design (like that single engine) don't make sense anymore. After all, similar-performing twins are cheaper and offer improved reliability.

Of course I'm also of the opinion the A-10 isn't the right weapon for the modern battlefield either. Feature creep is causing the F-35 problems, but the A-10 is a blunt stick in a battlefield where our one advantage is technological.

I mean, it was a debacle when Shinakasu delayed a reaction turbine, holding back the VF-1 rollout for 9 months. Imagine the heat Stonewell-Bellcom would be under if they pulled a Lockheed Martin and spent 10 years with their dicks in their hands. It would literally be apocalyptic.

[Vifam7]

I tend to agree that the F-35 represents capabilities that aren't relevant, and that it still doesn't have functioning anyway, and much of the aircraft's design was dictated by those capabilities, leading to fundamental compromises. If you want to stay stealthy, you have to forego significant weapons stores. If you want to use the fancy radar, you have to send in multiple ships. If you want to get its full range, you have to give stealth and weapons both a miss. If you want it to land on an aircraft carrier, you have to mess with even more stuff. It's 10 years overdue, has cost more money than it should have, will continue to cost even more money, and will continue to be delayed for at least 6 more years, and the key point: it isn't out there blowing stuff up in support of whatever nebulous goals we have for blowing stuff up. All of its international competition already is, and at far lower cost. And much of the proposed benefits of the aircraft have either been developed for other planes (especially various avionics systems) and at its new cost, the cost-cutting measures imposed upon its design (like that single engine) don't make sense anymore. After all, similar-performing twins are cheaper and offer improved reliability.

Every fighter aircraft ever put on the field has had its problems. Every one of them has it's limitations. What deficiency it has had was either corrected or managed by the services. Remember how the F-14 had to live with the shitty TF-30 engines for over 2 decades? Or the F-4 Phantom that wasn't a good dogfighter and didn't have a gun? Or the Hornets that have range limitations? Or the Eurofighter Typhoon that still doesn't have an AESA radar and only recently got the ability to drop bombs?

The F-35 is going to have its own limitations and growing pains. It isn't going to be perfect but it isn't going to be completely useless. Yes, it is expensive and delayed but that doesn't mean the F-35 is going to be crap. And it doesn't mean the US should scrap the program and hope that airframes from yesteryear can fight tomorrow's war.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Vifam7

[NZEOD]

It does when it becomes Uneconomical to sustain or even acquire. Money has to come from somewhere and its a finite resource. Someone somewhere misses out to cover the astronomical cost overruns with this project.

And they are undeniably astronomical!

You really should read this again and add up ALL the issues in bullet point on a note pad and then decide it this is still a value for money vs performance project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Program_cost_overruns_and_delays

With all the Ammunition aquisition projects I've been involved in thats the one thing the Officers in IM Branch seem to lose sight of. The fact that eventually the project will cross the red line to be practical if it keeps having delays, failures and cost increases.

The red list below is just WAY too big for a plane thats meant to have been delivered already.

A 2014 Pentagon report found these issues:

• First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC.
• Overall operational suitability relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds.
• Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal.
• Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing.
• High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA preventing testing.
• 82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit.
• Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continue to be program concerns.
• 572 deficiencies remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which are critical.
• VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015.
• Maintainability hours still an issue.
• ALIS requires many manual workarounds.^[152]

A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:^[200]

• The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
• Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
• The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
• Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
• The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
• Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
• The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
• ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and "unacceptable workarounds";
• Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
• The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
• Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.

Its a great concept but soldiers need a tangible asset now, not a concept. If it drags too long and they are forced to reinstate the Old fleet of F-16s and A10s they will have major logistical issues as they are tailing off supplies of parts and training of new maintainers. Once they are gone they are very difficult to reinstate. Personal leave between 10yrs and 15yrs (in my country) and even more rapidly at the lower ranks after a deployment or 3 (we lost 33% of all personal within 2 yrs of our INTERFET/UNTAET mission from both the Airforce and the Army and most of that were the middle ranks that were headhunted by Contractors - Middle ranks are your trade trainers. Lose them, you lose the skills and knowledge. You fill the vacant ranks with those that aren't ready yet.

A10s arent going to be able to fill the role in 5yrs-10yrs if they have told the crews they were being phased out, they left the services, then the DoD keeps the aircraft on and the crews are long gone and bitter. NO soldier will wait 20yrs for a project to stand up, they will look to their future and jump ship around 30yrs old so they can retrain and settle into a new role.

My country did it to US in the Bombsquad with the EOD Squadron standing up only after being dragged out for 10yrs and they did it again when the disbanded our Combat Airwing. All the crews bailed to OZ and Canada and the Armament techs got partially disbanded and either retrained, changed services or left the forces. Those skills are now gone.

So the F-35 project is creating major issues in costs of development, consuming money for other projects, consuming budgets for current units, halting personel carrier development which will effect retention and the fact its NOT USEABLE yet in theatre.

Edited May 8, 2016 by NZEOD

[David Hingtgen]

Wonder if the USAF could buy some F-16 Block 60's...

Though, the Super Duper Hornet does look better with its CFT's than the Block 60 does, for sure:

[Vifam7]

It does when it becomes Uneconomical to sustain or even acquire. Money has to come from somewhere and its a finite resource. Someone somewhere misses out to cover the astronomical cost overruns with this project.

And they are undeniably astronomical!

So what's the solution? Cancel the program and start from scratch all over again? That'd be even more costly than seeing the F-35 to the end. Slowing down the program or even placing a pause on the program simply means the F-35 gets even more and more expensive as time passes. There's no guarantee that any succeeding program is going to be any less expensive.

[NZEOD]

Yep. Cancel it or slow it down and look to reworking what they have now that works right now for the battlefield of right now in order to save the lives of personal fighting right now.

Best bet is to shitcan it and paint it up as yet another lesson learnt about overreaching and not listening to the personal ACTUALLY on the ground when they have an opinion on what they need and what works.

Have the battle is the fact an officer Posting is 2 yrs then the move on so very few lessons are learnt and historical mistakes are repeated again and again and new procurement officers arrive to replace the outgoing ones.

Forget the money and remember the cost in lives. Civvis always forget that one paramount factor. Dragging feet in development and over dreaming a project DOES cost us soldiers on the ground our lives.

Nothing should justify that.

End of the day, its really a case of wounded pride that this debacle is even continuing.

Edited May 8, 2016 by NZEOD

[NZEOD]

Wonder if the USAF could buy some F-16 Block 60's...

Though, the Super Duper Hornet does look better with its CFT's than the Block 60 does, for sure:

Super Hornets would be the logical choice for Strike fighters given the available knowledge base and logistics in place. Commonality of systems is a major advantage to joint service operability. Rafales and Typhoons for Interceptors to back up your proven F-22. They are current, effective and cheaper to buy and maintain.

Rethink the CAS role with money spent on developing newer counter measures to assist the a New Version A10 to better survive loitering over a battlefield and look at the Tornado program for a high speed CAS option which as been proven time and again.

Perhaps its necessary to forget the VTOL option for Amphib ships, or develop Combined Helo and Fixed wing Ski jump light carriers like the Brits for the Marine forces.

Edited May 8, 2016 by NZEOD

[SchizophrenicMC]

The problem is campaign finance in the US. LM has lobbied Congress heavily to provide funding for the F-35 that the DOD otherwise would not have been so freely willing to provide to a project and manufacturer that consistently goes overdue and determine problems that determine more problems.

Unfortunately we've painted ourselves into a corner with this program, then proceeded to dig ourselves into a hole. Not only is this affecting US force deployment, but also that of the numerous allies who have signed on to buy the aircraft and then never got it. Now those militaries are seeking other options, many of them non-US, because they need availability now, not in 6-12 years, and not for the ever-rising price of the F-35.

[Shadow]

Wonder if the USAF could buy some F-16 Block 60's...

Though, the Super Duper Hornet does look better with its CFT's than the Block 60 does, for sure:

Block 60s would be nice, especially to replace the remaining Block 30s and 40s still operating but not sure if it would be possible.

As for the JSF, if lobbying really never factored in, I'd can both the F-35B and C and cutback on the As. Continue upgrading the Super Hornet while looking for a next generation platform solution for the Navy and USMC.

[hutch]

Wonder if the USAF could buy some F-16 Block 60's...

Though, the Super Duper Hornet does look better with its CFT's than the Block 60 does, for sure:

I know for a fact that the answer to the first question is an unequivocal and emphatic "no".

[electric indigo]

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

[NZEOD]

Not an Exit Strategy yet but other aircraft to fill the capability gap the A400M is leaving now its over weight and cant carry the Vehicles and equipment its was intended too.

Redesigning the wheel when the wheel was already working fine. In this case the Antonov and the Hercules.

[spanner]

oh! has the A400M development now lost its way.. that's a shame as it was meant to have had a lot of potential! oh well..

[NZEOD]

Its a heavy beast and now has major engine fatigue issues. Airbus is having to pay out compensation for lost dollars due to the planes not being delivered and now their shares have plummeted.

Edited May 10, 2016 by NZEOD

[spanner]

Its a heavy beast and now has major engine fatigue issues. Airbus is having to pay out compensation for lost dollars due to the planes not being delivered and now their shares have plummeted.

Bugger eh.. tisk tisk Airbus.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Of course I'm also of the opinion the A-10 isn't the right weapon for the modern battlefield either. Feature creep is causing the F-35 problems, but the A-10 is a blunt stick in a battlefield where our one advantage is technological.

And I agree we should press that advantage, however, the A-10's simplicity and ease of maintenance is exactly why it's necessary. It has a very short turn around time on maintenance meaning it can fly more sorties in shorter time than any other aircraft. Add to that the fact that it, along with the B-52, are the only airframes in the inventory than can be overhauled to Zero Time. As long as we can replace the parts we can keep them flying, which makes it a great asset.

Even without the fancy stuff it's relevant, and it's a game changer in the Battlespace. The 30mm gun is by far the most effective airborne gun we have. It's precise and deadly, and it is demoralizing to enemy fighters, and it raises the morale of friendly troops that hear it.

The F-35 will not be able to do the A-10's job. It's gun doesn't have the ammo capacity, and it can't deliver the sheer volume of lighter ordnance that the A-10 can. It also will likely not have the ability to loiter like the A-10, nor is it rated to carry the variety of ordnance. Will the F-35 be able to perform CAS effectively, sure. Will it be able to replace the A-10's capabilities, most assuredly not.

The A-10's simplicity and durability are it's greatest assets. Besides, arguing this is a moot point, since the retirement of the airframe had been indefinitely delayed. We also need to consider that in light of fairly recent events the A-10 might be coming full circle. With Russia's annexation of Crimea last year, the A-10's full capabilities might be needed again, especially if Russia starts going all imperialist on us (There are treaties in place that should have forced us into military action with Russia over the annexation of Crimea, and those treaties still might).

We are the only Air Force in the world that is trying to build an air force around stealth, and we shouldn't Stealth is a very narrow use capability, and frankly we ought to be spending our defense dollars on conventional fighters that can replace the F-15/6 airframes that are getting old. We need more manned fighters, fewer drones, and a stronger force (meaning more pilots, more aircraft, more capability).

I'd say pull the F-16's from the Guard and revive the F-20 tigershark and give it to the guard. The Guard is supposed to be the second line, but second line doesn't have to mean second rate, so give them a cheaper but capable fighter that's easy and cheap to maintain, and put the 4th gen jet fighters back in regular service, and then start planning on how to replace them with a newer and more capable conventional fighter.

We need to focus on being the most effective, not the most advanced. There is a huge difference.

[Vifam7]

A-10 or F-35? It depends on the situation.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/05/f-35-a-10-air-force-fighter-jet/83961964/

[grigolosi]

The Block 60 was built as private development for the UAE and funded by the UAE. So no is definitely the answer as Hutch stated. Lockheed also used it to develop the AESA that would eventually be put in the F-35 along with several other systems. But the GE 132 has its own issues. Namely the the fuel heating issue. This past summer we were going through CSD's (constant speed drives = generators) like people change their underwear due to thermal disconnects. The primary culprit in this has been suspected to be the fuel being pumped into the aircraft. This engine is hotter than the normal GE F-100 series and during the summer the fuel trucks are left sitting out in the sun heating up. You put hot fuel in a jet with a hydro/oil system dependent on the fuel cells to exchange heat from them and whamo! You have over heating generators and oil systems. Plus you couple in the high heat causing micro fractures on the aeration holes on the turbine blades also.

Thought I would post this. Pretty wicked short landing in a JA-37......

[spanner]

wowzers! that's the most aggressive quick (non tethered) landing of any fighter jet I have ever seen! and to do an about face and jetting off again is just as impressive! Kudos to the Swedes!

Edited May 10, 2016 by spanner

[SchizophrenicMC]

People keep talking about the A-10 like "oh the gun, oh the gun! OH THE GUN!" as if SOPs allow the use of the cannon. Hah.

[Nekko Basara]

People keep talking about the A-10 like "oh the gun, oh the gun! OH THE GUN!" as if SOPs allow the use of the cannon. Hah.

That's a good point, and there's good reason to avoid using it. As great as the range on he GAU-8 is, an A-10 making a gun pass is going to be far more vulnerable to ground defenses than one relying on standoff weapons or even mid-altitude bombing. The gun is a weapon for low-threat environments, and its main virtues are that it is versatile and cheap; it's not as if it allows the A-10 to engage any target type more effectively or safely than another aircraft with the proper ordinance.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Fact is, the A-10 was designed to withstand small arms fire, flak, and dumb AAA. These are things that will struggle to penetrate the titanium tub or cause significant internal damage to the A-10. It was not, however, designed to withstand fire from modern advanced MANPADS weapons, which have proliferated in places we would not have considered likely 20 or 40 years ago. The only way to realistically avoid damage from such weapons systems is to stay out of their limited range. That isn't possible when doing gun runs.

Staying out of that danger is actually pretty easy with the use of smart ordnance and standoff weapons, just because aircraft-laded weapons can be granted greater range than man-portable systems. That's dictated air support doctrine for the last 15 years, and by and large it's worked. However, that doctrine doesn't rely on a gun platform. Anything that can carry these weapons- and that's most of the air fleet- can play just as effective a role, without being tied to a platform built around an aging, outdated weapon. Which again brings us to the heavy use of medium and heavy bombers in the CAS role for the last 15 years. You want loiter time and payload capacity? Can't beat the Buff. And that's a plane that flies high enough while doing its job that it's immune to the air defenses we've been dealing with.

Again, I don't want to make the F-35 seem like it's the solution to any of our problems, but it's pretty clear: the A-10 isn't the solution we need anymore. That isn't likely to change. I, for one, would strongly consider sending the Thunderbolt II to Davis Monthan. Maintain a small group of trainers but stow the rest for possible future redeployment. No need to scrap them, having the ability to put them back together in a pinch isn't terribly costly and leaves the option available. But maintaining a whole airfleet of A-10s for a dubious level of efficacy, that's more money than I feel we should be spending on the platform. Obviously, people feel strongly about this, but you just have to ask: how many times has the GAU-8 been fired in anger in the last 10 years? That's the one thing that really separates this aircraft from the rest of the fleet, and it's not even really applicable to SOPs anyway.

As for the F-35, Lockheed failing to deliver on a military contract is a big deal in my opinion, and I'd be demanding my money back, if I had any say. I think the Luftwaffe is right in demanding reparations for the A400M fiasco, and I feel like the F-35 justifies similar response. But you know, lobbyists and such.

I'm still butthurt we never got Advanced Super Tomcat.

[Valkyrie Driver]

People keep talking about the A-10 like "oh the gun, oh the gun! OH THE GUN!" as if SOPs allow the use of the cannon. Hah.

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.

That's a good point, and there's good reason to avoid using it. As great as the range on he GAU-8 is, an A-10 making a gun pass is going to be far more vulnerable to ground defenses than one relying on standoff weapons or even mid-altitude bombing. The gun is a weapon for low-threat environments, and its main virtues are that it is versatile and cheap; it's not as if it allows the A-10 to engage any target type more effectively or safely than another aircraft with the proper ordinance.

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.

Fact is, the A-10 was designed to withstand small arms fire, flak, and dumb AAA. These are things that will struggle to penetrate the titanium tub or cause significant internal damage to the A-10. It was not, however, designed to withstand fire from modern advanced MANPADS weapons, which have proliferated in places we would not have considered likely 20 or 40 years ago. The only way to realistically avoid damage from such weapons systems is to stay out of their limited range. That isn't possible when doing gun runs.

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.

Staying out of that danger is actually pretty easy with the use of smart ordnance and standoff weapons, just because aircraft-laded weapons can be granted greater range than man-portable systems. That's dictated air support doctrine for the last 15 years, and by and large it's worked. However, that doctrine doesn't rely on a gun platform. Anything that can carry these weapons- and that's most of the air fleet- can play just as effective a role, without being tied to a platform built around an aging, outdated weapon. Which again brings us to the heavy use of medium and heavy bombers in the CAS role for the last 15 years. You want loiter time and payload capacity? Can't beat the Buff. And that's a plane that flies high enough while doing its job that it's immune to the air defenses we've been dealing with.

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.

Again, I don't want to make the F-35 seem like it's the solution to any of our problems, but it's pretty clear: the A-10 isn't the solution we need anymore. That isn't likely to change. I, for one, would strongly consider sending the Thunderbolt II to Davis Monthan. Maintain a small group of trainers but stow the rest for possible future redeployment. No need to scrap them, having the ability to put them back together in a pinch isn't terribly costly and leaves the option available. But maintaining a whole airfleet of A-10s for a dubious level of efficacy, that's more money than I feel we should be spending on the platform. Obviously, people feel strongly about this, but you just have to ask: how many times has the GAU-8 been fired in anger in the last 10 years? That's the one thing that really separates this aircraft from the rest of the fleet, and it's not even really applicable to SOPs anyway.

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.

[Vifam7]

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.

Not sure if that many rounds is actually needed in any one mission though... I mean, how often do A-10s come home with 30mm rounds empty, when used?

If gun ammo was that important, how come the Marine Corps Harriers only carries 300 rounds of 25mm? And the Russian Su-25, only 250 rounds of the 30mm?

[grigolosi]

Vifam that is answered simply by the size of the ammo drum in the aircraft. F-16's carry 510 rds of 20 mm because that is all the drum will hold including 10 rounds in the linkage from the drum to the gun. if you look at the 25mm the Harrier carries they are swayed off the right centerline of the aircraft. The ammo drum is located in the left pod and storage is limited due to its size. As Valkyrie said it all depends on what ordinance was used. There will be times they come back with empty stations and a full gun drum and other times empty stations and an almost empty drum. Either way there is still work for the load toads to do. Even if they do not use all their rounds the gun has to be unloaded into the ALA or "dragon" as they call it. and then reloaded again. That is why if they use the gun they will try to use all their rounds, it is easier and faster for the load crews to load the GAU-8 that way.

Edited May 10, 2016 by grigolosi

[SchizophrenicMC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[grigolosi]

Do you realize where the bombers are operating out of......Qatar and Diego Garcia. Do you know how much it costs to logistically move bombers to bases like that. They have the same support requirements as the fighters except on a LARGER scale. Do you know how long it takes to load a B-1 or B-52? You ask any weapons troop if they had the option of loading a B-1/B-52 or an A-10/F-15/F-16 they will tell you any of the latter. It takes easily twice as long to load, oh that is right they aren't fully loading them. They are flying small loads and burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel to drop 2-3 bombs on individual brick huts or tree lines. Wow the same job any one of the other 3 aircraft can do. The flying hour to maintenance hour ratio between the A-10 and the bomber is no contest. The A-10 wins. It beats the other 2 aircraft also. Where are you getting this idea that the A-10 is exceeding its worth in maintenance costs.The happiest maintainers in the AF are A-10 personnel. The aircraft is low costs, easy to maintain and has one of if not the highest FMC rates of the aircraft in service. All the figures that guys like General Welsh and Posts (Posts is a complete douche bag, I knew him as a Captain) quoted were inflated or fabricated to shut down the A-10 and move the manning to the F-35. The guys you said were the "experts" have run the USAF into the ground manning wise because they DID NOT LISTEN TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE. The whole A-10 debate has nothing to do with whether the aircraft was obsolete, it has to do with these "experts" as you called them, being absolutely inept in their decision making. I trust their word as far as I can throw their collective, pampered, a@#.

Here is a little fact lesson: despite everything you see in Macross and movies, missiles are not designed to explode on contact. They explode close to the target and destroy it with shrapnel. Missiles are equipped with proximity sensors, either a laser emitted through small windows on the seeker head or by radar proximity. That is why the A-10's that have been shot at by MANPADS have survived. Now if you were to hit it with an SA-2 or SA-400, yes it will explode it is a HUGE warhead. But those missiles are useless at low altitudes, they are designed to hit aircraft at medium to high altitudes and are the size of a telephone pole.