A-10 Warthog

[Kirkhill]

Other, low and slow options

U.S. Navy MH-60s, Air Force F-16s Will Soon Fly With New C-UAS Missiles - Naval News

Derivatives of the AGR-20F FALCO air-to-air missile are being rapidly prototyped to fulfill the urgent low-cost engagement requirement for one-way attack drone swarms numbered in the hundreds.

www.navalnews.com

An MQ-9 can do this for cheaper.

How many APKWSII per MQ-9B?

 

[Halifax Tar]

An MQ-9 can do this for cheaper.

But does it go

 

[ytz]

Other, low and slow options

U.S. Navy MH-60s, Air Force F-16s Will Soon Fly With New C-UAS Missiles - Naval News

Derivatives of the AGR-20F FALCO air-to-air missile are being rapidly prototyped to fulfill the urgent low-cost engagement requirement for one-way attack drone swarms numbered in the hundreds.

www.navalnews.com

How many APKWSII per MQ-9B?

Enough. And it hangs out on the scene for hours more. It's so cheap to operate that 24/7 coverage can be provided too. Something that would be difficult with the A-10.

As long as A-10s are available, burn the flight hours I guess. But the mythology around this thing is getting to be as bad as the Gripen Bros.

It's not the 80s. If we want an unsurvivable aircraft to deliver CAS, there's drones, gunships and attack helos. There's a lot more options. And they tend to bring more persistence or firepower. Or in the case of the Spectre both.

If you want to see a modern example of providing CAS without the A-10, here's a famously lopsided event:

Battle of Khasham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Not dead yet?

A-10 Warthog Being Tested With Aerial Refueling Probe Bolted Onto Its Nose

Beyond a win for the A-10, putting refueling probes on USAF tactical jets could be a boon of the service's Agile Combat Employment strategy.

www.twz.com

And the neat bit about this is that it is the Air Force exploring the means to keep the A-10 in the fight.

Why was the Warthog there in the first place?

Is the Air Force rediscovering "low and slow"?

High and fast can be better done by vehicles that don't have to worry about pilots blacking out, oxygen systems that fail and ejector seats for the 99th percentiles.

Meanwhile the Army is asking for low and slow support against tanks. The SF types want them to deal with insurgents and terrorists. The Navy apparently finds them effective against boats in swarms. They are also effective against swarms of low and slow Shaheds.

And they keep pilots gainfully employed yanking and banking.

And if pilots are going to be yanking and banking in rifle range then they are probably better of sitting in a titanium bath tub.

 

[ytz]

Not dead yet?

A-10 Warthog Being Tested With Aerial Refueling Probe Bolted Onto Its Nose

Beyond a win for the A-10, putting refueling probes on USAF tactical jets could be a boon of the service's Agile Combat Employment strategy.

www.twz.com

And the neat bit about this is that it is the Air Force exploring the means to keep the A-10 in the fight.



Is the Air Force rediscovering "low and slow"?

High and fast can be better done by vehicles that don't have to worry about pilots blacking out, oxygen systems that fail and ejector seats for the 99th percentiles.

Meanwhile the Army is asking for low and slow support against tanks. The SF types want them to deal with insurgents and terrorists. The Navy apparently finds them effective against boats in swarms. They are also effective against swarms of low and slow Shaheds.

And they keep pilots gainfully employed yanking and banking.

And if pilots are going to be yanking and banking in rifle range then they are probably better of sitting in a titanium bath tub.

I struggle to see why autonomous and RPAS can't do a lot of this in a few years. Even just ideas like handover where CCA shows up overhead and JTAC gets to start directing it using his tablet.

Sure. Keep the current fleet in while they have Airframe hours. But next gen is debatable.

 

[YZT580]

I struggle to see why autonomous and RPAS can't do a lot of this in a few years. Even just ideas like handover where CCA shows up overhead and JTAC gets to start directing it using his tablet.

Sure. Keep the current fleet in while they have Airframe hours. But next gen is debatable.

that's because you are in love with shinny and new and fail to see any value in ideas from the past. As someone much wiser than you or I once said: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

that's because you are in love with shinny and new and fail to see any value in ideas from the past. As someone much wiser than you or I once said: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Absurd. Any person can reasonably learn enough from first principles in one lifetime to not have to rely on any accumulated wisdom/knowledge.

 

[Kirkhill]

I struggle to see why autonomous and RPAS can't do a lot of this in a few years. Even just ideas like handover where CCA shows up overhead and JTAC gets to start directing it using his tablet.

Sure. Keep the current fleet in while they have Airframe hours. But next gen is debatable.

They probably can.

But will they keep pilots yanking and banking?

 

[YZT580]

Absurd. Any person can reasonably learn enough from first principles in one lifetime to not have to rely on any accumulated wisdom/knowledge.

And I say bullfeathers: such an arrogant statement. I would never have expected it from anyone on this forum simply because if you can't learn from others and from other's experiences (history) what is the point of even reading these pages at all? Everything that you know is founded upon previous knowledge. Every invention since the wheel has built upon what someone else has done.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And I say bullfeathers: such an arrogant statement. I would never have expected it from anyone on this forum simply because if you can't learn from others and from other's experiences (history) what is the point of even reading these pages at all? Everything that you know is founded upon previous knowledge. Every invention since the wheel has built upon what someone else has done.

Surely it was obvious that I'm pulling the tail of people who deprecate accumulated wisdom/knowledge?

Or are you now pulling mine?

 

[YZT580]

Surely it was obvious that I'm pulling the tail of people who deprecate accumulated wisdom/knowledge?

Or are you now pulling mine?

Whoops. I take most things seriously and you did express yourself so well.

 

[ytz]

that's because you are in love with shinny and new and fail to see any value in ideas from the past.

Hardly. The fundamental problem here is that manned aircraft are expensive. Using them to chase down cheap drones creates a fundamental problem with cost asymmetry largely not in our favour. It works in short stretches or on small scale. But it's not something that scales.

The A-10 fleet will run out of hours eventually. And building something equivalent would probably be $40-60M per frame. And then you have the cost of running manned jet at tens of thousands per hour for thousands of hours hoping to shoot down drones that cost thousands of dollars.

There are problem spaces where automation is simply better. This is one of them.

By the logic here we shouldn't have any unmanned platforms. Everything should just be manned. Get rid of the Reapers. And just keep A-10s overhead.... For a fraction of the time and at multiple times the cost.

You ignore the reason why we deploy this tech. It's not because we're in love with "shiny and new". It's real life constraints. A Reaper can sit overhead for 12 hrs. An A-10 will on the scene for 2 hrs. And it'll cost several times as much. I don't think you're stopping waves of anything with only 2 hrs of coverage per day.

 

[ytz]

They probably can.

But will they keep pilots yanking and banking?

Producing a pilot is like producing an Olympic athlete. Less than 1% of those who walk into a recruiting centre saying they want to be a pilot end up with wings in a fast jet cockpit. Better to employ that talent for a job that requires that skill level. And not just flying racetracks at 15 000 ft hoping to catch a Shahed to put a few dollars worth of 20mm in.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Producing a pilot is like producing an Olympic athlete.

 

[Kirkhill]

@ytz

I agree with both your posts.

Do those 1%, those "Olympic Athletes", that see piloting as their life calling and whom the Air Forces of the world look to when they are looking for their leaders?

I think you might find the occasional voice arguing that, indeed, you should not have any unmanned aircraft and that flying racetracks is a valid career choice.

 

[YZT580]

You ignore the reason why we deploy this tech. It's not because we're in love with "shiny and new". It's real life constraints. A Reaper can sit overhead for 12 hrs. An A-10 will on the scene for 2 hrs. And it'll cost several times as much. I don't think you're stopping waves of anything with only 2 hrs of coverage per day.

and you are missing the point. We pursue shiny and new and that is just fine. But often, when we do, we abandon the tried and true as being obsolete instead of following in a logical progression. Example is the F35. Replacing all the previous a/c. Except we are finding it can't and shouldn't. It's best application is as a forward observer/general making decisions and instructing others where to execute the plans with only enough weapons on board for self-defense. Drones are great tools and can certainly serve as overseers and guards but they are limited and need the backup provided by aircraft such as the warthog. When this thing first started they were not in theatre but it didn't take long for them to make an appearance.

 

[ytz]

and you are missing the point. We pursue shiny and new and that is just fine. But often, when we do, we abandon the tried and true as being obsolete instead of following in a logical progression. Example is the F35. Replacing all the previous a/c. Except we are finding it can't and shouldn't. It's best application is as a forward observer/general making decisions and instructing others where to execute the plans with only enough weapons on board for self-defense. Drones are great tools and can certainly serve as overseers and guards but they are limited and need the backup provided by aircraft such as the warthog. When this thing first started they were not in theatre but it didn't take long for them to make an appearance.

The Iran War is very much vindicating the F-35. We're seeing just how survivable legacy aircraft are and what happens to the mission when they go down. Now extrapolate forward 10, 20, 30, 40 years and imagine the air defences countries like Iran will have (and export elsewhere).

 

[Kirkhill]

The Iran War is very much vindicating the F-35. We're seeing just how survivable legacy aircraft are and what happens to the mission when they go down. Now extrapolate forward 10, 20, 30, 40 years and imagine the air defences countries like Iran will have (and export elsewhere).

Which is why I was arguing for the F35 as a Recce Strike platform whose stealth capabilities, advanced all aspect sensor suite heavy on passives, and comms systems made it a necessary component.

But I see its greatest value as being a more effective, and survivable, version of this




You do need the ability to get human eyeballs close to the fight. Preferably undetected. Preferably with the ability to get out of the fight in a hurry. Preferably with an ability to defend itself.

Does it need to weigh itself down with strike weapons or can it rely on those being available from other sources?

It is a complement to all the satellites, HAPS, MALEs, and the menagerie of drones. It is also a great adjunct to CCAs and all the autonomous brilliant munitions that just need targeting data and human clearance.

...

WRT the A-10 and all other manned and older generation aircraft, there are still valid racecourses where those horses can run effectively.

Like everything else, that will change over time.

 

[OldSolduer]

OK what was the A10's original role? Tankbuster - am I right?

I think - and this is an uninformed opinion - its a waste of a fighting aircraft used to hunt drones.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK what was the A10's original role? Tankbuster - am I right?

I think - and this is an uninformed opinion - its a waste of a fighting aircraft used to hunt drones.

Unless there are other systems available to reduce tank numbers and there are a host of new targets that those tankbusters can be effectively deployed against.

They weren't being used against tanks in Afghanistan.