A-10, Then A-11 And A-12? Air Force Ponders CAS Future

[GhostZ06]

1. But the other aircraft, the A-X2, would be designed to fly in the face of higher-tech opposition in the form of surface-to-air missiles and other opposition, but not the high-end threats known as Anti-Access/Area Denial systems. (A2/AD would be the purview of the F-35 and other fifth-generation aircraft). The Scorpion could be considered for this. The Marines, who are writing the Close Air Support doctrine for the F-35, have praised its CAS performance so far. That said, the plane won’t have its most advanced weapons for CAS, such as the Small Diameter Bomb II, until the Block 4 software.

.

Gunzinger, an analyst with the respected Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, said “my personal opinion is the Air Force ought to try and fly the wings off the A-10,” because we’ve got it now and it provides such superb service. His view may also reflect the skepticism of many Air Force watchers about the costs of A-10 flight hours cited by the service.

Buying these other CAS aircraft would provide the Air Force, already fielding the smallest and oldest air fleet in its history, with more cockpits to provide pilots with flying hours and the ability to hone their skills, Gunzinger and defense consultant Loren Thompson say.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a fervent supporter of the A-10, has not spoken on the Air Force plans yet. Part of the reason is surely that she is locked in a very tight race for her seat in New Hampshire, though the Cook Report notes “that private polling shows Ayotte with a small but steady lead” over Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan. Should Ayotte win we can be sure she would lean in to some effect on this issue.

No money has yet been placed in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM), which is largely shaped already — though major decisions may well be made into the new year, depending on how the presidential elections turn out.

In the meantime, the Air Force clearly is floating these ideas to see how they, um, fly.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/a-10-then-a-11-and-a-12-air-force-ponders-cas-future/

 

[bmasters1993]

OA-X would have been perfect for Iraq and Afghanistan post invasion. Missed the boat on that one.

Also I don't know if the F-35 can do what the A-10 has done. GAU-12 and GAU-8 were built with different roles in mind and can the F-35 haul as much boom boom as the A-10?

The A-10 and F-15 even today are battle winners, mind blowing how advanced they were in the 70s when they first hit the skies. US was strapped for the cold war no doubt.

 

[Orgasmo]

The A-10 and F-15 even today are battle winners, mind blowing how advanced they were in the 70s when they first hit the skies. US was strapped for the cold war no doubt.

I don't think A-10 was ever an "advanced" plane like the F-15 and F-16 in the 1970's. It was, however, a well designed plane that proved its worth time and time again. A weapon doesn't have to be cutting edge to be good.

 

[jefferz]

OA-X would have been perfect for Iraq and Afghanistan post invasion. Missed the boat on that one.

Also I don't know if the F-35 can do what the A-10 has done. GAU-12 and GAU-8 were built with different roles in mind and can the F-35 haul as much boom boom as the A-10?

The A-10 and F-15 even today are battle winners, mind blowing how advanced they were in the 70s when they first hit the skies. US was strapped for the cold war no doubt.

I know the molds or whatever you want to call them for the A10's are gone, but why can't they give one to Boeing or Lockheed and say build more of these but upgraded.

 

[bmasters1993]

I know the molds or whatever you want to call them for the A10's are gone, but why can't they give one to Boeing or Lockheed and say build more of these but upgraded.

You couldn't make that shit up.

"Lets start with a gun, say a 30mm autocannon, then lets give it wings and shit"

For real though I think the DoD could get behind an A-10 airframe with F-35 targeting software and hardware. Maybe throw in some stealth panels as well, the A-10 doesn't have the biggest radar cross section, make it a bit more survivable.

 

[jefferz]

You couldn't make that shit up.

"Lets start with a gun, say a 30mm autocannon, then lets give it wings and shit"

For real though I think the DoD could get behind an A-10 airframe with F-35 targeting software and hardware. Maybe throw in some stealth panels as well, the A-10 doesn't have the biggest radar cross section, make it a bit more survivable.

A consumer $600 3d scanner is accurate to .01 inches, I'm sure they'res an industrial one way more accurate than that. Give NASA a call, that sounds right up their alley.
Map the frame and hull with one of those then upgrade the guts.

 

[MicroBrew]

They should put the Comanche into production and make it into a CAS platform too. Not the same as a fixed wing aircraft for speed but it would have other advantages.

 

[GhostZ06]

They should put the Comanche into production and make it into a CAS platform too. Not the same as a fixed wing aircraft for speed but it would have other advantages.

yeah but Commche helo isnt really a "cas" so to speak, its a reconnaissance/ light attack. So it was gonna replace the AH-1, OH-6, and OH-58. it works with the AH-64 Apache.

^ this is rumored next gen attack helo

By the looks of it they'll make a A-10 mark 2



http://www.defensetech.org/2011/10/11/sikorskys-next-gen-helos/

 

[lifelessheap]

I know the molds or whatever you want to call them for the A10's are gone, but why can't they give one to Boeing or Lockheed and say build more of these but upgraded.

Jerry, make that gun fly........... and then build a TANK around it.

It is a massive gun that flies, but has the armor of a tank. I love it so much. It has given so many snackbars there last brrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttttttttttttt day

 

[GhostZ06]

Jerry, make that gun fly........... and then build a TANK around it.

It is a massive gun that flies, but has the armor of a tank. I love it so much. It has given so many snackbars there last brrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttttttttttttt day

 

[GhostZ06]

WASHINGTON — The Air Force is working through if and how to replace the A-10 Warthog, including a new proposal that would involve the procurement of two aircraft. But its top civilian leader on Tuesday expressed uncertainty on whether the effort could be funded in the current budget environment.

During a Defense One event Tuesday morning, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said she had not been briefed on any potential options or an acquisition strategy relating to a new close air support (CAS) aircraft, called A-X.

"So far I have read about this in the news. I have not actually seen a proposal on any of this that has come forward to me. So it sure is pre-decisional. It hasn't been decided on,” she said. “Where would we get the money? Not at all clear to me.”
The Air Force met with aviation experts last Wednesday to discuss a proposal that would involve buying two close air support aircraft, Aviation Week first reported last week.

The first, called OA-X, would support the A-10 in near term operations, not replace it outright. The service would likely use an existing, off-the-shelf design like the Beechcraft AT-6 or Embraer A-29 Super Tucano to cheaply carry out CAS missions in low-threat environments. A second aircraft, called A-X2, would be fielded to replace the Warthog and operate in medium-threat environments.

Neither of those proposals have yet been funded through the budget process because the service is still going through its requirements generation process, a fact reiterated by James.

“I'm just going to wait to see whether this proposal is to come forward. Of course the money is the important thing,” she added, pointing out that the Air Force already has aircraft — from the purpose-built A-10 to fighters like the F-16 — that are able to perform the close air support mission.

James also pushed back on industry claims that the Air Force plans to expand use of its new T-X trainer for close air support missions.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...rce-secretary-budget-a10-warthog-ax/87578930/

 

[ralphc1]

I've talked with people who maintained and flew the A-10. The pilots say the plane does everything it needs to do. Combat in the last 30 years has very little to do with air to air combat. Planes dedicated to that role establish air superiority rather quickly.

The A-10 performs the close air support role in a way that is very efficient and safe for the troops on the ground and the pilot. It has proven to be able to sustain damage and return to base. Helicopters provide a slower moving platform that could make target selection easier but it puts the aircraft and pilot at greater risk from ground fire.

The F-35, if it ever makes it into service, isn't likely to be able to go as low as slow and linger like the A-10. It will have to rely on either smaller guns or missiles.

As one pilot said, we already have a tool that does the job, why try to build a tool that does multiple jobs but costs considerably more? They can re-tool and build replacement parts for a fleet of A-10s for less than the cost of one F-35.

Use technology to build air superiority planes.